 |
Worldy vs gamey in one sentenceJanuary 14th, 2011 |
Lum has forums again. No, I don’t know what madness has possessed him.
However, there’s a fun thread there asking “what is the real difference between gamey MMOs and worldy MMOs?” There are detailed replies, like geldonyetich’s, which give nice coherent answers. But the fun answers are the one-liners.
Alas, the good one-liners are all on the gamey side. 
Games are fun, worlds are work.
– Soulflame
So I started trying to come up with my own one-liner riposte. But mine weren’t funny and sharp. They were stuff like “Worlds are varied, and games get monotonous” or “Worlds offer choice, games don’t.” But these kinda suck.
So I figured I’d invite you readers to solve the problem for me. We need a comeback for Soulflame’s pithy statement.
Worldy gamers, attack!
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
Art
Game talk
Gamemaking
Mailbag
Misc
Music
Open thread
Reading
The Sunday Poem
Watching
Writing
Bah. I’m late to the party.
Worlds are about possibilities; games are about optimizations.
Worlds are for thinking; games are for figuring.
Worlds are imagined; games are beaten.
The difference between a tree and a copse.
Worlds are games without instructions.
A game is for now, a world is forever.
Dunno which side that is an statement for.
Stewart beat me to mentioning Finite and Infinite Games, drat him!
I do think that probably has the best answer, though. Games have goals/rules, victory conditions, structure, and direction. Worlds don’t, save for base physical/engine limitations. Any game begins expanding into a world to the extent the baked-in goals (etc.) are ignored or evaded. Any world begins containing games to the extent goals (etc.) are created within them.
Games let you experience the designer’s story. Worlds let you experience your own.
I think that might just explain why ‘gamey’ MMOs have edged out ‘worldy’ ones. Passively consuming entertainment is much easier and more popular than creative play. A lot more people watched the Lord Of The Rings movies than ever sat around the kitchen table with their D&D books.
Of course, the D&D game had the advantage that you’re not forced to wait while Peter Jackson gets the next movie finished…
The Designer is the Game. WE are the World.
Worlds are a place for fun games, Games are for work to endgame.
With a quick nod to comment 3 – Tom Wilson
Games end , Worlds evolve.
Games reward for goal-seeking. Worlds reward for the journey.
(I extended the original for clarity
)
If I want a game, I’ll make one in my world.
Worlds are for people who want a surprise adventure. Games are for people who don’t like surprises.
[...] in a blog post Raph Koster asked for simple oneliners why worldy MMOs would be better than gamey MMOs, since there was some funny oneliners in support of [...]
Gamey – their imagination is the limit. Worldy – your imagination is the limit.
You enter a game because its fun to win; you enter a world because its fun to play.
LOL @ Richard
“worlds find value as a noun. games find value as a verb.”
sorry if i cant limit the terms “worlds/games” to only things presented via a machine.;)
Worlds are full of people, Games are full of trolls.
Can someone explain the difference to me?
Worlds are for pros, games are for kids.
http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/IMGDC2009.pdf
Games are for Dorothy, worlds are for Alice.
Or, more formally, as I pointed out in my player types paper, there are three non-null stable configurations of players. One of these has socialisers dominant (Wendy worlds, like Second Life); one has achievers dominant (Dorothy worlds, like EverQuest); one has a balance between all types (Alice worlds, like Ultima Online).
If you want this summed up as pithy, insulting one-liners:
Game MMOs are for people who haven’t grown up.
World MMOs are for people who don’t want to grow up.
Social worlds are for people for whom growing up didn’t work out.
Richard
Well, for my money you could just turn Soulflame’s comment around and say “Games are work, Worlds are fun”. That’s exactly how I’ve always felt about it, but then I’m not a gamer and games tend to bore me.
Of course, this are meaningless tropes unless we can agree on definitions of “work” and “fun”, which is never going to happen.
Worlds are home to endless varieties of games.
Which is to say, they aren’t comparable. A game is a system. A world is a system of systems, a greater canvas that can contain as many games (and other things) as can be added to it within technical limitations. It’s like comparing Poker with Earth.
Worlds are defined by what they allow you to do; games by what they demand or forbid of you.
Games are spreadsheets. Worlds are Photoshop.
Paraphrase: In games, you play by rules. In worlds, play rules.
In games, you play by rules. In worlds, you rule by play.
Games are them. Worlds are you.
Games are simple enough to wrap up in one sentence, worlds require a wall of text.
–Dave
Games are fun, that’s why worlds comprise many, all-in-one.
Games are arbitrary. Worlds make sense.
Steal a paraphrase from *Finite & Infinite Games*!
“Games are played for the purpose of winning; worlds for the purpose of continuing the play.”
Games end.
Or, less pithy, I don’t recall anyone rushing to get to the “end game content” in UO. In a world, the play’s the thing, and no two paths are the same.
If you log in and no one tells you what to do next, you’re in a world.
Games are pinball machines. Worlds are amusement parks.
Here’s my submish. Give gamers the world, it’s what they want.
Kind of a play on words also.
Of course what was Origins’ at one point. We invent worlds?
—wishing there was a UO2 or UXO.