2 ms·
> If I spend 3 hours looking for a tarantula and it wins, that is a cost of 3 hours compared to many games were losing a battle cost only a minute or two. Why
by mcphage 7y ago
> If I spend 3 hours looking for a tarantula and it wins, that is a cost of 3 hours compared to many games were losing a battle cost only a minute or two.
Why just the tarantula, then? If you see a rare beetle on a stump, you can re-interpret trying to catch it as a "battle" with a "winner" and a "loser".
- SkyBelow 7y agoI think you are right. It is even less of a battle in some aspects, but at least for very rare insects it can be more of a battle in that the cost of messing up is higher. When you break down a game into these many sorts of conflicts and see which ones the player feels joy for winning and which ones the players struggle against with no benefit even when they win, it hints at an interesting framework to evaluate games by. It feels deconstructionist almost to the point of absurdity, but so far I don't think it crosses that line.