An idea for all game programmers/developers

[Schizophretard]

 

 

I already think that people should mostly play for fun and not for scores anyway:

 

http://www.randomterrain.com/atari-2600-memories-game-design-guidelines.html#resist_frustration

 

http://www.randomterrain.com/game-design-play-vs-competition.html

 

 

But a high score thread can get people interested in playing a game that they might ordinarily overlook, so it's not always a bad thing.

 

Real life isn't fair. There is no level playing field. In sports, conditions change throughout the game. Sometimes you get a better side of the court. Sometimes the sun is in your eyes. Sometimes you slip in a puddle of puke while the other guy is fresh as a daisy. The score is a fickle bitch that holds skill in one hand and luck in the other.

 

 

Sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes the bear eats you:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B48D60wH8gA

 

I read your pages before and understand where you are coming from. I consider scores part of the fun and something that adds to replay value. It isn't always about competing with other players. For me it is mostly competing with myself and against the game. It gives a goal to aim for and a measure for how well I'm doing. There can be healthy competition and unhealthy competition. Everyone laughing and having a blast with a friendly game of UNO is healthy. Someone getting in a fight because they claimed someone cheated in poker isn't.

[TMR]

I understand that people taking turns playing Jeff Gorden doesn't happen on the telly but controlled randomness does. No race is identical.

 

Again, i don't feel this is close enough to the situation being discussed to work as an analogy; no race is identical, but the competitors are all seeing the same race regardless of where their skill and/or luck has placed them within it. The randomly generated game we've been discussing isn't like that, each player has their own race where the difficulty may be harder or easier than the person they're competing with.

 

Real world examples like these aren't really representative, the best one i can think of right now is Top Gear and their Star in a Reasonably Priced Car segment; the car and track are about as constant as reality'll ever get but the weather is a random element so, if someone posts a time in the wet, it's labelled as such because they know it can't be compared directly to the time for a dry track.

 

Real life isn't fair. There is no level playing field. In sports, conditions change throughout the game. Sometimes you get a better side of the court. Sometimes the sun is in your eyes. Sometimes you slip in a puddle of puke while the other guy is fresh as a daisy.

 

Real life isn't fair no but, at the risk of potentially upsetting a few people, video games aren't real life. =-)

 

Things like the physical condition of the players aren't really random elements either, if someone loses a tennis match because they're playing with the mother of all hangovers that's nothing to do with randomness and everything to do with seven pints of lager, more Tequila slammers than anyone involved can actually remember and an ill-advised 2am kebab. It'll also explain the puddle of puke.

[+Random Terrain]

Real life isn't fair no but, at the risk of potentially upsetting a few people, video games aren't real life. =-)

 

Yeah, we know. Especially with nerdy programmers with OCD who want everything sterilized, starched, and unchanging.

 

 

 

Things like the physical condition of the players aren't really random elements either, if someone loses a tennis match because they're playing with the mother of all hangovers that's nothing to do with randomness and everything to do with seven pints of lager, more Tequila slammers than anyone involved can actually remember and an ill-advised 2am kebab. It'll also explain the puddle of puke.

 

I see how you cleverly tried to change the condition of the playfield, court, track, and so on to the physical condition of the player. It's not going to work. I'm stupid, but not that stupid.

[TMR]

Yeah, we know. Especially with nerdy programmers with OCD who want everything sterilized, starched, and unchanging.

 

i'll have to keep my eyes open for whoever you're talking about because i'm sure they'd bring the entire thread down! It's a good job that all i've done is have my own opinion regarding a small facet of randomised games and then back it up, i'm glad i didn't say anything that would upset anyone enough to the point where they started insulting me. =-)

 

I see how you cleverly tried to change the condition of the playfield, court, track, and so on to the physical condition of the player. It's not going to work. I'm stupid, but not that stupid.

 

i didn't cleverly change anything; you said that in "sports, conditions change throughout the game. Sometimes you get a better side of the court. Sometimes the sun is in your eyes. Sometimes you slip in a puddle of puke while the other guy is fresh as a daisy." and replied to the emphasised part; if player condition wasn't to be part of the conversation why bring it up... erm, mention it?

[+Random Terrain]

I'll have to keep my eyes open for whoever you're talking about because I'm sure they'd bring the entire thread down! It's a good job that all I've done is have my own opinion regarding a small facet of randomized games and then back it up, I'm glad i didn't say anything that would upset anyone enough to the point where they started insulting me. =-)

 

How could they bring the thread down? There have been a lot of nerdy programmers over the years who seem to hate randomness. They want their games to be the same every time you play because they have a weird mental condition that makes them love Die and Remember Static Action Puzzles. They love the 'challenge' of repeating things until their eyes bleed and they remember every little dance step in a game. They love spending hours drawing maps and charts to help them 'beat' a game and expect all of us to love tedium as much as they do. They hate on-the-spot decision making and actual play. I hope all of those freaks are insulted so bad that they'll either convert or commit suicide and we'll get some programmers who aren't afraid of controlled randomness.

 

 

 

I didn't cleverly change anything; you said that in "sports, conditions change throughout the game. Sometimes you get a better side of the court. Sometimes the sun is in your eyes. Sometimes you slip in a puddle of puke while the other guy is fresh as a daisy." and replied to the emphasized part; if player condition wasn't to be part of the conversation why bring it up... erm, mention it?

 

You assumed the puke was from the player who slipped in it. That's your problem. If you're playing doubles tennis or running on a track and slip on sweat or blood or puke or a bird shits on your head while golfing, you can't force the other player to do the same. The point was that you can't control the cards you are dealt. You take the conditions you are given and problems that come up and do the best you can in real life, so why should a simulation be any different?

[Arkhan]

How could they bring the thread down? There have been a lot of nerdy programmers over the years who seem to hate randomness. They want their games to be the same every time you play because they have a weird mental condition that makes them love Die and Remember Static Action Puzzles. They love the 'challenge' of repeating things until their eyes bleed and they remember every little dance step in a game. They love spending hours drawing maps and charts to help them 'beat' a game and expect all of us to love tedium as much as they do. They hate on-the-spot decision making and actual play. I hope all of those freaks are insulted so bad that they'll either convert or commit suicide and we'll get some programmers who aren't afraid of controlled randomness.

 

First off, calling them freaks and hoping they commit suicide is really pathetic. Grow up.

 

Secondly, look at a game like Chips Challenge. That's a great game despite always being the same. Same goes for a game like Adventures of Lolo, or Boxyboy (Sokoban). You're definition of work is pretty messed up. All 3 games I just mentioned are very fun. Same with the game Tricky Kick. Never changes, still fun and worth playing at least once.

 

Shadowgate is a great die and remember game.

 

Dismissing people who design games such as this as mental cases who need to die is really moronic.

 

 

 

You assumed the puke was from the player who slipped in it. That's your problem. If you're playing doubles tennis or running on a track and slip on sweat or blood or puke or a bird shits on your head while golfing, you can't force the other player to do the same.

It's not really anyones problem. It's a reasonable assumption based off of a situation presented by you. Being the puke generator is just as valid as not being the puke generator.

 

 

 

The point was that you can't control the cards you are dealt. You take the conditions you are given and problems that come up and do the best you can in real life, so why should a simulation be any different?

 

If that was your point, you missed it.

 

 

 

 

Here's a nice example:

 

You're sent up a mountain course full of people-created hazards. The fastest ascender wins 1,000,000$.

 

Jimbob McGee starts his run. One of the hazards is people throwing giant rocks at you. Since Jimbob is the first to go, the throwers suck at aiming. He gets to the top no problem. Amazing time.

 

Now, you go. You're the last to go, and you go 10 hours later. It's now raining, windy, and almost freezing temperatures out.

 

Also, the throwers got way better over the course of those 10 hours. You start running up and get belted in the face with rocks and get sent flying down the mountain. Your time blows and you don't win the money.

 

 

I guarantee you, you'd be complaining and whining about how unfair it is because Jimbob had such an easy run!

 

Clearly, the fact that the weather RANDOMLY changed to rainy/windy/cold as hell and the random fact that the rock throwers became experts actually matters, and it changes the experience drastically.

 

Wake up.

 

 

 

This happened on a TV show here recently. Contestants for this obstacle course who had to compete in the later hours got treated to cold temperatures and condensation all over the course that resulted in awful slips and falls whereas the people who went in the daytime had nice, crisp, dry weather and got to enjoy traction while running.

 

The times for the morning people versus the evening people are skewed. There is a clear disadvantage to trying to climb vinyl mats that are covered in water when its 30 degrees colder out.

 

 

 

If you think that's perfectly fair, go get a dictionary.

[+Random Terrain]

First off, calling them freaks and hoping they commit suicide is really pathetic. Grow up.

 

It's pathetic that you haven't grown up enough to learn how to read. I said "convert or commit suicide." And I'm not talking about all programmers who have made games that are devoid of randomness, just the freaky ones who seem to hate randomness and are in love with tedium and try to make us think that's how games should be.

 

 

 

 

Dismissing people who design games such as this as mental cases who need to die is really moronic.

 

It's moronic to take my hyperbole at face value.

 

 

 

 

Here's a nice example:

 

You're sent up a mountain course full of people-created hazards. The fastest ascender wins 1,000,000$.

 

Jimbob McGee starts his run. One of the hazards is people throwing giant rocks at you. Since Jimbob is the first to go, the throwers suck at aiming. He gets to the top no problem. Amazing time.

 

Now, you go. You're the last to go, and you go 10 hours later. It's now raining, windy, and almost freezing temperatures out.

 

Also, the throwers got way better over the course of those 10 hours. You start running up and get belted in the face with rocks and get sent flying down the mountain. Your time blows and you don't win the money.

 

 

I guarantee you, you'd be complaining and whining about how unfair it is because Jimbob had such an easy run!

 

Clearly, the fact that the weather RANDOMLY changed to rainy/windy/cold as hell and the random fact that the rock throwers became experts actually matters, and it changes the experience drastically.

 

Wake up.

 

 

 

This happened on a TV show here recently. Contestants for this obstacle course who had to compete in the later hours got treated to cold temperatures and condensation all over the course that resulted in awful slips and falls whereas the people who went in the daytime had nice, crisp, dry weather and got to enjoy traction while running.

 

The times for the morning people versus the evening people are skewed. There is a clear disadvantage to trying to climb vinyl mats that are covered in water when its 30 degrees colder out.

 

 

 

If you think that's perfectly fair, go get a dictionary.

 

So we've moved from sports to game shows now? If the contestants signed an agreement like some shows have, the network basically owns them. There is no fairness. They're lucky the network lets them breathe oxygen.

[TMR]

How could they bring the thread down? There have been a lot of nerdy programmers over the years who seem to hate randomness. They want their games to be the same every time you play because they have a weird mental condition that makes them love Die and Remember Static Action Puzzles.

 

And there are gamers who enjoy these games in preference to randomly powered ones too, so it isn't just down to "nerdy programmers" but the response they and others have received from the people playing their games.

 

This is reflected in my personal experience too; i've written two puzzle games and Reaxion is a static puzzle whilst Blok Copy shifts the playfield around randomly. Of the two, Reaxion is by far the more popular game and, of the response i've received from the people playing them, the randomness of Blok Copy makes it too hard. That feedback will, if i'm sensible and i rarely claim to be that, influence my design choices next time i go to write a puzzle game because, as a developer, i want to produce games that other people want to play.

 

They love the 'challenge' of repeating things until their eyes bleed and they remember every little dance step in a game. They love spending hours drawing maps and charts to help them 'beat' a game and expect all of us to love tedium as much as they do. They hate on-the-spot decision making and actual play.

 

And again, there are gamers who want their entertainment like this; the page upon page of hand drawm maps and charts, tips, solutions and cheats submitted to 1980s gaming magazines were worked out by players of the games, not the programmers. And taking the comment about little dance steps a tad too literally, watch people playing DDR because that's people getting great enjoyment out of trying to precisely replicate a pattern of moves laid down by the developer.

 

You assumed the puke was from the player who slipped in it. That's your problem.

 

i hadn't assumed that, the line about the drinking binge and kebab explaining the puke is there because i thought it was funny and nothing more.

 

The point was that you can't control the cards you are dealt. You take the conditions you are given and problems that come up and do the best you can in real life, so why should a simulation be any different?

 

Because the majority of games aren't meant to be full blown simulations and don't even go as far as replicating all the elements of the actual game; these external problems presumably don't tend to be included because they wouldn't actually be fun to deal with in the context of a game.

Edited September 23, 2012 by TMR

[TMR]

It's pathetic that you haven't grown up enough to learn how to read. I said "convert or commit suicide." And I'm not talking about all programmers who have made games that are devoid of randomness, just the freaky ones who seem to hate randomness and are in love with tedium and try to make us think that's how games should be.

 

How are you deciding which are the "freaky ones" exactly? Presumably you have specific people in mind and it'd be interesting to see how the games they've designed have actually fared with players.

[Arkhan]

It's pathetic that you haven't grown up enough to learn how to read. I said "convert or commit suicide." And I'm not talking about all programmers who have made games that are devoid of randomness, just the freaky ones who seem to hate randomness and are in love with tedium and try to make us think that's how games should be.

I read it perfectly fine. Convert or Commit Suicide. You just quoted it too. That's what it says. You want all the "freaks" to do what you like, or die. Classy.

 

It's moronic to take my hyperbole at face value.

It was moronic to post the hyperbole in the first place.

 

 

So we've moved from sports to game shows now? If the contestants signed an agreement like some shows have, the network basically owns them. There is no fairness. They're lucky the network lets them breathe oxygen.

It could be argued that the sports leagues people play in own their asses too. Also, who cares that we've moved to gameshows. They are gameshows. There are rules, you compete, there are random elements involved sometimes, there is a prize for winning.

 

It's basically a real life video game. In fact, they have made video games out of game shows. Surely you've seen American Gladiators for NES, or Jeopardy, Wheel of Fortune, and all of that. If they are irrelevant to the discussion, why are they video games as well?

 

It sounds like you just want to disregard all examples, no matter how contrived they are, that disprove your viewpoint.

 

You seem like a self-important dope. "Hey everyone, look at this blog full of overly opinionated opinions on game design! some of these game designers should do what I like, or they should slash their wrists and bleed to death".

 

Give me some prime examples of these freaks that should off themselves. Who are we talking about? What games?

 

 

I gave you Shadowgate, one of the kings of no randomness. Its die and remember. Never changes. It's totally unforgiving.

 

You break the wrong mirror, you die.

 

You open the coffin, slime devours you.

 

You have no way of knowing until you do it and get wasted.

 

 

If that isn't what you are talking about, then what are you talking about?

 

 

Try to do it without linking to the blog. The blog isn't very good anyways.

[+Random Terrain]

Try to do it without linking to the blog. The blog isn't very good anyways.

 

What blog are you talking about? I don't remember linking to a blog. Did you mean web site? If you don't know the difference between a blog and a web site, it would be moronic to continue.

[Arkhan]

blog/website/whatever you want to call it.

 

I basically read the links you linked, thought "this is a mess of copy pasted jive" and then left.

 

My mistake. It is a site.

 

 

Also, you said you think games should be played for fun, but then say certain game designers should commit suicide for creating their idea of fun that is also shared by others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

are you done dancing around dealing with all of the counterpoints yet?

[+Random Terrain]

Are you done dancing around dealing with all of the counterpoints yet?

 

If you want an explanation for my post, so you can understand my classless hunger for the deaths of my 'enemies,' I have a problem keeping my blood sugar at a normal level. It can be close to normal sometimes, too low once in a while, or too high a lot of the time. When it's too low or too high, I am more argumentative and warlike. The rest of the time I'm in a better mood and post goofy stuff or things that can be more normal, like trying to help batari Basic users. A lot of the time, my blood sugar can be in the 200s or 300s. A couple of years ago, it was in the 600s. It's not a good excuse, but it explains why my posts swing from goofy to ultra-caustic. I'm not bright enough to know when I'm being ultra-caustic, so I can get into stupid arguments about nothing.

 

I just ate, so my blood sugar could be high right now. Let's see how this goes.

 

My argument is similar to the one about smoking. For years, smokers were the bullies. You couldn't go anywhere in public without a smoker blowing smoke in your face. In various cities in North Carolina, people were still allowed to smoke in places like grocery stores and restaurants for at least a few years into the 21st century.

 

Similarly, games devoid of randomness took over the console gaming world. They were the bullies. It seemed like at least 95 percent of all games you could buy were Die and Remember, Static Action Puzzle Games. Since a lot of gamers were weaned on the NES, they were basically brainwashed into thinking that there was no other way. Games became nothing but puzzles to be solved and 'beaten.' The one who could memorize all of the dance steps finished quickest and got the highest score. Play was shoved out of a moving car on the highway and was replaced with memorization. We could agree to disagree and enjoy our favorite types of games if the console gaming world was split fairly equally between Die and Remember, Static Action Puzzle Games and games that are stuffed full of Controlled Randomness, but that's not how it has been. Video games that use Controlled Randomness have been in the minority, so when people who are in favor of the 95 percent want to take a moist, steaming, lumpy dump on Controlled Randomness, they aren't saying "let's all get along, hold hands, and create both types of games so we can all enjoy our favorite styles" they're saying "we like being the bully majority, so you random lovers can go F yourself with a rusty wire brush." That's why I feel the need to go to 'war' to defend and promote randomness whenever I get the chance.

[Schizophretard]

Again, i don't feel this is close enough to the situation being discussed to work as an analogy; no race is identical, but the competitors are all seeing the same race regardless of where their skill and/or luck has placed them within it. The randomly generated game we've been discussing isn't like that, each player has their own race where the difficulty may be harder or easier than the person they're competing with.

 

Maybe it isn't close enough because I'm explaining it wrong or not well enough. If the same race car drivers in the same cars, on the same track, with the same weather conditions... did multiple races then every race would be different. Even though all the races would be different the difficulty level for each driver would be the same and every driver would have the same potential to win.

 

That would be an analogy for a racing/driving game where the drivers behave like real drivers and not follow a pattern. Every driver could have different personality traits. For an example, one of the drivers will try to ram you into a wall 30% of the time. I play a race and 30% of the time the driver tries to ram me into a wall but I have no idea when and where he will do it. You take your turn and try to get a higher score than me. The driver also tries to ram you 30% of the time. Both of our races would be different but the same in the ways that matter. We would challenge the same drivers with the same personalities on the same track. The difficulty level would be the same because we would have the same odds of getting rammed into the wall by that driver. It would be different difficulty levels if I had to deal with 30% and you had to deal with 40% but the same odds are the same difficulty.

[TMR]

Video games that use Controlled Randomness have been in the minority, so when people who are in favor of the 95 percent want to take a moist, steaming, lumpy dump on Controlled Randomness, they aren't saying "let's all get along, hold hands, and create both types of games so we can all enjoy our favorite styles" they're saying "we like being the bully majority, so you random lovers can go F yourself with a rusty wire brush."

 

But they're not really saying that and it's more you projecting an opinion onto other people rather than them actually feeling that way; the consumers merely paid money for what they found enjoyable and, apart from a few more experimental exceptions that got fewer as the years passed, the companies basically went where sales figures led. If a particular genre or game type proved popular, they'd churn variations out to ride that popularity until it stopped again.

 

There are places in gaming history where you can see this happening in microcosm, for example in the 1990s where 3D pretty much killed off the 2D scrolling shoot 'em up in mainstream gaming. After that point, the only people left in the market were a handful of dedicated developers feeding the hardcore followers and they formed a sort of feedback loop, gamers demanding higher difficulty, companies delivering, rinse and repeat. Some of the sub genres died out because the market drove direction and said "do this, again and more difficult".

 

That's why I feel the need to go to 'war' to defend and promote randomness whenever I get the chance.

 

i'm not sure that does much to help your cause though...

[TMR]

That would be an analogy for a racing/driving game where the drivers behave like real drivers and not follow a pattern. Every driver could have different personality traits. For an example, one of the drivers will try to ram you into a wall 30% of the time. I play a race and 30% of the time the driver tries to ram me into a wall but I have no idea when and where he will do it. You take your turn and try to get a higher score than me. The driver also tries to ram you 30% of the time. Both of our races would be different but the same in the ways that matter.

 

Except you're oversimplifying things and there are other factors which will also have an effect on the 30% driver you're not considering. If 30% drivers are spawned randomly during play the odds go out of the window because, along with their position having an effect on how successful an attack will be, you might deal with seven whilst i only face two. If there's a proximity check made either before or after the random test to see if an attack will happen those 30% odds are skewed downwards because they're either evaluated and then ignored or only evaluated on occasion. If 30% interacts with other vehicles or the landscape those interactions and the results they have alter his odds of an attack. And if the odds of an attack are reduced in some cases, the lesser odds of a successful attack drop as well.

 

[Schizophretard]

 

 

Except you're oversimplifying things and there are other factors which will also have an effect on the 30% driver you're not considering. If 30% drivers are spawned randomly during play the odds go out of the window because, along with their position having an effect on how successful an attack will be, you might deal with seven whilst i only face two. If there's a proximity check made either before or after the random test to see if an attack will happen those 30% odds are skewed downwards because they're either evaluated and then ignored or only evaluated on occasion. If 30% interacts with other vehicles or the landscape those interactions and the results they have alter his odds of an attack. And if the odds of an attack are reduced in some cases, the lesser odds of a successful attack drop as well.

 

I never said anything about randomly spawning cars in this example. There is one of each driver with their personality traits in the race. Each driver will behave according to their personality traits for both of us. That is the only element of randomness.

[TMR]

I never said anything about randomly spawning cars in this example.

 

No, and because you didn't specify either way that made it impossible to evaluate properly so i had to wing it a bit...

 

There is one of each driver with their personality traits in the race. Each driver will behave according to their personality traits for both of us. That is the only element of randomness.

 

That still doesn't give enough information to work through, because a racing game isn't purely about that single aspect of how the AI cars interact with the player. Is the landscape a fixed map or generated randomly? Do the computer controlled cars interact with the landscape or each other and for the latter case do they use the same rules as they do for the player or different ones? And even if there's no randomness to car spawning, what exactly is governing their release into the playfield?

[SlowCoder]

Wow ... I'm gone for a few days, and suddenly there's a whole lot of infighting. Breathe deep guys, and realize we're not always going to agree. But just because we don't agree doesn't mean we should sling mud.

[+Gemintronic]

Wow ... I'm gone for a few days, and suddenly there's a whole lot of infighting. Breathe deep guys, and realize we're not always going to agree. But just because we don't agree doesn't mean we should sling mud.

 

If you look closely it's actually turned into a thread where Random Terrain argues with himself. This is the gold carmel_andrews probably didn't expect but needs to pay attention to. He describes how games should be. Static puzzles should die a horrible death.

[Schizophretard]

 

 

No, and because you didn't specify either way that made it impossible to evaluate properly so i had to wing it a bit...

 

 

 

That still doesn't give enough information to work through, because a racing game isn't purely about that single aspect of how the AI cars interact with the player. Is the landscape a fixed map or generated randomly? Do the computer controlled cars interact with the landscape or each other and for the latter case do they use the same rules as they do for the player or different ones? And even if there's no randomness to car spawning, what exactly is governing their release into the playfield?

 

I specified that I'm focusing on one element of randomness with,"If the same race car drivers in the same cars, on the same track, with the same weather conditions... did multiple races then every race would be different." All the other details of the game are irrelevant because they have the traits that you would already consider an even playing field. Instead of the the cars having the exact same pattern like the cars in Odyssey 2's Speedway!, the sameness of a pattern is exchanged for a sameness of personalities. We would be racing at the same level of difficulty instead of memorizing a pattern at the same level of difficulty. I'm not going to design a game and give every single detail just to express a simple point. I'm struggling to figure out why you are not understanding the point. The point is that games can exist with scoring opportunities being the same for all players because they are dealing with the same odds. I know this to be true because I have experienced it myself. Maybe I'm struggling to express it because you have never played a game like that and can't relate? I don't know. I just know that it shouldn't be this hard for me to express this point.

[Chuck D. Head]

Never before has randomness been so predictable!

 

I will just say that there is plenty of room for more randomness in games overall. Yes, static experiences are mostly the norm, I enjoy many of them. I like puzzle games; many of them have tons of static levels and I can check them off one by one and not feel I have missed anything; sometimes completing a finite experience is good. But once I play all the puzzles, there is no going back, at least for several years. Games that add an (substantial) additional mode with random play give me the best of both worlds.

 

Now, Pitfall II is an example that gets brought up in this discussion a lot, at least by RT. I am still trying to get a perfect score on this, and once this bit of masochism is fullfilled I probably wont play it again until I am drooling creamed corn in assisted living. If there were a random mode (ignoring any programming obstacles) I would play it indefinitely.

[TMR]

I specified that I'm focusing on one element of randomness with,"If the same race car drivers in the same cars, on the same track, with the same weather conditions... did multiple races then every race would be different." All the other details of the game are irrelevant because they have the traits that you would already consider an even playing field.

 

And what stops this one pretty significant change in logic from skewing that even playing field...? Without knowing how the rest of the game around that element is shaped it's impossible for either of us to even estimate what effect it'll be having on other elements in the game.

 

You've got a single element which you've tried to bolt into something that you feel i would "already consider an even playing field", but that means that either i now know the whole better than you to see the pitfalls in implementation or it's an unmapped hypothetical and neither of us has the information required to properly evaluate it.

 

I'm struggling to figure out why you are not understanding the point.

 

i understand the point but don't agree with it.

[Schizophretard]

 

 

And what stops this one pretty significant change in logic from skewing that even playing field...? Without knowing how the rest of the game around that element is shaped it's impossible for either of us to even estimate what effect it'll be having on other elements in the game.

 

You've got a single element which you've tried to bolt into something that you feel i would "already consider an even playing field", but that means that either i now know the whole better than you to see the pitfalls in implementation or it's an unmapped hypothetical and neither of us has the information required to properly evaluate it.

 

 

 

i understand the point but don't agree with it.

 

What stops it skewing that even playing field is that we are both challenging the same drivers with unchanging attributes. It would be a simulation of a race instead of a simulation of driving through a pattern of moving traffic cones that look like cars.

 

It's already an even playing field because the track is unchanging. It isn't important how it is. It is irrelevant because the point is that it would have nonrandom attributes that we would agree is an even playing field and I'm trying to get you to look at how this even playing field would still be even if we exchanged cars that moved in a pattern for cars that behave like they have drivers controlling them. I added in a single element instead of many because I'm struggling to just get you to focus on that one and only one is needed.

 

I have yet to see evidence in your responses that you understand my point. If you understood my point I would be able to see your comprehension is your responses. I don't see it. It feels more like trying different ways to try to successfully express my point instead of a debate about my point. If I try a complex example then your responses don't read like you get it and if I try a simple example to try to make it easier for you then you think I'm oversimplifying things.

 

But since you seem to need a complete game and to know all the attributes then I'll bring up Seaweed Assault again. I play tested it for RT to give him feedback and helped him balance everything out including the difficulty level. I have played more times than I can count. There have been times I played for hours on one game. Every time I play it is different but the difficulty level and scoring potential is the same. I deal with the same odds every time but the odds are never in or against my favor. They balance out to give a consistent difficulty. I haven't experienced a high score from good luck or a low score from bag luck. It is an even playing field. The results of every game has been from me doing the right things or the wrong things. Read the manual and play the game. Learn every attribute of the game. When you know the game post a score of at least 50,000 points. That shouldn't be too difficult once you know the game. Explain to me how you got the 50,000 points from luck instead of skill. Explain to me how every game has a different difficulty level. Explain to me how every game doesn't have the scoring potential to maximize the score. Show me what I have missed from my many hours of personal experience. I know this is a lot to ask but it is a faster way to make my point than coming up with every attribute of a racing game to make a point about exchanging a pattern for drivers without leaving any room for you to add more attributes to change it from a game of controlled randomness to totally random chaos. Here is a game that already has all it's attributes. I would be impressed if you get to 50,000 points with good luck when I can only do it with skill. You might have trouble with it though because even though the game has a rhythm to it and somewhat has a pattern it isn't completely predictable. It requires more skill than memorizing and reacting to known patterns. If I'm wrong and it is a game of luck then you should be able to get 50,000 points without those skills and just get lucky. You might also see my challenge as a waste of time and I would agree.