Thinking about Tetris and Worm (also known as Snake) two popular games, what I realised was that these games do NOT have computer contolled opponents. Instead, the player is competes ''against himself'', the players skill / strategy in controlling the action, is what counts. This lends a ''purity'' to the action, and (probably) helps to reduce the learning curve of these games, as the player does not have to get to grips with the behaviour of computer controlled game units that are trying to make the player lose. Instead of attributing the failure to ''that pesky critter'', they can see that it was a consequence of their own play style.

Okay. Now what''s your point?

That maybe there should be more games that put a greater emphasis on the skill of the player (this could be either physical or mental skill).

One way that I can think to do this would be to have no ''active'' AI controlled enemies in the game. Think about it, many games rely on having easily beaten computer controlled opponents for the player. What would it be like if more games relied instead on the skill of the player, and the consequences of their success/ failures in the game? How would this change the nature of the games, and what genres would be created?

These games could be (are?) far more popular with people who do not regularly play computer games. For example, Tetris, Patience (there is no opponent), Minesweeper, and Snake.

I agree.

However, it''s pretty hard to create a good game with no opponent, without just building on something that already exists.

I made my own card game once (non-virtual)... but it was over-complicated and difficult to get into when I tried to teach it to my friends.

If you can come up with an opponent-less game, then ok, but it had better be fun...

Superpig
- saving pigs from untimely fates
- sleeps in a ham-mock at www.thebinaryrefinery.cjb.net

What you are saying only works in certain kinds of games, and in the kinds of games it works in it is already being done. For example, racing against your ghost in a racing game or beating your score in a puzzle game. Also, Tetris does have computer opponents, although I am not sure about Worms since I have not played it.

FPS Multiplayer is about the skill of the player/ pitted against the skill of another human player. That is in my opinion the only game worth playing because it forces a slightly inferior player to raise his game to beat a slightly superior player. In tetris, or any game that you play solo, you only stand to get better relative to yourself.. I find that interesting to a point, but I like competition because you learn from better players even faster and you stand to grow BEYOND yourself. I suppose you could watch another person play tetris who is better than you, but I personally like to interact, not sit on the sidelines, and I learn better by doing not watching.

Its like playing tennis: If you practice by hitting the ball against the wall, you only stand to learn so much, but if you practice by playing agianst a superior opponent, you stand to learn so much more.. and its way more fun!

quote: Original post by TheEnderBean
In tetris, or any game that you play solo, you only stand to get better relative to yourself.. I find that interesting to a point, but I like competition because you learn from better players even faster and you stand to grow BEYOND yourself. I suppose you could watch another person play tetris who is better than you, but I personally like to interact, not sit on the sidelines, and I learn better by doing not watching.

Three words: High scores list.

Working on my game to try and beat the top score set by my #$*&! brother classifies as competition... even though it''s still playing against the clock and the machine.

Superpig
- saving pigs from untimely fates
- sleeps in a ham-mock at www.thebinaryrefinery.cjb.net

Ketchaval: get yourself a Gamecube and a copy of Sega''s Super Monkey Ball. Best pure skill game in years.