Talk:Side-Quest
From GameOntology
Should there be an ontology entry for mini-game? It seems that what would consisteny be described as a weak example of Side-Quest is popularily refered to as a mini-game. Some mini-games affect primary game play (such as the ambulences in GTAIII), but some mini-games are completely independent of primary gameplay.
- Hm.. Good point. I wonder what we would consider the distinction between a side-quest and a mini-game. I guess that mini-game is something that could be considered a stand-alone independent game if taken out of context? I guess you couldn't do that with the side-quest. Aren't there also some games where the mini-games ARE part of the main goals of the game? I think that in side-quest we are trying to capture the notion of "non-obligatory" as well as "not usually repeatable". If we createn an entry for mini-game, where do you think it should go? - Jp 15:18, 7 November 2006 (EST)
- I know it is a tough line to draw, but I really think something is there. What is Warioware? The mini-games are too incohesive to be to be truly related to one another (outside the game's framing stucture for them), but they are too incomplete to be truly be considered independent games.
- I guess WarioWare is basically a game which is primarily a collection of minigames. Right? I mean, if you take out all the mini-games, basically all you have is an empty shell/structure that regulates the acess to different mini-games. I see your point about the incompleteness (which is supported by WarioWare's full name...they call them micro-games, right? ;-) From an ontological perspective, we could add an entry for micro-game or we could consider micro-games as a weak form of mini-game because they are so simple/incomplete/short. Does that make sense? - Jp 09:03, 16 November 2006 (EST)
