next »

[Incision]

Yeah, maybe you should first explain why anyone should be covering your little list.

Anyway, here's something for the intelligent people in the thread, because it is the one reasonable point you brought up:

Human psychology is part of EVERY game involving human players. So it's cancelled out when you are comparing the possibility spaces of different games. I.e. Chess will always be a more complicated game than Rock-Paper-Scissors, etc. Nothing changes when you factor in the human brain.

http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?p=7158#7158

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

did he ever claim that complexity is an objective measurement? it's obviously not -- it's not something you can measure with a measuring rod or a thermometer, there's no 'unit of icycalm's complexity', it's a matter of individual judgment. i don't think he ever claimed otherwise

[Incision]

For the people too lazy to click and read, like, four sentences:

In fact, in this case we don't even know this "absolute complexity", since we haven't even devised a unit for measuring it.

What we need is the relative complexity, and the only way I can see for us to measure it is the one I described.

But getting back to "absolute complexity", there may indeed be a way for us to measure it, but, like I've already said, I do not currently have the necessary mathematical tools for that. I think the key is in the so-called "truth-functions" and the logic of Frege, Russell, et al.

[mirosurabu]

Yeah, maybe you should first explain why anyone should be covering your little list.

Anyway, here's something for the intelligent people in the thread, because it is the one reasonable point you brought up:

Human psychology is part of EVERY game involving human players. So it's cancelled out when you are comparing the possibility spaces of different games. I.e. Chess will always be a more complicated game than Rock-Paper-Scissors, etc. Nothing changes when you factor in the human brain.

http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?p=7158#7158

I fucking pwned him and you have no fucking way out of the situation, so yeah why not question my list with a huge delay! Of course my list is important because he does talk about complexity as if its objective matter.

He is total noob who has fucking no clue about game theory. Look at his ideas, they are hilarious.

[eva]

you don't just declare yourself a "winner" when literally no one agrees with you

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

I fucking pwned him and you have no fucking way out of the situation, so yeah why not question my list with a huge delay! Of course my list is important because he does talk about complexity as if its objective matter.

He is total noob who has fucking no clue about game theory. Look at his ideas, they are hilarious.

this sounds like something icycalm would say

[eva]

except icycalm would actually explain why

[mirosurabu]

Take game of chance that is blackjack for example. Now take it outside of the casino where its treated as pure gambling. Now set aside a complete noob who has never played blackjack in his life and a good advantage player. The advantage player will beat shit out of him. What is the distance between them? Is the distance larger or smaller than distance between Kasparov and a noob chess player? How can you determine that? You can't.

It's non-sense.

As for tossing a coin, I can't speak for that. Or RPS. But poker is pretty skillful as you can learn the patterns and dominate other players and especially noobs.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

you could probably deal with that situation by saying that those are two different forms of blackjack, hence two different 'games'

much like 1v1 and 2v2 in starcraft are usually considered vastly different games, with different strategies and techniques and skills required

[eva]

or playing a game with a handicap setting

[eva]

anyway incision already posted icycalm's comment on it: there is no way to objectively measure it. quit claiming he's claiming to being able to literally measure it

For the people too lazy to click and read, like, four sentences:

In fact, in this case we don't even know this "absolute complexity", since we haven't even devised a unit for measuring it.

What we need is the relative complexity, and the only way I can see for us to measure it is the one I described.

But getting back to "absolute complexity", there may indeed be a way for us to measure it, but, like I've already said, I do not currently have the necessary mathematical tools for that. I think the key is in the so-called "truth-functions" and the logic of Frege, Russell, et al.

[mirosurabu]

did he ever claim that complexity is an objective measurement? it's obviously not -- it's not something you can measure with a measuring rod or a thermometer, there's no 'unit of icycalm's complexity', it's a matter of individual judgment. i don't think he ever claimed otherwise

You're making shit up. But if we disregard his hilarious statement that his website will eventually have only one reader (that is him), since he's preaching about what game should be like, he's implicitly stating he's objective. If he claims that one game is more complex than another, that is expected to be objective. Otherwise there is no point in saying that in the first place.

This is not only related to Tony as his followers claim that such things can be objectively measurable too. So please, what's your point?

I think I'm answering trivial questions here.

[eva]

Haha, this is a fun read. It only shows how subjective his methodology is though. There is no proper way to measure "distance" between the worst and the best players. It's just completely subjective measure.

I fucking pwned him and you have no fucking way out of the situation, so yeah why not question my list with a huge delay! Of course my list is important because he does talk about complexity as if its objective matter.
He is total noob who has fucking no clue about game theory. Look at his ideas, they are hilarious.

But if we disregard his hilarious statement that his website will eventually have only one reader (that is him), since he's preaching about what game should be like, he's implicitly stating he's objective

You're making shit up.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

@miro

do you believe that everything objective is measurable? i can think of many things which are objective, but not measurable

also, keep in mind the distinction between subjective judgement of an objective quality, and the quality itself being subjective -- he's not saying the quality itself is subjective, just that the measurement of that quality is subjective (because there is currently no way to measure it, although in theory it can be measured)

[Rob Lach]

this thread:

http://www.wimp.com/taekwondofight/

[mirosurabu]

@miro

do you believe that everything objective is measurable? i can think of many things which are objective, but not measurable

also, keep in mind the distinction between subjective judgement of an objective quality, and the quality itself being subjective -- he's not saying the quality itself is subjective, just that the measurement of that quality is subjective (because there is currently no way to measure it, although in theory it can be measured)

I got lost in your attempt to read hard between his lines. You shouldn't do that. Let him and his followers speak for themselves. They can write like a grown men, can't they? It's not my responsibility to read between lines because you can read anything you want that way. It's his responsibility to communicate his ideas clearly.

It was said by one of his followers that complexity and art are objectively measurable and that authorial intent isn't, so please do consider the contrast.

[eva]

yea a "follower" is a much more credible source of icycalm's opinions than icycalm.

[William Broom]

I have no idea how you move from "criticism is useful for pointing interesting games out to people" to "criticism requires definitive criteria that can be ranked".

Could you elaborate on that? Because you've completely lost me.

Well, pretty much in the same way that icycalm moves there. For you to recommend games from a genre, you need to know what the good ones are. In order to do that, you need to rank them.
However, I'm probably thinking about 'genre' in a somewhat different way to icycalm. Maybe it would be better if I said 'set of criteria'. So if you wanted to recommend a game to someone who likes complexity/depth, that would be one set of criteria. (Icycalm agrees that you can do this - it's what he means when talks about 'ranking genres', since he is ranking all genres and thus all games according to their depth.)
However, you could also rank games according to other sets of criteria, so long as you can measure them. Things like "authorial intent" or "it made me feel warm inside" can't be quantified, so even though they might make for a good game, they have no place in criticism.

Take game of chance that is blackjack for example. Now take it outside of the casino where its treated as pure gambling. Now set aside a complete noob who has never played blackjack in his life and a good advantage player. The advantage player will beat shit out of him. What is the distance between them? Is the distance larger or smaller than distance between Kasparov and a noob chess player? How can you determine that? You can't.

I think this is a good question, but the answer is probably not "You can't." ...are there any icycalm supporters who have an answer to this?
I'm thinking we could maybe determine it by the average number of hours that the noob must study the game before equalling the pro. But that doesn't account for a natural talent or learned inclination, plus it would be quite hard to measure empirically.
Nevertheless, I think you can agree that there definitely is a wider gap between the blackjack players and the chess players. We just have to work out what exactly that gap is made up of - moving from instincts to reasons, as icycalm puts it.

[eva]

@broom that miroslav comment is silly. no one said there is an objective way to measure the distance, measuring it would be subjective. you could measure the skill gap by popular vote, time investment as you said, or whatever, and hopefully within their respective genres as that would be easier for comparison
i think anyone can agree that one fighting game is more complex than another fighting game without being "objective"


@miro
if you don't want to know what icycalm is fucking saying why are you arguing about what he's saying, it's because you're fucking stupid. write like "grown men" ? You sure write all proper, but read between your lines and it's a bunch of trash. trash trash trash trash trash trash trash trash

*states willful ignorance*

i don't see how that has to do anything with my point

show me
show me
show me

hah!! icycalm is wrong, i'm right!

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

I got lost in your attempt to read hard between his lines. You shouldn't do that. Let him and his followers speak for themselves. They can write like a grown men, can't they? It's not my responsibility to read between lines because you can read anything you want that way. It's his responsibility to communicate his ideas clearly.

It was said by one of his followers that complexity and art are objectively measurable and that authorial intent isn't, so please do consider the contrast.

this isn't really addressing what i said -- what part of what i said did you get lost in? should i rephrase it?