Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Agdune]

While I haven't looked it up, I'm quite aware of it. I'm also aware that some study suggested that humans might not intrinsically be able to recognize numbers higher than 2- apparently toddlers know of 1, 2, and "many." I'm curious if that's related, or if people just prefer things as simple as possible.

Well, there's also the fact (sort of) that the "normal" brain can only count up to 7 at a glance; similarly, memory for things you've heard (before being moved into long-term-ish memory) is seven seconds, while memory for images is 3-4 seconds.

The one-two-many theory is also corroborated by the "dual" tense in Old Church Slavonic and Arabic, i.e. there's I, We (two people) and We (more than two people) and so on, and so forth.

Actually, it varies depending on what form of memory is being used (and thus, what theoretical model you're working with, I guess...). Echoic memory has two forms - long and short storage. Short is the unprocessed auditory information and only hangs around for 1-2 seconds. Long is semi-processed and can last up to 5-ish. The more vauge sounding sensory memory (visual and tactile) hangs around for 1-2 seconds in its unprocessed form and I think yeah, 3-4 in its more processed form.

After that, it's apparently more a matter of rehersal/encoding which determines if you remember it or not. Not entirely clear on that, because I don't have my lecture notes here and the powerpoint slides are kinda vauge.

7 numbers is I think about right for numbers recalled in short-term memory experiments though, since it takes roughly 3-4 seconds to recite those numbers, at which point it's started to fade, so you forget the rest (the working memory buffer seems to actually be alot bigger, we just never really get the chance to encode it all before it evaporates). However, if you have time to reherse numbers and have a great encoding method (like chunking), you can remember a potentially unlimited number of items. Kinda like those smartasses who memorise Pi up to 8,000 digits, most of whom use chunking, apparently.

[Cthulhu]

I miss the old days.  No complicated backstories for the factions.  No tacked on RPG bullshit.  No unlocking guns.  Guns were lying around on the map and you unlocked them by picking them up before the other guy did.

That was the golden age.  The most recent game I know of that did shooting right was Gears of War 2.  The factions had backstories, but everyone knows the story is just there because "Chop Everybody Up With Chainsaws 2" doesn't really work anymore.

[Max White]

I miss the days when health was resorted by running around pressing the open button on all walls until you you found a hidden door that head to health packs.

[RedKing]

I miss the old days.  No complicated backstories for the factions.  No tacked on RPG bullshit.  No unlocking guns.  Guns were lying around on the map and you unlocked them by picking them up before the other guy did.

That was the golden age.

Yeah, but then it was "1st person to the rocket launcher = WIN".

There was a certain purity of playing Unreal Tournament in Instagib Shock Rifle mode though. It was more of an Old West feel to it...no arms race as to who could get the bigger gun, or better armor, etc. It was all about who had faster reflexes and better aim. Although in retrospect, I'm not sure why I'm waxing nostalgic about this considering I have the reflexes of a turtle on Quaalude. 

[Leafsnail]

Plays - A cast of eight is considered large. Seven or less is quite small.

Exactly!  For perfect balance, you need 7.5 characters.

...I guess you just kill the 8th off as quickly as possible.

[IronyOwl]

Plays - A cast of eight is considered large. Seven or less is quite small.

Exactly!  For perfect balance, you need 7.5 characters.

...I guess you just kill the 8th off as quickly as possible.

Ah yes, the relevant person's prologue death which sets events in motion. King is dead, wife died, mentor vanished, you know.

[Virex]

Plays - A cast of eight is considered large. Seven or less is quite small.

Exactly!  For perfect balance, you need 7.5 characters.

...I guess you just kill the 8th off as quickly as possible.

Ah yes, the relevant person's prologue death which sets events in motion. King is dead, wife died, mentor vanished, you know.

Wife ran off with some pansy elfTrojan.

[Neonivek]

I miss the old days.  No complicated backstories for the factions.  No tacked on RPG bullshit.  No unlocking guns.  Guns were lying around on the map and you unlocked them by picking them up before the other guy did.

I guess it is Doom's fault. Them and their hiding the Chainsaw.

[Euld]

Hmm interesting, I suppose two factions is a lot easier than several.  However, I now put forth the idea that game developers should examine some government in action (preferably in the UN and European Union level) to get a feel for how multiple factions quarrel over limited resources (like money, time, power, laws).  As opposed to setting up two diametrically opposed ones that just kill each other on sight.

Or I'm just weird.  I seem to enjoy political intrigue in certain games.

[Aqizzar]

You know what DooM needed?  A third faction of quasi-demons, so you didn't know who was the badguy in each map.

You know what Quake 2 needed?  Rebel Strogg that can bargain for an alliance with the originals or the humans.

You know what Wolfenstein needed?  Psycho French guards who hate you and the Nazis equally.

It's a goddamn FPS.  It doesn't need more than two "sides", and I really have to echo Janet here in saying that by calling them "parties", it's clear who really has the psychological hangups.

Not to mention, how does a three-plus team-based shooter work?  Because inevitably in all-on-all FPS Deathmatches, a couple people form an alliance, and then kill each other at the end.

[Leafsnail]

I have kindof enjoyed games where you have 2 rival sets of enemies who kill each other and you on sight.  So you can kindof bait them into fighting (this doesn't really require complex factions or anything - it can just be "zombies vs bad guys").

[Grakelin]

Hmm interesting, I suppose two factions is a lot easier than several.  However, I now put forth the idea that game developers should examine some government in action (preferably in the UN and European Union level) to get a feel for how multiple factions quarrel over limited resources (like money, time, power, laws).  As opposed to setting up two diametrically opposed ones that just kill each other on sight.

Or I'm just weird.  I seem to enjoy political intrigue in certain games.

I think you should examine them, actually. There is a distinct lack of three-way wars in real life.

I enjoy intrigues, too, but an FPS isn't a political game. It's a combat game. It's rare that you play as a decision maker in a first person shooter, and even more so in the multiplayer components. I think you might be looking for a game like Civilization. Criticizing Brink for lacking sufficient political gameplay is akin to criticizing your horse for being a poor marksman.

[Euld]

Mm, alright you guys got me good.  Guess I should be looking elsewhere for political intrigue.