First | Prev || Next | Last
¿Question #2365?
[Deleted user]: [deleted question]

Gamedeity: No, probably, no, not much.
WonderLlama: It is conceivable. I can't think of any that exist though. I think it could be fun. Lots of things could motivate them to keep playing, but I suggest advancement. Think like MMORPGs.
Wibblenut: Sounds awful, you just keep playing to everyone has lost? There are plenty of games which people can't be bothered to finish, but don't think that counts...
ZiggyZambo: um, rpg's?
fenris_lorsrai: Yes, "no-win" games were popular with teachers for awhile. They suck. None of them are fun. The only thing that keeps players playing is a teacher staring at them saying no they can't go do something else.
atrium: It would be UNFUN
jeffwolfe: Conceivable, sure. RPGs have no winning conditions, after all. There are probably boardgames out there without winning conditions, but I don't know of any off hand that are worth playing.
DHEK: Yes, it's conceivable. I'm sure there are some available. I think it could be fun (the playing of the game itself would give the fun), but not having an ending would be a big flaw IMO. I suppose people might keep playing it for everything else that they enjoy about the game...
elirlandes: Go Johnny Go-Go-Go-Go has no winning conditions. It is tremendous fun.
TheArchAngel: .
Benzebub: Not sure how to answer this one.
aleo09: it could be. don't know. it couild be. don't know
i7dealer: Games without winning conditions usually are simulations or role playing games of some kind. You would play only to see what happens if you do something in the simulation that you couldn't see in real life.
maumau: i could easily imagine one... but its better to keep my mouth shut...
AWildEep: Sure make one; not that I know of; nope; Nothing
ZeroZilla: Yes. I don't know. Possibly (leaning towards yes). Probably. If such a thing were to exist, the rules would have to be extremely well written...for there to be a 'game' at all. Most likely it would be an art-piece/excercise/experience. You could do these over and over, but most wouldn't want to.
Brykovian: Any game without winning conditions is really an "activity" ... but can work really well in a group/party situation. Haven't you ever just grabbed random cards from the Trivial Pursuit deck and started asking/answer questions? It's a lot of fun -- but isn't really a "game".
Cut & Space: it'S called life...
Nandalfnarcoleptic: MMORPGs go on forever, a good fun game with stat increases and increasing monsters... could go on forever
Gizensha: If it had no winning conditions, surely it wouldn't be a game by definition, and instead a form of entertainment?
dwarf: No. What would be the point?
brainrob: Yes - The Ungame - Depends on who's playing - wanting to get to know each other better / relationship building
Bahamut-X: Is "not to lose" a non-winning-condition? If so, Arkham Horror ...
Igloo cool: Roleplaying games fall under this. With all the emphasis on minatures right now, you could almost argue that they are board games.
Loquutus: masochism
ZombyDawg: Sounds more like hanging out with nothing to do to me.
javelin98: Well... how would you know when to stop playing?
scriptorum: Playing with blocks is pretty fun, and you can play on any flat surface without a board. I think that's the difference between a game and a toy tho...
thugbert: how about a roleplaying game
GrandpaDave: Yes. I dunno. Yes. I dunno.
Mikebegeta: no, no, no, nothing
2amp: no, no, maybe, rpg element?
Great Dane: Well, I happily played TALISMAN for years without ever going into the center...
CharlieWonka: Isn't that just a roleplay. Add a Board.
skrutsch: Yes. I think so. No. OCD.
StormKnight: Yes, don't know, could be depending on the game, to see what happens, just south of Fresno.
davedanger: the game of life?
RandallPeek: Games are winnable by their definition, since competition is inherent, whether against a system or the other players. Therefore any 'game' without winning conditions is simply a pastime.
familygaming: I'd have to try it to answer.
Randy Cox: You're on to something. If people will play RPGS and The Sims and Everquest and never finish, we need to get that into a boardgame quick and make millions.
twelbes: Yes. Ungame. No. Nothing. See your local Goodwill Thrift Store for more information.
puffinge: I ain't playin', too much like a role playing game, I need a winner even though it's seldom me.
heli: too philosophical for a geekquestion
Lord_Prussian: I wouldn't play
thoia: Isn't there a gardening game or something along these lines. Got terrible reviews. Was all about co-operation to grow a good garden. I dunno.
tragicpoet: Yes, Probably, no, endurance bragging rights
KnobDoctor: Global Thermonuclear War. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
Karlsen: Yes. Not sure. The act of playing and the interactions with the other players (this answers parts 3 and 4)
djlg: Yes. Yes. Maybe. Not much.
skelebone: I think the Ungame lacks winning conditions.
snoozefest: no - what's the point?
erli: Dungeon Quest can be hard to win.
Bearcat89: Non. Non. Non. Nothing.
AlorielLelyn: I think a board game would require winning conditions. Unlike a computer game (simcity) you cannot save your game. You also may not be able to get the same opponents. Therefore, a board game must have a definitive end.
gnomehome: It almost (but not quite) exists, it's called Risk.
chaddyboy_2000: It would be boring.
CDRodeffer: Snail's Pace Race
jttm: It would be fun, but ultimately pointless
huber: Yes; The Great Dalmuti has no winning conditions, and is enjoyable. It's inherently more of a passtime than a game, as a result, but that's fine. It's hard to get such a thing to work, and players will create their own winning conditions as a result, but others won't.
Spielfreak: no