amanda_lodden (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
amanda_lodden) wrote2008-08-20 11:01 am
amanda_lodden) wrote2008-08-20 11:01 am
Entry tags:
Computer gaming WTF?
I've noticed that there are now several games out in which time progresses even if the game is not running. This makes sense to me for the multi-player online games, where others may be playing even if you're not.
But Big Fish has a couple of (apparently very popular) games that are single player that do the same thing: so far I've run into Virtual Villagers and Plant Tycoon. Presumably it's possible to get Virtual Villagers into a stable state in which they provide enough food for themselves while you're not playing to continue existing (mine didn't; I came back a few days later to find they'd all starved), but the plants in Plant Tycoon need consistent care. If you do not play, they die.
I can't help but think that someone really didn't understand the purpose of gaming. It's hard enough to keep up with the needs of customers and employees and cats and myself; I totally do not want to have to commit to a game as well. Who finds this sort of thing fun?
But Big Fish has a couple of (apparently very popular) games that are single player that do the same thing: so far I've run into Virtual Villagers and Plant Tycoon. Presumably it's possible to get Virtual Villagers into a stable state in which they provide enough food for themselves while you're not playing to continue existing (mine didn't; I came back a few days later to find they'd all starved), but the plants in Plant Tycoon need consistent care. If you do not play, they die.
I can't help but think that someone really didn't understand the purpose of gaming. It's hard enough to keep up with the needs of customers and employees and cats and myself; I totally do not want to have to commit to a game as well. Who finds this sort of thing fun?