Optimizing one’s outcomes in the absence of smart, motivated, adversaries does not excercise the same learning or enjoyment.
I’d be curious to hear more about that. I’d kinda expect there to be a semi-cooperative version of the game that could be rebalanced a bit so that just as many insights come out of it (some of which weren’t accessible in the original), but it would require The Mindset.
Poker specifically seems like a situation where there might be a blend of people who genuinely wouldn’t love the game without the financial incentive and are really there to Win Now, funded by gamblers, who’re either doing a pathology or, perhaps, in some cases, getting something out of play itself.
I get the impression that Mahjong is the kind of game where the monetary incentive needs to be there for the game to function (it’s a score game, not a binary win/lose game), but it’s still enjoyable even if you’re losing.
My friends enjoy co-op games as well—Pandemic (though more fun with the bioterrorist IMO ;) ), Forbidden {Island,Desert,Sky}, etc. They tend to suffer from the quarterback effect, as you say—one player often has stronger opinions and is telling others what to do (and often why), turning it into a group-consensus exercise rather than individual optimization.
I’d need to expand “The Mindset” to understand what you mean there, but for myself and the groups I game with, the risk/reward/learning-feedback elements are simply nowhere near as strong in pure cooperative games, as it is in competitive games with cooperative elements.
I’d be curious to hear more about that. I’d kinda expect there to be a semi-cooperative version of the game that could be rebalanced a bit so that just as many insights come out of it (some of which weren’t accessible in the original), but it would require The Mindset.
Poker specifically seems like a situation where there might be a blend of people who genuinely wouldn’t love the game without the financial incentive and are really there to Win Now, funded by gamblers, who’re either doing a pathology or, perhaps, in some cases, getting something out of play itself.
I get the impression that Mahjong is the kind of game where the monetary incentive needs to be there for the game to function (it’s a score game, not a binary win/lose game), but it’s still enjoyable even if you’re losing.
My friends enjoy co-op games as well—Pandemic (though more fun with the bioterrorist IMO ;) ), Forbidden {Island,Desert,Sky}, etc. They tend to suffer from the quarterback effect, as you say—one player often has stronger opinions and is telling others what to do (and often why), turning it into a group-consensus exercise rather than individual optimization.
I’d need to expand “The Mindset” to understand what you mean there, but for myself and the groups I game with, the risk/reward/learning-feedback elements are simply nowhere near as strong in pure cooperative games, as it is in competitive games with cooperative elements.