This happens to me way to much. I've got a fantastic idea for the core mechanics of the game, and an idea of how a turn would go. The problem is, I have no idea why you're doing it.
Must a game design start by having an objective? There are lots of games that were made based on a cool mechanic (Macao for instance). So I guess a game doesn't need to have an objective to start off; but in order to test the mechanics, you have to be doing something, aiming at something.
Now ofttimes I know the objective is "get the most points." That's boring and unhelpful. The better question is "how do you get points?" (I am, quite frankly, tired of "most-victory-points" games, and I like the idea of games with other objectives, such as "first to this many points," or "first to do this," like Attika. But I must say that victory points is mostly the only way to go, since it tracks your progress nicely.)
If you have really neat and interesting mechanics, then the objective (or manner of getting victory points) can be simple. On the other hand, if the mechanics are very elegant and simple, then the objective or scoring system can be more complicated.
Anyway, thoughts would be appreciated. How do you get an objective for good mechanics and game flow?
Thanks, guys. This helps to make me feel better about my position.
Any other thoughts? There might be some interesting ones out there still...