Quote:
Wyatt Hebert said:
One small clarification to one of the things I was trying to say. When I say 'mental hold', I am primarily talking about the ability to maintain the current _local_ game state in your mind. I have no problems with large and intricate game _worlds_, but the ability to maintain knowledge about what is going is crucial to many games these days.
As an example, I am a long-time RPG GameMaster. I've run about 12 different game systems in my life, and played in more, and I love large and detailed worlds. However, I can maintain the pertinent game information mostly in my head while playing, and this is merely a subset of the world.
To put it another way, I think very few people honestly are upset when they are out-played. I think true anger or disappointment with games is when they believe that it was an oversight on their part that led to the problem or defeat. In chess, it's easy to see the entire game situation at once, and people still miss the winning and losing combinations. In games of the current complexity, trying to keep the game-state in your mind is extremely difficult, and most likely impossible after the early turns. If I lose provinces due to an oversight on my part, I will be upset that I missed it, and possibly at the game engine for not being clearer.
In any event, this was just an attempt to explain what was in my mind when I referred to 'mental hold'.
Wyatt
|
Errmmm . . . I thought I understood what you meant by "mental hold" the first time you said it. Now, after your clarification, I'm not so sure.
I certainly agree that the main reason people get upset over a game is that they feel they've overlooked something that they should have noticed. And sometimes (depending on what the player overlooked and other factors) the player will shift the blame to the UI or something outside himself.
But the part I don't understand is when you say, "In chess, it's easy to see the entire game situation at once, and people still miss the winning and losing combinations." That's true, but are you saying that in chess a player does or does not have "mental hold"? Is mental hold "see[ing] the entire game situation at once," or is it seeing "the winning and losing combinations"?
Because if it's the latter, then it seems to me "mental hold" would be undesirable in all games. The whole challenge of playing games is *reaching* for the foresight or insight to see all the winning and losing combinations. As soon as someone attains that level of mastery, the game is no longer challenging. It becomes trivial, like tic-tac-toe (naughts & crosses).
The reason I'm having trouble understanding you this time is that in my mind, there's no difference between being outplayed and making an oversight. If we're playing chess, and you outplay me, it means there were moves and combinations that I overlooked. You may have overlooked some too, but you overlooked fewer of them than I did.
My understanding of "mental hold" from your first message was that either of two things could be a problem: (1) a rulebook too thick to ever memorize in a lifetime, or (2) a game so big and elaborate that it's impossible to consciously take care of *everything* under one's control. In board-wargaming terms,
Advanced Squad Leader is an example of (1), and
The Longest Day (a monster game with a five-foot-square mapboard and thousands of unit-counters) is an example of (2).
Chess is nothing like ASL or TLD. The rules to chess can easily be memorized, and the most a player ever has to do is choose which one of sixteen pieces to move on the 8x8 grid. Very small and manageable. Perfect "mental hold," in this sense. And yet, comprehending *all* the winning and losing moves and combinations is next to impossible.
So, IMO, it's good when a game is challenging; otherwise it'd be as trivial as tic-tac-toe. But it's bad when the size or complexity or length of a game becomes daunting to one's mental grasp--because then the player tends to give up before he ever gets around to facing the challenge of figuring out winning strategy & tactics.
--Patrick