The other match-3 game I have been playing a bit of lately is Gems of War, also off the Steam discovery queue. It is from the makers of Puzzle Quest, so the basic gameplay is solid and entertaining. This is their F2P game that includes just about every F2P grind and cash shop mechanic I have ever heard of, except for selling “energy.” Its monetization is impressive in its horribleness, particularly in the way it stacks upon itself and creates layers of hiding actual dollar amounts. Continue reading Gems of War
The Steam summer sale recommended I try Force of Elements, a match-3 F2P2W asynchronous PvP game in early release. Having enjoyed a bit of match-3 lately, I tried it out. In my second game, I found something really exciting: this game not only failed to take colorblind people into account, it went in the other direction and uses a “grayed out” mode as an attack to make it difficult to see what gems should match. That is one way of defining a problem into a feature.
Also note the “asynchronous PvP,” in that your opponents are computer-controlled versions of other players. This means using colorblindness as an attack only works against other humans, unless the computer imposes a different penalty upon itself in these cases.
If you occasionally get a Humble Bundle, now is probably the time to get one. Just looking at the “pay what you want” level, it includes:
- Psychonauts, which is good.
- 40 treasure chests for Pathfinder Adventures
- 500 coins for the Amazon appstore
- content for 4 MMOs
And then more. And then more MMO and MOBA content in the paid levels, and more games, and some subscriptions and betas. And then there are some more of those games and betas at the “pay what you want” level. And some other stuff.
I have cancer.
It’s stage 4 esophageal cancer. You can look up statistics, but as it is “uncurable”… my first oncologist said I was looking at maybe 5-7 years, not decades. I haven’t had this discussion again with my current oncologist.
I am currently being treated at Siteman Cancer Center, which is one of the top 10 cancer centers in the U.S. My oncologist specializes in GI-tract cancers, and I am currently on a pretty good study regime with Herceptin. I have had 4 full chemo treatments in this first round of 8, and I am showing early stages of remission from my latest CT scan.
This is why I’ve kind of dropped off the face of the interwebs.
Crashlanding Back Here
The game Farm For Your Life has a simple feature that I have not seen elsewhere: on the character customization screen, put a mirror behind the character so you can see how that hair, jacket, whatever looks from behind. Yes, you can usually spin the character around to look, but is a mirror that hard? (Probably, yeah.)
In many game genres, you mostly see your character from behind anyway. Maybe the point of view should start behind the character, like in a barber shop or hair salon, with you the customizer as the hairdresser. And spend less time customizing the exact shape of a nose you can’t see 95% of the time.
The first time I encountered an MMO with a confectioner trade to make muffins that buff people, I was enchanted. It is a simple and slightly silly idea with roots in developers learning what players like.
Hunger, thirst, and other biological functions are not common features in MMOs these days, apart from surprisingly common quests to make you clean up poop. Early RPGs commonly had hunger and sometimes thirst, reflecting the intuitive notion that you will starve to death if you never eat. This meant players needed to acquire food (and sometimes water) and eat regularly or else suffer a hunger debuff that might stack unto death.
Players generally hated that. It was the sort of bookkeeping that most people ignore in pencil and paper roleplaying games, like encumbrance. Yes, there are survival games where finding food is a core mechanic, but most of us are happy to assume it happens in the background. More importantly, players hate debuffs, they hate feeling like something is being taken from them, and they hate being reminded of costs over time.
It feels like a tax on playing the game. Continue reading Evolution and Enshrinement of a Feature
I have many unplayed Steam games, largely due to buying packs of games where I am interested in a few of the ten. Then there is the Steam sale effect where you see a game you are kind of interested in playing at 75% off, so you pick it up now for potential play later.
I am thinking that Borderlands 2 has quite a bit of the latter. Looking at Steam achievements for Borderlands 2, 27% of people have not gotten as far as picking up the first gun. More than a quarter of people who own this game have not played it. 27% have completed the game’s storyline, which makes for nice symmetry. And 2.7% have been to all the named locations on the map.
I have no great insight here, just an observation. More than a quarter of sales of a AAA game did not lead to playing.
Long-time readers know that I am an immoderate person. I binge, I commit fully. I mentioned that I was reading Worm; I went through 1,680,000 words in 17 days. So I don’t drink and I am careful about getting invested in things. I am coming down from that Worm binge and am once again (still?) wanting games I could play casually even if I likely won’t. The metaphor still holds: sometimes you won’t commit to watching a 90 minute movie but you will watch 5 TV episodes in a row.
One thing I liked about the MMO genre was the ability to make small units of progress. Hop in, get a few easy objectives in 15-30 minutes, go on to whatever else you’re doing. Beyond coasting, it combines the casual game spirit of low investment play with the long term perspective that these little units add up. There are plenty of single-player games that are similar, which are mostly what I am seeking in my Steam library as I have given up on MMOs.
There are lots of games that I want to play but do not feel up to committing the time necessary to give them a fair shot. I have some 4Xs but it is not quite satisfying to pop into one of those for a few turns. I have Banished installed but my only visit to its tutorial reminded me of The Witcher 2, not in difficulty but in that its interface turned me off so much that by the time I can get over that feeling I also forget what I was supposed to have learned. Before I completed the first tutorial it seemed that building a basic settlement involved going 2 or 3 levels deep in each of several menus for each of several steps, requiring roughly a paragraph of explanation each. Banished has a rather good (if harsh) reputation, but I don’t know if I’m up to that kind of commitment just to learn the interface.
My current need is gaming in bite-sized increments with intuitive gameplay. Being me, I am likely to leap into and consume something in mass volume, but I need that intuitive gameplay to get me past the commitment conundrum of needing to invest in learning a game before I am able to enjoy it. I want the game to meet me at least half way in terms of interface, when many of our gamer games seem to pride themselves on requiring large time investments to learn their mechanics.
While I have been reading instead of playing, the most exciting news in computer gaming has been Go. Chess-playing computer programs have gradually moved from “plays a standard game pretty well” to “almost competitive with a good human” to “consistently beats world champions,” reaching the end of that progression about a decade ago. Go, contrarily, has long been held out as a game at which computers will have trouble making gains because the search space is huge for a 19×19 board, moves have long-term consequences that make evaluating individual moves difficult, and play has generally been seen as more intuitive and so less open to computational brute force.
A year ago, the best Go program was competitive against a good amateur player. In the last six months, Google Deepmind’s AlphaGo has leaped to “best in the world,” beating the European champion 5-0 and now beating the world champion 3-0 with two games to go.
There are three things I would like to note here. First, the speed of that jump is ridiculous. Go has long been one of those “at least a decade away” computing problems, like the ones that have been forecast as “20-30 years away” for the last 20-30 years and are still 20-30 years away today. AlphaGo is the first computer program to beat a professional player without a handicap, and then it went on to beat the world champion. That is going from “can’t beat a professional player” to “beats the top professional player” in one step. This is not the gradual progress we saw with computers and chess over decades, this is an escalation in power levels that would make anime blush.
Second, this is not simply a matter of Google having massive computing power to throw at the problem. The chess world champions play on supercomputers and evaluation trillions of positions per second. The world champion version of AlphaGo uses a distributed computing network, but they also have a single-computer version that beats the distributed version about a quarter of the time. We will see if the human world champion gets one win in the series, but this suggests that a much less powerful version of AlphaGo would still be a top player.
What I find most interesting is that humans seem to be fairly bad at evaluating how AlphaGo is doing. AlphaGo optimizes for probability of winning, not its current score or a projected score at the end. So the human analysts are commenting on how the computer seems to be making mistakes, that it is not capturing territory, and oh look gg the computer has somehow gotten itself into an unassailable position. One of the reasons computers have been bad at Go is that a single move now can have subtle implications 50 moves later; AlphaGo has made the jump to where its subtle moves look like mistakes to observers until it wins. It is probably not the case that the computer was playing a close game and pulled ahead in the late game. It seems more likely that the computer was steadily pulling ahead but in a way that is not obvious until the late game. Here is Eliezer Yudkowsky exploring this point at length. Bonus thought: human commentators were probably assuming that AlphaGo would lose, so odd-looking moves were probably mistakes rather than subtle brilliance; in light of consistent wins, I am curious if the human commentators will now look more closely at its moves for hidden strengths, rather than starting with the frame “this is another lousy computer Go program.”
Bonus thought 2: when I see Eliezer referencing “Path to Victory” in that post, I cannot help but see him referencing Worm, which he has read and commented on before.
I have not been gaming for the past couple of weeks because I have been binge-reading Worm, which is both good and lengthy.
To tide you over, Pathfinder (the spiritual successor to D&D, don’t really know what official D&D is doing with 5th edition) will soon have, well:
The magical child archetype covers the “magical girl” trope, with a transformation sequence ability (faster switch between identities, but with flashy lights and music), summoner spells, and an otherworldly buddy.
I’m not sure if Pathfinder’s warlock is like D&D’s, but I think a warlock pact with Kyuubey would multiclass nicely to make a magical girl.