Adding a reboot button is ONLY necessary if the game isn’t made correctly. There is otherwise no reason to ever need to restart the game. I would see the addition of a restart option as lazy or an admission of failure by the dev.

almost nobody has put an actual maximiser in a game.

Turn based games would certainly have one. Generally it’s easier to create an AI that maximizes utility for the AI, it’s more difficult to tune it to not trounce the player lol.

This reminds me of how L4D does have that sort of indirect dynamic AI that spawns zombies based on the player’s behavior. If the players have a lot of ammo and health, or are going too slow, the game cranks up the threat. If you’re barely hanging on, the game holds back. I guess that’s not quite adversarial though, more like the AI is trying to maximize the players’ perception of a fun/fair challenge.

Yeah, certainly, sorry if that wasn’t clear. Up above I tried to stipulate that I was speaking from a game theory perspective.

And yeah, you can model the AI in a game in whichever way is most useful. I said as long as they have utility functions that differ from the player(s), but then you also can recursively define games in terms of winning games.

Ex. the famous case of the US deliberately losing battles to not give away that they had cracked the German cipher. Each battle could be modeled as a game, and the war could be modeled in terms of battles.

Similarly, a single room in wolfenstein could present an contained “game”, the outcome of which is applicable to which ending you get in the larger “game” (I haven’t played it), and thus the AI would be agents at one level, but state/strategy at another.

Depends if you define game ais as “agents”, otherwise your definition of game only allows multiplayer games.

AIs are agents when they have their own utility to maximize that differs from other agents (including the player).

their “win condition” is overwhelming you with dirt and hiding it in weird places.

Is that a thing? Does the map create more dirt as a function of the player’s actions? Does the player need to account for this and adjust their strategy to counter it? That would change my categorization, yes.

coop breaks your definition too

It depends. If all players have the same motive and there are no competing agents, then it’s a simulation. If players have different motives, then it’s a game. If players compete against AI agents, then it’s a game.

Maybe a better definition of “game” is needed

The formal definition of a game is:

K_a, {x_K}K∈K_a, x,K_i, {≻K}K∈K_i

I’m arguing that if the size of K_a==1 then it’s not a game, but that page is generous:

For games with a single coalition of action, the set of all situations may be taken to be the set of strategies of this unique coalition of action, and no further mention is made of strategies. Such games are therefore called non-strategic games. All remaining games, those with two or more coalitions of action, are called strategic games.

Which would include a person standing in a room doing nothing as a game. I’m saying that’s not a game, hope we agree lol.

You’re mentioning somebody that was extremely controversial. A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about, whether you like him or didn’t like him, things happen…

Red states have been sneaking bans on RCV for years. Remember when Missouri tacked it onto a bill that was marketed as banning non-US citizens from voting (something that was obviously already illegal).

There is a price to pay for being an uneducated, reactionary constituency, and the bill is coming due.

Well that’s not a good argument lol. That’s like saying doing quantum physics is just writing a bunch of shapes on paper and using words that most people don’t understand, so it’s basically the same as what a toddler does every day.

Most FPS games require developing a strategy or skill in order to reach the win condition. If it’s multiplayer, then the strategy development and execution require social interaction or deduction. It fits the definition of a “game” from a game theory perspective. There is more than one agent, they each have win conditions, and their actions prompt reactions from each other.

But this doesn’t, it’s a simulation. I assume it has an end condition, but the strategy is just “move towards it”. Maybe a game like Satisfactory is a more appropriate comparison. In both games you are making optimizations to move toward the end condition faster. You take actions, but there’s no competing agent with its own win condition responding to your actions.

Maybe there’s a compelling story to be had that the trailer is underplaying, idk. I don’t think Powerwash Simulator is hooking people with its story, though.

I don’t think I’ll ever understand why games like this are so successful lol. I guess it’s just the dopamine hits without the microtransactions? It’s not a “game”, though, not in a theoretical sense. More like busy work simulator.

While it may seem to be a smart money move, it can result in a costly productivity and innovation lag for the economy.

For the love of god! Won’t somebody think of the economy?!

Because they know the “party of anti-regulation/anti-nannie state” will never trust people to take care of themselves and someone will be forced to do it. They acknowledge either they will have to do a bunch of work and be liable when it fails, or some middle man will. So they choose the middle man.

“I hope that everyone sees, regardless of their specific reason, that the enemy is outside of the house. The people posing as Americans with big American opinions but are actually operating from a basement across the world have one common goal - to destroy the United States. We have our issues, but we really can’t allow them to succeed.”

Elon:

“Yeah, we’re just gonna turn that feature right back off here for a second…nothing to see, don’t worry about it.”

You forgot the Console Wars.

Smaller makes it more expensive. I hope it’ll be under $1000, but I think I wouldn’t be surprised if it were $1200.

What is happening, what is it you think I said? Why did you come back a day later and make a second irrelevant comment?

New track? Nice! Thanks for the heads up.

Historically, the only thing we’ve found that lowers wealth inequality is inevitably large scale war and death. And i don’t expect that to change before the next time it lowers.

I’ve been with my partner for 16 years. We met one of my friends for brunch last year, and afterwards he and I hung out, while my partner went home. Before she left, my friend said, “it was so good to see you <her name>” and hugged her. Then she turned to me and I said, “bye bitch, see ya at the house”. We laughed and she took off. My friend was like, “dude, I can’t believe you said that and she was cool with it. My gf would be pissed at me for days!”

So yeah, I got a good one :)

Why not 2012?

For Kony.

You forgot the best part: PT is not professional, but Chiropraction and Theology are.

If they were required to leave all meta platforms, then what would the experiment show? It sounds like the intention was to see where people shifted their time when they stopped using one meta product. If FB users primarily went to IG and vice versa, then it would indicate they held a monopoly. But it sounds like IG users primarily switched to TikTok and YouTube, not FB, indicating they are different products from each other and have different competition.