#1 Edited by Gyrfal (104 posts) -

Honestly, I can't believe that it would take them 540 years to address the CLEAR imbalances in the original game.

#2 Posted by groin (837 posts) -

Doctor David Sirloin has a habit of rebalancing well established games (Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo) and alienating everyone who enjoyed the original game.

#3 Edited by cloudymusic (1051 posts) -

Chess variants aren't a new thing, but until David Sirlin, none have had the hubris to call their variant "Chess 2: The Sequel."

#4 Posted by Milkman (16526 posts) -

I heard they're totally dumbing the sequel down for casuals. Fucking bullshit.

Online
#5 Posted by Unequivocable (214 posts) -

Knights are OP.

#6 Posted by Pezen (1562 posts) -

This time, it's personal.

#7 Posted by Gyrfal (104 posts) -

Did you guys hear about that controversial decision at the Chess 2 International? They had to replay a match because the Ouya crashed.

#8 Edited by Xeiphyer (5594 posts) -

I'm just going to spend $80 on microtransactions to get a team consisting completely of Queens.

#9 Posted by JoeyRavn (4948 posts) -

If they are making a sequel to Chess, then let's do this right and bring the hard pressing matters to the forefront. Is the original Chess racist? The answer will shock you.

Yes. And sexist.

#10 Posted by Video_Game_King (36000 posts) -

So Fairy Chess isn't canon?

#11 Edited by YoungFrey (1321 posts) -

To steal a gag. "Chess 2: The 2nd Chess game"

#12 Posted by buft (3301 posts) -

I heard its a moba.

rook bottom lane "buy wards scrub pawn"

#13 Posted by SomberOwl (637 posts) -

There need to be a good console standard chess game in the first place. Thats what I would like.

#14 Edited by Rejizzle (259 posts) -

I'm sick and tired of devs rehashing the same old ideas. Come up with a new IP already damnit!

#15 Posted by crithon (3081 posts) -

and it's Ouya exclusive..... well that's done.

#16 Edited by TheHT (10880 posts) -

I heard they were merging units in an effort to create a more visceral and immediately satisfying experience, while making matches snappier and more tactical. Everything is now a queen.

#17 Edited by casper_ (901 posts) -

Damn it Sirlin!!!!!

#18 Posted by huser (1042 posts) -

@gyrfal said:

Honestly, I can't believe that it would take them 540 years to address the CLEAR imbalances in the original game.

Queen is OP. King is way too nerfed for his narrative importance.

#19 Edited by GorillaMoPena (1926 posts) -

There is a new win condition (in addition to checkmates) forcrossing the midline with your king. This makes the game very aggressive and practically eliminates draws from the game.

http://ludemegames.com/chess2/

THE GAME DONE CHANGED

BOLD

#20 Posted by gkhan (417 posts) -

En passant is total bullshit, you guys, TOTAL BULLSHIT! It's the "secret rule you didn't know about" rule to rule them all.

#21 Posted by Superkenon (1388 posts) -

King me.

#22 Posted by benspyda (2030 posts) -

We've changed the name of all the pawns to porns and now if you lose one, you have to remove a piece of clothing. Chess 3.0

#23 Posted by Ryuku_Ryosake (202 posts) -

From what I can gleam from this thread. This game must be the dark middle chapter.

#24 Edited by BisonHero (6169 posts) -

Haha, David Sirlin, what a joke that guy is.

I mean really, read this, and tell me you don't think this guy is an asshole who is disliked by most of his family and acquaintances.

#25 Posted by fisk0 (3849 posts) -

Haha, David Sirlin, what a joke that guy is.

I mean really, read this, and tell me you don't think this guy is an asshole who is disliked by most of his family and acquaintances.

... I didn't see anything particularly bad about that? I thought it was surprisingly applicable to the recent discussions about how to play Dark Souls - lots of people with weird self-imposed rules of what is the proper way to play, calling alternate or simply more efficient ways cheap or easy mode.

#26 Posted by SirOptimusPrime (1946 posts) -

There is a new win condition (in addition to checkmates) forcrossing the midline with your king. This makes the game very aggressive and practically eliminates draws from the game.

http://ludemegames.com/chess2/

THE GAME DONE CHANGED

BOLD

I just punched a wall that is the best sentence I HAVE EVER READ IN MY LIFE.

#27 Edited by BisonHero (6169 posts) -

@fisk0 said:

@bisonhero said:

Haha, David Sirlin, what a joke that guy is.

I mean really, read this, and tell me you don't think this guy is an asshole who is disliked by most of his family and acquaintances.

... I didn't see anything particularly bad about that? I thought it was surprisingly applicable to the recent discussions about how to play Dark Souls - lots of people with weird self-imposed rules of what is the proper way to play, calling alternate or simply more efficient ways cheap or easy mode.

I don't think it's applicable to Dark Souls, since he is specifically mentioning competitive multiplayer.

I just think game theory nerds tend to sound like idiots, because games with humans aren't the same as games being played by AI, there are social ramifications to your actions, and his ethos basically completely disregards any sense of good sportsmanship in competition unless it is strictly written in the rule book.

#28 Posted by jakeh (51 posts) -

Hope Pawns got a buff

#29 Posted by Zaccheus (1788 posts) -

This is pretty great. Thank you guys.

#30 Posted by Slag (4001 posts) -

Ain't no Checkers 2, that's for sure.

Online
#31 Posted by cmblasko (1122 posts) -

@bisonhero: He doesn't disregard good sportsmanship at all. Not sure how you derived that from the link you posted.

And yeah, people give him a hard time about rebalancing HD Remix, but the guy is a good game designer.

#32 Posted by ShaggE (6331 posts) -

Knight Armor DLC. Calling it now.

#33 Edited by Vuud (1943 posts) -

I hope they add new maps.

So if this really is OUYA exclusive, for how many days will it remain so?

#34 Posted by Gard3 (25 posts) -

The ultimate developer slapdown - to hell with original IPs, just remake chess and COD and MOH 93000 times.

#35 Posted by FlipperDesert (2081 posts) -

I always wanted to see what happened next in the story. I hope they don't screw it up, I loved the original as a kid, I even brought the board game.

#36 Edited by Dizzyhippos (1367 posts) -

if games were scored purely on there pitch this would be a 5star for sure

#37 Posted by Nux (2305 posts) -

Queens were WAY to OP. Hopefully they finally nerfed them.

#38 Posted by biggiedubs (493 posts) -

Chess 2 is really complicated! Most of the pieces move mostly the same way, with little tweaks for each individual team, but I'm really not sure about the 'Duel' system.

When someone tries to capture one of your pieces, you can 'Duel' with someone over it. Both sides have a certain about of 'Stones' and if your on the defense and and play the same amount or more stones than your opponent (either 0,1 or 2 stones) then both the captured and the aggressor gets taken off the board. I need to play with more people who aren't the computer, but I can't see it be anything that really annoying. It does bring the pawns more into the game though, as you gain a stone every time you take one.

It's interesting, but seems a bit too complicated for its own good.

#39 Edited by StarvingGamer (7995 posts) -

@fisk0 said:

@bisonhero said:

Haha, David Sirlin, what a joke that guy is.

I mean really, read this, and tell me you don't think this guy is an asshole who is disliked by most of his family and acquaintances.

... I didn't see anything particularly bad about that? I thought it was surprisingly applicable to the recent discussions about how to play Dark Souls - lots of people with weird self-imposed rules of what is the proper way to play, calling alternate or simply more efficient ways cheap or easy mode.

I don't think it's applicable to Dark Souls, since he is specifically mentioning competitive multiplayer.

I just think game theory nerds tend to sound like idiots, because games with humans aren't the same as games being played by AI, there are social ramifications to your actions, and his ethos basically completely disregards any sense of good sportsmanship in competition unless it is strictly written in the rule book.

Man, what is with all this random Sirlin hate. If there are social ramifications to me using throws and tossing a bunch of fireballs in Street Fighter, then I probably need a new social circle.

Online
#40 Posted by YoungFrey (1321 posts) -

@jakeh said:

Hope Pawns got a buff

They did. Rather the different armies favor different playstyles. One of them (Nemesis) favors pawns.

@nux said:

Queens were WAY to OP. Hopefully they finally nerfed them.

Kinda. But there is an army (Reaper) where Queens can teleport. If you have an opponent who wants to lean on the queen, they can do so with a vengeance in Chess 2: The Sequel.

#41 Posted by BisonHero (6169 posts) -

@bisonhero said:

@fisk0 said:

@bisonhero said:

Haha, David Sirlin, what a joke that guy is.

I mean really, read this, and tell me you don't think this guy is an asshole who is disliked by most of his family and acquaintances.

... I didn't see anything particularly bad about that? I thought it was surprisingly applicable to the recent discussions about how to play Dark Souls - lots of people with weird self-imposed rules of what is the proper way to play, calling alternate or simply more efficient ways cheap or easy mode.

I don't think it's applicable to Dark Souls, since he is specifically mentioning competitive multiplayer.

I just think game theory nerds tend to sound like idiots, because games with humans aren't the same as games being played by AI, there are social ramifications to your actions, and his ethos basically completely disregards any sense of good sportsmanship in competition unless it is strictly written in the rule book.

Man, what is with all this random Sirlin hate. If there are social ramifications to me using throws and tossing a bunch of fireballs in Street Fighter, then I probably need a new social circle.

Yes, using throws and fireballs in SF is a harmless example. Still, unless I'm wildly misinterpreting it, Sirlin's thinking would also extend to things like "always give your opponent the DQ when they accidentally pause at a big tourney like EVO". Which certainly happens, but you look like a world-class douche, and plenty of players won't DQ their opponent because what sort of a win is that if you win on the back of that DQ?

I remember also thinking that his opinion on the badminton shenanigans in the 2012 Summer Olympics was quite stupid:

http://www.sirlin.net/blog/2012/8/1/playing-to-win-in-badminton.html

He says the people who threw matches were playing to win by arranging easier matchups later in the tournament due their loss, yet clearly since there is a rule forbidding “not using one’s best efforts to win a match”, they were pretty shitty at playing to win. Yet Sirlin still endorses their behaviour, which makes him a hypocrite because they blatantly disregarded a rule that was clearly going to get them disqualified. So apparently you should do everything in your power to win within the given ruleset, unless David Sirlin arbitrarily doesn't like one of the rules because it's a rule more about good sportsmanship than game theory or advanced skill.

#42 Posted by GERALTITUDE (2917 posts) -

@siroptimusprime said:

I just punched a wall that is the best sentence I HAVE EVER READ IN MY LIFE.

Yeah I gotta chisel that into stone and set it above my desk.

"Chess 1 was a hit, no doubt about it"

#43 Edited by Fredchuckdave (5338 posts) -

Ouya baby, fuck yeah!

#44 Posted by ripelivejam (3538 posts) -

2 Chess 2 Furious

#45 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5338 posts) -
#46 Posted by StarvingGamer (7995 posts) -

@bisonhero: And I agree with him. If I'm in a tournament with thousands of dollars on the line, I'd be an idiot not to take a win by DQ. And if the rules of a game are so fucked that winning actually puts me at a disadvantage then I'd be an idiot not to throw the match.

Online
#47 Edited by Cybertification (197 posts) -

@gkhan said:

En passant is total bullshit, you guys, TOTAL BULLSHIT! It's the "secret rule you didn't know about" rule to rule them all.

Yes, but when both players know of it it makes for a more interesting game! You could remove en passant but that would involve removing pawns ability to move two steps.

I don't know why I took that seriously.

#48 Edited by Superfriend (1526 posts) -

They split the fucking userbase. No more chess matchmaking for me.

#49 Posted by Danteveli (1160 posts) -

@siroptimusprime said:

I just punched a wall that is the best sentence I HAVE EVER READ IN MY LIFE.

Yeah I gotta chisel that into stone and set it above my desk.

"Chess 1 was a hit, no doubt about it"

I need to write a rap with this as a line!

#50 Posted by KoolAid (837 posts) -

If you check the comments of that badminton article, your argument is addressed. And the response is that a rule such as "use one's best efforts" is a band-aid rule that exists to address this obvious flaw in the rule set and just proves how flawed the rules where. Furthermore, rules that are not discrete and strictly enforceable should be avoided at all costs in game design. In other words, rules should address concrete concepts (did he go over the line and therefore out of bounds?) instead of subjective ones (was he trying his hardest? Let me put on my mind reading hat.)

The great thing about games is that their results are absolute. Person A beat person B. Period. That's what playing to win is: trying to win, to be better. It doesn't address abstract and subjective concepts like morality, or sportsmanship. It's just trying to figure out who is better at a game, which is a fact that can be proved. These other concepts are subjective and can be debated. I think Sirlin's point is that it is much preferable that facts (such as how many points where scored) dictate game results instead of the subjective feelings of a referee.

Furthermore, Sirlin's theories do not cover the entire realm of games. There is a big difference between playing for fun and competitive play. If the goal is to just have fun playing a game, then by all means mess around and do whatever you want. If you curb stomp your friends during a friendly game to prove your dominance, then yeah, that's probably a dick move. But if you both are competing to figure out who is best, then by all means, you should try your best to win. The idea of the scrub is he thinks he is trying to compete to prove he is the best, but he is just trying to have fun and keep the game "friendly" or whatever. He's trying to be honorable, not trying to win. Which is fine I guess, but he shouldn't be mad he loses when he doesn't try his best.

Sometimes playing for fun is really hard though, because the rules are usually designed to be competitive. I have friends who try to play poker just for fun. They want a friendly game and get frustrated when there is aggressive play that forces them to fold, because its not fun when you are not playing. But that's how Poker is played. That's like wanting to play a friendly game of boxing and getting mad when you get punched in the face.

Sorry this is turning into a really long post but I wanted to address everything you said and game theory is complicated. As for the DQ for pressing the start button thing, I think that yes, if you where given to option to just auto win, you should take it. However, that sounds like a really shitty game, both for the players and the audience. To bring it back to badminton for a sec, Sirlin's original lesson is that there are rules, even small ones, that can have a big impact and make games shittier. In badminton's case, it was knowing who you would face depending on if you win or lose. Having the a player be able to force a DQ seems like a bad thing too. I would treat it like low blows in a UFC match. Imagine if when someone got hit in the nuts, the ref would stop the fight and ask the guy if he wanted to auto win right there. Of course he would say yes! So instead the ref issues warning or takes a point away. I would say at EVO, the ref should decide how to treat each pause, and issue a DQ if necessary. Of course, this runs into the problem outlined in the first paragraph, subjective rules. The ref has to guess if the player hit pause on purpose or not. And if the player was playing to win, he would probably also get really good at "accidentally" hitting pause at the right time, just like there is lots of holding in football even though it is against the rules. So probably the best solution would be a game that make pausing impossible while in tournament mode or something. But until that happens, we have to settle for this shitty subjective rule.

Damn, that was a lotta post. But this shit really is complicated! And that's good! Games are awesome!

@starvinggamer said:
@bisonhero said:

@fisk0 said:

@bisonhero said:

Haha, David Sirlin, what a joke that guy is.

I mean really, read this, and tell me you don't think this guy is an asshole who is disliked by most of his family and acquaintances.

... I didn't see anything particularly bad about that? I thought it was surprisingly applicable to the recent discussions about how to play Dark Souls - lots of people with weird self-imposed rules of what is the proper way to play, calling alternate or simply more efficient ways cheap or easy mode.

I don't think it's applicable to Dark Souls, since he is specifically mentioning competitive multiplayer.

I just think game theory nerds tend to sound like idiots, because games with humans aren't the same as games being played by AI, there are social ramifications to your actions, and his ethos basically completely disregards any sense of good sportsmanship in competition unless it is strictly written in the rule book.

Man, what is with all this random Sirlin hate. If there are social ramifications to me using throws and tossing a bunch of fireballs in Street Fighter, then I probably need a new social circle.

Yes, using throws and fireballs in SF is a harmless example. Still, unless I'm wildly misinterpreting it, Sirlin's thinking would also extend to things like "always give your opponent the DQ when they accidentally pause at a big tourney like EVO". Which certainly happens, but you look like a world-class douche, and plenty of players won't DQ their opponent because what sort of a win is that if you win on the back of that DQ?

I remember also thinking that his opinion on the badminton shenanigans in the 2012 Summer Olympics was quite stupid:

http://www.sirlin.net/blog/2012/8/1/playing-to-win-in-badminton.html

He says the people who threw matches were playing to win by arranging easier matchups later in the tournament due their loss, yet clearly since there is a rule forbidding “not using one’s best efforts to win a match”, they were pretty shitty at playing to win. Yet Sirlin still endorses their behaviour, which makes him a hypocrite because they blatantly disregarded a rule that was clearly going to get them disqualified. So apparently you should do everything in your power to win within the given ruleset, unless David Sirlin arbitrarily doesn't like one of the rules because it's a rule more about good sportsmanship than game theory or advanced skill.