Comment by kibwen
2 years ago
> I was mostly trying to say something along the lines of "solving NP-hard problems isn't good gameplay"
Consider that Tetris is NP-hard. :) Giving the player optimization problems is one of the fundamental pillars of game design. For many, it's more fun to make a deck of cards in Magic or Hearthstone than to actually play the deck against an opponent.
I'm not here to argue about semantics. The first line of my OP said "options for the sake of options" and then "choices don't significantly enhance the core game experience". The comment you're replying to said "something along the lines of" to encourage readers not to get hung up on the exact wording.
I'd appreciate a bit of a more charitable interpretation of my responses.
Given the context, a more charitable interpretation would have been something like:
"solving NP-hard problems isn't good gameplay...*in and of itself*"
> Giving the player optimization problems is one of the fundamental pillars of game design.
Yes, but this is not what I'm talking about at all. I don't know how you're interpreting my position as being against optimization problems in games.
> Consider that Tetris is NP-hard. :)
Would you consider that the choices that make Tetris NP-hard significantly enhance the core game experience?
How about MtG or Hearthstone?
---
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html