I’m curious why you define requiring memorization and twitch reflexes as real world relevance and not requiring the mental capacity to create and execute strategies. In general, I’d like to see you expand on definitions like this in more detail. For example, is there a specific required reaction time which is theory compliant, and if not, would limiting turn length be noncompliant? Is there an amount of required memorization which is acceptable? I’m particularly interested in your upcoming videos on solvability and simulation. I hope you will provide complete definitions for those two terms, especially solvability. I’d also like to request that you outline a test or set of tests that can conclusively determine whether or not a game is solvable.
You're either giving too much leeway to twitch reflexes and memorization, or you're missing the "all things being equal" part. There's not much you can do beyond sound design to put a blind video game player on the same competitive footing as a sighted video game player if the game is designed for general play and is not excluding sighted players. This also isn't to say however that making a game for blind people would make it not theory-compliant. That would just be the scope of that game (or genre). A real game cannot be a sport. The outcome can only be determined by skill at employing strategy (skill and action of the players). The game cannot violate any part of the theorem. If you have not watched this whole series yet, I encourage you to.
Btw, someone asked the solvability question on the "Fairness and Balance" video, so a variant of the same answer is found there too. Edit: Thre's also some answers in the topics I cover in the recent "Full Customization of Strategy" video
@@GamesbyMarcWolff I suppose then I’d like to know why skill at employing strategy is the only thing that can determine the outcome of a game. Is that a first principle or is there a reason behind it? Regarding the definition of solvability you provided, I’ve reworded it to be more explicit: A solvable game is one in which given any set of initial conditions the outcome can be determined from those conditions alone. Please let me know if this is accurate or if I’m twisting your words in any way.
I think your thoughts are interesting, but I'm confused to a couple of points that you bring up. I think you might be misunderstanding the role that reactions play in fighting games. I'm going to watch some more of your videos to see if I can get a better idea of your philosophy about games. Would you be willing to have a conversation about your ideas?
Sure. My point is very simple though when it comes to the main issue with fighting games. They violate needing to lack real-world relevance because instead of being a game, they're a sport. Physical aptitude matters rather than skill. In a real game, skill and the players' actions alone are what determine the outcome.
You are tearing me apart Lisa (oops, I meant WotC) A reference to "The Room"? Well, I have already talked a lot about MtG! I'll just focus on other things regarding this topic now... Yes, what about "fighting games"... I used to play games such as Soul Calibur 2...tbh never really was a fan of Tekken, Street Fighter etc...? But how could it be possible for a fighting game to lack real world relevance? Isn't the controller or the controls in general the problem? As soon as you have a controller in your hands, isn't there automatically some real world relevance included...humans are not all equals...some have better hands than other humans... Regarding competitiveness/competition: Personally I never really cared about how "competitive" a game should be be...but yes, games should be "competitive" to a certain extent so that the more "competitive" players can actually enjoy the game... How could a fighting game lack real world reference? By implanting chips into our brains that are connected to the game so our brains control the characters? Well, not all brains are equal! It is a dilemma! Controllers, brain chips? I don't think "leveling up" should be a thing with fighting games... Perhaps there could be stats for (physical) strength, speed, (natural defense) resilience, special attack, special defense, special reload speed etc... And a player could "upgrade" a character by practicing a lot with that character...but there shouldn't be a limit...like e.g. resilience 100 max Resilience could/should theoretically be upgraded to 300+ but wouldn't that also imply that a person who has upgraded his character for a very long time has an unfair advantage compared to new players? Even that wouldn't really lack real world relevance! There are always people who will spend much more time playing a certain game than most other individuals! It is a dilemma! Imagine playing a fighting game (you are a beginner) against an experienced player that holds back a lot but he still wins because the stats of his character are much higher...
Thank you for your thoughtful comment Daniel, 1. I'm curious, if you've never cared much about a game's competitiveness, then what other basis for a game do you search for when browsing games? 2. Yes, I think it is and I don't think a controller is the problem. It's definitely the speed at which the game is programmed. I'm not saying a fighting game should appeal to everyone in its mechanics, but anyone who does want to play should have (all things being equal) the same opportunity to be competitive as anyone else. 3. I agree, I don't think leveling in fighting games would be a good idea. Your instincts are very right there. I do think players should have control over their stats though, and their moveset. You should be able to fully customize your fighter's strategy - and I think too there's no good reason that can justify (except cost and time constraints at release maybe) excluding full customization of aesthetic. I think any game that presents that opportunity should make good on that potential in its design. It's like a painter not finishing a painting; it's unprofessional. 4. Yeah, never make a game pay-to-win. That's a big part of a game "lacking real-world relevance". P.S. I don't think brain chips are a good idea, especially because we don't fully understand neurology yet. If we could map any animal's brain, including ours, then I think that technology would have a lot more viability.
@GamesbyMarcWolff Hello! For me it is about "fun", having "fun" etc...as long as I can enjoy a "game" from time to time...ofc if I don't make any significant progress in the "game" there is not really "fun" involved...(it could be too difficult for me to play or it just takes too long to progress) I don't have to become a very competitive player, though... I don't think I ever was a particularly "good" gamer, I was "average" at best... So, for players like me there are no "real" games required...theoretically...or at least they weren't required... I think that is an important point... Ask other people who play certain games why they do it, what they think could be improved etc... For example: Before you talked about games and non-games on your channel, I never really questioned whether "games" should fundamentally change... I just played whatever "game" i wanted to play in the past...if a "game" was fun, I played it a lot...if it wasn't so much fun, I usually stopped playing it after a short period of time...
@@danielobenhaus8100 So, I'm going to challenge you here and say players don't know what they want, but also that you thinking you're an average gamer is specifically because we've only ever had not-games that violated the competitions you may very well be exeedingly good at. I think your explanation shows this a little, but I'm also going to demonstrate it now by asking you a question I think you won't be able to answer, but that given your response you should otherwise logically be responsible for to support your position: Why are games fun for you?
@@danielobenhaus8100 If it's easier, start with a list of two or three titles you never get sick of playing, and something about each of them you always like.
@@GamesbyMarcWolff Ok, just to clarify: I don't have a console right now, I only have a Smartphone (Samsung Galaxy S8), I usually play Animation Throwdown (a pay-to-win "game") So, I can tell you about the console games I never got tired of playing and what I think is/was fun about them... 1. Dragon Quest 8 Journey of the cursed king (PS2): fun and vast world, full of fantasy and imagination, beautiful soundtrack, nice gameplay, interesting creatures, metal slimes (Yeah, I know it is about levelling up and it is pretty much a non-game, but back then I just wanted to play the game, probably my favorite PS2 game back then) 2) Mario Kart 64 (Nintendo 64): Well, it was fun because back then I had more opportunities to play multiplayer with 1-3 additional players, nice "stages", fantasy, imagination, nice soundtrack...pure nostalgia 3. Onimusha Warlords (PS2)/Genma Onimusha (Xbox, Xbox 360): The doll in Genma Onimusha was a bit annoying but the ogre tower was great...overall very nice atmosphere, good soundtrack, good gameplay, fantasy, imagination, zombie demons etc...beautiful scenery 4. Gears of War (1) (Xbox 360): good soundtrack, Good atmosphere, nice "story", good gameplay, imagination, nice weapons...
physicality is true of any game played by a human though. If you're playing a card game -> muscle memory is not too different from learning and memorizing heuristics for certain scenarios. my performance thinking and strategizing can be enhanced by caffeine for another example.
18:15 For reloading specifically there’s definitely room for improvement and some more tactical games might have it best. Staged reloads not just dropping the magazine but allowing the player to shoot a bullet that’s in the chamber if it was a partial reload. The trade off and choice of emptying the gun fully then reloading, doing a partial reload with one bullet still in the chamber, or topping off an internal magazine like on a bolt action rifle
I like how you're thinking, but you're steering right back into simulation. If I were you designing an FPS, I would examine that idea as closely as possible to find out where it was giving players control and how it could be adapted to varied strategies. All the while I'd be making sure that whatever mechanic I ended up with, for whatever reason I was making it, it didn't remove agency from players by making them wait for a reload without anything to do.
You mentioned you've got a simulation video coming, and so you're probably going to go into this in more depth then, but I'm curious about where you draw the line between simulation for simulation's sake and a gameplay mechanic that might derive from a real world action. Sticking with the reloading example it seems to me that you are managing ammunition as a resource and so the decision of when to reload, or how to reload as I saw another commenter suggesting, is a lever given to the player to guide and incorporate into their strategies as opposed to just the arbitrary denial of agency in service of "realism". Apologies if you've covered this elsewhere, but this is the first of your videos I've seen, so feel free to tell me to just watch your other videos if that's the case!
Yeah, I think you've pretty much got it right. If this is your first video though, I recommend watching the entire series to get caught up. I cover additional points in all the past videos that are relevant here.
I played a simple shooter on the Wii where reloading wasted the remaining ammunition in the magazine. It made a strategic decision to manage ammunition with the tactical consequence of reloading during a firefight. I thought it was fantastic but assume I'm in the minority of appreciating that mechanic as I've seen few games do it.
Forgive me if you covered this, but what is a 'real game' to you that doesn't have real world relevance? I feel like you've disqualified literally everything
You should check the description of the video. You may also see by looking at my channel that I've made a number of videos now in this series answering your question. Is this the first of these you've seen?
Unfortunately, no. After 4 years of ongoing research and analysis I have yet to find a real game in all of human history. No game yet before mine appears to be theory-compliant. I don't mention my game much in these videos though because most people have not played it and so the examples would be alienating where a brief explanation alone isn't sufficient. I talk about this in the original theory video and the fact has not changed. If you find anything you think might qualify as theory-compliant then please let me know. I would love to see and maybe get in contact with the developers.
That's actually one of the main reasons I'm releasing all this information publicly and for free. After making this discovery I realized the need for real games and my responsibility to share this with the gaming world. This is something players need to know as buyers so they don't get scammed anymore, and for designers so they can design real games that don't scam players - to say nothing of universities offering degrees in "game design", which they clearly do not know as evidenced both by my discovery and their practices and curriculums (which skirt the subject and funnel students out of the genuine degree programs they should be in for game production, like computer science or analytical philsophy [formal logic], or maybe biology, or math, or physics - anything that uses formal logic - or animation or illustration).
Technical writing and engineering (to some extent) are also getting rightful students funneled out. Those are much more useful and also a genuine degrees.
Go check out my videos on Competition, and no, not every game has real-world relevance. You've misunderstood the concept. I explain it very clearly in this video though, so maybe rewatch this video too.
I misremembered again.
It was the beam struggle.
Customisable fighters - whether in terms of strategy or gear is a really sweet idea.
The reflex based paradigm is, in general, bad for humanity
Thank you
I’m curious why you define requiring memorization and twitch reflexes as real world relevance and not requiring the mental capacity to create and execute strategies.
In general, I’d like to see you expand on definitions like this in more detail. For example, is there a specific required reaction time which is theory compliant, and if not, would limiting turn length be noncompliant? Is there an amount of required memorization which is acceptable?
I’m particularly interested in your upcoming videos on solvability and simulation. I hope you will provide complete definitions for those two terms, especially solvability. I’d also like to request that you outline a test or set of tests that can conclusively determine whether or not a game is solvable.
The answer to your question is covered in the first two minutes of this video,
And in past videos as well. The answer is always the same.
You're either giving too much leeway to twitch reflexes and memorization, or you're missing the "all things being equal" part. There's not much you can do beyond sound design to put a blind video game player on the same competitive footing as a sighted video game player if the game is designed for general play and is not excluding sighted players. This also isn't to say however that making a game for blind people would make it not theory-compliant. That would just be the scope of that game (or genre).
A real game cannot be a sport.
The outcome can only be determined by skill at employing strategy (skill and action of the players). The game cannot violate any part of the theorem.
If you have not watched this whole series yet, I encourage you to.
Also, if you want a clearer definition of solvability, wait no longer:
Being able to determine the winner without gameplay.
Btw, someone asked the solvability question on the "Fairness and Balance" video, so a variant of the same answer is found there too.
Edit: Thre's also some answers in the topics I cover in the recent "Full Customization of Strategy" video
@@GamesbyMarcWolff I suppose then I’d like to know why skill at employing strategy is the only thing that can determine the outcome of a game. Is that a first principle or is there a reason behind it?
Regarding the definition of solvability you provided, I’ve reworded it to be more explicit:
A solvable game is one in which given any set of initial conditions the outcome can be determined from those conditions alone.
Please let me know if this is accurate or if I’m twisting your words in any way.
I think your thoughts are interesting, but I'm confused to a couple of points that you bring up. I think you might be misunderstanding the role that reactions play in fighting games. I'm going to watch some more of your videos to see if I can get a better idea of your philosophy about games. Would you be willing to have a conversation about your ideas?
Sure. My point is very simple though when it comes to the main issue with fighting games. They violate needing to lack real-world relevance because instead of being a game, they're a sport. Physical aptitude matters rather than skill.
In a real game, skill and the players' actions alone are what determine the outcome.
i.e. not physical aptitude in the case of fighting games
You are tearing me apart Lisa (oops, I meant WotC)
A reference to "The Room"?
Well, I have already talked a lot about MtG!
I'll just focus on other things regarding this topic now...
Yes, what about "fighting games"...
I used to play games such as Soul Calibur 2...tbh never really was a fan of Tekken, Street Fighter etc...?
But how could it be possible for a fighting game to lack real world relevance? Isn't the controller or the controls in general the problem?
As soon as you have a controller in your hands, isn't there automatically some real world relevance included...humans are not all equals...some have better hands than other humans...
Regarding competitiveness/competition: Personally I never really cared about how "competitive" a game should be be...but yes, games should be "competitive" to a certain extent so that the more "competitive" players can actually enjoy the game...
How could a fighting game lack real world reference?
By implanting chips into our brains that are connected to the game so our brains control the characters? Well, not all brains are equal!
It is a dilemma!
Controllers, brain chips?
I don't think "leveling up" should be a thing with fighting games...
Perhaps there could be stats for (physical) strength, speed, (natural defense) resilience, special attack, special defense, special reload speed etc...
And a player could "upgrade" a character by practicing a lot with that character...but there shouldn't be a limit...like e.g. resilience 100 max
Resilience could/should theoretically be upgraded to 300+ but wouldn't that also imply that a person who has upgraded his character for a very long time has an unfair advantage compared to new players?
Even that wouldn't really lack real world relevance! There are always people who will spend much more time playing a certain game than most other individuals!
It is a dilemma!
Imagine playing a fighting game (you are a beginner) against an experienced player that holds back a lot but he still wins because the stats of his character are much higher...
Thank you for your thoughtful comment Daniel,
1. I'm curious, if you've never cared much about a game's competitiveness, then what other basis for a game do you search for when browsing games?
2. Yes, I think it is and I don't think a controller is the problem. It's definitely the speed at which the game is programmed. I'm not saying a fighting game should appeal to everyone in its mechanics, but anyone who does want to play should have (all things being equal) the same opportunity to be competitive as anyone else.
3. I agree, I don't think leveling in fighting games would be a good idea. Your instincts are very right there. I do think players should have control over their stats though, and their moveset. You should be able to fully customize your fighter's strategy - and I think too there's no good reason that can justify (except cost and time constraints at release maybe) excluding full customization of aesthetic. I think any game that presents that opportunity should make good on that potential in its design. It's like a painter not finishing a painting; it's unprofessional.
4. Yeah, never make a game pay-to-win. That's a big part of a game "lacking real-world relevance".
P.S. I don't think brain chips are a good idea, especially because we don't fully understand neurology yet. If we could map any animal's brain, including ours, then I think that technology would have a lot more viability.
@GamesbyMarcWolff
Hello!
For me it is about "fun", having "fun" etc...as long as I can enjoy a "game" from time to time...ofc if I don't make any significant progress in the "game" there is not really "fun" involved...(it could be too difficult for me to play or it just takes too long to progress)
I don't have to become a very competitive player, though...
I don't think I ever was a particularly "good" gamer, I was "average" at best...
So, for players like me there are no "real" games required...theoretically...or at least they weren't required...
I think that is an important point...
Ask other people who play certain games why they do it, what they think could be improved etc...
For example: Before you talked about games and non-games on your channel, I never really questioned whether "games" should fundamentally change...
I just played whatever "game" i wanted to play in the past...if a "game" was fun, I played it a lot...if it wasn't so much fun, I usually stopped playing it after a short period of time...
@@danielobenhaus8100 So, I'm going to challenge you here and say players don't know what they want, but also that you thinking you're an average gamer is specifically because we've only ever had not-games that violated the competitions you may very well be exeedingly good at.
I think your explanation shows this a little, but I'm also going to demonstrate it now by asking you a question I think you won't be able to answer, but that given your response you should otherwise logically be responsible for to support your position:
Why are games fun for you?
@@danielobenhaus8100 If it's easier, start with a list of two or three titles you never get sick of playing, and something about each of them you always like.
@@GamesbyMarcWolff
Ok, just to clarify: I don't have a console right now, I only have a Smartphone (Samsung Galaxy S8), I usually play Animation Throwdown (a pay-to-win "game")
So, I can tell you about the console games I never got tired of playing and what I think is/was fun about them...
1. Dragon Quest 8 Journey of the cursed king (PS2): fun and vast world, full of fantasy and imagination, beautiful soundtrack, nice gameplay, interesting creatures, metal slimes (Yeah, I know it is about levelling up and it is pretty much a non-game, but back then I just wanted to play the game, probably my favorite PS2 game back then)
2) Mario Kart 64 (Nintendo 64):
Well, it was fun because back then I had more opportunities to play multiplayer with 1-3 additional players, nice "stages", fantasy, imagination, nice soundtrack...pure nostalgia
3. Onimusha Warlords (PS2)/Genma Onimusha (Xbox, Xbox 360):
The doll in Genma Onimusha was a bit annoying but the ogre tower was great...overall very nice atmosphere, good soundtrack, good gameplay, fantasy, imagination, zombie demons etc...beautiful scenery
4. Gears of War (1) (Xbox 360): good soundtrack, Good atmosphere, nice "story", good gameplay, imagination, nice weapons...
Seriously, forget those people
You're doing god's work
Keep it up man
physicality is true of any game played by a human though. If you're playing a card game -> muscle memory is not too different from learning and memorizing heuristics for certain scenarios. my performance thinking and strategizing can be enhanced by caffeine for another example.
That's not true the way it affects playability though.
So no, it's not true of every title.
18:15 For reloading specifically there’s definitely room for improvement and some more tactical games might have it best. Staged reloads not just dropping the magazine but allowing the player to shoot a bullet that’s in the chamber if it was a partial reload. The trade off and choice of emptying the gun fully then reloading, doing a partial reload with one bullet still in the chamber, or topping off an internal magazine like on a bolt action rifle
I like how you're thinking, but you're steering right back into simulation. If I were you designing an FPS, I would examine that idea as closely as possible to find out where it was giving players control and how it could be adapted to varied strategies.
All the while I'd be making sure that whatever mechanic I ended up with, for whatever reason I was making it, it didn't remove agency from players by making them wait for a reload without anything to do.
You mentioned you've got a simulation video coming, and so you're probably going to go into this in more depth then, but I'm curious about where you draw the line between simulation for simulation's sake and a gameplay mechanic that might derive from a real world action. Sticking with the reloading example it seems to me that you are managing ammunition as a resource and so the decision of when to reload, or how to reload as I saw another commenter suggesting, is a lever given to the player to guide and incorporate into their strategies as opposed to just the arbitrary denial of agency in service of "realism". Apologies if you've covered this elsewhere, but this is the first of your videos I've seen, so feel free to tell me to just watch your other videos if that's the case!
Yeah, I think you've pretty much got it right. If this is your first video though, I recommend watching the entire series to get caught up. I cover additional points in all the past videos that are relevant here.
I played a simple shooter on the Wii where reloading wasted the remaining ammunition in the magazine. It made a strategic decision to manage ammunition with the tactical consequence of reloading during a firefight.
I thought it was fantastic but assume I'm in the minority of appreciating that mechanic as I've seen few games do it.
@@GamesbyMarcWolff I'll definitely be checking out the rest of the series, as this one was fascinating!
@@timevans7096 Thank you
I am starting to like the theory, specially this one, a really coherent way to frame these business malpractice issues.
Forgive me if you covered this, but what is a 'real game' to you that doesn't have real world relevance? I feel like you've disqualified literally everything
You should check the description of the video.
You may also see by looking at my channel that I've made a number of videos now in this series answering your question.
Is this the first of these you've seen?
What are some examples of "real games"? Is that another video?
Unfortunately, no.
After 4 years of ongoing research and analysis I have yet to find a real game in all of human history. No game yet before mine appears to be theory-compliant. I don't mention my game much in these videos though because most people have not played it and so the examples would be alienating where a brief explanation alone isn't sufficient.
I talk about this in the original theory video and the fact has not changed.
If you find anything you think might qualify as theory-compliant then please let me know. I would love to see and maybe get in contact with the developers.
That's actually one of the main reasons I'm releasing all this information publicly and for free.
After making this discovery I realized the need for real games and my responsibility to share this with the gaming world.
This is something players need to know as buyers so they don't get scammed anymore, and for designers so they can design real games that don't scam players - to say nothing of universities offering degrees in "game design", which they clearly do not know as evidenced both by my discovery and their practices and curriculums (which skirt the subject and funnel students out of the genuine degree programs they should be in for game production, like computer science or analytical philsophy [formal logic], or maybe biology, or math, or physics - anything that uses formal logic - or animation or illustration).
Technical writing and engineering (to some extent) are also getting rightful students funneled out. Those are much more useful and also a genuine degrees.
What is a skill?
I suggest watching the rest of this series, from the start.
You just disowned each and every game that exists because every game has real world relevance. It us the very point of "competitiveness".
Go check out my videos on Competition, and no, not every game has real-world relevance.
You've misunderstood the concept.
I explain it very clearly in this video though, so maybe rewatch this video too.
Oh hai mark