Would you, as a user, play a game that doesn't know the rules?

[Artificial]

> I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.
He means the game would have rules, but the game just wouldn't enforce them. Just like there are rules in chess, but the board and the pieces don't make you have to follow those rules, the other player does.

> since I don't know the rules
It's the game that doesn't know the rules, not you.

 

[Siretu]

> since I don't know the rules
It's the game that doesn't know the rules, not you.

Oh, now I understand the point of this. Interesting, I have to think about it... I'd say it depends on the game.

If it's a chess game, I'd always see you cheat and accusing you in front of the judge is just another thing to do that I don't see as funny.

On the other hand, let's say you got a fast-phased action-game where you got your hands full worrying about not getting your head shot off. In such a game there's a big chance that I'll get away with cheating, making it worth the risk.

 

[Xorifelse]

And what if a player miss clicks the mouse on a unwanted square on the chess-board. He will be punished, while it was an incident?

However a game not enforcing the rules is a new element which I'd like to see in board and ( or ) card games , and only those games with preferably an on \ off check box.
To avoid incidents, you could simply throw a warning towards the user that he's cheating if he continues this action, then you could choose to ignore the warning in the future.

And perhaps some idea's is that players work with karma. False accusing a player of cheating get's you to loose karma. Right accusing writes negative karma towards the cheater and positive karma towards you.

The idea is a good one, only your explanation is a bit confusing, Artificial hit it right on.

 

[SerraAvenger]

And what if a player miss clicks the mouse on a unwanted square on the chess-board. He will be punished, while it was an incident?

However a game not enforcing the rules is a new element which I'd like to see in board and ( or ) card games , and only those games with preferably an on \ off check box.
To avoid incidents, you could simply throw a warning towards the user that he's cheating if he continues this action, then you could choose to ignore the warning in the future.

And perhaps some idea's is that players work with karma. False accusing a player of cheating get's you to loose karma. Right accusing writes negative karma towards the cheater and positive karma towards you.

The idea is a good one, only your explanation is a bit confusing, Artificial hit it right on.

"And what if a player miss clicks the mouse on a unwanted square on the chess-board. He will be punished, while it was an incident?"
Since the game doesn't enforce the rules (it doesn't even know about turns and stuff), he might just type "oops!" and take the move back again

 

[Xorifelse]

"And what if a player miss clicks the mouse on a unwanted square on the chess-board. He will be punished, while it was an incident?"
Since the game doesn't enforce the rules (it doesn't even know about turns and stuff), he might just type "oops!" and take the move back again

That would significantly increase the duration of the game, which doesn't matter if your playing with friends or family because it's different than playing online games where there is literally no real-left human interaction.

Adding cheating intentionally to a computer game is a fun new element, makes you pay more attention to the game, but not at the cost of time. The game should register if you're cheating and warn the user if he made a mistake, with the ability to correct the mistake or intentional cheat later on in the game. If the cheat has been made aware by the cheater, the other player has the option to forgive or punish. Atleast that's my idea of all this.

If you really stand by your decision I'm changing my vote, but that would make your topic non-arguable which is in most cases kinda useless to post.

Just keep in mind that this is a computer game, which needs to take the entertainment from the game play instead of your surrounding. I hardly play board games on the computer, it's just not as much fun when playing it with your friends and family. Delaying the game play with users who occasionally or sometimes intentionally make a mistake just to throw you of the game is just plain annoying. If the player decides to cheat it should be done intentionally, not incidentally.

Edit:
The thing your saying can only be done with people you can trust, but between you and me I never trust people i meet over the Internet. Especially if you just met the guy in the game lobby. It's like playing a board game with a total stranger, simply a guy who could steal from me.

 

[tom_mai78101]

Thinking clearly...

A game that lets you control the environment, but doesn't automatically tell you that you're doing something wrong or right.

I have two thoughts on this: Abstraction, and Freedom

Abstraction:

You put in the variables, the math function does the work, and you get your answer. A game works that way, as you need to use a looping function for you to continuously play the game, in which itself is a math function.

Such a game clearly never exists. Because it needs to live on at least 1 math function, which is a rule itself.

Translation:

"You have an addition math function. For the function to give you back an answer, you need to input twice the amount of the answer for it to work." That phrase right there, is a game mimicking an environment without rules. In short, the game does not exist.


Freedom:

The law of freedom is itself a rule for freedom. How do a person know that "freedom" exists without such a rule? You need at least one simple gameplay rule for players to know the answer to all what/when/where/who/how questions.

 

[SerraAvenger]

Okay. Couple of input from my side here:
1. "Cheating"
This is not the point : ) Perhaps you are right when you say that the game is more fun with friends, but then you could just play with friends. Playing chess / other board games online with friends is interesting. IIRC, Romek said that before.
Cheating on purpose is a very interesting concept too, but not part of this discussion (yet?).

2. No rules
a) You can always make rules with your friends. Ofc it's not good when playing with complete strangers...
b) usually there would be rules, just that the game doesn't care about them. Just like a chess board doesn't care if you touch one figure and move another, or move when it's not your turn (the chess board doesn't know about turns and figures anyway)

You see, you and your co players have complete freedom. You can obey the rules, or you can't. In fact it should be possible to invent new rules while playing since the game doesn't enforce any rules. On the other hand, cheating is virtually "possible", just like cheating in a board game. It shouldn't really happen though.

I think a deck of cards is a much better example:
You can play canasta, skat, texas hold'em, and so on and so on - all because the heap of cards doesn't know what game it's part of.

Playing such a computer game could be like having a deck of cards: You can play this, that, or invent your own card game...

 

[tom_mai78101]

So, the game starts off with some simple rules, and the player is allowed to break the rules? In that case, it depends on both players. It's not always global...

Still, I support my vote, for loss of words.

 

[Siretu]

I think a deck of cards is a much better example:
You can play canasta, skat, texas hold'em, and so on and so on - all because the heap of cards doesn't know what game it's part of.

Playing such a computer game could be like having a deck of cards: You can play this, that, or invent your own card game...

I like the card explanation. I'd like such a game, but I figure it would be hard to make the framework for more than a couple of games.

Even if you tried to race with your chess pieces or something, there's not that much that you would be able to do in the game. It'd have to be almost like a virtual reality?

Also, playing this over the net with someone you get matched up with(like battle.net) would be quite hard and the are always morons who destroys the games for fun.

Doing it with some friends would be fun though, if you got a good base that allows many types of gameplay.

 

[SerraAvenger]

I like the card explanation. I'd like such a game, but I figure it would be hard to make the framework for more than a couple of games.

Even if you tried to race with your chess pieces or something, there's not that much that you would be able to do in the game. It'd have to be almost like a virtual reality?

Dunno. Depends on the framework. With cards it should be quite easy, since there aren't many operations you can perform on them =D
(take, shuffle pile, face up/down, look at )

Also, playing this over the net with someone you get matched up with(like battle.net) would be quite hard and the are always morons who destroys the games for fun.

Doing it with some friends would be fun though, if you got a good base that allows many types of gameplay.

exactly my point(s) here...


@tom_mai78101
online roleplaying (not like WoW, but like in this forum) does exactly what I'm trying to explain. So you think they are unplayable? Fine. Miz & pineapple are altering reality then...

 

[tom_mai78101]

@tom_mai78101
online roleplaying (not like WoW, but like in this forum) does exactly what I'm trying to explain. So you think they are unplayable? Fine. Miz & pineapple are altering reality then...

It depends on the game itself, to say what rules are and how to and not to break them.

I support my vote, is because at that time I don't know how should I say it to make it sound like I truly support that vote.

I still don't know how to rephrase it into a wonderful speech...

 

[Samael88]

If you are talking about an MMORPG then it sounds like an interesting idea.
If you are then I am thinking something along the ways of the Elder scrolls(oblivion) online^^

An MMO where the players determine what the items are worth and who owns which city and so on, that would be just plain awesome:thup:

On the other hand, if you are talking about cardgames and boardgames then NO:thdown:
I think that not having to think about the rules and just play is one of if not the best thing about having those types of games on a computer so that would just simply ruin it in some ways.

 

[housefull]

I agree with esb, but it would be full of retards who just screwed around.
Thanks

 

[Varine]

As opposed to retards who don't screw around? I don't know what else to really do in an MMORGP.