That raises a good question for me though. In RTS games how much of it is best inference under time constraints and does that qualify as intellectual?
[RD] The most intellectually challenging PC game
- Thread starter dusters
- Start date
That raises a good question for me though. In RTS games how much of it is best inference under time constraints and does that qualify as intellectual?
Intellectually STIMULATING. When I have to make 2 decisions per second, I find that more stimulating than when I've got 30 minutes to play one turn of Civ. And if I make the wrong decision, I pay the price. That incentivizes me to be on top of my game.
What's interesting with Civ is the thing that makes it addictive: the one-more-turn thing. I think that's because I've built up really large memory banks in my head of how the game is supposed to go. And if I go to bed, I erase those memory banks and have to start over.
What's interesting with Civ is the thing that makes it addictive: the one-more-turn thing. I think that's because I've built up really large memory banks in my head of how the game is supposed to go. And if I go to bed, I erase those memory banks and have to start over.
Doesn't it incentivize finding best fits for circumstance faster than opponents?
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 11,007
I made a post over in the Civ 6 general discussions forum. I don't mean to buy the game for a couple of months, until they've worked out the bugs and balance issues, but when I do, here's my plan.
I'm going to play up through the levels starting at Settler (assuming they use the same names as Civ 5) and working up to Deity. One game at each level.
I get to roll two starts at each level, play them through the zero turn (i.e. move my starting warrior, again assuming the game starts you with a warrior or a scout). But then I have to choose one of those starts and play it through to the bitter end. So I don't have to play an absolute dog of a start (unless I roll two terrible starts; but then the challenge is to play out of a bad start.)
I'm not allowed to go on the S&T forums; I have to figure out the optimal strategies all by my lonesome. I have to learn the game through my own gameplay.
If I win at every level, I have "beat the game." In other words, I have eight games (again assuming there are eight difficulty levels) to learn how to beat the game at its highest level.
I mean to play very slowly, trying to take in all aspects of the game from the easier early levels.
Totally different from my Civ 5 experience. Civ 5 is the only game I've ever bought on the release date, and I was very active on the boards learning tips and strategies.
Anyway, i think this plan will make Civ 6 an intellectual challenge.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I recommend that you just keep playing on each level until you win, and even better win two or three times using different leaders and victory conditions unless it is just obviously too easy when you win the first time.
dusters
Emperor
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I second RTS as a genre, and always recommend multiplayer for any game if its available.
There are different intellectual challenges in strategy games. Focusing on perfect play and recognizing every area to maximize (slow civ3 with all the micromanagement you could ever want), economizing stimulus and learning to make on the fly choices against all competing sources of information and needs (RTS like Starcraft), or a hybrid of the two (civ5 multiplayer).
I like them all, all practices grew me as a person.
There are different intellectual challenges in strategy games. Focusing on perfect play and recognizing every area to maximize (slow civ3 with all the micromanagement you could ever want), economizing stimulus and learning to make on the fly choices against all competing sources of information and needs (RTS like Starcraft), or a hybrid of the two (civ5 multiplayer).
I like them all, all practices grew me as a person.
I think that in order for a game to be stimulating, it has to have some reasonable barriers in what the player is allowed to do. Eg in a typical turn-based game you have the first moves be of the biggest importance, but that isn't true in an RTS where your tech or other curve may allow you to negate a previous move or incorporate it for the same outcome you'd have if you acted differently before.
In a way, a game can only aspire to stimulate in the way a math problem in some test will get you to use anything you can so as to reach the positive conclusion. Sometimes the problem is above your knowledge. Sometimes the problem has many different paths to a solution. And sometimes the person who wrote it messed up and it is broken
In a way, a game can only aspire to stimulate in the way a math problem in some test will get you to use anything you can so as to reach the positive conclusion. Sometimes the problem is above your knowledge. Sometimes the problem has many different paths to a solution. And sometimes the person who wrote it messed up and it is broken
I can't think of any video games that are intellectually challenging.
I imagine that if you made intellectual challenge a requirement to progress in a game, the audience for the game would be very small, and the game wouldn't be particularly fun. (So such games could very well exist as niche games that I simply haven't played.)
I imagine that if you made intellectual challenge a requirement to progress in a game, the audience for the game would be very small, and the game wouldn't be particularly fun. (So such games could very well exist as niche games that I simply haven't played.)
GoodEnoughForMe
n.m.s.s.
In terms of video games, the most brain taxing are the ones where you deal with the variability of human multiplayer. No game company is spending millions to make groundbreaking AI, so there is, literally all the time, a way to 'break' the AI or find an exploit or way to beat them. Video game AI is not IBM's finest. Some in this thread have mentioned RTS games. They are really hard at high level play. A lot of the training is muscle memory and reaction time, which different people consider intellectual or not, but there is a ton of on-the-fly decision making too. The most obtuse 4X games or strategy games never really press you for time and any limits you have in playing them are mostly driven by your capacity to Google and read expert tips on guides and forums. But in RTS or even Moba high level play, Google can at most get you about 5% of the way there.
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
any RTS that is played as an esport is up there.
League of Legends is up there when you consider what is required to be a mechanically skilled player. All the little microdecisions about champion placement, auto-attacking, wave manipulation, trading, counter-trading, keeping track of skill cooldowns, both your own and those of your lane opponent ("player used their Q 6 seconds ago, and used their W just now to farm a minion. Their champion's Q is on a 10 second cooldown so I know I can go in for a trade right now without getting hit), keeping track of item and level power spikes, both your own and those of your lane opponent. And then being able to know all of those things across 10+ different champions. And that's just micro play. We aren't even talking macro teamplay decisions, team composition, win condition, and map movement.
LS is annoying to listen to and I'm not going to embed an hour-and-a-half video of him, but if you're curious, google his VOD review of apdo playing Twisted Fate. The first 10 minutes or so will give you an idea of just how far the rabbit hole of LoL mechanics can go.
Chess and Go are also obviously up there. Go of course far moreso.
League of Legends is up there when you consider what is required to be a mechanically skilled player. All the little microdecisions about champion placement, auto-attacking, wave manipulation, trading, counter-trading, keeping track of skill cooldowns, both your own and those of your lane opponent ("player used their Q 6 seconds ago, and used their W just now to farm a minion. Their champion's Q is on a 10 second cooldown so I know I can go in for a trade right now without getting hit), keeping track of item and level power spikes, both your own and those of your lane opponent. And then being able to know all of those things across 10+ different champions. And that's just micro play. We aren't even talking macro teamplay decisions, team composition, win condition, and map movement.
LS is annoying to listen to and I'm not going to embed an hour-and-a-half video of him, but if you're curious, google his VOD review of apdo playing Twisted Fate. The first 10 minutes or so will give you an idea of just how far the rabbit hole of LoL mechanics can go.
Chess and Go are also obviously up there. Go of course far moreso.
Since all games have to be fun, as well as being based on game mechanics, I can't think of any game that would be intellectually challenging. Which is fine as a game is intended to relax. (I can think of plenty of intellectually challenging books though.)
I'm not following. Both are about thinking ahead, but chess more so. Go is much simpler than people tend to think: it's barely more complex than checkers.
I'm not following. Both are about thinking ahead, but chess more so. Go is much simpler than people tend to think: it's barely more complex than checkers.
How intellectual can a game be when its selecting winners based relative differences between participants instead of measuring intellect in absolute terms? As i alluded to above, with RTS games youre selecting winners based on superior execution of evolving best fit strategies.
Lexicus
Deity
How can intellect be measured in absolute terms in the first place? Personally I'm at a loss as to why people actually seem to think games that primarily reward the ability to perform lots of actions in a given amount of time are in any sense 'intellectually stimulating,' but go figure. Any RTS is at bottom a twitch game, where success at the high levels of macro and micro skill is determined by the ability to perform lots of APM. Games like Civilization, Chess, or Go to my mind are more 'purely' intellectual because they have nothing at all to do with reflexes.
I'm not trying to denigrate the ability to perform lots of APM, mind, just questioning it being included in the definition of 'intellectual stimulation.' To me that implies something more like a turn-based game where thinking rather than reflexes are at a premium.
I'm not trying to denigrate the ability to perform lots of APM, mind, just questioning it being included in the definition of 'intellectual stimulation.' To me that implies something more like a turn-based game where thinking rather than reflexes are at a premium.
Maybe there should be a distinction between 'stimulating' and 'intellectually stimulating'. FPS are stimulating as hell and rely on accessing similar twitch mechanisms and spatial visualization and anticipation but no one would earnestly deem them intellectual. I think you really need to hone in on a good working definition of intellectual as it relates to games before you can start saying whether X or Y is exemplary of intellectual games.
dusters
Emperor
I have been playing LoL on and off for 4 years. I'm by no means a talented player, at most fitting in around platinium 1, but this game is great. However, I'm looking for single player games mostly. In LoL you can be smurfing and still lose. In chess - you can play 10 low ELO players at once and still win vs them all.
@MrT
This is the reason I have been playing Counter-strike for 16 years already. I'm a rather bad player, being Gold nova master, but I like pushing myself to the limit in games in which I have very little talent.
Samez
Emperor
Perhaps not the most challenging but I really enjoy The Talos Principle. It has some really nice three dimensional puzzles and the graphics are nice to look at.
Lexicus
Deity
This is basically what I'm trying to get at. I've dabbled in LoL but ultimately those types of games simply suck me in too much. You have to keep up with the meta and play somewhat consistently to not just get clowned even when smurfing.
dusters
Emperor
As with IQ tests, a PC game that would stimulate math/logical part of the brain. Spatial not neccessary.
Akka
Moody old mage.
I don't follow your "if it's fun and has game mechanics, it can't be intellectually challenging". That makes no sense.
Samely, games aren't "intended to relax". They are intended to be fun, which is an entirely different thing, which can actually be the exact opposite of "relaxing" more often than not.
Similar threads
