Difference between revisions of "Playing to Lose"

From gdp3
Jump to: navigation, search
(No difference)

Revision as of 06:42, 16 July 2014

The one-sentence "definition" that should be in italics.

Playing to Lose may not be considered gaming since one is not trying to have a better game state position than other players. However, there are many other ways of viewing this stance towards a game. First, Playing to Lose can be seen as an individual goal that players are try to reach. Second, it can be seen as focusing on storytelling or playing rather than gaming. Lastly, players may actually be competing against other players of who is best at Playing to Lose, something which may not be measured by the game state but even so can be judged by the players.

Examples

Anti-Examples

optional

Using the pattern

Diegetic Aspects

Interface Aspects

Narrative Aspects

Consequences

Spectacular Failure Enjoyment

Relations

Storytelling Roleplaying Character Development

Can Instantiate

Spectacular Failure Enjoyment

with ...

Can Modulate

-

Can Be Instantiated By

-

Can Be Modulated By

-

Possible Closure Effects

-

Potentially Conflicting With

-

History

An updated version of the pattern ... that was part of the original collection in the book Patterns in Game Design[1].

or

New pattern created in this wiki.

References

  1. Björk, S. & Holopainen, J. (2004) Patterns in Game Design. Charles River Media. ISBN1-58450-354-8.

Acknowledgements

-