Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start

From: gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)

Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1993 17:52:40 +0000

gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews) writes:
> >My position: games, being simulations of something, should be as
> >realistic as possible up to the level of the simulation. Players
> >should be told the general rules of play, the scenario etc, but beyond
> >that they should only be allowed to learn things about the game and
> >how to play etc through the actions of the entity they represent in
> >the game. As a corrolary therefore I do not think exact formulas
> >should be published. The reasons I take this position are twofold :-
>
> >a) it adds to the realism of the game. In the real world people
> >don't know exact equations for things and yet seem to do ok.
> >A simulation should therefore capture this imprecision - if it does
> >not, then it is not a good simulation.(even the formulas themselves
> >are only approximations to the reality!).
rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace) writes:
> BUT:  Because a game is not reality, you can't use judgement and
> intuition from the real world, in the game.  The information is coming
> in through different channels, its volume is much less, its format is
> different than real world information, and most important, *the thing at
> the other end is not the real world*, it's only a computer applying some
> formulas.  Suspension of disbelief is all very well, but in my opinion
> it is pointless to carry the pretense that one has when playing the game
> (that one is dealing with real things, not just some computer code),
> into game design.

Might I suggest at this point that you have not played a really well
designed game. Ever played the game FlatTop. This game is a very realistic
simulation of carrier battles in the Pacific. Now the game is quite
obviously simpler than the reality, however I was able to use my knowledge
of aircraft, weather, ships, carrier battles etc to plan my strategy
quite effectively - I played the game assuming that it was the reality and
it worked well. In other words just because the game wasn't real and
the information was coming in a different format than the real world, etc,
doesn't mean that you cannot keep up the pretense. So I think your point
is only true of badly designed games - unfortunately there are a lot of
them about. But don't confuse what a game is capable of being like, and
what current games are like.

rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace) writes:
> Note that the case with human-moderated role-playing games is different,
> because although you still aren't deailng with the real world, you are
> at least dealing with an entity (a human) that has a genuine
> understanding of the world, and is not just blindly applying an
> algorithm.  There are still some problems with this type of game, but
> they are nothing in comparison to what you get if you have an algorithm
> instead of the human.  (Hence the widespread detestation of rules
> lawyers in human-moderated RPGs, who attempt to replace the human with a
> set of rules.)
>
> (What if you could write a game that was based on the computer having a
> genuine understanding of the world?  Unfortunately this seems to be an
> AI-complete problem.  :-( )

I think you are really misrepresenting the capabilities that a well designed
game could have. To illustrate this point lets look ak industrial simulations.
Now people do simulations of things like air flow over wings and are confident
enough in the results of the simulations to use these results to design real
aircraft. This suggests that the simulation is doing a damn good job of
representing reality. Now if this type of technology were applied to games
what would happen?

Now before you say "ah yes but you need a super-computer for wing simulations"
I would like to point out that :-

a) games are much much simpler than wing simulations
b) these simulations work because they have a clear notion of time, something
which most (all!) games lack. Put this notion into a game and ...
c) many quite accurate simulations (of economic systems for example) do not
require a super-computer.

gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews) writes:
> >My position: games, being simulations of something, should be as
> >b) it makes the "playing field" as level as possible. People who
> >are not math or CS majors are not disadvantaged too badly by not
> >understanding the formulas. Moreover everyone has the same basic
> >learning mechanism, namely the actions of the entity in the game
> >that they represent.
rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace) writes:
> Ah, but this is not necessarily the case.  Math and CS majors can use a
> different learning mechanism, i.e. the statistical analysis of the
> results.  In fact, as David pointed out, the derivation of an
> approximate formula from results, is often a much more mathematically
> demanding problem than using the exact formula.  So hiding the formulas
> in order to reduce the purported advantage of these people, will often
> have the reverse effect.

See my reply to someone else re Joe Average vs Maths person
If formulas published Joe Average has 0 usable knowledge, maths person 100 %.
If formulas not published Joe Average has 0 usable knowledge, maths person < 100 %.

gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews) writes:
>So if we are to write a good simulation of tennis we should not
> >make it equation based, or rather we might have the ball obey
> >equations, but the interface with the human would not be through
> >equations. We would not ask tell the player - oh the ball is coming
> >at you with the following parameters ... what parameters would you
> >like to reply with. What we would do instead is say have a small
> >picture of the racquet showing its tilt etc (no figures just the
> >picture). Through practice the players would get to know how to
> >position the picture to hit certain shots.
rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace) writes:
> Ah, but: For a player to use intuition, requires that the information
> come in the same form it would in real life, and the output be in the
> same form, i.e. it would have to be a VR simulator.  If you can't have
> that, and all you get is some numbers on a piece of paper, then the best
> way to approach such a game is to attempt to derive the formulas that
> the computer is using.

Ever heard of graphics? Output for the tennis game is in terms of pictures
of the court, ball, players, racquet. Using this information a player can
develop an intuition for the game. You don't need VR - that is an extreme
position! Surely you have played a computer tennis or driving game. You
develop intution quite rapidly without any VR surrounds.

graham

References

PBM design and formulae - a summary
rob@ccc.govt.nz (Rob McNeur)
Mon, 28 Jun 1993 09:53:02 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Mon, 28 Jun 1993 20:30:42 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Tue, 29 Jun 1993 21:24:09 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Thu, 01 Jul 1993 11:40:27 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Tue, 29 Jun 1993 11:55:07 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Wed, 30 Jun 1993 10:33:28 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace)
Wed, 30 Jun 1993 23:25:42 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace)
Fri, 02 Jul 1993 14:54:28 +0000

Referenced By

PBM design and formulae - a summary
rob@ccc.govt.nz (Rob McNeur)
Mon, 28 Jun 1993 09:53:02 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Mon, 28 Jun 1993 20:30:42 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Tue, 29 Jun 1993 21:24:09 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Thu, 01 Jul 1993 11:40:27 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Tue, 29 Jun 1993 11:55:07 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Wed, 30 Jun 1993 10:33:28 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a summary
rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace)
Wed, 30 Jun 1993 23:25:42 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace)
Fri, 02 Jul 1993 14:54:28 +0000