Just For Fun: Invent A Game

     Now and then in my sojourns through that magical wonderland called Amazon, I’ll stumble upon a product that intrigues me for no logical reason. Yesterday was such an occasion:

     That’s right, Gentle Reader: the product illustrated above is a bag of 140 polyhedral dice of the sort used in Dungeons and Dragons and other role-playing games. Twenty sets, seven dice per set. Dice and bag for only $29.99!

     Now, I have no idea why anyone would want or need twenty sets of DnD / RPG dice. But the product listing mentioned above isn’t the only such; there are dozens of similar offerings. Therefore, there must be a market for them. That got me to thinking: What sort of game would need all the dice in the bag, plus the bag itself?

     So here’s a fun challenge:

• Invent a game that requires:
  • The Wiz Dice Bag of Devouring with all its contents,
  • A map of some portion of either our world or any well known fictional realm,
  • And one other item of your choice.
• Write rules for that game for two, three, or four players.
• Propose a tournament around it.

     I’ll publish the funniest and most imaginative entries here at Liberty’s Torch.

Quickies: The Saddest Of All Puppy-Like Lifeforms

     ...would be the frustrated would-be panjandrums of the video-gaming press:

     Reviews from professional video game journalists play a minuscule role in consumer purchasing decisions, according to the Entertainment Software Association’s Essential Facts 2015 report, released this week.

     Just 3 per cent of consumers consider reviews from websites or magazines the most important factor in their decision-making. An “interesting story/premise” was the most important factor for 22 per cent of those surveyed, price for 15 per cent, word of mouth for 11 per cent and quality of graphics for 7 per cent.

     The ESA’s findings (PDF) are likely to reignite discussion about the purpose of seemingly arbitrary scoring from sites such as Polygon and meandering, abstract game reviews from sites such as Kotaku, both of which have long been criticised for being overly politicised and for focusing on irrelevant detail at the expense of conveying information about frame rates, gameplay and other factors gamers say they care about.

     The findings will also prompt soul-searching from the editors of many games websites. One of the primary purposes of such sites is to review new titles, but aside from stirring up controversy with provocative, politically-charged reviews, these sites appear to be having little effect on the game-buying public.

     My interest in a video game stems almost exclusively from the story on which it’s based, coupled to whether the play is consistent with and (hopefully) reinforces that story. Yes, I’m one of the most thumb-fingered gamers around, so that probably plays into my priorities. All the same, for me, the experience I most treasure is the aspect that’s most enabled by advances in console power and graphics: that of an adventure in which I can participate.

     I’m not surprised that 22% of gamers rate that as their top priority. It’s an often overlooked fact that video gaming is penetrating ever more deeply into the older demographics. We old farts aren’t equipped to raid tombs, destroy zombies, or cleanse derelict spacecraft of evil necromorphs. (We don’t have the weapons, we don’t have the time, and we certainly don’t have the hit points.) But we still love adventure stories, and what could be better than an adventure that allows us to participate?

     By contrast, the review publications and sites appear to have gone all New York Times on us – i.e., to have made politically correct emphases their supreme criteria. What they (much like the Times) have failed to realize is that we the customers don’t care about such things and can’t be made to care about them. We’re in this for entertainment and diversion. That leaves them all butthurt.

     I’ve written before about the tendency of power-seekers to focus on disseminative targets: media and similar mechanisms that can be used to promulgate a particular worldview. At first blush, the gaming press might appear to have that sort of status. The critical difference is gamers ourselves: our priorities and our readiness to dismiss persons who trumpet that “fun” shouldn’t be the point of gaming.

     You can’t propagandize a man who knows what he wants, knows why he wants it, and is satisfied with his reasons. Either the gaming press will realize this and adjust its practices accordingly, or it will dwindle to insignificance. Assuming it hasn’t already reached that stage, of course.