So I made a house in GMod. Then had lots of fun trashing it. Which brings me on to today's rant, Creation vs Destruction.
Well its not really very well thought out, I just decided to do it.
So, creation vs destruction is a rather odd concept, in that a lot of people prefer destruction in a sandbox or role-playing environment. In real life where I would hardly suggest a friend to blow up a store for giggles and fun, this is most obviously not so in the world of digital application and simulation. A lot of games these days feature killing, guns and explosions for the simple reason that it is different to normal life - and there are no consequences. This no consequence idea is what changes attitudes of players in specific types of games.
For example, if I were to play 'ye standarde shootere', I would run through levels causing as much carnage and destruction as possible. On the other hand, make this level have future consequences, and some players may think differently. Look at games like The Elder Scrolls VI - it's role-playing sandbox influences the kind of ideas and behaviour a player would make in a run-through. In this case, rampaging through and razing a village would cause some consequence, such as the surviving residents sending mercenaries to 'teach you a lesson'. Same idea applies with games like the original Deus Ex and its prequel. If you ran around shooting guards, that being your specific playstyle, you would soon find armed guards and other difficult goons around trying to kill you, and raising security standards in future missions to prevent similiar attempts, whereas you could alternatively sneak in, not alerting any guards and making subsequent missions easier (in comparison).
As I have already said, actions have consequences, but games sometimes lack these, which is what causes people to behave in such different ways. This links into the current rant in a simple way that is, breaking things without consequence is much more fun than making things under most circumstances.
(Some kind of) Rant Over.
Well its not really very well thought out, I just decided to do it.
So, creation vs destruction is a rather odd concept, in that a lot of people prefer destruction in a sandbox or role-playing environment. In real life where I would hardly suggest a friend to blow up a store for giggles and fun, this is most obviously not so in the world of digital application and simulation. A lot of games these days feature killing, guns and explosions for the simple reason that it is different to normal life - and there are no consequences. This no consequence idea is what changes attitudes of players in specific types of games.
For example, if I were to play 'ye standarde shootere', I would run through levels causing as much carnage and destruction as possible. On the other hand, make this level have future consequences, and some players may think differently. Look at games like The Elder Scrolls VI - it's role-playing sandbox influences the kind of ideas and behaviour a player would make in a run-through. In this case, rampaging through and razing a village would cause some consequence, such as the surviving residents sending mercenaries to 'teach you a lesson'. Same idea applies with games like the original Deus Ex and its prequel. If you ran around shooting guards, that being your specific playstyle, you would soon find armed guards and other difficult goons around trying to kill you, and raising security standards in future missions to prevent similiar attempts, whereas you could alternatively sneak in, not alerting any guards and making subsequent missions easier (in comparison).
As I have already said, actions have consequences, but games sometimes lack these, which is what causes people to behave in such different ways. This links into the current rant in a simple way that is, breaking things without consequence is much more fun than making things under most circumstances.
(Some kind of) Rant Over.