thread: 2013-10-28 : A Question about Objects
On 2013-11-07, Gordon wrote:
Vincent: Yes, I think those are all examples of non-object goals (terrible shorthand, but hopefully at least in the context of this thread that's clear enough) that have been taken into account by the design. I was pretty sure you did this, which was part of my "Hurr?" when I thought you were saying "object means we don't do this."
As you point to, I expect there are other aspects of non-object goals, like what happens with those you (for whatever reason) aren't well aware of, or those you choose not to acknowledge. And of course lots of variation on how you do handle 'em when you choose to do so.
But why *I* was getting stubborn (thankfully not futilely!) is that I want to know more about the way the object, the non-object goals included (somehow) in the design, and the superset of those plus "what people actually do" combine to either work or not-work in generating enjoyable gameplay. That seemed a more complex topic than "object: yes or no?" You gave some great examples - thanks!
I may want to drill down on an example, maybe the Murderous Ghosts, to see what happens both in detail and at the fringe possibilities, but - let me sit with it a bit, maybe re-read Murderous Ghosts, and see if I really think that'd be useful.
