Koki on 15/6/2010 at 05:22
Wasn't Deep Blue programmed specifically to beat Kasprov and then subsequently reprogrammed several times during the match?
Gryzemuis on 15/6/2010 at 10:51
Quote Posted by Koki
Wasn't Deep Blue programmed specifically to beat Kasprov and then subsequently reprogrammed several times during the match?
Kasparov is the greatest chess player that ever was. At the same time he can also be a very unpleasant person. Like a true great sportsman, he can't stand losing. After he lost to Deep Blue, he spouted a bunch of accusations with little to back them up. I'm sure he retracted them later. And then spouted new accusations. That's who Kasparov is.
I think the Deep Blue team had prepared the opening book especially for Kasparov. At least that is what I expect them to do. Nothing wrong with that, imho. In a match between players, they prepare their openings too. About changing the code during the match: who cares ? If it made the program stronger, I see no problem there.
It's a moot point now. Computers play stronger chess that humans. There is no doubt.
Check out this computer program: (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rybka) Rybka, the little fish.
You can download a free (slightly older) version (
http://www.rybkachess.com/index.php?auswahl=Demo+version) here.
The free Rybka is rated at 3110 Elo rating.
For comparison, a starting player's rating is below 1000.
Someone who plays a nice game of chess at home against friends, and who has read a beginner's book, or had a few classes, is around 1000-1500.
Bad club players are around 1500.
The majority of decent club players are between 1500 - 2000.
My own rating was 1700+ and growing, when I stopped playing.
To get over 2000 rating, you basically have to play and study chess several nights per week, for a few years. You have to be pretty serious.
International Masters start at 2400 rating.
Grand Masters start at 2500 rating.
In 1972 there were 88 GMs. Today there are over a 1000 GMs.
The absolute top of players is above 2700.
I think in 1990 there were about 10 players over 2700.
Today there are 37 GMs over 2700.
Fischer got to 2785. He was way above the rest back then.
Only a handful of GMs (5) have ever been over 2800.
Kasparov has had the highest rating ever: 2851 in 1999/2000.
The free Rybka is rated at 3110.
On a simple PC with a quadcore cpu.
That tells us enough about how strong computer chess programs are nowadays.
Koki on 15/6/2010 at 11:04
Quote Posted by LittleFlower
That tells us enough about how strong computer chess programs are nowadays.
...and why many people think it's too artificial of a game to be enjoyable.
addink on 15/6/2010 at 13:59
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
Someone remind me when Koki stopped even trying to pretend that he's not just trolling.
A reminder is due.
demagogue on 15/6/2010 at 18:28
So what does TTLG think about the converse of this thread's topic?
I think if a game is *all* story and there's no real gameplay, it disqualifies itself as a serious game. A lot of IF and Adventure games got great reviews, but the most gameplay they could manage would be a variant on "whack a mole" or click inv-object-A to world-object-B. That's not real gameplay, and the great story surrounding it doesn't really compensate. (I mean you can like it for the good story; but it's not a game.)
That's not to say IF and adventure games can't have gameplay, though. I thought Anchorhead actually threaded the needle well and pulled off gameplay that fit within the "logic" of the story, one of the (few) best models of how to do it correctly, I thought. And of course what makes the FPS & RPGs we like (Thief, DX, SS2, Vampire BL, Fallout) work is you still have the underlying gameplay of sneaking or FPS or RPG on which everything hangs.
To take it the next step, I think the *reason* you have to have underlying gameplay is that the player has to have some clear modus operandi that gives his actions any meaning. If there isn't any MO, then the player really has no business being in the world and he's at best a voyeur watching what NPCs are doing in it. I think narrative is also important to providing a credible MO, but there has to be some basic mechanic to act to some end for it to really be an MO and not just random desires. I mean you can have a motivation to walk around and see a story unfold, but that's not a real MO in the concrete sense of goal-oriented action that defines your purpose in the world in the first place. And then that's the backbone of the game that defines its core, on which everything hangs; take it away and it's not a real game anymore, maybe a glorified interactive novel.
That raises the question, though, can a concrete MO exist without gameplay, or are they one and the same? I can't imagine having a goal-oriented, being-defining motivation to do something in the world without a goal-oriented mechanic that lets you do it, that makes it concrete and real. They're like the two sides of the same coin. (Maybe the "being-defining" part is what makes it necessary.) Anyway, that's my hypothesis for this post to generate thought, but I'm not saying it's the only way to think about it and am open to other ideas.
Dresden on 15/6/2010 at 19:05
Quote Posted by Eldron
Except chess is predictable enough to have an AI beat even the best of players, while impossible to do for starcraft :)
Of course they can. The point is to
not do that. No one would want to play against it.
lost_soul on 15/6/2010 at 21:07
Nope. I don't mind. Games like Nexuiz are great fun, where you can take the enemy flag and then propel yourself 60 feet into the air and half-way across the map with a rocket jump.
What I really hate are games with un-skippable cut-scenes and where the world is 3D, but you are given zero control over the camera. They create a nice looking world and don't even let you actually look around.
addink on 15/6/2010 at 23:55
Quote Posted by demagogue
So [...]
In the first few paragraphs you seem to be under the impression that gameplay is only really present in action games. Most interactive fiction and adventure games are severely lacking in the action game department, but that is not where their gameplay is coming from.
At the core of any game is that there's
The Goal / The Challenge and there are
Actions that the player can do to achieve said goal. The actions can be anything and don't necessarily need to be timed (which is the case with action games; hooray for confusing jargon).
The player can be interested in achieving the goal by two things:
* achieving the goal is fun by itself, that means the gameplay is fun by itself.
* after achieving the goal a reward is given, unlocking the next step in the narrative. If the narrative is any good, that is fun too.
In immersive FPS/RPGs it is often a mix of the two. There are the tactics with dealing with the situations (the core action game gameplay). And there is the story that gives us both a logical reason for the existence of The Goal and enticing us with a further unraveling of the narrative once The Goal is achieved.
I'm not completely clear on what you mean by Modus Operandi. Just by its translation 'method of operation' I'd say MO and gameplay are the same by definition, it's 'how the actions can be done to achieve the goal'.
The *reason* for the player to accept the challenge remains the same. A situation is setup that requires a solution (the goal, the challenge). The player is given the tools to provide the solution.
What complicates matters is that if the world is open enough, changing the situation can change the challenge, interweaving pure narrative with pure gameplay. If the game is setup that way, leading to emergent narrative, non-linear levels, multiple approaches to the same challenge.
Anyway, you always need a challenge. And you always need actions from the player to deal with the challenge. Without the challenge it wouldn't be a game, it would be a toy. Without actions it would be a movie.
The *reason* of the existence of the challenge, is a matter of design and/or narrative depending on the type of game.
Chade on 16/6/2010 at 00:27
As a simple thought experiment, consider a book or a movie where the main character does something hideous (say rape). In the movie, the story will progress regardless of what the viewer does. In the book, the reader has to actively read for the story to continue, but this action is quite removed from the action occuring in the story. In neither scenario would the reader typically feel a reluctance to continue the story - they may well grow to hate the main character, but not the story itself.
Now consider a game with no gameplay, but with active participation: the user is directly implementing the actions that the main character will perform, but there is only ever one meaningful action that he can perform at any given time. Will the player feel ok about pressing the button that rapes another character?
In fact, someone released a game a while ago which did just that, although I can't remember its name now ... the player was an executioner, and his only meaningful action was to shoot a guy chained up before him. I remember that most players were extremely reluctant to shoot the man. Many tried everything they could think of to avoid the inevitable. Some quit the game rather then proceed (and found that they had therefore "won"). I remember a lot of people got angry at the author (although part of this was backlash against "art games" in general).
So anyway, the point is that there is more to the game vs story distinction then making choices. Active participation is also a big difference, and I think it goes some way to explain why game stories can be quite compelling, even when they are a) linear, and b) shit.
ercles on 16/6/2010 at 00:27
I, for one, really enjoy both the escapism that richly designed games afford, and also the purity of design and mechanics that bare bones platformer such as N involves.
In response to the OP, one thing I do find interesting is that you list RPG's as your favourite genre, as I would consider them often the genre that often just wraps a storyline around the mechanic that makes it so addictive. In all honesty the storyline(s) in Oblivion were pretty pants, save for the Dark Brotherhood, so although I can trick myself into thinking I was hooked by the storyline, in honesty it was the classic RPG elements of levelling up and getting new loot that kept me playing. The other interesting point I'd make is that unlike many other genres, RPG's often make their gamey nature very visible, and very very gamey. Many people rated Dragon Age as the most recent example of a great RPG, and that used the classic system of displaying hit points, XP, and whole range of other game mechanics in pretty colours as they happened. Rather than an FPS, where (apart from games which indicate HP on enemies) this is often a black box and you don't know exactly how the game is operating, you are always aware in many RPG's of exactly how the game is gaming at all times.
As far as interacting with the world, Oblivion also does this in a highly gamey way, where you complete a minigame to get someone to like you, and then they'll tell you what you want to know, or sell you shit for cheaper.
I'm not arguing that these games are not immersive, because they certainly are, but I'm not sure you can argue that this is because it isn't reminding you that it's a game at all times.
Also, a perfect example of all story and no game is Dreamfall, which I adored, but I can understand many people not enjoying because the player does not really get involved in the game all that much.
