Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 8965880" data-attributes="member: 6690965">I think we draw very different conclusions from this. I generally contend this is why simulation is necessary, or you're stuck doing what [USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER] describes or you can't describe an impartial board state.I think you're making a mistake in placing the satisfaction in resolution instead of declaration. It's not particularly important how the actions play out, in the same way it's not particularly important who actually wins a board game. Instead, we all agree that we will try to win, because that gives context to make decisions in, and the pleasure comes in using that context and a limited system to make those decisions as best as possible.So, in that example the gamist satisfaction is already achieved by the time the situation resolves. The players either evaluated all courses of action and determined that breaking and entering was the best/only viable means of getting information, or that the amount of information gained on any one individual this way would be worth the risk of getting nothing if they picked the wrong candidate. The payoff of that decision gives context they can use to go back and evaluate their choices (did we actually take the best line of play?) but is irrelevant to whether those choices were satisfying.Perhaps what I'm saying is that &quot;challenge&quot; and &quot;struggle&quot; are not so directly related. I've played something like 4000 hours of Slay the Spire, I have heuristics and algorithms down, I don't actually read the cards so much as glance at the silhouettes of the artwork and rapidly make choices, and I can consistently defeat the highest ascension levels. I still keep playing it, because the decisions are really, really good, even if I am quite confident I can find a line of play that works, and I can tell you about good runs and bad runs and find satisfaction in both.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pedantic, post: 8965880, member: 6690965"] I think we draw very different conclusions from this. I generally contend this is why simulation is necessary, or you're stuck doing what [USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER] describes or you can't describe an impartial board state. I think you're making a mistake in placing the satisfaction in resolution instead of declaration. It's not particularly important how the actions play out, in the same way it's not particularly important who actually wins a board game. Instead, we all agree that we will try to win, because that gives context to make decisions in, and the pleasure comes in using that context and a limited system to make those decisions as best as possible. So, in that example the gamist satisfaction is already achieved by the time the situation resolves. The players either evaluated all courses of action and determined that breaking and entering was the best/only viable means of getting information, or that the amount of information gained on any one individual this way would be worth the risk of getting nothing if they picked the wrong candidate. The payoff of that decision gives context they can use to go back and evaluate their choices (did we actually take the best line of play?) but is irrelevant to whether those choices were satisfying. Perhaps what I'm saying is that "challenge" and "struggle" are not so directly related. I've played something like 4000 hours of Slay the Spire, I have heuristics and algorithms down, I don't actually read the cards so much as glance at the silhouettes of the artwork and rapidly make choices, and I can consistently defeat the highest ascension levels. I still keep playing it, because the decisions are really, really good, even if I am quite confident I can find a line of play that works, and I can tell you about good runs and bad runs and find satisfaction in both. [/QUOTE]

Verification