Burnt out on gaming. Games burnt out on me.
Michael Vondung
me. I even branched out to other genres, like action and simulations, but
in the end I just spent quite a bit of money on games that ended up on the
shelf within a few hours. Quite literally.
I've been playing computer games for over two decades (and I was a teen
already when I started, I didn't begin playing at two years, like so many
today), so I have seen quite a number of games. Years ago, there were games
that really "grabbed" me and held me under their spell for months if not
years, but nowadays, nothing seems to interest me. Nothing appears to
really appeal to me, although that doesn't mean that nothing fails to
attract me. Quite a few games catch my attention, but they never live up to
the excitement they promise.
Granted, one could raise the argument that perhaps I developed ADD at my
advanced age (I don't really believe in ADD and consider it to be yet
another attempt at explaining the shortcomings of today's "inhumane"
education and failed social system), but I don't have the same problem
with, say, books. I read novels from the first page to the last, without
ever getting distracted or losing focus, and often pick them up again after
a few years have passed, so it's not a matter of getting easily distracted.
So, what is my problem? Have I become jaded and "seen it all"? Or have
games become stale, lacking in innovation and freshness? I'm tempted to
blame myself, because I cannot see games like Pitfall or North & South
capture me today, though a Dungeon Master or Elite could probably do it.
Likewise, the Ultima games in a "modern outfit" would do, but no one is
actually developing such games anymore. All we get these days are games
that visually blow your mind in the first three hours, and then make you
realise just how much potential in the gameplay area was wasted.
So, what do I want? A game like UU-Stygian Abyss, a RPG like Ultima VIII
(even though no one but me liked it!), a treasure hunt like Diablo II, a
MMORPG like UO, more RTS releases like Kohan, involved TBS like Master of
Magic, more trading titles like Elite, a 4X like MOO, more dungeon crawling
like Dungein Master, more innovation such as Dungeon Keeper or Black &
White, and more creative action in the line of Magic Carpet!
But no one is making these games. It almost seems that the trend in just
about every genre I enjoy follows a direction that clashes with my
preferences. Looking back at this year, the only game purchase I am truly
happy with is Chessmaster 10th Edition. In a way, that's pathetic, because
a board game whose exact rules have been in place since the 16th century
offers more challenge than all these new games (chess is somewhat
frustrating insofar that I know that no matter how much I pratice, a modern
day computer will always beat me -- perhaps I should look into Go!).
The trouble is that I can't exactly tell what the problem is. Well,
actually, it's easier with RPGs. My issues here are the lack of immersion
and randomization (worlds don't "feel" like words, and "drops" are often
pre-determined), but in regard to strategy games I'm really unsure what my
problem is. MoM wasn't really better than, say, AoW2:SM, but I still don't
experience the addiction, the "getting sucked into". Reviewers often use,
or used, the phrase of "one more turn", but I haven't "felt" that in years.
That, actually, is what leads me to believe that perhaps I simply burnt out
on games. A few days ago, I discussed this very topic with David Shapiro
aka Dr. Cat, one of the Ulima VI programmers/designers (and my employer),
and he seemed to be somewhat sure that I simply burnt out on games. I'm not
so sure, though. But what if I am? What is there that can be done about it?
I skipped Guild Wars, Dungeon Siege 2, and the AoE3 pre-order because I
feel that these games would further discourage me and turn out to be a
waste of money. So, what can I do about this dilemma?
I still enjoy chess, by the way.
M.
patrick...@mn.rr.com
> . . . So, what can I do about this dilemma?
>
> I still enjoy chess, by the way.
Well--one thing you could do is fire up Chessmaster 10K and enjoy the
heck out of it.
--Patrick
DocScorpio
"Michael Vondung" <mvon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:q7b2bpojutb2.m...@40tude.net...
[snip]
> That, actually, is what leads me to believe that perhaps I simply burnt
> out
> on games. A few days ago, I discussed this very topic with David Shapiro
> aka Dr. Cat, one of the Ulima VI programmers/designers (and my employer),
> and he seemed to be somewhat sure that I simply burnt out on games. I'm
> not
> so sure, though. But what if I am? What is there that can be done about
> it?
> I skipped Guild Wars, Dungeon Siege 2, and the AoE3 pre-order because I
> feel that these games would further discourage me and turn out to be a
> waste of money. So, what can I do about this dilemma?
>
> I still enjoy chess, by the way.
>
> M.
I think it's a combination of being burnt out and the low quality (my
personal opinion only) of current games. I'm in exactly the same place:
the new A-titles just don't interest me for very long. I never finished
KOTOR 2, became bored with SH3 w/i a couple of weeks, and didn't buy DS2
because I can't even stand the thought of going through the "fantasy RPG
process" yet again.....at least not with a game whose predecessor was a
complete bore for me (and which I never finished). DOW held my interest for
many months (off and on), but that's mainly because I love the WH40K
universe. KOHAN 2, good as it is, only held my interest for a couple of
months. Doom 3 was played for sentimental reasons and was a bust....never
bothered to even buy HL2. I'm going after more esoteric and obscure games
these days.
For the last month I've been playing Space Rangers 2 to the exclusion of all
else. SR2 manages to combine lots of genres I like together: Elite-type
trading, questing, and fighting TBS in space and ground-based RTS and text
quest missions. However, it's not for everybody.
Actually, your problem will solve itself. Maybe you'll quit altogether.
Life's like that; you do something for a while (or a decade or two) then you
don't get that jolt any more....so you move on to something else.
John Menichelli
strategic and tactical elements.
Ken Rice
says...
>
>For the past year or so, I have not found one game that really "grabbed"
>me. I even branched out to other genres, like action and simulations, but
>in the end I just spent quite a bit of money on games that ended up on the
>shelf within a few hours. Quite literally.
>
Possibly a combination of factors. I'm in a similar situation. The lack of new
role playing games is greatly at fault. Too much of today's offerings are FPS
game, with a roleplaying aspect tacked on. These are not like the CRPGs of old.
After a while, one does tire of CRPGs and need a rest. But the lack on new,
challenging CRPGs doesn't help matters. (By the way, I do not consider the
monthly fee oriented MMORPGs to worthy of mention in this discussion. They may
be good games, but I am not going to pay a monthly fee to find out.)
Try replaying some of your old favorites and see what happens. Come to think
of, I need to do the same.
--
Ken Rice -=:=- kennrice (AT) erols (DOT) com
http://users.erols.com/kennrice - Lego Compatible Flex Track,
Civil War Round Table of DC & Concentration Camp made of Lego bricks
http://members.tripod.com/~kennrice
Maps of Ultima 7 Parts 1 & 2, Prophecy of the Shadow, Savage Empire,
Crusaders of Dark Savant & Others.
BuckFush
> "Michael Vondung" <mvon...@gmail.com> wrote
> [snip]
>> That, actually, is what leads me to believe that perhaps I simply
>> burnt out on games.
>>
> altogether. Life's like that; you do something for a while (or a
> decade or two) then you don't get that jolt any more....so you move
> on to something else.
You can say that again, mister - I've moved on and much to my surprise sex
has been a *fantastic* substitute - still can't believe I didn't try it
sooner.
And it's bound to get even better once I find a partner.
Gandalf Parker
> a RPG like Ultima VIII
> (even though no one but me liked it!), a treasure hunt like Diablo II,
> a MMORPG like UO, more RTS releases like Kohan, involved TBS like
> Master of Magic, more trading titles like Elite, a 4X like MOO,
I agree that your entire list is an excellent one and if you find that
game please let me know. But, for now....
There are over 300 free servers now for Ultima Online. The player-made
modifications are extreme. From old UO, to Diablo versions, to Tolkien
D&D versions, to long term slow gain versions, to fast burn player-vs-
player versions.
But the one thing they all have in common is lots of room. :) You can
slowly build a really nice ranch in the wilderness.
Like I said, it wont solve your enitre list of desires but you might want
to reload UO, hit the upgrade exe in the same directory, then go to
uogateway.com and pick up a front-end loader with hundreds of free shards
loaded in it. By the time you check those all out you will either find
something worth killing some time in or at least have fun playing tourist
and seeing all thats being done with the old UO code. What the heck, its
free online play
Gandalf Parker
chainbreaker
> I still enjoy chess, by the way.
>
> M.
Try doing something completely different, like maybe flight sims. Or try
reading Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin books--that's what I've been doing
lately, mostly. :-)
--
chainbreaker
Leo
trouble I have though - who the hell to do it with? I don't know a
single soul out in the real world that even knows what P&P role playing
is, nor do I know how to meet any. I meet lots of people, but they're
all regular types, like to go to bars, play pool, watch the game. I'm
sure some rp'ers are out there, I live in an urban area, but simply
can't find 'em. (I have seen some kiddies that do it in various hobby
shops, but I want to do it w/some like minded adults who are socially
normal).
Also, i have to admit, I'm too embarrased about the probable reaction
I'd get to even mention it to the 'regular' people I know. They'd
immediately look at me the way I look at star trek convention attendees.
I'm a closet pen and paper role-player!
Leo
Nostromo
+0200, Anno Domini:
>For the past year or so, I have not found one game that really "grabbed"
>me. I even branched out to other genres, like action and simulations, but
>in the end I just spent quite a bit of money on games that ended up on the
>shelf within a few hours. Quite literally.
I'll respond point by point MVD, with a summary conclusion at the bottom.
And I'll even crosspost to the 2 groups...but only for you, you understand?
;)
>I've been playing computer games for over two decades (and I was a teen
>already when I started, I didn't begin playing at two years, like so many
>today), so I have seen quite a number of games. Years ago, there were games
>that really "grabbed" me and held me under their spell for months if not
>years, but nowadays, nothing seems to interest me. Nothing appears to
>really appeal to me, although that doesn't mean that nothing fails to
>attract me. Quite a few games catch my attention, but they never live up to
>the excitement they promise.
This is exactly the same feelings I've acquired over the past few years &
that have seen me playing *more* games, but with shorter sessions &
attention span. I put it down to the following:
1. Getting older. Games are really meant for kids, let's face it :)
2. More responsibilities in RL = less time to *devote* to games
3. games getting crappier - more glitz, less substance - aimed at the 1
minute attention span Y-Gen imo
4. me becoming jaded - I've been playing 'games' i.e. I've been a *gamer*
since I was 13 (maybe younger) - if I lived to be a 1000, would it still
hold the magic? cf. your first few sexual experiences with marital sex after
many years >8^D
5. games getting longer & longer with less content/substance, but more
repetition (this is really our own fault at the end of the day - ppl always
whinging a fabulous 10-12 fps is too short, etc)
I think that games do still "live up to the excitement they promise", they
just somehow fail to keep the adrenaline, excitement or interest to the end.
>Granted, one could raise the argument that perhaps I developed ADD at my
>advanced age (I don't really believe in ADD and consider it to be yet
>another attempt at explaining the shortcomings of today's "inhumane"
>education and failed social system), but I don't have the same problem
>with, say, books. I read novels from the first page to the last, without
>ever getting distracted or losing focus, and often pick them up again after
>a few years have passed, so it's not a matter of getting easily distracted.
He, he, I started thinking the same thing - early onset or something, but
I'm pretty sure now it's THEM, not ME! :)
>So, what is my problem? Have I become jaded and "seen it all"? Or have
>games become stale, lacking in innovation and freshness? I'm tempted to
>blame myself, because I cannot see games like Pitfall or North & South
>capture me today, though a Dungeon Master or Elite could probably do it.
>Likewise, the Ultima games in a "modern outfit" would do, but no one is
>actually developing such games anymore. All we get these days are games
>that visually blow your mind in the first three hours, and then make you
>realise just how much potential in the gameplay area was wasted.
If you had listed the specific games that have at least grabbed you in the
past 2-3 yrs, then we could compare notes with my games below...
>So, what do I want? A game like UU-Stygian Abyss, a RPG like Ultima VIII
>(even though no one but me liked it!), a treasure hunt like Diablo II, a
>MMORPG like UO, more RTS releases like Kohan, involved TBS like Master of
>Magic, more trading titles like Elite, a 4X like MOO, more dungeon crawling
>like Dungein Master, more innovation such as Dungeon Keeper or Black &
>White, and more creative action in the line of Magic Carpet!
B&W? Let's not go there...;-p (yes, 'innovative', but about as fun in the
long run as weeding imo :)
>But no one is making these games. It almost seems that the trend in just
>about every genre I enjoy follows a direction that clashes with my
>preferences. Looking back at this year, the only game purchase I am truly
>happy with is Chessmaster 10th Edition. In a way, that's pathetic, because
>a board game whose exact rules have been in place since the 16th century
>offers more challenge than all these new games (chess is somewhat
>frustrating insofar that I know that no matter how much I pratice, a modern
>day computer will always beat me -- perhaps I should look into Go!).
Maybe your mind is becoming more & more abstract-centric & your imagination
centres are atrophying. I find a healthy dose of porn for a week improves my
enthusiasm for game playing no end! >8^D
>The trouble is that I can't exactly tell what the problem is. Well,
>actually, it's easier with RPGs. My issues here are the lack of immersion
>and randomization (worlds don't "feel" like words, and "drops" are often
>pre-determined), but in regard to strategy games I'm really unsure what my
>problem is. MoM wasn't really better than, say, AoW2:SM, but I still don't
>experience the addiction, the "getting sucked into". Reviewers often use,
>or used, the phrase of "one more turn", but I haven't "felt" that in years.
I think it's mostly to do with the fact that we've seen it all before (game
mechanics/structure-wise), & no amount of bells & whistles is going to pull
the wool over our eyes. The much touted 'AI' & neural-nets they promised us
10+ years ago are still pie in the sky, just iterative algorithms that
either make no behavioural/world sense, or are impossible to beat, or are
just more of the same. I'm yet to play & get immersed so much that I forget
I'm playing against the computer. The last game that did this is probably
going back to the days of UFO, Doom, HL, IndiJones&TFOA, Gabriel Knight,
MoM, Torment, Fallout, etc...hard to pinpoint when the 'enlightenment' died
*sigh*
Also, I've been 'cheating' a lot more in recent years...I get frustrated
more easily & just resort to a walkthrough or cheat codes. Wonder if that's
symptomatic of this current generations 'instant-gratification',
zero-attention-span syndrome that's rubbed off on me...? I know I've stopped
to worry about keeping up with a game (especially online ones) before the
buzz dies out, so I'm not feeling left out, either here on Usenet, or with
few ppl left to play with online. It's one of the reasons I probably went
from CoH to EQ2 this year, which was a mistake looking back.
>That, actually, is what leads me to believe that perhaps I simply burnt out
>on games. A few days ago, I discussed this very topic with David Shapiro
>aka Dr. Cat, one of the Ulima VI programmers/designers (and my employer),
>and he seemed to be somewhat sure that I simply burnt out on games. I'm not
>so sure, though. But what if I am? What is there that can be done about it?
>I skipped Guild Wars, Dungeon Siege 2, and the AoE3 pre-order because I
>feel that these games would further discourage me and turn out to be a
>waste of money. So, what can I do about this dilemma?
For me, I find P2P a godsend. I know I would get very bitter if I only
played a game for 1-2 hrs & paid AU$90-100 for it. I figure, try b4 u buy is
perfectly valid if they're not going to provide a pay-per-play online system
by the hour (or some such). Having said that, when a game has no cost, it's
easier to perceive it as having no *value* & thus easier to drop like a bad
smell if it doesn't quite measure up. I have also bought close to a dozen
games I can see on my HDD which I *never* would have if I hadn't P2Ped them
1st. But this whole paragraph is for another topic, so I don't want to
hijack your thread MVD ;-)
>I still enjoy chess, by the way.
Keep playin ;-)
To summarise this post with a game list, the last game that had me hooked
for a loooong time was D2, but I'm not sure if that was 'magic' &
innovation, or just plain obsessive compulsiveness on my part. It certainly
was well designed to cater to us types, no doubt about the! :)
Since my D2 craze, only the following games are of note (in alphabetical
order, but not necessarily order of writing):
- BG2: fantastic crpg, but more like work in the 2nd half...I played it over
18 mths & only finished it on pure stubbornness in the end...started ToB
this year but just couldn't go far :(
- Broken Sword series: 1st 2 had me spellbound, but I'm struggling to
continue TSD after a good start
- CoH: looooved it at first - I wanted to be a superhero since I can
remember (like all kids!) & this game almost pulled it off; the grind & ppl
leaving in droves for WoW/EQ2 saw me follow the crowd to EQ2, which didn't
have anywhere near the same magic, just grind
- FarCry: one of the few fps I've actually finished; stunning visuals & open
world gameplay, whereas HL2, for example, still sits unfinished on my hard
drive & was just lacking that certain 'something' to make me want to go from
start to finish w/o big breaks
- Freedom Force: thought I'd love this, but I think too many mechanics & the
TB combat actually got in the way of the immersion for me
- Gothic 2: never played 1, but this game had me sucked in BAD for a few
weeks on & off; just didn't hold the momentum, unlike VTMB below
- Guild Wars: it's got a lot to offer, & I'm loving it, but again, recent RL
commitments are spoiling it as I can't devote as much time as I'd like to
it, dang :-/
- Halo: only other fps I've finished in the past 2-3 yrs; dunno why,
probably because it was short enough, though it's not on my all-time-greats
list by any stretch
- Kotor: I'm as big a SW fan as you can get, w/o dressing up in costumes &
shit; this game had me by the balls until Tatooine, then it just faded away.
I just can't put a finger on why - perhaps too much D20 combat that killed
the immersion, perhaps the lack of space combat & big scale battles SW is
famous for...perhaps I'll never know?
- Max Payne: another one not on my all-time-greats list, but I finished it.
Bullet time was a 1-trick pony, but what a trick! :)
- MOH:AA: another fps I finished (perhaps there were more than I thought he
he) - SP game was excellent really, but no better than SOF1/2
- Nexus: The Jupiter Project: so much potential, I've just skimmed the
surface of this one, but RL has pulled me away a couple times already which
kind of kills the continuity & momentum of a great game - may post a review
if I ever get to finish it before it's old news
- NWN: I think this is where the 'jade' started to set it...all engine &
bells n whistles, not so much substance - damn shame really
- OpFlash:CWC: best true war sim EVA! didn't quite finished it & didn't much
enjoy the tank/gunship bits, but the squad-based gameplay was *awesome*! I
almost dropped this game during the first 1-3 missions thinking "this is
just all too bloody hard!"...until it clicked & I 'got it'. Farkin glad I
did :)))
- RON: where Kohan frustrated me & RTW just couldn't grab me, this game
*almost* re-awakened my old love of RTSs after 5+ years, though I only
finished the Alexander campaign; nothing innovative or new, just excellent,
quality gameplay
- RTCW: another fps I finished (is there a pattern here :) - 3 times in
fact! Would go on my all time best SP fps games. I know a lot of ppl hated
the WW2 theme changing into occult/undead/mutants, but I think that's what I
*loved* about it...almost like 3 fps games in one! :)
- Star Trek: EF1/2: again, like Kotor, great subject material, but still
haven't finished the 2nd one (3/4 of the way though)...just seem to lose
that compulsion at some point
- Undying: now here's an example of a game with atmosFEAR! And the gameplay
wasn't bad for an fps. I think the only reason I stopped half-way was that
my nerves couldn't take it any longer he he
- VTMB: this is the *only* game in 10 yrs that I desperately wanted to
finish w/o cheating & didn't even care so much about the end, but loved the
ride; most immersive rpg world in a long time imo; having said that, I must
get back to the bastard & finish it - think I'll have a crack at it this
w/e! :)
- Wolf:ET: had me hooked badly for 12 mths - played for 18hrs straight one
time - just a great fps I guess
- Zanzarah: just so cutesy I had to give it an honourable mention :) I was
loving it right up to the point where I started using cheat codes 1/2 way
through & dropped it not long after. I wonder if it's the jadedness that
makes me resort to cheats or the other way around...hmmm...?
There's many, many games I could list that I started in the past 5 yrs, even
thought I would love, but died a quiet death very soon after. I guess time
will tell if the joy & enthusiasm is re-awakened in us or not Michael ;)
--
A killfile is a friend for life.
Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Grackle
"Michael Vondung" <mvon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:q7b2bpojutb2.m...@40tude.net...
>
> But no one is making these games. It almost seems that the trend in just
> about every genre I enjoy follows a direction that clashes with my
> preferences. Looking back at this year, the only game purchase I am truly
> happy with is Chessmaster 10th Edition. In a way, that's pathetic, because
> a board game whose exact rules have been in place since the 16th century
> offers more challenge than all these new games
Same here! And the thing was a bargain, less than half the cost of a
'standard' game. And beyond the game itself, I find the 'Academy' section
really fascinating. So here we have a game I was playing at 13 years old,
and it feels fresher and more interesting to me now several decades later
than games I bought a few months ago. I've come to the profound realization
that I don't actually have to pay attention to new game releases; ignoring
them doesn't necessarily mean I'm missing anything worthwhile.
Anyway, Chessmaster is every other genre rolled up into one :)
RTS: obviously the game's all about strategy
RPG: winning ranked games you increase your character's experience points
(rating)
FPS: grab hold of the board and rotate it in 3D or try out the battle chess
board, weee
jwb
news:q7b2bpojutb2.m...@40tude.net...
>
> The trouble is that I can't exactly tell what the problem is. Well,
> actually, it's easier with RPGs. My issues here are the lack of immersion
> and randomization (worlds don't "feel" like words, and "drops" are often
> pre-determined), but in regard to strategy games I'm really unsure what my
> problem is. MoM wasn't really better than, say, AoW2:SM, but I still don't
> experience the addiction, the "getting sucked into". Reviewers often use,
> or used, the phrase of "one more turn", but I haven't "felt" that in
> years.
>
> That, actually, is what leads me to believe that perhaps I simply burnt
> out
> on games.
That could very well be it. Lots of older gamers, for example, will say
"remember games like DOOM, that had oodles of gameplay??"... well, it really
didn't. Doom, Gold Box RPG's, Master of Magic... what they had was the shine
of being new. Warcraft 2... OMG, did Warcraft 2 suck hours of my life. I
haven't played a RTS since that I've enjoyed as much - is because the games
suck, or because it's simply not "new" anymore?
aponly
wargame. If you ever played old board wargames (hex-based), then try
Matrix Games free version of Steel Panthers World at War. It is a
windows conversion and update of an old DOS game. It's a big download,
about 425mb. Hundreds of scenarios. I've had some graphics problems
in the past, but I just downloaded the game again (now version 8.4) and
am going to retry it. I think the URL is www.matrixgames.com or search
for the game title.
Fordy
forgotten what they were really like anyway. I do this every now and then
and its interesting to notice the difference.
Slighty off topic but I have started watching a couple of old classic movies
and found them to be a load of crap even though I loved them many years ago.
Games on the other hand do age well and seeing the advancements helps
rekindle a bit of enthusiasm.
Grackle
news:tbtUe.30413$%w.2...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> "remember games like DOOM, that had oodles of gameplay??"... well, it
> really didn't. Doom, Gold Box RPG's, Master of Magic... what they had was
> the shine of being new. Warcraft 2... OMG, did Warcraft 2 suck hours of my
> life. I haven't played a RTS since that I've enjoyed as much - is because
> the games suck, or because it's simply not "new" anymore?
>
>
That's the problem; what we have now is a saturation of the same idea, every
publisher grabbing onto the biggest success and imitating it to death, and
spending millions in the process. I see no more evolution of ideas, only
evolution in technologies. But there are enough engines and SDKs out there
that making the candy coating in a game is so common-place it should no
longer be considered worthy of promoting a game, or being its major selling
point. But to be fair, the problem today is that it's almost impossible to
come up with something innovative, because gaming has matured since the days
when a FPS was an original concept.
Grackle
"BuckFush" <not...@laddress.com> wrote in message
news:y_qUe.30393$%w.8...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
The cost of tissues and online pornography will probably cost you more. Not
to mention that you risk going blind.
Bateau
well I've had enough of this I'll try some other way to pass my time."
But video gamers always bitch and moan as if it's the hobby that's
changed and not themselves. Like that other guy who was saying:
"the way Wolfenstien was groundbreaking to me (there may have been
predecessors but it was the first one *I* saw and fell in love with)"
And even though he was saying it he still didn't realize that gaming was
only getting boring and repetitive SUBJETIVELY.
Even if you still loved the sight of your own text enough to insist on
whining couldn't you do so in one of the other GAMES SUCK THESE DAYS
threads that get started every fucking day?
RogerM
> "BuckFush" <not...@laddress.com> wrote in message
> news:y_qUe.30393$%w.8...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> > You can say that again, mister - I've moved on and much to my surprise sex
> > has been a *fantastic* substitute - still can't believe I didn't try it
> > sooner.
> >
> > And it's bound to get even better once I find a partner.
> >
> >
>
> The cost of tissues and online pornography will probably cost you more. Not
> to mention that you risk going blind.
It's worth the risk. Partners carry plenty of risk themselves. Not to mention
the expense, both economic and in self-esteem.
;)
patrick...@mn.rr.com
>happy with is Chessmaster 10th Edition. In a way, that's pathetic, because
>a board game whose exact rules have been in place since the 16th century
"Maybe your mind is becoming more & more abstract-centric & your
imagination
centres are atrophying. I find a healthy dose of porn for a week
improves my
enthusiasm for game playing no end! >8^D"
I know that response was a joke, but it points up something serious
that's often overlooked IMO: Abstract games require *more*
imagination, not less! Doom can never be anything but fantasy monster
bashing, and Gary Grigsby's World at War can never be anything but
WWII; but chess can be anything the player imagines. Many say it's a
stylized medieval battle, but it's so stylized that with a stretch of
imagination it can be a battle in *any* period of history--or even a
whole war, or most any other competitive event. It'll never
*explicitly* represent any of those things (not even medieval battle);
but because of that, it *abstractly* represents them all. A knight can
symbolize a starship; a rook can represent an ogre. If you're into the
stock market, chess can abstractly symbolize investment strategies.
With sufficient imagination, the sky's the limit.
In contrast, graphic realism is *extremely* narrow and limited by its
very nature. Once you've got that elven warrior explicitly decked out
in chainmail and equipped with bow, dagger, and an assortment of
protection spells, it's very vividly an elven warrior; but that's all
it can ever possibly be. And sooner or later, unless you're *really*
into elves, you're going to get tired of that and start looking for
something else.
The above allusion to porn is apropos: it can be very exciting--for
five minutes. That's the nature of graphic stimulation; it's
ephemeral. But the allusion is misleading, because bombarding the
senses with audio-visual stimulation does NOT improve the imagination!
It has just the opposite effect. It fills the mind with specific
images, and those images stand as cheap substitutes for what the
imagination would normally produce on its own. All the "seeming
reality"--whether porn images or realistic game images--crowds out the
imagination and causes it to grow lazy and weak.
As a matter of fact, I think this is a big part of Mr. Vondung's
complaint, or dilemma. As one of my literature profs said, "We're all
in the clutches of realism these days." In the nineteenth century,
poetry gave way to novels because of all the realistic detail. In the
twentieth century, books gave way to movies because of all the graphic
realism. In this century, even movies have to be computer enhanced for
added realism, while computer games seem to make us participants in the
movies. It seems that what people really want is a "holodeck."
But what is a holodeck? It's just like real life, except that you have
the godlike power to make it be any way you like.
So, basically, people want real life, not an escape from real life.
The only reason people don't immerse themselves in real life is that
they're full of fears and inhibitions and all the things that make us
feel unable to create the kind of life we want. Imagine what it would
be like to have absolutely no fears, worries, or inhibitions. You'd be
completely confident and feel free to go out and do *anything* you want
to do in life. Sure, the girl you've got your eye on might still say
no--but that wouldn't faze you in the least; you'd smile and move on
and find someone else. You'd pursue the career that's just right for
you, and you'd make plenty of money and have all the things you'd like
to buy. Furthermore, you'd have enlightenment, spiritual fulfillment,
and everything else imaginable. The *last* thing you'd ever want to do
is escape from life and immerse yourself in a fantasy or a game.
Without fear, and with your imagination linked up to real life, the
world would be your oyster.
Well, I've digressed far enough; you get my drift. But back to chess:
Isn't chess a fine tool for overcoming fear and exercising the
imagination?
Because in chess there's always the fear that you'll blunder or be
outsmarted (Mr. Vondung mentions being dismayed by the fact that no
matter how good he gets, a computer will always be able to beat him);
but the more you play, the better you get--and as you become a stronger
player, your confidence grows. And I've found, from personal
experience, that strength and confidence in one area always spills over
into all of life. When I exercise regularly and get physically
stronger, I become more confident at work, in bed, and everywhere.
Same happens with gaining strength in chess: you don't just become a
better chess player; you become better at everything in life (provided
you continue to take time for the rest of life, rather than losing
yourself in chess and forfeiting your life).
And finally, there's the benefit of improved imagination. A game like
chess forces you to exercise your imagination. If nothing else, you
have to picture the moves and be able to see two or three or more moves
ahead. You also have to picture your opponent's likely responses. And
once you get going, you'll find that chess can be a kind of metaphor
for life: any situation in life can be expressed in chess terms. When
you feel "backed into a corner," you'll picture back-rank checkmates or
"suffocation mates." When life demands that you give a little to get a
lot, you'll think of "sacrifices" in chess. And so forth. In a sense,
the game teaches us about real life.
And the more we learn to love real life, and the better we get at it,
the less we'll complain about all the crappy games coming out these
days. In the first place, we won't want to blind ourselves with all
that eye candy anyway; and in the second place, we'll be so happy and
involved in life that we won't want to spend much time escaping into a
mere game.
--Patrick
Courageous
>Even if you still loved the sight of your own text enough to insist on
>whining couldn't you do so in one of the other GAMES SUCK THESE DAYS
>threads that get started every fucking day?
Well aren't you a piece of work.
C//
patrick...@mn.rr.com
> I would do as you suggest: try Go. It's an excellent game with both
> strategic and tactical elements.
That's a good suggestion, *if* Mr. Vondung is really interested in go.
But what he says is:
"(chess is somewhat frustrating insofar that I know that no matter how
much I pratice, a modern day computer will always beat me -- perhaps I
should look into Go!)"
To my way of thinking, that's a pretty poor reason for choosing go over
chess. In fact, go will ultimately cause even more dismay, because to
be a *really* good go player, you'd have to have started when you were
about five years old and then devoted your life to it. No matter how
much you practice, if you're not a prodigy there will always be many go
players in the world who can beat you.
The thing is, you don't have to be the best in the world, or smarter
than any computer program in the world. You just have to do the best
you can and always work on improving.
So, if Chessmaster 10K will always be able to beat you, that's great!
It means that one piece of software can provide you with a lifetime of
challenge--and then some. That's pretty amazing for a computer game,
isn't it?
Go is also a fine game, and there's some reasonably good go software
around these days--strong enough to beat novice and intermediate
players. But don't fall for the oft-repeated line about how chess is
all tactics while go is both strategy and tactics. I once gave up
chess for go because of that story, thinking go would be better for my
mind somehow. I don't think it's really true.
You have to consider each game as a world unto itself. In the context
of chess, there's chess strategy and chess tactics. In the context of
go, there's go strategy and go tactics. However, go is a bigger game
(when you play on a full-sized board)--so the context is larger and the
possibilities are multiplied; kinda like playing several chess games at
once and aiming to win most of them.
Choose go if you want a departure from chess, or if you want a bigger,
longer game, or if you just want to see what it's like or whatever.
Don't choose go just because chess software is so strong or somebody
tells you there's not much strategy in chess.
--Patrick
magnate
SteamKiller don't stop it being great. My views interspersed:
Nostromo wrote:
> Thus spake Michael Vondung <mvon...@gmail.com>, Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:55:38
> >I've been playing computer games for over two decades (and I was a teen
> >already when I started, I didn't begin playing at two years, like so many
> >today), so I have seen quite a number of games. Years ago, there were games
> >that really "grabbed" me and held me under their spell for months if not
> >years, but nowadays, nothing seems to interest me. Nothing appears to
> >really appeal to me, although that doesn't mean that nothing fails to
> >attract me. Quite a few games catch my attention, but they never live up to
> >the excitement they promise.
> This is exactly the same feelings I've acquired over the past few years &
> that have seen me playing *more* games, but with shorter sessions &
> attention span. I put it down to the following:
>
> 1. Getting older. Games are really meant for kids, let's face it :)
We're all still kids at heart, but I agree that this has something to
do with it. Older people are harder to impress than kids. Hence the
point someone made about people who rave about old games like Doom, UFO
and MoM, when they weren't in fact better than current offerings - they
were great games, but also we were a lot easier to impress back then.
> 2. More responsibilities in RL = less time to *devote* to games
Yes. Lots of my all-time favourite games (Elite/FFE, Civ, UFO, MoO/MoM,
Dom2) all had pretty low returns on your initial investment of time.
They were games which rewarded lots of time invested, revealing
different units/spells/features later on. Compare with games like Kohan
or RTW - both great games, but when you've finished the tutorials
you've seen pretty much what there is to see. That puts much higher
expectations on the gameplay, because the content is all displayed up
front.
> 3. games getting crappier - more glitz, less substance - aimed at the 1
> minute attention span Y-Gen imo
I don't think this is true. I'm no industry fanboy, but there are still
good games being produced. Ok D2 is now several years old, but WC3 was
a good game for anyone who hadn't been spoiled by WC2 all those years
before (and even for a good many who had). HL2, Dom2, FarCry, maybe DS2
(I've not started it yet). The Sims series, if you like watching paint
dry (and millions do, it seems).
I think the S:N ratio is getting worse as the industry gets bigger and
worth more money - there are more crap games nowadays (they are the
rule rather than the exception) - but I think there are still good
games coming out. I guess it's fair to say that more of them are
compromised by commercial considerations (hitting target dates etc.)
than was the case 10 or 15 years ago.
> 4. me becoming jaded - I've been playing 'games' i.e. I've been a *gamer*
> since I was 13 (maybe younger) - if I lived to be a 1000, would it still
> hold the magic? cf. your first few sexual experiences with marital sex after
> many years >8^D
This is part of getting older and harder to impress. We know what we
like and we want it improved just so (MoM with MP and better AI).
> 5. games getting longer & longer with less content/substance, but more
> repetition (this is really our own fault at the end of the day - ppl always
> whinging a fabulous 10-12 fps is too short, etc)
This is a VFM thing. Repetitive games are cheaper to produce, per hour
of gameplay. It's an inevitable consequence of commercialisation.
> >So, what do I want? A game like UU-Stygian Abyss, a RPG like Ultima VIII
> >(even though no one but me liked it!), a treasure hunt like Diablo II, a
> >MMORPG like UO, more RTS releases like Kohan, involved TBS like Master of
> >Magic, more trading titles like Elite, a 4X like MOO, more dungeon crawling
> >like Dungein Master, more innovation such as Dungeon Keeper or Black &
> >White, and more creative action in the line of Magic Carpet!
This is a fabulous list - but you *don't* want a game that tries to
do/be everything. You want an RTS that's *just* a top-flight RTS, and
so on. Hybrid games are interesting and sometimes excellent (System
Shock, anyone?), but nothing will press all your buttons at once.
> Maybe your mind is becoming more & more abstract-centric & your imagination
> centres are atrophying. I find a healthy dose of porn for a week improves my
> enthusiasm for game playing no end! >8^D
Now this is a connection I hadn't considered - if anything I find that
porn dulls my imagination rather than stimulating it. Perhaps MV should
lay off the porn and see if his gaming enjoyment picks up ;-)
> >The trouble is that I can't exactly tell what the problem is. Well,
> >actually, it's easier with RPGs. My issues here are the lack of immersion
> >and randomization (worlds don't "feel" like words, and "drops" are often
> >pre-determined), but in regard to strategy games I'm really unsure what my
> >problem is. MoM wasn't really better than, say, AoW2:SM, but I still don't
> >experience the addiction, the "getting sucked into". Reviewers often use,
> >or used, the phrase of "one more turn", but I haven't "felt" that in years.
But it was though - MoM had far more replay value than AoW2:SM - at
least in my experience. More races to try, more combinations of spells
and skills to try out. In AoW2:SM I can research everything in every
game, so all games tend to converge into similar experiences. The
rock/paper/scissors balance is better in MoM as well (though not
perfect by any means - champion slingers, anyone?).
> Also, I've been 'cheating' a lot more in recent years...I get frustrated
> more easily & just resort to a walkthrough or cheat codes. Wonder if that's
> symptomatic of this current generations 'instant-gratification',
> zero-attention-span syndrome that's rubbed off on me...? I know I've stopped
Funny, I've found that too. It's impatience - I know I'm not going to
play the game over and over, and I don't want to miss anything out, so
I resort to the walkthrough. Dammit.
> To summarise this post with a game list, the last game that had me hooked
> for a loooong time was D2, but I'm not sure if that was 'magic' &
> innovation, or just plain obsessive compulsiveness on my part. It certainly
> was well designed to cater to us types, no doubt about the! :)
D2 had a lot of really good points: the skill system which resulted in
dozens of character "builds" which played really differently,
essentially making 20-30 really different classes you could play; the
drop system which kept you playing over and over again looking for
those elusive unique items; excellent MP implementation yet still a
great SP game - and an impressively low number of irritations (the
Flayer Jungle and the jog round Lut Gholein at the end of Act II are
pretty much the only ones - and maybe those damn imps in Act V). Tons
of replay value - especially for an OC completist ...
> Since my D2 craze, only the following games are of note (in alphabetical
> order, but not necessarily order of writing):
> - BG2: fantastic crpg, but more like work in the 2nd half...I played it over
> 18 mths & only finished it on pure stubbornness in the end...started ToB
> this year but just couldn't go far :(
I came to BG2 late and wrecked it for myself by using the walkthrough.
Since it's supposed to be one of the best CRPGs ever, and I *loved*
BG1, I hope I've learned the lesson.
> - CoH: looooved it at first - I wanted to be a superhero since I can
> remember (like all kids!) & this game almost pulled it off; the grind & ppl
> leaving in droves for WoW/EQ2 saw me follow the crowd to EQ2, which didn't
> have anywhere near the same magic, just grind
I refuse to have anything to do with Pay To Play games. If I buy a
game, I expect to be able to play it for as long as I like, with
whoever I like, for no extra cost.
> - FarCry: one of the few fps I've actually finished; stunning visuals & open
> world gameplay, whereas HL2, for example, still sits unfinished on my hard
> drive & was just lacking that certain 'something' to make me want to go from
> start to finish w/o big breaks
Interesting - this shows me that I really don't like FPS. I just
couldn't get into it, even though I knew it was at least as good as HL1
and possibly better.
> - Halo: only other fps I've finished in the past 2-3 yrs; dunno why,
> probably because it was short enough, though it's not on my all-time-greats
> list by any stretch
Didn't know this was available on PC (is it?)
> - Kotor: I'm as big a SW fan as you can get, w/o dressing up in costumes &
> shit; this game had me by the balls until Tatooine, then it just faded away.
> I just can't put a finger on why - perhaps too much D20 combat that killed
> the immersion, perhaps the lack of space combat & big scale battles SW is
> famous for...perhaps I'll never know?
Agreed. I love SW too, but KoToR was too far removed for me.
> - NWN: I think this is where the 'jade' started to set it...all engine &
> bells n whistles, not so much substance - damn shame really
YES!! *This* was where it started to go wrong. I don't know why, but
NWN was the biggest gaming disappointment EVER for me. Far far worse
than MoO3. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying MoO3 was a better game
than NWN, just that NWN was more of a disappointment. It should have
been the ultimate computerised RPG experience, and it SUCKED! Go here,
explore primitive dialogue options, jog over here, play the dialogue
game once more, have a fight, collect the quest trinket, jog somewhere
else, etc. etc. So so little immersion. Yet the game looks fine, and I
have to say the combat engine is hugely impressive, with all the
dodging and tumbling and whirlwinds and all that jazz. But it just
really stinks. Maybe the campaign is at fault and not the game? Can
anyone convince me to give it another chance?
> - RON: where Kohan frustrated me & RTW just couldn't grab me, this game
> *almost* re-awakened my old love of RTSs after 5+ years, though I only
> finished the Alexander campaign; nothing innovative or new, just excellent,
> quality gameplay
Ah, good - I've just dusted this one off - it held my attention so
briefly that I honestly cannot remember it at all, but if it beats
Kohan (which palled quickly for me) and RTW (which I love), it might
bring back a little of that AoE1 magic ....
> There's many, many games I could list that I started in the past 5 yrs, even
> thought I would love, but died a quiet death very soon after. I guess time
> will tell if the joy & enthusiasm is re-awakened in us or not Michael ;)
Well, Michael, here are my thoughts on a few other games that have not
been mentioned in this thread (though several have come up in Patrick's
"perfect game" thread):
1. Dom2 - yeah I know, I'm a fanboy, but this really is the best game
since D2. If you've not tried it already, you must give it a go.
2. Majesty - I dusted this one off recently (yes, I've been clearing
out all my old CDs), and I'd forgotten how unique it is. It's RTS but
you don't have control over your units. That *completely* changes the
experience. Sadly the RPG element is limited because you can't take
your heroes with you to subsequent missions, but it's a great little
game. Make sure you get the Gold edition (with the Northern Expansion),
and turn off that incredibly awful Sean Connery voice.
3. Commandos - I'm all excited because I've just ordered #2 and #3 (Men
of Courage and Destination Berlin) - a very hard puzzle-type game, but
the first one at least was really immersive and well done.
4. Space Empires StarFury - this is the game FFE should have been. It's
not perfect, but it's really very good if you like Elite-type games.
(Actually no, Freelancer is the game FFE should have been, but for some
reason Freelancer got stale amazingly quickly - I played it through
only twice.)
5. Imperialism - I'm pretty sure you know these two. I prefer #1 but #2
is slightly more advanced, and reminiscent of Sid Meier's Colonisation,
which was an excellent (and underrated) game.
6. EU2 - again, I'm almost certain you know this one. I keep coming
back to it, it's so deep. I think of it as the non-fantasy equivalent
of Dom2.
7. Warlords Battlecry series - I suspect you prefer the Kohan series,
but I find these slightly more engaging.
I could go on, but I think I've rambled long enough. It's just started
to rain - time to bring the laundry in ...
CC
jwb
news:lFAUe.20317$I02.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
But to be fair, the problem today is that it's almost impossible to
> come up with something innovative, because gaming has matured since the
> days when a FPS was an original concept.
exactly. There's only so many ways you can have fun directing little people
on a screen.
Look at arcades, even. If you're old enough, you remember the magic that was
an arcade around 1980-1983 (I pick those years because that's when arcades
were *full* of really cool and diverse games) .... so many different games,
so many different types of gameplay.... but after awhile, they started to
look and feel the same.
jwb
news:1126366506.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
excellent post overall. Wanted to comment on this one part.
>
> YES!! *This* was where it started to go wrong. I don't know why, but
> NWN was the biggest gaming disappointment EVER for me. Far far worse
> than MoO3. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying MoO3 was a better game
> than NWN, just that NWN was more of a disappointment. It should have
> been the ultimate computerised RPG experience, and it SUCKED! Go here,
> explore primitive dialogue options, jog over here, play the dialogue
> game once more, have a fight, collect the quest trinket, jog somewhere
> else, etc. etc. So so little immersion. Yet the game looks fine, and I
> have to say the combat engine is hugely impressive, with all the
> dodging and tumbling and whirlwinds and all that jazz. But it just
> really stinks. Maybe the campaign is at fault and not the game? Can
> anyone convince me to give it another chance?
sadly, no. Like you, I *really* wanted to like this. And I do like it - a
little. But it does lack that ceratin 'something" that just grabs you and
holds you. I find I can't play this for more than a half hour, which is
really bad for a CRPG.
All the elements are there, too, but you are correct - it just lack
immersion. Can't put my finger on why.
patrick...@mn.rr.com
try this article:
http://users.eniinternet.com/bradleym/Compare.html
Grackle
news:k9u5i1d25rurohoqp...@4ax.com...
You should have seen him when he used to have a 200 line signature of some
stupid ascii graphic.
Xocyll
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
That's something everyone should do.
It's not so much "books" as one really damn big book in multiple
volumes.
Don't forget to see Master and Commander too.
While it wasn't exactly as the books were (Since it contains elements
from both "Master and Commander" and "The Far Side of the World") it was
pretty damn good.
Really gives you a feeling for what it must have been like to bee under
cannon fire, unlike so many purely Hollywood type productions.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Grackle
news:1126365849.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> John Menichelli wrote:
>
> So, if Chessmaster 10K will always be able to beat you, that's great!
> It means that one piece of software can provide you with a lifetime of
> challenge--and then some. That's pretty amazing for a computer game,
> isn't it?
>
Actually, you can choose among a huge number of computer-controlled
opponents of varying levels in Chessmaster. Many of the lower ranked
opponents are quite stupid in that the program simulates absent-minded
blunders and pointless moves. Playing the program at its maximum level is
self-abusive, as it's capable of beating grandmasters.
Grackle
news:1126367878.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Of course, if you really want to be talked into the superiority of go,
> try this article:
> http://users.eniinternet.com/bradleym/Compare.html
>
Page is so Go-biased, you'd think they were jealous of chess.
Michael Vondung
> Page is so Go-biased, you'd think they were jealous of chess.
Can see that by the author's quite factual claim that Go was invented 2000
BC. This isn't what other sources say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_%28board_game%29#History
It still may be that old, but for chess he used the date that is quite
verifable (though why he believes the game may have originated in China is
beyond me), and for Go he used a flattering estimate.
But anyway, I do play a little Go, too (GnuGo with the Jago client), it's
just a different experience than chess.
M.
patrick...@mn.rr.com
beyond me),<
I'm convinced it probably originated in China. Read this article:
http://www.samsloan.com/origin.htm
RogerM
>
> YES!! *This* was where it started to go wrong. I don't know why, but
> NWN was the biggest gaming disappointment EVER for me. Far far worse
> than MoO3. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying MoO3 was a better game
> than NWN, just that NWN was more of a disappointment. It should have
> been the ultimate computerised RPG experience, and it SUCKED! Go here,
> explore primitive dialogue options, jog over here, play the dialogue
> game once more, have a fight, collect the quest trinket, jog somewhere
> else, etc. etc. So so little immersion. Yet the game looks fine, and I
> have to say the combat engine is hugely impressive, with all the
> dodging and tumbling and whirlwinds and all that jazz. But it just
> really stinks. Maybe the campaign is at fault and not the game? Can
> anyone convince me to give it another chance?
>
I disliked it as a solo game, but I love it for online multiplay. Plus, I love
games where I can design my own stuff, and NWN is the king of that. Design your
own worlds, items, monsters, etc. GREAT stuff. If you want to try it online, I can
point you to a favorite online server.
> 7. Warlords Battlecry series - I suspect you prefer the Kohan series,
> but I find these slightly more engaging.
I got WLBC 2 shortly after getting my new computer. A LOT of fun, and it kept me
from buying WC3 (which I had planned on as a must buy) for more than a year. Tied
with Starcraft for my favorite RTS game of all time.
RogerM
Very true. It's all shooters, fighters, and driving games. You don't see things
like Tempest, Venture, and Arabian anymore.
RogerM
I remember that. I still pause before clicking on one of his posts. :)
jwb
news:43232AE2...@ns.sympatico.ca...
Tempest... what an original game. I loved that one.
Scramble, too (even though it was pretty basic side scroller)
RogerM
Qix was pretty special, too. I had a version of that on my Amiga.
shadows
On 2005-09-10, Gandalf Parker <gan...@most.of.my.favorite.sites> wrote:
> Michael Vondung <mvon...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:q7b2bpojutb2.m...@40tude.net:
>> a RPG like Ultima VIII
>> (even though no one but me liked it!), a treasure hunt like Diablo II,
>> a MMORPG like UO, more RTS releases like Kohan, involved TBS like
>> Master of Magic, more trading titles like Elite, a 4X like MOO,
>
> game please let me know. But, for now....
>
> There are over 300 free servers now for Ultima Online. The player-made
> modifications are extreme. From old UO, to Diablo versions, to Tolkien
> D&D versions, to long term slow gain versions, to fast burn player-vs-
> player versions.
Gandalf I never got into UO. I was a poor college student at the
time and the time & expense of it never appealled to me. I am
interested though and have seen you post several times about it.
Have you considered putting together a FAQ or a webpage
explaining how to get on these free servers? I'm assuming the
client is downloadable via a free trial from Origin.
Do these free UO shards have that many users or are they just
nostalgic ghosts?
I'm going to go google but I suspect I'll wind up on shards with
30-50 players on at once.
shadows
> For the past year or so, I have not found one game that really "grabbed"
> me. I even branched out to other genres, like action and simulations, but
> in the end I just spent quite a bit of money on games that ended up on the
> shelf within a few hours. Quite literally.
>
> already when I started, I didn't begin playing at two years, like so many
> today), so I have seen quite a number of games. Years ago, there were games
> that really "grabbed" me and held me under their spell for months if not
> years, but nowadays, nothing seems to interest me. Nothing appears to
> really appeal to me, although that doesn't mean that nothing fails to
> attract me. Quite a few games catch my attention, but they never live up to
> the excitement they promise.
We have some things in common and, like yourself, I also stopped
enjoying games recently. I finally gave up on WoW when I realized
how boring the game is after level 60.
This is after *really* trying to like it past that level.
I think the problem is the landscape is changing for guys like
you and me. Not to sound too grandoise but artists suffer the
same fate when a new art movement comes about and they feel out
of place. Games are pieces of art just like movies and
novels. This means when the landscape changes us hobbyists will
suffer.
I suspect we will see the odd game here and there that is
reproduced from the past. Those games will be ghosts and will
never capture the same experience we had from previous games.
You know what annoys me more than anything? Most of the games
from the 80s and 90s which we grew up on are dying because of
backward compatibility issues, and game developers can't even be
bothered to realize that the technology they develop should be
more open so that the fan base can maintain the code after they
move onto other things.
Instead the old games die, the landscape changes, and some games
barely manage to live on, but do live on like old soldiers
through a series of binary patches and mods.
Gerry Quinn
jwb3333r...@excite.com says...
> Tempest... what an original game. I loved that one.
What's original about it?
It's just Space Invaders with the board wrapped into a circle.
- Gerry Quinn
Michael Vondung
spent a few hours last night learning more about Go. I even downloaded qGo
and glGo, and kibitzed at a number of games at the IGS (panda net
something). That was actually quite interesting, and I'll say that Go seems
to be harder to get into. An ongoing chess game looks rather organized and
clean (one can quickly determine all legal moves), but a 19x19 Go board
after 200+ moves looks quite complex and confusing. But it's definitely
interesting, especially if you move a bit away from the screen and try to
"take in" the whole board and the global pattern. I's very
"macro"-oriented, and I'm not sure how to tackle the game yet
(strategy-wise), but I think I'll spend some time trying to "get" it. I
also find it artistic in an appealing way.
I have to say though that the different rulesets and scoring systems are a
lot more confusing than Chess. I'm not sure if the claim that Go is easier
to learn than chess is really so accurate if you look at the Japanese
ruleset with its numerous exceptions for example. And then there is stuff
like "removing the dead stones at the end and playing it out if there are
disputes", which seems fairly ambigious and vague to me. Also
"compensation" such as handicaps and "komi" are something to get used to,
and I have mixed feelings about them. This is done at chess show events
too, but not at tournaments where everyone starts at an equal level. (But I
am most certainly missing something crucial here.)
What happens if one player resigns? Does the other player win? It would
make sense, but I noticed that the Go clients I looked at don't even bother
calculating the final score if one player gives up. Surprisingly many of
the games I watched at IGS ended with someone resigning and I didn't always
(or ever) understand just why the player gave up ... a few of them seemed
to have more captures and more "territory", but still threw the towel.
Do Go players, like chess players, "peak" at around 25, then remain
somewhat constant until they reach 40, and then drop significantly in
performance?ยด
M.
magnate
games - these always felt to me like they had the atmosphere and
immersion that NWN lacked (though admittedly they didn't have the range
of monsters and items etc.). They had the same sort of
strategy-cum-puzzle feel as Commandos. I think my ultimate crpg would
be some kind of Thief outgrowth with something more like the NWN combat
engine and a BG1-style plot.
I'm looking into getting Thief 3: Deadly Shadows - grateful for
anyone's experiences of that game. I've also just discovered a fan-made
expansion for Thief 2, which I'm just installing now ...
CC
Michael Vondung
> I'm looking into getting Thief 3: Deadly Shadows - grateful for
> anyone's experiences of that game.
I picked this one up for ten Euro, a couple months back. I have not played
the two prequals, so I cannot compare, but I actually liked the game. It
didn't grab my attention as much as other games of old, but this was a
purchase that I didn't really reget. I didn't finish it, because frankly, I
sucked at it, but the atmosphere was great. Good dose of much appreciated
humour, too.
M.
Grackle
news:w7gtbi8ve23x.dggccjatm4tf$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> Do Go players, like chess players, "peak" at around 25, then remain
> somewhat constant until they reach 40, and then drop significantly in
> performance?ยด
>
Kasparov is born in '63 so I guess his brain must be starting to overheat by
now...
shadows
Thief 3 lacks the magic of the first two and is far more
clausterphobic. It's still worth playing through once though.
serg271
>Matrix Games free version of Steel Panthers World at War.
Or free version Steel Panthers Main Battle Tank (Modern battles) for
windows
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/SPCamo/wSPMBT/1.htm
BTW it's AI somehow better than SPWAW (it shooting arty on the
smoke/dust plumes for example)
Xocyll
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>For the past year or so, I have not found one game that really "grabbed"
>me. I even branched out to other genres, like action and simulations, but
>in the end I just spent quite a bit of money on games that ended up on the
>shelf within a few hours. Quite literally.
>
>I've been playing computer games for over two decades (and I was a teen
>already when I started, I didn't begin playing at two years, like so many
>today), so I have seen quite a number of games. Years ago, there were games
>that really "grabbed" me and held me under their spell for months if not
>years, but nowadays, nothing seems to interest me. Nothing appears to
>really appeal to me, although that doesn't mean that nothing fails to
>attract me. Quite a few games catch my attention, but they never live up to
>the excitement they promise.
>
>Granted, one could raise the argument that perhaps I developed ADD at my
>advanced age (I don't really believe in ADD and consider it to be yet
>another attempt at explaining the shortcomings of today's "inhumane"
>education and failed social system), but I don't have the same problem
>with, say, books. I read novels from the first page to the last, without
>ever getting distracted or losing focus, and often pick them up again after
>a few years have passed, so it's not a matter of getting easily distracted.
>
>So, what is my problem? Have I become jaded and "seen it all"? Or have
>games become stale, lacking in innovation and freshness? I'm tempted to
>blame myself, because I cannot see games like Pitfall or North & South
>capture me today, though a Dungeon Master or Elite could probably do it.
>Likewise, the Ultima games in a "modern outfit" would do, but no one is
>actually developing such games anymore. All we get these days are games
>that visually blow your mind in the first three hours, and then make you
>realise just how much potential in the gameplay area was wasted.
Jaded, I don't know.
The problem you, I, and many others are having is that we've seen games
in the past that were so very innovative and we've seen some very
innovative and interesting things be ignored and dropped from newer
games.
I can usually find something to like in the various games I try, but I
can't help missing the things i've seen in similar games that would make
_this_ game better.
The people who never played the old games don't miss those features
because they don't know that they ever existed.
When we were young we took the games as they came, but as we built up a
"library" or "history" of games played we start linking the various bits
we _really_ liked and every new game gets compared to the ever
increasing "ideal game" template.
Even as we say the graphics aren't important, they are - i've looked
back at some old favorites and while the gameplay is there, the graphics
are now SO HORRIBLE in comparison with new games that I can't play them.
Text based and ASCII graphic roguealikes are immune to this aspect.
UU:SA is one of those, Betrayal at Krondor another.
I would gladly buy these games again if they were updated to modern
graphic resolutions and textures and had the gameplay left EXACTLY as it
was.
The problem though, is that the older "experienced" gamer that is still
gaming, is a fairly small part of the total gaming market (or at least
that's what the beancounters think) so they just don't consider it a
market worth pursuing.
Hopefully some creative bunch in eastern europe will decide to make a
game like we used to love with graphics that are adequate if not totally
state of the art.
If it happens and it does well enough, maybe the beancounters will sit
up and notice.
I doubt it though, beancounters seem unable to concentrate on anything
but "Top 10 seller" and in a market they think is dominated by ADD
teenagers, they're only going to make games that appeal to ADD
teenagers.
CelesteB
>I
>Try replaying some of your old favorites and see what happens. Come to think
>of, I need to do the same.
>
>--
>Ken Rice -=:=- kennrice (AT) erols (DOT) com
>http://users.erols.com/kennrice - Lego Compatible Flex Track,
> Civil War Round Table of DC & Concentration Camp made of Lego bricks
>http://members.tripod.com/~kennrice
> Maps of Ultima 7 Parts 1 & 2, Prophecy of the Shadow, Savage Empire,
> Crusaders of Dark Savant & Others.
>
I'm in the same situation...I just ordered the BG/IWD complete set to
replay. I still have the old ones but am too lazy to track them down
:)
Celeste
"Born to Rune" - T. Prachett
CelesteB
>That, actually, is what leads me to believe that perhaps I simply burnt out
>on games. A few days ago, I discussed this very topic with David Shapiro
>aka Dr. Cat, one of the Ulima VI programmers/designers (and my employer),
>and he seemed to be somewhat sure that I simply burnt out on games. I'm not
>so sure, though. But what if I am? What is there that can be done about it?
>I skipped Guild Wars, Dungeon Siege 2, and the AoE3 pre-order because I
>feel that these games would further discourage me and turn out to be a
>waste of money. So, what can I do about this dilemma?
>
>I still enjoy chess, by the way.
>
>M.
just the other day? ;) I picked up a Nintendo DS and have collected
some games - Fire Emblem, Fire Emblem Sacred Stones, Advance Wars:
Black Hole Rising and Dual Strike. I'm hoping to find that spark too.
Didn't you play Fire Emblem? If so, what did you think?
jwb
I really liked TDS. I was a fan of the first two, and thought the third was
the best of the bunch - it just felt more like I was a thief - the hide in
shadows and move silent worked much better (Garret always sounded like he
was wearing tap shoes in the first two games).
Some hardcore fans derided TDS because of the "small levels" needed to
accommodate the Xbox, but in reality, it was likely anger that was more
directed at consoles overall - the levels are not small. There's usually one
"portal" in each (big) level that splits the level in half. Hardly "two
rooms and load" that many made it seem.
If you liked the first two thief games, TDS is an easy game to recommend.
R. Alan Monroe
Except for the:
Color display
Varied types of enemies that actually do different things
Varying layouts
Comfortable analog control
Appealing aesthetics
High adrenaline pacing
Instantly recognizable sound effects
etc.
A lot more than "just" Space Invaders.
Alan
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
<snip>
>Hopefully some creative bunch in eastern europe will decide to make a
>game like we used to love with graphics that are adequate if not totally
>state of the art.
Recent examples: Star Wolves, Nexus:The Jupiter Incident, Metalheart, to
name a few.
>If it happens and it does well enough, maybe the beancounters will sit
>up and notice.
>I doubt it though, beancounters seem unable to concentrate on anything
>but "Top 10 seller" and in a market they think is dominated by ADD
>teenagers, they're only going to make games that appeal to ADD
>teenagers.
>
>Xocyll
Farkin A! I wish I had ADD *sniff*...
--
A killfile is a friend for life.
Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Michael Vondung
> I just ordered the BG/IWD complete set to
> replay. I still have the old ones but am too lazy to track them down
> :)
Funny you say that. I ordered the Black Isle Compilation 2 just the other
day, too. :) It comes with both BGs and their expansions & both IWDs and
expansions. I wanted mostly IWD2 since I had skipped this before. Well, I
am not as big a fan of BG as others here, but these were
better-than-average games. :)
M.
Gerry Quinn
now...@lalaland.ca says...
> "Michael Vondung" <mvon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:w7gtbi8ve23x.dggccjatm4tf$.dlg@40tude.net...
> >
> > Do Go players, like chess players, "peak" at around 25, then remain
> > somewhat constant until they reach 40, and then drop significantly in
>
> Kasparov is born in '63 so I guess his brain must be starting to overheat by
> now...
Actually he has just officially retired. But he might come back. I
suspect he wants to get involved in politics.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
amon...@yahoo.com says...
Still, somewhat incremental rather than revolutionary, no?
- Gerry Quinn
chaos...@gmail.com
patrick...@mn.rr.com wrote:
> > John Menichelli wrote:
>
> > I would do as you suggest: try Go. It's an excellent game with both
> > strategic and tactical elements.
>
> Choose go if you want a departure from chess, or if you want a bigger,
> longer game, or if you just want to see what it's like or whatever.
> Don't choose go just because chess software is so strong or somebody
> tells you there's not much strategy in chess.
IMO Go is definitely the superior game. Computers being much weaker Go
players than they are Chess players is not the cause of this; it's the
symptom.
Go is a better game because it is less "mechanical", and more
intuitive. There are levels of thinking and understanding Go that
simply aren't there, in chess.
(FWIW, I was a very strong chess-player when I was a kid. I had
newspaper articles written about me, and only dropped out of
competition because I couldn't--and didn't want to--deal with the 6+
hours of chess training every day. This is not meant as a boast, just
proof that I'm not biased towards Go out of ignorance or incompetence
at chess.)
Laszlo
patrick...@mn.rr.com
> IMO Go is definitely the superior game. Computers being much weaker Go
> players than they are Chess players is not the cause of this; it's the
> symptom.
>
> Go is a better game because it is less "mechanical", and more
> intuitive. There are levels of thinking and understanding Go that
> simply aren't there, in chess.
So you're saying that non-intuitive "mechanical" games which focus on
certain levels of thinking and understanding are inherently inferior to
games which require that more of the mind be used?
I wouldn't say that makes go superior to chess; it just makes it more
intuitive and demanding of a broader range of mental processes.
Go would only be superior if we agreed that the main purpose of a game
is to exercise the mind as fully as possible.
Go is, IMO, inferior to chess in many ways: e.g., despite its
simplicity it's harder to teach and learn; the standard (19x19) game is
too big and long for many people; it's annoying to have to count
points; except in a very close game, the last dozen or so moves are
often almost irrelevant; its greater degree of abstraction gives the
imagination less to latch onto (whereas chess is almost obviously a
stylized medieval battle, it's a real stretch to suppose that go is a
whole war); the concept of indirect moves clashes with the "direct"
Western consciousness (only a downside for Westerners); and the player
who wants to focus on developing the tactical side of his mind will
find less concentrated opportunity for that in go than in chess,
because in go you have to work the strategic side as well. Also, if a
given player considers chess more fun than go, then for that individual
chess is superior to go in that respect.
While go is a fine game and does indeed afford dimensions of mental
exercise beyond what chess offers, that does not, IMO, make go superior
to chess. Go is what it is, and chess is what it is.
As far as mental exercise goes, I suppose every game works different
parts of the mind. Card games like bridge test the memory and powers
of deduction, for instance, better than games like chess and go. FPS
games test hand-eye coordination better than turn-based games. There's
probably no game in the world that exercises the whole mind; and even
if there were, it'd be deficient if it didn't exercise the body and
spirit as well.
But as Musashi, the Samurai, says in Book of Five Rings, "Master one
thing, and you master all things." Pick a game--chess, go, or
tiddly-winks--and work at it conscientiously until you've mastered it;
and along the way you'll find yourself changing the way you live. The
principles that work in the game also work everywhere else in life, and
you naturally end up living those principles and bettering your
life--provided you're open to it.
The trouble with many game players is they're not open to that. They
consider the game to be a departure from life; they get absorbed in
games to the exclusion of life.
--Patrick
chaos...@gmail.com
patrickcarr...@mn.rr.com wrote:
> chaos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > IMO Go is definitely the superior game. Computers being much weaker Go
> > players than they are Chess players is not the cause of this; it's the
> > symptom.
> >
> > Go is a better game because it is less "mechanical", and more
> > intuitive. There are levels of thinking and understanding Go that
> > simply aren't there, in chess.
>
> So you're saying that non-intuitive "mechanical" games which focus on
> certain levels of thinking and understanding are inherently inferior to
> games which require that more of the mind be used?
Yes. That is my opinion (hence the "IMO").
> I wouldn't say that makes go superior to chess; it just makes it more
> intuitive and demanding of a broader range of mental processes.
>
> Go would only be superior if we agreed that the main purpose of a game
> is to exercise the mind as fully as possible.
I believe this _is_ usually the criterion. It is why we consider Chess
to be superior to Checkers, or why we hold Bridge or Poker to be
superior to Blackjack.
I'll try to prove that _assuming_ we accept Chess to be superior to
Checkers, Go is similarly superior to chess.
> Go is, IMO, inferior to chess in many ways: e.g., despite its
> simplicity it's harder to teach and learn;
The same thing is true of chess vs. checkers.
> the standard (19x19) game is too big and long for many people;
The same thing is true of chess vs. checkers.
> it's annoying to have to count points;
No real parallel for this one. However, good Go players don't really
have to count points (or so I understand; I'm not a good Go player).
They can just look a the board and be able to give an estimate that's
perfectly adequate.
> except in a very close game, the last dozen or so moves are
> often almost irrelevant;
In games like that, the last dozen or so moves are _not played_,
because the losing player will resign.
Exactly the same is true of chess, btw. At Master level and above, I'd
say less than 20% of games actually end with checkmate.
> its greater degree of abstraction gives the
> imagination less to latch onto (whereas chess is almost obviously a
> stylized medieval battle, it's a real stretch to suppose that go is a
> whole war);
I disagree. I think that--once one is used to playing Go--it's
perfectly easy to imagine the board as a battlefield, and the pieces
are soldiers.
> the concept of indirect moves clashes with the "direct"
> Western consciousness (only a downside for Westerners);
*shrug* I'm a Westerner. Doesn't clash with my consciousness much. I'll
grant that indirect moves and static pieces make the game less
accessible to children, perhaps.
> and the player who wants to focus on developing the tactical side of
> his mind will find less concentrated opportunity for that in go than
> in chess, because in go you have to work the strategic side as well.
Sure, and if a player wants to focus on developing their hand-eye
coordination, then tennis is a better game than either Chess or go.
Insofar as quality is a largely subjective metric, you are correct, but
your argument only says that "you can't call any game superior to any
other", which is a reasonable argument, but not a very useful or
interesting one.
> Also, if a given player considers chess more fun than go, then for that
> individual chess is superior to go in that respect.
Hence the "IMO". And see above: surely you don't want to argue that
people like different things? I think we're all aware of that.
> While go is a fine game and does indeed afford dimensions of mental
> exercise beyond what chess offers, that does not, IMO, make go superior
> to chess. Go is what it is, and chess is what it is.
>
> As far as mental exercise goes, I suppose every game works different
> parts of the mind. Card games like bridge test the memory and powers
> of deduction, for instance, better than games like chess and go. FPS
> games test hand-eye coordination better than turn-based games. There's
> probably no game in the world that exercises the whole mind; and even
> if there were, it'd be deficient if it didn't exercise the body and
> spirit as well.
Certainly, which is why there is no complete game. That's why children
should be encouraged to play many different games; physical games,
board games, word games, etc.
However, Go is a _more_ complete game than Chess is. I believe this
makes it superior; and looking at the generally accepted tenets that
chess is superior to checkers, poker is superior to blackjack etc, I
think this makes sense.
> But as Musashi, the Samurai, says in Book of Five Rings, "Master one
> thing, and you master all things." Pick a game--chess, go, or
> tiddly-winks--and work at it conscientiously until you've mastered it;
> and along the way you'll find yourself changing the way you live. The
> principles that work in the game also work everywhere else in life, and
> you naturally end up living those principles and bettering your
> life--provided you're open to it.
I believe Musashi is mistaken. Master one thing, and you have mastered
one thing.
There are chess grandmasters who are perfect jerks. There are chess
grandmasters who are utter failures at most other endeavours. I'm sure
it's the same for Go grandmasters (I don't know any Go grandmasters, so
this is only an assumption).
> The trouble with many game players is they're not open to that. They
> consider the game to be a departure from life; they get absorbed in
> games to the exclusion of life.
I believe it is a mistake to ascribe too much importance to a game. A
game is a game, it is a place where you can shed the mortal bits of
your self, and enter a world that is far "cleaner" and simpler than
life.
Life is far more subtle, disturbing, and exhilerating than any game.
Assigning the traits of any game to life is the mark of autism.
Laszlo
jwb
news:2uu9i11pirav4q0hs...@4ax.com...
> Thus spake Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>, Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:47:39 -0400,
>>Hopefully some creative bunch in eastern europe will decide to make a
>>game like we used to love with graphics that are adequate if not totally
>>state of the art.
>
> Recent examples: Star Wolves, Nexus:The Jupiter Incident, Metalheart, to
> name a few.
Haven't tried the other two, but MetalHeart really isn't a very good game.
To start, it has really shitty documentation and user feedback. You
literally have no idea what your stats do. For example, you start off with
"x" strength and "y" intelligence (amongst many others), and are given
points to distribute. But you have no idea what increasing your strength
does. Or how do you become a better shot - which stats do you increase?
The game has stats, but absolutely no meaning behind them at all. It's
almost bizarre - you have no idea where to put your stat points. And I'm not
a numbers whore - just tell me increasing my perception makes me a better
shot - I don't necessarily need to see "+2 to hit" or whatnot. But the game
doesn't even do that.
Plus, the translation is awful; the dialog trees are limited (it seems your
intelligence has no effect on dialog choices), and you have no choice in
your character - you start off as the same guy.
It looks like Fallout. And that's about it.
It's really not even worth the $20 price it's selling for.
wolfing
> - CoH: looooved it at first - I wanted to be a superhero since I can
> remember (like all kids!) & this game almost pulled it off; the grind & ppl
> leaving in droves for WoW/EQ2 saw me follow the crowd to EQ2, which didn't
> have anywhere near the same magic, just grind
I did exactly the same thing, followed my guildmates to EQ2 while I was
still having fun in CoH, and it was also a mistake (then tried WoW,
same thing).
Just a week or two ago I reactivated my account in CoH, and man, am I
having fun again!!!
First, there have been many fixes to the game. Issue 5 made it a lot
more fun (except for the still grumbling tankers). The two days I
played before Issue 5, all missions were rather the same thing: tanker
went all around the mission herding all mobs to the group waiting at
entrance... 15 seconds of mass blowing, mission's done. Fun at first,
but quickly grew boring. Then issue 5 came, and my oh my! The game is
really fun to play.
Second, there are several new powersets so even more combination
possibilities to create heroes.
Because of I5, many people like myself reactivated their accounts to
check it out, and also, seems like there is some promotion going, the
servers have plenty of people to play with. My SG had like 1 or 2
people online when I reactivated, now it has like 5-7.
shadows
> Haven't tried the other two, but MetalHeart really isn't a very good game.
Agreed based on what I read. All these nostalgic clones won't be
any good. We had a UFO game that was supposed to be a ripoff of
x-com and it bombed. Metalheart bombed. My understanding is that
The Fall is also a complete failure due to how buggy it is.
Just writing a game and making it look like X-Com, or Fallout
won't make the game good. You need the same talent putting the
design together.
Also European games tend to have an acquired taste
sometimes. Japanese games more-so.
Warewolf
news:1126364327.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>Looking back at this year, the only game purchase I am truly
>>happy with is Chessmaster 10th Edition. In a way, that's pathetic,
>>because a board game whose exact rules have been in place since the
>>16th century offers more challenge than all these new games . . .
>
> "Maybe your mind is becoming more & more abstract-centric & your
> imagination
> centres are atrophying. I find a healthy dose of porn for a week
> improves my
> enthusiasm for game playing no end! >8^D"
>
> I know that response was a joke, but it points up something serious
> that's often overlooked IMO: Abstract games require *more*
> imagination, not less! Doom can never be anything but fantasy monster
> bashing, and Gary Grigsby's World at War can never be anything but
> WWII; but chess can be anything the player imagines.
<snip>
> ...With sufficient imagination, the sky's the limit.
In other words, play more chess. (or Nethack) ;)
> In contrast, graphic realism is *extremely* narrow and limited by its
> very nature.
Testify!!
Every studio and programming team has their own vision of what an orc or
beholder looks like and, if it conflicts with what the player has in
mind, it may affect his/her immersion in the gameworld. (Then again, the
versatile interface and/or 'monster gallery' (among other bells and
whistles) may bring them back...at least for a while)
> Once you've got that elven warrior explicitly decked out
> in chainmail and equipped with bow, dagger, and an assortment of
> protection spells, it's very vividly an elven warrior; but that's all
> it can ever possibly be. And sooner or later, unless you're *really*
> into elves, you're going to get tired of that and start looking for
> something else.
Unless that elf can still learn some spells or finds a genie that can
give him/her a beautiful companion that fits in a small container ;)
> The above allusion to porn is apropos: it can be very exciting--for
> five minutes. That's the nature of graphic stimulation; it's
> ephemeral. But the allusion is misleading, because bombarding the
> senses with audio-visual stimulation does NOT improve the imagination!
I'm guessing you haven't visited too many photomanip sites?
Some of the pictures I've seen offered some *very* clever alterations.
If wondering how some people (particularly celebrities like Britney
Spears) would handle life with feet at the ends of their wrists isn't
food for thought, I challenge you to post an example that makes less
sense. (than the episodes of Bonus Stage)
> It has just the opposite effect. It fills the mind with specific
> images, and those images stand as cheap substitutes for what the
> imagination would normally produce on its own. All the "seeming
> reality"--whether porn images or realistic game images--crowds out the
> imagination and causes it to grow lazy and weak.
Until one starts wondering about the history of those ghosts in a Mario
game.
> As a matter of fact, I think this is a big part of Mr. Vondung's
> complaint, or dilemma. As one of my literature profs said, "We're all
> in the clutches of realism these days." In the nineteenth century,
> poetry gave way to novels because of all the realistic detail. In the
> twentieth century, books gave way to movies because of all the graphic
> realism. In this century, even movies have to be computer enhanced
> for added realism, while computer games seem to make us participants
> in the movies. It seems that what people really want is a "holodeck."
Or something as versatile as Planescape. *shrug*
> But what is a holodeck? It's just like real life, except that you
> have the godlike power to make it be any way you like.
And I'm sure that what I have in mind would frighten even the most
staunch of sci-fi/fantasy buffs. :)
> So, basically, people want real life, not an escape from real life.
Uuuuuuuuhhhh... 7:^|
> The only reason people don't immerse themselves in real life is that
> they're full of fears and inhibitions and all the things that make us
> feel unable to create the kind of life we want.
Yep. You don't paid for jumping off a building.
Or writing a brilliant television or movie script for that matter. X^ล
> Imagine what it would
> be like to have absolutely no fears, worries, or inhibitions. You'd
> be completely confident and feel free to go out and do *anything* you
> want to do in life.
Within the programmer's imagination, of course.
If he didn't consider the possiblity of six-armed elf-chicks or robots
that sing Boy George music, you're screwed.
(Not to mention the fact that some things will eventually be copyrighted
so the RIAA, MPAA, FCC and other 'no-fun' organizations will probably try
to shut your 'free world' down)
> Sure, the girl you've got your eye on might still
> say no--but that wouldn't faze you in the least; you'd smile and move
> on and find someone else.
Or turn her into a statue or cockroach...whatever floats your boat. ;)
> You'd pursue the career that's just right
> for you, and you'd make plenty of money and have all the things you'd
> like to buy. Furthermore, you'd have enlightenment, spiritual
> fulfillment, and everything else imaginable. The *last* thing you'd
> ever want to do is escape from life and immerse yourself in a fantasy
> or a game. Without fear, and with your imagination linked up to real
> life, the world would be your oyster.
*imagines a world filled with Keanu Reeves clones...and screams* ;)
It would degrade into Dragonball Z if my achievements and those of other
avatars had some bearing on the real world. I doubt we'd settle the
aquisition of a local manufacturing plant with anything less than 500'
fireballs. :)
<snip>
> And the more we learn to love real life, and the better we get at it,
> the less we'll complain about all the crappy games coming out these
> days.
I don't think any of us are going to forget the likes of Daikatana or
Survivor: the Game anytime soon. :)
> In the first place, we won't want to blind ourselves with all
> that eye candy anyway; and in the second place, we'll be so happy and
> involved in life that we won't want to spend much time escaping into a
> mere game.
I don't think that'll happen in the real world unless some 'cosmic
event' occurs. Unless you know where to look, real life is either boring
or cruel. You are right in saying that games will never be a substitute
for finding the right guy or girl, raising your first kid or sending some
overbearing government or corporate jerk-off that's been making your
family miserable off to prison...but, every once in a while, it is nice
to pilot a giant robot, chat with aliens and smash entire planets without
any real person getting hurt.
A game that can keep those ideas fresh for 5 minutes or 5 hours at a time
will climb another rung toward the holy grail of that title's particular
genre.
Later.
patrick...@mn.rr.com
> patrickcarr...@mn.rr.com wrote:
> > Go would only be superior if we agreed that the main purpose of a game
> > is to exercise the mind as fully as possible.
>
> I believe this _is_ usually the criterion. It is why we consider Chess
> to be superior to Checkers, or why we hold Bridge or Poker to be
> superior to Blackjack.
I believe it's pretentious to assume this "is usually the criterion."
The criterion for whom?
It may usually be the criterion among people whose aim is to determine
which games are the most mentally challenging. But I don't see any
indication in this discussion group or this thread that most people in
*this* community are primarily interested in that. Do you really think
everyone would agree that Dominions II is superior to Age of Wonders
just because the former is more challenging to the intellect? My guess
is there are probably a lot of AoW fans who consider Dom2 inferior in
various respects--and would continue to consider it inferior even if it
were universally agreed that Dom2 is more of a mental workout.
As to the games you name above, I'd say the kind of "superiority"
you're naming is extremely esoteric--and therefore inapplicable to the
game-playing community at large.
> I'll try to prove that _assuming_ we accept Chess to be superior to
> Checkers, Go is similarly superior to chess.
On what do you base the assumption? All my life I've heard experts
agree that checkers is the equal of chess in terms of intellectual
challenge. Many people do think of checkers as a kids' game, but good
players know better. Only recently have I heard that computer analysis
has somehow determined checkers to be a weaker game than chess. But
since either game can pose a lifelong challenge to an above-average
human intellect, to me that's a moot point. In short, I do not accept
chess to be superior to checkers.
> > and the player who wants to focus on developing the tactical side of
> > his mind will find less concentrated opportunity for that in go than
> > in chess, because in go you have to work the strategic side as well.
>
> Sure, and if a player wants to focus on developing their hand-eye
> coordination, then tennis is a better game than either Chess or go.
>
> Insofar as quality is a largely subjective metric, you are correct, but
> your argument only says that "you can't call any game superior to any
> other", which is a reasonable argument, but not a very useful or
> interesting one.
It's useful in dispelling intellectual pretentiousness. If it's not
interesting, I apologize for that.
> > Also, if a given player considers chess more fun than go, then for that
> > individual chess is superior to go in that respect.
>
> Hence the "IMO". And see above: surely you don't want to argue that
> people like different things? I think we're all aware of that.
Yes, but you have to take my post in context. Someone suggested go to
someone who said he liked chess and was thinking about trying go. The
person who suggested go said or implied that it's a superior game. So,
to help balance things out, I posted what I said: that go may be more
intellectually challenging, but that's not necessarily a good reason
for choosing it over chess.
Assuming people are sometimes influenced by what other people say, and
the tone in which they say it, I think my post could have served a good
purpose. (As it turned out, the first person had already played go, so
my post probably wasn't helpful in the way it was intended.)
> However, Go is a _more_ complete game than Chess is. I believe this
> makes it superior; and looking at the generally accepted tenets that
> chess is superior to checkers, poker is superior to blackjack etc, I
> think this makes sense.
It does make sense, and of course you're entitled to your opinion.
> > But as Musashi, the Samurai, says in Book of Five Rings, "Master one
> > thing, and you master all things." Pick a game--chess, go, or
> > tiddly-winks--and work at it conscientiously until you've mastered it;
> > and along the way you'll find yourself changing the way you live. The
> > principles that work in the game also work everywhere else in life, and
> > you naturally end up living those principles and bettering your
> > life--provided you're open to it.
>
> I believe Musashi is mistaken. Master one thing, and you have mastered
> one thing.
>
> There are chess grandmasters who are perfect jerks. There are chess
> grandmasters who are utter failures at most other endeavours. . . .
To me, that just goes to show that mastering one thing does not, by
itself, *guarantee* that you'll be good at all things. Musashi's
dictum applies to people who consciously aim to live life well and as
fully as possible.
No, you can't escape into a chess game, dedicating your life to it
while blinding yourself to everything else in life, and expect to end
up a well-rounded person.
But if you set out to be a well-rounded person, and you also work at
chess until you've mastered it, I believe Musashi's dictum will prove
true. (Of course, Musashi was talking about swordfighting, not chess.
But the book "Samurai Chess," by Gelb and Keene, makes a connection.)
OTOH, if you set out to be a well-rounded person (meaning someone who
lives life fully and well in every respect), but you never concentrate
on *anything* well enough to master it, at best you'll end up a
dilettante or jack of all trades.
And--for the sake of completeness--if you set out to master
*everything,* you'll end up mastering nothing. Your efforts will be
spread too thin.
> > The trouble with many game players is they're not open to that. They
> > consider the game to be a departure from life; they get absorbed in
> > games to the exclusion of life.
>
> I believe it is a mistake to ascribe too much importance to a game. A
> game is a game, it is a place where you can shed the mortal bits of
> your self, and enter a world that is far "cleaner" and simpler than
> life.
>
> Life is far more subtle, disturbing, and exhilerating than any game.
> Assigning the traits of any game to life is the mark of autism.
Again, you're entitled to your opinion. And I'm sure that what you're
saying is true for many people. But IMO it's human nature to always
try to make sense of life--to bring order out of chaos. And games are
one example of that.
I don't believe it's possible to *ever* really step outside of life.
When we think we're taking a break from life to play a game, we're just
fooling ourselves; the game playing is part of life. And no part of
life is without its lessons or valuable experiences.
One thing I've always really liked about the game of go is that there's
such a philosophy built up around it. A book of go proverbs can serve
as a pretty good guide to living life (if you take the principles and
interpret them broadly or deeply enough).
To each his own, but to me it's very depressing to hear anyone say, "a
game is just a game." It is but it isn't. A game can also be a
metaphor for life. That's why the book "Samurai Chess" was the most
inspiring chess book I've ever read, and why I was tempted to buy "The
Tao of Chess" the other day in a bookstore. If a game can't be more
than just a game, to me it's pretty much a waste of time--and certainly
not worth writing all these words about.
I hope it's not autism (though I did once score pretty high on an
unofficial Asperger's Syndrome test). I'd rather think it's just my
Idealist temperament (see www.keirsey.com); I'm determined to find deep
meaning and significance in every part of life, and I'm more a romantic
than a realist.
--Patrick
Grackle
news:MPG.1d8f59d9e...@news.indigo.ie...
Politics? But has he starred in any blockbuster action movies? Might be
difficult for him.
infer...@my-deja.com
feel that games are futile and non-productive and he'd better spend
time doing something else, or he is always so busy that there is no
time to actually get into a game anymore. Consider carefully if you are
experiencing such. If so, maybe you are right. :-)
foamy
googlegroups.com>, infer...@my-deja.com wrote:
Or everything coming out is just same old same old, with higher system
requirements.
Jim
Quaestor
>All my life I've heard experts
>agree that checkers is the equal of chess in terms of intellectual
>challenge.
>
You listen to people who are stupid. Just because you and your friends
cannot understand the nature of the game does not mean that others do not.
>Many people do think of checkers as a kids' game, but good
>players know better.
>
For your definition of "good players." I programmed chess for years,
and I know, the move-tree for chess is beyond the combined resolution of
all the computers through all of history, and will likely remain so for
some time. Whereas the complete move-tree for checkers was resolved
years ago. Checkers is a game so thoroughly known, by human players,
that in checkers tournaments the opening moves are forced by lottery,
otherwise the first to move invariably wins. Checkers hardly qualifies
as a truly competitive game at all.
>Only recently have I heard that computer analysis
>has somehow determined checkers to be a weaker game than chess.
>
That is your first correct ascertion.
>But
>since either game can pose a lifelong challenge to an above-average
>human intellect,
>
Not true. See above.
>to me that's a moot point.
>
To you it is a moot point because you Want it to be a moot point.
>In short, I do not accept
>chess to be superior to checkers.
>
>
Accept or reject as you wish. In terms of complexity and challenge, it
IS, in the same way that Mt. Everest IS bigger than a pebble. Those who
want to believe otherwise can make up any argument they want, but it
does not change reallity.
--
Godwin is a net-nazi
chaos...@gmail.com
patrick...@mn.rr.com wrote:
> chaos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > patrickcarr...@mn.rr.com wrote:
> > > Go would only be superior if we agreed that the main purpose of a game
> > > is to exercise the mind as fully as possible.
> >
> > I believe this _is_ usually the criterion. It is why we consider Chess
> > to be superior to Checkers, or why we hold Bridge or Poker to be
> > superior to Blackjack.
>
> I believe it's pretentious to assume this "is usually the criterion."
> The criterion for whom?
Most people.
Google: "chess is better than checkers": 74 hits. "checkers is better
than chess": 4 hits.
Okay, that "proof" was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I maintain that most
people hold Chess to be superior to checkers. I doubt there's
convincing proof of that, but I'm pretty sure it's correct.
> It may usually be the criterion among people whose aim is to determine
> which games are the most mentally challenging. But I don't see any
> indication in this discussion group or this thread that most people in
> *this* community are primarily interested in that. Do you really think
> everyone would agree that Dominions II is superior to Age of Wonders
> just because the former is more challenging to the intellect? My guess
> is there are probably a lot of AoW fans who consider Dom2 inferior in
> various respects--and would continue to consider it inferior even if it
> were universally agreed that Dom2 is more of a mental workout.
Computer games use different metrics, because they have other
measurements of quality. Graphics, for one. Interface, for another.
Obviously, there isn't usually a great difference in "graphics" or
interface for board games.
> As to the games you name above, I'd say the kind of "superiority"
> you're naming is extremely esoteric--and therefore inapplicable to the
> game-playing community at large.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then.
Incidentally, as it turns out, Google agrees with me about everything!
Cool!
"go is better than chess": 34 hits
"chess is better than go": 22 hits
"poker is better than blackjack": 22 hits
"blackjack is better than poker": 3 hits
"bridge is better than blackjack": 0 hits
"blackjack is better than bridge": 0 hits (obviously, not a comparison
that's made much)
Criticize the methodology if you want, but this actually seems to be a
pretty good way of gauging popular opinion. Check it out:
"half-life 2 is better than doom 3": 452 hits
"doom 3 is better than half-life 2": 111 hits
"kerry is better than bush": 2920 hits
"bush is better than kerry": 969 hits
(Okay, that last one is just for amusement/flamewar value, I'll admit)
> > I'll try to prove that _assuming_ we accept Chess to be superior to
> > Checkers, Go is similarly superior to chess.
>
> On what do you base the assumption? All my life I've heard experts
> agree that checkers is the equal of chess in terms of intellectual
> challenge.
We must not have been talking to the same experts...
> Many people do think of checkers as a kids' game, but good
> players know better. Only recently have I heard that computer analysis
> has somehow determined checkers to be a weaker game than chess. But
> since either game can pose a lifelong challenge to an above-average
> human intellect, to me that's a moot point. In short, I do not accept
> chess to be superior to checkers.
See Qaestor's post... checker is a much, much simpler game than chess,
and this was known well before computer analysis made a mockery of the
former.
> > > and the player who wants to focus on developing the tactical side of
> > > his mind will find less concentrated opportunity for that in go than
> > > in chess, because in go you have to work the strategic side as well.
> >
> > Sure, and if a player wants to focus on developing their hand-eye
> > coordination, then tennis is a better game than either Chess or go.
> >
> > Insofar as quality is a largely subjective metric, you are correct, but
> > your argument only says that "you can't call any game superior to any
> > other", which is a reasonable argument, but not a very useful or
> > interesting one.
>
> It's useful in dispelling intellectual pretentiousness. If it's not
> interesting, I apologize for that.
"Most people agree with this viewpoint" isn't usually a hallmark of an
intellectually pretentious argument, I find.
"Despite what most people think, this is true," is generally a lot more
representative. Consider... which one of us holds which position?
> > > Also, if a given player considers chess more fun than go, then for that
> > > individual chess is superior to go in that respect.
> >
> > Hence the "IMO". And see above: surely you don't want to argue that
> > people like different things? I think we're all aware of that.
>
> Yes, but you have to take my post in context. Someone suggested go to
> someone who said he liked chess and was thinking about trying go. The
> person who suggested go said or implied that it's a superior game. So,
> to help balance things out, I posted what I said: that go may be more
> intellectually challenging, but that's not necessarily a good reason
> for choosing it over chess.
Sure, all right.
> > > But as Musashi, the Samurai, says in Book of Five Rings, "Master one
> > > thing, and you master all things." Pick a game--chess, go, or
> > > tiddly-winks--and work at it conscientiously until you've mastered it;
> > > and along the way you'll find yourself changing the way you live. The
> > > principles that work in the game also work everywhere else in life, and
> > > you naturally end up living those principles and bettering your
> > > life--provided you're open to it.
> >
> > I believe Musashi is mistaken. Master one thing, and you have mastered
> > one thing.
> >
> > There are chess grandmasters who are perfect jerks. There are chess
> > grandmasters who are utter failures at most other endeavours. . . .
>
> But if you set out to be a well-rounded person, and you also work at
> chess until you've mastered it, I believe Musashi's dictum will prove
> true. (Of course, Musashi was talking about swordfighting, not chess.
> But the book "Samurai Chess," by Gelb and Keene, makes a connection.)
>
> OTOH, if you set out to be a well-rounded person (meaning someone who
> lives life fully and well in every respect), but you never concentrate
> on *anything* well enough to master it, at best you'll end up a
> dilettante or jack of all trades.
I'm a jack of all trades (or aspire to be one, anyway). What's wrong
with that? :)
> One thing I've always really liked about the game of go is that there's
> such a philosophy built up around it. A book of go proverbs can serve
> as a pretty good guide to living life (if you take the principles and
> interpret them broadly or deeply enough).
I agree. The same thing, incidentally, is true of tea ceremonies, or
some types of martial arts, and so forth.
But, often I see people get overexcited and try to find parallels where
there really aren't any. That's all I'm saying.
Chess, and go, and swordfighting, are so much simpler than life. Yes,
there are similarities. But they are, IMHO, just not that deep.
> To each his own, but to me it's very depressing to hear anyone say, "a
> game is just a game." It is but it isn't. A game can also be a
> metaphor for life. That's why the book "Samurai Chess" was the most
> inspiring chess book I've ever read, and why I was tempted to buy "The
> Tao of Chess" the other day in a bookstore. If a game can't be more
> than just a game, to me it's pretty much a waste of time--and certainly
> not worth writing all these words about.
I disagree. Games are very important. Playing is very improtant. But
they're important on their own merits, not because they are some kind
of guidebook to life.
> I hope it's not autism (though I did once score pretty high on an
> unofficial Asperger's Syndrome test). I'd rather think it's just my
> Idealist temperament (see www.keirsey.com); I'm determined to find deep
> meaning and significance in every part of life, and I'm more a romantic
> than a realist.
Me too, at heart. But I've learned to keep my idealism under control. I
find life to be much easier and more fulfilling like this.
(Not to draw flames or anything, but my idealistic nature led me into
fundamentalist Christianity. I was an absolute fanatic for several
years.)
Laszlo
patrick...@mn.rr.com
> > I believe it's pretentious to assume this "is usually the criterion."
> > The criterion for whom?
>
> Most people.
>
> Google: "chess is better than checkers": 74 hits. "checkers is better
> than chess": 4 hits.
>
> Okay, that "proof" was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I maintain that most
> people hold Chess to be superior to checkers. I doubt there's
> convincing proof of that, but I'm pretty sure it's correct.
Cute--but the question was, for whom is degree of intellectual
challenge the main criterion of superiority in a game?
I'm well aware that most people seem to think of checkers as just a
kids' game. But the truth is, it takes a great deal of effort to
master checkers; some pretty smart adults spend a good portion of their
life trying to do it.
> > On what do you base the assumption? All my life I've heard experts
> > agree that checkers is the equal of chess in terms of intellectual
> > challenge.
>
> We must not have been talking to the same experts...
>
> > Many people do think of checkers as a kids' game, but good
> > players know better. Only recently have I heard that computer analysis
> > has somehow determined checkers to be a weaker game than chess. But
> > since either game can pose a lifelong challenge to an above-average
> > human intellect, to me that's a moot point. In short, I do not accept
> > chess to be superior to checkers.
>
> See Qaestor's post... checker is a much, much simpler game than chess,
> and this was known well before computer analysis made a mockery of the
> former.
Which Qaestor's post? And yes, checkers is clearly a *simpler*
game--just as go is a simpler game than chess: i.e., the pieces are
all alike, and there are fewer rules.
Maybe my information is out of date; maybe I've got something to learn
here. But I'm remembering an article on checkers in Scientific
American from way back in the late 70s or early 80s; and in that
article--as well as in books I've read on chess and checkers, plus the
fictional account in Poe's "Murders in the Rue Morgue"--I read that
it's a tossup whether chess or checkers is the deeper, more
intellectually challenging game.
In any case, both chess and checkers have always defied my periodic
attempts to even break through from novice to intermediate status.
Back in school, they labeled me "mentally gifted," but when I sit down
to play chess or checkers, I seem to turn into a blathering idiot.
> > It's useful in dispelling intellectual pretentiousness. If it's not
> > interesting, I apologize for that.
>
> "Most people agree with this viewpoint" isn't usually a hallmark of an
> intellectually pretentious argument, I find.
>
> "Despite what most people think, this is true," is generally a lot more
> representative. Consider... which one of us holds which position?
Touche! <blush> But I don't think you've yet demonstrated that when
most people in *this* community (csipgs) talk about which game is
superior to another, the degree of intellectual challenge is the main
criterion.
> > OTOH, if you set out to be a well-rounded person (meaning someone who
> > lives life fully and well in every respect), but you never concentrate
> > on *anything* well enough to master it, at best you'll end up a
> > dilettante or jack of all trades.
>
> I'm a jack of all trades (or aspire to be one, anyway). What's wrong
> with that? :)
Nothing, I guess, if it's what you want. Of course, the extended
version of that phrase is "jack of all trades, master of none." And
it's often used almost synonymously with "ne'er-do-well."
It's just that all my life I've desperately wanted *not* to ever end up
like that. I hate the thought of being a mere dabbler or dilettante.
Consequently, from time to time I've set out to become a good chess
player or whatever, hoping to master *something* so as to make my life
seem more meaningful to me. But alas, games are evidently not my
forte; I've failed miserably in that area, and I have to hang my head
in shame and confess to being a mere dabbler. If there's some other
area I do excel in (writing/editing, perhaps), it happened almost
accidentally, via some combination of natural talent and persistent
practice--but without any conscious goal setting.
Another person may be content to be a jack of all trades; I've always
wanted to master something.
> > One thing I've always really liked about the game of go is that there's
> > such a philosophy built up around it. A book of go proverbs can serve
> > as a pretty good guide to living life (if you take the principles and
> > interpret them broadly or deeply enough).
>
> I agree. The same thing, incidentally, is true of tea ceremonies, or
> some types of martial arts, and so forth.
>
> But, often I see people get overexcited and try to find parallels where
> there really aren't any. That's all I'm saying.
>
> Chess, and go, and swordfighting, are so much simpler than life. Yes,
> there are similarities. But they are, IMHO, just not that deep.
The fact that those things are "much simpler than life" is precisely
what makes them suitable for proverbs and such. Proverbs are of most
benefit when life gets to seeming too complicated and you feel enmeshed
and wonder what to do next. Then you can take Thoreau's advice and
"simplify, simplify, simplify."
If you don't think chess and go proverbs are "that deep," may I ask
what you do find deep?
> > To each his own, but to me it's very depressing to hear anyone say, "a
> > game is just a game." It is but it isn't. A game can also be a
> > metaphor for life. That's why the book "Samurai Chess" was the most
> > inspiring chess book I've ever read, and why I was tempted to buy "The
> > Tao of Chess" the other day in a bookstore. If a game can't be more
> > than just a game, to me it's pretty much a waste of time--and certainly
> > not worth writing all these words about.
>
> I disagree. Games are very important. Playing is very improtant. But
> they're important on their own merits, not because they are some kind
> of guidebook to life.
But what does "important on their own merits" mean? Just that games
are what they are? OK, but that's tautological. Can't argue with that
one.
To extend my philosophy a bit (since this discussion has already
digressed this far anyway), I believe there's a divine force (Holy
Spirit) in the universe which is supremely intelligent and
all-permeating; and that Divine Spirit can reveal Itself anywhere,
anytime. Even in the midst of a game. Thus, playing a game (or doing
anything else, for that matter) can be a way to discover truths about
life. What's unique about games is that they're so simple and cleanly
structured, compared to many other things in life. Thus, the kind of
life-lesson one gets during a game is usually one that the mind can
easily grasp; it's the kind of thing that can be turned into a proverb.
So, if one is open to it, a game can be a sort of metaphor for
life--one vehicle (among many, no doubt--because nobody *just* plays
games) for learning what life is all about and how it works.
There's a book out there with a title something like "Everything I Need
to Know, I Learned in Kindergarten." I haven't read it, but you can
imagine what it's about. It probably makes a good deal of common
sense. And a similar book could be written from a chess angle:
"Everything I Need to Know, I Learned from Chess." Just depends on
where you want to focus your attention. To me, chess is much more
interesting than kindergarten.
> > I hope it's not autism (though I did once score pretty high on an
> > unofficial Asperger's Syndrome test). I'd rather think it's just my
> > Idealist temperament (see www.keirsey.com ); I'm determined to find deep
> > meaning and significance in every part of life, and I'm more a romantic
> > than a realist.
>
> Me too, at heart. But I've learned to keep my idealism under control. I
> find life to be much easier and more fulfilling like this.
>
> (Not to draw flames or anything, but my idealistic nature led me into
> fundamentalist Christianity. I was an absolute fanatic for several
> years.)
I guess there's a lot to be said for balance in all things. Guess this
isn't the place for it, but I'd be curious to hear what you turned to
after your "fanatic" phase.
--Patrick
Michel de Becdeliรจvre
"Michael Vondung" <mvon...@gmail.com> a รฉcrit dans le message de news:
w7gtbi8ve23x.dggccjatm4tf$.dlg@40tude.net...
> I have to say though that the different rulesets and scoring systems are a
> lot more confusing than Chess. I'm not sure if the claim that Go is easier
> to learn than chess is really so accurate if you look at the Japanese
> ruleset with its numerous exceptions for example.
The exceptions are fairly rare occurences in real games. All counting
methods (except maybe the Ing rule - because of different Komi) end up to
the same score most of the time and most amateur games do not end up with
1/2 point wins, so for practical purposes, it not very important.
Most players estimate points during the game using the japanese method. It
is easier to read.
> And then there is stuff
> like "removing the dead stones at the end and playing it out if there are
> disputes", which seems fairly ambigious and vague to me.
This sounds very "oriental", but is actually fairly simple : if you do not
agree that a game is played out just add a stone each time your opponent
passes : you are either filling out neutral territory, filling out your
territory (losing a point) or giving a prisonner to the opponent (losing a
point). At some point you will have added enough stones to really threaten a
group and your opponent will start answering to defend it.
When the dust settles, if you were wrong in thinking that you could do
something usefull (most likelly), you will have lost by the original amount,
augmented by the number of stones you sacrificed.
> What happens if one player resigns? Does the other player win? It would
> make sense, but I noticed that the Go clients I looked at don't even
> bother
> calculating the final score if one player gives up.
Because it does not matter,and it would only be an estimate anyway, and a
wrong one at that. The best go programs are VERY VERY weak, bellow 10 kyu,
which is the level of a beginner after a few months, probably because Go is
all about "shape", still a bleeding edge problem for computers.
> Surprisingly many of
> the games I watched at IGS ended with someone resigning and I didn't
> always
> (or ever) understand just why the player gave up ... a few of them seemed
> to have more captures and more "territory", but still threw the towel.
It is bad form to play it out when you have obviously lost by a large
marging. Often hard for a beginner to evaluate, and many asian player do not
speak good enough english to be very clear. You might want to learn on KGS.
http://kgs.kiseido.com/
http://www.world-go.org/
http://www.european-go.org/
http://www.pandanet.co.jp/English/
http://www.usgo.org/index.asp
magnate
"chess is better than go" crowd will forgive me for dragging this
thread back to computer games ...
Nostromo wrote:
> >> 4. me becoming jaded - I've been playing 'games' i.e. I've been a *gamer*
> >> since I was 13 (maybe younger) - if I lived to be a 1000, would it still
> >> hold the magic? cf. your first few sexual experiences with marital sex after
> >> many years >8^D
>
> >This is part of getting older and harder to impress. We know what we
> >like and we want it improved just so (MoM with MP and better AI).
>
> To a point...why do modern sci-fi/fantasy flics still hold that WOW factor
> for me? Surely in can't just be the SFXs...?
Ah, then we diverge. I rarely get the "wow" factor from movies either
any more, which makes me thing that it's more about me. I wonder which
of us share's MV's position on this?
> >> 5. games getting longer & longer with less content/substance, but more
> >> repetition (this is really our own fault at the end of the day - ppl always
> >> whinging a fabulous 10-12 fps is too short, etc)
> >
> >This is a VFM thing. Repetitive games are cheaper to produce, per hour
> >of gameplay. It's an inevitable consequence of commercialisation.
>
> Still, a great adventure or fps or rpg that only lasts a dozen to 20 hrs for
> us more time-constrained gamers would be perfect if the content was fully
> thought out, produced & implemented, instead of repetitive crap. That's not
> to say some of the older games didn't have samey stuff, but in my memory it
> just didn't *feel* that way when I was trudging through the same old ground
> for the 5th time. After all, great movies are still 1.5-2hrs long & no-one
> complains about them - how did some games get to be 100hr+ monsters (don't
> even get me started on mmorpgs! ;)
Do you think so? I think that was the mentality behind Freelancer, and
it didn't quite work. It was just too short (both the SP campaign and
the MP path to riches). I'm completely in agreement with you about
crappy repetitive games, but I think content needs to be spread over a
long learning curve. I never finished Doom (though I did plough through
Doom II out of sheer tenacity) - it just got too samey after half a
zillion levels.
> >> >So, what do I want? A game like UU-Stygian Abyss, a RPG like Ultima VIII
> >> >(even though no one but me liked it!), a treasure hunt like Diablo II, a
> >> >MMORPG like UO, more RTS releases like Kohan, involved TBS like Master of
> >> >Magic, more trading titles like Elite, a 4X like MOO, more dungeon crawling
> >> >like Dungein Master, more innovation such as Dungeon Keeper or Black &
> >> >White, and more creative action in the line of Magic Carpet!
> >
> >This is a fabulous list - but you *don't* want a game that tries to
> >do/be everything. You want an RTS that's *just* a top-flight RTS, and
> >so on. Hybrid games are interesting and sometimes excellent (System
> >Shock, anyone?), but nothing will press all your buttons at once.
>
> Sure, but sometimes there's just that magic game (like UFO, or Torment)
> which defies all expectations. What was your last one?
Hmmm, very good question - been mulling this over for a while. It's
probably Dominions2: The Ascension Wars (www.shrapnelgames.com) - I had
a suspicion I would like it, I like turn-based fantasy 4X games in
general - but first impressions were poor: the graphics are mediocre
and the UI is limited. But then suddenly months had gone by and I
hadn't touched anything else - it's an astounding game with immense
replay value (I have so far played "only" 12 of the 17 races, and only
once each). It's the D2 of TBS - multiple ways to play each race.
Even so, Dom2 doesn't really qualify as a hybrid game or a surprise
genre-buster - it's just a very very good 4X TBS. Will come back to you
if I can think of anything since UFO which falls into this category. Oh
I know - Imperialism - truly different feel to real-world 4X - but
sadly it's almost as old as UFO; only a couple of years later.
> >> >The trouble is that I can't exactly tell what the problem is. Well,
> >> >actually, it's easier with RPGs. My issues here are the lack of immersion
> >> >and randomization (worlds don't "feel" like words, and "drops" are often
> >> >pre-determined), but in regard to strategy games I'm really unsure what my
> >> >problem is. MoM wasn't really better than, say, AoW2:SM, but I still don't
> >> >experience the addiction, the "getting sucked into". Reviewers often use,
> >> >or used, the phrase of "one more turn", but I haven't "felt" that in years.
> >
> >But it was though - MoM had far more replay value than AoW2:SM - at
> >least in my experience. More races to try, more combinations of spells
> >and skills to try out. In AoW2:SM I can research everything in every
> >game, so all games tend to converge into similar experiences. The
> >rock/paper/scissors balance is better in MoM as well (though not
> >perfect by any means - champion slingers, anyone?).
>
> Absolutely. Look at what they're done to some of the best franchises:
> XCom:Apoc, MOO, Settlers, Syndicate, just off the top of my head - they've
> dumbed them down or automated too much - I reckon that HAS to have something
> to do with killing the 'magic'.
MoO3 was a real tragedy - the "imperial focus points" idea *could* have
been truly ground-breaking - enabling epic scale 4X space fantasy
without micromanagement. But they chickened out - they couldn't do the
automation properly, so they allowed players to micro, but made the UI
hideously unhelpful for it. Worst of both worlds. Micro either needs to
be made easy, or impossible. I am keenly watching GalCiv II to see how
it deals with this.
Settlers I missed, though I have collected II and III I think in combo
packs and stuff. Which is the best and worst? I saw IV get panned a
bit, but I've never seen or heard of the first one. I loaded up one of
them once (II maybe) and couldn't really get into it.
Syndicate was rather like Commandos in that it was a very innovative
game which was just too damned hard!
So I agree with you that the "magic" is often missing somewhere, but
I'm not sure it's all because of automation or "dumbing down" - but
maybe part of that is about reducing the learning curve for people not
used to or prepared to invest lots of time learning, and perhaps that's
the kind of game we really like. So, er, maybe I do agree with you
after all ...
> Yup, burnt more hours on D2 than I will on any game again for the rest of my
> life probably. It was the *limitations* in D2 that made it what it was.
> That's how I categorise it at any rate. If you could get all the items,
> skills, etc in 1 or even 6 chars, everyone would've maxed everything in the
> first year & D2 would've died a quiet death.
Yes, that's absolutely right - the key combination is that it was NOT
off-puttingly repetitive and boring (different random bosses etc.) AND
it rewarded lots of replaying (mainly unique and set items, but also
getting to try out different high-level skills etc.). Compare with
Throne of Bhaal (which I never reached!) - it also has lots of
interesting high-level skills to try out, but playing through the game
loads of times to try them all is, I suspect, far less interesting. In
a way the flimsiness of D2's plot actually makes the replay value
greater - not sure why.
> >> - BG2: fantastic crpg, but more like work in the 2nd half...I played it over
> >> 18 mths & only finished it on pure stubbornness in the end...started ToB
> >> this year but just couldn't go far :(
> >
> >I came to BG2 late and wrecked it for myself by using the walkthrough.
> >Since it's supposed to be one of the best CRPGs ever, and I *loved*
> >BG1, I hope I've learned the lesson.
>
> Same here. It was an engagement pressie (silly girl - she didn't see me for
> the first couple months he he ;) so I felt compelled to finish it. So I
> started peeking at the walkthrough some time during chapter 2 *blush*
Mine was even earlier than that. I couldn't find the room with the
golems in Irenicus's dungeon, so I couldn't get the key to get out and
*had* to use the walkthrough pretty much straight away. Mr Dan flipping
Simpson is so incredibly comprehensive that as soon as I realised how
much I'd missed I started over! If only the gloom of the map had been
slightly less and I'd found that door ...
> I think I like fps games *because* I can finish most of them - they're
> probably the only genre that got shorter (cf. Doom or Duke Nukem), rather
> than longer. And I'm fairly good at them, even the online ones :)
Where I, on the other hand, am hopeless. I could just about manage
HalfLife because it was very linear and I could kind of guess that a
baddie would be round the next corner, but FarCry was way too hard!
> Nothing will reawaken the magic of X-Wing/TIE Fighter or Dark Forces. I'm
> still waiting for a hybrid, cross-genre SW game (space-sim, rpg, action,
> adventure) that does it all as well as the movies. Yeah, dream on...
Heck, I'd settle for a glossy GeForce-busting remake of TIE Fighter ...
come on LucasArts, you know you want to ....
> >> - RON: where Kohan frustrated me & RTW just couldn't grab me, this game
> >> *almost* re-awakened my old love of RTSs after 5+ years, though I only
> >> finished the Alexander campaign; nothing innovative or new, just excellent,
> >> quality gameplay
> >
> >Ah, good - I've just dusted this one off - it held my attention so
> >briefly that I honestly cannot remember it at all, but if it beats
> >Kohan (which palled quickly for me) and RTW (which I love), it might
> >bring back a little of that AoE1 magic ....
>
> It's 'old-school'-ish RTS at its best. Don't expect anything innovative, but
> it has everything yummy since Dune 2 in spades. Do you have the Thrones &
> Patriots exp? I highly recommend you start with the pre-made campaigns than
> the whole world for your first games. Again, it's the limitations that will
> make or break it. ;)
Excellent - I have looked up Thrones & Patriots and will get a copy and
then give it a try.
> >1. Dom2 - yeah I know, I'm a fanboy, but this really is the best game
> >since D2. If you've not tried it already, you must give it a go.
>
> Ummm...what is it? Am I just being obtuse about the acronym? :-/
Dominions2: The Ascension Wars - as described above. If you can forgive
it being turn-based (which makes for much easier MP because you can
just make your moves whenever - do you remember trying to play MoO2
MP?? Snore) it really is tops. Takes a LONG while to appreciate fully,
and you keep discovering new things to try. There are some really
well-crafted user mods to fix most of the balance issues in the
unmodded game (very like SEIV in this respect) - if you're into 4X
games, you should definitely give it a try. Head on over to the
Shrapnel forums if you want to know more - there is a downloadable demo
which gives plenty of the flavour (but only the first few magic
levels).
> >2. Majesty - I dusted this one off recently (yes, I've been clearing
> >out all my old CDs), and I'd forgotten how unique it is. It's RTS but
> >you don't have control over your units. That *completely* changes the
> >experience. Sadly the RPG element is limited because you can't take
> >your heroes with you to subsequent missions, but it's a great little
> >game. Make sure you get the Gold edition (with the Northern Expansion),
> >and turn off that incredibly awful Sean Connery voice.
>
> Must take a look. How old? Got a URL perhaps?
Hmm, really quite old I'm afraid - around 2000 - try
www.majestyquest.com - hey they now have a Linux edition, excellent!
There's also a downloadable demo, but I don't know how representative
it is. The Gold Edition is what you want - it contains the Northern
Expansion.
> >3. Commandos - I'm all excited because I've just ordered #2 and #3 (Men
> >of Courage and Destination Berlin) - a very hard puzzle-type game, but
> >the first one at least was really immersive and well done.
>
> I think I played the first demo & it didn't quite grab me. Silent Storm left
> me luke warm after a few short levels as well. Dunno.
Hmm, I think Silent Storm is a different series - Commandos is
subtitled "Behind Enemy Lines". But WW2 setting can be a big turn-off
for some. Also just too damn difficult in some missions.
> >4. Space Empires StarFury - this is the game FFE should have been. It's
> >not perfect, but it's really very good if you like Elite-type games.
> >(Actually no, Freelancer is the game FFE should have been, but for some
> >reason Freelancer got stale amazingly quickly - I played it through
> >only twice.)
>
> Haven't played either (just the FL demo)...will look up SES - tx!
FL is really very glossy - I fell instantly in love with it and
obsessed about it for about two weeks - then I realised that that was
it, I'd finished - I'd been everywhere there was to go and
done/bought/found everything there was in it. As a kid who grew up on
Elite (which had 8 galaxies!) that was a massive disappointment. Oh,
and the physics of FL sucked, which pissed some people off a lot, but I
have to say that didn't bother me - if I'm going to immerse myself into
a fantasy about flying a spaceship, I don't really care if the fantasy
universe has non-newtonian physics. The Elite sequels (Frontier and
FFE) had newtonian physics and that didn't make the gameplay vastly
better. Hardly noticeable difference in fact.
I think SESF is also published by Shrapnel (it's by the same company
who produced SEIV, which is to space 4X what Dom2 is to fantasy 4X).
> >5. Imperialism - I'm pretty sure you know these two. I prefer #1 but #2
> >is slightly more advanced, and reminiscent of Sid Meier's Colonisation,
> >which was an excellent (and underrated) game.
>
> Never tried this one either. As I may have mentioned, I went off strategy
> games for 5+ years, only coming back to dabble this year (but you're talking
> to MVD, I know ;). The last strat title that had me hooked for over a year
> was Stars!. What a little diamond. And fitted on one floppy for most of it's
> versions, until near the last few. A rare example of substance over frills &
> great programming over multimedia BS.
Oh wow, you have a real treat in store then. Again, these date from the
late 90s (actually I think they're a little older than Majesty - circa
1997 for the first one and 1999 for the 2nd), but I still love them.
They're also turn-based - seems most of my favourite games are - and
they're sort of "economic 4X", where military might is important but
more as a diplomatic tool than for real warfare (though you can play
warlike if you want). The 2nd one has a bit in common with Sid Meier's
Colonization, because there is a "new world" to discover/conquer, but I
always preferred the first one. Try http://www.frogcity.com/games.html
- again, both have demos.
n.b. you need to use -lgntforce to get the 2nd one to install on XP.
Not sure about the demo, that might work straight away.
> >6. EU2 - again, I'm almost certain you know this one. I keep coming
> >back to it, it's so deep. I think of it as the non-fantasy equivalent
> >of Dom2.
>
> Another one I don't know.
www.paradoxplaza.com - warning, Paradox games are mind-bogglingly
complicated and have absurd learning curves. I say this as someone who
really really enjoys complicated games and long learning curves. EU2 is
a really interesting "pausable real-time" strategy game, where you try
to conquer medaieval europe. I confess that it has so far been too
complex for me, but I keep coming back to it because I suspect that
like Dom2 I will love it when I finally get into it. I think the RT bit
is what's giving me a headache, I'm *much* more comfortable with TBS.
The two Hearts of Iron games on the same page have been highly
recommend, though I've not tried them. Like the Commandos series they
are also set in WW2, but they are epic-strategy type not mission-based.
> >7. Warlords Battlecry series - I suspect you prefer the Kohan series,
> >but I find these slightly more engaging.
>
> Think I played a demo of this years ago as well. I tried JA2 just recently,
> but I think turn-based games may have died for me since BG2 & other hybrid
> pausable RT games. They just seem to agree with my mindset more I think. :)
I think you're probably referring to Warlords III or IV, rather than
BattleCry. The WBC series are all RTS, and pretty highly rated
(especially II). If you've never tried, give them a go (sadly they kept
changing publishers so there's not much chance of a 3in1 multipack).
III is the easiest to find (www.enlight.com/wbc3)
> >I could go on, but I think I've rambled long enough. It's just started
> >to rain - time to bring the laundry in ...
>
> He, he. Hopefully MVD will get into this sub-thread. He did start it after
> all, the bastage! >8^D
That's assuming he's finally been conviced that chess is a better game
than go ... or was it checkers?
CC
Arcana Dragon
news:q7b2bpojutb2.m...@40tude.net:
> a RPG like Ultima VIII
> (even though no one but me liked it!),
I did! I finished it pre-patch (AND post-patch)...
--
Arcana Dragon -==(UDIC)==-
d++e++N++T+++Om-KAWML!34567'!S'!8!9!u+uC+uF+++uG-u
LBยฎ----uAnC+nH++nP+nI----nPT-nS+++nT----o---oE---xz
http://www.phyton.dk/games.htm
chaos...@gmail.com
patrick...@mn.rr.com wrote:
> chaos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I believe it's pretentious to assume this "is usually the criterion."
> > > The criterion for whom?
> >
> > Most people.
> >
> > Google: "chess is better than checkers": 74 hits. "checkers is better
> > than chess": 4 hits.
> >
> > Okay, that "proof" was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I maintain that most
> > people hold Chess to be superior to checkers. I doubt there's
> > convincing proof of that, but I'm pretty sure it's correct.
>
> Cute--but the question was, for whom is degree of intellectual
> challenge the main criterion of superiority in a game?
Again, I maintain that for most people, it is. Assuming, of course, a
mental game; certainly no one is arguing that an FPS should be more
cerebral, or is superior to one that isn't. (Though the generally
positive view of Deus Ex is worth pondering).
> I'm well aware that most people seem to think of checkers as just a
> kids' game. But the truth is, it takes a great deal of effort to
> master checkers; some pretty smart adults spend a good portion of their
> life trying to do it.
I'm not saying checkers is a bad game. I'm just saying it's inferior
(or considered inferior by most people) to chess.
> > > Many people do think of checkers as a kids' game, but good
> > > players know better. Only recently have I heard that computer analysis
> > > has somehow determined checkers to be a weaker game than chess. But
> > > since either game can pose a lifelong challenge to an above-average
> > > human intellect, to me that's a moot point. In short, I do not accept
> > > chess to be superior to checkers.
> >
> > See Qaestor's post... checker is a much, much simpler game than chess,
> > and this was known well before computer analysis made a mockery of the
> > former.
>
> Which Qaestor's post?
The rude one. :)
"Checkers is a game so thoroughly known, by human players, that in
checkers tournaments the opening moves are forced by lottery, otherwise
the first to move invariably wins. Checkers hardly qualifies as a
truly competitive game at all."
> And yes, checkers is clearly a *simpler* game--just as go is a simpler game
> than chess: i.e., the pieces are all alike, and there are fewer rules.
I disagree; I don't think that's what makes a game simpler or more
complex at all.
Checkers is simpler than chess. Chess is simpler than Go.
If you want to measure the complexity of a board game, then the quality
of play a computer can come up with is, I think, a good measurement.
This would mean checkers, Connect-4, and Go-Moku are simple games,
Chess is a game of medium complexity, and Go is a game of high
complexity.
> Maybe my information is out of date; maybe I've got something to learn
> here. But I'm remembering an article on checkers in Scientific
> American from way back in the late 70s or early 80s; and in that
> article--as well as in books I've read on chess and checkers, plus the
> fictional account in Poe's "Murders in the Rue Morgue"--I read that
> it's a tossup whether chess or checkers is the deeper, more
> intellectually challenging game.
Well, you're the first person I've heard advocating this.
> In any case, both chess and checkers have always defied my periodic
> attempts to even break through from novice to intermediate status.
> Back in school, they labeled me "mentally gifted," but when I sit down
> to play chess or checkers, I seem to turn into a blathering idiot.
I am not at all good at checkers (nor have I played it much). I'm a
good chess player (though I was actually better when I was 11).
Anyway, skill at chess or checkers isn't a really good indication of
intelligence. It's a specific talent, like being good with languages.
> > > It's useful in dispelling intellectual pretentiousness. If it's not
> > > interesting, I apologize for that.
> >
> > "Most people agree with this viewpoint" isn't usually a hallmark of an
> > intellectually pretentious argument, I find.
> >
> > "Despite what most people think, this is true," is generally a lot more
> > representative. Consider... which one of us holds which position?
>
> Touche! <blush> But I don't think you've yet demonstrated that when
> most people in *this* community (csipgs) talk about which game is
> superior to another, the degree of intellectual challenge is the main
> criterion.
No, and I don't really see _how_ such a claim (or its negation) could
possibly be demonstrated, short of starting a poll. Suggestions are
welcome. :)
> > > OTOH, if you set out to be a well-rounded person (meaning someone who
> > > lives life fully and well in every respect), but you never concentrate
> > > on *anything* well enough to master it, at best you'll end up a
> > > dilettante or jack of all trades.
> >
> > I'm a jack of all trades (or aspire to be one, anyway). What's wrong
> > with that? :)
>
> Nothing, I guess, if it's what you want. Of course, the extended
> version of that phrase is "jack of all trades, master of none."
*shrug* Master is a relative term. I'm good at a lot of things. I don't
think there's anything I'm the best in the world at. I'm pretty happy
with what I'm capable of, and I love learning new skills, as well as
improving my existing skills.
I had the opportunity--and almost certainly, the aptitude--to become a
grandmaster in chess. I decided it wasn't worth it. I made that
decision in my early teens, but I haven't ever regretted it.
> And it's often used almost synonymously with "ne'er-do-well."
Heh.
> It's just that all my life I've desperately wanted *not* to ever end up
> like that. I hate the thought of being a mere dabbler or dilettante.
Well, we're obviously very different people, you and I. :)
> Consequently, from time to time I've set out to become a good chess
> player or whatever, hoping to master *something* so as to make my life
> seem more meaningful to me. But alas, games are evidently not my
> forte; I've failed miserably in that area, and I have to hang my head
> in shame and confess to being a mere dabbler. If there's some other
> area I do excel in (writing/editing, perhaps), it happened almost
> accidentally, via some combination of natural talent and persistent
> practice--but without any conscious goal setting.
And that's a bad thing?
Mastery means "being better at something than almost everyone". Why is
this important?
You will die, you know. As will I. Life is just not that long. Why
would you want to enter silly little competitions with other people?
Winning will provide you with nothing important. Losing will deprive
you of nothing vital.
I revel in my own abilities, and leave others to revel in theirs. How
my abilities compare with others' is barely worth my attention.
> Another person may be content to be a jack of all trades; I've always
> wanted to master something.
Well, as you wish. I hope you find your fulfillment in that goal. :)
> If you don't think chess and go proverbs are "that deep," may I ask
> what you do find deep?
Well, besides the obvious answer ("life"), there are a lot of deep
"minigames". Stuff you can devote your life to understzanding, and that
are actually fun. Love, and sexual relationships in general, is one of
these. Art, or specific art genres (like literature) are another.
And about proverbs: I really enjoy proverbs. There have been sayings
and epigrams that have, I dare say, changed my life. But when you get
right down to it, I think proverbs are a crutch. Another way to
simplify life, to stuff it in certain boxes, to trim it, like a bonsai,
into shapes that seem more pleasing or comprehensible.
My goal, if it can be called that, is to understand things in their
full complexity. Or at least, understand as much of them as I can.
> > > To each his own, but to me it's very depressing to hear anyone say, "a
> > > game is just a game." It is but it isn't. A game can also be a
> > > metaphor for life. That's why the book "Samurai Chess" was the most
> > > inspiring chess book I've ever read, and why I was tempted to buy "The
> > > Tao of Chess" the other day in a bookstore. If a game can't be more
> > > than just a game, to me it's pretty much a waste of time--and certainly
> > > not worth writing all these words about.
> >
> > I disagree. Games are very important. Playing is very improtant. But
> > they're important on their own merits, not because they are some kind
> > of guidebook to life.
>
> But what does "important on their own merits" mean? Just that games
> are what they are? OK, but that's tautological. Can't argue with that
> one.
No, I meant that games are important because they are a part of
humanity. Games are stress relief, they are a social outlet, they are
an easy way of challenging yourself, of filling your empty moments with
joy. I love games.
I just don't think they're a good route to understanding life, or
understanding anything except the game itself, really.
> To extend my philosophy a bit (since this discussion has already
> digressed this far anyway), I believe there's a divine force (Holy
> Spirit) in the universe which is supremely intelligent and
> all-permeating; and that Divine Spirit can reveal Itself anywhere,
> anytime. Even in the midst of a game. Thus, playing a game (or doing
> anything else, for that matter) can be a way to discover truths about
> life. What's unique about games is that they're so simple and cleanly
> structured, compared to many other things in life. Thus, the kind of
> life-lesson one gets during a game is usually one that the mind can
> easily grasp; it's the kind of thing that can be turned into a proverb.
All right. It's not really a belief I share, but fair enough.
> There's a book out there with a title something like "Everything I Need
> to Know, I Learned in Kindergarten." I haven't read it, but you can
> imagine what it's about. It probably makes a good deal of common
> sense. And a similar book could be written from a chess angle:
> "Everything I Need to Know, I Learned from Chess." Just depends on
> where you want to focus your attention. To me, chess is much more
> interesting than kindergarten.
To me, both are tiny and inadequate.
Imagine a person who cannot read, or doesn't wish to learn. He's heard
about how, say, War and Peace is a great novel, though, and wants to
learn more about it. So he asks a friend to just tell him what the plot
is like, and maybe to act out some of the pivotal scenes. Perhaps draw
some pictures.
This person _will_ finally have an idea of what War and Peace is about.
But I don't think any of this is an adequate substitute for reading it.
> > (Not to draw flames or anything, but my idealistic nature led me into
> > fundamentalist Christianity. I was an absolute fanatic for several
> > years.)
>
> I guess there's a lot to be said for balance in all things. Guess this
> isn't the place for it, but I'd be curious to hear what you turned to
> after your "fanatic" phase.
Well, after a bit of flirting with various types of mysticism, I've
settled into my current belief, which is humanistic agnosticism. I
don't believe in any sort of God or higher power. I believe that when I
die, my thoughts and consciousness will be lost forever, snuffed out
like a candle. I believe that because of this, my life has no inherent
purpose... but it is my property, and I can give it whatever purpose I
wish. I believe that I am free to be as happy and fulfilled as I want
to be for the fifty-odd years I probably have left to live.
And I believe in learning from those who can teach me, and teaching
those who can learn from me. I think that's a worthy goal.
Laszlo
Peter Huebner
mvon...@gmail.com says...
> For the past year or so, I have not found one game that really "grabbed"
> me. I even branched out to other genres, like action and simulations, but
> in the end I just spent quite a bit of money on games that ended up on the
> shelf within a few hours. Quite literally.
I sure know the feeling. However, I've not even bothered to buy a lot of
games ... I got Galciv, subscribed to TGN and got Disciples Ultimate and
the expansion to Galciv, all of these were good investments I feel, I
got Dominions 2 which I have yet to play [much] and Morrowind, and
that's about it. Freelancer which went straight to the shelf after
playing through once and then another couple of hours ...
What games do I actually play? I've nearly played through Disciples
until it just got too much, I do fire up Civ3 regularly, and Galciv from
time to time (it just takes too long to play a huge galaxy which is what
suits my game style). And I fire up the dosbox and play MOO and Merchant
Prince and MOM, and occasionally fire up MOO2 and Alpha Centauri. Empire
Deluxe! Only wargame I ever liked. 1503 in sandbox mode. Imperialism(s).
I still enjoy these games as much as ever; none of the newer stuff grabs
me at all.
> I've been playing computer games for over two decades (and I was a teen
> already when I started, I didn't begin playing at two years, like so many
> today), so I have seen quite a number of games. Years ago, there were games
> that really "grabbed" me and held me under their spell for months if not
> years, but nowadays, nothing seems to interest me. Nothing appears to
> really appeal to me, although that doesn't mean that nothing fails to
> attract me. Quite a few games catch my attention, but they never live up to
> the excitement they promise.
I may have started around the same time as you (1986 i.i.r.c.) and I was
already in my thirties then. But other than that my experience matches
yours blow by blow. I do NOT think it's an age thing per se.
Not to mention the fact that I still enjoy playing Skat and Doppelkopf
as much as I did 35 years ago, and have taken up German style boardgames
7 years ago and actually, together with my wife, managed to get some
manner of boardgames group going in the district. Definitely not fading
away just yet.
I think it's more likely to come out of the industry - although I'd be
hard pushed to actually nail it down to any one factor.
> So, what is my problem? Have I become jaded and "seen it all"? Or have
> games become stale, lacking in innovation and freshness? I'm tempted to
> blame myself, because I cannot see games like Pitfall or North & South
> capture me today, though a Dungeon Master or Elite could probably do it.
> Likewise, the Ultima games in a "modern outfit" would do, but no one is
> actually developing such games anymore. All we get these days are games
> that visually blow your mind in the first three hours, and then make you
> realise just how much potential in the gameplay area was wasted.
>
> So, what do I want? A game like UU-Stygian Abyss, a RPG like Ultima VIII
> (even though no one but me liked it!), a treasure hunt like Diablo II, a
> MMORPG like UO, more RTS releases like Kohan, involved TBS like Master of
> Magic, more trading titles like Elite, a 4X like MOO, more dungeon crawling
> like Dungein Master, more innovation such as Dungeon Keeper or Black &
> White, and more creative action in the line of Magic Carpet!
Yes, if someone would program a game like Elite, with maybe a universe
like Star Control, a modernized interface, and good missions and a few
moddable adventure threads, that would be a game I'd buy immediately.
Freelancer just didn't do it for me, too much 'rinse and repeat' after
you played through the story once.
For the 4X, I am looking forward to Galciv2 - having played the beta
quite a bit I think Brad & Co may just pull that one off.
Role playing, sheesh, I used to get lost in Wizardry 6 (Band of the
Cosmic Forge) and Might and Magic 3 - I just dusted off Wizardry Gold
(7) and got reminded that I didn't like that one the first time round
either. Unlike some here, I got quite a lot of fun out of NWN and didn't
like BG much. Just goes to show. I guess I'll just have to dig out
Fallout 1 and 2 again one of these days. But I sure haven't seen
anything except Morrowind (bargain bin) that has remotely tempted me for
maybe a couple of years.
> But no one is making these games. It almost seems that the trend in just
> about every genre I enjoy follows a direction that clashes with my
> preferences. Looking back at this year, the only game purchase I am truly
> happy with is Chessmaster 10th Edition. In a way, that's pathetic, because
> a board game whose exact rules have been in place since the 16th century
> offers more challenge than all these new games (chess is somewhat
> frustrating insofar that I know that no matter how much I pratice, a modern
> day computer will always beat me -- perhaps I should look into Go!).
Wish I could find someone to play Go with. I gave up chess after getting
creamed by some kid who had spent his life practicing 6 hours a day (he
told me I played well, and faultlessly, but I wasn't going to get any
better without practicing hours every day, and that I needed to memorize
all the games of the great masters - that totally took the fun out of
chess for me). I've never had the chance to hit my ceiling in Go yet.
Referring to your later post about Go: I find what really helps a great
deal is to sort of fuzz your vision a bit and look at the colours on the
board, look at zones of control, weak areas, lines of force and
influence. Shore up your weak areas, send the light infantry out on the
wings for diversion, then go for your objective. If you can divert the
opponent for a couple of moves into inconsequentialities you are way
ahead in *one* battle - of course there are lots of those in a single
game of Go.
> waste of money. So, what can I do about this dilemma?
>
> I still enjoy chess, by the way.
>
> M.
I reckon: wait for games to be published that you might enjoy, play
Chess and Go and boardgames, take up woodworking (that's part of my
solution, anyhow) and splash out on the odd bottle of good red wine
instead of buying 3rd rate games :-)
Oh, and if you ever come to New Zealand, drop by - you'll find a couple
of keen gamers here.
-Peter
--
=========================================
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com
Quaestor
> <>Which Qaestor's post? And yes, checkers is clearly a *simpler*
> game--just as go is a simpler game than chess: i.e., the pieces are
> all alike, and there are fewer rules.
I give up. If you told this guy to wear his seat belt he would probly
say, "Why? I got suspenders!"
Michael Vondung
responses in this thread, and I'm glad that it sparked thought-provoking
discussions.
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:15:26 +1200, Peter Huebner wrote:
> I may have started around the same time as you (1986 i.i.r.c.) and I was
> already in my thirties then. But other than that my experience matches
> yours blow by blow. I do NOT think it's an age thing per se.
I believe it was 1984 for me, but the time frame is definitely the same. I
admit that I had been wondering whether or not age plays a role in how I
perceive games, and if I perhaps just "outgrew" them. But both you and
Chainbreaker seem to share my feelings, and both of you are my seniors by
twenty years, so I think we can rule out the age factor here. Also, it's
not a matter of free, available time. Certainly, there are more
responsibilities in my life now, but I have also more control over how I
spend my time than I did back in the eighties, when I was still living with
my family.
I also don't believe that I lack enthusiasm or the ability to get excited.
Just those past three days of getting more familiar with Go have shown me
that again. It's entirely possible to sweep me off my feet still, just
computer games currently don't seem to manage that. Reading this thread,
the vast majority of those who responded feel similarly, so at least I can
say that it's definitely not just me.
Inferno's response made me think a bit, too. It is true that the older I
get, the more often it happens that I get a little impatient with myself,
wondering whether I "waste" time that I could spend more "productively".
Your name is German, but you mentioned you live in New Zealand, so I'm not
sure if you speak German (I vaguely seem to recall from a thread about Port
Royale 2 last year that you do?), but if you do, the word "Torschluรpanik"
describes those occasional feelings well. I don't know an English word that
is equally expressive, though there might be one. :)
Then again, everyone's life-time is limited, and in the case of most of us
it does not really matter in the end just how much we have "achieved", and
I never really subscribed to the belief that the amount of money we make,
or have made, is a good way to measure "success". (On the flipside, every
time I find myself broke at the end of the month I even question that
philosophy, but pulling out a copy of the Tao Te Ching usually helps to
shoo those thoughts away quickly, even though it may just be an excerise in
rationalizing.) So, no, I don't feel that playing games is "unproductive",
as "having a good time" is quite beneficial and, in my opinion, more
rewarding and more healthy than any "material" achievement.
> For the 4X, I am looking forward to Galciv2 - having played the beta
> quite a bit I think Brad & Co may just pull that one off.
Ah, thanks for that! I had been wondering what GalCiv2 would turn out like.
I had some great hopes for HoMM5, but after learning (and seeing) a little
more of the game, I have some doubts whether it is going to be worth the
money.
> Wish I could find someone to play Go with.
Have you considered one of the online Go servers? KGS
(http://kgs.kiseido.com/en_US/index.xhtml) seems quite popular with
Westerners, and there is the IGS also (http://www.pandanet.co.jp/English/).
The former has a Java client (quite nice, actually), and the latter can be
used with a number of open source clients. qGo at
http://qgo.sourceforge.net/ works well for me. People seem to chat more on
KGS.
> creamed by some kid who had spent his life practicing 6 hours a day (he
> told me I played well, and faultlessly, but I wasn't going to get any
> better without practicing hours every day, and that I needed to memorize
> all the games of the great masters - that totally took the fun out of
> chess for me).
That precisely is my latest "issue" with chess. I enjoy problem chess, and
it seems that I enjoy that more than actually playing the game with others.
I loathe the idea of having to memorize hundreds or thousands of openings,
because I just want to have a little fun and stretch my mind, and not
"work" six hours for every half hour of playing. Mathematics has never been
a talent of mine, and hearing that chess games only really start after the
20th move, well, that really changed my view on the game a little. But then
again, whether or not you're able to compete with others shouldn't
necessarily determine if an activity is fun and satisfying, but getting
frustrated isn't all that enjoyable either.
I understand that in Go there is the aspect of memorizing openings or
pattern, too ("juseki"?), but at least to me that still seems to be a
little more tied in with intuition than the rather "mechanical" moving of
chess pieces until someone "breaks out" of the book. I may be mistaken
here, though, seeing as I am still extremely clueless when it comes to Go.
I just like the fancy pattern at the end of a game. ;)
> Referring to your later post about Go: I find what really helps a great
> deal is to sort of fuzz your vision a bit and look at the colours on the
> board, look at zones of control, weak areas, lines of force and
> influence.
I've been kibitzing at games at KGS and IGS for three nights now, and I
finally seem to develop a bit of the right "sight". I still don't really
understand the strategy overly well, but at least some pattern begin to
make sense, and I understand at least a few of the moves. I also managed to
beat GnuGo on an easier level (okay, no great achievement there). I picked
up a couple of Go books, one dealing with the basics, and one that is about
the game's philosophy, cultural background and history. They should arrive
in the mail tomorrow or the day after.
The latter book will not help me to become a better player, but I generally
like to know about the background of games. This, by the way, is one reason
why I am so dissatisfied with today's lack of thick game manuals -- these
20-30, small-format pages just don't cut it, and don't get me started about
PDFs! Eastern culture and philosophy are, in spite of my lingering interest
in Taoist philosophy (not religion), still pretty much mysteries to me.
Perhaps gaining a bit more access to them will also help with the access to
Go. Or vice versa.
> I reckon: wait for games to be published that you might enjoy, play
> Chess and Go and boardgames, take up woodworking (that's part of my
> solution, anyhow) and splash out on the odd bottle of good red wine
> instead of buying 3rd rate games :-)
I think these are good suggestions, except the wine! My initial post in
this thread was written after half a bottle of strong, local red wine, and
I did have a headache the next morning. ;) (I blame it on the second half
of the bottle that I had after finishing the post, though!) I do much
better with my two or five cups of white tea every day.
You're right, perhaps I just need take up a new hobby. Well, it seems like
I'm getting into Go now (let's see how long that lasts!), and September and
October offer some good opportunities for working in the garden. I've been
wondering about working with clay, something I used to do years and years
ago, and which was quite relaxing (not that I ever produced anything
worthwhile, but it was fun nonetheless).
M.
some bozo
<mvon...@gmail.com> blah blah:
[..]
I've always been inclined to turn-based strategy games but recently
discovered that action gaming isn't all that bad. Being a relaxed,
experienced gamer and kicking schoolboy ass isn't too bad either. Plus
experienced posters can write so beautifully hateful taunts :)
Hell I'll just recommend you to play www.soldat.pl ,it's probably the
best 2D gravitation shooter ever, so there's some strategy involved in
multiplayer. I started playing vid games in the magic 80s arcades too
and Soldat does not suck under this aspect. They play it on ESL etc too
but it's just one bedroom coding guy with zero promo.
Well, and now some of the promotion theory. Big industry games suck
because they fill a similar social function as MTV 'music'. It's just
hooky crap for the inexperienced. It's perfectly healthy to be turned
off by that. Cool stuff is still all over the place but don't expect it
to jump in your face anymore, because of the niche thing. Big promo and
big assets involved, equals investment risk minimised via mainstreaming
of gameplay.
Want another example? Try Dungeoncrawl at
http://crawlj.sourceforge.jp/down_e.html
It's been called the near perfect roguelike and for a reason. Way beyond
the Nethack/Angband silliness and repetiton. And to contrast it with
teenie stuff like DS2, it's actually a damn strategic RPG.
No despair, as long as I keep wishing I had more time to play vidgames
it can't be all that rotten.
Quaestor
>Checkers is simpler than chess. Chess is simpler than Go.
>
>
Checkers is simpler than chess in every way, the number of pieces, the
move capabilities, the goal, everything.
Go is simpler than chess in the number of pieces and the play options.
It is vastly more complex that chess in the move-tree, in the general
body of knowledge one must master to be considered a dan-level
competitor, and in the level of complexity of positions which one must
judge during play. The typical mid-game chess position offers an
average of 31 possible moves, each with 31 possible responses, and this
must be analyzed to a depth of about 5-6 full moves (12 half-moves) to
play competitively. A go board, having 19x19=361 positions, a quarter
of which may be occupied by the midgame, offers still hundreds of plays
at once, answerable by hundreds, tens of thousands of possible
combinations PER MOVE, and the position may need analysis to a depth far
greater than chess.
This is not to say go is "superior" to chess, or that it takes a better
mind, only that it is different, with certain forms of complexity that
go way beyond chess. Like a FPS, go needs to be played on-your-toes,
but still with a thorough knowledge of book analysis (which chess
openings are scripted to at most a couple dozen moves, establised go
play can list a hundred). Chess, because of its simpler (fewer pieces
able to make fewer moves) play is more a mathematical game, which go,
theoretically just as mathematical, must be played in a more real-world
mindset ("If he advances on your left you defend on your left, somewhere").
>If you want to measure the complexity of a board game, then the quality
>of play a computer can come up with is, I think, a good measurement.
>This would mean checkers, Connect-4, and Go-Moku are simple games,
>Chess is a game of medium complexity, and Go is a game of high
>complexity.
>
>
This is true for the definition of complexity that considers the number
of possible plays at one time, with the number of possible responses,
and the likelyhood that such numbers of plays will continue to be
offered for an extended number of moves.
>Anyway, skill at chess or checkers isn't a really good indication of
>intelligence. It's a specific talent, like being good with languages.
>
>
However, interest in chess, go, and other such games is a strong
indicator of an active analytical intellect. I won't comment on what an
interest in checkers indicates.
>Mastery means "being better at something than almost everyone". Why is
>this important?
>
>
A Master is someone who can teach others, such that they too will likely
attain mastery.
>And about proverbs: I really enjoy proverbs.
>
I like coming up with those that contradict. eg:
"Haste makes waste." vs "He who hesitates is lost."
chaos...@gmail.com
Quaestor wrote:
> chaos...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >Checkers is simpler than chess. Chess is simpler than Go.
>
> Checkers is simpler than chess in every way, the number of pieces, the
> move capabilities, the goal, everything.
>
> Go is simpler than chess in the number of pieces and the play options.
> It is vastly more complex that chess in the move-tree, in the general
> body of knowledge one must master to be considered a dan-level
> competitor, and in the level of complexity of positions which one must
> judge during play. The typical mid-game chess position offers an
> average of 31 possible moves, each with 31 possible responses, and this
> must be analyzed to a depth of about 5-6 full moves (12 half-moves) to
> play competitively. A go board, having 19x19=361 positions, a quarter
> of which may be occupied by the midgame, offers still hundreds of plays
> at once, answerable by hundreds, tens of thousands of possible
> combinations PER MOVE, and the position may need analysis to a depth far
> greater than chess.
This is all true. Note, though, that the number of _reasonable_ moves
in any given position is much smaller both in chess and in go. Any
moderately competent chess player--and any chess program worth its
salt--can, for any given position, correctly identify the (usually) no
more than five or six moves that are worth looking at.
I'm not sure about the exact numbers for Go (I'm a beginner), but I'm
certain that no more than a quarter of the available moves (and
possibly a much lower percentage) are generally worth a second look.
> This is not to say go is "superior" to chess, or that it takes a better
> mind, only that it is different, with certain forms of complexity that
> go way beyond chess. Like a FPS, go needs to be played on-your-toes,
> but still with a thorough knowledge of book analysis (which chess
> openings are scripted to at most a couple dozen moves, establised go
> play can list a hundred). Chess, because of its simpler (fewer pieces
> able to make fewer moves) play is more a mathematical game, which go,
> theoretically just as mathematical, must be played in a more real-world
> mindset ("If he advances on your left you defend on your left, somewhere").
This is, I think, not the only reason. Chess is a more "chaotic" game,
by which I mean that a slight variation in position can more often lead
to profound differences in the correct play for that position.
_This_, I think, is what makes chess a more tactical than strategic
game. Go also has positions where the game hinges on the placement of a
single stone, but more often, the general "shape" of the pieces is what
matters more, and moving a single stone can maybe impact the life or
death of a single group.
> >Anyway, skill at chess or checkers isn't a really good indication of
> >intelligence. It's a specific talent, like being good with languages.
>
> However, interest in chess, go, and other such games is a strong
> indicator of an active analytical intellect.
Certainly. But an absence of interest does not strongly inticate the
reverse.
> I won't comment on what an interest in checkers indicates.
I think your implication is wrong. Checkers can be an excellent "beer
and pretzels" game, and there's nothing wrong with it as an
intellectual pursuit, either. It has less patina than chess or go, but
at beginner or intermediate levels, I'm sure it can be just as mentally
challenging.
> >And about proverbs: I really enjoy proverbs.
>
> I like coming up with those that contradict. eg:
> "Haste makes waste." vs "He who hesitates is lost."
Yeah, I like doing that too. Interestingly, my first (English) pairing
was "Look before you leap", and "He who hesitates is lost."
Laszlo
Quaestor
>This is all true. Note, though, that the number of _reasonable_ moves
>in any given position is much smaller both in chess and in go.
>
The percentage of the available moves that result in a still-winnable
position is generally far greater in go than chess. It is hard to make
a single move in go (other than one that saves or kills a shape) which
loses a game. It is hard NOT to in chess.
>Any
>moderately competent chess player--and any chess program worth its
>salt--can, for any given position, correctly identify the (usually) no
>more than five or six moves that are worth looking at.
>
>
This we called the alpha-beta test, back when we tried to make computers
play like humans. The idea is that the opponent is likely to make "the
best response" to your move (the alpha test) which means you don't need
to consider many of his other alternatives, such as sacrifices, and you
will of course make the best response to whatever he does (the beta).
This vastly reduces the number of moves at each level which have to be
considered, but is what was responsible for the computer playing a very
conservative style. In the Kasparov matches he was facing a machine
with such vast capacity for considering every possible move to great
depth, that this weakness was overcome. That was, of course, a
dedicated chess machine, and one which they specifically programmed to
beat Kasparov (to which he objected, and rightfully so).
>I'm not sure about the exact numbers for Go (I'm a beginner), but I'm
>certain that no more than a quarter of the available moves (and
>possibly a much lower percentage) are generally worth a second look.
>
>
Go is so much more fluid that, especially in the early-mid stages,
almost every possible play has merit. When you play almost anywhere you
influence your opponent to play in some way to counter that, because
unopposed play in any area is likely to result in gaining an advantage
there. This is countered by the fact that while you are playing in one
area he may be doing the same in another, and the position you create
may gain you considerably less than what he is doing. This is the basis
for the advice that all beginners must learn through hard experience to
understand: "Don't fight, make territory."
Of course, in the very early stages, joseki (opening positions) are very
well known, but they are far more subject than chess positions to
altered play. The basic chess opening, PK4 is considered the only
possible opening by many, and PQ4 is considered weak and defensive (but
is played more rarely, so I like to do it just to trip them up). The
Evans Gambit (PKB4) was a heavy favorite for nearly a century until its
systematic refutation was discovered and it totally lost favor and is
just not played in upper tournament levels anymore.
In go the standard initial moves (without given stones) are more
varied. Some play on the corner spots, some play one off, and some even
play one plus one. Their second play there may be -1 +2, but if you
want to invite a fight there, perhaps -1 +3, showing a weakness. If it
is not countered you can connect and you have gained considerable
strength. Many possibilities exist, many variations which are never
mirrored in chess.
>>("If he advances on your left you defend on your left, somewhere").
>>
>>
>
>This is, I think, not the only reason. Chess is a more "chaotic" game,
>by which I mean that a slight variation in position can more often lead
>to profound differences in the correct play for that position.
>
>
I use the term, "volatile." In many games of chess there comes a point
at which a stack or other sequence of moves results in a large exchange
of pieces. The exact sequence, the exact number of pieces, their exact
position, all determine the outcome, and moving one piece to the wrong
place can totally change the outcome in most circumstnaces. The same
can happen in go, but is far more rare. In chess, if you have 3 stacked
up to attack a square which you occupy with something that cannot
attack, but I have 4 that can hit it, the winner is determined by
whoever moves first. If I then advance a pawn to attack that square I
have lost nothing, and forcing you to do the exchange will likely win
the game, whereas if you remove the attacked piece you will likely lose
the exchange. Thus you cannot afford to let me push that pawn, but if
you can remove that blocking piece and bring about a check then I will
lose in spite of superior force because of the loss of one single move
while removing the check. The exact positioning of the pieces
determines everything. In go such positions are more rare, and more
fluid, subject to further development.
>_This_, I think, is what makes chess a more tactical than strategic
>game.
>
I have observed that chess can make a poor go player, by encouraging
fighting where territory is in fact the key. I started out in go as a
fighter, ruthlessly contesting every stone, and losing every game. The
first time I let someone have his tactical position and instead built my
strategic advantage elsewhere I won. SO, lesson #1 for go: Stop playing
chess! :)
>
>>I won't comment on what an interest in checkers indicates.
>>
>>
>
>I think your implication is wrong.
>
Actually I was joking. :)
chaos...@gmail.com
Quaestor wrote:
> chaos...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >This is all true. Note, though, that the number of _reasonable_ moves
> >in any given position is much smaller both in chess and in go.
> >
>
> The percentage of the available moves that result in a still-winnable
> position is generally far greater in go than chess. It is hard to make
> a single move in go (other than one that saves or kills a shape) which
> loses a game. It is hard NOT to in chess.
Yeah. This is what I meant by chaotic, and what you meant by volatile.
> >Any
> >moderately competent chess player--and any chess program worth its
> >salt--can, for any given position, correctly identify the (usually) no
> >more than five or six moves that are worth looking at.
>
> This we called the alpha-beta test,
I'm familiar with the term. I'm, uh, rather surprised that you are;
I've found that it's a pretty obscure term. Are you a programmer?
> Go is so much more fluid that, especially in the early-mid stages,
> almost every possible play has merit. When you play almost anywhere you
> influence your opponent to play in some way to counter that, because
> unopposed play in any area is likely to result in gaining an advantage
> there. This is countered by the fact that while you are playing in one
> area he may be doing the same in another, and the position you create
> may gain you considerably less than what he is doing. This is the basis
> for the advice that all beginners must learn through hard experience to
> understand: "Don't fight, make territory."
Yeah, I read some Go strategy sites. I could barely understand them,
much less apply what I read to an actual game. But I remember this
tenet.
> >>("If he advances on your left you defend on your left, somewhere").
> >
> >This is, I think, not the only reason. Chess is a more "chaotic" game,
> >by which I mean that a slight variation in position can more often lead
> >to profound differences in the correct play for that position.
> >
>
> I use the term, "volatile."
That's probably a better term. I was thinking of chaos in the
mathematical sense; sensitivity to even slight changes. The butterfly
effect.
<snipped lotsa good stuff>
> >>I won't comment on what an interest in checkers indicates.
> >
> >I think your implication is wrong.
>
> Actually I was joking. :)
Whoops. My bad. :)
Excellent points, and reasoning. I thank you.
Laszlo
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>> Sure, but sometimes there's just that magic game (like UFO, or Torment)
>> which defies all expectations. What was your last one?
>
>Hmmm, very good question - been mulling this over for a while. It's
>probably Dominions2: The Ascension Wars (www.shrapnelgames.com) - I had
>a suspicion I would like it, I like turn-based fantasy 4X games in
>general - but first impressions were poor: the graphics are mediocre
>and the UI is limited. But then suddenly months had gone by and I
>hadn't touched anything else - it's an astounding game with immense
>replay value (I have so far played "only" 12 of the 17 races, and only
>once each). It's the D2 of TBS - multiple ways to play each race.
>
>Even so, Dom2 doesn't really qualify as a hybrid game or a surprise
>genre-buster - it's just a very very good 4X TBS. Will come back to you
>if I can think of anything since UFO which falls into this category. Oh
>I know - Imperialism - truly different feel to real-world 4X - but
>sadly it's almost as old as UFO; only a couple of years later.
He, he - Stars! had me hooked for over a year & it's virtually a spreadsheet
with macros ffs! It's funny how you can never tell what will reel you in, or
even why, after the fact.
>> >> >The trouble is that I can't exactly tell what the problem is. Well,
>> >> >actually, it's easier with RPGs. My issues here are the lack of immersion
>> >> >and randomization (worlds don't "feel" like words, and "drops" are often
>> >> >pre-determined), but in regard to strategy games I'm really unsure what my
>> >> >problem is. MoM wasn't really better than, say, AoW2:SM, but I still don't
>> >> >experience the addiction, the "getting sucked into". Reviewers often use,
>> >> >or used, the phrase of "one more turn", but I haven't "felt" that in years.
>> >
>> >But it was though - MoM had far more replay value than AoW2:SM - at
>> >least in my experience. More races to try, more combinations of spells
>> >and skills to try out. In AoW2:SM I can research everything in every
>> >game, so all games tend to converge into similar experiences. The
>> >rock/paper/scissors balance is better in MoM as well (though not
>> >perfect by any means - champion slingers, anyone?).
>>
>> Absolutely. Look at what they're done to some of the best franchises:
>> XCom:Apoc, MOO, Settlers, Syndicate, just off the top of my head - they've
>> dumbed them down or automated too much - I reckon that HAS to have something
>> to do with killing the 'magic'.
>
>MoO3 was a real tragedy - the "imperial focus points" idea *could* have
>been truly ground-breaking - enabling epic scale 4X space fantasy
>without micromanagement. But they chickened out - they couldn't do the
>automation properly, so they allowed players to micro, but made the UI
>hideously unhelpful for it. Worst of both worlds. Micro either needs to
>be made easy, or impossible. I am keenly watching GalCiv II to see how
>it deals with this.
Tried the GalCiv demo a while back - didn't grab me...perhaps I've lost my
attention span these days :-/
>Settlers I missed, though I have collected II and III I think in combo
>packs and stuff. Which is the best and worst? I saw IV get panned a
>bit, but I've never seen or heard of the first one. I loaded up one of
>them once (II maybe) and couldn't really get into it.
I think most fans agree III is the last real Settlers.
>Syndicate was rather like Commandos in that it was a very innovative
>game which was just too damned hard!
>
>So I agree with you that the "magic" is often missing somewhere, but
>I'm not sure it's all because of automation or "dumbing down" - but
>maybe part of that is about reducing the learning curve for people not
>used to or prepared to invest lots of time learning, and perhaps that's
>the kind of game we really like. So, er, maybe I do agree with you
>after all ...
Ok, <confused> ummm. Yep. ;)
>> Yup, burnt more hours on D2 than I will on any game again for the rest of my
>> life probably. It was the *limitations* in D2 that made it what it was.
>> That's how I categorise it at any rate. If you could get all the items,
>> skills, etc in 1 or even 6 chars, everyone would've maxed everything in the
>> first year & D2 would've died a quiet death.
>
>Yes, that's absolutely right - the key combination is that it was NOT
>off-puttingly repetitive and boring (different random bosses etc.) AND
>it rewarded lots of replaying (mainly unique and set items, but also
>getting to try out different high-level skills etc.). Compare with
>Throne of Bhaal (which I never reached!) - it also has lots of
>interesting high-level skills to try out, but playing through the game
>loads of times to try them all is, I suspect, far less interesting. In
>a way the flimsiness of D2's plot actually makes the replay value
>greater - not sure why.
It's a mystery. Then again, so is why WoW or EQ2 are such successes. There
must be more ppl out there with OCD than we realise >8^D *duck*
>> >> - BG2: fantastic crpg, but more like work in the 2nd half...I played it over
>> >> 18 mths & only finished it on pure stubbornness in the end...started ToB
>> >> this year but just couldn't go far :(
>> >
>> >I came to BG2 late and wrecked it for myself by using the walkthrough.
>> >Since it's supposed to be one of the best CRPGs ever, and I *loved*
>> >BG1, I hope I've learned the lesson.
>>
>> Same here. It was an engagement pressie (silly girl - she didn't see me for
>> the first couple months he he ;) so I felt compelled to finish it. So I
>> started peeking at the walkthrough some time during chapter 2 *blush*
>
>Mine was even earlier than that. I couldn't find the room with the
>golems in Irenicus's dungeon, so I couldn't get the key to get out and
>*had* to use the walkthrough pretty much straight away. Mr Dan flipping
>Simpson is so incredibly comprehensive that as soon as I realised how
>much I'd missed I started over! If only the gloom of the map had been
>slightly less and I'd found that door ...
He, he, yes, I think Mr Simpson has a lot of begrudging thanks coming to him
:)
>> I think I like fps games *because* I can finish most of them - they're
>> probably the only genre that got shorter (cf. Doom or Duke Nukem), rather
>> than longer. And I'm fairly good at them, even the online ones :)
>
>Where I, on the other hand, am hopeless. I could just about manage
>HalfLife because it was very linear and I could kind of guess that a
>baddie would be round the next corner, but FarCry was way too hard!
Oh well, to each their own!
>> Nothing will reawaken the magic of X-Wing/TIE Fighter or Dark Forces. I'm
>> still waiting for a hybrid, cross-genre SW game (space-sim, rpg, action,
>> adventure) that does it all as well as the movies. Yeah, dream on...
>
>Heck, I'd settle for a glossy GeForce-busting remake of TIE Fighter ...
>come on LucasArts, you know you want to ....
Petition? Nah, too lame ;)
>> >> - RON: where Kohan frustrated me & RTW just couldn't grab me, this game
>> >> *almost* re-awakened my old love of RTSs after 5+ years, though I only
>> >> finished the Alexander campaign; nothing innovative or new, just excellent,
>> >> quality gameplay
>> >
>> >Ah, good - I've just dusted this one off - it held my attention so
>> >briefly that I honestly cannot remember it at all, but if it beats
>> >Kohan (which palled quickly for me) and RTW (which I love), it might
>> >bring back a little of that AoE1 magic ....
>>
>> It's 'old-school'-ish RTS at its best. Don't expect anything innovative, but
>> it has everything yummy since Dune 2 in spades. Do you have the Thrones &
>> Patriots exp? I highly recommend you start with the pre-made campaigns than
>> the whole world for your first games. Again, it's the limitations that will
>> make or break it. ;)
>
>Excellent - I have looked up Thrones & Patriots and will get a copy and
>then give it a try.
I certainly hope you won't be disappointed. There's a lot of substance under
all the cutesy graphics & sfx. Perhaps not as deep tactically as Kohan or
RTW, but a lot of fun nonetheless.
>> >1. Dom2 - yeah I know, I'm a fanboy, but this really is the best game
>> >since D2. If you've not tried it already, you must give it a go.
>>
>> Ummm...what is it? Am I just being obtuse about the acronym? :-/
>
>Dominions2: The Ascension Wars - as described above. If you can forgive
>it being turn-based (which makes for much easier MP because you can
>just make your moves whenever - do you remember trying to play MoO2
>MP?? Snore) it really is tops. Takes a LONG while to appreciate fully,
>and you keep discovering new things to try. There are some really
>well-crafted user mods to fix most of the balance issues in the
>unmodded game (very like SEIV in this respect) - if you're into 4X
>games, you should definitely give it a try. Head on over to the
>Shrapnel forums if you want to know more - there is a downloadable demo
>which gives plenty of the flavour (but only the first few magic
>levels).
Tx dude - will do when I get a chance. Yeah, I thought I knew what Dom2
stood for when you first said it - doh! I even think I did start to play the
demo quite some time ago but got distracted by some glitzy, shiny game ;)
>> >2. Majesty - I dusted this one off recently (yes, I've been clearing
>> >out all my old CDs), and I'd forgotten how unique it is. It's RTS but
>> >you don't have control over your units. That *completely* changes the
>> >experience. Sadly the RPG element is limited because you can't take
>> >your heroes with you to subsequent missions, but it's a great little
>> >game. Make sure you get the Gold edition (with the Northern Expansion),
>> >and turn off that incredibly awful Sean Connery voice.
>>
>> Must take a look. How old? Got a URL perhaps?
>
>Hmm, really quite old I'm afraid - around 2000 - try
>www.majestyquest.com - hey they now have a Linux edition, excellent!
>There's also a downloadable demo, but I don't know how representative
>it is. The Gold Edition is what you want - it contains the Northern
>Expansion.
Another one I'll take a peek at ;)
>> >3. Commandos - I'm all excited because I've just ordered #2 and #3 (Men
>> >of Courage and Destination Berlin) - a very hard puzzle-type game, but
>> >the first one at least was really immersive and well done.
>>
>> I think I played the first demo & it didn't quite grab me. Silent Storm left
>> me luke warm after a few short levels as well. Dunno.
>
>Hmm, I think Silent Storm is a different series - Commandos is
>subtitled "Behind Enemy Lines". But WW2 setting can be a big turn-off
>for some. Also just too damn difficult in some missions.
The WW2 thing was just fine - I think Commandos was around the time I
started losing patience for squad-based *turn-based* games - probably BG1/2
that killed them. Same reason SS (yes, totally diff game) & JA2 more
recently didn't do it for me. I must find a way to get my patience back
dammit!
>> >4. Space Empires StarFury - this is the game FFE should have been. It's
>> >not perfect, but it's really very good if you like Elite-type games.
>> >(Actually no, Freelancer is the game FFE should have been, but for some
>> >reason Freelancer got stale amazingly quickly - I played it through
>> >only twice.)
>>
>> Haven't played either (just the FL demo)...will look up SES - tx!
>
>FL is really very glossy - I fell instantly in love with it and
>obsessed about it for about two weeks - then I realised that that was
>it, I'd finished - I'd been everywhere there was to go and
>done/bought/found everything there was in it. As a kid who grew up on
>Elite (which had 8 galaxies!) that was a massive disappointment. Oh,
>and the physics of FL sucked, which pissed some people off a lot, but I
>have to say that didn't bother me - if I'm going to immerse myself into
>a fantasy about flying a spaceship, I don't really care if the fantasy
>universe has non-newtonian physics. The Elite sequels (Frontier and
>FFE) had newtonian physics and that didn't make the gameplay vastly
>better. Hardly noticeable difference in fact.
Yeah, FE2 & FFE were a timesink, weren't they? ;)
>I think SESF is also published by Shrapnel (it's by the same company
>who produced SEIV, which is to space 4X what Dom2 is to fantasy 4X).
I'll have a sniff around for it as well.
I'll check out all of the above, but they all sound a bit scary, what with
my flagging attention span & limited time these days...tx dude.
>> >7. Warlords Battlecry series - I suspect you prefer the Kohan series,
>> >but I find these slightly more engaging.
>>
>> Think I played a demo of this years ago as well. I tried JA2 just recently,
>> but I think turn-based games may have died for me since BG2 & other hybrid
>> pausable RT games. They just seem to agree with my mindset more I think. :)
>
>I think you're probably referring to Warlords III or IV, rather than
>BattleCry. The WBC series are all RTS, and pretty highly rated
>(especially II). If you've never tried, give them a go (sadly they kept
>changing publishers so there's not much chance of a 3in1 multipack).
>III is the easiest to find (www.enlight.com/wbc3)
KK - will do.
>> >I could go on, but I think I've rambled long enough. It's just started
>> >to rain - time to bring the laundry in ...
>>
>> He, he. Hopefully MVD will get into this sub-thread. He did start it after
>> all, the bastage! >8^D
>
>That's assuming he's finally been conviced that chess is a better game
>than go ... or was it checkers?
I think is was crackers, wasn't it? >8^D
--
A killfile is a friend for life.
Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Quaestor
>>This we called the alpha-beta test,
>>
>>
>
>I'm familiar with the term. I'm, uh, rather surprised that you are;
>I've found that it's a pretty obscure term. Are you a programmer?
>
>
*starts an old man's tale*
"Why when I was yer age we didn't HAVE computers! Didn't have brains,
neither! Had to keep all our thoughts in a jar! Mine didn't even have
a lid! Ever day I used ta walk 91 and a half miles through the rain,
tornadoes, and earthquakes just to change my mind. And I was glad to do
it! Heh, tell kids this stuff these days, they don't believe it."
I retired from programming just before c++ came along.
>>Actually I was joking. :)
>>
>>
>
>Whoops. My bad. :)
>
>
Nah, I should *nudge* more. :)
>Excellent points, and reasoning. I thank you.
>
>
I do try. *shakes hands*
alexti
news:1126619305.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Hmmm, very good question - been mulling this over for a while. It's
> probably Dominions2: The Ascension Wars (www.shrapnelgames.com) - I had
> a suspicion I would like it, I like turn-based fantasy 4X games in
> general - but first impressions were poor: the graphics are mediocre
> and the UI is limited. But then suddenly months had gone by and I
> hadn't touched anything else - it's an astounding game with immense
> replay value (I have so far played "only" 12 of the 17 races, and only
> once each). It's the D2 of TBS - multiple ways to play each race.
>
> Even so, Dom2 doesn't really qualify as a hybrid game or a surprise
> genre-buster - it's just a very very good 4X TBS.
In terms of gameplay Dom2 is true TBS, but it has more atmosphere than
strategic games normall have. Come to think, it probably has more
atmosphere than most RPG :) RPG in Dom2 universe might have been a hit..
Alex.
patrick5...@yahoo.com
> I have to say though that the different rulesets and scoring systems are a
> lot more confusing than Chess. I'm not sure if the claim that Go is easier
> to learn than chess is really so accurate if you look at the Japanese
> ruleset with its numerous exceptions for example.
IME, go is *way* harder to learn than chess!
But it has nothing to do with the rules or scoring systems. Those are
a piece of cake. They may sound confusing at first, but only to
someone who hasn't played the game much. Once you've played a bit,
you'll find that there's no appreciable difference between the Japanese
and Chinese scoring systems (or any other rules differences you may
have heard of). Pick one system and learn it, and after playing awhile
you'll be able to pick up the rest in a minute or two at your leisure.
When I say go is much harder to learn than chess, I'm not talking about
learning the rules and moves at all. As far as sheer mechanics of
play, go is about as simple as a game can get; you can learn to play in
five minutes.
But then you have to learn what you're supposed to be doing and how to
win. That's where it gets tough!
Tough, but not complicated. Not complicated at all. In fact, there's
basically just one concept you have to learn: how to form a safe group
of stones (and interfere with your opponent's forming safe groups). A
safe group has two "eyes" (me, in Japanese).
I learned go by playing The Many Faces of Go on my home computer; and
even after reading a book on the game, it took me at least ten or
twenty games before I began to catch on. It was one of the most
frustrating learning experiences of my life. But eventually, something
clicked, and I got it.
Years later, I tried to teach the game to a friend. I patiently sat
there building one-eyed and two-eyed groups on the board, explaining
why only the two-eyed group was safe--but he didn't get it at all. So
we played a game on a 9x9 board, and when I said the game was over he
wondered why--and I couldn't explain. We were out of time, so I taught
him to play go-moku (five-in-a-row) instead.
Go is one of the simplest games in the world, yet one of the hardest
I've ever had to learn.
> And then there is stuff
> like "removing the dead stones at the end and playing it out if there are
> disputes", which seems fairly ambigious and vague to me. Also
> "compensation" such as handicaps and "komi" are something to get used to,
> and I have mixed feelings about them. This is done at chess show events
> too, but not at tournaments where everyone starts at an equal level. (But I
> am most certainly missing something crucial here.)
I doubt if you're missing anything crucial. All those things are
basically just the "table manners" of go. Since black goes first (thus
getting an advantage), white gets a tiny point bonus at the outset to
balance the game--usually including a half point so there can't be a
draw; that's komi.
The rest you can figure out when the time comes. You'll have bigger
fish to fry before then.
> What happens if one player resigns? Does the other player win? It would
> make sense, but I noticed that the Go clients I looked at don't even bother
> calculating the final score if one player gives up. Surprisingly many of
> the games I watched at IGS ended with someone resigning and I didn't always
> (or ever) understand just why the player gave up ... a few of them seemed
> to have more captures and more "territory", but still threw the towel.
You'll probably watch many games before you really know what's going on
or why a player resigned. Even after I learned to play, I tried to
follow some tournament games--and I was completely lost.
But if the game appeals to you and you want to learn and play, I'm sure
it's well within your ability. Just start on a 9x9 or 11x11 board and
get to where you really get the concept of "safe groups." Then try
13x13 or 19x19 games--and play to the corners first, then the sides,
and the middle of the board last.
Then, if you like the game, get a good book on it--or a teacher--or
join a club.
> Do Go players, like chess players, "peak" at around 25, then remain
> somewhat constant until they reach 40, and then drop significantly in
> performance?ยด
I don't know. But I've heard that promising young go players in Japan
start at age five or so, and the best of them pretty much spend their
lives at go academies, training constantly. In "Go World" magazine, I
read about a top player who was in his 60s or 70s; his game had grown
weaker, but he was still playing in tournaments.
Btw, I've also heard that games like chess and go are especially good
for people over 40 or so; it keeps the brain working well.
--Patrick
patrick5...@yahoo.com
"draughts" is another name for checkers):
"To calculate is not in itself to analyse. A chess player, for example,
does one without effort of the other. I will therefore take occasion to
assert that the higher powers of the reflective intellect are more
decidedly and more usefully tasked by the unostentatious game of
draughts than by all the elaborate frivolity of chess. In the latter,
where the pieces have different and bizarre motions, with various and
variable values, what is only complex is mistaken for what is profound.
The attention is here called powerfully into play. If it flag for an
instant, an oversight is committed resulting in injury or defeat. The
possible moves being not only manifold, but involute, the chances of
such oversights are multiplied; and in nine cases out of ten it is the
more concentrative, rather than the more acute player who conquers.In
draughts on the contrary, where the moves are unique and have little
variation, the probabilities of inadvertence are diminished, and the
mere attention being left comparatively, unemployed, what advantages
are obtained by either party are obtained by superior acumen".
Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849)
("The Murders in the Rue Morgue")
"Chess is what you see, Checkers is what you know. There is enough in
either game to last a man a lifetime".
Harry N. Pillsbury (Chess grandmaster, Checkers expert)
"Draughts is a less attractive game, infinitely less, but it is more
scientific. You see, a step at draughts is irreparable. At chess,
however, you can get back, change the disposition of your men, and
possibly win."
J.H. Blackthorn (English Chess Champion 1895)
>From a mathematical game theory point of view, checkers is a simpler
game than chess. There are only 5x1020 positions (5 with 20 zeros after
it) in checkers, whereas chess has at least 1040 positions. Thus, we
have a better chance of completely solving checkers than chess.
However, that does not mean that checkers is easier (or harder) to play
than chess.
Jonathan O'Conner
Marcus
> For the past year or so, I have not found one game that really
> "grabbed" me. I even branched out to other genres, like action and
> simulations, but in the end I just spent quite a bit of money on
> games that ended up on the shelf within a few hours. Quite literally.
>
> teen already when I started, I didn't begin playing at two years,
> like so many today), so I have seen quite a number of games. Years
> ago, there were games that really "grabbed" me and held me under
> their spell for months if not years, but nowadays, nothing seems to
> interest me. Nothing appears to really appeal to me, although that
> doesn't mean that nothing fails to attract me. Quite a few games
> catch my attention, but they never live up to the excitement they
> promise.
I'm right there with you in some respects. The Kohan/RTS situation causes me
to grit my teeth with regularity, and it's still pissing me off now.
However, there are other things on the horizon - Rise of Legends could well
be cool, and Supreme Commander may be a ton of fun, even if it is mental
sugar from a gameplay standpoint.
I'm seriously stoked about Oblivion, and I'm hoping it will make up for the
deficient areas in Morrowind with some changes. All the rest is gravy
(beautiful expansive world, more interesting plot arc for me, etc)
Gothic 3 looks to be quite impressive as well, if you missed out on the
first two for some reason, you may well enjoy this.
Heroes 5, despite my reservations, looks like it may actually be pretty
neat. It's visually gorgeous in the same way that 2 was when it came out,
and they look to be trying to streamline the best parts of the gameplay
(combat and exploration) and skip the cruft that came along (no hero units
in battle, smaller armies)
There are some others, but that's all PC
Do you, or have you spent much time with consoles? I didn't see any
mentioned. I could recommend a spare handful of titles for any of the three
major platforms out now, say five or ten at the outside that I thoroughly
enjoyed from an immersion or gameplay standpoint (say, ICO for the first or
Ninja Gaiden for the second). There's also console stuff that mirrors
certain PC genres more closely, say Final Fantasy Tactics or Tactics Ogre
for TBS, Metroid Prime if you want an immersive FPS, or perhaps Rez if you
want something with no real equivalent on the PC, but still a cool
experience. King's Field feels like an old Wizardry with its vicious initial
difficulty, despite playing as a sort of slow mo FPS/RPG.
My current gaming plate is painfully bare I must admit. I'm even running out
of authors to fill the gap until the holidays :P
patrick5...@yahoo.com
> Mastery means "being better at something than almost everyone". Why is
> this important?
>
> You will die, you know. As will I. Life is just not that long. Why
> would you want to enter silly little competitions with other people?
> Winning will provide you with nothing important. Losing will deprive
> you of nothing vital.
All I can say is that it'd look different if you could see it through
my eyes. For one thing, I believe in reincarnation--which makes this
particular lifetime just a drop in the cosmic bucket. And it means
that whatever I do (or fail to do) in this lifetime will determine
future stages of my eternal journey through life.
Not that mastering chess would likely garner many spiritual points.
But the struggle itself--striving to master something--would be a
learning experience that could help me up a rung or two on the ladder.
Self-discipline, IMO, is an extremely valuable thing to develop. And
since I believe that's something that I *can* take with me, it seems
like a good investment.
But I agree with you about the competition part, and I compliment you
on putting it so elegantly: "Winning will provide you with nothing
important. Losing will deprive you of nothing vital."
> I revel in my own abilities, and leave others to revel in theirs. How
> my abilities compare with others' is barely worth my attention.
That sounds like a pretty good attitude to have.
> My goal, if it can be called that, is to understand things in their
> full complexity. Or at least, understand as much of them as I can.
OK, that sounds like a fine goal. But I could raise the same questions
about it that you raised about "mastery" above. If life's so short,
why bother accumulating understanding?
> No, I meant that games are important because they are a part of
> humanity. Games are stress relief, they are a social outlet, they are
> an easy way of challenging yourself, of filling your empty moments with
> joy. I love games.
>
> I just don't think they're a good route to understanding life, or
> understanding anything except the game itself, really.
In a way, I envy you that attitude. Because I find myself in almost
the opposite position--being unable to spontaneously enjoy games just
for stress relief, social interaction, and so forth. Even when I sit
down to a just-for-fun game, I find myself looking for something deep
and meaningful in it. I can laugh and joke with the other players
briefly, but then I lose interest in that and my mind drifts back to
"deep meaning" again.
I've loved games with a passion all my life--and yet I've done a lot
less actual game playing than many people. I'm always too busy
thinking and philosophizing about games to actually play them. And
when I do play, I lose interest unless it seems to mean something
important.
> > I guess there's a lot to be said for balance in all things. Guess this
> > isn't the place for it, but I'd be curious to hear what you turned to
> > after your "fanatic" phase.
>
> Well, after a bit of flirting with various types of mysticism, I've
> settled into my current belief, which is humanistic agnosticism. I
> don't believe in any sort of God or higher power. I believe that when I
> die, my thoughts and consciousness will be lost forever, snuffed out
> like a candle. I believe that because of this, my life has no inherent
> purpose... but it is my property, and I can give it whatever purpose I
> wish. I believe that I am free to be as happy and fulfilled as I want
> to be for the fifty-odd years I probably have left to live.
>
> And I believe in learning from those who can teach me, and teaching
> those who can learn from me. I think that's a worthy goal.
Thanks for sharing that, Laszlo. And FWIW, I think it's a worthy goal
too. Sounds like you've put some effort into claiming the kind of
freedom you need to live life your own way. That's commendable.
--Patrick
Courageous
Heh. I'm sure you're right about that.
But I'm likewise sure that the crop of games, available this year,
and somewhat over the last several years, has... uh... taken a direction
I'm not happy with.
"Here we are now, entertain us..."
C//
Courageous
>> a RPG like Ultima VIII (even though no one but me liked it!),
Well if you'd said it about Ultima IX, I'd say you are right.
It was only /you/ who like it. :)
C//
patrick5...@yahoo.com
contrasts the games of chess, checkers, and go in every useful way.
And the author speaks from experience, putting a personal slant on the
three games:
patrick5...@yahoo.com
> patrick...@mn.rr.com wrote:
>
> >All my life I've heard experts
> >agree that checkers is the equal of chess in terms of intellectual
> >challenge.
> >
>
> You listen to people who are stupid. Just because you and your friends
> cannot understand the nature of the game does not mean that others do not.
Excuse me, but I wasn't talking about my friends; I was talking about
reading what expert chess and checkers players have said. Do you mean
to imply that chessmasters and expert checkers players are stupid?
> >Many people do think of checkers as a kids' game, but good
> >players know better.
> >
>
> For your definition of "good players." I programmed chess for years,
> and I know, the move-tree for chess is beyond the combined resolution of
> all the computers through all of history, and will likely remain so for
> some time. Whereas the complete move-tree for checkers was resolved
> years ago. Checkers is a game so thoroughly known, by human players,
> that in checkers tournaments the opening moves are forced by lottery,
> otherwise the first to move invariably wins. Checkers hardly qualifies
> as a truly competitive game at all.
I'm straining to avoid throwing the word "stupid" back at you here,
though your remarks above pretty clearly merit that. Have you ever sat
down and played an actual game of chess or checkers? Try it with
checkers sometime, and tell me if you still think it's not a
competitive game.
Your programming experience is irrelevant; it merely puts a personal
spin on something fairly obvious--that there are more mathematical
permutations in chess than checkers.
As to the opening-line lottery in tournament checkers games, it's true.
Since checkers has fewer opening lines than chess, they're very well
known to expert players; and without the "lottery," the player with the
first move would have too decisive an advantage. That does not,
however, make tournament results foreordained; experts still
participate in checkers tournaments and still find it challenging.
More to the point, *very* few people in the world are experts at
checkers! It takes a tremendous amount of study and practice to become
an expert; and along the way, checkers is certainly a competitive and
challenging game.
> >Only recently have I heard that computer analysis
> >has somehow determined checkers to be a weaker game than chess.
> >
>
> That is your first correct ascertion.
And "ascertion" may be your first misspelling. Congratulations!
> >But
> >since either game can pose a lifelong challenge to an above-average
> >human intellect,
> >
>
> Not true. See above.
Don't try to fool me. I've been above already; I know there's nothing
worthwhile up there.
> >to me that's a moot point.
> >
>
> To you it is a moot point because you Want it to be a moot point.
How the hell do you know what I want?
> >In short, I do not accept
> >chess to be superior to checkers.
>
> Accept or reject as you wish. In terms of complexity and challenge, it
> IS, in the same way that Mt. Everest IS bigger than a pebble. Those who
> want to believe otherwise can make up any argument they want, but it
> does not change reallity.
Well, "reallity" is perhaps only your second misspelling (I haven't
been watching that closely)--but it seems fitting that you'd have
trouble with that particular word.
If you're at all interested in a dose of reality, I recommend that you
read this fine, short article, which I think does a pretty fair job of
comparing the games of chess, checkers, and go (I think you may like
it, because the author supports some of the points you've made--but you
may be surprised by the author's conclusion):
http://www.bobnewell.net/comp.html
--Patrick
Michael Vondung
> http://www.bobnewell.net/comp.html
Draughts has another advantage: It exists on a Gameboy module, so I can
play it in bed, on a park bench or on the road. Same with chess. There is,
however, no Go program for the little device. ;)
I think the essence of the above article (I had found it a couple days ago,
too -- the same guy wrote a few more draughts advocacies) is that "fun" is
hard to measure. Most of my friends will agree to play draughts/checkers
with me, fewer are willing to sit down for a game of chess, and I have yet
to find anyone who would like to give Go a try (but this is a new interest,
so I have not bugged too many people yet).
The brain probably benefits the most from playing *different* games, with
different rules and different levels of complexity, than it does from
playing only one game exclusively. I'll probably never master just one
game, or really "any one thing", but I don't mind being a "jack of all
trades". I'm not entirely sure whether I prefer to live "deeply" or
"broadly", but I believe I am better suited for the "broad" approach.
M.
Gerry Quinn
says...
> chaos...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> The percentage of the available moves that result in a still-winnable
> position is generally far greater in go than chess. It is hard to make
> a single move in go (other than one that saves or kills a shape) which
> loses a game. It is hard NOT to in chess.
Indeed, making chess the more challenging game in this regard!
> Of course, in the very early stages, joseki (opening positions) are very
> well known, but they are far more subject than chess positions to
> altered play. The basic chess opening, PK4 is considered the only
> possible opening by many, and PQ4 is considered weak and defensive (but
> is played more rarely, so I like to do it just to trip them up). The
> Evans Gambit (PKB4) was a heavy favorite for nearly a century until its
> systematic refutation was discovered and it totally lost favor and is
> just not played in upper tournament levels anymore.
You exaggerate. Of the 20 possible opening moves for White, about 5
are considered unequivocally bad, about 3 more dubious, and a few more
over-passive. P-Q4 is sound and played often - the main reason it's
played less than in the past is that P-QB4 and N-KB3 are more flexible
ways of getting into the Queen's Gambit complex. P-KB4 is Bird's
opening, playable though uncommon.
Evan's Gambit is:
1. P-K4 P-K4
2. N-KB3 N-QB3
3. B-QB4 B-QB4
4. P-QN4
I used to play it a bit, myself, but AFAIK the main lines have been
analysed to a draw (not a refutation - the gambit is, I think,
perfectly sound). I've an idea Fischer used to play it sometimes.
- Gerry Quinn
chaos...@gmail.com
Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <11iegbs...@news.supernews.com>, no-...@my.place
> says...
> > chaos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > The percentage of the available moves that result in a still-winnable
> > position is generally far greater in go than chess. It is hard to make
> > a single move in go (other than one that saves or kills a shape) which
> > loses a game. It is hard NOT to in chess.
>
> Indeed, making chess the more challenging game in this regard!
And clearly, making tic-tac-toe even more challenging! After all, most
positions in tic-tac-toe are "make the one correct move, or lose"...
Laszlo
Greg Johnson
wrote:
>On 13 Sep 2005 19:16:21 -0700, patrick5...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> http://www.bobnewell.net/comp.html
>
>Draughts has another advantage: It exists on a Gameboy module, so I can
>play it in bed, on a park bench or on the road. Same with chess. There is,
>however, no Go program for the little device. ;)
Actually, there are at least 2; there were 2 Hikaru no Go games for the
GBA, but AFAIK they're Japanese only, so probably not useful. They
certainly exist, though.
--
Greg Johnson
chainbreaker
> You're right, perhaps I just need take up a new hobby. Well, it seems
> like I'm getting into Go now (let's see how long that lasts!), and
> September and October offer some good opportunities for working in
> the garden. I've been wondering about working with clay, something I
> used to do years and years ago, and which was quite relaxing (not
> that I ever produced anything worthwhile, but it was fun nonetheless).
>
> M.
Mike, I think it's mostly just that at some point in life you get the
feeling of "been there, done that . . . and that . . . and that . . . and
that, too" regarding not only gaming but also a lot of things that have at
one time or another been of particular interest. I find myself feeling this
way in general not only about games, but also about music, movies, etc.
I'm not sure there's a particular answer for it other than to step back a
bit and check in later to see if anything new's developed, and in the
meantime maybe take up something completely different that you've always
intended to, assuming there is something in that nature that fills the bill.
In my case, I'm determined to finally build that wooden sailing ship model
I've always wanted to. Heh, I may not *really* do it, but I'm having a ball
right now *planning* to do it, at least. :-)
--
chainbreaker
chainbreaker
> Excuse me, but I wasn't talking about my friends; I was talking about
> reading what expert chess and checkers players have said. Do you mean
> to imply that chessmasters and expert checkers players are stupid?
>
I can't help but butt in here to throw in the observation that being a
chessmaster or expert checkers player neither necessarily implies nor should
imply any particular degree of genius or knowledge outside the areas of
chess or checkers at all. OK, now I'm finished. :-)
--
chainbreaker
magnate
My own contribution is simply that chess, draughts and go are three
games out of zillions, so why argue so strenuously over the relative
merits of each? If you want a neat abstract strategy game, try Gipf.
IMHO (and it really is very H since I'm hopeless at any of them) it's
far superior to chess and draughts (though I haven't played go).
CC
Clintok
news:1126701430.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"Whoopi for the block."
Is that *ever* a correct move?
patrick5...@yahoo.com
> On 13 Sep 2005 19:16:21 -0700, patrick5...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > http://www.bobnewell.net/comp.html
>
> Draughts has another advantage: It exists on a Gameboy module, so I can
> . . . Most of my friends will agree to play draughts/checkers
> with me. . . .
My hat's off to you for being able to do that much! I may nerve myself
up to tackle the game again someday, but when I think about it I still
tremble from the last time I tried.
When I was a kid playing checkers with my dad, it seemed like an
impossible game to me. Sometimes he'd let me win, but I always had the
impression he could beat me anytime he wanted to. I just never could
get the game; it was very frustrating. He'd give me tips, and I'd
follow them; but that wasn't enough to really teach me the game.
Decades later, I bought a checkers software program and a book on how
to play and win. I was determined to finally "get it." But the
computer program trounced me constantly, and the book didn't help. I
ended up more frustrated than ever. Even as an adult, with chess and
go experience behind me, I still couldn't get the hang of checkers!
I had nothing to latch onto--not a ray of hope. I just could not make
myself look ahead the way you evidently have to do to play a decent
game of checkers. There were no patterns to look for--which is how I
learned chess. In chess, there were principles to rely on (e.g.,
advance center pawns, play knights before bishops, make only even or
advantageous exchanges, castle early, put rooks on open files, etc.);
but I found nothing like that in checkers. It seemed like in checkers
all you could do was memorize long sequences of moves--or else look
ahead, plotting your way through a series of moves that might lead to
an advantage. I couldn't manage to do either of those things, so I
finally gave up in despair.
But after reading the above-linked article last night, I'm tempted to
give checkers another try. Maybe if I find a better book . . . or
maybe if I really just stick with it . . . maybe somehow there's an
outside chance that I might at least graduate from being a hopeless
beginner to a novice.
--Patrick