tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5439941893980599296.post4236354551829093165..comments2023-09-24T07:49:19.084-04:00Comments on Games By Design Has Moved!: Curatorial Vs Exploratory Game DesignChristopher M. Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16719365007524426389noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5439941893980599296.post-23131116670724360832010-05-26T01:59:47.200-04:002010-05-26T01:59:47.200-04:00Well, you have a lot of good points, and it does b...Well, you have a lot of good points, and it does boil down to being pretty subjective. I would agree that the later Zelda games do offer a greater sense of accomplishment and "adventure" (whatever that means), but I don't know that their sense of exploration is that much greater. Then again, when I compare them in my mind to most sandbox games, I guess you are right when it comes to that. That's an interesting point, actually, and seems like it should be instructive. I found the sense of exploration in even Zelda 2 to be greater than in the first one, in some ways.<br /><br />For sandbox games, I think we're in agreement. The best ones provide really broad goals and a set of understandable tools for reaching those goals. If there's no goals, then all you have is the raw fun of whatever mechanics, which only lasts so long. That aptly describes the first two GTA games for me.<br /><br />Anyway, yes, I agree that the core point here is that game designers ought to be thinking about this sort of thing, and where their games fall on that scale. Otherwise you wind up with a bunch of mixed signals that tends to really dampen the fun (here's looking at Assasin's Creed 2, which is sort of sandbox/exploratory but not really in most important senses, which makes it feel like a really sprawly and unfocused curatorial game). Granted, I still enjoyed AC3 quite a bit, and thought there was a ton to admire about the game, but I thought that was one particular notable flaw.Christopher M. Parkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16719365007524426389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5439941893980599296.post-87615914990565591752010-05-25T18:49:10.875-04:002010-05-25T18:49:10.875-04:00Delightful post! I'm always interested to read...Delightful post! I'm always interested to read how people classify different kinds of games.<br /><br />Perhaps unfortunately, I also always want to pitch in my arbitrary number of cents when I'm drinking some wine, so here goes:<br /><br />"Exploratory game design tends to throw the player into some situation, or a series of situations, and let them figure out what to do."<br /><br />Taken literally, that's also what curatorial games do. ;) But you're right that exploratory games always give you many options of what to do, and where to go.<br /><br />I think the best games I've ever played lie somewhere in the middle of the scale. I find that even the most curatorial game should provide me with *some* choice of what to do next, otherwise it is really just a film (and never a good one at that; I'm looking at you, Final Fantasy 13!)<br /><br />Likewise: A sandbox without any sense of direction is just a box full of sand. You build a couple of castles, which can be rewarding in and of itself, but after a while you might start to miss the goal-oriented nature of games. Here's a thought: The sandbox itself cannot inspire anyone to spontaneously build a sand castle. For this to happen people need to have been taught what a sandcastle is, how they can build one, and understand why they would want to build one in the first place. The best sandbox games I've played, even while not directly giving you goals, do constantly inspire you to try something new.<br /><br />I think Zelda closed its level progression down in future instalments precisely because the designers wanted to increase the sense of exploration. Exploration means putting some effort into discovering what's around the next corner, leading to a sense of satisfaction when you find it. When no effort is required to do this, finding something new will not feel like a big achievement.<br /><br />To provide a counter argument: I wouldn't say that Sim City doesn't function as a curatorial game. On the contrary: Will Wright had plenty of ideas about what he wanted to show/teach players along the way, he merely decided that the best way to convey those things to the player was through non-linear gameplay. In a linear game reaching the end of level X is a means to an end, a means to make the player experience something. I would say that Sim City does the same thing, just with different means.<br /><br /><br />Err, to round off that random collection of reaction: Yes, people should be make games on all ends of the scale. It would serve them well though, to realise which part of the scale their game is on. :)Martijn Zandvliethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00097573270671897647noreply@blogger.com