Okay, my final lick before this really kicks off - Can we make a fucking effort to keep our terms clear, so we know when we're Talking about John Nash Game Theory, and I-like-video-games Gameing theory? I'm pretty sure these things are not the same thing, despite areas of overlap.
Yeah, Rym and Scott seem to fail to make this distinction surprisingly often.
If I might lead the way: Self correction on semantics - while my statement that Nash, Millgrom and McGonigal are experts in various types of game theory, while technically true it's an ambiguous statement, considering that Nash and Millgrom are experts of Math-and-problem-solving Game Theory, and McGonigal is an expert of Game Theory, as in, relating to video games, board games and the like, which is hereafter known as Gaming theory.
Yeah, Rym and Scott seem to fail to make this distinction surprisingly often.
If I might lead the way: Self correction on semantics - while my statement that Nash, Millgrom and McGonigal are experts in various types of game theory, while technically true it's an ambiguous statement, considering that Nash and Millgrom are experts of Math-and-problem-solving Game Theory, and McGonigal is an expert of Game Theory, as in, relating to video games, board games and the like, which is hereafter known as Gaming theory.
There is no such thing as gaming theory, yet. I could have sworn I read that McGonigal had a degree in the Nash/Millgrom game theory, but her Wikipedia says otherwise.
Yeah, Rym and Scott seem to fail to make this distinction surprisingly often.
If I might lead the way: Self correction on semantics - while my statement that Nash, Millgrom and McGonigal are experts in various types of game theory, while technically true it's an ambiguous statement, considering that Nash and Millgrom are experts of Math-and-problem-solving Game Theory, and McGonigal is an expert of Game Theory, as in, relating to video games, board games and the like, which is hereafter known as Gaming theory.
There is no such thing as gaming theory, yet. I could have sworn I read that McGonigal had a degree in the Nash/Millgrom game theory, but her Wikipedia says otherwise.
You can find the Gaming theory sort of gig she's an expert in(presuming she's not also an expert in Nash/Millgrom game theory, which she may be, I don't know) under the title "Game studies" on wikipedia.
I just went with "Gaming theory", because it's a little easier to remember, and since we're all a bit in the habit of calling both game theory, the small change makes for an easier change to habit.
Also, I didn't realise that I've played in some of her games - namely, ILoveBees, World without Oil, Lost Ring and a little with Evoke, and I was thinking of joining on with SuperBetter(the game, not the company).
Edit - Okay, SuperBetter is pretty boss, and it's clearly McGonigal's pet project, it's got her gamification fingerprints all over it. Seriously, check that shit out, it's fucking fascinating.
I don't think you can count yourself as "qualified" to talk about video games until you've beaten at least one objectively horrible game. I recommend Bad Rats for it delightful combination of:
Being a physics-based puzzle game Having a broken physics engine Injecting humorous humor jokes into the gameplay Making the jokes blatantly and painfully racist
How about Ghostbusters on the original NES? Seriously, it was so difficult to even actually beat (partly because of the actual, logistical near-impossibility of getting past the last area, partly because playing it felt like self-flagellation) that they barely even wrote an ending for it and clearly did not proofread it at all.
How about Ghostbusters on the original NES? Seriously, it was so difficult to even actually beat (partly because of the actual, logistical near-impossibility of getting past the last area, partly because playing it felt like self-flagellation) that they barely even wrote an ending for it and clearly did not proofread it at all.
It's not enough for a game to just to be bad, honestly. It has to actually be offensive on at least two levels.
How about Ghostbusters on the original NES? Seriously, it was so difficult to even actually beat (partly because of the actual, logistical near-impossibility of getting past the last area, partly because playing it felt like self-flagellation) that they barely even wrote an ending for it and clearly did not proofread it at all.
On the topic of near-impossibility I'd say "I Wanna Be The Guy", but I actually liked that game.
Ghostbusters was pretty offensive. I think it cost like $35, in 198X dollars, and failed to feature silly unnecessary things like gameplay or quality control.
Ghostbusters was pretty offensive. I think it cost like $35, in 198X dollars, and failed to feature silly unnecessary things like gameplay or quality control.
Yeah, but that is just anger-inducing. Was the only way you could tell you were playing as Winston because he had outrageously large lips or something?
I think we're using different definitions of offensive. I think you're talking about political correctness. I'm talking about the gall of the company to create an unfinished game using a hot property--and while you may say that goes on currently, Ghostbusters was unfinished in a way that has yet to be matched--and then accept a premium price per copy from parents whose innocently naive kids screamed and screamed to have it.
It was a marvel of profiteering and failure to deliver. The gameplay wasn't just bad and nearly impossible, it was insultingly bad.
Note that it's actually difficult to beat Bad Rats because of so much effort put into the game, and it just failing.
I mean, it has what is effectively a non-deterministic physics engine. So they had to develop a physics engine, and then when testing the puzzles had to ignore the fact that the engine you developed goes against all natural laws.
If you're going for offensive to humans, skip straight to Demonophobia.
That game really reminds me of the SNES Clocktower, which is one of the scariest games I have ever played. However, Demonophobia is not polished enough, is way to slow and bland to be scary. No music or sounds doesn't help it either.
It's solid. I think the whole "Better ending if you don't kill people" is a bizarre moral high ground for a game who's tagline is "Revenge solves everything," though. It's also too short.
Comments
I just went with "Gaming theory", because it's a little easier to remember, and since we're all a bit in the habit of calling both game theory, the small change makes for an easier change to habit.
Also, I didn't realise that I've played in some of her games - namely, ILoveBees, World without Oil, Lost Ring and a little with Evoke, and I was thinking of joining on with SuperBetter(the game, not the company).
Edit - Okay, SuperBetter is pretty boss, and it's clearly McGonigal's pet project, it's got her gamification fingerprints all over it. Seriously, check that shit out, it's fucking fascinating.
Being a physics-based puzzle game
Having a broken physics engine
Injecting humorous humor jokes into the gameplay
Making the jokes blatantly and painfully racist
Suffer through this, and you gain my respect.
At best, it is a one-dimensional offensive.
It was a marvel of profiteering and failure to deliver. The gameplay wasn't just bad and nearly impossible, it was insultingly bad.
Bad Rats was unfinished to the point of stupidity, had even key gameplay portions missing (a workable physics engine), and on top of that is racist.
Note that it's actually difficult to beat Bad Rats because of so much effort put into the game, and it just failing.
I mean, it has what is effectively a non-deterministic physics engine. So they had to develop a physics engine, and then when testing the puzzles had to ignore the fact that the engine you developed goes against all natural laws.
I don't know if I'm bored of monster clicking or D3; should I drop $20 on Torchlight 2 or just play a real game?