Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


#ActualActiveUnique

Posted 19 October 2013 - 08:24 PM

Because we have not passed the fundamental game mode definition yet, I'll extend the problem of understanding what it is by presenting an informal theory, I did not investigate if this is a real theory at all so you should know it's more of a quick funny idea I had on the spot .

 

I will be using common children's games such as tag and cops and robbers for an example.

 

If I'm not wrong we all understand tag is a game where a player who is "it" chases someone tags them and says "you're it" then they switch places until they get tired. Now the game can be played vanilla (no additional rules), where the entire point is kids run around poking, sometimes relying on deception such as "no I'm not" to cheat and they'll run away victorious somehow (I won't get into this). Introduction of new rules like "touch a tree, count to three, safety" and "freeze tag" give the game completely different modes by introducing rules, making trees useful, yes even more ways to cheat like fast counting and puppy guarding, but we still understand this to be tag.

 

Another example is cops and robbers, the players pretend to shoot and die, play acting more than anything. Theoretically someone may have a rule "cops always win," I'm not really sure if this is a variation or not. To compound the confusion of game modes, if this requires two players it apparently has  one mode, "cops always win" one player has lost, the other has won from the very beginning. The game is most likely to end after the robbers are dead, or a time limit is up, cops winning by default.

 

 

Informal Theory: The number of game modes present in a set containing sets of rules can be determined by finding out which rules will never intersect in a set of players who follow those rules correctly.

 

Maybe the theory definition could use work, but the examples should convey my complete meaning.

 

The two examples I stated are believed to have only one mode each before adding, changing, and breaking rules. However, this is because it is easily mistake that these games require two players. If you took these examples and designed a single player game out of Tag and another single player game out of cops and robbers you'd have two games, and three modes. If you used my Cops and Robbers example, you'd have two games, or two modes for one game.

 

How did I conclude this? The rule sets are applied to individual players, so they are not playing the same exact game all at once. They really have four different rule sets in all. Tag rules = {"player who is it", "player who is not it"}, Cops and Robbers rules = {"cop", "robber"}, so you see that's four different rule sets to follow, and two game rule sets. However, I did not say there were four modes, this is because some rules exchanged hands during the game of Tag. When a player who is it touches another, they will become it, so they swap roles (as well as rules) and they all played the same exact game, same opportunity. In the game of Cops and Robbers there is no swapping, if you started as a robber, you play as a robber, you are essentially playing Cops and Robbers: Robber "mode."

 

If I made a video game that was out of Cops and Robbers, I could take advantage of both rule sets by porting them to different modes in single player, I could also make a two player game. Players will have to choose between cop or robber to play as, unless I append a rule that they switch sides and a game is really a number of rounds... this is getting complicated fast.

 

If you had 20 different roles (each role has a rule set a player would follow) to play in a game, a 2 - 4 player game, each combination of roles create a very different experience and the game itself playing differently based on which set of player roles are accepted, unfortunately you still wouldn't know how many game modes there are because if any role could exchange hands at some point then it no longer adds a new mode. If the game changes because of the combination used, then theoretically each new set of rules available in the game would have to also count as additional game modes, but in all this is a finite number because it would be limited to the number of roles available.


#1ActiveUnique

Posted 19 October 2013 - 08:03 PM

Because we have not passed the fundamental game mode definition yet, I'll extend the problem of understanding what it is by presenting an informal theory, I did not investigate if this is a real theory at all so you should know it's more of a quick funny idea I had on the spot .

 

I will be using common children's games such as tag and cops and robbers for an example.

 

If I'm not wrong we all understand tag is a game where a player who is "it" chases someone tag them and say "you're it" then they switch places until being worn out. Now the game can be played vanilla (no additional rules), where the entire point is kids run around poking, sometimes relying on deception such as "no I'm not" to cheat and they'll run away victorious somehow (I won't get into this). Introduction of new rules like "touch a tree, count to three, safety" and "freeze tag" give the game completely different modes by introducing rules, making trees useful, yes even more ways to cheat like fast counting and puppy guarding, but we still understand this to be tag.

 

Another example is cops and robbers, the players pretend to shoot and die, play acting more than anything. Theoretically someone may have a rule "cops always win," I'm not really sure if this is a variation or not. To compound the confusion of game modes, if this requires 2 players it apparently has  one mode, "cops always win" one player has lost, the other has won from the very beginning. The game is most likely to end after the robbers are dead, or a time limit is up, cops winning by default.

 

 

Informal Theory: The number of game modes present in a set containing sets of rules can be determined by finding out which rules will never intersect in a set of players who follow those rules correctly.

 

Maybe the theory definition could use work, but the examples should convey my complete meaning.

 

The two examples I stated are believed to have only one mode each before adding, changing, and breaking rules. However, this is because it is easily mistake that these games require two players. If you took these examples and designed a single player game out of Tag and another single player game out of cops and robbers you'd have two games, and three modes. If you used my Cops and Robbers example, you'd have two games, or two modes for one game.

 

How did I conclude this? The rule sets are applied to individual players, so they are not playing the same exact game all at once. They really have four different rule sets in all. Tag = {"player who is it", "player who is not it"}, Cops and Robbers = {"cop", "robber"}, so you see that's four different rule sets to follow. However, I did not say there were four modes, this is because some rules exchanged hands during the game of Tag. When a player who is it touches another, they will become it, so they swap roles and they all played the same exact game, same opportunity. In the game of Cops and Robbers


PARTNERS