Mechanic: If your wrong enough times, your right

[Callan S.]

Well, regardless of presentation, the people you described are certain the game designer played them for fools, where a number of other conclusions could also be drawn and considered plausible. Despite room for uncertainty, they entertain none - if they feel frustrated, then their automatic conclusion - their only conclusion - is someone did done them wrong.

I'm not interested in engaging that line of thinking at all. It's even a design goal - the design is for people who entertain doubt on a regular basis (ie, people who question everything, including their own reactions). Indeed, any project I made that was supposed to engage that automatic conclusion thinking, would be for the purposes of trying to crack them out of that sort of thinking. Which reminds me, I have that mythic age roundhouse game to work on...

[Vulpinoid]

Well, regardless of presentation, the people you described are certain the game designer played them for fools, where a number of other conclusions could also be drawn and considered plausible. Despite room for uncertainty, they entertain none - if they feel frustrated, then their automatic conclusion - their only conclusion - is someone did done them wrong.

Are they certain? Or did they simply reach this conclusion based on their logic derived from the events they undertook?

I ws only presenting an example of the latter.

Please explain through a series of logical steps how someone could come to a conclusion otherwise.

I'm really interested to hear your rationale.

As I said, you seem passionate about this concept...but that doesn't mean you have to get defensive. I'd like to hear how your idea is actually designed to break people out of a mindset, or get them to question their thought patterns when the nature of a computer game often keeps the mechanics hidden behind lines of code that aren't directly seen by a user, and when you've deliberately obfuscated parts of the programs output to keep them second guessing about the internal workings.

As the developer of the concept and the coder of the program, you can see the workings and can understand what's happening. I'm trying to see how other people would perceive the output they are receiving.

V

[Callan S.]

Nobody can explain the logical steps they could reach a conclusion by, because the assertion that there is always a way of logically reaching a conclusion with limited evidence, is bogus. As I said, they have evidence that could point to a number of plausible conclusions. Baring mind reading, they don't appear to have the evidence to nail it down to one conclusion. Despite that, they make a conclusion and are certain of it. Or if they are remaining in an uncertain, then you haven't made a point.

The whole 'no need to be defensive' comment is an ancient turn of phrase, either used out of mimiced habit, or deliberately refering to something as established fact to exploit common lacks of scrutiny in people, who because of that, would start treating it as established fact. Much like the above situation, I have no evidence to form either as a definate conclusion about your use. But given that my talking about other projects for 'cracking' was missread to mean this project is for cracking, the threads, the odds seem to be on this thread is breaking down.


I'm tempted to close this thread, but I'd like to leave it open on the off chance of other voices chiming in.