Honestly, I can't believe that it would take them 540 years to address the CLEAR imbalances in the original game.
Chess 2: The Sequel
Game » consists of 2 releases. Released Jan 21, 2014
A chess variant that seeks to address the more common barriers to getting into the game. An Ouya timed-exclusive.
It's about time
Chess variants aren't a new thing, but until David Sirlin, none have had the hubris to call their variant "Chess 2: The Sequel."
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
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.
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.
@fisk0 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.
@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.
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.
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.
@fisk0 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.
Hope Pawns got a buff
They did. Rather the different armies favor different playstyles. One of them (Nemesis) favors pawns.
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.
@fisk0 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.
@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"
Ouya baby, fuck yeah!
2 Chess 2 Furious
Wow.
@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.
@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!
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!
@fisk0 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.
Please Log In to post.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment