🚀 go-pugleaf

Eep² wrote:

> Fun hardly requires winning; Maxis built an entire industry (the sim) based on non-winning games.
> 


I wouldn't say the sim games are non-winning.  They just don't have 
end-game wins.  They are games of smaller, incremental wins.  Reach 
10,000 population and get a statue, that's a win.  Build your first 
arco, that's a win.  Destroy your town with aliens or monsters, that's 
(strangely enough) a win.  Just because you don't say "I won!  I beat 
the game!", doesn't mean you haven't won in some respect.

-Alex


> Kent Dahl wrote:
> 
> 
>>redsniper7000 wrote:
>>
>>>Eep² wrote in message <3D5D08CD...@tnlc.com>...
>>>
>>>>Then there's Active Worlds (http://activeworlds.com/ ) and other VR
>>>>
>>>(virtual reality) programs which are trying to become multi-user level
>>>editors (and Active Worlds is the closest but still has a LONG way to go)
>>>that allow games (of which AW has basic board games) and other interaction
>>>(building, chatting, "sight-seeing", etc). That's the future of online
>>>gaming...
>>>
>>><reply>
>>>
>>>Not it's not. A game has to be FUN.
>>>
>>Or as Marcy so well put it in http://www.pvponline.com/ somewhere...
>>  "For it to be a game, someone has to win."
>>(or something like that, too lazy to dig out the strip in question)
>>
>>Fun is just too subjective a criteria.
>>
>