tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6373991095344339826.post6873764809073931898..comments2024-01-02T06:12:15.912-08:00Comments on Interactive Illuminatus: Luck: the spoonful of sugarFergusonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222853326787219768noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6373991095344339826.post-57316681007631417862010-05-13T10:33:11.968-07:002010-05-13T10:33:11.968-07:00I would say, yes, any game that put the players in...I would say, yes, any game that put the players into a competitive situation would by its nature be less fun for the players than a game that didn't. And you're right--these games are more interesting than games with non-intelligent opponents because intelligence is capable of adapting to strategies (notice I'm purposefully not saying "human" intelligence).<br /><br />But I find the question of what "what is a game and also fun" to be more interesting. By my definitions of games and fun, Monopoly and Tetris are both games and fun, while Snakes and Ladders and the lottery are fun, but not games. Why is this? Because all of these play activities allow players to pin losses on luck, but only Monopoly and Tetris allow players to have different strategies, the fourth component of a game. (In the case of the lottery, while players may have different strategies, it is difficult to imagine a strategy that could possibly be considered verifiably better than another strategy.) The strategic component of a game is what makes it possible for players to take credit for the win--successful strategies are ones that win more often than chance.<br /><br />But notice the progression that implies. If players engage in different strategies and one player wins more often than the other players, that strategy could be said to be the best one. Once the rest of the players change their strategies to the winning strategy, the luck element of the game returns to be the deciding factor. Great games will not have an "ultimate strategy"--that is, a strategy that minimizes the chances of loss more than any other possible strategy while maximizing the chance of winning more than any other possible strategy. <br /><br />In other words, we should look for "layers" in games, where a new ideal strategy emerges when all the players switch to a common strategy. To remain relevant and interesting, a game must allow a player to "one-up" the other players regardless of the strategies they employ. If this sounds difficult to do, well, welcome to the art of gamecrafting. Turns out you need to know more than C++ to make a decent game.Fergusonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07222853326787219768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6373991095344339826.post-24064258304940395162010-05-13T02:54:54.264-07:002010-05-13T02:54:54.264-07:00I couldn't agree more about the word "fun...I couldn't agree more about the word "fun"! And guilty as charged. I definitely say a game I find nerve-racking, consuming and rage-causing is a LOT of 'fun', because I enjoy being consumed by it, and the fiero payoff at the end when I manage to win makes the whole experience & process fun. <br /><br />And of course simple learning and improvement can also be fun; it's not all about some goal-orientated payoff.<br /><br />But as you say, I am using 'fun' very differently to your thrust here. So I'd ask, what game conforms to your definition of a game, and yet is still 'fun' in the sense you write about here? Monopoly? Snakes & Ladders? What about videogames? Tetris?<br /><br />Wouldn't any game that became competitive shift to become 'not fun' towards the 'worthwhile'?Remy77077http://agoners.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6373991095344339826.post-67165970965755589622010-05-12T09:58:31.427-07:002010-05-12T09:58:31.427-07:00Fun is a rather woolly word itself, as I've me...Fun is a rather woolly word itself, as I've mentioned before. My main point here is to point out the frequent conflation of the idea of fun with other types of enjoyment, which I believe you're guilty of, as well, Remy. It's easy to do, and most of the time it's inconsequential, but I think when we're talking about games, it's an important distinction to make.<br /><br />Our relationships with games deepen like our relationships with people. As we play a game, our perception of it will change. My use of the word "fun" is mainly applying to a very superficial assessment of a game, which is how I feel it is mostly used. It's similar to calling someone "friendly." While we might define "friendly" as "someone pleasant to be around," we wouldn't call people friendly if they are only pleasant to be around "once you get to know them." It's an important distinction to make, I think.<br /><br />Chess and Street Fighter are both rewarding enterprises when it comes to games, but I wouldn't suggest either one to a stranger looking for a "fun" game.Fergusonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07222853326787219768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6373991095344339826.post-84354736245939133352010-05-12T07:00:17.177-07:002010-05-12T07:00:17.177-07:00Also, to add to this... chess is fairly unusual in...Also, to add to this... chess is fairly unusual in that it has no luck AND perfect information. Most competitive games will either have some luck element (dice rolls in most table top strategy games) and/or some imperfect information (eg: 'fog of war' in most computer strategy games). This is why I consider chess in some ways to be 'too pure' in that there is in some ways zero strategy (how I define strategy) - weighing of alternatives in 'fuzzy' situations - there could be argued to always be a calculable 'best' move (hence the ability and attempts to write 'perfect' chess AIs). You might also see that as 100% pure strategy, depending on how you define strategy (it's a very woolly word).<br /><br />BTW I actually still enjoy chess, but also don't have a regular outlet to play it. I last managed to get some games against friends on facebook.Remy77077http://agoners.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6373991095344339826.post-66015483396718427082010-05-12T06:44:48.138-07:002010-05-12T06:44:48.138-07:00I do think a lot of this is purely from your persp...I do think a lot of this is purely from your perspective - "Other people might find it fun, and other people may find it not enjoyable. The important thing is that at least one person is capable of finding a game not fun and still finding it worthwhile".<br /><br />Other people most likely do NOT enjoying losing due to luck, and only want to know it was their own fault when they lose. Many people can find those games the most worthwhile, =and= the most fun.<br /><br />I think everyone has very unique luck=fun tolerances. I know mine exists but is pretty low. I personally find games where there is SOME small luck element, yet are a very high % of pure skill (for example - Street Fighter 2 series). Once it becomes too much about luck (eg. a lottery), I don't find it so much fun or worthwhile.Remy77077http://agoners.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com