The Many and Varied Games We Play

foghorn666 writes "Forbes.com has posted a sprawling special report on games, which tackles the subject from several angles, looking at everything from gambling to playing games in a relationship. There is, naturally, a lot on video games, including an original episode of Red Vs. Blue and a funny piece on the dangers of Warcraft addiction. Particularly cool are the interviews with video game luminaries like Peter Molyneux, Sid Meier, and John Romero. Even Duke Nukem came out of hiding to answer a few questions."

Comments

Games people play

[tomknight]

Oh the games people play now
Every night and every day now
Never meaning what they say now
Never saying what they mean
So they while away the hours
In their ivory towers
Till there covered up with flowers
In the back of a black limousine

Talkin bout you and me
And the games people play

Oh we make one another cry
Break our heart
Then we say goodbye
Cause our heart say
We hope to die
Let the other one to blame
Neither one will ever give in
So were gazing at an 8 by 10
Thinking bout the way
It might have been
Its a dirty, rotten, shame

Talkin bout you and me
And the games people play

People walking up to ya
Sayin glory, hallelujah
And they try to sock it to ya
In the name of the Lord
They gonna teach you
How to meditate
Read your horoscope
And cheat your faith
And furthermore to hell with hate
Come on and get on board

Talkin bout you and me
And the games people play

Look around tell me
What you see
Whats happening to you and me
God grant me the serenity
To remember who I am
Cause your giving up your sanity
For your pride and your vanity
Turn your back on humanity
And you don't give a damn

Talkin bout you and me
And the games people play

The first post game...

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I gonna win or not?

Re:The first post game...

[sgt.greywar]

No, spam poesy wins out over mindless first posting.

Game Theory

[sgt.greywar]

I particularly liked the article on Game Theory in which this gem is put out for all to see. "...game theory is all about "asking yourself what is the other man going to think I mean to do." Von Neumann's approach assumed that the "other man" was another Von Neumann, another brilliant calculating machine. But if the other man is a regular Joe who didn't grasp all the complexities of the game, Von Neumann's super-sophisticated game theory is not much use." This misapprehension is what sidelines many "game theorists" from making any useful predictions. Just as in international diplomacy the "other guy" is not always intelligent, reasonable, or even sane!

Re:Game Theory

[Hubbell]

Sadly, for MMORPG's atleast, players don't want a challenge. They want to have their hand held while they proceed through the game, knowing no dangers or challenges beyond time. This is a pathetic situation indeed, especially for those of us who live for the challenge, particularly in the form of PVP. Darkfall is our last hope for such a game, and sadly it appears the great ideals behind it will not be enough to bring it to fruition.

Re:Game Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

This misapprehension is what sidelines many "game theorists" from making any useful predictions. Just as in international diplomacy the "other guy" is not always intelligent, reasonable, or even sane!

But the purpose of game theory is not to make predictions about what the other guy is going to do. Game theory is about hedging your bets: minimizing your worst-case losses. If you try to make predictions about what the other guy is going to do, then you open yourself up to the possibility of both greater gains and greater losses. Game theory is about doing as well as you can, no matter what the other guy does, or what you think he's going to do.

If you want to make "useful predictions", you want to look to other branches of mathematics, such as inferential statistics. You're missing the point of what game theory is useful for.

Re:Game Theory

[Jerf]

The popular assumption that game theory can't handle an irrational opponent betrays a serious mis-understanding of game theory.

I can't count the number of times that I've seen someone claim that the standard minimax decision tree algorithm can be "beaten" by an irrational player. No, it can't. The minimax algorithm conservatively chooses the best play, assuming the opponent also chooses their best play, but if the opponent plays irrationally and choose something less than their best move, the minimax algorithm will happily take advantage of their errors. Minimax's problem is computational intractability, not a problem with handling irrationality.

In the real world, minimax doesn't come into play, but you are still free to choose to model an irrational opponent. But it's not as if you're going to guaranteed to make better moves, because you might be facing an opponent that is deliberately acting irrational to set you off your guard, only to take advantage of you later. If your "new, improved" game theory doesn't handle that case, you might just find your "new, improved" game theory making grave errors that the Von Neumann approach wouldn't.

The advantage of the Von Neumann approach, as exemplified by minimax, is to maximize your gains while minimizing your exposure surface. Done correctly, an irrational player does not beat the system; in fact they lose badly. You might be able to take advantage of irrationality in advance by making a less-than-optimal move by minimax standards, but if you're wrong you're in trouble.

Upshot is, if you think game theory is so weak against irrational players, try picking up even a simple chess program and "confusing" it by moving around the board randomly. I guarantee you repeated losses.

(In fact when it comes down to it, I completely disagree with the idea that game theory is about trying to see what your opponent thinks you're going to do. Game theory is about making the best move; bamboozling your opponent is only one particular strategy, and it doesn't even always apply, not the core of the whole thing. )

Game theory's big problem in practice is that the easy, clean, simple theory only works with mathematically-defined games that you can see the entire decision tree for. But that easy, clean, simple theory isn't the be-all, end-all of game theory. It's just all you'll be taught in an undergraduate course. Generally speaking, "what you're taught in an undergrad course" is not the sum total of work on a subject.

Re:Game Theory

[Kelbear]

Well, the undergrad courses do explain what the parent post said. What the parent post spoke of is a fundamental concept behind game theory, which the GP doesn't have right. So the GP's level of understanding can't really be blamed on undergrad courses but simply not understanding game theory at all.

P.S. (I'm not trying to insinuate anything about the GP's intelligence, it's just that GP is wrong on this. It happens to everybody.)

Re:Game Theory

[thatguywhoiam]

I can't count the number of times that I've seen someone claim that the standard minimax decision tree algorithm can be "beaten" by an irrational player.

Man, you're brunch conversations with friends must be downright strange.

Re:Game Theory

[rbarreira]

Man, you're brunch conversations with friends must be downright strange.

Probably not stranger than writing "you're" instead of "your", however...

Re:Game Theory

[rbarreira]

A few more facts/examples might help some people to understand why Jerf is correct:

• Consider a game such as Tic Tac Toe where both players can force a draw if they play perfectly. in this case, all the minimax algorithm will do is play for a draw, until a mistake is done by the other player. The minimax algorithm will *not* risk anything such as trying to induce the opponent into errors, since it is basically trying to minimize the worst outcome of the game.
• Suppose that a chess engine finds that it can force a checkmate against a human player, assuming that the human player doesn't see the only way out of it, which is to make a move which will only be understood after 20 moves from each player... Even if there is a high probability that this checkmate would work against most humans, the Minimax algorithm will *not* go into it since it assumes that the human won't make that error. This is why the Minimax algorithm doesn't guarantee the best score possible against humans. If you can model the errors made by human players (and you're willing to trust that model), you can make a program which will score more points against human players than a program based on the Minimax algorithm.

Re:Game Theory

[Kagura]

Funny that you don't mention Eve Online. I think some posters may disagree with me, but many more will agree that it is a worthwhile MMORPG.

Re:Game Theory

[sgt.greywar]

The difference here is that in real life you don't get to play over and over again against irrational opponents to try and beat the percentges. irrational opponents won't even stay within the boundaries of the game for this purpose. They are far more likely to "cheat" and end your participation in the game for good. Your arguments would be correct if we were allowed to "game" against international opponents repeatedly,b ut the fact is that in these games the stakes are high and you don't get "do overs" if you lose badly enough.

first post

[Anonymous Coward]

i am t3h 1337 WoW sux0rz lol

Re:first post

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad WoW is for mammas boyz, "sux0r".

From the Duke Nukem interview

[DJ.Flecktarn]

We figured since we called it Duke Nukem Forever, hell, it might as well take us forever to finish it. Am I right? Thank you, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress. Well, cleared that right up.

Lies.

[Zero Degrez]

Even Duke Nukem came out of hiding to answer a few questions.

Duke Nukem hides from no man or manpig, he just got tired of kicking ass without bubble gum and went to pick some up when he ran into the interviewers.

Re:Lies.

[elrous0]

I heard he got so bored kicking so much ass here, that he took off for an ass-kicker galaxy where he would actually have to break a sweat.

-Eric

Did the person who submitted TFS read TFA?

[Bastard of Subhumani]

There is, naturally, a lot on video games

The second linked article - the closest to the statement I quoted, so presumably the one it refers to - has nothing do do with that kind of games at all. Did the submitter even read it?

Relationship games

[pubjames]

I'm not sure that I'd call the stuff the article describes as "games" in a relationship as games...

How many people here have had a conversation like this with a girlfriend:

Me [returning from business trip]: Hi, I'm back!
Her [upset]: You never called!!!
Me: Erm, no, I didn't.
Her: Why not?!
Me: I was on a business trip. I didn't have anything interesting to tell you.
Her: You could have called!
Me: Erm, you didn't call me either.
Her [Really upset]: You don't care about me! [storms off]
Me: [confused]

Not a very fun game.

Re:Relationship games

[Rob T Firefly]

It gets better once you get past that miniboss battle and unlock the bonus "make-up shag" level.

Still waiting for some Gameshark codes, though...

Re:Relationship games

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

See, that's why I don't have a cell phone, but I never care to tell her that. See, whenever I get in a situation like that I just say, "I was itching to call you, but I lost my cell phone and there weren't any landlines that I could use for personal calls available."

The only problem is that now she thinks I'm a klutz for losing my cell phone all the time.

Re:Relationship games

[pubjames]

Oh, I completed that miniboss battle a long time ago. But it's very annoying and repetative if don't know what you are supposed to do - like when the boulder chases after you in Resident Evil 4. But once you "get it" it's fairly easy.

Re:Relationship games

[ShadowsHawk]

True, but then you're forced into buying the expansion pack "tiny tots run amok".

Re:Relationship games

[Hillgiant]

"The battery died and I forgot to pack a charger" This works particularly well if you play the cheapskate and only buy used phones off eBay.

Re:Relationship games

[Rob T Firefly]

I always use a firewall to block off that port.

Re:Relationship games

[Lisandro]

I'd mod you +1 funny if this wasn't so painfully true to life. And if i had any modpoints.

Re:Relationship games

[Anonymous Coward]

"This works particularly well if you play the cheapskate and only buy used phones off eBay."

Yeah, I hear being a cheapskate is all the rage with the ladies these days.

Re:Relationship games

[XxtraLarGe]

"I always use a firewall to block off that port."

Not to mention the virus protection provided as well :D

These guys again?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Particularly cool are the interviews with video game luminaries like Peter Molyneux, Sid Meier, and John Romero.

I don't really care who these people are or what they have to say. They put out some nice games in the past? Fine. Give them their gold watches and early-retirement their asses to make way for some new ideas.

Sid Meier, in particular, seems to be getting "Isaac Asimov-ish" in his old age; putting his name on lower-tier dreck just to collect a check. ("Pirates?")

Re:These guys again?

[HexRei]

Pirates was a fun game that a lot of people enjoyed. Just because it wasn't yet another CIV game doesn't mean its dreck...

Re:These guys again?

[Piata]

What the hell? Pirates was awesome. Absolutely loved that game. I played a lot of Pirates! Gold on my genesis way back when, and I'm so glad they revisited the game.

It's the kind of unique and enjoyable game experience I wish more developers could create.

Re:These guys again?

[Jaysyn]

You're out of your mind. Pirates is an absolute blast.

Re:These guys again?

[Jaysyn]

Check out Space Rangers 2 but make sure you get it thru Stardock (no SecuROM).

Re:These guys again?

[Amonnil]

Pirates is a fun game. Besides, the original version is 4 years older than Civ I, so it's not something he did in his "old age."

Re:These guys again?

[MrCopilot]

Asimov Bashing, Well I never.

Asimov was a shameless self promoter, but what exactly did you consider lower tier dreck?

Dating Advice From Forbes?

[andphi]

I'm confused. What is dating advice doing in the Tech/CIO section of Forbes Online? Aren't these the people who don't know anything about Technology? More specifically, why the Technology section?

Human relationships are purely analog and atechnological. Even over digital media - IM, cell phones, etc - relationships is a analog process: highly fluid and highly variable. What is funny one day can be bitterly hurtful the next. More importantly, one can be totally right and totally wrong all at the same time. It's the opposite of boolean logic.

For example, this morning I told my wife about the new season of Futurama. She got excited. Not surprising. Then I told her about Hachiko - the Akita who kept trying to meet his master at the train station years after his master's death, because Fry's dog Seymour lives sort of the same story. I thought it was a sweet, funny story. Like a Japanese version of Greyfriar's Bobby. She started crying. To her, it was a sad story, partly because it reminded her of Odysseus' dog, who waited for him, greeting him at the end of his exile with a single wag of his tail before dying. You never know what's going to happen, even with the people you know best.

Re:Dating Advice From Forbes?

[Rob T Firefly]

There are also articles on the Olympics and the old "Mighty Casey is at bat" baseball poem. It seems Forbes just ran a text search for "games" on their own site and called the resulting page a "feature" in hopes of scoring a few thousand extra ad impressions.

Re:Dating Advice From Forbes?

[blahplusplus]

"For example, this morning I told my wife about the new season of Futurama. She got excited. Not surprising. Then I told her about Hachiko - the Akita who kept trying to meet his master at the train station years after his master's death, because Fry's dog Seymour lives sort of the same story. I thought it was a sweet, funny story. Like a Japanese version of Greyfriar's Bobby. She started crying. To her, it was a sad story, partly because it reminded her of Odysseus' dog, who waited for him, greeting him at the end of his exile with a single wag of his tail before dying. You never know what's going to happen, even with the people you know best."

The problem is not that human relationships do not subscribe to logic, it's understanding the logic of the underlying hardware, the reason she found it sad is because the way her mind processes information and relates data, chose to focus on certain parts of you story and then relate them, her mind was picking out and emphasizing different parts of the story, just like yours was.

The truth is all human relationships have logic behind them, it's in our lack of understanding that we think the are somehow 'irrational', simply because we cannot see confounding factors or different evolutionary traits, and understand how someone's mind chooses what information to focus on, and what to cull, and how her mind is going do a search and make connections and emotiona relations.

it's worth it

[stoolpigeon]

and you probably are a klutz anyway.

Nothing but hype

[LittleImp]

Particularly cool are the interviews with video game luminaries like Peter Molyneux, Sid Meier, and John Romero. I wonder when they actually start creating a good game, instead of talking about it all the time.

Sprawling....

[argStyopa]

....like that "600 megabytes of Games!" CD you bought for $5 from the bargain bin, and found out it wasn't worth THAT.

I skimmed through at least a dozen of the 'articles' to find several of them were streaming video links, a couple were little more than links to other pages, and the ones that were actually written were either meaninglessly fluffy "I'm a WoW addict, and I play a lot! In fact, it's caused me to question my priorities!" (gee, THAT's news) or sophomoric rationalizations "Everyone cheats at video games, it's not a bad thing".

Each with it's page with what, at least FIFTY adlogos or paid links?

Go away, Forbes. I want my 6 minutes back. And the revenue you made from my clicks.

Re:Sprawling....

[argStyopa]

Oh, and I almost forgot: you know, you'd think Forbes would be a little higher on the journalism scale than Maxim, no?

No.

The crowning glory was the "video" from Forbes Video Network about gamer hotties (ie girl gamers).

INTRO: "I've interviewed a lot of gamers for FVN, but none like these....they're girls, and they're HOT!"

Sigh. Mind-numbingly shallow.

They weren't even hot.

Conversation games

[Anonymous Coward]

Read "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" and you'll see what she's really trying to say.

Re:Conversation games

[hayden_l]

Or she could read it and figure out how to talk to me. That way I can understand what she really means without the need for a translator. It goes both ways.

The 'real life' platform has a horrible interface

[FhnuZoag]

Run the game on emulation! That way, you can use save states for that sort of stuff.

BTW, the ending sucks.

Waste

[Rezell]

What a worthless story. Troll I am, but I'm drunk and this was a waste of 3 minutes.

Alot of varied interviews

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty impressed by the list of interviews they have listed..

Sure, they got computer game designers (as mentioned in the short), but this article covers is more then computer games.. just looking

From the page:

Interviews
Ralph Baer - Video game inventor
Mark Burnett - Reality producer
Orson Scott Card - Author, Ender's Game
Rob Dyrdek - Pro skateboarder
David Farbman - Professional hunter
Jose Feijoo - Cockfight organizer
Steve Jackson - RPG designer
Henry Jenkins - MIT professor
Ken Jennings - Jeopardy! champ
Thomas Killion - Chief scientist, U.S. Army
Jim Kramer - Scrabble champ
Ewa Mataya Laurence - Pro pool player
Sid Meier - Civilization creator
Peter Molyneux - Fable designer
Duke Nukem - Video game character
John Romero - Doom designer
Sherrie Schneider - Author, The Rules
Klaus Teuber - Board game designer
Terry Waite - Hostage negotiator
Jonathan "Fatal1ty" Wendel - Pro video gamer
Ethan Zohn - Survivor winner

This is pretty cool because it covers the obvious games.. video games, board games, TV reality/game shows.. but also some things that aren't normally what people classify as 'games'.. ie: the Hostage negotiator, the Hunter, and the US Army, and of course who can forget the Cock Fighter.

Whence Nash's Equilibrium...

[Randym]

I completely disagree with the idea that game theory is about trying to see what your opponent thinks you're going to do.

If you play your games merely based on a mathematical strategy (even one as elegant as von Neumann's minimax strategy), you can be beaten. This is why Nash was so important, because he was able to say something meaningful about all strategies. Wikipedia says it somewhat better than I; here's the key phrase: If each player has chosen a strategy and no player can benefit by changing his or her strategy while the other players keep theirs unchanged, then the current set of strategy choices and the corresponding payoffs constitute a Nash equilibrium.

Minimax only works if the payoff is linear. If it is nonlinear, all bets are off (so to speak). Example: you are playing chess against someone using a minimax strategy. They will be playing a very conservative, defensive game: being very careful to avoid having any of their pieces being captured. If you *also* play using a minimax strategy, the outcome is likely to be a draw. However, Nash's idea points out that you can beat them by adopting a different strategy: an offensive NONminimax strategy. From their perspective, making *any* sacrifice is "crazy"! Throw some pins, forks and pawn sacrifices into the mix, and you'll start beating them. It works because chess is a nonlinear game. A lower-ranked piece can capture a higher-ranked piece or a pawn sacrifice can lead to a knight taking a queen: the payoff can be nonlinear.

Or look at poker: a well-played bluff can cause a good hand to be worth nothing. Again: nonlinear payoff. Remember the movie "Rounders"? [spoiler warning!] At one point, John Malkovich's character screws with Matt Damon's character by throwing a fake tell into the mix, catching him off-guard. Poker, in fact, is the classic case where playing only a straightforward minimax strategy is the *worst* thing you can do, because of all the non-mathematical face-to-face data going on. Again, there is no Nash equilibrium *unless* all of the players are playing the same strategy -- which happens to be NONminimax (or, more accurately, a mixture of minimax -- knowing your mathematical chances -- and NONminimax -- playing the tells).

Overall, though, I agree with the poster's main point: playing a crazy, irrational strategy is a very low-level approach. The only "crazy" strategy that works is "crazy like a fox": a surface irrationality that covers a hidden, well-thought-out strategy. The best masters *always* operate on both levels at once: psychology plus mathematics.