When something’s harder than it looks, we tend to notice, because we usually have to figure out what’s going on in order to overcome it. That’s mostly what difficulty is for, as an instrument of the art, it’s a way of saying “don’t move on until you’ve figured this stuff out” So surprising challenges are usually ‘authentic’ (eventually).
I guess there are also games that’re hard due to factors that aren’t what people were really interested in, and the player never consciously figures out what’s going on (“fake difficulty”?). I can’t think of a great example of this off the top of my head, I think the games that do it tend to be identified as bad or unfair, and we mostly don’t have them any more.
I’m not sure why examining this terminology would be interesting to you.
Note after OOB debate: this conversation has gone wrong because you’re reading subtext into Said’s comment that he didn’t mean to put there. You keep trying to answer an implied question that wasn’t intended to be implied.
If you think playing against bots in UT is authentically challenging, just answer “Yes, I think playing against bots in UT is authentically challenging.”
That’s fascinating, but it seems like your reply to my comment answered none of the questions I asked. Was that intentional, or an oversight, or… what? To clarify, those questions were not rhetorical. I would like to know what your answers are.
I think it answers them: Is the player (supposed to be) fully aware of the reasons this is as hard as it is?
So: Yes, player’s sensitivity to bot quirks probably depends on the difficulty level they’re playing at, and I haven’t played WoW but from what I’ve heard Yes.
In Unreal (or a game like it that I played) I felt like I understood what kind of challenge I was actually facing, and it felt quite different to playing against humans.
With starcraft, I’m not sure. I think at high levels of play people are fairly aware of how the bot thinks.
Another interesting example is Network Wars, the bot AI is flawed, but to dig into it at all, the player has to become aware of that (and to enjoy it, I think we have to recognize that the flaws analogize interesting vices that people have in the real world (nearsightedness/greed, cowardice), though turned up to a inhuman extreme)
Look, I have to ask: is there some reason why you’re refusing to give me a straightforward “yes” or “no” answer to a yes-or-no question?
I ask because this is making it very difficult to follow what you’re saying. I would like to understand your comments, but it would really be much easier for me to do that if the commentary accompanied the direct answers, rather than replacing them!
If you understand my reasoning, you can infer my answers.
If you don’t understand my reasoning, I would not actually want you to know my answers.
This sometimes leads to a style of writing that keeps things abstract and indirect and as a result is able to tell the truth about any issue, because it means that the author’s positions on things will only be clear to people who understand why they think that (and can thus empathize with it, speak to it, and probably agree with it).
When something’s harder than it looks, we tend to notice, because we usually have to figure out what’s going on in order to overcome it. That’s mostly what difficulty is for, as an instrument of the art, it’s a way of saying “don’t move on until you’ve figured this stuff out” So surprising challenges are usually ‘authentic’ (eventually).
I guess there are also games that’re hard due to factors that aren’t what people were really interested in, and the player never consciously figures out what’s going on (“fake difficulty”?). I can’t think of a great example of this off the top of my head, I think the games that do it tend to be identified as bad or unfair, and we mostly don’t have them any more.
I’m not sure why examining this terminology would be interesting to you.
Note after OOB debate: this conversation has gone wrong because you’re reading subtext into Said’s comment that he didn’t mean to put there. You keep trying to answer an implied question that wasn’t intended to be implied.
If you think playing against bots in UT is authentically challenging, just answer “Yes, I think playing against bots in UT is authentically challenging.”
That’s fascinating, but it seems like your reply to my comment answered none of the questions I asked. Was that intentional, or an oversight, or… what? To clarify, those questions were not rhetorical. I would like to know what your answers are.
I think it answers them: Is the player (supposed to be) fully aware of the reasons this is as hard as it is?
So: Yes, player’s sensitivity to bot quirks probably depends on the difficulty level they’re playing at, and I haven’t played WoW but from what I’ve heard Yes.
I’m sorry, perhaps I’m being dense, but: yes, playing against bots in Unreal Tournament or StarCraft is “authentically challenging”? Is that right?
In Unreal (or a game like it that I played) I felt like I understood what kind of challenge I was actually facing, and it felt quite different to playing against humans.
With starcraft, I’m not sure. I think at high levels of play people are fairly aware of how the bot thinks.
Another interesting example is Network Wars, the bot AI is flawed, but to dig into it at all, the player has to become aware of that (and to enjoy it, I think we have to recognize that the flaws analogize interesting vices that people have in the real world (nearsightedness/greed, cowardice), though turned up to a inhuman extreme)
Look, I have to ask: is there some reason why you’re refusing to give me a straightforward “yes” or “no” answer to a yes-or-no question?
I ask because this is making it very difficult to follow what you’re saying. I would like to understand your comments, but it would really be much easier for me to do that if the commentary accompanied the direct answers, rather than replacing them!
I did, each answer was in sequence.
But the reason I was reluctant initially was:
If you understand my reasoning, you can infer my answers.
If you don’t understand my reasoning, I would not actually want you to know my answers.
This sometimes leads to a style of writing that keeps things abstract and indirect and as a result is able to tell the truth about any issue, because it means that the author’s positions on things will only be clear to people who understand why they think that (and can thus empathize with it, speak to it, and probably agree with it).