Category: games

According to Wikipedia, Buddha once made a list of games he would not play:

1. Games on boards with 8 or 10 rows (note that Chess as we know it was not invented at this time, though earlier Chess-like games such as Chaturaji may have existed)
2. The same games played on imaginary boards
3. Marking diagrams on the floor such that the player can only walk on certain places.
4. Using nails to place or remove pieces from a heap with the loser being the one who causes the heap to wobble (such as pick-up sticks).
5. Throwing dice
6. Hitting a short stick with a long stick (there is still some debate about the translation of this line)
7. Drawing a figure on the ground or wall after dipping a finger in lac, red dye, flour or water, and having the other players guess what the picture is going to be (a guessing game similar to Pictionary).
8. Ball games.
9. Playing with toy pipes made of leaves.
10. Ploughing with toy plough.
11. Somersaulting.
12. Playing with toy windmills.
13. Playing with toy measures.
14. Playing with toy carts.
15. Playing with toy bows.
16. Guessing at letters traced with the finger in the air or on a friend’s back.
17. Guessing a friend’s thoughts.
18. Imitating deformities.

The list raises a number of questions: Why wouldn’t he play them? Without going into theology I know nothing about (and without offending anyone), my understanding is that Buddha could not have been a sore loser, so it must have to do with the more formal properties of the games themselves. Neither rules ( board games sized 8 or 10), fiction (toy windmills), nor ilinx escape criticism.

So this I’d like to know: which games would he play, and why?

(From Intelligent Artifice.)

New Scientist reports that Jonathan Schaeffer has proven Checkers to end in a draw if neither player makes a mistake.

The crucial part of Schaeffer’s computer proof involved playing out every possible endgame involving fewer than 10 pieces. The result is an endgame database of 39 trillion positions. By contrast, there are only 19 different opening moves in draughts. Schaeffer’s proof shows that each of these leads to a draw in the endgame database, providing neither player makes a mistake.

Schaeffer was able to get his result by searching only a subset of board positions rather than all of them, since some of them can be considered equivalent. He carried out a mere 10¹⁴ calculations to complete the proof in under two decades. “This pushes the envelope as far as artificial intelligence is concerned,” he says.

To sum it up: If we were only a little smarter, Checkers would be just as boring as Tic Tac Toe.

Thanks to Henrik Bennetsen for the heads up.

Pretty irresistible really.

I was skeptical at GDC because it looked like all the cool stuff (throwing yourself in the air etc..) just might be the same on every user-generated level. But it looks open enough that players will be able to create very new and surprising things.

*

Postings are coming a bit slow here – it’s summer.

This looks like a big one: Nintendo has announced WiiWare, online distribution of new Wii games for developers.

OK, but the real news is this:

Fils-Aime told us that while Nintendo, as the retailer, would itself determine the appropriate pricing for each game on a per-title bases, the games themselves would not be vetted by Nintendo. Instead, Nintendo would only check the games for bugs and compatibility, with developers and publishers responsible for securing an E for Everyone, E10+ for Everyone 10 or older, T for Teen or M for Mature rating from the Entertainment Software Rating Board.

Let’s wait for the exact details to come in, but so far it looks like we may be seeing the first hole in the fence around the current consoles: The possibility that anyone can publish a console game without platform owner approval.

Was it inevitable? I am sure CD- and DVD-player manufacturers know that the variety of content is a boon to business, not a threat, and now a console manufacturer is coming around.

How will the submissions process work? How will they distribute dev kits?

What will happen with XNA now?

(Posting this after everybody else.)

Julian Dibbell’s new article at the New York Times on Chinese Gold Farmer.

As already Roger Caillois was on to, professionalization raises the basic question, Is it still a game?

And, apparently, yes, sort of.

It is hard, in any case, for Zhou to say where the line between work and play falls in a gold farmer’s daily routines. “I am here the full 12 hours every day,” he told me, offhandedly killing a passing deer with a single crushing blow. “It’s not all work. But there’s not a big difference between play and work.”

I turned to Wang Huachen, who remained intent on manipulating an arsenal of combat spells, and asked again how it was possible that in these circumstances anybody could, as he put it, “have sometimes a playful attitude”?

He didn’t even look up from his screen. “I cannot explain,” he said. “It just feels that way.”

*

As a video game theorist, I can sympathize with the line of reasoning. I get similar questions on occasion:

Q: Are games still fun when you are studying them professionally?

A: Yes.

Some games have actually become more fun. When playing a game that really isn’t that good, I can think about more interesting theoretical perspectives on the game. On the other hand, I do rely on a continuing supply of quirky games. Where would we be without Rhythm Tengoku?