Though I *should* be working or something, I couldn't help but wade through all the entries at the 1000-Year Game Design Challenge and pick out the ones that caught my eye. Links to the games and comments at the link below.
On Aug 22, 6:49 pm, Nick Bentley <nickobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Though I *should* be working or something, I couldn't help but wade > through all the entries at the 1000-Year Game Design Challenge and > pick out the ones that caught my eye. Links to the games and comments > at the link below.
> Check em out and comment for the sake of discussion.
Cartography looks great. Can't say much about Tricala, but somehow I don't see it last a thousand years. The same for Charing Cross. The rest isn't my cup of tea, so I can't comment.
You didn't mention Flume. I fear Mark will notice ;-) But fun aside, I feel it is a serious contender for a lasting game.
On Aug 22, 12:01 pm, Nick Bentley <nickobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm curious Mark: why Flume, and not, say, Oust?
Both Oust and Flume will certainly thrive 1000 years from now. But the Flume rule set is easier and its gameplay more accessible. You have to play Oust 100 times before the counterintuitive tactics take hold.
I like the millennium theme. It takes time for a body of strategic knowledge to grow. Oust is the greatest game in the world, but the world doesn't know it yet. The world still thinks it's Go, lol
> Both Oust and Flume will certainly thrive 1000 years from now. But > the Flume rule set is easier and its gameplay more accessible. You > have to play Oust 100 times before the counterintuitive tactics take > hold.
> I like the millennium theme. It takes time for a body of strategic > knowledge to grow. Oust is the greatest game in the world, but the > world doesn't know it yet. The world still thinks it's Go, lol
Hmmm. So, I feel that if you're trying to win the contest, as opposed to just submitting your best game, Oust may *still* be the better choice.
My reasoning: Flume is like other dots-n-boxes games in that the opening is obscure to newbies. The vast majority of people don't see the depth in these kinds of games are because the openings are so hard to comprehend.
The contest administrators aren't going to be able play any of the entries in depth enough to get past opening bafflement. In other words, the games which give a good first impression will win even if they're not the most worthy of victory. Ergo, Flume is maybe not the most strategic choice. Rebuttal?
I guess you already have in claiming that Oust tactics are too obscure. But for what it's worth, I found Oust more accessible on first play than Flume.
On Aug 22, 11:02 pm, Nick Bentley <nickobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My reasoning: Flume is like other dots-n-boxes games in that the > opening is obscure to newbies. The vast majority of people don't see > the depth in these kinds of games are because the openings are so hard > to comprehend.
That's true to an equal degree, if not more so, for Oust. For lack of playing experience I'm not qualified to give a detailed comparison but I feel Flume stands a better chance.
> The contest administrators aren't going to be able play any of the > entries in depth enough to get past opening bafflement. In other > words, the games which give a good first impression will win even if > they're not the most worthy of victory. Ergo, Flume is maybe not the > most strategic choice. Rebuttal?
Of course meeting the condition isn't dependent on the nature of the game alone. Anyone who claims to be able to predict what the world will be like for humans in a thousand years from now, if there are any that is, or what 'being human' even means by that time, is fooling at least one person.
On 22-Aug-2011, Nick Bentley <nickobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My reasoning: Flume is like other dots-n-boxes games in that the > opening is obscure to newbies.
Flume is similar to Dots and Boxes in this respect, though I personally don't know of any other "dots-n-boxes games" - not that I doubt their existence.
From the 1000 year contest: "Elegance: Entries should be easy to learn, teach and play. We favor entries that can be explained succinctly and played in under an hour."
The choice between Flume and Oust as contest entries was a tough one. Oust is harder to learn though. If you look at the two rule sheets, Flume can be explained in half a page, with the bottom half being used for example moves.
More people had trouble understanding Oust than Flume, though a lot of people had trouble with the Flume rule sheet too.
Yes, the opening play in Flume is "random" in a sense. You're just laying down stones, setting up the board in preparation for the "thinking" phase, which only lasts for a few turns.
A "randomized" opening followed by a short but intense thought period makes for a short game *with negligible turn order advantage*. You've got a game of (essentially) 30-35 turns with no more turn order advantage than many 60+ turn games.
>Flume is similar to Dots and Boxes in this respect, though I personally >don't know of any other "dots-n-boxes games" - not that I doubt their >existence.
I know of several. There's even another dots-n-boxes-derived entry in the 1000-Year-Contest, called Zuniq:
(I'll be surprised if that one doesn't suck terribly, but you never know)
One that I like is just like dots-n-boxes, except that when any enclosed area is formed, the player claims *all the squares* in that area. That makes the opening less obscure, simply because the mid- game arrives faster.
I could name a few others as well, but you get the idea.
> If you look at the two rule sheets, Flume can be > explained in half a page, with the bottom half being used for example moves.
> That's true to an equal degree, if not more so, for Oust. For lack of > playing experience I'm not qualified to give a detailed comparison but > I feel Flume stands a better chance.
You may be right. I can only speak from personal experience and for me Oust was the better experience for me out of the gate (I also like it more over-all). If I'm not like the administrators, my opinion is meaningless.
> Of course meeting the condition isn't dependent on the nature of the > game alone. Anyone who claims to be able to predict what the world > will be like for humans in a thousand years from now, if there are any > that is, or what 'being human' even means by that time, is fooling at > least one person.
THIS is the really interesting part of the contest. I wish I'd known about this contest earlier so I could design a game around my wild speculations about what we'll be in 1000 years. I have doubts about whether there will even be humans in a thousand years. I could have designed a game for cockroaches.
On Aug 22, 2:35 pm, christian <christ...@mindsports.nl> wrote:
> > Anyone who claims to be able to predict what the world > will be like for humans in a thousand years from now, if there are any > that is, or what 'being human' even means by that time, is fooling at > least one person.
On Aug 23, 8:36 pm, Mark Steere <markste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2:35 pm, christian <christ...@mindsports.nl> wrote:
> > > > Anyone who claims to be able to predict what the world > > will be like for humans in a thousand years from now, if there are any > > that is, or what 'being human' even means by that time, is fooling at > > least one person.
> (I'll be surprised if that one doesn't suck terribly, but you never > know)
Doesn't look so bad. Fencing off playable areas speeds up the game, effectively 'cutting out the middle game'. The reason for the restriction on same sized areas (I take that to be the number of enclosed squares) is unclear to me.
Yes, there were several abstracts I didn't include, including one on a Go board that I thought you might be interested in.
Anyone want to wager a guess about which games will win? I fear "our" kind of games don't have a chance. One of the 2 judges is female and few women seem to enjoy perfect-info, geometrical abstracts.
On Aug 23, 9:15 pm, Nick Bentley <nickobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, there were several abstracts I didn't include, including one on a > Go board that I thought you might be interested in.
Can you give a link, I don't feel like wading through the whole bunch.
> Anyone want to wager a guess about which games will win? I fear "our" > kind of games don't have a chance. One of the 2 judges is female and > few women seem to enjoy perfect-info, geometrical abstracts.
Yes, but you can't generalize up to one person, so who knows. Cartography might be a game women enjoy. But that's the same generalization.
I don't quite agree 'our' games don't stand a chance. The only known games that are over a thousand years old, or their ancestors at least, are Go, Chess, Mancalas, Morris ... and Draughts isn't too young either.
On Aug 24, 3:44 pm, christian <christ...@mindsports.nl> wrote:
> ... but a couple of square examples would be welcome.
Luis, what I need is a couple of similar exaples as the ones in Yodd, on say a 5x5 board.
Everything is different of course, for instance you can split a diagonal pair with two stones _unless_ you contact one own group. It's the other way around really :)
I'd rather see you figure out a couple of representative tactics because you're deeper into the game.
Please send the stuff to my email address 'christian at mindsports dot nl'.
The way Luis describes the strategy makes the strategy dilemma sound similar to *Star, just with totally different tactics. The more I think about Yodd, the more I love the idea. I hope, hope, hope it plays well.
On Aug 24, 9:08 pm, Nick Bentley <nickobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The way Luis describes the strategy makes the strategy dilemma sound > similar to *Star, just with totally different tactics. The more I > think about Yodd, the more I love the idea. I hope, hope, hope it > plays well.
Despite Luis' saying that joining groups becomes harder, and that the game is more tactical than the hexversion, I have rather high expectations of it.
This is all 'intuition' of course, and since mentioning that concept will trigger a response by Mark anyway, it would be nice to hear something more insightful about Yodd than "it sounds like a Kris Burm game" and "the greatest game that nobody ever actually played".
> This is all 'intuition' of course, and since mentioning that concept > will trigger a response by Mark anyway, it would be nice to hear > something more insightful about Yodd than "it sounds like a Kris Burm > game" and "the greatest game that nobody ever actually played".
Another apparent feature is that there is some clarity in both tactics and strategy *despite* what appears to be a colossal branch factor. There aren't many games like that. The few that are, like Amazons, make for heady company.
I wonder what is lost if you drop friendly stones only. I guess the friendly-only version would be colder because your opponent would block off territories where you you'd want to avoid putting stones.
I'm starting to see the tactics by playing through mini-situations in my head and they look tantalizing.
On Aug 24, 10:42 pm, Nick Bentley <nickobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder what is lost if you drop friendly stones only.
About everything I'm afraid. White on his first move would have to drop to singles or pass (and if he keeps passing, does he win with 0 groups?). You don't have that 'passing' problem in the current version. If that were settled (extra rule), black could keep clogging and white would have to stop him with 2 or 4 groups to force black to drop another two singles ... doesn't feel good.
> I'm starting to see the tactics by playing through mini-situations in > my head and they look tantalizing.
I'm trusting they will be but I'll wait till the applet is ready :)
