Update

game.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Most generally game is a form of play which is restricted by certain rules, the
 
 A fun take at the very concept of a game is [Nomic](nomic.md), a game in which changing the game rules is part of the game. It leads to all kinds of mindfucks.
 
-**What does a good game look like?** Purely mathematical [LRS](lrs.md) games (but not only them -- this will apply to real life games also) must be [beautiful](beauty.md) mathematically, it should be very [simple](simple.md) by only having a few rules, but those rules will spawn a whole universe of possibilities so that depth and endless hours of [fun](fun.md) and challenge will emerge -- this we usually call [easy to learn, hard to master](easy_to_learn_hard_to_master.md). It's best if solving the game is [computationally expensive](np_hard.md) so that we can't simply make a program that would solve the game once and for all, it's better if players don't know perfect play and have to look for [heuristics](heuristic.md) for playing efficiently and getting closer and closer to perfect play, without being able to reach it. A good game is [free](free_culture.md), owned by no one, belonging to the people, and lives its own life by relying on **self imposed goals** rather than "content consumption" in form of constant [updates](update_culture.md) and centralized control by some kind of "owner" (as is the case with capitalist games) -- i.e. despite having a goal, the game doesn't try to hard force the player to do something, but rather opens up a nice environment (in which the main goal is but one of many fun things to do) for player's own creativity (once the player beats the game, he may e.g. try to beat it [as fast as possible](speedrun.md), play it with deliberately chosen limitations, try to play it as bad as possible, combine it with other games etc.). One such nice game is possibly [racetrack](racetrack.md). For competition it's probably best if the game is symmetric, i.e. all players have (at least as much as possible) equal conditions (same weapons, same goals, ...) -- this ensures that the game always stays balanced, even when new tricks are being discovered as these can be utilized by all players. It's also good to prevent opening theory, i.e. the necessity to extensively study and memorize opening moves -- which is infamously an issue in [chess](chess.md) -- this can be prevented for example by randomizing starting positions, having many different "maps" to play on etc.
+**What does a good game look like?** Purely mathematical [LRS](lrs.md) games (but not only them -- this will apply to real life games also) must be [beautiful](beauty.md) mathematically, it should be very [simple](simple.md) by only having a few rules, but those rules will spawn a whole universe of possibilities so that depth and endless hours of [fun](fun.md) and challenge will emerge -- this we usually call [easy to learn, hard to master](easy_to_learn_hard_to_master.md). It's best if solving the game is [computationally expensive](np_hard.md) so that we can't simply make a program that would solve the game once and for all, it's better if players don't know perfect play and have to look for [heuristics](heuristic.md) for playing efficiently and getting closer and closer to perfect play, without being able to reach it. A good game is [free](free_culture.md), owned by no one, belonging to the people, and lives its own life by relying on **self imposed goals** rather than "content consumption" in form of constant [updates](update_culture.md) and centralized control by some kind of "owner" (as is the case with capitalist games) -- i.e. despite having a goal, the game doesn't try to hard force the player to do something, but rather opens up a nice environment (in which the main goal is but one of many fun things to do) for player's own creativity (once the player beats the game, he may e.g. try to beat it [as fast as possible](speedrun.md), play it with deliberately chosen limitations, try to play it as bad as possible, combine it with other games etc.). One such nice game is possibly [racetrack](racetrack.md). For competition it's probably best if the game is symmetric, i.e. all players have (at least insofar as possible) equal conditions (same weapons, same goals, ...) -- this ensures that the game always stays balanced, even when new tricks are being discovered as these can be utilized by all players. It's also good to prevent opening theory, i.e. the necessity to extensively study and memorize opening moves -- which is infamously an issue in [chess](chess.md) -- this can be prevented for example by randomizing starting positions, having many different "maps" to play on etc.
 
 **Games that aim for photorealistic graphics are by definition garbage and are PHYSICALLY UNPLAYABLE**. Even if it was otherwise the best game in the universe, once it tries to have photorealistic graphics it negates everything else, the game must be thrown to trash and cannot ever be touched. Aiming for photorealism in video games is like aiming for photorealism in fine art or aiming for faithfully capturing real life in movies, it shows absolute lack of understanding of the area. The only thing that matters in graphics is aesthetics and utility. Anyone who even slightly disagrees with this is an absolute cock sucker idiot and should distance from games forever.