= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Manfred comments on Designing serious games - a request for help - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (41)
An interesting exercise you might use to attack privileging the hypothesis:
Start with a privileged hypothesis, ask the player to estimate its probability. Then ask the player to generate a bunch of alternate hypotheses. Then ask them to re-assess the probability of the initial hypothesis. Random line idea: "it could either happen or it could not happen - so there's a 50% chance, right?"
Can you give me the examples of the hypotheses that can be used to test the player? what is the scoring mechanism?
Remember - we don't have another person doing this - it all has to be coded into the program - so you'll have to spell it out to us so we can spell it out in code.
Scoring or checking that would definitely be difficult unless the game had a syntax for hypotheses, something like drawing causal arrows between bubbles. But that would at the same time make it boring and unhelpful to make hypotheses. I guess it's not really game material.
I suppose you could have the hypotheses written by the designers and then have various characters espouse them over the course of the game. But that would make the exercise very minor and not worth it.
Soooo nevermind.