Author |
Topic: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games (Read 522359 times) |
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender: 
Posts: 804
|
 |
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #1065 on: Dec 3rd, 2012, 7:58am » |
|
on Dec 2nd, 2012, 9:00pm, browni3141 wrote:| Interesting that a game without possibility for draws is more draw prone than a game with possibility for draws. |
|
There are games that cannot end in a draw, games that can but that have unproblematic margins, and games that have problematic margins. There may not be a concensus about what makes a margin 'problematic'. One criterion might be whether the game amounts to anything. Draughts is big, therefore the margin of draws is 'problematic'. Few care about Abalone, none about Noughts & Crosses.
Go had two problems, turn-order balance and a margin of draws that some considered 'problematic'. The first one has been addressed by komi. Balance is ruled in. The second one has been solved by introducing a half point in the komi value. Draws are ruled out.
So comparing a game with a small margin of draws with games in which draws have been ruled out isn't quite fair. Draws can only be ruled out if they are there in the first place and if they are felt to be problematic.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 3rd, 2012, 7:58am by christianF » |
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
hyperpape
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #7113
Gender:
Posts: 80
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #1066 on: Dec 3rd, 2012, 8:02am » |
|
on Dec 3rd, 2012, 4:03am, jackspritz wrote:| First off, I want to say that personally I do not envision a future where only draw-free abstracts exist. My belief is simply that abstract game design is a recreational science, not an art. I believe there are rules to designing abstract games and I believe what constitutes a good game is fundamentally objective. What I would like to see an end to is the unsophisticated "guess and check" approach and creative freewheeling that currently reigns. I say enough designs based on the fact you saw some birds flying around (I'm looking at you Dieter). This is mathematics. As a designer I seek the approval of the universe before any prospective audience. |
|
I see this mistake constantly.
That a game has properties X,Y and Z is an objective fact. That these properties make it a good game is (barring major additional arguments that you're not ever going to give), your subjective opinion. That is all.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
jackspritz
Forum Newbie
Arimaa player #4584
Gender:
Posts: 5
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #1067 on: Dec 3rd, 2012, 8:49am » |
|
on Dec 3rd, 2012, 8:02am, hyperpape wrote:
I see this mistake constantly.
That a game has properties X,Y and Z is an objective fact. That these properties make it a good game is (barring major additional arguments that you're not ever going to give), your subjective opinion. That is all. |
|
Well its like I say, there's not enough at stake for me to be "right". If someone wants to argue against my perspective they can pretty much invalidate it by claiming others like draws or that cycles enhance the experience. No one is dropping dead because of a draw or cycle so people who want to debate me can basically just move the goal posts around all over the d**n
place and even misrepresent themselves if they want to be right. Its pretty sensible though to think that a game should be as competitive (and therefore decisive) as possible.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #1068 on: Dec 3rd, 2012, 8:52am » |
|
on Dec 3rd, 2012, 8:02am, hyperpape wrote:| That a game has properties X,Y and Z is an objective fact. That these properties make it a good game is (barring major additional arguments that you're not ever going to give), your subjective opinion. That is all. |
|
Usually arguments that end with "that's all" tell more about the person giving them than about the subject matter. It's often founded in craving for simplicity in complex matters.
However, sometimes I feel it is justified, and this happens to be the case here. The distinction you make should be kept in mind in all discussions regarding abstract games.
It's not always easy though. Some find Chess a good game, some find Go a good game. I like both as a sport, because the enormous player base of both games makes for unattainable strategic refinement at the top. Unattainable for mere mortals like me. In that respect it's no different for me than Snooker or Golf.
I like both in a conceptual way too, but the concept of checkmate can be implemented in more ways than I care to reflect upon. The concept of Go is far less arbitrary.
Conceptual simplicity, elegance, 'organic' behaviour and a minimum amount of arbitrariness seem things worthy to strive for, quite apart of the question whether these render a good game. That's for the players to decide (and the playing field there is inherently uneven, and lobbying is inherently present). But these much sought after properties are neither necessary nor sufficient to make 'a good game' because that's for others to decide.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 3rd, 2012, 9:17am by christianF » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
rse cares.
« Reply #1069 on: Dec 3rd, 2012, 10:38am » |
|
on Dec 3rd, 2012, 4:03am, jackspritz wrote:| First off, I want to say that personally I do not envision a future where only draw-free abstracts exist. My belief is simply that abstract game design is a recreational science, not an art. I believe there are rules to designing abstract games and I believe what constitutes a good game is fundamentally objective. What I would like to see an end to is the unsophisticated "guess and check" approach and creative freewheeling that currently reigns. I say enough designs based on the fact you saw some birds flying around (I'm looking at you Dieter). This is mathematics. As a designer I seek the approval of the universe before any prospective audience. |
|
First off, I agree with Hyperpape: what makes a good game is subjective, no matter how long you repeat that it is fundamentally objective.
Secondly, nature and mathematics are closely related. I use a flock of birds versus a cobweb as an illustration of 'dynamic connection' versus 'static connection'. There are simple mathematical algorithms that mimic a flock of birds or the creation of a cobweb.
There are no rules for inventing abstract games. There may be guidelines. Talent may play a role, dedication may play a role and sheer luck may play a role. The objective may play a role. You "seek the approval of the universe", I doubt if the universe cares. Dieter made a nice and elegant game but he also runs a company selling nice and elegant games so marketability will have been one of the design criteria. I see that as a perfectly justifiable reason. And if people like Volo, then I'm glad for him.
Also, there's nothing against an "unsophisticated guess and check approach and creative freewheeling". If there's anything that that "currently reigns", it's the idea that there are rules for inventing games.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 3rd, 2012, 10:39am by christianF » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #1070 on: Dec 3rd, 2012, 11:27am » |
|
on Dec 3rd, 2012, 4:03am, jackspritz wrote:| Christian I will also say its telling that you remain by far the most vociferous critic of the "church" and yet you continually praise the games that filter out. Namely Ketchup, Slither, Hex Oust and Ayu. You also called Luis the best designer working today like a week ago. This apparent contradiction doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You seem to imply the methods of the church are wrong and yet the games produced by this method are brilliant. I have bandied about a few theories in casual chats as to why you do this but I'll reserve them for the time being as I'll admit they're fairly far-fetched. At any rate I'm calling you out here. |
|
Let's take this a step further. Just yesterday I published Triccs. First of all, it was unintentionally. I picked up a scent in the middle of a reply to Benedikt. Where did it come from? I can't tell, I just noticed its precence. Now note, Triccs is: and as a bonus it seems balanced enough. The pie rule is a safety measure to be sure.
So I invent games that satisfy the criteria of the church. And as you already noted, at mindsports we feature Mark's Oust and HexOust, your Slither, Nick's Ketchup and Luis' Xodd, Yodd and Ayu. These, in my opinion, are good games, so I'm not sure where I did ever criticize them. Nor do I see any contradiction because I happen to find, say, Dameo a good game. There's a lot to find in such a game, but here you find the church members on your way, ridiculing draws, ridiculing cycles, and bashing everything game that has them, and generally making discussions impossible. Even a discussion of Symple was made impossible. Symple is finite and decisive, so how did that happen, I wonder.
You know what I find ridiculous? Eliminating draws by introducing a half komi point. It means that the idea of two great Go-minds climbing a mountain and arriving simultaneously, in mutual respect, is considered unbearable.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 3rd, 2012, 12:09pm by christianF » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
jackspritz
Forum Newbie
Arimaa player #4584
Gender:
Posts: 5
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #1071 on: Dec 3rd, 2012, 10:54pm » |
|
on Dec 3rd, 2012, 10:38am, christianF wrote:
First off, I agree with Hyperpape: what makes a good game is subjective, no matter how long you repeat that it is fundamentally objective. |
|
So what am I just supposed to take your word for it Christian? Why would you even make a statement without fortifying it with evidence and counter-arguments. I guess you think your reputation will just carry you through the remainder of this debate, huh? The overall quality of a game is fundamentally objective. Now unlike you I am going to explain my position even though this proved to be pointless the first time I did it because you were unable to provide a level of discourse beyond that of Monty Python's argument clinic. But here goes nothing.
The depth of a game is measurable. We know this because games have game trees. The level of balance in a game is measurable by extension of this. The decisiveness of a game is quite clearly a measurable quality. Even the clarity is measurable to some degree because we know for instance that the ability to maintain an advantage in a game is crucial to this. So besides this what's left? Oh right "fun". I've already made your counter-argument for you as I'm quite familiar with the course of this kind of conversation. While nobody will bother to explain what the hell "fun" is in any concise terms, I have to ask three things.
Are the factors which contribute to the competitiveness of a game such as depth, level of balance, length of move-wasting phases, degree of clarity and decisiveness entirely outside the domain of "fun"? And if so can this one factor "fun" really be more essential than all the others? First off isn't the point of any game to be a competitive experience to at least some degree? Secondly how are we to define fun outside these terms anyway? I suppose there is "novelty" which is really an epidemic, there's a bit to much emphasis on novelty and gimmicks. In fact some designers seem to be more interested in games as vehicles for new gimmicks than making them deep and competitive. Indeed it seems a lot of designers are willing to accept the bare minimum in terms of quality of play in order to showcase a gimmick.
And as I'm familiar with the course of this debate I'm aware of the level of depravity it can reach. An incidence of this comes to mind when Benedikt Rosenau suggested tic-tac-toe was a worthwhile game because a lot of people played it and found it to be fun. Since Ben obviously knows tic-tac-toe is trivial he was clearly just misrepresenting himself to win the debate by claiming he could envision Einstein enjoying a game of tic-tac-toe at some ethereal level. But this really strikes to the heart of the "fun" issue. As far as I can tell the draw apologists believe sheer popularity is how we should measure "fun". If fun is simply the level of popularity a game has then I'm going to have to follow my contemporary Mark Steere and say I don't care about fun. I'm never going to design a game to pander to an audience and if that is a primary objective for designers these days then the whole field is in poor shape to say the least. I couldn't seriously consider popularity to be a significant factor in determining the quality of anything, least of all an abstract game. The reason being that popularity is just such a universally unreliable measurement of quality its almost arguable there is a trend towards higher degrees of sophistication inversely related to popularity. Its obvious why this is, the most popular examples of something are likely to be the least controversial, least revolutionary, least intellectually challenging and most accessible. Look at top 40s music, its all prefabricated beats and auto-tune now. Look at summer blockbuster comedies. "Adam Sandler is a zebra in..." So if "fun" is just popularity then it simply isn't worth the hassle.
Quote:| Secondly, nature and mathematics are closely related. I use a flock of birds versus a cobweb as an illustration of 'dynamic connection' versus 'static connection'. There are simple mathematical algorithms that mimic a flock of birds or the creation of a cobweb. |
|
What is this? I don't even... I only suggested that abstract games should be based on abstract principles specifically integrated to enhance the experience of playing a new game or offer an essentially different playing experience. At any rate the mathematics of nature or the golden mean or Fibonacci numbers are irrelevant here. Nothing about Dieter Stein's arbitrary interpretation of birds flying around is explicitly conducive to a robust game. Maybe it is a good game but as you said luck and talent play a role. But is Volo a game for the ages? While you publicly expressed approval of it, apparently it wasn't quite exceptional enough to make it into "The Pit". Don't get me wrong here as I haven't played it I don't believe Volo is necessarily not a good game but I believe that would more or less be a product of luck as its design process wasn't one rooted in the pursuit of improving upon previous games. It was just another in a multitude of cases of navel gazing.
on Dec 3rd, 2012, 10:38am, christianF wrote:| There are no rules for inventing abstract games. There may be guidelines. Talent may play a role, dedication may play a role and sheer luck may play a role. The objective may play a role. |
|
That sure is a lot of "mays" Christian. You certainly don't seem very confident that these "guidelines" even exist. How is it you even invent games and why not? Surely you believe there is some method to it that can be applied in a general sense.
Quote:| You "seek the approval of the universe", I doubt if the universe cares. |
|
Christian where did you learn to be this edgy? With your nihilistic game design perspective and gems like this you're like a young Nietzsche. Its called a figure of speech bro. I'm saying I would rather pursue objective variables related to the competitive qualities of my game than seek the approval of the community.
Quote:| Dieter made a nice and elegant game but he also runs a company selling nice and elegant games so marketability will have been one of the design criteria. I see that as a perfectly justifiable reason. And if people like Volo, then I'm glad for him. |
|
That's real swell Christian. However on the matter of elegance I'm going to have to disagree. It seems like a lot of people find simplicity and elegance synonymous. I don't quantify elegance in such a way. In fact I could call a game with 20 thoroughly integrated rules more elegant and organic than one featuring 5 arbitrary ones. Such is the case with Volo. While the rules are fairly simple, the board, the rules and indeed everything about it seems to not be working towards any tangible goal besides Dieter's bird-watching. I also want to say I bear no ill will towards him. I only use Volo as an example because he openly said the purpose of the game was to simulate the flight patterns of birds. This to me is the antithesis of a solid design approach.
Quote:| Also, there's nothing against an "unsophisticated guess and check approach and creative freewheeling". If there's anything that that "currently reigns", it's the idea that there are rules for inventing games. |
|
Christian I have every confidence we eventually will reign. Just like any set of pioneers, we'll have to take the masses kicking a screaming only to bring them to the light. But right now the community at large seems intent on keeping us in a permanent abstract games dark age where the savage dictum of "do what thou wilt" is the whole of the law. "Abstract games are art!" they declare, willfully ignoring the pervasive mathematical structures within even the most arbitrary games. "There are no rules for inventing games." when even academics in various artistic disciplines already suggest there are rules for music composition, writing and directing. Apparently it is a popular belief that the arbitrariness of people's aesthetic sensibilities should invalidate a whole science which exists whether or not we choose to pursue it. It becomes apparent that the real religion is being perpetuated by those who hold onto these sort of absurd beliefs. I cannot even for the life of me understand the level of push-back I get in expressing these ideas. I'm just trying to get people thinking about abstract games in a more productive way so we have better games. I would like to see more designers thinking about game design in more scientific terms (in all genres for that matter) and a scientific community dedicated to sharing knowledge and establishing a foundational theory that can be applied to future game designs leading to a steady improvement of game designs overall. How this could sound like a bad idea to the ears of any game designer is beyond me. Though its like anything else I suppose, as soon as someone challenges the status quo everyone is up in arms about it, "but I like chess!". Go ahead and like Chess, you don't have to stand in the way of progress over it.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 3rd, 2012, 11:51pm by jackspritz » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
browni3141
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #7014
Gender:
Posts: 384
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #1072 on: Dec 3rd, 2012, 11:18pm » |
|
on Dec 3rd, 2012, 7:55am, hyperpape wrote:Browni two things worth knowing:
1) the draw prevention mechanisms of Arimaa were added relatively late in the design process, and that makes folks like Christian and Mark dislike them.
2) For some people, explicitly preventing cycles (superko, the threefold repetition rule) is inelegant or a cheat. Any game can be made cycle free using those methods, so it doesn't count to them (I'm not sure if I'm speaking for Christian here, but I know that Mark thinks this way). |
|
I was going to say this before, but must of deleted it for some reason. Even before the new rules natural draws were very uncommon. I will present here the entire list of drawn games in the database. Of course it's difficult to find out if games under the new rules would have been drawn under the old rules, so we can only look at the old ones.
Arimaa's lack of draws isn't much of a good thing to me. I view it as a flaw. Of course, the biggest flaw in my view is certainly the scoring function.
Here are the games:
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=2818 Suicide
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=8166 Lose Arimaa
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=11123 Natural draw
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=12085 Natural draw
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=25057 Bot game
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=25169 Bot game
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=25959 Bot game
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=26752 Bot game
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=28483 Suicide
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=33268 Bot game
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=34285 Idiot bot
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=34293 Iffy, bot is playing according to different rules
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=36210 Idiot bot
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=39945 Idiot bot
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=40733 Idiot bot
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=43918 Suicide
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=44819 Idiot bot
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=48224 Suicide
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=49404 Natural draw
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=51406 Natural draw
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=54785 Suicide
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=56329 Not a serious game
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=72628 Natural draw?
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=74070 Probably Natural
That's 4-7 games that I would consider natural draws. That's more than I expected. It seems that draws are more a tendency stemming from blunders and weak play by the winning side rather than two Arimaa giants simultaneously reaching the top of the mountain.
Perhaps Arimaa is more draw prone than Havannah overall, but which game is more draw prone only considering high quality games?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
jackspritz
Forum Newbie
Arimaa player #4584
Gender:
Posts: 5
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #1073 on: Dec 3rd, 2012, 11:26pm » |
|
on Dec 3rd, 2012, 11:27am, christianF wrote:
Let's take this a step further. Just yesterday I published Triccs. First of all, it was unintentionally. I picked up a scent in the middle of a reply to Benedikt. Where did it come from? I can't tell, I just noticed its precence. Now note, Triccs is: and as a bonus it seems balanced enough. The pie rule is a safety measure to be sure. |
|
It might be finite and decisive but so far it has puzzled Luis, myself and Mark as to why you created it. What were you hunting Christian? What's the big secret here?
Quote:| These, in my opinion, are good games, so I'm not sure where I did ever criticize them. |
|
You criticize the process by which these games were ultimately derived.
Quote:| Nor do I see any contradiction because I happen to find, say, Dameo a good game. There's a lot to find in such a game, but here you find the church members on your way, ridiculing draws, ridiculing cycles, and bashing everything game that has them, and generally making discussions impossible. Even a discussion of Symple was made impossible. Symple is finite and decisive, so how did that happen, I wonder. |
|
Mark =/= the church. Catholics around the world cannot be held responsible for the transgressions of the Pope and likewise I cannot be held accountable for Mark's persistent heckling. I've already said I think draws are acceptable if integrated skillfully and my only criticism is of the general approach most designers take. I'll admit my position on draws has softened but the church isn't nearly as dogmatic as you make it out to be. I'll mention that I have no personal interest in designing games with draws and cycles but that's just because I like a challenge and it fits my aesthetic agenda. My philosophy on game design shouldn't be conflated with my personal approach.
Quote:| You know what I find ridiculous? Eliminating draws by introducing a half komi point. It means that the idea of two great Go-minds climbing a mountain and arriving simultaneously, in mutual respect, is considered unbearable. |
|
This is a very good point which I've only recently started thinking about. Even if a game is theoretically devoid of draws, if the only factor ensuring there are no draws is, for instance, an odd sized board your game might still gravitate towards pseudo-draws. Its not really much of an improvement on a draw-prone game for it to have score differentials of 1 point most of the time. In fact I'll have to confess that Ki is an example of a game with pseudo-draws but Ki was never that big of a deal to me and it still fits in with my aesthetic agenda and I still think its a fairly interesting game.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #1074 on: Dec 4th, 2012, 2:41am » |
|
on Dec 3rd, 2012, 11:26pm, jackspritz wrote:| It might be finite and decisive but so far it has puzzled Luis, myself and Mark as to why you created it. What were you hunting Christian? What's the big secret here? |
|
I don't know why I am not believed, obviously. I'm not hunting. Why would I? I invented games, and we put them on the internet for free. A lot of people appreciate that, but some obviously feel I must have some hidden agenda. I don't, and why would I lie about how I accidentally assembled a little game. Is it suspect to offer players something they might enjoy, or might not, what's the big point here? Am I earning anything? Hurting anybody?
on Dec 3rd, 2012, 11:26pm, jackspritz wrote:| You criticize the process by which these games were ultimately derived. |
|
No I don't. But the chuch criticizes what I do.
on Dec 3rd, 2012, 11:26pm, jackspritz wrote:| I've already said I think draws are acceptable if integrated skillfully and my only criticism is of the general approach most designers take. I'll admit my position on draws has softened but the church isn't nearly as dogmatic as you make it out to be. |
|
Maybe you need a new pope then  .
on Dec 3rd, 2012, 11:26pm, jackspritz wrote:| This is a very good point which I've only recently started thinking about. Even if a game is theoretically devoid of draws, if the only factor ensuring there are no draws is, for instance, an odd sized board your game might still gravitate towards pseudo-draws. Its not really much of an improvement on a draw-prone game for it to have score differentials of 1 point most of the time. |
|
I'm glad we agree on something.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 4th, 2012, 4:22am by christianF » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #1075 on: Dec 4th, 2012, 4:17am » |
|
on Dec 3rd, 2012, 10:54pm, jackspritz wrote:| The depth of a game is measurable. We know this because games have game trees. The level of balance in a game is measurable by extension of this. The decisiveness of a game is quite clearly a measurable quality. Even the clarity is measurable to some degree because we know for instance that the ability to maintain an advantage in a game is crucial to this. So besides this what's left? Oh right "fun". |
|
I'm not sure what you mean by 'measurable depth'. If it comes to the plydepth of a tree, then it is trivial. It's 60 for Othello, and quite a bit more for say Tanbo, to take two finite games, but I'm fairly sure that this isn't what you mean. But if you refer to the 'depth' that humans can reach in reading a position, then were on subjective ground. Same question as to how you would read 'balance' from a tree. And 'decisiveness' cannot be measured because a game either is or is not decisive, and that's usually easy to establish.
on Dec 3rd, 2012, 10:54pm, jackspritz wrote:| I suppose there is "novelty" which is really an epidemic, there's a bit to much emphasis on novelty and gimmicks. In fact some designers seem to be more interested in games as vehicles for new gimmicks than making them deep and competitive. Indeed it seems a lot of designers are willing to accept the bare minimum in terms of quality of play in order to showcase a gimmick. |
|
Yes, I know, that's called reality. It doesn't bother me. Eventually gimmicks fade, and hopefully quality survives. I strive for quality, but even so there's a lot of 'collateral damage' that most certainly isn't made for eternity, nor meant for it.
on Dec 3rd, 2012, 10:54pm, jackspritz wrote:If fun is simply the level of popularity a game has then I'm going to have to follow my contemporary Mark Steere and say I don't care about fun.
...
The reason being that popularity is just such a universally unreliable measurement of quality its almost arguable there is a trend towards higher degrees of sophistication inversely related to popularity. |
|
There are so many abstract games that lack of popularity doesn't say anything. Since you rightly point out that popularity doesn't say anything either, we might as well close the book on that one.
on Dec 3rd, 2012, 10:54pm, jackspritz wrote:| Maybe it is a good game but as you said luck and talent play a role. But is Volo a game for the ages? While you publicly expressed approval of it, apparently it wasn't quite exceptional enough to make it into "The Pit". |
|
Volo isn't a game for the ages, no, but my question is "why should it be?" I certainly have Volo on the list, but there's only so much time, and there are a couple of games higher up.
on Dec 3rd, 2012, 10:54pm, jackspritz wrote:| That sure is a lot of "mays" Christian. You certainly don't seem very confident that these "guidelines" even exist. How is it you even invent games and why not? Surely you believe there is some method to it that can be applied in a general sense. |
|
No, actually I don't think so. I can only say how I did it, and if people doubt that, they probably have their reasons.
on Dec 3rd, 2012, 10:54pm, jackspritz wrote:| Christian where did you learn to be this edgy? With your nihilistic game design perspective and gems like this you're like a young Nietzsche. Its called a figure of speech bro. I'm saying I would rather pursue objective variables related to the competitive qualities of my game than seek the approval of the community. |
|
That's your method and of course I understand it as a methaphor. I don't object to it and I recognize the good things that came out of the approach. But your criteria still differ from mine and Mark's Shuffle Queens may satisfy yours, but not mine. I didn't invent for the ages either, but for my contemparies and, if and when I'm lucky and dead, a couple of generations onwards.
on Dec 3rd, 2012, 10:54pm, jackspritz wrote:| Such is the case with Volo. While the rules are fairly simple, the board, the rules and indeed everything about it seems to not be working towards any tangible goal besides Dieter's bird-watching. I also want to say I bear no ill will towards him. I only use Volo as an example because he openly said the purpose of the game was to simulate the flight patterns of birds. This to me is the antithesis of a solid design approach. |
|
So what if people like the game? Isn't it appealing to children? Doesn't it stimulate interest in games? Does it pretend to be more than it is?
on Dec 3rd, 2012, 10:54pm, jackspritz wrote:| Christian I have every confidence we eventually will reign. Just like any set of pioneers, we'll have to take the masses kicking a screaming only to bring them to the light. |
|
That's a telling metaphor. I'm not sure who "we" are, but obviously not "we, the people".
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 4th, 2012, 6:43am by christianF » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
hyperpape
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #7113
Gender:
Posts: 80
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #1076 on: Dec 4th, 2012, 10:55am » |
|
First, no matter how objective balance, decisiveness, draw-freeness, depth of game tree and such are, one must choose a weighting, and that will not be so objective.
After all, I can sit here and insist that the decisive criterion is how many levels of skill there are (interpreted as gaps such that player x can beat player y n% of the time...) and therefore insist that Go is the greatest game that has ever been invented. No objective considerations will disprove me.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #1077 on: Dec 4th, 2012, 11:21am » |
|
on Dec 3rd, 2012, 11:26pm, jackspritz wrote:| It might be finite and decisive but so far it has puzzled Luis, myself and Mark as to why you created it. What were you hunting Christian? What's the big secret here? |
|
If you, like Luis, misread the rules (he just told me in our Ayu game - the 'if, and only if ' part), I can imagine you were all puzzled. It means that there is no 'normal' Othello capture, only a 'one line' capture between the placed and the moved stone. It means for a line (or piece) to be captured, it must be open ended at both sides. You can at the same time capture and create a new threat if the vacated cell becomes the second open end of an opponent's line.
It also explains why I wasn't after an Othello variant. The capturing mechanism emerged because I wanted to continue the two-step protocol, hence I had a 'placement' and a 'movement' ... what to do? That's when 'capture a line between them' presented itself. The final piece of the puzzle, not the starting point.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 5th, 2012, 7:16am by christianF » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #1078 on: Dec 5th, 2012, 11:21am » |
|
After Benedikt's promising experiences with the Symple move protocol in Hex, leading to Symple Hex, it occured to me that implementation on a square board might be interesting, so here is Scware.
P.S. This one's for te Universe! 
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 5th, 2012, 12:13pm by christianF » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
NickBentley
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #6704
Gender:
Posts: 44
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #1079 on: Dec 5th, 2012, 12:22pm » |
|
Re subjectivity vs objectivity: throwing in my two cents because I need a work break. This is mostly addressed to Corey:
I'm in the camp that game-quality is ultimately subjective.
Rampart vs Tanbo - I love Rampart, don't care much for Tanbo. And yet there's no difference in the degree to which the two games satisfy the kind of objective structural requirements that you're talking about Corey.
If objective structural requirements were all that mattered, I wouldn't like one game much more than the other.
Same goes for Slither vs Hex. In fact Hex is a way more "organic" game, since Slither needs an extra "unnatural" rule to shoehorn the game onto a square board. But still I like Slither much more, because that "unnatural" rule happens to create tactical situations that send my brain careening off into a vortex of ecstasy (if you ever publish the game you can quote me here on the back of the box).
So, your own creations have, for me anyway, a special X factor that goes beyond objective structural requirements, and that's why I prefer them to most other games. You seem to be attending to the subjective side of things while denying that you're doing it!
Which isn't to poo-poo the appeal of drawlessness, cyclelessness, simplicity, etc. I do think that those things are useful constraints in the search for great games (and I rely on them as such constantly in my own attempts to design games). But by themselves, they aren't what makes a game great.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print