I’ve been thinking about the differences between what we call a ‘game’ and what we call ‘software’. And I’ve boiled it down to this:
In a game when you click a button it makes a “click” sound.
That’s basically the only difference.
For example Photoshop is a serious artistic application. But if they added “click” sounds when you clicked on the buttons. Suddenly it would become a fun “art game”.
If buttons make a click sound it says “we’re having fun!”. But if not then it says “This is serious software. Silence please.”
The reason I think is that with a game you need to be constantly entertained even when you are doing something “boring” like clicking on a button. And that little “click” sound can keep your excitement levels from falling too much between bouts of exploding aliens and zombies.
So, what I’m trying to say is. Don’t forget to add click sounds to your buttons.
Not in a “sandbox game” you can’t. But I suppose you would say that’s not a game. Maybe it would be classed as a “toy”. Is Lego a “game” or a “toy”? Hmm…
Also as to my original point can I just add that you can make clicking buttons very exciting if you put the right sound effect on it.
Wow. Someone else is trying for the forum buzz feed guy title. I think you’ve still got a ways to go, but I’ll root for you. Always liked the idea of an underdog taking in the big guys.
But let’s start out by completely debunking your idea. Plenty of software has click sounds in it. Plenty of games don’t. Click sounds exist to provide feedback to the user when they have successfully clicked. You’ll find them all over the show where that feedback is needed. And you won’t find them in games where the click feedback is not needed.
In many ways a click sound is like the thunk when closing a car door. There is no real need for it. But customers like the solid feed back.
If you want to look at the real differences between games and not-games, look to the primary purpose of the software. If it’s primary purpose is to entertain, it’s a game. If it’s primary purpose is to complete some useful task, it’s a non game.
I belive sound effects can be added to buttons in 3D Max. I guess it could be added to other 3D apps as well through script. I wonder if doing this would improve workflow, or reduce procrastination to get to work?
I’m gonna try it out.
While we are arguing about fail states, let’s remember that the average solo FPS game has no fail state. Just a win state and a ‘let’s pretend the last 15 seconds never happened’ state.
I think your confusing feedback with a game because you’re touching on gamification to a very tiny degree.
There is such a thing as gamification that is all about taking elements & design principles commonly found in games and adding those to non-game applications in an attempt to make these other applications more engaging… more satisfying to use.
Strong feedback I believe to be a very powerful thing in games. But feedback is everywhere and often games fail on this part. Still yes you could make a better experience by improving the feedback of working in something like Blender. Being able to map a custom sound set to the various actions may very well make the Blender experience more satisfying.
Basically games to me come down to interacting with things in satisying / interesting ways and often with a goal in mind. Audio can be a way to make the interaction satisfying or at least interesting.
Visual FX can do the same thing. And together with audio the feedback is even stronger. Strong feedback helps to create a more immersive state.
At the same time you can turn any activity… any task into a game. By simply setting a goal to work toward and a reward to be enjoyed when you reach the goal. You have now made something into a game. Might be… okay I am going to mow the lawn and when I finish this I can watch this movie. Or maybe it is I am going to drop 15 pounds and when I do I am ordering a large pizza to celebrate.
This forum is getting a bit too meta for my tastes. That, or @Arowx hijacked @yoonitee 's account.
While I believe the rules constituting what makes up a game are open for discussion, it’s just ridiculous to suggest that the difference is as minimal as sound effects on buttons. At some sort of philosophical level, I could see a college kid arguing that software intended to do work can be considered a game if you enjoy the experience, and games where you do tedious things can be considered work. I can also put a piece of ham on my head and eat a fedora, but that doesn’t make one a hat and the other a food.
Utility software exists to perform a task, often with a produced result. Photoshop is used to edit and create image files. Word makes text documents. Garage Band for making music. Visual Studio for web and desktop applications. Chrome for the consumption of and interaction with web content. It doesn’t matter if you enjoy using them.
Games are for entertainment. Genres have been expanded to allow that entertainment to take new forms. Maybe a game isn’t so much fun as it is stressful. Maybe it’s even depressing. But it has some sort of purpose that falls under the entertainment category, and not a utilitarian and production category.
You’re probably confused because games are absolutely a type of software. But the false equivalency of all software being games doesn’t hold up.
It’s because myself and my fellow big-thinker Arowx think on a higher plane. A meta-plane if you will. Our brains are constantly buzzing with new ideas that we feel we must share with the world. It is both a blessing and a curse.
Talking of gamification. I think they could gamify the Unity editor a bit more. By having animated menus and sounds on the buttons. I think they’re starting to do this with the VR version of the unity editor.
I tend to think of Unity as a game anyway. The aim of the game just happens to be creating another game. And then uploading it and your prize is the number of people who play it.
Life is also a game. But have you noticed when you press a button in real life it makes a “click” sound. Hence proof the Matrix is a game.
A game generates the animation of matrix energy. IOW at each move the matrix is extended and the state of the game altered/animated to the next state frame in the matrix. The rules that allow a move are the matrix and the plays based on those rules generate a game.
You do not have to participate although I do understand your proclivity to insert yourself and declare proclamations… Though started as frivolous it has some merits in the discussion of what a game actually is at its core essence.
Games are primarily focused on providing entertainment. Non-game applications (fixed for the pedant :P) can occasionally provide entertainment (for those of us who find exercising the mind to be entertainment - eg logisim for digital electronics) but that isn’t the main focus.
However, since I am a bit of a pedant, (visual/information communication being my core background), I would point out that games (video games) are also software, specifically application software. Video games are entertainment software applications, tools like Unity or Photoshop are productivity/development software.
Or to put even more simply: Games are for play, Photoshop is for work.
Software : instructions / code / data used by hardware. (the non-physical part) Application (software) : generally a piece of software that use/task specific separate from the operation of the hardware. Productivity Software (software application) : data management / creation tools or suite of tools. Development Software (software application) : tools or suite of tools to create other software applications. Video Game (software application) : a type of game that runs on a computer/cpu. Game : structured play. Play : not work.
As pointed out, what you described is not gamification.
[quote=“yoonitee, post:14, topic: 655333, username:yoonitee”]
It’s because myself and my fellow big-thinker Arowx think on a higher plane. A meta-plane if you will. Our brains are constantly buzzing with new ideas that we feel we must share with the world.
[/quote]Trying to put this in the politest way I can, that is an inaccurate assessment of the “ideas” shared, at least here. They aren’t meta, or new, they are overly granular, and are born out of a lack of understanding of whatever the topic is at hand.
Good/practical/new ideas are almost always born of deep and extensive knowledge/research of the particular topic (Einstein, da Vinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, etc…) Smaller and general advancements are the same. The key to knowledge is seeking it and asking questions. Positing the defining characteristic of games is impractical. Since games in general have been around since the birth of civilization and video games for over a half century. Video games is also is one of the largest entertainment industries, with a couple of hundred thousand to a million people in the industry. In other words, at its core, it is pretty well defined. Most developer (and players), clearly understand what defines a game. If not there are thousands of references.
Growing and improving depends on being able to seek and discover knowledge, and if one is truly exceptional, with expert level knowledge, they may add to that knowledge base. These type of “idea” threads typically disregard or ignore the volumes of expert and existing knowledge and propose what is basically a random thought, not an idea (at least good one), the polar opposites of “big-ideas”. I would suggest the way to actually grow is to ask questions and engage, not to make statements, or insert your assumptions rather than ask questions.
Ask questions. There is nothing wrong with it, in fact, it is good. Re-defining known things, or as in other threads, proposing hair-brained “ideas” usually ends badly as most everyone is quick to point the impracticality or silliness of them, as they are common knowledge. Just a suggestion.
Hence proof the Matrix is a game.