Talk:God game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the God game article.
Article policies
Knight chess piece This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
Strategy games To-do:
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Harvest Moon / Animal Crossing

I wouldn't call Harvest Moon or Animal Crossing god games; the player's control over those games is solely through their avatar, unlike The Sims (for example) where you can make changes to the world directly. N2 22:16, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Additions

I added authors, publishers, systems, years for the major titles and separated the individual and the city/nation/world games. Anything look like it needs fixing after this revision? Coll7 07:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I also added major co-authors for more recent games (if publicly credited), where multiple designers are involved. Any comments? Coll7 00:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't have Age of Empires on the list if you don't have other RTS games as well (such as starcraft, warcraft) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessAndCookies (talk • contribs) 10:26, 31 December 2005
I removed the following games (see also next section for suggested definition legitimising the excision):
Mikademus 12:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Hold on there, just as Actraiser isn't a god game from start to finish, neither is Spore. If you watch his presentation it turns into a god game about 1/2 way through the presentation, right when they player gains the UFO and can freely terraform and populate other planets. I propose restoring Spore back on the list and adding caveats to its and Actraiser's entries. Asdfff 14:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC) (Comment withheld until Spore's release, of course. Asdfff 10:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC) )

[edit] Definition

A god game is a game where you play the role of a god, not a game where you control people. In a god game, you will have INDIRECT control over the livings while in a simulation or normal strategy game you will have DIRECT control over the livings. So black and white, populous, actraiser and the like are god games but civilisation, starcraft, age of empires and the like are not. Bragador 19:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I see the distinction you're trying to make, but there are aspects of each subset of games listed above that could be used to argue for them being in the other "camp." I'm not sure that "selecting human beings and giving them orders" necessarily disqualifies a game because sometimes those are "units," sometimes they are intended to be individuals, etc. If the designer postulates that you're a City Planner (as in SimCity) does that explicitly mean it isn't a God Game? On the other hand, I have no brilliant one-sentence definition to offer at the moment. I will think about it to see if I can add value to the discussion instead of merely pointing out the issue is complicated. Coll7 00:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, good point. And indeed I do feel that if it says you are a mayor, for exemple, that the game shouldn't be considered as a "god game" but as a "mayor sim" or "City Sim". I think we may be forgetting that all these games are strategy games. Some are about being a god "god games" other are about being something else. That's how I see it... Bragador 02:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Heh, what about the term "influential entity sim" as the superset of God games and City-building games, and in fact all straetgy games?
Seriously though: first, the distionction between GG and RTS/RTT/strategy in general that as a god you can only influence (regardless of how direct or indirect) your subjects rather than outright order them is sound. Further, GGs can be distinguised from City-building games (mayor sims) in that GGs are generally expansionalistic or antagonistic in nature, while C-B games are principally always economic simulation game (I took the liberty of creating that page while writing this), i.e. growth in GGs comes "directly" from conquests or conversions, while growth in C-B games comes "indirectly" from policies and strategic decisions. So, what about a definition along these lines?:
"God games are strategy games of expansion and dominance where you play the role of a supernatural entity who can affect the world and influence his subjects but not directly order them". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikademus (talk • contribs) 12:03, 23 February 2006
I'm not sure it is exactly that... Did anybody play the sandbox of god ? It is a god game but there is no conquest. Well some scenarios make humans fight the rabbit people but the game is not really about that. You should try it out to see my point and it's free ! http://www.download-game.com/The_Sandbox_of_God_Download.htm Also, I found a nice description at http://www.rakrent.com/rtsc/html/glossary3.htm that explains my vision of a god game perfectly : God games are similar to real time strategy games, except you play the part of a minor deity lording it over over a tribe of devout believers instead of a commander running a military campaign. The genre was established by the Populous series (and further refined in Black & White). Rather than managing an economy based on harvested resources, you instead have a population of devout followers whose collective outpourings of worship are translated into "Mana". Mana is a reservoir of energy used to perform miracles for your right thinking followers or drop catastrophe upon the misguided Heathens who follow your enemies. The more devoted followers, the more Mana you collect and the more your Godly powers increase to elevate your worshippers and smite their enemies. Tornados, Tidal waves, volcanos, earthquakes, plagues, rain of fire, bottomless swamps, you name it - God games get pretty spectacular when they get going. What do you all think ? Bragador 14:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I like the difinition you provided to an extent, but I have issues with it too. First of all we must realise that we will never create a perfect definition of anything: there will always be counter-exampels, particularily so since many (including me) enjoys crossing boundaries. A good definition will cover most falling within the category, but not everything recognised as belonging to it. Secondly, that definition is expressed as distinguished from RTS games. Third, though a good definition of some GGs, it is also a too restrictive and exclusive definition. If we break it down, it says that GGs must consist of
  • Real-time (Problematic: I can certainly envision turn-based GGs)
  • Strategy (Problematic: I can imagine tactical GGs)
  • You as a Deity ((Agreed, though "entity with God-like powers" is less restrictuve)
  • You as a MINOR Deity ((Problematic)
  • You ruling a tribe (of "devout believers") (Again, too exclusive)
  • Worship produce "mana" (Restrictive)
  • Interaction through miracles (-"-)
  • Miracles cost mana (-"-)
So, in short, that definition encertains that the only God Games will be Populous and Black & White, while f.i. SimEarth and SimLife, which definately are god games, are excluded.
As an alternative alternative, incorporating your suggestion, how about this?:
In God games you play the role of an entity with supernatural entities, often a god or deity, that can interact with the world in various powerful ways. Characteristic to God games is all or a combination of any or all of the following:
* Real-time gameplay
* Strategy games of expansion and dominance
* As God you can affect the world and influence your subjects but not directly order them (no click-select-order gameplay)
* The game is observed from an aloft, elevated porspective
* Actions taken by you tend to be interventions into a self-sustaining system (rather than ongoing interactive), like miracles or calamities
This followed by screenshots and short feature and gameplay descriptions of some more influential titles (Populous, B&W, SimEarth). Mikademus 15:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Well since I provided the game "the sandbox of god" as an example of a god game earlier, I agree that we can forget the real time gameplay tag. Again, I agree that simearth can be seen as a god game but I don't know about simlife (will have to check it out, never heard of it). So a game of "expansion and dominance" seems to be restrictive... I think we can come out with a difinition that doesn't include "Characteristic to God games is all or a combination of any or all of the following:" So far, a good description in my opinion would be :
  • As God you can affect the world and influence your subjects but not directly order them (no click-select-order gameplay)
  • The game is observed from an aloft, elevated porspective
  • Actions taken by you tend to be interventions into a self-sustaining system (rather than ongoing interactive), like miracles or calamities
Bragador 21:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm thinking about "Strategy games of expansion and dominance" and I'm not sure if it's good or not... What do you mean by "expansion" ? Do you mean like the game must focus on conquering the world ? And what do you mean by "dominance" ? Bragador 21:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
First, thanks for a good discussion! About the "expansion" and "dominance", I was thinking about some of the games I've played I'd immediately recognise as "god games" (take Populous, B&W, Heaven & Hell), and they are generally about expanding and establishing dominance over territories and followers. However, SimEarth is not about this (remember Will Wright's notion that his games are toys rather than games, i.e. they can be played without having to be "won"). So though many GGs will and does revolve around expanding one's dominion, it is questionable if that is tenable as a required criterium. However, as of now -sleep-deprived and slightly wobbly- I feel relatively confident that most, if not all, GGs can be subsumed under some or all of the four "(1) expand dominion", "(2) influence, not click-select-order", "(3) aloft" and "(4) interventions" critera, but unfortunately equally certain that most will not fullfill all these. However, to avoid the kind of conditional definition above it could simply be rephrased into something along the lines of "God games cast you in the position of an entity with divine or supernatural powers and generally feature a combination of (1), (2), (3) and (4)". Mikademus 22:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
ah ok I see what you were trying to say. Well I also agree that GG will not always be about dominance and expansio so what about dropping the item ? After all we are trying to define the "core" of a GG... or ARE we ? (hehe stupid reference to the tv show Friends, sorry :D). For simearth I know what you mean but you do have "mana" that you can use to create life and tons of devastating apocalyptic mayhem. And because you can create tornadoes, earthquakes and the like in SimCity, and since you "influence them" by zoning the city and not controlling directly you citizens, I think in the end the game could be a God game (I don't rememebr who said it was in the first place but anyway). Anyhow, I'm pretty confident that these 3 points you mentioned should be the definition
  • As God you can affect the world and influence your subjects but not directly order them (no click-select-order gameplay)
  • The game is observed from an aloft, elevated porspective
  • Actions taken by you tend to be interventions into a self-sustaining system (rather than ongoing interactive), like miracles or calamities'
Bragador 21:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Heh, Family Guy, let's not go down that off-topic tangent ;) Anyway, about SimCity being a GG due to disasters, unlike in Populas/B&W etc the disaster you can invoke in SimCity are not really "your" doing, or an integral part of the gameplay (unlike B&W's miracles etc), they're just a megolomaniac bonus included to let you vent your frustration or test the robustness of your city's deisgn (or an outlet of sadistic desires). I.e., they are not a "I will now use my Powers to summon a tornado!" but rather an "Oops! A tornado happened to happen! *grin*..." feature. Come to think of it, this probably deserves a header or paragraph of its own in the article.
Back to the definition. Since we seems to have chiseled out something roughly capturing the core of typical GGs I've taken the liberty of summing up our discussion into a new initial paragraph in the article including a definition and miniscule discussion, replacing the previous, unsatisfactory one. Feel free to expand or adjust, etc. Mikademus 13:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I really like the result. The added section about the simcity games is a very good idea and more importantly I now support your objection about SimCity being a god game. The only thing I find weird on the front page is "features some or all of these recognisable traits". I find it strange that a god game could work without any of the basic stuff you put on the list. I would suggest saying "features these recognisable traits" instead. I just don't see a god game with one fo the traits that's all. If you have an example feel free to educate me. Also I just figured that "The world is relatively self-sustaining and actions taken by you tend to be interventions into that system, for instance in the form of miracles or invocing calamities, rather than necessary for the continual progress of the game." is actually 2 criterias. What about splitting it in two : "The world is relatively self-sustaining" and "actions taken by you tend to be interventions into that system, for instance in the form of miracles or invocing calamities, rather than necessary for the continual progress of the game" ? Bragador 17:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You bring forth good points! I looked over the points and the only one of the three that really can be removed is the "aloft perspective", so I moved it into the qualitative description underneat instead. I also split the first one like you suggested, and atm I can't see that it excludes any GG I know of. Mikademus 08:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accounting for the quirks of turn-based games

Well since we restarted a discussion about the game in private I figured we could do it here in public. You said a game could be self sustaining and turn-based and I see your point if you can chose to "pass your turn". But what do we do for games that force you to do one action/miracle per turn ? That's why I changed first critaria but it may not be correct yet. For turn-based games I have the sandbox of god in mind since I think nobody else made a turn-based "god game" so if you want to try it to know what I mean please go forth. It's only 6 megs I think and it's free. In this way you'll be able to judge if it is a god game or not in your opinion. Bragador 14:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I added a criteria explaining the whole thing. I think it's adequate. You can comment on it to see if we keep it that way or not. Also, I noticed one point is saying "Actions taken by the player tend to be interventions into that system, for instance in the form of miracles or invoking calamities, rather than necessary for the continual progress of the game". I think you forgot a word in the where I put the words in bold. I wasn't too sure what you wanted to say so I figured I could just point the mistake to you. Also, "rather than necessary for the continual progress of the game" mays be redundant. I wonder if it is really necessary to point it out or if we could just do with "Actions taken by the player tend to be interventions into that system, for instance in the form of miracles or invoking calamities". What do you think ? Bragador 14:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to say. To avoid adding additional points making the definition unwieldy and technical I rephrased "input" to "intervention" and swapped places of the two original definitions. Now I think it says the same thing as you were getting at without mentioning turn-based or real-time. Also, did I fix the grammatical mistake you saw? Perhaps the subordinate clause is somewhat redundant but I thought it removed potential ambigiutity. --Mikademus 18:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Actions taken by the player tend to be interventions into the system of the game world, for instance in the form of miracles or invoking calamities, rather than a necessity for its continual progression. As you can see, the main sentence is: "Actions taken by the player tend to be interventions into the system of the game world rather than a necessity for its continual progression.". So I feel ike it doesn't "flow" too well. Perhaps you could say something like : "Actions taken by the player tend to be optional interventions into the system of the game world rather than being actions necessary for its continual progression." ? Is this what you were trying to say ? I still feel that the points don't really apply for turn based games in which you don't necessary have the options of not doing anything since the definition tends to imply the option of not doing anything as a prerequisite of "self-sustaining world". Aside of that the whole thing is all right imho. Bragador 18:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not one to feel protective about trivial phrasings, so please feel free to slick up what you find lacking, though "optional intervention" sounds a bit redundant (doubled-up) in the context. I can understand that the definition wouldn't apply for a click-progressed game where every click by necessity entails an action --such a game design voids the very concept of "(optional) intervention"-- but since the definition as it is is general yet powerful enough to aestetically and agreeably delimit the GG genre, couldn't an alternative solution be a paragraph about the game in question in the "God games" section, along with inserting the word "generally" in the first paragraph (-->"God games are generally characterised"...)? --Mikademus 22:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I found a way... I removed the last part of the second point which is now "The game world is relatively self-sustaining and persistent." So by removing "even without any player intervention" it fixes the problem. It makes it more general and less technical too which is what you want right ? Of course it doesn't REALLY fix the turn based problem since we are stating the game is self sustaining and persistent, but it removes the focus off the player intervention part. Obviously, a turn-based game couldn't be self-sustaining and persistent. What do you think ? And yeah I could always make a small section on turn-based god games. Bragador 00:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
That's looks fine with me, like you say: it's more general but not less descriptive. I don't think you should worry about making the definition "too perfect" (so as to contain the sandbox game), we will never reach a perfect definition, at least not without destroying all prosaic value of it. And since turn-based GGs are such a very peripheral sub-category --is there even another one beyond sandbox? Or was SimEarth turn-based?, I don't remember-- they should probably be treated qualitatively (described as a special case), if you it is significant enough to warrant mentioning, rather than be allowed to problematise the core definition. Anyway, I think we should extend our flexible pseudopods and pat our backs a bit for rehauling this article from a disparate jumble into something quite good and relevant! --Mikademus 11:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there is any other turn based game in that genre. But many websites tend to use wikipedia articles to back their claims so I tend to be picky. Anyway I think the article is fine like it is too. I'm not going to touch it any more than that. Bragador 15:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox of God? Bragador?

Who is Bragador? Why does he keep bringing up Sandbox of God? I tried it out and besides Bragador's references to its references it's an extremely insignificant game. In fact the only siginificance is that it's made in Game Maker 6.1. It's not historically significant like Commander Keen or Space Goose, it's not commercially significant, it's not culturally significant. It's just a project someone on the Game Maker forums thought was cool and decided to dedicate an entire definition arugument on wikipedia to. It's a puzzle game at best, a god game by no means. To call it a god game would be calling Lemmings a god game. That it is turned based is true. That it is interactive is obvious. That it is a god game, or that it belongs on this page, not so much.

Unless someone gives me an extremely good reason, quoting wikipedia guidelines, I will strike all mentions of it from the article. And from that insiginificant sentence from the definition paragraph that seemed to have occupied all of you pretty nicely. Seeing it occupy an entry alongside Actraiser, B/W, and Populous is insulting to me as a gamer. Having it attached as a caveat in the definition paragraph is arrogance.

In fact reading the entire "definition" section on this talk page it seems Bradagor has been the one getting all of you to devote reams of text defining an otherwise blisteringly easily demarcated genre. Sandbox of God doesn't belong here, maybe on "List of independently developed games" or "List of Game Maker-based games" or "List of small puzzle games". Asdfff 14:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It's good to see someone wanting to help wikipedia get better with such a great passion and adult behavior. I'm also proud you obviously understood the game Sandbox of God was used to show all possible facets a god game can have. Moreover, I'm sure you were joking so I laughed thanks to you. Of course we all know that a game doesn't have to be commercially significant or culturally significant to exist. Indie games, music and movies tend to bring new ideas and gameplay that are not available in the mainstream products. This is why they have even more weight in debates. Thanks for your time. Bragador 22:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Still waiting for justification using official wikipedia guidelines. Thanking me for my time isn't justification. I'd overjoyed I'm able to bring some joy, sunshine, and laughter into a what must be an otherwise comparatively boring life. Asdfff 01:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. Please keep us informed. If you do find a rule against knowledge, just copy paste it and we'll see what we can do. Meanwhile, I hope you can still enjoy your life as a gamer without being too insulted.Bragador 21:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two official guidelines used for removal of Sandbox of God references

I'll now be using Wikipedia:Trivia guidelines to recommend the removal of Sandbox of God mentions. Wikipedia is definitely not an indiscriminate colletion of information, and Sandbox is an insignificant game. By the same logic, I can make an ASCII non-realtime, modified variant of "Game of Life" demo and include it on this page, but it will neither help with the definition of a God Game nor be important enough to be included in the "list of". This isn't so much a ruling against knowledge as you've stated, as it is a rule against unimportant knowledge.

Not only that, but as a very basic wikipedia principle, wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I don't know where this guideline is located precisely but I've come across it more than a few times on other talk pages. Using Sandbox of God to branch off a _subset-of-1_ sub-definition of a long-existing genre is definitely not what Game Genre entry is for. If anything Sandbox of God belongs solely in "See Also" with all mentions of turn-based moved to the page for that game.

Wikipedia:No_original_research provides an overly detailed guideline for what I'm trying to state. Specifically, [do not] "[provide] new definitions of pre-existing terms" or "introduce an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position" and most importantly,

[Do not] "[introduce] an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source".

As a last note, I unconditionally apologize for starting off and continuing the discussion overly zealous.

The reaction was solely to the gut feeling that some basic principle of wikipedia was unconciously being bent especially across multiple editors while whittling down and gluing on multiple definitions for an otherwise easily demarcated genre.

I feel my two points, backed up by official guidelines, are imperviously valid. I will wait for the appropriate interim for other editors of this entry to pitch in on this matter before reverting my edits.

Asdfff 09:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Bragadow, would Asdfff's suggestion "If anything Sandbox of God belongs solely in 'See Also' with all mentions of turn-based moved to the page for that game" be an acceptable compromise for you? I can understand both sides here: on the one hand the genre is relatively sparsly populated and as such even a relatively insignificant game could be argued to deserve mentioning (I have never played the game in question so I do not know how significant etc it is). On the other hand, it seems to me that Asdfff's main concert is not with the Sandbox game itself but that it is given the prominent position of inside the initial paragraphs, thus in a way contributing to defining the genre. Thus, one solution I can see is that we redo the "examples" entries into a discussion heading where we mention each, or some, "non-defining" title with a few sentences, including the Sandbox game, or that we flesh out the (or some) entries in the list and place a small discussion of the Sandbox game there. There should be a way of satisfying both parties here. In short: perhaps we could keep the Sandbox game but move it from the definition paragraph? Mikademus 10:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I read the whole article again and the game is barely mentioned so I don't really get why this is a big deal. This is the only turnbased god game I know about so if any of you have any other game in mind we can switch it. Sandbox is simply an example to illustrate the genre after all... Bragador 14:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The wikipedia guidelines put it in words better than I can, actually. That aside, the secondary thing wrong with including the reference is that it necessitates 1) splitting the definition, 2) to fit a subset of one. Hence my proposal to strike it from the definition and from the _very_ visible list of paragons--however, it's a vaguely, peripherally related project to the genre and it will have its honorable mention-writeup in "See Also".
I'll put up the edit after some last bit of input from other editors. I think you will all agree with its agreeability. Asdfff 09:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I put up a sample edit. I think Bragador will find it a fair treatment. Just so you all know, I did play the game, and I'm not just pushing these changes from out of the blue. I've seen other games with the same narrative structure, and it simply would be a stretch to call them god games. I do have another example--the "Game of Life" mini-game within ADOM, which fits Bragador's modified definitions exactly, but is definitely not a god game. Asdfff 09:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok so you don't believe sandbox is a god game... which I partially disagree since even though the game is not persistent, you still play as a god and you don't control directly what is going on. Oh and btw a product can't be considered an original thought. It's a product after all, not a theory. That aside, I strongly disagree that god games must be in real time. I don't see why a turn based game couldn't be programmed so I am against writing anything mentionning that as a general characteristic of the genre. Bragador 01:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Realtime stuff: sounds good. Go ahead and pare down my edits to the definition section. Asdfff 03:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Bragador, requiring "real-time" as part of the definition is an uneccessary and somewhat artificial restriction on god games. Mikademus 08:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Rephrased to match Bragador's thoughts. With that I think I've made my final edits here, please tweak my contributions how you will. Asdfff 15:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I still believe we should find at least one exemple of what a turn based god game could look like. Illustrating principles is always a good thing. I'd like to know why you think sandbox couldn't be considered a turnbased god game. Your only complaint, after all, seems only to be that it's a freeware game. Or perhaps itMs that the game isn't played in a persistent world ? But then does it mean that if black and white had a time limit for each stage you wouldn't consider it a god game ? Bragador 19:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
No. Illustrating this principle is not a good thing. To Reiterate: don't make this about the definition. Makes this about why we shouldn't include SAID definition on one of wikipedia's pages about entire genres. The game AND the definitions are definitely not my only complaint; they are peripheral to it. The No Original Research guideline should be respected here.
Look, don't make this a sticking point. The point is that you really shouldn't be going around affecting the narrowing AND expansion of the generally understood definition of a genre because you very much want to introduce the concept of 'turn-based' into 'god games'--not only that, but that you want to do it specifically around one mini-game.
We shouldn't debate the validity of Sandbox AT ALL. The game is not the point. The point is that you're using a trivial game to branch off definition of a mainstream genre.
(Sandbox uses 'god game' as a narrative device, not a gameplay device. I'm not debating passage of time itself. Actraiser had demarcated levels, remember? Also, Populous' world can optionally be non-persistent through your entire gameplay experience. God games can be instrinsically played in bursts of time passage by the use of the pause button. However, Sandbox by its nature has you performing one defined turn and then decides whether you completed very specific puzzles that the designer set out for you. It's very different from god games as everyone else understands it.)
Sandbox aside, don't get stuck on "turn-based". It's only you steadfastedly advocating the branching off of definition, which really does counts only as original research. If you want to include it, I highly recommend writing up a section under the entry for The Sandbox of God itself and not on such a top level genre page. I do have a crappy example for you--I wasn't kidding about the Conroy's Game of Life variant that's included in ADOM, and it's the best anyone can do. It's only a sorrrt of god game because it's user-interruptible between growth cycles where you can add and remove growth seeds in between 'turns'.
But I can use the same guidelines provided by you to say that Harvest Moon is a turn-based god game. Trust me, it fits with the definition splitting you provided for in the argument thread from above.
(Harvest Moon: Pliable playing field: a plot of farmland. Actions possible on your turn : plow, plant, water, protect. Off turn: plants can grow, dry, die, get eaten, get pulled. You see what I mean? It's disingenuous to add that as an example just because it fit perfectly the warped definition of god games that this talk page has come up with.)
Again, I stress that picking over definitions doesn't belong in a top-level entry as this one, but on the Sandbox page itself.
Please, I'm begging you not to include such original research and opinions into such a top level article. 2) I wasn't kidding about the 'trivia' nature of the game. Just like I wouldn't cite Harvest Moon as an example, you shouldn't introduce Sandbox into the article body just because you think it's cool if god games are turn based.] Asdfff 05:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
No forget about sandbox. It's not about sandbox now. You must understand that god games have no "official definition" and thus the community makes the definition by consensus. For example, "rpg" has been associated with final fantasy and dragon quest but many retailers and reviewers have also associated games like Zelda with the "rpg" tag. Same thing with music genres. So you can't classify the community trying to define the genre as being original research. If we were talking about creating the category "god game" then that would be an original research and it wouldn't be acceptable. Trying to define what already exists is not considered original research. Now, from your answer you seem to agree that god games shouldn't be limited to persistent worlds and to non turn based games, right ? Bragador 17:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best games

I think they're should be stated what game is widely recieved as tyhe pinnacle of this genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.163.82 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 2 September 2006

[edit] Terranigma?

Would Terranigma be considered a God game? You don't have direct control over people and their lives, but you do resurrect the continents, the plants, the animals, and the people. I wasn't sure, so I thought I'd ask. -Platypus Man | Talk 05:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What about God of War? ....Budoom Pshhhhh!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.252.119 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 2 January 2007

[edit] Removed links

Removed links in "examples of god games" that were just advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketsa (talk • contribs) 20:11, 26 December 2006

[edit] Origins

Anything sourced about the origins of this genre of game? I recall reading an article on Lionhead's website a couple of years ago in which Peter Molyneux (Populous creator) mentioned the influence of German board games on the concept for Populous but I can offer no citable references. --JamesTheNumberless 17:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General lack of direction

Arguments about what is and is not a god game dominate the article. This isn't how it should be. We should stick to a simple explanation and discuss the implications based on that. As-is, it's just a list of different sub-genres. I'm reorganising the article to encourage future growth. Chris Cunningham 19:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should the G be caplitalized?

I probably should have asked before "fixing" the spelling in one section, but shouldn't the "g" in god game be lower-case, unless specifically referring to the Judeo-Christian God? To say "a God" is never proper - it's either "God" or "a god" - which is what started me down the "fix" path (I might have over-done it.) Thoughts? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It should all be lower case as in "god game", as , as you put it, the player takes the role of "a god" (unless, of course, the game actually lets you play as the Judeo-Christian God, to which there is none that I'm aware of). Obviously when "god game" starts a sentence, it should be capitalized by standard English rules. --Masem 16:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add Dwarf Fortress?

I think that Dwarf Fortress is worth a mention of a god-game, because you can generate the world before play.203.214.65.222 (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You have no influence over world generation, you can't modify a generated world, and DF is a fantasy variant of SimCity, not a God Game. Miqademus (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)