What games have the most advanced emergent game mechanics?

>>378161432

>>378161432
Probably Thief 1 and 2.
Hell, the entire Looking Glass Studios library.

is this a new meme

>>378162314
Recently replayed Thief 2, such a great fucking game. Life of The Party is still my favourite level.

File: 1488309483262.jpg (22KB, 315x310px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 315x310px

>>378161432
>Minecraft
>emergent systems

Hue

>>378162916
It is a fantastic game overall.
However, most games aren't as advanced as the Looking Glass games except maybe ARMA 3? I'm not sure about that.
However, in the Triple A space, I would say Dying Light, Dishonored, Prey, and the Far Cry series have emergent gameplay.

>>378161432
Dwarf Fortress. Bar none

>>378161432
"Rules of Play" is a great book. I love the part about the Magic Circle that defines why letting real life things leak into a game (like microtransactions) ruin a game.

>>378162794
No, it's the antidote for the "open world sandbox with crafting" bullshit.

File: 66hkhoosossdccccccc.jpg (37KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 512x512px

>emergent gayplay
Aka we were too lazy to actually design our fucking game, here's an Open World™ and bunch of wacky mechanics, have fun

>>378163221
The description on Wikipedia sounds great, but isn't it a bit outdated? 2003 was 14 years ago.

>>378161432
Why are you putting that hack Spector on your image?

>>378163047
As much as I dislike Arkane, their games are the most dynamic immersive sims available these days.

>>378162794
It's a 10 year old dead meme

>>378163353
Yeah Thief and Deus Ex are so badly designed. Fuck off you don't know what you're talking about

>>378163353
This. A game with """"emergent gameplay""""" will never be among the best masterfully crafted crafted games.

>>378163605
They actually are. Thief is only "good" and Deus Ex is total shit. Total lack of challenge and terrible aesthetics, AI, gameplay, and voice acting.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

>>378163605
>Thief and Deus Ex are so badly designed

They are.

>>378163936
>Thief is only "good" and Deus Ex is total shit. Total lack of challenge and terrible aesthetics, AI, gameplay, and voice acting.
Watch this and shut your damn mouth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPqwDGXxLhU

>>378164472
This has nothing to do with what i said tho? Thief is good but there are games 10x better out there.

>>378161432
While games like Thief, Deus Ex etc... are pretty good, they are not even remotely close to being advanced in emergent gameplay mechanics.

If you want those, you are going to have to look into the likes of simulations, grand strategies and similar.

One game I feel like I should mention that is a fucking TEXTBOOK on emergence in games is
>Factorio
Which not only provides you with emergent gameplay mechanics, but teaches you how to create emergent systems yourself. It's amazing: it's a lecture in cybernetics in many ways.

Other than that: You definitely should check out titles like
Crusader Kings
ARMA series
those crazy war simulation games that make grand-civs look like a kiddie games.

Those are where emergence is probably the strongest element in current industry.

Oh yeah, and by the way:
Most of you people in this thread are absolute idiots. God fucking do something about yourselves. Shit like this:
>>378164132
>>378163936
>>378163475
>>378163276
>>378163042
>>378162794
It just fucking HURTS to read.
Maybe just don't post next time.

>>378166247
After reading that horrible schlock you just dumped on the internet, I have firmly come to believe you don't even know what emergent gameplay actually means to begin with, and therefore, I don't think you're qualified to comment on the subject matter.

>>378166247
sorry i don't read posts with reddit spacing

>>378166247
How about you stop posting, faggot?

>>378161432
Almost ever game with a decent editor has some crazy stuff there is no way the devs expected.
Like those conc jump maps in the original Team Fortress, or DOTA.

>>378163936
>the single greatest stealth game ever made
>only "good"
????

>>378161432
Space Station 13 is the answer.

File: 5IgPW.jpg (73KB, 550x410px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 550x410px

>>378161432
Ultima Online

>>378166817
>>378166849
>>378166883
Neo-/v/ ladies and gentlemen. Where no actual discussion is possible because you'll have at least five dedicated insecure fucks shitposting the hell out of anything that could resemble one.

>>378163387
I wouldn't say so. It offers insight on topics related to gaming as a whole and even used games that were old when the book originally came out as example pieces. It will lack a lot of topics that have come up about mobile gaming which makes me sad because I'd love to hear his take on how much of a perverse Skinner box mobile gaming is. It's almost like Zynga and Facebook read it and said, "So this is how you can psychologically manipulate gamers into giving you billions.".

>>378167359
But you legitimately don't understand what "emergent properties" means to begin with, and nothing you said was any value right from the get go because you fail to understand the discussion.

It's not even a matter of discussion at this point, you're literally too stupid to begin having the discussion at all.

>>378163353
>if a system is chaotic, is does not provide a space of possibility large or flexible enough for players to explore through meaningful play

"Your gripe" aka some meme-rule you parrot from 4chan was addressed

I hate it when /v/ tries to have metagaming threads
"hurr let me tell you what art is"
"villains that are actually evil are so dumb"
*smokes weed*
*bitches about smoking weed*

>>378167517
>But you legitimately don't understand what "emergent properties" means to begin with, and nothing you said was any value right from the get go because you fail to understand the discussion.
It's this a joke? I fucking teach that shit. What fucking part do you have an issue with here? I don't see you making anything even vaguely resembling a point: I see you throwing a tantrum, because I called out what was a pure set of shitposts.

>>378163042
This.
Minecraft has long since lost anything remotely emergent. It's same shit everywhere.

>>378167841
Lookie here, mister fancypants has a PhD in videogames.

>>378167359
fuck you faggot

>>378167841
Tantrum? How so? I fail to see me getting angry, as opposed to you who insists that you "fucking teach that shit".

Second, I already stated what I have an issue with. You don't know what emergent properties means. You're either using the word with the wrong definition to describe the proper idea attached to said definition, or you're trying to describe the wrong idea to the word with the right and proper definition.

None of what you described can be called emergent properties.

Also I genuinely hope you're blowing smoke out of your ass when you say you teach. If you teach this as emergent gameplay, then you might have severely damaged western game development by years.

>>378161432
Dwarf Fortress. Also >>378167192
SS13 probably holds the candle for the most insane bullshit you can do to the point where a bunch of it is normally accepted play. For example:
>tear up wires near Engineering to cause the containment field on your station's Singularity Generator to fail, resulting in an apocalyptic scenario
>splice hot sauce into sunflowers to make them instantly husk people you hit and emit light
>open the clown's chest cavity and insert a radio tuned to a custom channel, allowing you to listen to all his conversations
>instead of executing terrorists, surgically removing their brain and placing it into a Man-Machine Interface to let them shitpost on comms
>barricade off the Cargo department and set yourselves up as an independent nation
>turn any room on the station into a bar with enough time
>heat a single room to the point where if someone tries to enter the pressure differential created by them opening a door causes them to be sucked inside and burn to death

>>378168028
No, in philosophy and philosophy of science primarily. I don't know if you realize this but "emergence" is not just a videogame concept. It's an essentially epistemic problem in science and from there on, it was identified across basically every field in the world.

>>378168137
>Second, I already stated what I have an issue with. You don't know what emergent properties means.
Except you did not identify which part of the post actually uses the term incorrectly.

>None of what you described can be called emergent properties.
Uh... wrong? Emergent Properties:
We might roughly characterize the shared meaning thus: emergent entities (properties or substances) ‘arise’ out of more fundamental entities and yet are ‘novel’ or ‘irreducible’ with respect to them. (For example, it is sometimes said that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.) Each of the quoted terms is slippery in its own right, and their specifications yield the varied notions of emergence that we discuss below. There has been renewed interest in emergence within discussions of the behavior of complex systems and debates over the reconcilability of mental causation, intentionality, or consciousness with physicalism.
Stanford encyclopedia.
This is the same definition that we use for games, which are actually just complex systems. Everything I described is exactly along those lines.

>If you teach this as emergent gameplay
I don't teach gameplay.
You STILL did not provide a point, just screamed "U WRONG", kid. I'm still waiting for your explanation of how I'm wrong and your own better definitions.

>>378168365
>>instead of executing terrorists, surgically removing their brain and placing it into a Man-Machine Interface to let them shitpost on comms
>not throwing the MMI into space so their consciousness drifts throughout the universe for eternity

File: Buddy Jesus.jpg (30KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 240x240px

>>378168486
>which part
All of it. You're using the wrong definition. I can't out a single part when the entire thing is written on false premises.

>Everything I described is exactly along those lines.
Well you got the definition right, but you failed to apply it meaningfully to video games. Emergent properties cannot be taught to you by the video game because they must arise out of the video game naturally. If the game is aware of the gameplay itself, then it's not emergent, but rather just exists as a designed element.

>I don't teach gameplay.
Thank god.

Also
>Philosophy and Philosophy of science
lol

>>378168365
Only sensible answer so far

We're too far from muh immersive 3d open world sandbox yet, we have barely gone outside the graphic tilesets

>>378169049
>All of it. You're using the wrong definition. I can't out a single part when the entire thing is written on false premises.
So... you still literally cannot say what is wrong with the post. Just U WRONG.

>If the game is aware of the gameplay itself, then it's not emergent, but rather just exists as a designed element.
OK... what the actual fuck?
First of all, "arise naturally?" "Game being aware" - what the fuck is that supposed to mean.
Are you talking about intention of the developer here? Or awareness of the developer of the possibility? And how the FUCK did I fail to apply any of it? Are you saying that the examples like Factorio, ARMA or Grand Strategies do not actually satisfy the condition of possible complex systems or strategies that the developers did not intend and/or were aware that can be done?

What the fuck man. First of all basing your understanding of emergence on what seems to be either assumptions about intentions and awareness of the developer (unverfiable criteria, by the way) - or worse yet "awareness of the game (which I should not have to explain to you is not conscious, therefor not capable of awareness), second of all completely failing to actually properly reflect what I said: because even under what seems to be your incredibly ill-formulated understanding, my examples still meet that fucking criteria as far as they can be met.

>lol
You see, this is the point where you should have stopped typing. It's just loudly announcing "stop making me insecure" to the public.

File: chikiwek's hottest creation.png (67KB, 754x1200px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 754x1200px

>>378168365
>if a crewman has his head severed, you can still revive him by transplanting his brain into a monkey made human and cloning that instead
>perform genetics fuckery to copy your entire genome over to another crewman and run around and shitpost as a copy of yourself
>strip a man, throw him into a small room, and build a wall over the door in order to permanently seal him away without killing him
>rig up a teleporter and perform some calculations to teleport anyone on the station anywhere you want
Best part: Everyone involved is just another player.

>>378168795
>depriving yourself of the opportunity to hear their bitching

>>378169049
>>378169614
"arise naturally" is pretty much what I'm describing here. All active servers have a base of coders explicitly to try to contain some of the bullshit players have figured out - see Cuban Pete, who discovered a method to create a bomb capable of vaporizing the station every round without fail.

>>378169840
>"arise naturally" is pretty much what I'm describing here.
That "arise naturally" has another word. Might be of interest. "Emerge". And the "naturality" of it is seriously doubtful.
And you STILL failed to fucking explain what is your issue here with what I posted. Also what you are describing can be just as easily describe as exploiting, though that does not change anything.

Can you make an actual point, or would please fuck off?

File: 1472655021910.gif (72KB, 650x450px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 650x450px

>>378170240
>you STILL failed
I'm not even the guy you're bitching at, you angsty little faggot. I'm just here to wank my spessmen. Calm down.

File: Stare Tophat.jpg (11KB, 588x418px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 588x418px

>>378169614
>So... you still literally cannot say what is wrong with the post.
I mean I could. I was more or less hoping you'd look up the definition on your own, think about it some, and realize that you had written absolute sophistry, but now I'm starting to see your head might be a little too far up your ass for that.

Then I'll address the rest of your apparent confusion with the actual definition.

Emergent gameplay means gameplay that arises when combining different elements in an often unintentional and unforeseen way than what the gameplay and developers originally intended to create new gameplay properties. Gameplay cannot arise or emerge as gameplay that is pre-existant in the game. If the game itself is aware of it, then that means that the gameplay is not emergent. It is expected. It is how the developers intended the game to be played.

Emergent Gameplay only exists with the marriage of game and player, in which the players discover a new way of handling the gameplay that creates brand new gameplay altogether.

An actual example of emergent gameplay: Street Fighter II, the original one way back in the day, has a glitch where if you press an attack, and then press another attack right afterwards, it might cancel the animation of the first attack to do the second attack, allowing you to strike faster than your opponent has time to block.

This wasn't intended by the gameplay or the developers, but when it was discovered, it changed the face of fighting games forever, giving rise to brand new games.

What isn't emergent gameplay is when, like you said, "the game teaches you how to create your own emergent gameplay". That's wrong by default.

>It's just loudly announcing "stop making me insecure" to the public.
Yeah I'm real insecure about not knowing if I'll have the proper degree to work at mcdonalds after 8 years.

Umihara Kawase

>>378170423
>I was more or less hoping you'd look up the definition on your own,
I don't have to look it up, but I did actually quote a definition from the only peer-reviewed encyclopedia in the world.
>and realize that you had written absolute sophistry,
Don't use words that you don't know the meaning off.

>Emergent gameplay means (...)
Why are you defining something I've already defined better than you?

>the game itself is aware of it
Look, the first time you used these words, I assumed that you just poorly formulated yourself. The fact that you are saying this utter nonsense second time... well I can only assume you are a troll.
GAME IS NOT AWARE of anything. Awareness is a property of conscience.

>It is expected.
Except for when a game is designed to provide emergent gameplay. In that case it's expected but still emergent. THE FUCK?

>Emergent Gameplay only exists with the marriage of game and player,
First of all, no emergence is for all intents and purposes an intrinsic property of the object: even a game can have emergent properties and yet play itself. There are multiple "games of life" simulators out there actually entirely based around this fact.

>Street Fighter II, the original one way
First of all, while you can sorta argue that this mechanic was emergent, it's hardly the end-all-be-all understanding of emergent gameplay systems.
Second of all: Actually, emergent property is property that cannot be REDUCED to it's constituents. You still talk about intentions, but that is actually YOU using the word wrong.

YOU STILL HAD NOT EXPLAINED HOW ANY OF WHAT I SAID IS OBJECTIONABLE.

>"the game teaches you how to create your own emergent gameplay".
First of all, I said "emergent SYSTEMS" not gameplay.
Second of all: In factorio, you can make this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgfwwqwxdxY
This has never been forseen or intended by developer. Yet somehow, you claim that factorio is by default not emergent?
You are an idiot, by the way.

File: Alucard.png (327KB, 565x428px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 565x428px

>>378171237
>peer-reviewed encyclopedia
Christ, I would have been find with dictionary.com bro.

>Don't use words that you don't know the meaning off.
Arguments that sound nice, but are ultimately wrong if you think about them too long, right? Isn't that your post in a nutshell?

>I've already defined better than you?
You...did???

>Look, the first time you used these words[..and the rest of this autism]
Of course the game itself is aware of the mechanics it presents to you, isn't it? If the game gives me a tutorial of how to jump, then the game is aware of the jump mechanic, is it not?

>Except for when a game is designed to provide emergent gameplay
The only real way to do that is to posit a bunch of mechanics and then hope that the players do something interesting with it that changes how the game will be played, but that's self-defeating from the get-go. In the weird instance you manage to find a bug, glitch or unintended effects from the game, all you're doing is adding another effect in a world of effects. Unless it changes how all players handle the game, then it can't have been considered emergent.

You shouldn't believe what the devs tell you anon.

>emergence is for all intents and purposes an intrinsic property of the object
Not really.

>it's hardly the end-all-be-all understanding of emergent gameplay systems.
Well yeah, that's why its an example. Did I not say that? I said that, right?

>emergent property is property that cannot be REDUCED to it's constituents
Well, yes, that's the definition of it, but what did this have to do with my post? I gave you an example of gameplay that arose out of its constituents. How was that using the word wrong?

>HOW ANY OF WHAT I SAID IS OBJECTIONABLE.
Yes I did. "The game teaches you how to make your own emergent gameplay". Just uttering that phrase unironically means you don't understand the definition at all. I've yet to see you prove me wrong.

>Char limit
The rest is just lol.

>>378172142
>Christ, I would have been find with dictionary.com bro.
You maybe. As an academic, studying this subject, I'm not.

>Arguments that sound nice, but are ultimately wrong if you think about them too long, right? Isn't that your post in a nutshell?
No. It isn't. At all. I did not even make arguments, really. There isn't anything to argue for or against yet.
You still did not make a claim. Not one that would actually disagree with mine. You understand the problem poorly, on an incredibly simplistic level and can't formulate properly to save your life, but it's more-or-less sufficient and just a more crude, shallow way of understanding of what I described and talked about.

>You...did???
Did you somehow already forgot this post:>>378168486

>Of course the game itself is aware of the mechanics it presents to you, isn't it?
Game is not conscious, there for not aware of anything. That is very much the end of that discussion.
You might have meant "the developers are aware". But really, their awareness does not matter either.

>The only real way to do that is to posit a bunch of mechanics and then hope that the players do something interesting
There is a little more to it, but yes. And it's also exactly what all of the games I listed do. So WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?!

>Not really.
By the very same definition and the expanded article that you can find here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/
Yes, it is.

>Well yeah, that's why its an example.
It's actually a very poor example, but let's work with it.

>Well, yes, that's the definition of it, but what did this have to do with my post?
I pointed that out because you still talk about intentionality, but the intention does not matter. Structurality does.

>Yes I did. "The game teaches you how to make your own emergent gameplay".
Because you still think it's about intentionality. Also nice how you don't address the example I provided myself. Much better than the one you did, by the way.

File: Adorable.jpg (436KB, 1280x1444px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 1280x1444px

>>378172814
>As an academic
>Having the need to put on the pretentious airs of using peer-reviewed articles in an online debate on 4chan
I'm starting to think you don't understand sarcasm

>At all. I did not even make arguments, really.
Yes you did. In your original post. This whole thing started because you cited some games (falsely) as emergent gameplay.

>Did you somehow already forgot this post
I mean I see it, but I don't really follow what you're saying.

>Game is not conscious
Then why did you say:
>even a game can have emergent properties and yet play itself.
Doesn't that imply consciousness? If the game is not conscious, how does it even play itself? Playing is something humans do, anon.

>And it's also exactly what all of the games I listed do.
But they don't. All of the games you listed have NO emergent gameplay in them whatsoever. Grand Strategy games don't change their gameplay whatsoever. Just the strategies that people use to dominate in them. Until the moment someone discovers a new interaction with a gameplay element that begins to take a life of its own beyond that of just "glitch", the game cannot be said to have emergent properties because nothing is emerging. The gameplay is functioning as intended, therefore nothing has emerged.

>Yes, it is.
But nah tho? You just posted the same definition as before, but emergent property cannot be intrinsic of the object itself. An object can be born out of emergence through interactions between other objects, but the object itself doesn't create emergence on its own. How can it be a property thereof?

>It's actually a very poor example
How? It literally changed the entire way the fighting game genre was looked at for the next 20 some-odd years.

>but the intention does not matter. Structurality does.
In games intention does matter, because it can't be emergent without the interaction by player.

>Much better than the one you did, by the way.
lol

>>378172814
>the developers being aware or not doesn't matter
The developers not being aware is the KEY FUCKING POINT of emergent gameplay. You not understanding that means you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Not the same guy by the way

>>378173896
>I'm starting to think you don't understand sarcasm
Well and I know for a fact hat you don't understand emergence, so considering the subject matter, who is worse off here?

>This whole thing started because you cited some games (falsely) as emergent gameplay.
Dude, I just provided you with video proving that at least one of the games has emergent gameplay EVEN BY YOUR OWN SHITTY DEFINITION. I don't know how can even ignore that. You just did not understand what I said (and you did not play any of those games - hence you are incapable of even judging if those games display prominent emergent features).
Yet because your understanding of the problem is flawed, you did not understand what I'm saying, you declared the examples as false.

That is just sad.
That is like if somebody talked about gravity of of some unfamiliar celestial body, and you thought gravity is what makes things fall to EARTH, and therefor concluded that the other guy does not understand what gravity is, and then came to the conclusion that celestial body does not have gravity for sure.

This is a whole fucking LINE of insane fuckups and stupidity on your side. It's beyond belief. And the sad part is that you continue, even after I gave you an undeniable proof that at least one of those examples fits every criteria you could create.

You misunderstand emergence - in gameplay or else. Not fundamentally, you just took one superifical element of it and assumed that is all there is to it.

Yet you are trying to lecture somebody who simply has more comprehensive understanding of it.

>but I don't really follow what you're saying.
That somehow does not surprise me at all. Refer to the "you are an idiot" explanation of this problem in my earlier posts.

>Doesn't that imply consciousness?
No.
Sorry: I have to stop here. ARE YOU FUCKING TWELVE?
You actually made me tear up with laughter her. WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?! THIS IS AMAZING!

>>378174503
Pretty much this. I've heard this term since forever in gaming circles. Maybe emergent means something else when applied to philosophy, bit it's not the subject at hand. Yet another guy btw.

File: Ain't about games.jpg (28KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 640x480px

>>378174619
>I know for a fact hat
>hat
I mean just because you claim to "know" things doesn't mean that you know them, so the fact that you don't even know you're wrong yet puts you in the objectively worse spot here.

>Dude, I just provided you with video proving that at least one of the games has emergent gameplay
Are you talking about thief? Because I actually got down watching that video, and frankly, I saw nothing emergent about the gameplay whatsoever. The guy didn't even mention emergent gameplay, only the fact that Thief tells a story naturally through the medium of video games instead of borrowing from media and fiction.

Honestly, the fact that you think this video is evidence of your 'argument' is pretty embarrassing on your behalf.

>you declared the examples as false
It's not a matter of declaration, it's really a matter of fact. There is no objective evidence that these games have emergent properties. Only gameplay elements that just exist.

>You misunderstand emergence
Not really. I think you're just a little too high-strung about your weird definition which I'm still not entirely clear about, because you quoted an actual definition, but you've yet to use it in a way that shows that you fully understand it.

>Refer to the "you are an idiot"
Ad Hominium. 10 points from Slytherin.

>You actually made me tear up with laughter her
. . .

Is there anything more embarrassing than someone trying to take the high ground in an argument by pleading to the audience to laugh at the opponent? I hate to use this word so flagrantly these days, but it honest to god makes me cringe to think that someone would laugh after failing to understand the point this hard.

>>378173896
>If the game is not conscious, how does it even play itself?
OH god. I can't let this go. This is going for a screencap... God dammit.

Protyp: machines can have some degree of functional autonomy, and we don't consider them conscious. Do you not know what the word consciousness means? Even on the most superficial level?
You are exceptionally retarded, even by /v/ standards and this is pretty much the dumbest place in the universe right now.

>But they don't. All of the games you listed have NO emergent gameplay in them whatsoever.
Um. I already posted this. Do you not see it? Also, let me add even a better example from the same game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgfwwqwxdxY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF--1XdcOeM

>Grand Strategy games don't change their gameplay whatsoever.
Yet they manifest complex properties that were neither intended (not that it matters) nor can be reduced to their invididual constituents. You can use mechanics in ways they were never anticipated to behave too. Remember that famous Last Federation dumping toxic waste on planets things?
Aurora's using hyperspace ships as weapons?
Damn I could come up with a lot of examples and that is still just the very shallow understanding of emergence, I'm actually being really welcoming and embracing your definition, even though it's very shallow.

>but emergent property cannot be intrinsic of the object itself. An object can be born out of emergence through interactions between other objects
Stop. Just... fucking stop. You are an idiot. You thought car that can drive on it's own is conscious. I'm not even going to continue this nonsense here.

Let me just end the argument right here
>not emergent
Building a computer in shenzen 1/0
The game doesn't give you specific computer blueprints but the tools you have will lead you to something like that.
>emergent
Building a computer in Dwarf Fortress
Not at all like what the tools you have are suposed to be used for. But you can do it.

>>378173896
>It literally changed the entire way the fighting game genre was looked at for the next 20 some-odd years.
Because emergence is not judged by impact on the industry you moron. Also, because that is a glitch. Not an emergent property, technically speaking.
It's not a product of system manifesting qualities not present in the subsystems: not any more than any other line of code. It's a glitch that the authors thought was interesting and decided to keep it in.

>In games intention does matter, because it can't be emergent without the interaction by player.
It can. See post above, the Factorio Grey Goo scenario. But again: this is all a joke. I'm starting to really, really regret getting into this.

You are a very, very different level of stupidity than I expected. You don't have grasp on basic concepts, much less technical ones.

>>378174503
>The developers not being aware is the KEY FUCKING POINT of emergent gameplay.
No. The point is actually to create complexity through limited resources and means. That is the true point of emergence: create a simple set of rules, but end up with very complex mechanics and scenarios.

That is the only, key point.

>>378175274
>I mean just because you claim to "know" things doesn't mean that you know them,
No. You reverse the causality. I claim to know because I happen to know.

>Are you talking about thief?
I did not even fucking mention Thief outside of specifically spelling out that it's not a good example of advanced emergent systems?
I posted one video you idiot. Is that too overwhelming for you?

>It's not a matter of declaration, it's really a matter of fact.
>There is no objective evidence that these games have emergent properties.
There is an objective proof of emergence. You are too dumb to fucking read my post and click on the ONLY LINK I GAVE YOU. So you declaring matters of fact here rings a little hollow.

do mods count?

>>378175326
>This is going for a screencap... God dammit.
>He's still pleading to the audience
I'm becoming sad for you, anon.

>Um. I already posted this. Do you not see it?
Um, you just posted a video of darude sandstorm to factorio I guess? Are you from /tv/? Because it would explain your poor debate skills and understanding of sarcasm.

That second video though is.......whole lotta nothing that I'm looking at. What part of this is emergent, exactly? It looks like the game is just running normally.

>Yet they manifest complex properties that were neither intended
Were they? Most of those examples you provided are uh...they sound normal. Like, a basic human being playing the game would come up with these things because the gameplay was preexistant in the game. Are you suggesting nobody ever used those strategies and that somehow makes it emergent???

>I'm not even going to continue this nonsense here.
Aw, c'mon anon. Don't be mad. Are you mad about the McDonald's Comment? You don't have to be so mad anon.

But seriously, can I come over after work? I'd like a big mac combo with no pickles and large fries.

>>378175828
Dude, emergent gameplay has always been what everyone ITT except you says it is. It could have been called wary chimpanzee for all that matters, if that's the meaning people gave to it that's the true meaning.

>>378175274
>think you're just a little too high-strung about your weird definition
My weird definition? You mean the one from fucking Stanford. Yeah. They guys who literally invented the term... their stupid, weird definitions. Academia, that defines it? Yeah... weird silly people, right?

I mean seriously.

Do you have like a medical condition or something?

>Ad Hominium. 10 points from Slytherin.
Objectively: THAT IS NOT AN AD HOMINUM. Ad hominum is not an insult. Insult is an insult. And that, my retarded friend, was an insult. That happened to be an actual correct observation. But obviously still insulting to you.

On the list of many, many things you don't understand, "what is an argument" should be pretty high top.

>Is there anything more embarrassing than someone trying to take the high ground in an argument by pleading to the audience to laugh at the opponent?
Yes. The thing you just said about consciousness, for an example. Also, this comes from a person who said LOL about what - seven times?

Do you know what that acronym means?

Did you know it means "(I'm) Laughing out Loud"?

That means that you have been trying to take high ground by pleading to laugh this whole fucking time. Did you not know that? HOW?

I'm sorry, but this IS COMEDY GOLD. I've seen a lot over those many years wasted here, but god dammit. We are breaking new grounds.

>>378175762
I like your definitions anon, but I would maybe contest the Dwarf Fortress one if I was feeling a little more argumentative than I am now. I feel that unless a new game can be devised around using the computer or through the computer itself, it wouldn't constitute emergent gameplay, but rather it's an interesting quirk of a robust system.

But that's hella neat. I love that.

>>378175828
>Because emergence is not judged by impact on the industry you moron
It gave rise to a new form of gameplay entirely different than what had been seen in the industry until that point. Glitch or not, new, actual, honest to goodness gameplay arose out of it. Claiming that it's anything other than the apex example of emergent gameplay is sheer lunacy on your part.

>It can. See post above, the Factorio Grey Goo scenario
Yeah, I sure saw it alright. That was...that was a nice video, son. Real great.

>The point is actually to create complexity through limited resources and means.
That's literally not emergent properties at all, not even by your own definition.

>I claim to know because I happen to know.
You claim to know because you think you know. But you're not at a point of knowing that you don't know anything, which is retarding your growth.

>I posted one video you idiot.
. . .you actually are talking about the darude sandstorm video. Oh no. My precious anon is retarded.

>There is an objective proof of emergence.
Then state it?

File: Are you trying to flirt.jpg (11KB, 203x174px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 203x174px

>>378176242
>My weird definition? You mean the one from fucking Stanford.
Yeah, you post the standford definition several times, but I mean YOUR personal definition of how you interpret the words on those pages through your synesthesia. Because most normal people know that you're not applying the definition correctly.

>THAT IS NOT AN AD HOMINUM
Yes it is.

>Yes.
I disagree.

File: Halo-3-cover-halo-34051691-640-920.jpg (62KB, 640x920px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x920px

halo 3

>>378175912
>I'm becoming sad for you, anon.
Dude, you have MUCH worse things to worry about right now.

>Um, you just posted a video of darude sandstorm to factorio I guess?
I posted a video of a functional virtual display and a video decoder virtual hardware system created entirely from parts provided by the game, functioning entirely within the game (without the sound, though that has been since then also enabled), and created against all expectations of the developers.

>That second video though is.......whole lotta nothing that I'm looking at.
You are looking at a functional grey goo model, again created entirely with the tools in the game that were never intended to be used this way.

Also, saying "I'm too dumb to understand your videos or to even read the description" is not a point in your favor.

>Were they? Most of those examples you provided are uh...they sound normal.
Again: you being clueless: not a point in your favor. It's about as normal as that guy who is creating a functional fucking calculator in Super Mario Maker.

Those are incredibly sophisticated systems. You'll find some even more riddiculous in Minecraft though.

>Are you mad about the McDonald's Comment?
You just chastized me for saying that I laughed out and then you post this...
I mean: does that not bother you?

>>378176207
>Dude, emergent gameplay has always been what everyone ITT except you says it is.
Uh, except no? Like the Warren spector video, among others? Actually nobody here disagreed with me. Not even you. You think you do, but that is because you an idiot and don't understand even what you are saying.

File: Catface fuuka.png (113KB, 266x369px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 266x369px

>>378176714
>you have MUCH worse things to worry about right now.
Like what, Anon?

>I posted a video of a functional virtual display
Oh, is that what that's supposed to be? Ah.

How is that in any way relevant to the discussion about gameplay exactly? I mean if I spent a few months hacking a game, I could probably do things unintended with it too.

>the tools in the game that were never intended to be used this way.
Eeeeh, that doesn't really seem that way from the video. In fact, it looks like you're using parts of the game in an intended way to begin with to create these effects.

>It's about as normal as that guy who is creating a functional fucking calculator in Super Mario Maker.
Mario Maker is an example of emergent gameplay, but all you've provided are examples of maybe unintended effects that don't really result in gameplay or even anything remotely interesting outside of legos and being autistic. Do you know what games actually even are? I assumed you were ill equipped for the discussion, but maybe you're ill equipped for video games?

>does that not bother you?
Should it? If it should, please posit why.

>>378176358
>It gave rise to a new form of gameplay entirely different than what had been seen in the industry until that point.
Which does not make it emergent. NOVELTY is not emergence. You are saying "it's emergent because it became influential".
Those things have zero in common.

>Yeah, I sure saw it alright. That was...that was a nice video, son. Real great.
Again: OK. I understand. You don't know Factorio, and you don't quite understand what is going on in there. Fine, I'd be confused if I was unfamiliar with the game.

But then you claim that the game is not emegent? You don't stop and realize: "wow, these things go way over my head, maybe I should not be so damn arrogant?"

>That's literally not emergent properties at all, not even by your own definition.
Dear god, may have mercy on this poor sod soul... Those are practical results of use of emergent systems, you moron.

>My precious anon is retarded.
YOU are the one who does not understand that video. Not me.
You are sitting here: watching something that you just don't understand. And your reaction is: "YOU MUST BE DUMB".

That is not endearing anymore. This was funny to a point, but now it's getting like really sad.

>>378176358
>Then state it?
Creation of a functional display and a video-decoder by using objects designed as lamps to combat darkness in the game and the ability to color them by connecting them to a simple virtual wiring systems (created for the purpose of basic regulation of simple economic productions in the game) is about as clear example of emergent structure as it can ever get.

By my and by your definition. The player just pulled something incredibly sophisticated, created an incredibly complex system which has qualities (capacity to decode and display video) buy using simple elements of the game that were not intended to do something like this.

So: qualities of a system (capacity to decode and display video) not reduceable to individual constituents (lamps, wires, basic combinators): plus use of the system in a way completely unforseen and unexpected from how the developers intended them to use.

There. Done.

>>378176472
>Yes it is.
No. It's not an argument. I don't use that statement to support my claims. I merely say that you are also an idiot. It's even prefaced by the word "Also". Which suggests it's something in addition or outside of the argument.

So no. Ad hominem is an incorrect argumentation. This is not an argument. It's just the sad reality of the world.

The only good "emergent gameplay" are sandbox MMOs like runescape or wurm.

Deus ex and thief aren't emergent gameplay

File: Friends and Sweethearts.jpg (49KB, 335x300px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 335x300px

>>378177394
>Which does not make it emergent.
lol

>But then you claim that the game is not emegent?
Is Halo emergent because Rooster Teeth made the Red vs Blue series?

>Those are practical results of use of emergent systems
If the system was built into the game, it cannot be emergent. It can only be emergent if it is the result of a player interacting with another system in the game to give rise to the new system, like in Street Fighter, which you just denied is emergent, soooooo...I'm sorry you're mentally handicapped or something? Is that what you want me to say?

>YOU are the one who does not understand that video
I don't think a lot of people.

>is about as clear example of emergent structure as it can ever get.
Not really though. You're using a virtual wire in it's intended way, and it's neato you can get it to display a video, but beyond that little nifty feat, it's nothing too impressive or interesting. Nor does it give rise to gameplay or a new way to handle the game, which is what emergent gameplay is mostly about.

It's super nifty though. I'll give it a thumbs up on youtube.

>buy using simple elements of the game that were not intended to do something like this.
>buy
Eh, that's your argument honestly. It's not really gameplay nor is it inherently good, so it's not worth considering.

>There. Done.
So close. Yet so far.

>No. It's not an argument.
You're not an argument.

>>378166247

You truly are a moron.

>>378177152
>Like what, Anon?
The fact that you are SEVERALLY mentally retarded and a complete cunt on top of that?
Because you might not believe me, but that is going to make your life miserable.
People can tolerate idiots, but only if they are kind and well meaning. Idiots who are cunts at the same time have a hard, hard life ahead of them.

>How is that in any way relevant to the discussion about gameplay exactly?
Because all of that happens as a part of the gameplay mechanics? It's gameplay. That guy made it while playing the game. It's how he plays the game.

>In fact, it looks like you're using parts of the game in an intended way to begin with to create these effects.
Well you are using the parts and the parts are intended to be used. That is how it work.

You somehow came to a conclusion that "emergent gameplay" means exclusively "a glitch that was later incorporated into the game" and I can't even find words to explain how fucking dumb that is.

>I assumed you were ill equipped for the discussion, but maybe you're ill equipped for video games?
Do you have a policy of accusing someone of something then immediately doing that very thing?

Between the LOL thing and now an actual ad hominem... I'm begining to think this is intentional.

Anyway: let's end this fucking trainwreck before I actually start to get depressed:

You think that "emergent properties" in a game means "glitch that becomes commonly used".

Which is funny. I'd really like to see what people like Warren Spector would tell you about that.

I'm done. I've never seen anyone this stupid. I've been here for eight years, I've seen some big shit. But this... this is just a new level. I don't know what is going on here: but it's starting to scare me. I mean: I can at least hope that you are literally a child: but then I realize that you fucks might one day end up in my classroom and that is just too depressing.

>>378178268
It's just a bit sad to watch someone who's so wrong act so important.

>>378178268
>a complete cunt on top of that?
Oh no, I'm doing that part on purpose.

>Because all of that happens as a part of the gameplay mechanics?
I'll be honest with you anon, what you've shown me here today cannot be considered emergent properties whatsoever. What you've shown me here today are over glorified parlor tricks. All these people have done is reconstructed the structure of a circuit board inside of a game that gives you the ability to build freely, much like how the minecraft calculator works. You're not really changing gameplay, you're not defining a new gameplay mechanic, and you're certainly not making anything emerge that is truly outside of expectation. "Wow, I built a calculator in a game using moving parts, a display, and my engineering degree!"

All you've shown is that the system for building is robust enough to handle that degree of movement, but nothing here is qualitative of emergent gameplay.

Which is why anons are laughing at you.

>Do you have a policy of accusing someone of something then immediately doing that very thing?
Protip: You should look up the definition of tongue-and-cheek.

>Which is funny. I'd really like to see what people like Warren Spector would tell you about that.
I could probably prove him wrong too. I mean, if a philosophy of science major was this easy to defeat, I couldn't see him being any challenge.

>I'm done.

Anons, do you think I went too far? Is it wrong to bully the autistic?

>>378178653
Trust me, it's so much more sad to watch someone so fucking stupid act so fucking arrogant.

You literally took the term "emergent" and just arbitrarily decided that it means "glitch that was not patched out but instead embraced by the developers".
Which absolutely no way actually reflects the meaning of the word "emergent" by they.

You are not only fucking stupid and wrong, but you don't even agree with the common use in the first place.

As a parting gift, let me provide you with a few defintions from a simple google search:
Wiki:
Emergent gameplay refers to complex situations in video games, board games, or table top role-playing games that emerge from the interaction of relatively simple game mechanics.

Game wisdom:
Emergent gameplay as mentioned at the start is one of those dream concepts that developers love to explore; just like a game with endless replayability. Despite that definition, Emergent gameplay is hard to properly define, because of how tied it is to open-world or open-ended gameplay.
The point is that the mechanics are flexible enough that they can be combined by the player to produce unintended actions that the developer may or may not not have specifically designed the game around. The result is that the player can solve challenges or create things with a completely unique solution and the game mechanics have a wide enough berth for this to work.

Technopeida:
Emergent gameplay is a game design term that refers to video game mechanics that change according to the player's actions. Emergent gameplay includes a number of relatively simple decisions that a player must make, the sum of which lead to more complex outcomes.

So yeah... it seems like the internet itself does not agree with you.

May I ask what does anyone think of the following article? http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_emergent_game_behavior_and_other_miracles/

>>378179624
That wasn't me, anon.

>You literally took the term "emergent" and just arbitrarily
Nah, there was nothing arbitrary about the fact that literally nobody else in this thread has said anything in support of your arguments. Which is really sad when you consider that you said:
>you don't even agree with the common use in the first place.
and
>it seems like the internet itself does not agree with you.
without any trace of irony.

Or the fact that you fail to understand that while you are posting correct definitions, but you fail to see that street fighter's birth of the combo system was a historic moment of actual gameplay emergence while defending your parlor tricks as the "real deal".

Sad anon. I really am sad for you. I hope you get better.

>>378179614
>All you've shown is that the system for building is robust enough to handle that degree of movement, but nothing here is qualitative of emergent gameplay.
See >>378179624

That is actually a true principle of emergence, by the way. Not even in games. While there is more complex theory behind it, generally the thing that is meant by the word "emergence" is essentially considered a product of a robust enough ruleset to produce highly complex products.

>I could probably prove him wrong too.
A kid dumb enough to think that a game is conscious because it can run on it's own is going to prove the people who INTRODUCED THE TERM AND ESTABLISHED IN IN THE INDUSTRY wrong.

I mean: there is arrogance, and then there is this. You clearly understand game design and the terminology more than some of the best developers and people who invented that terminology.
Also better than any actual game blog or article. Or the two major books OP mentiones, among others.

Basically: what you are telling me is that the whole world is wrong, but you are right.

Despite being dumber than a sack of bricks. Like: not-finished high-school dumb.

I think this pretty clearly classifies as SERIOUS delusion.

>>378179740
>Insomnia
Isn't that the guy who gave Cave Story a 4/10 or something because "I'm not Pixel's mom"? Or Persona 3 a 6/10 because he thought it was great, but he genuinely felt the internet loved it too much so he intentionally lowered the score?

I haven't read the article, but if it's that guy, then he can fuck right off with his opinions. Worse than autistic philosophy anon in this thread.

>>378163387
>it's the 2005 was 19 years ago meme

>>378179987
I've stopped reading what you've wrote anon. Until you've done a little growing up and realize where you've failed in your basic reasoning skills, I don't see much of a point in continuing the discussion with you.

Have a good night, autism-anon.

File: hmm.png (8KB, 112x112px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 112x112px

>>378179989
No that's not him, you must be thinking of another guy, considering he uses a 5 star system of scoring.

>>378166247
this
you can get pretty creative in deus ex but rarely can you do something completely off the wall that's not an obvious path put in by the devs
this is why the only multiplayer games i still play are only halo and battlefield, where players can do wild shit that isn't some bland hero ability

>>378179841
>without any trace of irony.
Well, considering that Spector agrees with me, Wiki agrees with me, Technopeia agrees with me, also TV tropes, every single discussion I found too.

I mean you have those fucking quotations right in front of your eyes.

You are sitting here, seeing just the first four results of the google search firlmly proving me right and you wrong and you say... this.

>>378179841
>but you fail to see that street fighter's birth of the combo system was a historic moment
I actually suspected that this is the core problem. Like all of this: It's just a BIZARRE fucking attempt to jerk of importance of fucking move in Street Fighter.

That is all, actually. The whole point. The whole reason why you disagree:
Because the importance of fucking move in Street Fighter is so important to you that you'll go and change the definition of "emergent properties" SOLELY to glorify that thing.

OK, you actually might be clinically autistic. Like: not as an insult, as a diagnosis.

>>378180091
>I've stopped reading what you've wrote anon.
I'm not surprised. I mean: after seeing direct and clear proof on the level that you wanted to hold this discussion that you were wrong... I guess closing your eyes is a solution for you?

>>378180363
That's a nice post anon, but I'm not reading what you have to say anymore.

Have a good night, autism-kun.

File: emergent storytelling.png (1MB, 960x686px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 960x686px

>>378161432

>>378180454
>That's a nice post anon, but I'm not reading what you have to say anymore.
You know that is an admition of defeat, right?

>>378180507
Have a nice night, autism-kun.

>>378161432
Super bouncing in Halo 2 is an aspect that is deep but completely unintended, allowing for an entire game within the game that the developers never knew about.

hearthstone

>>378180619
Curious how you started saying that you are not reading anymore right after a simple google search proved me right and you wrong. Strange timing, isn't.

Serious talk, because I know you are actually reading these:
I get that you can't admit being wrong to me, but I FUCKING HOPE that you are able to admit that to yourself.
Because if you can't, you are in serious trouble. From a medical perspective. This no joke. I'm dead serious. Watch out for this. Purely in your own interests.

>>378180883
Have a nice night, autism-kun.

>>378180507
Classic, the " You're done with my bulshit that means I win" stratagem

Other guy here to tell you that the street fighter example IS emergent gameplay, and I'm concerned that you can't see that. The importance is not important other than the fact you should have heard about this already.

>>378180979
Well, at least you admit you are still here. That gives me hope that even if you don't show it, you might acknowledge it in some way.

>>378180883
Okay.

I admit it. I'm wrong. I'm a 23-year-old virgin and I'm about to graduate from Berkeley and I can't find a job. My parents think I'm gay for watching trap porn and my dad keeps pounding at my door at night to stop playing vidya, and to tell me how much of a loser I am. I was interested in a girl for a while and some 18 year old freshman managed to woo her and make fun of me in front of her. The worst part? He's more attractive than me, and he's an absolute genius in his field (mathematics)

I can't handle being wrong anymore. Please just let me have this. I know my place, but I'm sick of how my life turned out.

>>378181094
Have a nice night, autism-kun.

>>378180137
I don't actually remember the grading system, just the reasons for some ridiculous below-average/failing scores. Let me check his game review section to see if
>Icycalm
NOPE! It was this bastard for sure.

Fine, I clicked on it anyways, I'll look over the article.

Okay, I got two paragraphs in and started skimming. From what I've caught, it seems that he argues a very philosophical point of "all gameplay is emergent because you can't predict what the players are going to do, therefore it becomes emergent", and then uses it to bash the gaming journo's use of it as a buzzword for open world games.

This is a common trap for philosophy majors and hobbyist who haven't quite "gotten" there yet. If you argue the point of a word to apply to anything, that naturally makes the word worthless and the exercise fruitless. Not only that, but the fucker took up what must have been 3 full pages, back to front typed, to wax poetic about some lit he was reading, just to make a point that game journos are dumb.

He's basically saying nothing of importance to anyone is ultimately what I think.

>>378181084
>Classic, the " You're done with my bulshit that means I win" stratagem
Well, since the guy declared that I'm wrong and he has everyone else on his side, so I gave him a collection of first results on google, every single one of them proving him wrong, and literally his next post was "I'M NOT LISTENTING TO YOU ANYMORE!" I think it's actually appropriate.

And yes. You can leave, that is fine. But declaring how you are leaving, even posting like five posts more yet still refusing to acknowledge the last point: that is an admition of defeat.

The other guy is a deluded cretin. And by the way, I actually never denied that it's an emergent gameplay - or it's at least recognized as such. The guy came here declaring that ONLY THAT is emergent gameplay, and that other games I've mentioned, which he did not know to exist, are not.

And he further continued to pile up bullshit. All of it, as it turned out, because he felt like what I'm saying is somehow disrespectful to that move in Street Fighter.
That is a slightely different scenario.

>>378181208
On the offchance that any of that is right: get a shrink. But first admit that you have a problem. I'm pretty sure your failures may be related to you doing shit like this.

>>378181837
Have a nice night, autism-kun

>>378181441
Oh I thought he argued the exact opposite? That emergent gameplay doesn't exist since every response is already coded in and therefore there cannot arise a situation that the programmers didn't forsee? At least thats what this quote seems to argue

"But let us put an end to this inanity -- first principle of videogame theory: A game's code always includes a response, an output, for every possible input -- moreover the range of allowable inputs is also dictated by the code and has nothing whatsoever to do with the player, consequently all permissible interactions, situations, possibilities (all these words being synonymous in this context) are always already inscribed inside the code"

Thanks for the input though!

>>378181837
You've lost the argument because you've failed to convince anyone of your point, whereas everyone in this thread beleves that the other guy is right.

If you want my opinion, your definition is one that developers have been pushing so they can claim that their game supports emergent gameplay, and his is the real definition that most people use.

>>378168486
>Uh...wrong?
Ugh who put you on the planet

>>378172814
>I'm an academic with standards!
>shitposting on /v/
Pick one

>>378182376
>whereas everyone in this thread beleves that the other guy is right.
Those are big fucking words. You are speaking for everyone?
I don't really care. I just dealt with one absolute idiot. I'm willing belive there is more of you.

>If you want my opinion, your definition is one that developers have been pushing so they can claim that their game supports emergent gameplay, and his is the real definition that most people use.
I don't. Your opinion is worthless. I just spent several hours arguing with a faggot only to learn that the ONLY reason why he disagrees is because he felt that I'm somehow threatening his ill-placed obsessive emphasis on importance of a move in Street Fighter. I'm not going to spent another few dealing you only to learn that you are again misusing the term because actually, you just want to go on a fucking tirade about how unhappy you are with the current state of the industry.
Your sentiments about the industry now, just as his sentiment to that streetfighter move are irrelevant.

I'm right because:
A) The definition that provide correctly applies the concept of "emergent properties" as defined by philosophy and science - and used by thousand other fields - to games. His definition does not reflect the meaning of the term "emergent properties" from any other field.
B) It's the definition used by those who first introduced it to the medium. It's what they meant and talked about when they first said "we can talk about emergent properties in games".
C) it's the most common use in the discourse, as proven by sources reflecting common useage consesus, such as Wiki

If you want to talk about something else, then don't use the term "emergent properties". You WANTING it to be something else is not my problem. Use a different term. The way you use it has nothing to do with common usage, OR broader definition of emergence.

>good thread killed by fedoras
rip

>>378182335
>That emergent gameplay doesn't exist since every response is already coded in and therefore there cannot arise a situation that the programmers didn't forsee? At least thats what this quote seems to argue
Again, I skimmed it. That definitely is a stance you could take, and it's not even actually wrong, considering that most gameplay that would become emergent, and even examples of it in reality tend to arise from glitches. But from what I've read, he seems to go in the opposite direction, making the word meaningless due to all players experiences.

I went to look for the quote that stated such, but I couldn't find it exactly, and it appears the area I found it in originally is mostly just slamming Molenuex. So I guess I stand corrected.

You're welcome regardless, anon!

>>378183442
Have a good night, autism-kun.

>>378161432
COMPANY OF HEROES 1

>>378162794
I think it's just a fancy word for freeform games where you can make whatever the fuck you want.

God I miss Maxis.