Aletonomikon: The Study of Game (W1-1)
10 07 07 - 00:22
Aletonomikon (derived from the greek words 'to game/gamble' and 'the study of') is an open ended article devoted to the design and theory of games in the grand tradition of The Art of Computer Game Design by Chris Crawford. While "Game Theory" as it applies to economics and global warfare is a well developed field, very few documents attempt to classify and quantify what the layperson would call a 'game'. As I personally learn by dissection, I decided to give it a whirl and truly breaking down what exactly goes into making a game. This work is by no means definitive or even guaranteed to be right. I welcome all review and criticism of the work and would be thrilled to fix any mistakes or flaws in my theories.World 1-1 begins, like so many things, with luck. While I chose to call this series of articles Aletonomikon (Aleto meaning to gamble), casino gambling does not fall into what I consider a 'game'. This can be clear by defining what we mean by a 'game'.
Chris Crawford defines a game as, essentially, interactivity with goals against an active agent that the player can directly interfere with.
Removing any portion of that statement changes the 'game'. No goals denotes a toy "such as The Sims". Goals but no active agent (another player or computer enemy) is
a challenge, a puzzle.
Greg Costikyan defines a game as "... a form of art in which participants, termed players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the pursuit of a goal".
All of which very clearly and concisely determine a 'game'.
One thing, though, that most scholarly definitions of game leave out is 'a uniform environment'. That is to say, all things being equal, what is true for one player is true for another. Any inconsistencies or handicap that particular environment offers must accommodate for something specific. Maybe you get spotted 10 points in basketball against your friend. Perhaps you're penalized a Komi while playing Go. Maybe the ghosts in Pac-Man are faster than you because the game balance requires it do to
lacking AI. At any rate, the environment is uniform unless any modification to the environment makes the game more uniform.
the environment is uniform unless any modification to the environment makes the game more uniform.
Stopping to think about it, that's really a no brainer. We can't play football unless we both have 11 players on the field or a differing number that makes our chances of succeeding approximately equal. It doesn't go without saying though, because some people think a casino roulette is a game. It's not. It's a mathematical black hole. For all of the 'games' in a
casino, one of the players has a decided advantage. That player is the house.
If I were to say to you, we'll play a game where I flip a coin. If it's heads you pay me a dollar. If it's tails you pay me a quarter. You'd never play. The odds are clearly in my favor, there's no chance for you to win.
If I take it one step further and said I'll roll a 6 sided die, and if it's 1,2,3,4 or 5 you pay me a dollar and if it's a 6 I'll pay you a dollar. You still would balk.
If I change that bet to 1,2,3 and 4 pay me a dollar and 5 or 6 pay you $1.50 - you could probably get some of the less sharp knives to bite. But it's still no good.
In all three scenarios, if we play for an infinite amount of time, I'll take all of your money. Scenario 1 is an absurd 0:1. For every dollar you pay me, I pay you none. Scenario 2 is 1:5. For every 5 dollars you pay me, I pay you one. And scenario 3 is 3:4. For every 4 dollars you pay me, I'll pay you 3. All in favor of me. This is the problem. The handicap is not accounting for anything. It's not leveling the playing field. It's merely tilting it in my direction so I can clean you out. There's no skill or experience to offset since flipping a coin and rolling a die is total chance.
All casino games have a house advantage. Your odds are never 1:1 and usually significantly less. Only an educated gambler can make Blackjack approach 1:1, but it will never be an even shake. The only way to 'win' while gambling is to win big before the odds catch up with you. Gambling is a fun diversion. It's just not a game.
A game needs to play back. It needs to give all players as equal a chance at success as possible. What pushes gambling over the edge is the fact that it's based on pure luck, pure mathematics. No amount of training or practice will ever push the odds in your favor.
This should not be true for a game.
This is also why luck can become an element, but should never be the sole force for a fundamental failure any greater than a 1:1 ratio. It might be the worst game ever where half the time you die, but at least the opportunity for success is as likely as the opportunity for failure.
That's not to say luck doesn't have it's place. There's nothing wrong with 1:30 chance of getting a rare item from an in-game grab bag. Just so long as I don't DIE because I didn't get it. The 'rare' item concept is a valid way of increasing replay and can be used to great effect.
Just keep the gambling from preventing the game.
No comments