I see your point, but this is less “every game is hide and seek” and more “every game has some shape or form of goal and some kind of obstacle or challenge that has to be overcome in order to meet that goal, and hide and seek meets this criteria therefore it is also a game”
I agree, I think it's much more fundamental than hide and seek. Any goal worth achieving has an obstacle in the way of achieving it, otherwise it would be trivially achievable and therefore have no value, so if everything that we call a "game" has a goal which is worth achieving (which I think is fairly reasonable otherwise no-one would want to play it) then it must have this "hide and seek" structure. It also seems more general to me than just games, you could make a similar claim for pretty much any situation in which you're oriented by your goals if you stretch the definition of "hide" to "blocked by obstacles" enough
@@harrystuart7455 Yeah that is all true, but it's a word salad, and the Hide and Seek analogy is short, relatable, easy to visualize, and digestible. Unlike your comment, lol
funnily enough that´s basically Jesper Juuls definition of games. "Do thing? But there is obstacle! Therefore achieving thing is good" No obstacle no game
An interesting idea, but I'd look at it from the other direction: Hide and Seek is a very basic game of "setting an objective and achieving that objective." Every game will seem comparable to Hide and Seek because it's simply being used as a lens to view the baseline "set objective/seek objective" that allows other games to be games at all. Still, it is a fun way to look at it. And it made for an entertaining video.
I was making this exact argument in my head as I was watching the video. Of course it’s still always nice to get a little peek into the mind of Mr. Smith, so I enjoyed the video nonetheless.
I just typed out almost this exact comment. I do think that the hide and seek analogy is a useful tool for analyzing the objective structure of your game though, because it's such a simple expression of this basic game structure.
Agreed. While I don't necessarily DISagree with RS's theory, I think he's picked a game at random. You could just as easily say every game is catch and then just use the words "throw" and "catch" instead of "hide" and "seek". The choice of words doesn't really mean anything because he's applying them in various degrees of metaphorical-ness to a simpler concept of "objective" and "obstacle". Every game has an objective (to win) and an obstacle to reach that objective (usually the other other players). That's what a game is.
On one hand, I love this video and the ideas it proposes. On the other hand, you put Bubsy directly next to Mario when discussing platformers and that simply cannot be forgivin
You really glossed over the more important aspect of all games, the win and loss condition. A video about win and loss conditions in games would really be more useful for game designers and RPG groups. For the D&D example, DMs and players should understand that the loss condition of a D&D game isn't a TPK or letting the BBEG take over the world, it's having a session that isn't fun. Once they look at the game this way, the players will put more effort into making memorable characters and the DM will work more on making an immersive experience, and the group as a whole will take measures to cut away parts of the game that aren't fun.
You've a point. The hiding is there because it garners interest and adds drama and suspense. It's similar to the rule of Sorkin: "A character wants something and something else is in their way of getting it."
I don't see the point of oversimplification like this, yes games have goals, yes you have to do stuff Anyway congrats on being sponsor free! That's cool I've never seen a yt channel do that
Isn't *Joe Rogan* that bald guy who wants to be *Carlos Mencia* ? Now if only *Carlos Mencia* wanted to be a good *Dungeon Master* ... Then it would be like _The circle of life_ ! ...Only nobody wants to be Joe Rogan.
No because every game has an objective that it hides from you. It might hide it behind enimes or it might hide it behind random numbers. The point is the player want to win and victory is hidden from them.
I'd wholeheartedly suggest you read one of the popular game design books. You'll find what you talk about in this video is in depth explained under the topic of "Fuzzy goals" in the design process. It's a good find on your part, nice video!
This is a great video, and I think you’re mostly right, but I have to disagree in a subtle way. I think you have (correctly) boiled games down to the minimum of discover problem, solve for the answer, which is very complex for MTG or DnD, but not for all games. Because hide and seek has the most clear problem/solution (it’s in the name), it is an example of this boiled down game at its most simple, but I don’t think that means all games are hide and seek, it means all games came from the same common ancestor as hide and seek. It is a whole chicken egg scenario, which doesn’t really matter, but I just wanted to share my thoughts. Thank you for provoking them
The strategies and possible counterplays the opponent has. In a (something, i forgot the word for it)-game like chess. The opponent itself is the secret that blocks both player's desired outcome. Predicting them and outsmarting them. That is the key.
A treat for the RU-vid algorithm: I was engaged with this video - at least engaged enough to write a comment to sate the neverending hunger of the algorithm.
Logan, you've described the concept of progress. A -> B. Progress as defined: "forward or onward movement toward a destination." where a desired outcome is B (winning the game), and where you begin is A (not having yet won the game). It sounds like you got baked thought you found some magical secret - but you've just discovered the concept of progress. Better luck next time mate :P
I think your right except for this key point, It’s not progress it’s the core concept of every game ever point A not winning point B winning AND a challenge in between. That is the point of every game so comparing hide and seek to dnd because they share the same incredibly basic core mechanics is ridiculous!
This video is the exact kind of tangent that i go off on in the mirror at 3 am and holy fuck i love it! Keep up the freedom and boldness of these videos Runie-boy
I honestly love this video because it’s... so dumb it actually wraps back around to making me think. Which is what it made you do. Which I love because it makes me feel like I’m hanging out with my friends
I see what you are saying, you're trying to examine the definition of 'game' so you can reach for better understanding. But not all games are hide and seek, and not all games are about getting to the end. Some games are just fun, independent of winning the game. What bothered me about your argument though was the former; not all games are hide and seek. It's true that all games have an objective, and its true that 'game' means an optional challenge (otherwise its work), but that doesn't make it hide and seek. Hide and seek shares things with all games, but those are things that all games share due to being games. A more interesting examination I think would be to look at games vs tasks or jobs or obligations. Playing tag vs chasing a purse thief, idk. And about how even though the challenges are identical, the stakes are different, and its not consensual; which tells you that games are explicitly consensual, both in the playing of the game and in the stakes. You could then look at Poker where the betting stakes are sometimes high yet at the same time thats the point? And examining whether it still is really a 'game' or not under the definition you are constructing
He has an idea but game desing is more complex. Games has start and end condition but objectives can be really different and not always about winning(it can be one of the goals but not always). A-B or B-A, or more complex AC & AB & AC & ABC & A->B->C and a lot more. That's only the surface. There is reason why chess is very good game even it is a very old game.
By this logic, Grover's "There's a monster at the end of this book" is also a Hide and Seek Game, where Grover is playing a solo game, and we're all watching him do it.
While I don't agree with all the points of your video, I always enjoy your content. This was worth waiting until midnight (when my shift ends) to watch this.
I’m half way through the video and this video has convinced me is that every game is basically Snake and Ladders. I think you’re right about your argument skills.
Hot take: B,C,D,E,Z B. This applies to everything, not just games. C. People actually choose their point B. People choose what game to play, which food to eat, which career to follow, and which path to take. After that they pick another point B. Or maybe it can be called point C, and then D, and then E, and so on so forth? D. It all comes down to the ultimate point B, or perhaps their point Z, which is what the end game is for each person. But I believe this final point Z fluctuates throughout life as a person learns about everything and learns what is most important to them individually. E. The bigger picture of a point B or a point Z is why I like playing a game like Skyrim so much; each point of B, C, D or E can be defeating the bandit leader, finding the artifact, defeating Alduin, or boning the housecarl. The greater point Z can be becoming the most powerful mage, master thief, ultimate warrior, or expert cheese collector, and can fluctuate between any of these options or more as you play the game. Z. To me this is why D&D is so attractive; because people get to discover a meaningful point Z of their own choosing, and follow various B, C, D, and E points the DM presents them with, as the DM themself looks for, or aims for an ultimate point Z for the campaign as a whole.
The ending is interesting, it can be used to make the case that every type of media is sort of a game. Just because you're sitting still enjoying it instead of pushing buttons to affect it, doesn't mean you're not actively interacting with it
I actually really like the idea, and several of the layers of using a card deck system to do traps. You could choose the balance the deck but it’s not feasible for the dungeon master to meta game a deck of traps. It’s a fun novelty not to know what the trap is going to be even as the dungeon master and that’s why I like using deck traps. But it’s also psychologically helpful or relieving because you’re not the one who potentially killed somebody it was the randomness of the trap. A morbid example would be a firing squad where one person randomly has the actual bullet so they don’t feel as guilty about killing someone because they don’t know if they actually did or not.
TBH, this is a way to think about the definition of a game, there are some gdc talks I remember that talk about game design and this concept is pretty well known, just shown differently
Stealth games especially Tactical Stealth games are the most hide'n'seek, even more so then horror. Especially if the game is Commandos or Shadow Tactics where you're going out of your way to not be seen at all and if you are then you suddenly have even more Seekers looking for you. The later even actively advocates save scumming just to make sure you don't get caught and has several badges for not raising the alarm. In fact the entire point of Hide'n'Seek is the main requirement for a game to end up in the "Stealth" genre. You are trying to seek a target being protected by seekers and being found either makes everything harder or is a game over.
Despite the condescension in most of these comments, I think you've discovered something for yourself, which is great. Even if you don't have all the right vocabulary to describe these ideas in the same way as others have, you've found something new and tried to articulate it to people. I love that. I think what you've found here is that all games (and I'll note, all stories) are based on CONFLICT. There must be a goal and there must be an obstacle.
I think this is interesting in the sense that this is essentially what drives us as human beings in general. The idea of trying to impose impose order through goals, we attempt to rationalise a chaotic world by imposing order through achievement. We attempt to understand by establishing a process that reveals things that we have thus far failed to understand. As a result, games are a microchasm of how humans attempt to interpret the world around us, by attempting to understand the rules of the world to achieve something that we are yet to fully grasp
The thing with all TTRPG is that you're not entirely sure what your character is seeking and the DM is not always sure what he is hiding, the improv is what makes a flaw in your theory, is like playing hide and seek but the one seeking doesn't know who is playing with him
Honestly, this outlook would make for an awesome bard XD Any character's core trait, honestly. It's a really interesting philosophy to define a personal outlook.
If you simplify hide and seek to "obstacle and win condition" then by definition, to be a game, something would have to be "hide and seek", because by definition, a game requires obstacles and win conditions to be considered games. Tavern book is a cool idea btw.
Hide and Seek only describes the end goal of a game but not the more important middle. For example if you wanna find something hidden... But if you have to solve a puzzle, or shoot an orc, in order to find it then I'd consider that as a more relevant description of the game than having to find the thing.
I applaud your entry into game design. Your view on it is much like that of novice bakers who think "baking is a science, just follow the recipe and you can't go wrong." They might not be wrong, but once they get more experience they learn there's so much wiggle room in those recipes and sometimes there are necessary substitutions not written in. Perhaps the initial recipe was flat out wrong. If you were to look at game design itself as if it were a game, would you see it as hide and seek?
I ordered a copy of Stibble’s like a month or so ago; around the time you released the video saying that they were ready to order them and you said they’d be shipped by Christmas, but I still haven’t gotten mine. I know you can’t do anything about it, but it would’ve been nice to have it for Christmas. At this point, I’m not even sure if it’s coming or not.
Interesting. But if all games require win states and lose states, does that mean that games like What Remains of Edith Finch which lack a lose state are not games, even though we must engage with them through what is most accurately described as “play”?
Your describing challenges. All games have an artificial imposed challenge "hiding" something, and we work to resolve said challenge and "find" the objective. However not all challenges are games, a game has predetermined, artificially imposed parameters, a challenge can - but does not necessarily - have these.
Here's another thing. Generally the more uncertain it is that players are going to reach their desired outcome, the more fun it is the actually reach that outcome. It's not universal but it's there. And not just in games either. When it's run well, in a way that the players enjoy, this is one of DnD's greatest strengths. There's no checkpoint that the players can come back to if their characters die. Defeating that evil lich is made more tense and exciting because success isn't certain.
This is likely why movies and stories in general are more popular with 'good' endings - we like to see that we are correct, and most people assume the good guys win and the bad guys get what's coming to them. We rely on the story teller to hide the ending so we can seek it by watching the movie/reading the story. There's multiple threads 'hiding' that we seek the resolution.
Alternate title: every game is go fish. You vs some other entity/thing, there are known and unknowns, you have a goal that you achieve by interacting with the thing :)
You don't search the deck for the winning cards in poker. You take the hand you are dealt and you choose to either press on hoping that your dealt cards are better than your opponents' or you cut your losses and back out. You could even push on in an attempt to bluff the opponents into thinking your cards are better. That has nothing to do with finding "The Winning Cards" that have been mixed in with "The Losing Cards"
I would argue Tic-Tac-Toe is a better example. You aren't always "seeking" an objective in games. You could say Tic-Tac-Toe is seeking a winning board state, but it isn't hiding, you create it. Tic-Tac-Toe is a game of creating the correct pattern, three in a row. DnD is the game of creating a pattern where the princess is rescued, the dragon is slain, or any other goal. Hide and Seek itself is a game of creating a pattern where you have a clear line of sight to the person hiding. This video was a game of creating a pattern where I was listening while your video played to completion. A game can show you every game piece at the beginning, but it can't start in the winning pattern and still be a game.
@runesmith The space section on Reach is busted in MCC because the games clock-rate is doubled the original 360 version, so it kind of breaks the enemy a.i and a lot of other stuff
Games have an objective(s) that are blocked or 'hidden' behind obstacles. By that logic, every game is every other game. These games are hide and seek, but also every other game with any sort of objective that is hidden behind obstacles, which is basically every game
The video basically says that “hiding” is the same thing as “obstructing”. To differentiate, let’s take an example. There are two people who are going to be in danger from a fire elemental if they don’t act. One decides to hide from the danger, while the other decides to obstruct it. The first goes into a nearby bush and hides while the other wades into a clear pond. The danger arrives and the difference is in whether it has access to the objective or the means to complete it. The person hiding blocks access to the objective via line of sight, but the danger isn’t inhibited in its ability to inflict danger. The person in the water blocks the means, but not the objective. Sure, the elemental has access to him, but the water prevents his means to an end via less fire damage. And you could argue anything is anything with the right words. I could argue every game is tag, where you’re trying to pass a status on to other people while keeping it away from yourself. Every game you want to give others the status of losing while keeping the conditions to lose away from yourself. Poker? You want to make other players “it” by making them lose money, defining them as losing, and you keep your money. FPS? Literally tagging players with damage to make them lose their health. The difference is that you can be tagged several times and when you are tagged enough times, you lose. Dnd? Since there isn’t any “winning” to dnd, the DM and the players are trying to prevent losing via a TPK or losing a PC / not completing the campaign. The DM does this by creating the world in a fair and balanced way, providing the players the environment to succeed. The players create the tools to succeed via their characters. I just made an equally valid point to yours just by modifying the words, and it works.
INFJ Logan is INFJ. The way he is funneling a bunch of information from many different places and origins and then simplifying it and condensing it down into one concept is a classic example of Introverted inutition the first function of the INFJ. I know he is INFJ because someone close to me that I grew up with and talk with every day is also an INFJ. I always knew logan was an INFJ but this video proves it to me.
