- This topic has 17 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by Anonymous.
May 5, 2006 at 9:32 am #5283AnonymousInactive
May 5, 2006 at 9:48 am #31335AnonymousInactive
Wish it didnt take so long to play. Imaptient I am.
May 5, 2006 at 9:49 am #31336AnonymousInactive
I was expecting an evil twist at the end, but it never happened.
What was the point of that game? Perhaps I’m being unfair, as it is a competent facsimile of the TV version. What is the point of the show itself? Never has a gameshow dragged out a string of blind arbitary choices, mathematical formula and false tension, for such a mind-numbing half hour.
Being based on absolute chance, there is nothing the contestant can know to improve their chances. Therefore, instead of this tense atmosphere and furrowed brows, they might as well just reel off the numbers and wrap the show up in about 3 minutes.
Is it just me or is the show a perfect example of chewing gum for the eyes? At least ‘Millionaire’ had questions.
May 5, 2006 at 11:00 am #31337AnonymousInactive
I saw the prog on TV and was unable to grasp what was going on, mostly because it took so long to actually see anything happen. There was no viewer interactivity from what I could see (questions to be answered, pseudo-skillful decisions to be make), so i got bored real quick.
May 5, 2006 at 11:22 am #31338AnonymousInactive
ye the show appears complicated when your first see it because you initally think “wow this is the strangest game ever, 22 boxes and you have a 1 in 22 chance of getting then the maximum money”. its purely random! So you watch and think theres more to the game cause no one would base a game on pure luck. When in fact there isnt thats just it!
May 5, 2006 at 11:28 am #31339AnonymousInactive
I got down to 35,000 and 250,000………and I won the 35,000.
May 5, 2006 at 12:39 pm #31340AnonymousInactive
May 5, 2006 at 12:51 pm #31341AnonymousInactive
only got the 50k
May 5, 2006 at 2:54 pm #31342AnonymousInactive
This brings up an interesting aspect of game players that I am trying to come to grips with at the moment. The vast majority of ‘gamers’ like games in which they can affect the result of the game by the choices that they make. They get their sense of satisfaction from making those correct choices and progressing as a result.
This mentality however is not posessed by the majority of people however. Most people (the proletariat/plebians/ignorant masses etc) are prepared to spend money chasing unattainable goals which require little or no actual skill other than blind luck to be successful at.
For example, I would hazard a guess that the majority of people here would not play the lottery, knowing that you would have to play twice a week for 50,000 years to win it (on average). For many of the group I am talking about however, they fail to correspond this improbability with the satisfaction they get from playing the game.
The same, I feel, seems to hold true with the above linked game where the draw is as much the community (in this case TV/other people talking about it) as the quality of the actual game. Understanding this mentality would be of great benefit in creating games tailored towards a currently undersubscribed part of the (casual games) market.
May 5, 2006 at 10:31 pm #31346AnonymousInactive
That’s quite an interesting point Skyclad. I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter.
May 6, 2006 at 1:44 am #31349AnonymousInactive
Yes, your ideas intrigue him.
It’s something I’d noticed, but never been able to put my finger on.
There’s a definite delineation – in terms of frame of mind – between gamers and non-gamers. Your Lotto example is good. My mother plays it compulsively, despite never winning more than a tenner on it. However, I simply don’t feel drawn to it. It’s nothing concious – it just doesn’t enthuse me.
I wonder does introduction to games alter something in the psyche, or are there preconditions to becoming a “gamer” – preconditions that include weighing odds vs. reward?
I suppose it’s a little from column A and a little from column B – The same people who would tend away from repetitive low-reward “play”, tend toward the perceptually higher-reward area of digital interactive gaming.
May 6, 2006 at 12:48 pm #31353AnonymousInactive
May 6, 2006 at 7:36 pm #31355AnonymousInactive
Just won 250,000 first time. Now if that luck transfers to the dance floor tonight I’ll be doing alright.
May 8, 2006 at 8:31 am #31352AnonymousInactive
It seems that Deal or No Deal has just won some BAFTA-type thing. Saw Edmunds on TV.
Well done British Public…
May 8, 2006 at 9:46 am #31360AnonymousInactive
Isn’t the lottery different in that, regardless of how many times you play it, each time you have the same chance of winning given the randomness of the draw? I thought it was something like that, well either that or I was dozing in Probability class again.[/quote:79ee623e66]
Of course you have the same chance each time you play – 1 in 5,245,786 of matching all 6 balls. This wont affect the probability that you will win it twice in a row for example, or that you will never win it in 100,000 years, let alone 50,000.
I believe whether or not a person is competitive also effects their level of “gamerness” (man I love making up words). [/quote:79ee623e66]
It might affect their level of hardcore gamerness, but not necessarily a person’s propensity to play games (or watch them on tv). Again, the holy grail of new gaming markets is to create material for that non-hardcore but still happy to pay non-gamer. Sudoku, and associated websites, books, newspaper puzzles etc is probably the best recent example of a game that can grab a non gamer and drag them down (…to our level).
Personally I get my satisfaction from winning, plain and simple.[/quote:79ee623e66]
With respect to this, I believe it is far more a male trait than a female trait. Men go to war a lot more often than women, and it’s not because men are physically stronger – it’s because they have a greater desire to compete against one another. Most of our current (violent) games are simply a replacement for war in western society.
May 8, 2006 at 10:01 am #31361AnonymousInactive
Yeah, like I always say:
Men are crap, I much prefer women.
Seriously though, gaming ideas are getting so boring now, we really need to start doing something to get more women designing games.
So what if there are fewer women programmers? Even if guys implement the ideas, it’d be great to have an unusual perspective on the medium.
We need to give female visionaries an incentive to join the games industry.
Bring on the Hidea Kojimas, Wanda Spectres, Joanna Carmacks, Gabby Newells and Tara Schafers of this world!
Reading what I just typed, it makes me sad to think that our industry is still at a stage where statments such as the above are required.
May 8, 2006 at 10:10 am #31363AnonymousInactive
No, you’re wrong. While, yes we need female designers, we also need female coders. I’ll bet you that a man implementing a woman’s idea would be different from a woman implementing a woman’s idea. :)
May 8, 2006 at 11:19 pm #31378AnonymousInactive
Ah jeez, now it sounds like I’m discriminating against women coders!
:lol: <-(is it just me or is this smiley more “nervous” than “lol”)
Of course, the gender imbalance all across the industry needs to be addresses, but in order to glamourise it to women, we need to have some big female names, both in the games and behind them.
And if anyone mentions Lara, I’ll tear off my arm and club them to death.
(Ladies of the forum, correct me if I’m wrong, but) Lara is a lonely male 12-25-year-old’s wet dream, and if not downright offensive, is at least not someone women will identify well with.
That being said, I am an 18-25-year old lonely male gamer, so I clearly cannot speak for women. Or about them… or to them…. *goes into psycho-babble rant about “Never getting invited to parties” for several decades* (just kidding).
- The forum ‘General Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.