By Pentadact

The_B: Ok, excuse me while I get over-philosophical here...



If a "game" is something that we "play" then, even if we are not sticking to the rules of the original "game", are we still not playing a game, or are we playing different game?



To that end, should indivudal "games" that are in the box be classed as such, or are they simply the foundation on which we make our own "games" from the world/enviroment provided on the disk?



Example: Oblivion. Sure, I could do the story, do the quest, whatever. Or I could set myself my own goal of attempting to run through as many Oblivion portals as I can wearing nothing but my dignity? I'm a still playing a game, yet it's not one the designers hard coded into the game. And, as a result, it's also only my own self satisfaction from "completing" my "game".



That's also a hell of a lot of speech marks. I'd format this thing into paragraphs, but I'll mess it up. End of rambling.

The_B: Well, maybe Oblivion is a bad example then. The next example that did come to my head however, is that of Speed Running, - there aren't that many games with that mode hard coded (Tomb Raider Legend being the only recent example I can think of) but it has a massive following - even if that is a player-made game mode at it's most basic level.

Although as you say, should a game be marked higher or lower for what it lets you do, or what it doesn't let you do? And then, is it being marked as a "game" or an "interactive enviroment"?

(Thanks for the formatting by the way)

Graham: I think speedrunning, stunt-doing and box-collecting (as per HL2 DM) are just side-effects of the mechanics in these games. As such, they're indirectly considered in the greatness of a game when those mechanics themselves are rated.



More plainly said, the stunts done in Battlefield 2, in the office, are possible because it has planes and boats and jeeps and huge maps. All that would be considered when reviewing or numerically placing the game in the world of PC gaming.



So the potential for crazy antics can't help but be recognised when we say BATTLEFIELD 2 IS NOT QUITE AS GOOD AS YOU THINK IT IS.



It's about three places worse than that.

Peter Hopkins: never really got into the BF games, as much as I like period games I didn't like BF, nor its sequel. And the 3rd – well, lets not go on too much of a rant but please design studios come up with original idea, not take from Quake Wars and repackage with strogg-less environments (//end rant). – Sorry I have a nice history with Q series (mr P will understand here, don’t like rips)

Found BF environments sparse, bland, designed too much for vehicle combat rather than multiple use levels (on foot etc.) COD1 – much nicer and dead good esp. in an office ïÅ

FinalSin: I like this idea. I like it because it reminds me of when I used to play Command And Conquer when I was... ooh... eight or nine years old. The Slovakia level as the GDI was so much fun for me, because I found a way to pen the computer into their own base, allowing me to act out my own stories on the map.

Over and over again, I'd send in commando teams and rescue them with chinooks. I'd stage mass clashes in the tiberium fields, or rescue prisoners of war from their SAM site facility to the south. It wasn't - to use a tacky phrase - "The way it's meant to be played", but it was using the game world to have fun. And that's one of the best things a game can offer you - a second way of playing.

I've been like it ever since, really. Following the main gaming thread is great. But the reason certain games are special is because you can use your own imagination to inject something of yourself into the game. The difference between Oblivion's NPCs and my A-Team in Half-Life 2 is that I made the drama between my resistance fighters myself, whereas Bravil's inhabitants are plonked there, fully-fleshed out. My team of City 17 liberators were, in part at least, my own creation.

It's a furry, fluffy side of gaming that's a guilty pleasure. It's like singing into a hairbrush. Or using a pool cue as a lightsaber.

Maybe.

Dave: i think it is a games felxablility AS a game that adds to the greatness; while you could stick to the actuall objectives OF the game i.e., capture all the flags, kill all the enemies, the fact that it lets you do OTHER things in place of those adds to and changes the way one thinks of a "game". i would consider it to be "playing" HL2 even if i am only seeing how far i can launch that baby doll in the begining using the see-saw and some bricks because it is a part of the "game" that i am playing and even though i should be busting Combine heads in i am taking the time to mess around in the environment while playing. i would just never say to someone, "yeah, i'm throwing babies around in Half-Life 2" no, i would tell them i am playing HL2, but i'm just throwing a toddler around in a basket (and seeing how many bullets i can get the Combine to put into it, lol).

scott: I think bf2 is relly good becuase u get 2 kill people

scott: soz 4 spelling really wrong lol

scott: EA need new maps 4 bf2

ben new: yea i now

scott: hi admi & all

scott weaver: hi scott
i love bf2