G
Guest 6801328
Guest
... or, at least, what you'll end up finding,
Now that might be true.
... or, at least, what you'll end up finding,
Again, though, I'm not looking for an objective metric. 10 software engineers with sufficient experience and knowledge would be likely to give a given piece of source code a somewhat similar rating for compactness and elegance. Exactly the same value? No. But in the same ballpark.
Anyway, I'm not sure the idea I'm proposing has any merit, but it's something I've wondered about.
We could call it "Deep Thought."We'll likely have to build a mind subtle and powerful enough to get the answer....
Nor is it obvious that any 10 people highly expressive in English will agree as to what constitutes good writing in English.
This post makes many assumptions about how a game might work. Many games don't require "adding to the game" (eg by way of new subsystems, or new modifiers, or whatever) because they have resolution systems that are relatively straightforward to extrapolate to novel situations.That's not a matter of clarity, but of scope or completeness, and not an interpretation or a ruling, but simply adding - formally or informally - to the game.
For instance, if a game includes no prices, stats, or rules for weapons, then armed combat might be outside its scope - maybe it's all about boxing, IDK. The rules it does present might be clear enough that no rulings or interpretations are called for, everyone who reads the rules can play the game without confusion or argument over what the rules mean. But, when a player decides his character will hit someone with a folding chair, or try to buy a gun, the GM will either deny him, or add to the game.
Perhaps someone designing this system could produce multiple versions. Version A asks six questions. Version B asks six questions, three of which overlap with Version A.
Issue both versions. Have people rate games. See if those ratings are useful to others. Ask those who read the ratings: if your first awareness of a game was its rating, and then you played the game, did your experience of the game match the rating, that is, do you think, afterwards, that the rating was accurate?
Assess results. A good result: "I read the ratings on Game X, and then played Game X. The ratings helped me anticipate what I did and didn't like about Game X."
A bad result: "The ratings gave me no useful information about Game X."
Another bad result: "Based on ratings, I tried Game X. I think the ratings misinformed my decision and I regret taking the ratings seriously."
Compare how often Version A yields good results, versus how often Version B yields good results.
Also: account for cognitive bias, across each step of this process. For example, people who *expect* to enjoy a game, might be more likely to report enjoyment of that game, than people who go in with no pre-conceptions.
Come to think of it, information more specific than ratings, might also be useful. "You won't enjoy FooBarQuest" might be useful, if I'm choosing games at a convention and I can either try to get into a FooBarQuest game or try to get into a Pathfinder game.
When I want to try a new game, and FooBarQuest is the only option aside from games I've already played, the situationally useful advice is "If you play FooBarQuest, then play a martial class, because the magic rules are a mess; and don't play a quapatir, they look awesome but you'll never get to use the abilities." At which point, maybe what I want is a review?