posted 05-10-2001 11:07 PM               

Yes, rules are often hidden from the player, and The Sims is a great example of that. The various needs in The Sims (bladder, social, etc.) are prioritized with the most biological first and the most "self-actualized" last. But this priority gradually shifts and eventually reverses as the character develops. A character's happieness at the beginning of the game is more weighted toward, say, bladder, whereas later in the game it's more affected by social.

None of that is told to the player, though. It's up to the player to discover that.

I would strongly disagree with your hypothesis that a game becomes boring once all the rules are uncovered, though. If the game is poor and shallow, then sure. Once you know all the rules and nuances of Mortal Kombat, you're ready to stop playing it. But once you know all the nuances of (most versions of) Street Fighter, you're ready to begin playing.

The top Street Fighter players in the country are not bored by the game at all. In fact, I believe they have more fun than the lesser skilled players. Knowing every possible rule and nuance about a competitive multiplayer game means that you know the vocabulary and grammar to have the conversation that is gameplay. Go ask as grandmaster chess player how he feels about chess.

This is a pretty good litmus test for good competitve games, actually. If knowing all the rules means you're done with the game, then it probably isn't a very good game!

Single player games are a different story, though. When you know everything about a single player game, you probably are done with it no matter how good it is.

posted 04-22-2002 06:44 AM               

in chess, as with many piece (and board) games, there are a predetermined number of possible plays or moves. in chess, the number of possible games are so many that some have said the combinations involved are more numerous than the number of atoms in the known universe. despite this quandary, the entire set of six-piece endgames has been captured on a single DVD diskette. that is, each and every single combination of six pieces on the board leading up to a checkmate has been captured on one single removable media during nowhere near the prime of human technology.

the arguable defense of playing the game humanly and strategically is that you can come up with yet another opening or sequence that defeats all sequences that have come before it. basically that you can study the games of the grand masters before you and create sequences that best their assumptions about the game. this argument is instantly defeated by the fact that if the entire known universe cannot contain enough atoms to equal the number of potential chess gameplays, then the solitary human mind composed of a limited number of whole molecules cannot possible contain a sequence capable of living up to the dream of being "perfect".

therefore, i explained to my newbie friend, the game itself is a hopeless pursuit. see...

suppose you have two total absolute powers at the chessboard. god versus god, for instance. these 'gods' are all-knowing beings who can carry the entire set of possible chessgames in their mentality without needing space to store them on...

therefore, they both know the exact game to play in which to defeat the other player. the 'ultimate' game which they play would define chess itself. and, it would be unbeatable. the game played from the chair of 'god' is unbeatable, therefore, who wins? ...

well, obviously 'god' wins. which is a juxtaposition. luckily, the symmetry of this juxtaposition is broken by a rule in the game of chess which states that 'white moves first'. therefore, white wins. period. all moves made by the player to move afterward are mere reactions to the first player's advances. the first god controls the board while the second god can only be manipulated into moving and has no free will whatsoever. what results is that, indeed, white wins. each, and every, single, time.

which is a stupid, stupid, stupid game. i mean, you don't have to get that far in thinking to basically understand: here's a game where you must take turns, and the person who takes a turn first has a completely utterly undefeatable advantage -- they move first!

i mean think about it. once white has moved first, you simply _cannot_ take that back! you might try to sit there and cerebrally explain how you intend to 'get around' the fact that white moved before you did, but it's a stupid and pointless endeavour. you cannot go back in the history of the game and erase the fact that white did, indeed, move and that your move at this point in time is, indeed, simply a reaction to that beginning of the game.

this simple premise is the reason why ALL games based on taking turns with one player moving first are absolutely NULL in usefulness or pursuit. especially the much-loved game of chess which is really one of the most useless of all considering how much space it wastes with all its pieces, rules, and precedents.

posted 04-22-2002 06:46 AM               

in chess, as with many piece (and board) games, there are a predetermined number of possible plays or moves. in chess, the number of possible games are so many that some have said the combinations involved are more numerous than the number of atoms in the known universe. despite this quandary, the entire set of six-piece endgames has been captured on a single DVD diskette. that is, each and every single combination of six pieces on the board leading up to a checkmate has been captured on one single removable media during nowhere near the prime of human technology.

the arguable defense of playing the game humanly and strategically is that you can come up with yet another opening or sequence that defeats all sequences that have come before it. basically that you can study the games of the grand masters before you and create sequences that best their assumptions about the game. this argument is instantly defeated by the fact that if the entire known universe cannot contain enough atoms to equal the number of potential chess gameplays, then the solitary human mind composed of a limited number of whole molecules cannot possible contain a sequence capable of living up to the dream of being "perfect".

therefore, i explained to my newbie friend, the game itself is a hopeless pursuit. see...

suppose you have two total absolute powers at the chessboard. god versus god, for instance. these 'gods' are all-knowing beings who can carry the entire set of possible chessgames in their mentality without needing space to store them on...

therefore, they both know the exact game to play in which to defeat the other player. the 'ultimate' game which they play would define chess itself. and, it would be unbeatable. the game played from the chair of 'god' is unbeatable, therefore, who wins? ...

well, obviously 'god' wins. which is a juxtaposition. luckily, the symmetry of this juxtaposition is broken by a rule in the game of chess which states that 'white moves first'. therefore, white wins. period. all moves made by the player to move afterward are mere reactions to the first player's advances. the first god controls the board while the second god can only be manipulated into moving and has no free will whatsoever. what results is that, indeed, white wins. each, and every, single, time.

which is a stupid, stupid, stupid game. i mean, you don't have to get that far in thinking to basically understand: here's a game where you must take turns, and the person who takes a turn first has a completely utterly undefeatable advantage -- they move first!

i mean think about it. once white has moved first, you simply _cannot_ take that back! you might try to sit there and cerebrally explain how you intend to 'get around' the fact that white moved before you did, but it's a stupid and pointless endeavour. you cannot go back in the history of the game and erase the fact that white did, indeed, move and that your move at this point in time is, indeed, simply a reaction to that beginning of the game.

this simple premise is the reason why ALL games based on taking turns with one player moving first are absolutely NULL in usefulness or pursuit. especially the much-loved game of chess which is really one of the most useless of all considering how much space it wastes with all its pieces, rules, and precedents.

posted 04-22-2002 06:52 AM               

in chess, as with many piece (and board) games, there are a predetermined number of possible plays or moves. in chess, the number of possible games are so many that some have said the combinations involved are more numerous than the number of atoms in the known universe. despite this quandary, the entire set of six-piece endgames has been captured on a single DVD diskette. that is, each and every single combination of six pieces on the board leading up to a checkmate has been captured on one single removable media during nowhere near the prime of human technology.

the arguable defense of playing the game humanly and strategically is that you can come up with yet another opening or sequence that defeats all sequences that have come before it. basically that you can study the games of the grand masters before you and create sequences that best their assumptions about the game. this argument is instantly defeated by the fact that if the entire known universe cannot contain enough atoms to equal the number of potential chess gameplays, then the solitary human mind composed of a limited number of whole molecules cannot possible contain a sequence capable of living up to the dream of being "perfect".

therefore, i explained to my newbie friend, the game itself is a hopeless pursuit. see...

suppose you have two total absolute powers at the chessboard. god versus god, for instance. these 'gods' are all-knowing beings who can carry the entire set of possible chessgames in their mentality without needing space to store them on...

therefore, they both know the exact game to play in which to defeat the other player. the 'ultimate' game which they play would define chess itself. and, it would be unbeatable. the game played from the chair of 'god' is unbeatable, therefore, who wins? ...

well, obviously 'god' wins. which is a juxtaposition. luckily, the symmetry of this juxtaposition is broken by a rule in the game of chess which states that 'white moves first'. therefore, white wins. period. all moves made by the player to move afterward are mere reactions to the first player's advances. the first god controls the board while the second god can only be manipulated into moving and has no free will whatsoever. what results is that, indeed, white wins. each, and every, single, time.

which is a stupid, stupid, stupid game. i mean, you don't have to get that far in thinking to basically understand: here's a game where you must take turns, and the person who takes a turn first has a completely utterly undefeatable advantage -- they move first!

i mean think about it. once white has moved first, you simply _cannot_ take that back! you might try to sit there and cerebrally explain how you intend to 'get around' the fact that white moved before you did, but it's a stupid and pointless endeavour. you cannot go back in the history of the game and erase the fact that white did, indeed, move and that your move at this point in time is, indeed, simply a reaction to that beginning of the game.

this simple premise is the reason why ALL games based on taking turns with one player moving first are absolutely NULL in usefulness or pursuit. especially the much-loved game of chess which is really one of the most useless of all considering how much space it wastes with all its pieces, rules, and precedents.

posted 04-22-2002 11:51 AM            

Yes, chess is completely deterministic. Then again, so are fighting games if you want to be technical about it. The challenge comes in trying to limit the subset of moves that you have to think about at any given time. In that respect, chess has a subconscious metagame built into it.

Uh, I thought I had a point, but maybe I'm just rambling.

posted 04-24-2002 05:20 PM               

Here is a simple game, "MineField walker"

Rules:

#1 First person to hit a mine, loses.
#2 Each turn you must move
#3 Each move you have 50% chance to hit mine

----

Going first a big advantage here? It is quite possible that when you get down to it in many games it is best to sit still. Therefore moving first could be a disadvantage.

Finally, let me point out that while Chess is deterministic and turn based you have no hope of figuring it out completely. People who play chess are not god and god2, they are people.

posted 06-10-2002 10:59 AM               

Great article sirlin... Rules define the game, it should be in my opinion one of the first things considered in game design, perhaps after the initial high concept is thought of - sometimes before. One thing that is interesting is that people are trying to make games 'better' by reducing the amount of rules, the go anywhere, do anything moniker (sp?) is thrown around, but this, to me goes against game design in that it implies less rules... that is less restrictions... if we take this to the extreme we can simulate real life, but is this really fun? no, if it was we wouldn't need entertainment... just because we can run anywhere it doesn't mean it's fun, now give me a game of panzer dragoon, and i'm gauranteed to have fun since it has such a strict rule set... or even chess - or hey checkers which is even more confining than chess - is an excellent game...

posted 06-11-2002 02:59 PM            

Fighting games are real-time, but really a round consists of several melees separated by short breaks in the action (e.g. after one player has been knocked back). I would compare it more to blitz-chess where the time between decisions is reduced. The outcome is still deterministic, since the same button sequence will always produce the same results. Timing is a factor, but typically it is loose enough to allow for a measured response. Otherwise, blocking and counters would be pointless.

My comment about fighting games being deterministic merely demonstrates that knowledge of the complete ruleset does not automatically confer mastery, nor does it mean the match result can be precomputed.

posted 07-31-2002 03:38 AM               

Seeing the Magic: The Gathering reference in the article stirred up memories of another brilliant collectible card game: NetRunner. Rules are broken by cards (which is no big surprise to CCG's), exceptions are made, Yomi 3 concepts come into play even for novices. The game is just as much about bluffing as it is about cardplay--do you really want to look at this card I'm hiding?--it might be a trap.

A magnificent game, sadly mismanaged by its originating company, Wizards of the Coast. I mourn for you, Netrunner.

posted 07-31-2002 02:48 PM            

Second is that chess non-random. In an FPS you have a random spawn point. In poker you have random cards. A chess game played with the same moves twice will be identical. A game of yhatzee is not, as the dice rolled are different.

Third, chess has no secrets. Play Stratego, or any RTS with fog-of-war. Or double-blind chess, while you're at it.

Factor 1 requires that you be god, not just perfectly patient, to win. Still, god vs god means that any slight advantage wins.

Factor 2 and 3 mean that even god can be defeated, because there are things he doesn't know about the game. I bet that, if he didn't cheat, I could beat God at War, or Yhatzee, or maybe even Blackjack if he didn't read my mind.