Games, and features in games, that are well executed are good. The existence of poor execution doesn't negate this fact. You can even tell good stories in games, even though it is harder than other mediums.
Games, and features in games, that are poorly executed are bad. The existence of good execution doesn't negate this fact.
Now everyone shut the fuck up and play Tokyo Jungle (that's what I'm playing).
I'm physically talented with good balance and coordination, giving me a natural advantage over other players in games that test this.
TF2 is Pareto fair in its items.
Tennis tests one's access to training and expert analysis as well as one's physical and mental ability.
Tennis does test access to training, however that access is easy to come by if you have talent that is recognized. Tennis is a sport that is actually full of easily recognizable people who overcame great odds to succeed, Arthur Ashe perhaps chief among them.
A game doesn't have to be symmetrical to be fair. For example, Street Fighter 2 is not symmetrical. If I pick Guile, and you pick Ryu, we are not on perfectly even footing. However, it is still fair because I could have picked Ryu, and you could have picked Guile. If there was some bullshit where you could pick Akuma because you unlocked him, but I couldn't, then that is unfair.
That's not true. Character selection is part of the game, and when you take that into account (as you do when you say it's fair) it is, in fact, symmetrical.
You're still wrong about this, though:
In a perfectly fair game, the better player/team will emerge victorious 100% of the time.
If you'd like me to elaborate on why, I can give a few reasons, but I figure it should be obvious to you why you're wrong if you give it some thought.
I really want to co-op Borderlands ONE. But no one is near my level, and I certainly don't want to start over and deal with killing five Skags again.
What's your level/character? I can build a character pretty quick, no matter what level you're at. And I can build them and e-mail them to anyone else you might want to play with, or to you for distribution to whoever you want.
Now I'm going to get back to laughing about Scott saying "And then you're allowed to talk". Not like it ever stopped you, boyo.
This book agrees with everything we have ever said about games. Read it, and then you are allowed to talk.
After listening to GK and reading forums for 4+ years, this is possibly one of the most disappointing posts you have ever made.
You are basically saying we can't talk about religion unless we have read the bible.
So your "magic" game theory book holds all the answers and is 100% factual and correct?
What about the collective experiences of avid gamers who each have a valid perspective on a subjective issue? ie. All of us?
I for one, won't be reading it.
I understand you were probably saying the above as a joke. Well, I can only *hope* you were.
It's more like this.
Let's say there was a movie critic in your local newspaper. That movie critic had never seen Citizen Kane. Well, what kind of a movie critic is that? Whatever they have to say really doesn't count now, does it?
Let's say there was a video game reviewer. They had never played Zelda or Doom. Well, whatever they have to say doesn't mean shit, now does it?
Consider our friend Timo. He is a professional physicist, for reals. If he tells me something about physics, I just take for granted whatever he says. I'm not going to argue with him because I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about. He could very well tell me something that is not true, and I may believe it. But I know that I do not know enough to question his knowledge on that topic, so I don't.
So now consider the position of Rym and I. We have played games for many moons. Many more games than most people. We have played games from all of history, from the old to the new. Games of every genre, every system, every era, format, you name it. Our experience is vast. We learn some things in the course of play, but we have no validation for them. They are our own discoveries. Then we discover game theory. We read books, such as that one, and it turns out that the academic research in those books almost entirely agrees with the things we have discovered on our own. So we study it and keep playing games to vastly expand our knowledge in this area.
Then some punk kids who haven't played half the games we have played or studied anything at all come try to tell us what's what. How is that any different than me telling Timo he's wrong about something related to physics?
We suggest you read the book, because that is a shortcut. It is an elevator that will teach you almost everything we know about games. That will bring you up to our level where we can speak the same language and have a useful discussion. Instead, this same argument goes around 100 times where we say the same things every time because it is very difficult for you to learn anything from a post in a forum.
Don't miscontrue this as me saying that someone who is smarter, more qualified, more experienced, etc. is always right and you should take everything they say as gospel and believe every word from their lips. As we all know, experts of the highest order disagree with each other all the time. There have been many cases throughout history where almost all experts have agreed on something, only to be proven wrong by a new discovery.
What I am saying is that if you are not yourself as educated in a particular subject matter as is your debate opponent, you should educate yourself up to an equivalent level before you go into battle. When the other dude is in a tank, and you are still naked, don't throw rocks at the tank. Instead, shut up, go home, get a tank of your own, then come back and we'll have us a real fight.
It is entirely clear that most people here do not understand the points we are making. We post the same things repeatedly, and keep seeing responses that clearly display a lack of comprehension of the ideas involved. That may very well be due to poor writing on our part. I have never claimed to be a great writer. Which is, again, why I suggest you read some books in the hope they will teach better than the same posts here will do.
You're combining "level of discourse" with "expertise." It's impossible to be an "expert" on something that's subjectively experienced (i.e. you cant be an expert at tasting food), but it's possible to have a different level of discourse due to education/experience (i.e. you can describe the tastes elegantly).
That's my problem with Game Theory stuff in general, too, cause it seems to me to be plagued by self aggrandizing claims of expertise; when it's really just a new level of discourse to discuss game design. Saw the 100 Rogues dev doing this on another forum some months ago and it was pretty hilarious.
You're combining "level of discourse" with "expertise." It's impossible to be an "expert" on something that's subjectively experienced (i.e. you cant be an expert at tasting food), but it's possible to have a different level of discourse due to education/experience (i.e. you can describe the tastes elegantly).
That's my problem with Game Theory stuff in general, too, cause it seems to me to be plagued by self aggrandizing claims of expertise; when it's really just a new level of discourse to discuss game design. Saw the 100 Rogues dev doing this on another forum some months ago and it was pretty hilarious.
Call it whatever you want to call it. The point is that many people here, mostly myself, have repeatedly tried to communicate various concepts and those ideas are not understood by most of the recipients. Any step we can take to increase comprehension of those ideas is a positive.
Then some punk kids who haven't played half the games we have played or studied anything at all come try to tell us what's what. How is that any different than me telling Timo he's wrong about something related to physics.
The difference is that Timo will listen to you tell him, and then explain how you're wrong or mistaken.
Whereas you belittle the person that disagrees with you, and dismiss them as punk kids with no experience or knowledge, or idiots only driven by money, even when they're the same level of age and experience as you are, if not on the odd occasion that they've got more.
The other difference is that Timo is actually a Physicist, he's got a degree on his wall(metaphorically, if not literally on his wall) that says he's mastered the science, and he knows his stuff down to the ground, it's what he does for a crust, day in day out.
You, despite all your noises to the contrary, are a mere dilettante with no more qualifications than a lifetime of video games and a few classes you took alongside your actual qualifications, with a few books interspersed. Are you more knowledgeable than the average Joe on the topic? Absolutely, no question about it. Are you actually more qualified, experienced, have you actually ranked in the field as Timo has with physics, in the way you imply? Get Fucked you are.
And before you even bring it up, yeah, you did a talk at PAX Dev. Great! So were multiple Zynga employees(including one of the designers of fucking farmville for fuck's sake) and D&D/WOtC employees. I was invited to speak at TEDxLeeds, that doesn't mean I'm on the level of Jane McGonigal or pretty much any other TED or TEDx speaker, it just means I was invited. It's not a qualification, nor a mark or measure of skill in any field.
Nash, Millgrom and McGonigal are experts in various types of game theory. You are an enthusiastic - if arrogant - amateur, and the most impressive part of your work in the field is the speed at which you forget that.
Yeah I really don't get the sense that people didn't understand what you were saying in the past few pages, but just that they didn't agree w/ what you were saying with regards to their Favorite Video Games.
Then some punk kids who haven't played half the games we have played or studied anything at all come try to tell us what's what. How is that any different than me telling Timo he's wrong about something related to physics.
The difference is that Timo will listen to you tell him, and then explain how you're wrong or mistaken.
Whereas you belittle the person that disagrees with you, and dismiss them as punk kids with no experience or knowledge, or idiots only driven by money, even when they're the same level of age and experience as you are.
The other difference is that Timo is actually a Physicist, he's got a degree on his wall(metaphorically, if not literally on his wall) that says he's mastered the science, and he knows his stuff down to the ground, it's what he does for a crust, day in day out.
You, despite all your noises to the contrary, are a mere dilettante with no more qualifications than a lifetime of video games and a few classes you took alongside your actual qualifications, with a few books interspersed within that time. Are you more knowledgeable than the average Joe on the topic? Absolutely, no question about it. Are you actually more qualified, experienced, have you actually ranked in the field as Timo has with physics, in the way you imply? Get Fucked you are.
Nash, Millgrom and McGonigal are experts in various types of game theory. You are an enthusiastic - if arrogant - amateur, and the most impressive part of your work in the field is the speed at which you forget that.
Not an hour ago someone wanted to interview us by e-mail. Here is the first question and answer.
Q: First off, could you give a short list of what kind of qualifications you have when it comes to solving games (any kind of education, lectures, panels, etc.)
A: The only qualifications I have is that I have played a lot more games than most people. Not only have I played many games, but as I play games I think very seriously about how they work, and how to win. Having done this for almost my entire life, I've learned a few things by osmosis. I've also read a few books on the matter. I have no formal education in gaming. I have given many lectures and panels on gaming, mostly at various PAXes, but having someone allow me to speak to a room full of people doesn't make me more qualified to say those things.
Then why the fuck are you trying to spin us a reel of bullshit about how You're in a metaphorical tank, and everyone else has slingshots? While I welcome the mild backpedaling as opposed to the regular stubbornness, if you're that willing to accept your actual level of qualification, why the hell are you carrying on like this, with your bollocks about tanks and slingshots, and likening yourself to people with actual qualifications?
I mean, I'm kinda used to your manner by now, but Christ mate, this is a bit much. You're even approaching the point of being uncharacteristically inconsistent. Disagree with you as I do, I still recognize that you've got plenty of consistency, you don't often throw out statements that should be making your brain dance the cognitive dissonance polka with such enthusiasm. I'm almost worried, here.
Then some punk kids who haven't played half the games we have played or studied anything at all come try to tell us what's what. How is that any different than me telling Timo he's wrong about something related to physics.
The difference is that Timo will listen to you tell him, and then explain how you're wrong or mistaken.
Whereas you belittle the person that disagrees with you, and dismiss them as punk kids with no experience or knowledge, or idiots only driven by money, even when they're the same level of age and experience as you are.
The other difference is that Timo is actually a Physicist, he's got a degree on his wall(metaphorically, if not literally on his wall) that says he's mastered the science, and he knows his stuff down to the ground, it's what he does for a crust, day in day out.
You, despite all your noises to the contrary, are a mere dilettante with no more qualifications than a lifetime of video games and a few classes you took alongside your actual qualifications, with a few books interspersed within that time. Are you more knowledgeable than the average Joe on the topic? Absolutely, no question about it. Are you actually more qualified, experienced, have you actually ranked in the field as Timo has with physics, in the way you imply? Get Fucked you are.
Nash, Millgrom and McGonigal are experts in various types of game theory. You are an enthusiastic - if arrogant - amateur, and the most impressive part of your work in the field is the speed at which you forget that.
Not an hour ago someone wanted to interview us by e-mail. Here is the first question and answer.
Q: First off, could you give a short list of what kind of qualifications you have when it comes to solving games (any kind of education, lectures, panels, etc.)
A: The only qualifications I have is that I have played a lot more games than most people. Not only have I played many games, but as I play games I think very seriously about how they work, and how to win. Having done this for almost my entire life, I've learned a few things by osmosis. I've also read a few books on the matter. I have no formal education in gaming. I have given many lectures and panels on gaming, mostly at various PAXes, but having someone allow me to speak to a room full of people doesn't make me more qualified to say those things.
You might know your stuff but you're just sabotaging yourself.
I'd go a step further - He unquestionably knows his stuff, and he knows a lot more stuff than your average person. But he does not know nearly all the stuff, and sometimes that trips him up.
Thank christ, he's finally got another popcorn GIF. I was starting to hope he at least one or two more in rotation.
Still, I think we're pretty done here. I'm pretty sure Scott understands my position on what he said, and I'm sure I understand his position, and I don't think there is much else to be said. I mean, it's not like he and I have ever argued for a week at a time about increasingly pointless minute embedded within each other's arguments before, not once ever, noooo.
It's not an argument from authority. Again, you haven't really read all the words I have written.
I'm not saying I am right because I have more qualifications.
I am saying that some people here are not displaying comprehension of the subject matter. They should study up and return later.
How many times have we been through something like this:
Me: "If state is maintained across play instances, then a game can not be a fair skill based competition. "
They: "On of my favorite games is stateful. It still seems balanced to me. I frequently beat people who are higher level than I am by using my skills. Therefore you are wrong."
Yes, I'm hyperbolizing the "they" because it wouldn't be an Internets argument if I didn't.
The point is that instead of having another round of the same old same old, it would be nice if some people went and learned what a fair skill based competition means before trying to fight about them.
Scott has always, as long as I've known him, been perfectly willing to make a good argument, and then run forward well beyond it and fall off a cliff.
He's alright. I'll spit fire at him from time to time, but I like the guy, he's a chill enough dude, I'd count him as a mate. If he started a fight he couldn't finish, I'd back him up all the way to the mat, that sorta thing.
And I'd be lying through my teeth if I tried to say I'm not prone to exactly the same cliff-diving arguments, just with prettier words and a more verbose style - but he does a lot less mugging for the crowd.
Comments
I'm physically talented with good balance and coordination, giving me a natural advantage over other players in games that test this.
TF2 is Pareto fair in its items.
Tennis tests one's access to training and expert analysis as well as one's physical and mental ability.
Games, and features in games, that are poorly executed are bad. The existence of good execution doesn't negate this fact.
Now everyone shut the fuck up and play Tokyo Jungle (that's what I'm playing).
You're still wrong about this, though:If you'd like me to elaborate on why, I can give a few reasons, but I figure it should be obvious to you why you're wrong if you give it some thought.
Now I'm going to get back to laughing about Scott saying "And then you're allowed to talk". Not like it ever stopped you, boyo.
You are basically saying we can't talk about religion unless we have read the bible.
So your "magic" game theory book holds all the answers and is 100% factual and correct?
What about the collective experiences of avid gamers who each have a valid perspective on a subjective issue? ie. All of us?
I for one, won't be reading it.
I understand you were probably saying the above as a joke. Well, I can only *hope* you were.
Let's say there was a movie critic in your local newspaper. That movie critic had never seen Citizen Kane. Well, what kind of a movie critic is that? Whatever they have to say really doesn't count now, does it?
Let's say there was a video game reviewer. They had never played Zelda or Doom. Well, whatever they have to say doesn't mean shit, now does it?
Consider our friend Timo. He is a professional physicist, for reals. If he tells me something about physics, I just take for granted whatever he says. I'm not going to argue with him because I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about. He could very well tell me something that is not true, and I may believe it. But I know that I do not know enough to question his knowledge on that topic, so I don't.
So now consider the position of Rym and I. We have played games for many moons. Many more games than most people. We have played games from all of history, from the old to the new. Games of every genre, every system, every era, format, you name it. Our experience is vast. We learn some things in the course of play, but we have no validation for them. They are our own discoveries. Then we discover game theory. We read books, such as that one, and it turns out that the academic research in those books almost entirely agrees with the things we have discovered on our own. So we study it and keep playing games to vastly expand our knowledge in this area.
Then some punk kids who haven't played half the games we have played or studied anything at all come try to tell us what's what. How is that any different than me telling Timo he's wrong about something related to physics?
We suggest you read the book, because that is a shortcut. It is an elevator that will teach you almost everything we know about games. That will bring you up to our level where we can speak the same language and have a useful discussion. Instead, this same argument goes around 100 times where we say the same things every time because it is very difficult for you to learn anything from a post in a forum.
Don't miscontrue this as me saying that someone who is smarter, more qualified, more experienced, etc. is always right and you should take everything they say as gospel and believe every word from their lips. As we all know, experts of the highest order disagree with each other all the time. There have been many cases throughout history where almost all experts have agreed on something, only to be proven wrong by a new discovery.
What I am saying is that if you are not yourself as educated in a particular subject matter as is your debate opponent, you should educate yourself up to an equivalent level before you go into battle. When the other dude is in a tank, and you are still naked, don't throw rocks at the tank. Instead, shut up, go home, get a tank of your own, then come back and we'll have us a real fight.
It is entirely clear that most people here do not understand the points we are making. We post the same things repeatedly, and keep seeing responses that clearly display a lack of comprehension of the ideas involved. That may very well be due to poor writing on our part. I have never claimed to be a great writer. Which is, again, why I suggest you read some books in the hope they will teach better than the same posts here will do.
That's my problem with Game Theory stuff in general, too, cause it seems to me to be plagued by self aggrandizing claims of expertise; when it's really just a new level of discourse to discuss game design. Saw the 100 Rogues dev doing this on another forum some months ago and it was pretty hilarious.
Whereas you belittle the person that disagrees with you, and dismiss them as punk kids with no experience or knowledge, or idiots only driven by money, even when they're the same level of age and experience as you are, if not on the odd occasion that they've got more.
The other difference is that Timo is actually a Physicist, he's got a degree on his wall(metaphorically, if not literally on his wall) that says he's mastered the science, and he knows his stuff down to the ground, it's what he does for a crust, day in day out.
You, despite all your noises to the contrary, are a mere dilettante with no more qualifications than a lifetime of video games and a few classes you took alongside your actual qualifications, with a few books interspersed. Are you more knowledgeable than the average Joe on the topic? Absolutely, no question about it. Are you actually more qualified, experienced, have you actually ranked in the field as Timo has with physics, in the way you imply? Get Fucked you are.
And before you even bring it up, yeah, you did a talk at PAX Dev. Great! So were multiple Zynga employees(including one of the designers of fucking farmville for fuck's sake) and D&D/WOtC employees. I was invited to speak at TEDxLeeds, that doesn't mean I'm on the level of Jane McGonigal or pretty much any other TED or TEDx speaker, it just means I was invited. It's not a qualification, nor a mark or measure of skill in any field.
Nash, Millgrom and McGonigal are experts in various types of game theory. You are an enthusiastic - if arrogant - amateur, and the most impressive part of your work in the field is the speed at which you forget that.
Q: First off,
could you give a short list of what kind of qualifications you
have when it comes to solving games (any kind of education,
lectures, panels, etc.)
A: The only qualifications I have is that I have played a lot more games than most people. Not only have I played many games, but as I play games I think very seriously about how they work, and how to win. Having done this for almost my entire life, I've learned a few things by osmosis. I've also read a few books on the matter. I have no formal education in gaming. I have given many lectures and panels on gaming, mostly at various PAXes, but having someone allow me to speak to a room full of people doesn't make me more qualified to say those things.
I mean, I'm kinda used to your manner by now, but Christ mate, this is a bit much. You're even approaching the point of being uncharacteristically inconsistent. Disagree with you as I do, I still recognize that you've got plenty of consistency, you don't often throw out statements that should be making your brain dance the cognitive dissonance polka with such enthusiasm. I'm almost worried, here.
You might know your stuff but you're just sabotaging yourself.
Still, I think we're pretty done here. I'm pretty sure Scott understands my position on what he said, and I'm sure I understand his position, and I don't think there is much else to be said. I mean, it's not like he and I have ever argued for a week at a time about increasingly pointless minute embedded within each other's arguments before, not once ever, noooo.
I'm not saying I am right because I have more qualifications.
I am saying that some people here are not displaying comprehension of the subject matter. They should study up and return later.
How many times have we been through something like this:
Me: "If state is maintained across play instances, then a game can not be a fair skill based competition. "
They: "On of my favorite games is stateful. It still seems balanced to me. I frequently beat people who are higher level than I am by using my skills. Therefore you are wrong."
Yes, I'm hyperbolizing the "they" because it wouldn't be an Internets argument if I didn't.
The point is that instead of having another round of the same old same old, it would be nice if some people went and learned what a fair skill based competition means before trying to fight about them.
And I'd be lying through my teeth if I tried to say I'm not prone to exactly the same cliff-diving arguments, just with prettier words and a more verbose style - but he does a lot less mugging for the crowd.