3 ms·
This is an interesting comment, and I'd add one other element to this, which is that randomness is way more realistic, if we think of games as something intende
by CPLX 4y ago
This is an interesting comment, and I'd add one other element to this, which is that randomness is way more realistic, if we think of games as something intended to represent the real world in some way.
In real life the best marksman can get wiped out on the first day of a war, the best business strategist can get done in by a once in a generation disaster, and a hapless idiot in business can get an early big break. And so on.
I feel like it feels much more natural and intuitive to us to play games that are a mix of skill and random chance.
- kqr 4y agoNote that this is also why some people prefer games that don't have chance -- to experience what that is like.
- pessimizer 4y agoThat depends on whether you think that games should be simulations. Even if you think they should be simulations, you still might only want to reward optimal play over lucky play. If I'm using a simulation to train someone, I only want them to be rewarded for ideal play.
- kqr 4y agoThis is incorrect, as far as the research into training for expertise goes. You actually want simulations to be like the real world: complex, ambiguous, sometimes with delayed feedback and presenting multiple forms of the problem. Of course, it also takes a good mentor to debrief with and untangle what was bad luck and what was bad decision making. (See the Oxford Handbook of Expertise if this stuff interests you.)