11-08-2012, 04:19 PM
Sebrent Wrote:I just think that players provide another randomness.
In Chess, there are so many ways to react your opponent's moves. Because of this, despite a lack of randomness, players are able to continue to have fun games against the same opponents for years.
Yet, Chess is a warfare simulation with a set of rules. Does it make sense that if you have a knight attacking another knight that he'll win 100% of the time? If you really studied Chess, there are basic set moves that the upper level players make. Some go with defense and some offense and their opening moves usually show which way they are going. You can quickly learn a Chess players mind within a few games this way which is similiar to MMOs or other games. At that point, there is little randomness and it turns into read and react.
I get what you are saying by randomness with players and I agree that its probably one of the best random aspects of gaming. However, I much prefer some level of randomness (very small) because it models reality better. D-Day may not of happened because of weather randomness along with the Germans invasion of Russia stalling because of mud and snow. The Spanish Armada (a vastly superior force) was defeated by England in the Channel. Kublai Khan's invasion of Japan ending in disaster... twice! There are many more examples of things that happened in history that just shouldn't have.