Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bnralt 1499 days ago
In my experience, the vast majority of game play time, even with most complex games, is spent on relatively mindless repetitive behavior. This gets worse the more time is spent with a specific game. As a player improves, they start to know what they're supposed to do in more and more situations (compare the way a novice agonizes over an opening pawn move in chess with the way advanced players often speed through the opening moves). Games might be complex, but you might only be dealing with that complexity ~10% of the time (or less as you improve).
2 comments

> As a player improves, they start to know what they're supposed to do in more and more situations (compare the way a novice agonizes over an opening pawn move in chess with the way advanced players often speed through the opening moves).

Chess is a particularly bad example because you can memorize openings.

In Fischer random chess, the starting positions of the pieces are randomized, so even advanced players will agonize over the opening move.

In chess advanced players start to agonize at move 7. Chess has all the benefits of Fisher random chess, but has an additional layer, and requires three additional skills: learn, analyze, and memorize.

(I myself I am a bughouse chess person, it's a very different beast on the same board. It's full of adrenaline, hope, fear, anger, grief, in 2 minute long runs.)

Some competitive (PvP) games are basically imperfect chess. Just like you'd learn chess, and eventually move on to studying matches, you would do the same with some (PvP) video games, like DotA etc.

On the other hand you could literally have a game to see how long you can keep pushing a big read button (dopamine inducing effects and sounds included of course!).

The variance is huge. We couldn't make a blanket general statement about brain development from tabletop games that include say Snap / War, Checkers, and Chess. And that's not even a sliver of the variance video games gave.

P.S. I'm by no means a gaming advocate. IMO video games are becoming (have become) Vegas 2.0 and I could list a huge number of potential negatives.

How can you recognize the huge variance of games in one breath but then suggest in another they're in any real sense becoming (parenthetically already became) the equivalent of casino games? In what sense, exactly, because it can't be variety? Sure there are negative points to both video games and casino games, but there are negative points to everything. The ones that are arguably 'shared' aren't unique to that pair either. Have you actually analyzed the things they call electronic 'games' in casinos? They're not varied at all; whether you're in Vegas or some random Indian casino, about the most variety you'll get is one row of slots has wolf clipart and another row has zoo animal clipart. Sure I guess you might find some non-slots that wrap one of the physical games like the card games, and to be fair I once saw some giant flappy bird thing on my way to a casino buffet years ago. Still, overall game design? What game design? Any random gacha has better game design. As a genre of game in the way slots are a genre of game, there's already been a lot of evolution and variety in 'gameplay' while retaining the core PNG collection premise. You'll find more slots innovation in mini-games inside larger video games than in slots themselves. The random gacha probably has better art too.

> could literally have a game to see how long you can keep pushing a big read button

Could? Did. Even Progress Quest counts for this sort of thing, and it was a parody in 2002. There's also the classic game of Simon Says which is basically keep pushing shiny buttons but less entertaining long term, since "number goes up" only goes as high as your human memory instead of a computer's. The biggest modern twist that some will find a negative is something like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14UerIOvZKM (literal red button) or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kkGu7yIi98 where the time "wasting" is magnified beyond just the gamer but also to an audience.

> Just like you'd learn chess, and eventually move on to studying matches, you would do the same with some (PvP) video games, like DotA etc.

Sure, but as far as I know there isn't much value (beyond personal interest) in studying high level chess (and from what I've seen, it's detrimental when people start obsessing over it). You're putting effort into getting better at playing a game.