PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Randomness: A Seed of Doubt
April 22nd 2002, 14:22 CEST by m0nty

The new 1.21f patch for Civilization 3 introduces a new option to the world-building screen to incorporate more randomness into the game mechanics, which raises issues about game design and customer feedback in patches.

Previous versions of the Civ3 executable generated a single "random seed", a string of numbers which is referred to by the in-game random number generator, and used it for all battles and other events within the Civ3 game which required an unpredictable element. The random number is usually entered into an equation with a number extrapolated from the PC's internal clock to generate the random number, although in the case of Civ3 it seems the random seed is the only external element introduced into the equation.

What this meant in game terms pre-1.21f was that the "random" events would stay predictable after they happened, so that if your Musketeer lost a fight with a Rifleman, when you loaded a savegame back up again and went through the same movements, you would lose that fight in exactly the same way. The new patch allows the option for the program to regenerate a new random seed every time a game is loaded, so that quickload-freaks who want their Spearman to beat that Tank can conceivably keep reloading and reloading until the random numbers fall their way.

Personally, I thought the original design to maintain the original random seed was a good one, because it forced savegame whores like me to come up with clever strategies to win battles and achieve in-game goals, rather than just hitting reload every time they lost a unit. Playing with the new patch with the option to change the seed at every reload makes it feel like a different game - one which took the requests of players too far. Some of the fans even complained that the options couldn't be changed for old saved games. There are some times as a developer, I would contend, when you have to disregard the bleating of the hardcore fans for their pet gameplay change and stick to your design principles.

Do you agree, or is the customer always right? Should developers cave in to pressure from gamers to let them win with less effort by, in effect, breaking their game? Are savegame whores playing the game wrong? How often do you hit reload just because you lost one hit point or 5% stamina, or spent more than  the minimum amount of ammo to kill the umpteenth Skaarj, shambler or Stormtrooper?
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Randomness: A Seed of Doubt

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by LPMiller
2002-04-22 14:46:54
lpmiller@gotapex.com http://www.gotapex.com
I dunno if I want to say First! or just What?

Will warez for food.
#2 by EvilAsh
2002-04-22 14:52:39
evilash@eviladam.com www.eviladam.com
What?

On 2002-04-18 04:47:00  Some Sick fool said this.
"awww yeah, buzz baby, buzzzzz just for me."
#3 by Ashiran
2002-04-22 15:33:08
If they listen to the fans. They end up looking bad. If they don't listen to the fans. They end up looking bad.

Looks bad.

Civilized barcode, quick id.
#4 by jafd
2002-04-22 15:35:22
I'm pretty happy that something like this is implemented in the game. I remember playing Civ1, and wasting a good 30 minutes on various saving and loading posititions before I realized - duh! - that it was rigged that way. I mean, yes, it's more "fair" to have the seed never ever change, but sometimes having the option to push past an event is desirable.

Over time I realized that I very much preferred playing "for keeps," as it were; but I see nothing wrong with allowing the user to decide whether this happens or not.

I'm not too clear from the topic... is this something that is toggleable in the config? Or is it assumed that people who don't want to quickload a battle to get different results... simply won't quickload? I can see a problem in the latter instance... similar to the "Iron Man" option that Wizardry 8 provides, I'd like it if one could explicitly lock the seed so, so as to remove all doubt or temptation later on.

Philosophical differences aside, it isn't a good idea to start making changes to the core (single player) game months after release, without including an on/off switch. Even if 90% of the installed base would never flip that toggle more than once, it's the principle of the thing. People don't like to be forced to change, that's for sure. You gotta ease 'em into it.

Unless you like hearing them scream, though. Which is conceivable in this instance; are they working on Civ3 mutli, or what?

You just don't like being told what to do. Admit it.
#5 by Martin
2002-04-22 15:48:26
http://www.mocol.nu
I don't remember if I voted yes for this topic. I can't think of anything significant to say so I probably didn't.

Oh well, I'll just hijack it and get it over with...

I'm looking to buy a cheap rig as my old Celeron 375 Mhz for some reason isn't cutting it anymore. I'm thinkíng along the lines of an Asus A7V-133 with a Duron 1 GHz to go along but I'm not sure if my budget allows that setup. I have a GeForce2 GTS that will have to do as well as 256 Megs of RAM so the main problem is CPU speed.

Should I go with a Celeron instead or perhaps a used PIII / Athlon? I don't have a lot of options when it comes to new motherboards so it's Asus or FiC if I buy new stuff.

Any thoughts?

-- Martin
Enough with giving away love. Now I'm sad and lonely. I need a hug.
#6 by Hugin
2002-04-22 15:55:25
lmccain@nber.org
*shrug* Freedom and choice are good things.  Options are good things. Any player can play any game in a cheesy way, and if that's what brings them joy, who is another gamer or developer to say "Oh, you aren't playing it correctly" ? (not counting multiplayer of course, your ability to be cheesy ends at my nose)

Do people really reload saves in strategy games over and over just to hope to get fiddly random advantages in battles? I never imagined, honestly. My feeling in strategy games always was, you win or you lose.  You can try it again to "win cleaner" or "win differently" if you think you have a really clever alternate idea, something stylish, or try it again with a different strategy if you just plain lost, or go back to save to avoid a battle altogether if you think it was a bad idea.  But not reloading over and over sheerly hoping that the "die rolls" will go your way this time, especially not in order to save a unit here or there.  Pfft.  Suck it up.
#7 by piramida
2002-04-22 15:56:43
Reseeding each load in strategy games is cheating built-in the game.

signatures are stupid.
#8 by mrbloo
2002-04-22 16:12:37
mrbloo2000@hotmail.com
Damn, must see if this patch will allow me to finish my game.  Good stuff though M0nty.  Never realised it worked like that.  It was a bit hard to spot in Civ1 though as the AI cheated fairly outragously - I'd never attack a spearman with just one tank :)
#9 by Greg
2002-04-22 17:05:25
Wait a second, the end of the topic turned the conversation away from randomness, and into savegames...

Greg

-Swallow it all and be glad, for a shilling I've paid and a shilling's worth I'll be having!
#10 by Darkseid-D
2002-04-22 17:09:04
rogerboal@hotmail.com
motherboard

Epox 8kha+

chip

Athlon xp 1600 oem

Ram

www.Crucial.com 256mb pc2100 DDR


AMD are currently phasing out the DURON line, youre better off going for the full Athlon/XP anyway, theres not a great deal of a price difference.

www.pricewatch.com will give you an idea on prices.


I have the above rig (with 512mbs of ddr ram) and I have to say its been THE most trouble free motherboard Ive ever had, put it in, plug everything in and away it goes, no real tweaking or workarounds, no foible or wacko behaviour needing to be tolerated.

it just works, thats the highest accolade I can bestow on any setup.

Ds

Never argue with an idiot, theyll drag you down onto their level, then beat you with experience.
#11 by m0nty
2002-04-22 17:17:11
http://tinfinger.blogspot.com
jafd (#4):
I'm not too clear from the topic... is this something that is toggleable in the config? Or is it assumed that people who don't want to quickload a battle to get different results... simply won't quickload? I can see a problem in the latter instance... similar to the "Iron Man" option that Wizardry 8 provides, I'd like it if one could explicitly lock the seed so, so as to remove all doubt or temptation later on.

The option of whether or not to change the random seed is included in the second world-building screen - the one where you choose your civ, how many opponents, and optional rules. It can't be changed mid-game, which is why it won't work with old saved games.
#12 by m0nty
2002-04-22 17:24:17
http://tinfinger.blogspot.com
Hugin, you would understand that the Civ series brings out the anal retentive wargamer lurking in the hearts of many young children brought up on a diet of GI Joe and Stratego. The Highest Score table adds to replayability, making you want to save every unit and defend every last tile of turf, just to gain that extra percentile when the credits play. This is true of every game with a High Score table, not just strategy games - something also used to great effect with pinball games.
#13 by Bailey
2002-04-22 17:34:46
Told you it would happen, m0nty.

Myself, personally, I favor the old adage of "the developer owes you nothing", but more accurately, once I buy the game, they owe me patches. Once I buy. Until it's functioning as intended/ promised. They do not, however, owe a vocal minority of whiny forum fanbois a game tweaked to their particular playing style. If a company managed to get all the way to gold master without your help, they can probably get the rest of the way on their own as well. Sure, there's some people who offer great, viable solutions to in-game issues, but it's the developers to sift through five million bits of dross for one post/ e-mail of gold.

One of the few reasons I actually endorse Verant. They might be a bloated, arrogant, derivative and dull product creator, but they learned a long time ago, as Kelly Flock put it, "you just fuck us up".

Words to live by.

What would Jesus warez?
#14 by jafd
2002-04-22 17:39:37
If it is toggleable, then I have zero complaints; I'd love to see more games include options to adjust low-level game rules, then let the player decide what kind of game they want to play. (Yeah, it'd be nice if you could bring it into (or out of) in-progress games, but, whaddya want, a pony?)

Pretty much I want to be able to bring down the console in every game I ever play, and be able to tweak almost everything at will; including the ability to tweak. Of course the console doesn't mean anything without the commands available to be entered into it, but I'm definitely of the mind that says Options = Good.

You just don't like being told what to do. Admit it.
#15 by Hugin
2002-04-22 17:49:54
lmccain@nber.org
Monty, I guess I didn't get my central point across very well.  I don't have any problem with replaying from save in a strategy game in order to get a better and better result, for example, a friend of mine and I got tremendous enjoyment out of MechCommander by repeatedly trying to out-lowball each other on the mission weight allotment.  But if you're replaying not to try something actually different, or not because there was simply a massive screwup (you had the right idea but simply clicked the wrong place or sneezed at the wrong time or whatever, and ruined the "test") but because you are hoping the game engine itself will reward you at some quantum level with a wee bit of randomness in your favor, you're no longer strategizing, you're just dierolling.  When the strategizing ends in a strategy game, it's time to move on to the next game. IMO.  Whether the game actually allows for a bit of randomness doesn't matter too much for me.
#16 by LPMiller
2002-04-22 17:52:01
lpmiller@gotapex.com http://www.gotapex.com
Randomness is a strategy.

Any general will do anything to get the greatest advantage, and that means loading the deck in your favor as much as possible. A Random factor is just realistic.

Will warez for food.
#17 by Hugin
2002-04-22 18:04:49
lmccain@nber.org
Randomness is not a strategy.  It's a realistic fact of war that's reasonable to try to model in a game, and it's a factor that a smart commander tries to expect and compensate for, but it's not a strategy.  

If you mean "Within the game it's a strategy to keep replaying till the randomness goes in your favor", then sure, but it's awfully lame, it's like saying "quintupling the size of my army in any given combat is a strategy." "Hm..I know what'll extend my enjoyment of this game and test my mastery of it!  Replaying over and over until a factor completely out of my control happens to go my way! Ha hah!"

Not a strategy.  And not fun, as I understand the word, any more than winning at monopoly by rerolling all your dierolls until you land exactly where you want to land every time.  You might as well flip a toggle that says "give me the perfect outcome every time and save me the hours of reloading please"
#18 by MCorleone
2002-04-22 18:09:00
Darkseid, wasn't there a story a few weeks back in the tech world that the Epox wasn't to spec and actually had some resistors close to the slot, getting in the way of certain AGP cards?  The AGP "pro" cards I believe.

Build a man a fire and you'll keep him warm for the rest of the night.  Light a man on fire and you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
#19 by Charles
2002-04-22 18:15:15
www.bluh.org
Being able to reload till you get it right... why don't they just add a 'godmode' cheat?  It's the same thing, only you can save time by not reloading.  Essentially, someone who uses randomized seeds in a game like civ is only trying to cheat their way past the game anyway.  

Where is the strategy in winning every time?  Or knowing that if you need to win, you just can?

I remember playing the first civ waaaay back.  And you know, I don't even think I used the save feature.  Was there even a save feature in the first civ?  Regardless, being able to reload for a different outcome on the same battle is pure cheese in a strategy game.  Sucks the strategy right out of it.

Bailey:  Beep beep, motherfucker.
#20 by Hugin
2002-04-22 18:28:19
lmccain@nber.org
But see, don't misunderstand me Nova.  Behavior like that on the part of the player is pure cheese.  But having a certain randomness in the game in and of itself isn't, I don't think.  If I'm trying to crack a strategic puzzle, I actually kind of like that different iterations of the battle have a slight random factor.  It means that I can learn from mistakes, or try new ideas, but I can't confidently assume that everything will play out exactly as I expect, which is nice.  An element of risk remains, my improving ideas vs. the problem + the sheer cussedness of war.
#21 by m0nty
2002-04-22 18:43:59
http://tinfinger.blogspot.com
Hugin, I understood what you said... I'm just guilty of your accusation, and trying to weasel my way out of it. :)

This is an aspect of the anal retentiveness of wargamers, and all other gamers who love minmaxing and squeezing the very last bit of advantage out of the numbers underlying the game they're playing. There's a big crossover here with RPGs: there is a similarity with the "set HP die at max" rule that the Baldur's Gate series included as a checkbox in the options screen.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that some people play games because it offers a break from the intimidating complexity of the real world, where they can be frustrated and stymied at every turn, and offers them a virtual environment in which they are an omnipotent godlike being with the power to reload whenever something doesn't go perfectly well for them.
#22 by BobJustBob
2002-04-22 19:05:20
This is just a dressed-up version of the ingame saves discussion. Slick move monty, you succeeded where Max failed.
#23 by Hugin
2002-04-22 19:11:34
lmccain@nber.org
Oh sure, I'm cool with that.  I've argued in favor of "godliness and simplicity" over realism before.  And god knows I'm anal retentive in my wargaming (Anyone ever play Imperial Starfire, or as we call it "Accountants in Space"?)

But I try to beat down my powergamer instincts nowadays.  Case in point, just last night I was roleplaying.  Old school pen paper and dice roleplaying with my friends, and at the end of the session, I put experience points not into melee and archery and sorcery (which we did a lot of)...hm, okay, I put one point into archery...but anyway, my point is, I put a point into History, of all things, because we got told a nice "ancient prophesy/secret history of the kingdom" type thing (ancient valley, hidden temple, forgotten gods, you know), and I figured "Hey, I know more about the realm I grew up in now."  

That's never going to really be useful in the game, from a powergaming point of view it's a wasted point, but it just seemed appropriate.
#24 by m0nty
2002-04-22 19:15:52
http://tinfinger.blogspot.com
Bob, I see both randomness and save issues as two parts of a wider problem: the developer wants to make a game which is a challenge, and thus must include random elements to make it interesting and difficult for the gamer, but the gamer wants to beat the game despite its random nature, and complains if they can't beat it using their favourite little tactic. There's a fine line between making the game challenging enough for the majority of gamers, and also making it a challenge for the hardcore anal retentives with time to play for 8 hours per day until they have the mad skillz.

Easy, Normal and Hard difficulty settings help this to some degree, but sometimes the requests by fans are for gameplay changes which change the underlying nature of the game, by fritzing some variable or game mechanic which isn't handled in the difficulty setting. This is what the "change random seed" option is all about, IMHO.
#25 by Martin
2002-04-22 19:34:27
http://www.mocol.nu
Darkseid: Thanks for the feedback, I've heard a lot of good about the Epox as well but I already have 256 megs of PC133 RAM that I won't throw away as buying new memory is totally out of the question. I have about $200 to spend on new stuff and that have to include a mobo and a CPU. Which roughly boils down to an A7V-133 and a Duron 1 GHz+ here in Sweden.

-- Martin
Business as usual.
#26 by zimbardo_ugly
2002-04-22 19:42:14
zimbardo_ugly@hotmail.com
Randomness is a great part of the appeal in strategy. And giving control of low-level rules to the player is always desired. I would just like to see the same distinction made between playing with/without "new-random-seed-on-every-load" as there exists between difficulty levels. It is basically a cheat and high-scores of people playing with/without the option should not be compared. But then again, if "retentives" need the option to replay until they get it perfect, they would probably not be satisfied with it if that meant being classified as sub-mammals in the hi-score board.

It all leads to the conclusion that strategy gamers are the new Nazis - which is probably closest to the truth the Nazi statement has ever been.

- skazal Rzhevskij i razmazal govno po bil'jardnomu stolu...
#27 by LesJarvis
2002-04-22 20:08:53
It seems there should be a way too use random seeds while still actively discouraging quickloading.  Instead of creating a random seed for every battle, why not create a new seed ever 8-12 turns or something (keeping the number of turns between re-randoming random within a range also,) and not tell the player (obviously.)  That would more or less maintain the facade of randomness, but quickloading wouldn't get you anywhere, as you don't know when the randomization took place.

As the situation stands, if you have the option who cares?  It's a single player game, and if someone finds constantly re-loading fun and rewarding, more power to 'em.
#28 by jafd
2002-04-22 20:17:07
I don't know that there's any reason to discourage quickloading. Tell the truth up front in the config, let the player decide what kind of game they want to play, that's it, done.

You just don't like being told what to do. Admit it.
#29 by mrbloo
2002-04-22 20:20:35
mrbloo2000@hotmail.com
I seem to remember that in Civilisation 1 the AI would randomly build wonders.  One turn they wouldn't even be building it and the next turn it would be theirs.  A recognised tactic at the time was just to reload the last turn if the AI 'built' something you were close to completion on.  Next (reloaded) turn, they wouldn't build it.  Seems to jar with the saved seed at the start of the game thing.  It might explain why some games seemed easy and others seemed hard though.
#30 by LPMiller
2002-04-22 20:26:48
lpmiller@gotapex.com http://www.gotapex.com
In thread hijacking news, I think Apache has finally hit the vino one too many times...I mean, what the hell is going on over there?

Will warez for food.
#31 by crash
2002-04-22 20:27:34
Nova:

Where is the strategy in winning every time?  Or knowing that if you need to win, you just can?

just figure, perhaps, that your average mainstream gamer isn't napoleon or patton. the only way to learn how to do something is to do it wrong, then see how it's done right. fixed-seed reloads let you do this.

of course, you could complain that goddamnit, it needs to be realistic and that's how battles ARE is random and if you don't like the heat get out of the kitchen. then you could join the flight-sim diehards in a couple of years bitching about how no one makes games for you any more.

for pretty much the same reason.

- if you can laugh at it, you can live with it.
- "Hey, how 'bout this: fuck you." -LPMiller
#32 by LPMiller
2002-04-22 20:28:41
lpmiller@gotapex.com http://www.gotapex.com
How fortunate then, that most of the folks that play these games will never be responsible for the defense of this or any other country.

Will warez for food.
#33 by Bailey
2002-04-22 20:32:33
I never understood the flight sim crowd. I thought the point of games was to escape the tedium of real life.

What would Jesus warez?
#34 by Hugin
2002-04-22 20:43:45
lmccain@nber.org
LPMiller...could you give me a clue as to what I'm supposed to be looking at?  I don't go to VE, so...what's the story?  Nothing leapt out at me as being unusually stupid/ugly/pretty/weird/pornographic, etc.
#35 by Charles
2002-04-22 20:44:43
www.bluh.org
crash, I personally don't care if someone needs to cheat to win.  My questions weren't really there to be answered... I just personally can't understand that line of thought.  

I think an interesting thing is that this does come down to the developer forcing his vision on to the player.  I think jafd is right on this one.  Let the player decide.  Forcing the desicion for them, just alienates people who might otherwise enjoy the game and play.

Still though, I don't understand how people can enjoy a strategy game if they are able to make sure they win, every time.  heh.

Bailey:  Beep beep, motherfucker.
#36 by LPMiller
2002-04-22 20:45:03
lpmiller@gotapex.com http://www.gotapex.com
So...the one post, at 2:15 am, promising news, with no followup, isn't a hint?

Will warez for food.
#37 by Hugin
2002-04-22 20:47:47
lmccain@nber.org
Erm...I just see a general entry page with a bunch of links to junk...no promises of news, no 2:15 am...?

Do you have some cookie based custom view maybe?
#38 by LPMiller
2002-04-22 20:50:31
lpmiller@gotapex.com http://www.gotapex.com
oh sure, NOW he changes it. Apache, you fucker.

Will warez for food.
#39 by Martin
2002-04-22 20:56:29
http://www.mocol.nu
I'm baking right now. Does that make me less of a man?

-- Martin
Business as usual.
#40 by VeeSPIKE
2002-04-22 21:20:24
Bailey - post #33
I never understood the flight sim crowd. I thought the point of games was to escape the tedium of real life.


The problem with the flight-sim crowd is the same problem that the rest of the gaming community (such as it is) has: a highly vocal minority that cannot and will not be placated. They spend all their time peeling back layers trying to find that last little bit that they think is wrong, and when they find it, they jump on the high horse and rant for all they are worth until a) they get their way, or b) they find another problem to rant about.

I will say this though, the flight-sim crowd is infinitely preferable to the l337 d00d contingent that plagues the FPS/MMORPG crowd. For the most part, they tend to be more tolerant, particularly in regards to newbies. As long as you don't start pressing hot buttons, you can actually get help from most of them.

Having said that, I agree that they are overly concerned with the concept of realism. To the point where they would rather have a game that is realistic to the nth detail, rather than close enough but playable. As an example, IL2 Sturmovik is a great game, with a major flaw. It is a beast to play, because you have to be concerned with every little detail regarding flight. You spend as much time as possible simply keeping the aircraft up in the air as you do anything else. Realistic, yeah, but hard to do in your typical desktop environment. And they consider this good. It makes creating games for them difficult and expensive, and they are not a large market to begin with. Microsoft is really the only developer left that has a long track record with their flight sims.

How fortunate then, that most of the folks that play these games will never be responsible for the defense of this or any other country.


There was a story a couple of years ago about a kid who got into the Air Force Academy, based on his simulator performance. He basically walked into the academy knowing everything he needed to know about operating f16's from playing sims at home.
#41 by Bailey
2002-04-22 21:42:01
VeeSPIKE

The problem with the flight-sim crowd is the same problem that the rest of the gaming community (such as it is) has: a highly vocal minority that cannot and will not be placated.

Which is the situation where I would fall back on the sound practice of ignoring the vocal minority. I mean, let's face it, most flight sim sales are likely people who go "Oh cool, planes" and install it, try to play it six times, then walk away. You're talking about an sharply defined niche market with a rather group of complainers. Ignore 'em. They threaten to not buy your product? What, you lose 200 sales? Big deal.

There was a story a couple of years ago about a kid who got into the Air Force Academy, based on his simulator performance. He basically walked into the academy knowing everything he needed to know about operating f16's from playing sims at home.

So he was able to get into the academy with his knowledge, but how much basic training did it take before he could wedge his ass into the cockpit?

What would Jesus warez?
#42 by crash
2002-04-22 22:28:10
LPMiller:

How fortunate then, that most of the folks that play these games will never be responsible for the defense of this or any other country.

not to belabor the point, but perhaps this is the very reason they play these games--because they are not military-trained generals. call it a hunch.

Nova:

Still though, I don't understand how people can enjoy a strategy game if they are able to make sure they win, every time.

perhaps they're playing it as a game, in the hopes that they'll eventually win. perhaps they're not taking Civ3 as a West Point substitute. crazy idea, that people would play games to have fun, but hey, i'm a crazy guy.

- if you can laugh at it, you can live with it.
- "Hey, how 'bout this: fuck you." -LPMiller
#43 by jjohnsen
2002-04-22 22:36:14
http://www.johnsenclan.com
I won't take up too much of your time, but I'd like to make a short personal thread hijack.  I inherited a mobo with a PIII 500 and no markings or logo that i can see.  Also no documentation or box.  I have no idea what kind of mobo it is other than it accepts a PIII 500 and PC100 ram.  Is there any way for me to find out what the fastest processor is that it will accept?

Thanks for any answers and return to this random topic about randomness.

Warez is naughty, saving your game is a personal choice and the coffee was just too damn hot.
#44 by crash
2002-04-22 23:14:10
completely politically incorrect.

with that said, i can't get more than six fatalities at a time.

- if you can laugh at it, you can live with it.
- "Hey, how 'bout this: fuck you." -LPMiller
#45 by Dev
2002-04-22 23:17:17
admin@techillimit.net
#43:

Boot the thing up, hop into the BIOS setup and see if you can glean any manufacturer information from there.

"If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." -- Lewis Carroll
#46 by Charles
2002-04-22 23:24:00
www.bluh.org
crash-
crazy idea, that people would play games to have fun, but hey, i'm a crazy guy.


Of course people play to have fun.  All I'm saying is that personally, I don't find winning non-stop fun, and as such, I can't understand those who do. No need to read any more in to it than what is there.

Bailey:  Beep beep, motherfucker.
#47 by LPMiller
2002-04-22 23:36:00
lpmiller@gotapex.com http://www.gotapex.com
jjohnson, you need this thang here.

Will warez for food.
#48 by Bailey
2002-04-22 23:36:45
crash

The best I got was five kills, three injured.

What would Jesus warez?
#49 by LPMiller
2002-04-22 23:36:58
lpmiller@gotapex.com http://www.gotapex.com
Of course people play to have fun.  All I'm saying is that personally, I don't find winning non-stop fun, and as such, I can't understand those who do. No need to read any more in to it than what is there.


So losing is more fun to you then?

I mean, the ultimate goal of a game is to beat it...to win.  As long as the process of winning is enjoyable, then what's the beef?

Will warez for food.
#50 by BobJustBob
2002-04-22 23:47:14
I like flight sims.

I thought the point of games was to escape the tedium of real life.

Or to do things that I would never be able to do otherwise. And to feel like I really am in control, rather than just hitting a few keys and repeating until my character makes it to the next cutscene.
Besides, all the little details quickly become instinctual. I remember what a bitch it was to learn to play BC3K, but once I did, I remembered.

There's a fine line between making the game challenging enough for the majority of gamers, and also making it a challenge for the hardcore anal retentives with time to play for 8 hours per day until they have the mad skillz.

Sometimes I just want to have fun and have no challenge at all, and sometimes I spend 8 hours a day overcoming a challenge. Usually those require separate games. If I could do both in one game, I would be happy. I suspect many people would.
For example, I thought the easiest setting of the Serious Sam games still required too much work.
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Randomness: A Seed of Doubt

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]