Why most people don't finish video games

[Patrick Bateman]

@Vii

This is certainly one way to look at it. However, there are some activities that I consider "high impact" activities and others that I consider "low impact activities" (there are more degrees of "impact" , but that is not important). "High impact" activities are those useful activities that require considerable investment of concentration and energy and time that I'm able to spend doing "high impact" activities over a certain period is limited. I'd definitely put any game where there is no competition with other people involved into "low impact" category, so in that sense games compete for time slots only with other "low impact" activities. Provided that I allot maximum available time to "high impact" activities, there is no lost time.

Of course, this applies to time considerations for playing any type of game, not only those with complex rules. We just have to remember that reward, in terms of fun, is there.

And for all you know you could drop dead tomorrow. Is learning a needlessly complex videogame the best way to invest what could be your last day on earth?

I better stop before I get in creepy girl mode.

I'm not that easily creeped out. But you managed to guilt me into doing something productive that I haven't planned on doing yesterday. I should probably thank you for it.

In my experience anyone who players chess at some form of regular basis will soon pick up on a lot of these. While a competitive player will spend a lot of his/her spare time studying chess moves and try to memorize everything that he/she can, even a relatively casual player will not only learn the basic opening moves and what they mean, but also what different scenarios in the game (relative position of certain pieces) will result in.

I don't know, I'm a casual player and I don't learn openings, but play them in a way to get a positional advantage (control of the centre and as much offensive opportunities as possible) and I often find (when playing against a computer) that I'm following a certain opening without learning it, just by reacting to the position. I usually tend to gain advantage at the midgame (and sometimes lose it at the endgame by making a stupid oversight) and it is true that I try to achieve certain patterns, but I don't do it by memorizing moves. So far, it works and it's fun. I don't intend to compete, so I don't intend to memorize openings.

And this is a problem for many of the more "simple" games that don't have a large luck factor (you are not going to be able to predict a game of Munchkin unless you have arranged the cards beforehand).

Of course, chess is deterministic, while those games are stochastic (and there is an additional factor of total vs. partial observability), but nondeterminism doesn't imply tactical depth (in nondeterministic games, you still enumerate the possibilities, calculate the odds, and plan and for a tactical challenge number of viable possibilities has to be high).

I've seen semi-skilled chess players play games against bright but inexperienced chess players on auto-pilot, they just, to a large degree, played the game based on the previously memorized patterns.

But this case does involve players with different skill levels.

All games have a degree of this, of course, but the less possible scenarios you introduce, the more this will be an issue (this is by the way why I'm also a proponent of some kind of some kind of luck factor in games, but one that can be manipulated and where the game should have enough dice rolls (or similar) in total for a (bad)luck streak to have time to even out, but that is a debate for a topic on game design)

OK, but remember that the state space complexity of chess is huge (10^47) and that optimal strategy can be found in exponential time (which means not before the Universe ends). So, when played by two players with comparable skills, chess represents both tactical challenge and fun.

Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is not something that I find to be all that useful. It sure is fun, but I don't see an inherent value in knowledge.

Fun is already an inherent value and knowledge can easily be turned into material values. As a matter of fact, having a wide base of knowledge usually means that you are able to land on your feet in a bad situation, while others are not. For me, it works.

In fact, knowing too much can be a bit of a social handicap (conversation killer!).

The ability to carry light and frivolous conversation has nothing to do with knowledge and lack thereof. You might not enjoy it, but social adaptability should come into play (or to put it simply, fake it to make it).

the harm that elementary & high school did to my knowledge about different topics, so it is a subject that does annoy me a bit. At least in high school I had come to the point where I knew how to find proper sources, and spent way too much time arguing with my teachers about things that I thought was incorrect. That was when I was not playing quake on class time. Oftentime no knowledge is better than faulty knowledge, as learning something new is relatively easy, while re-learning is hard), in proper perspective).

Given that, your sentiment is understandable. I was educated at reputable institutions of high quality, but most of the things I know I learned on my own. They haven't taught me outright wrong things, and that's important (but I've always been focused on mathematics, natural sciences and computer science and you can't err much there).

 

[Fnord]

Given that, your sentiment is understandable. I was educated at reputable institutions of high quality, but most of the things I know I learned on my own. They haven't taught me outright wrong things, and that's important (but I've always been focused on mathematics, natural sciences and computer science and you can't err much there).

I'm a soon to be fully educated civil engineer with a focus on chemistry, and believe me when I say that you can learn a LOT of faulty things about natural science in school. The first course we had in chemistry was basically meant to correct all the mistakes that most of us had learnt during highschool chemistry. While not everything we learnt was flat out wrong, a lot of it was, and a lot of the things that were not wrong were so oversimplified that it was next to useless. For Pete's sake, they thought it was a good idea to teach us a faulty model on how an atom was structured in high school, the most fundamental part of chemistry. Bohr's atomic model was faulty, it told us that electrons traveled in perfect circles around the atomic core. What they should have done was to teach us it as a historical curiosity, not as hard facts. After high school I had a faulty understanding of thermodynamics as well (and this was in the, as far as I know, most widely spread book on physics for high school use in Sweden). The only thing that I feel I really got out of high school was math, because that was at least correct (though the chasm between high school math and university level math is just growing, they just make high school math easier and easier, which makes it very hard to hold a proper high standard for university level math).
And again, sorry for ranting, but I just feel like high school was a huge waste of time for me. And I do by the way come from the Swedish counterpart of the "ghetto", from a very poor municipality, so my elementary school never had a whole lot of money (we got rid of our maps containing the Soviet union around 97-98), but my high school studies were not done there, they were done in a far richer municipality that should have had the money to at least provide a decent education.
And apart from math, and chemistry, I'm mainly self thought. While I do say that I don't think that knowledge for the sake of knowledge has an inherent value, that does not mean that I don't actively seek out knowledge. I'm very interested in natural science, psychology & history, and I plan to start teaching myself economics as well soon (but currently I'm trying to read up on some of the most influential works in semi-recent philosophy). But how much of this has actually been useful to me? Well, the philosophy I know by now has only been of use once, and that was when I was chatting with a philosophy student in a bar. But usually when people talk about things, they don't want to hear facts, so when someone talks about say quantum mechanics (a field which I find quite interesting), I usually know enough to know exactly why what the people say are incorrect, yet they don't want to hear that, they just want to talk about it on a very shallow level, when we talk history they don't want to hear more than the shallow parts about different events. And so on. I do know some who are heavily into history, so those I can talk history with, but most people just don't want to hear more than "Well, the Tiger tank was cool, because of ..." (oh, and with the absolutely horrendous history education we have, it is easy to say something that totally contradicts what they managed to teach us in school, which can result in arguments, or me just "admitting" that I was wrong).
And no, I'm not a social retard, I know what I should and should not say, I avoid saying the things that will annoy people, unless I am with people I know can handle it. Actually, when it comes to conversations, as being a geek of some sort is the norm there days around here, and in my age group, having played a lot of video games is actually a very good thing, from a social point of view. It, and the popular movies at the moment, are very common conversation topics (both genders). So that is another reason why it is a good idea to "waste" time playing video games.

But this case does involve players with different skill levels.

Indeed, but my point was that chess is a game in which, in part, the “skill” is based on pure memorization, and not just the personal skill and experience of the players. I am not saying that you, in a normal game, can work everything from memory, but it is a substantial factor that determines who will win. And while there are a lot of different possible combinations, you don’t need to learn every single one, you just need to learn the common ones, and you will already be at a large advantage over someone who does not. And it does not need to be the exact ones, just similar ones.

Of course, chess is deterministic, while those games are stochastic (and there is an additional factor of total vs. partial observability), but nondeterminism doesn't imply tactical depth (in nondeterministic games, you still enumerate the possibilities, calculate the odds, and plan and for a tactical challenge number of viable possibilities has to be high).

While it is quite true that a nondeterministic games are not inherently deeper than deterministic ones, a nondeterministic game has the advantage of preventing a game from just becoming one where you can just follow a set system in order to win. And yes, in every nondeterministic game, there will still be many “options” that are just plain bad/stupid (I could move my troops out of the jungle, into the open and give my opponent an easier time hitting them, while I lower my own hit chance), but they test the players adaptability, and as I said, prevents people from playing based on systems.
When designing a more nondeterministic game, one of the biggest challenges is to make sure that you avoid the “playing by the system” part, while still making things predictable enough for it to not turn into a game purely based on chucking dice. And this is not all that easy, I can tell you that (as I said earlier, I’m currently in the process of creating my own board game, and I’ve found this to be a bit challenge).

 

[mrowakus]

I think this discussion is coming to closure, as all what's left for now is reiterating same statements in a different manner. Unless someone other pops up here with some mind-shattering revelation we will have to agree to disagree and there's that.

Still, a few things…

Can we be sure that majority of players who play single player games actually prefer them "balanced"? I´d guess that majority of those who frequently discuss them probably do, because they likely tend to be more conscious about this stuff, but the rest?

I think that Patrick covered most things I wanted to say in sufficient detaila nad I have very little to add. I feel obliged to comment on this bit, however.

I don't think it's the question of 'preferrence'. This is the question of the medium and what it stands for. I don't believe it should represent " a novel + a film" mix, it should search for its own voice using one feature it tops the two aforementioned media - interactivity. For this reason it ought to use interactivity as the primary force of expression, everything other playing servile role to it. If you include interaction it should serve some tangible purpose i.e. be "the contest of wits" all the way through in every aspect of the game.

It's a good thing that things may be just fun. But when all facet of gameplay is "just fun", and the one you spent around 50% of you play time, at the top of it, it becomes a pointless distraction lagging the medium behind instead of allowing it to reach its full potential.

Coming by to preferrence and as to why it think it's irreleveant here. Majority of people can't prefer what they do not know. When they are exposed to jumbled gameplay they naturally, subconsciously assume it's meant to be that way. You could argue that for the same reason, when one is exposed to quality it's hard to accept mediocrity, hailed as the coming of the Lord almighty.

That doesn't change the simple fact that you need technical knowledge to play those games.

In your AD&D example any challenge the game can present would be testing my knowledge and understanding of the rules first, and my reasoning second.

And I'll add a different kind of argument now: If I have the time and the will to invest that effort in studying and learning a topic shouldn't I be using it to raise even more my notes at school, learning a new language, or acquiring an actual skill, like playing an instrument?

Even if we were to mention just Chess, Go, and Shogi that's still more depth than I will probably be able to master in a single lifetime times three, yet all of those are easy to learn games. Even Shogi, which is quite harder to learn than chess, is several orders of magnitude easier to learn than a wargame.

How can I justify spending that kind of time and effort on a mechanically complex game when there are deep yet accesible options? While I am not criticizing those who take the other path I believe it should be quite easy to understand where I am coming from in my dislike, as complexity is not something I care for and at the same time would be getting in the way on things I do care for.

Fair enough, everyone to her/his own… though it's sounds kind of weird coming from an avid dungeon crawler, where a simple Shin Megami Tensei game is much, much more complex than your standard Bioware pulp.

In the end we might agree that complexity has more to do with the target audience than with the reason of people dropping the game halfway through. To me the only kind of complexity that would have achieved that is the "pointless" kind - as described in the posts before.

Indeedy.

However, we can't write off that some people might be interested in something other than the contest itself and is finding pleasure on it.

I.E: I love Poupeegirl and The Sims games yet there's no contest at all in them.

So we can't really say that the contest is, in itself, the only source of enjoyment with games.

I could write here a piece on how "life is too short to waste time on contestless games with no point whatsoever". However, this would be the sort of argument one could corner himself easily - you could apply it to anything with "fun" descriptor in it. The problem I see with those games is that they are "designed to be dropped", with lots of instant gratification aspects, which are pretty much the selling point. It's good that they are there but I'd rather the elements of those didn't radiate on other genres. Must be a nerdy thing.

Let's just say that life is too short for doing just one thing - especially compulsivelly, over and over again.

It is a testament to how well you understand me that the examples of common sense you give me are related to popularity and fashion.

Btw, check out CBee's Wizardry LP.

So, seeing as I have a lot of free time that I can't seem to commit to worthwhile causes, I most definitely prefer a game that rewards me for my investment. My brain needs a lot of shit going on to feel satisfied - and I can't numb myself enough to enjoy Farmville indefinitely.

Also, I would argue that simply exposing your brain to a complex series of challenges and choices - is a LOT more worthwhile than passively receiving entertainment. That's because I think the brain benefits in everyday life from being challenged.

And this is exactly the problem with "instant gratification" in modern games, where their "active" entertainment value is close to null. Regardless of game's complexity - a game to be a good game must avoid falling into set, predictable patterns in order not to become mind-numbing. This is the reason why many games of today are simply flawed to the core and can't keep their audience engaged - I mean engaged for real - actively thinking what they are doing. That's also why plenty of people who grew up in the 90s find the new wave of gaming so abhorrent. They are were hoping that their favourite pastime would evolve with them, not become dumbed down. Myself, I owe it to the people I met at the 'Dex that I didn't succumb to the new wave of retardation.

 

[Vii Zafira]

@ Thrasher

Living for me is learning. Subsisting on instant gratification is not living.

Learn2read. I never said anything about instant gratification, and it is implied in the very post you were supposedly responding to that I too believe life to be about learning.

However, I also have a pretty good grasp of mortality. Given the following three very basic facts:

1. Your time is limited.
2. You don't know how much you have.
3. Learning anything takes time.

It is pretty easy to understand why some may choose to limit themselves to games with easy to learn mechanics, as there are better uses to your limited time than learning to play dorky games.

Finally, criticizing "instant gratification" by itself is nothing but living in denial of mortality.



@ DArtagnan

Sure, it's a viable argument that entertaining yourself is a "waste" of time - but I find it's pretty rare that people spend all their time doing something truly worthwhile.

I did not say anything about entertainment being a waste of time. If you can invest your time in being happy, sure, be happy. I find entertainment to be a worthwhile pursuit, and you can learn a lot from it.

So when I want to play, I play and enjoy myself. I don't need to justify it, as I could be dead tomorrow and thus being happy now is important. When I feel like studying, though, I am not going to risk acquiring regrets and investing fruitless time because of a pursuit I find worthless, so all of my study time, which is quite a lot, goes to thingies and stuffies I find important to know, and thus will not become regrets later on.

Also, I would argue that simply exposing your brain to a complex series of challenges and choices - is a LOT more worthwhile than passively receiving entertainment.

In this thread we have been using Chess, Go, and Shogi as examples of games with simple rules and great depth. In which way are those about passively receiving entertainment? Complex series of challenges and choices do not imply bloated mechanics.



@ ChibiMrowak

I think this discussion is coming to closure, as all what's left for now is reiterating same statements in a different manner.

Indeedy. We are in the land of personal preferences right now, so it is pretty much over.

"life is too short to waste time on contestless games with no point whatsoever"

But isn't it because of how easily lives can be snuffed and impressive projects cut down before they even begin to grow that fun's so important as a point in and out of itself? If we are to act like every day is going to be our last we can only do that which is meaningful to us right now, and "having fun" is always related to the right now.

Btw, check out CBee's Wizardry LP.

Hahaha. That was, like, totally awesome. :lol:

Now I'm feeling melancholic, which probably means Sargent Erika is going to start giving me the glare.



@ Patrick

Of course, this applies to time considerations for playing any type of game, not only those with complex rules. We just have to remember that reward, in terms of fun, is there.

Of course. It just comes down to each individual and whether or not they believe the output of fun justifies the input of time, effort, and potential regrets.

I'm not that easily creeped out. But you managed to guilt me into doing something productive that I haven't planned on doing yesterday. I should probably thank you for it.

It is good to know my morbid side has served a purpose other than making me look all gloomy.

 

[Thrasher]

Learn2read. I never said anything about instant gratification, and it is implied in the very post you were supposedly responding to that I too believe life to be about learning.

However, I also have a pretty good grasp of mortality. Given the following three very basic facts:

1. Your time is limited.
2. You don't know how much you have.
3. Learning anything takes time.

It is pretty easy to understand why some may choose to limit themselves to games with easy to learn mechanics, as there are better uses to your limited time than learning to play dorky games.

Finally, criticizing "instant gratification" by itself is nothing but living in denial of mortality.

Subsisting on instant gratification isn't living to me. To each his own.

 

[Deleted User]

Maybe this has been said already (I didn't read the thread), but I don't think there is any hidden fundamental or philosophical reason behind why people don't finish games. I think it's just natural and just happens because of people's personalities, and should just be judged on a case by case basis.

I have gotten bored with complex RPGs and I have gotten bored with less complex games. I have gotten bored with games that had great intros that sucked me in, but eventually I just got bored with them. I've played every kind of game out there, and some have me follow through with them to the finish, others don't. I've even gotten bored with all-time great games that had fantastic stories. In fact, my personality type is one that gets bored with things relatively quickly. I don't finish a lot of games I play, simply because I get bored with them. Why do I get bored with them? Who knows. They just get "old", maybe the gameplay became repetitive, or I felt I've seen everything I wanted to see with the game and I'm done with it. It's different every time. I certainly don't blame it on the game developers most of the time.

I sure don't believe that there's some complex reason behind games getting boring to gamers. People get bored with the most complex games out there, and they get bored with the most simple games too. Millions of people love playing Angry Birds and never get bored with it. It just depends on the person, the game, and their personality and what they feel about the specific game.

 

[Vii Zafira]

Subsisting on instant gratification isn't living to me. To each his own.

O-kay. Let's continue this when you start reading what I write.

 

[Thrasher]

I am reading what you are writing, but it's not making a lot of sense to me.

 

[Vii Zafira]

@ Thrasher

Indeed you are.

Learn2read. I never said anything about instant gratification, and it is implied in the very post you were supposedly responding to that I too believe life to be about learning.

Subsisting on instant gratification isn't living to me. To each his own.

 

[DArtagnan]

I did not say anything about entertainment being a waste of time. If you can invest your time in being happy, sure, be happy. I find entertainment to be a worthwhile pursuit, and you can learn a lot from it.

Well, you're kinda arguing that investing yourself in a very complex game is a waste of time - because you could be dead tomorrow. Unless I missed the point of that statement?

So when I want to play, I play and enjoy myself. I don't need to justify it, as I could be dead tomorrow and thus being happy now is important. When I feel like studying, though, I am not going to risk acquiring regrets and investing fruitless time because of a pursuit I find worthless, so all of my study time, which is quite a lot, goes to thingies and stuffies I find important to know, and thus will not become regrets later on.

Do you consider yourself capable of knowing beforehand what pursuits are worthwhile?

Personally, I've found much of my most valued knowledge comes from unexpected areas. Then again, I tend to emphasize academic knowledge less than "real world" knowledge. I find most of what I've studied superfluous when it comes to the real world application.

In fact, unless we think of information stored in the brain as a measurement of a full life - I don't think studying alone is worth much when it comes to practical use and a "real life" worthwhile return on investment.

In this thread we have been using Chess, Go, and Shogi as examples of games with simple rules and great depth. In which way are those about passively receiving entertainment? Complex series of challenges and choices do not imply bloated mechanics.

I'm not familiar with Go and Shogi. At least, I don't think so

As for Chess, I concede it has a certain kind of depth. But, for my part, I consider the gameplay very shallow. The challenge is not less because of that, but I'd consider the mental excersise of limited proportion. The game is narrow and your challenge is about memory and concentration. Very important aspects of the brain, true, but I wouldn't compare them with the kind of decision process that goes through your brain when you're playing a complex RPG.

But I didn't mean to say that all non-complex games consist of passive entertainment. I just said how complex games CAN be more worthwhile than non-complex games, as per my example of Tetris.

I wasn't aware that Chess is the only kind of simple game you're referring to as an alternative.

However, if we stick to Chess - then I think we can agree that playing it and succeeding at it requires a VERY large time investment. Possibly much larger than a huge singleplayer RPG.

So, I'm not sure I see how Chess is different from complex games in terms of time spent on it. Sure, you can "learn" the rules in a short time span - but you won't get far with that if you want to succeed at it.

 

[TheSisko]

I'd just like to add my own habits to challenge the stereotype of "casual gamers prefer short & easy games).

My playtime during the week is 0-3 hours, weekends 0-6 hours. Sometimes weeks will go between play sessions.

There's only one reason I don't finish video games and that's if they start to bore me before I reach the end, usually happens because the gameplay is unchallenging/predictable.

Recent games I abandoned due to boredom: Skyrim (after playing for 15 hours)

Games finished in 2011: Deus Ex, Deus Ex: HR, Blade Runner, Hard Reset, Arkham City.

Currently playing: Fallout 1

 

[Vii Zafira]

Well, you're kinda arguing that investing yourself in a very complex game is a waste of time - because you could be dead tomorrow. Unless I missed the point of that statement?

Learning a complex game isn't necessarily having fun.

Do you consider yourself capable of knowing beforehand what pursuits are worthwhile?

Introspection is a powerful tool.

In fact, unless we think of information stored in the brain as a measurement of a full life

There's a difference between information and knowledge.

However, if we stick to Chess - then I think we can agree that playing it and succeeding at it requires a VERY large time investment. Possibly much larger than a huge singleplayer RPG.

You don't need to master a game before it is fun.

Sure, you can "learn" the rules in a short time span - but you won't get far with that if you want to succeed at it.

What's success when it comes to games other than "Having fun", "Being entertained", etc.

Very important aspects of the brain, true, but I wouldn't compare them with the kind of decision process that goes through your brain when you're playing a complex RPG.

… le fuck?

 

[DArtagnan]

Learning a complex game isn't necessarily having fun.



Introspection is a powerful tool.



There's a difference between information and knowledge.



You don't need to master a game before it is fun.



What's success when it comes to games other than "Having fun", "Being entertained", etc.



… le fuck?

I see you still have trouble with the concept of the middle-ground.

Let me know if you want to actually talk

 

[Patrick Bateman]

The game is narrow and your challenge is about memory and concentration.

Primary challenge in chess is planning, recognizing patterns and situations and adapting to them. That is the very definition of tactical. Concentration plays a huge part as well, but the part played by memory is much smaller.

It is not clear what you mean by narrow.

Very important aspects of the brain, true, but I wouldn't compare them with the kind of decision process that goes through your brain when you're playing a complex RPG.

I have never met a computer game that provides the same level of challenge of intellectual ability as chess does. Unlike a computer game that you can beat, meaning that you've surmounted the challenge, you can't "beat" chess (there are always better players that provide a bigger challenge), unless you are an undisputed World champion.

Your other points have already been addressed.

@Fnord:

This (Bohr's model etc.) derails the thread a bit, I'll try to answer when I feel inclined, but I can't make any promises.

 

[Vii Zafira]

@ DArtagnan

The middle ground is terribly boring, and as the whimsical and fickle sapphire witch I have a reputation to keep. And I have to think of my fans, too.

However, I don't know why does it bother you. All the declarations where direct answers to the discussion, I just removed the fluff and kept it to the point.

Learning a complex game isn't necessarily having fun.

Moi: I did not say anything about entertainment being a waste of time.

Toi: You're kinda arguing that investing yourself in a very complex game is a waste of time.

Thus the answer, that for me needlessly complex games aren't fun.

Introspection is a powerful tool.

You did question I was capable of knowing beforehand what pursuits are worthwhile. Thus the answer, that if I seek understanding of myself I can know whether or not something will be worthwhile of my time with a reasonable margin of error.

There's a difference between information and knowledge.

Moi: I do believe life is about learning.

Toi: But information stored in the brain isn't the only measurement of a full life.

Thus the answer, that I am talking about understanding and knowledge, not about information.

You don't need to master a game before it is fun.

That's a binary situation.

What's success when it comes to games other than "Having fun", "Being entertained", etc.

That was a question, but for some reason I find writing question marks after an etc to be terribly anti-aesthetic. My bad.



Edit: This is being my sixty ninth post is, like, a total waste. I am very disappointed with myself.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

That was a question, but for some reason I find writing question marks after an etc to be terribly anti-aesthetic. My bad.

Interesting. Far and wide I found myself to be the only one with "interpunctuation aesthetics". Like my spaces - like this one, for example.

 

[DArtagnan]

@ DArtagnan

The middle ground is terribly boring, and as the whimsical and fickle sapphire witch I have a reputation to keep. And I have to think of my fans, too.

However, I don't know why does it bother you. All the declarations where direct answers to the discussion, I just removed the fluff and kept it to the point.

It doesn't bother me, it's just not interesting to have to guess what you're saying.

I know it was your "see what happens" reaction to my previous observation, but since it wasn't exactly what I was talking about - it's not actually what happens.

Moi: I did not say anything about entertainment being a waste of time.

Toi: You're kinda arguing that investing yourself in a very complex game is a waste of time.

Thus the answer, that for me needlessly complex games aren't fun.

Yes, you did suggest that "involved" entertainment was a bit of a waste - but maybe it came out wrong.

I think I understand that they're not fun for you, but I don't understand your reasoning in terms of how they're less worthwhile.

You did question I was capable of knowing beforehand what pursuits are worthwhile. Thus the answer, that if I seek understanding of myself I can know whether or not something will be worthwhile of my time with a reasonable margin of error.

So, you do think yourself capable. Interesting.

Moi: I do believe life is about learning.

Toi: But information stored in the brain isn't the only measurement of a full life.

Thus the answer, that I am talking about understanding and knowledge, not about information.

Why do you think studying is the "best" way of attaining understanding and knowledge?

What process do you go through when studying - to go from information to understanding and knowledge?

That's a binary situation.

Ehm, what?

You don't think being able to win in Chess is part of the fun? You enjoy playing it, even if you never get to be good at it?

You don't play to get better?

That was a question, but for some reason I find writing question marks after an etc to be terribly anti-aesthetic. My bad.

That would depend on what you consider a success. To me, when the game itself is simplistic and boring - the ability to defeat my opponent and "outsmart" him/her becomes the only fun. Just like Poker.

I think Poker is mindnumbingly boring - but it's fun for social reasons and especially when you succeed at winning based on the factors involved that's less to do with the actual game - than the psychology of manipulation and such.

Edit: This is being my sixty ninth post is, like, a total waste. I am very disappointed with myself.

Waste in what way?

 

[Fnord]

@Fnord:

This (Bohr's model etc.) derails the thread a bit, I'll try to answer when I feel inclined, but I can't make any promises.

Don't, the thread is derailed enough I just tend to go into rant-mode when it comes to the subject of education.

Edit: This is being my sixty ninth post is, like, a total waste. I am very disappointed with myself.

It is the 23 post that is the important one, 69 is just a number that might imply something.

Thus the answer, that for me needlessly complex games aren't fun.

What is needlessly complex is very much a matter of what level of complexity that a game can support.

As this is a CRPG forum, I would be interested to know roughly at what complexity level a CRPG should be according to you (just an example or two of CRPGs that are not too obscure).

 

[Sir Markus]

The games are too long. Nobody wants to read a book that's endless. Keep it tight, and stick to your story and game play, rather than focusing on making a 70 hour game.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

That "too long = boring" thing seems to have been adresses by Bioware for their newest MMORPG as well : http://api.viglink.com/api/click?fo.../6045/page/1&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13280145522791

This is another facet of basically the same problem, at least in my eyes.