The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
A simple enough concept, really.
Scissors beats paper, which beats rock, which in turn beats the scissors.
Very similar to a lot of games, don't you think?
Let's take beat em ups, as an example.
We have "ordinary moves", "grabs", and "blocks/counters". You can pretty much sum up the vast majority of the play with just those three types of move.
Similar sort of thing with a lot of RTS games, too - eg, the regular troops will beat the ranged seige weapons, which beat the slow, armoured units, which beat the regular troops.
So, why is it that such an old game encapsulates the essence of so much of modern gaming? Was it ahead of its time?
Ever played rock scissors paper against a computer program?
It's not much fun - there's no psychology.
Perhaps this explains why computer opponents can never be as 'entertaining' as real life opposition?
Any thoughts?
Scissors beats paper, which beats rock, which in turn beats the scissors.
Very similar to a lot of games, don't you think?
Let's take beat em ups, as an example.
We have "ordinary moves", "grabs", and "blocks/counters". You can pretty much sum up the vast majority of the play with just those three types of move.
Similar sort of thing with a lot of RTS games, too - eg, the regular troops will beat the ranged seige weapons, which beat the slow, armoured units, which beat the regular troops.
So, why is it that such an old game encapsulates the essence of so much of modern gaming? Was it ahead of its time?
Ever played rock scissors paper against a computer program?
It's not much fun - there's no psychology.
Perhaps this explains why computer opponents can never be as 'entertaining' as real life opposition?
Any thoughts?
Page:
What you on about Pb? No one can beat Guile, he is invincible.
(;o|
(;o|
Ken beats Ryo, but Ryo can beat Guile, however Guile can beat Cammy....
Impossible algorithms... such a possibility.
I made a rock paper scissors game on a Texas graphical calculator once. You're right, there was no pshycology but interestingly enough, it almost always beat me. To this day I still can't work out why.
I get what you mean about the whole why things are the same. I think fighting moves are liek this as it is easy to naviagte and use. I dont really know much about it. The whole rankings in games like C&C are good mainly because it helps you understand what is going on and how you will do in a battle.
Good thing you quoted there, or people might've been unsure what you were replying to..
VenomByte wrote:
> A simple enough concept, really.
Scissors beats paper, which
> beats rock, which in turn beats the scissors.
Very similar to a
> lot of games, don't you think?
Let's take beat em ups, as an
> example.
We have "ordinary moves", "grabs",
> and "blocks/counters". You can pretty much sum up the vast
> majority of the play with just those three types of move.
Similar
> sort of thing with a lot of RTS games, too - eg, the regular troops
> will beat the ranged seige weapons, which beat the slow, armoured
> units, which beat the regular troops.
So, why is it that such an
> old game encapsulates the essence of so much of modern gaming? Was
> it ahead of its time?
Ever played rock scissors paper against a
> computer program?
It's not much fun - there's no
> psychology.
Perhaps this explains why computer opponents can
> never be as 'entertaining' as real life opposition?
Any
> thoughts?
I see your point here. Perhaps it is easier to make a game where some things are never change.
> A simple enough concept, really.
Scissors beats paper, which
> beats rock, which in turn beats the scissors.
Very similar to a
> lot of games, don't you think?
Let's take beat em ups, as an
> example.
We have "ordinary moves", "grabs",
> and "blocks/counters". You can pretty much sum up the vast
> majority of the play with just those three types of move.
Similar
> sort of thing with a lot of RTS games, too - eg, the regular troops
> will beat the ranged seige weapons, which beat the slow, armoured
> units, which beat the regular troops.
So, why is it that such an
> old game encapsulates the essence of so much of modern gaming? Was
> it ahead of its time?
Ever played rock scissors paper against a
> computer program?
It's not much fun - there's no
> psychology.
Perhaps this explains why computer opponents can
> never be as 'entertaining' as real life opposition?
Any
> thoughts?
I see your point here. Perhaps it is easier to make a game where some things are never change.
A simple enough concept, really.
Scissors beats paper, which beats rock, which in turn beats the scissors.
Very similar to a lot of games, don't you think?
Let's take beat em ups, as an example.
We have "ordinary moves", "grabs", and "blocks/counters". You can pretty much sum up the vast majority of the play with just those three types of move.
Similar sort of thing with a lot of RTS games, too - eg, the regular troops will beat the ranged seige weapons, which beat the slow, armoured units, which beat the regular troops.
So, why is it that such an old game encapsulates the essence of so much of modern gaming? Was it ahead of its time?
Ever played rock scissors paper against a computer program?
It's not much fun - there's no psychology.
Perhaps this explains why computer opponents can never be as 'entertaining' as real life opposition?
Any thoughts?
Scissors beats paper, which beats rock, which in turn beats the scissors.
Very similar to a lot of games, don't you think?
Let's take beat em ups, as an example.
We have "ordinary moves", "grabs", and "blocks/counters". You can pretty much sum up the vast majority of the play with just those three types of move.
Similar sort of thing with a lot of RTS games, too - eg, the regular troops will beat the ranged seige weapons, which beat the slow, armoured units, which beat the regular troops.
So, why is it that such an old game encapsulates the essence of so much of modern gaming? Was it ahead of its time?
Ever played rock scissors paper against a computer program?
It's not much fun - there's no psychology.
Perhaps this explains why computer opponents can never be as 'entertaining' as real life opposition?
Any thoughts?
Page: