in my game design the winner is the one with most points, but in real life, the winner received money and a trophy. What would be more popular/accepted.
keeping track of money winnings and trophy, or points? What would you like?
using points or money?
Tue, 08/23/2005 - 15:52
Thu, 08/25/2005 - 03:36
#2
using points or money?
If I have to choose, I will choose the one that woks like in real life.
But if the gameplay is good, the players will not care whether your game is like the real life or not.
Example : Steet soccer. It's a soccer game with only 5 players and the game is not really 100% like soccer, not even 75% (the game has no free throw, no penalty, no corner kick, etc). But the game is good, very good, I like it.
That's my 2 cents
:)
Thu, 08/25/2005 - 06:13
#3
Re: using points or money?
kjuice wrote:
in my game design the winner is the one with most points, but in real life, the winner received money and a trophy. What would be more popular/accepted.
This is the wrong way to think about it. The most important thing is for the game to work and to be fun to play. The real distinction between "victory points" and "money", to me, is that victory points can't be used as a resource in the game itself while money can. We had discussions a while back about this two different types of games: VP acquisition games and Cash acquisition games.
So the key distinction isn't what you call the commodity that wins the game, but rather, whether it can be used to help players win the game or not. For example, Risk would be a "cash acquisition" game because the goal of the game is to capture territories, but capturing territories also assists you in winning the game (you get more units each turn the more territories you have).
Quote:
keeping track of money winnings and trophy, or points? What would you like?
Again, I don't think it's a great idea to design by popular vote. It's also hard to answer these kinds of questions without knowing more about the game itself. But my answer is that game play is more important than reality, but the ideal situation is when you use reality to inspire the game play.
Let's say, for example, that you're making a car racing game. If this were a "cash aquisition"-style game, then presumably the winner of each race would get money, and you spend money on upgrades to your car, and the winner is the one with the most money at the end (and of course, there are games like this). If it was a "VP acquisition", then presumably the winner of each race would get VPs, and at the end of the game, the player who won the most races would win the game, but winning each race doesn't help you by giving you any tangible commodity that improves your ability to play the game.
Hope this helps,
Jeff
Sat, 08/27/2005 - 13:54
#5
using points or money?
I prefer points,
because you can use points to DO several things.
money is restricted to only buying, but
points can be used as money, score and more.
Sat, 08/27/2005 - 16:00
#6
using points or money?
By comparison,
In Evo each turn there is an auction of new parts for your dinosaurs, but the thing you bid with is your VP i.e. if you bid 3 (and win), your score marker is moved down 3.
In Puerto Rico, VP wins the game, but exists symbiotically with money. Money is used to make buildings, which in turn improves your ability to acquire VP (and which are worth VP in their own right at the end of the game).
I like those kind of systems, where you spend what you are trying to get.
P
Sun, 08/28/2005 - 05:26
#7
using points or money?
Quote:
I like those kind of systems, where you spend what you are trying to get.
If you pull it off it is like you take a running jump :)
I think the main difference between money and points is how they are used. Money tends to be viewed as a resource that you can spend, where as points don't.
Rather than getting caught up on the semantics between money and points...
Think about how you want the players to used these victory credits (either VP or $). If you want them to spend them (and so go backwards in their path to victory) the use money, else call them points if they don't spend them. It all comes down to what would be more fun, create tension and fit the theme (this is in order that I think is important, but you might differ).
I like the idea of money as it does create tension and more opertunities for player choice and strategy.
eg: If I spen 5 points and get 5 VP and win the game VS Spen $5 now and hope to make $10 and win the game.
Tue, 09/06/2005 - 10:02
#8
Re: using points or money?
jwarrend wrote:
...game play is more important than reality...
I'm going to tatoo this across my forehead, I think.
Without knowing anything about your game (no need to post rules and playtest results, just an overview), I can say that many successful games use either or both as victory conditions. Players with the most money get victory points, then other factors come into play to award other victory points (VP for most whatever owned, sold, bought, traded, etc.).
Remember that your game is an abstraction of the real world. It isn't necessary to simulate every aspect of the real world, focus on the mechanics and victory conditions that make sense in your game.