complexmath wrote:

Yeah, I've had this thought as well. It's actually pretty interesting from a game theory perspective, but games people play aren't really the same as "games" in game theory.

I'd agree that technically any game is a "game" in game theory if I understand correctly. That being said, I agree that the "games" of game theory are usually simpler and less straight forward. Something like a fighting game for example could be simplified into a pretty simple matrix. Each player has a decent understanding of their payout matrix and a guess at their opponents and they form strategies. These are both single occurances and sequences of events.

Away from that nonsense though, I think a really simple game like this that can be explained and understood in a single sentence is interesting if people try to "beat" the game. What is a good strategy, what player types are there, what are the outcome payouts?

I dig it.

doubtingthomas396 wrote:

I stand by my own definitions of terms, but it's not my job to change how everybody else uses words.

That's Wordsmythe's job. :)

"O hai!"

Hurray, I won! Thanks internet, for not paying attention to this game for the past 5 minutes.
Man, I can't believe there's no score board or winners wall or ANYTHING. What a rip.

Anyways, here's my winning strategy: run the game and then surf GWJ until it disappears. If it does then run it again.
One of these days I will get around to writing a trainer program to go with the game. Yes, a script that launches it if detects that it's not running.. *scheming*.

It is important to note that a "Game Jam" is an event wherein a bunch of small teams try to make complete games in one weekend, about 48 hours; it's not really the same deal as a film festival, where people bring completed works. So when you're talking about what awards this thing won or how much of a game it is, you may need to add "...made in 48 hours" to the end of your sentence. ie: "Most innovative game made in 48 hours."

As for the art thing, I'm attending a program at my university (SFU) called the "School of Interactive Arts and Technology", which is sort of like a design school for people without portfolios, and the perspective of what "art" is around here often centers more around things like defining interactivity than it does around the traditional arts disciplines. Ultimately I think art is as art does, the context creates the definition, Marcel Duchamp, blah blah blah.

I think the big beef 'art' people have with the use of the term is that many people will look at something they like (say, the ill-fated MMO game Uru) and conclude that it is a work of art because they believe it to be of high quality or importance, when in fact it was never created or received in the context of 'art' as a process, a community or an artifact.

I want others to win, so I'll pass on playing it...what a nice guy!!

The problem with art discussions, as many have pointed out, is semantics. Everyone has their own definition of art and none of them are actually wrong because the very definition of art is so ridiculously inclusive that you then have to start assigning nonsensical variations, like Art with a capital A, to the specific definitions just to get across what the hell you're trying to say. Then you run into the problem of people drawing the line between art and Art in different places, and you can't actually tell them where the correct place to draw the line is because art is such a shapeless concept that the introduction of a new style, medium or message can wildly redefine art at the core level, so the word art ends up wrapping its amorphous blob head around itself and up its own ass and you wind up with these circular debates that inevitably turn into arguments over the definition of a now meaningless word. Now any attempt to set ground rules of what art means and where that line is drawn becomes an attempt to turn art into a science, which some would argue goes against the very nature of art, and then you've already lost. Or won. Nobody knows for sure because nobody knows what the hell they're talking about.

If art can't be anything but art, then art can't be anything.

You could say that game mechanics, music, graphics, story, character and technology are not where the art lies. The art lies in the message conveyed to the player through the skillfully combined use of those things. The game, therefore, isn't the art. The game is merely a vessel, delivering the art.

And now there's a visualizer for the ultimate griefing experience.

Spunior wrote:

And now there's a visualizer for the ultimate griefing experience.

That's pretty interesting to watch all by itself...

Hah! At last...


Spunior wrote:

Hah! At last...

Checkmate, internet!

Arizona and I seem to be the only ones on at the moment

Spunior wrote:

And now there's a visualizer for the ultimate griefing experience.

That visualizer rocks. I managed to fend off some chumps in Florida and Turkey to claim victory over the Internet.

Dammit, I turn my scheduled job off for five minutes and Spunior scoots in for the win.


Finally! I figured 3:30AM on Halloween Night I'd have a good shot. Now I can finally remove this from my desktop.

i just lost the game