{"id":315,"date":"2023-03-22T17:52:59","date_gmt":"2023-03-23T00:52:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/giftofpresent.org\/?p=315"},"modified":"2023-03-31T12:28:42","modified_gmt":"2023-03-31T19:28:42","slug":"non-gamers-rank-games-an-example-of-nonsensical-ranking","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/giftofpresent.org\/index.php\/2023\/03\/22\/non-gamers-rank-games-an-example-of-nonsensical-ranking\/","title":{"rendered":"Non-Gamers Rank Games: An Example of Nonsensical Ranking"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Also known as: a diary entry written in scientific article format<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sophie Liu<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abstract<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Ranking is a common habit of humanity. People enjoy ranking things even when they are unqualified to do so, or when it makes no sense to rank them. Furthermore, once a person finishes a ranking\u2014even if only subconsciously\u2014they are more unwilling to change their viewpoints. In this study, we shall explore this phenomenon by ourselves ranking something we are unqualified to rank: games. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction & Background<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Examples of humanity\u2019s strange habit of ranking abound. There are movie rankings, song rankings, and even worst proposal rankings<\/a>. Perhaps the most nonsensical ranking we have encountered, however, is the Best Thing Ranking<\/a>, run by Tom Scott. After all, it makes very little sense to compare sleep, electricity, and the Earth\u2019s magnetic field, for instance, but this is exactly what this ranking did\u2014and in fact, these three things were apparently ranked as the best three things among all things. Neither is this nonsensical ranking a reflection on its creator, rather than humanity as a whole. Tom Scott<\/a>, a graduate of the University of York, is an upstanding citizen: a pirate of the highest caliber and an incredible leader. As Mad Cap\u2019n Tom Scott, he served as the 48th president of the University of York Students\u2019 Union. Furthermore, he is also highly concerned with safety and the public, as he produced a variation of the UK government\u2019s \u201cPreparing for Emergencies\u201d website geared towards how to survive a zombie apocalypse and other such emergencies<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We do not have the facilities to fully study what part of human psychology results in our tendency to make rankings. However, we do have the facilities to ourselves make nonsensical rankings. It is our hope that by ranking games in a natural state rather than in a laboratory setting and fully explaining our reasons, we can provide information to those who do possess the facilities and thus help them make discoveries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Methods<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

As stated above, we ranked the games while in a natural, relaxed state (that is, a cruise vacation) rather than in a laboratory setting. In fact, when we first encountered and ranked the games, we had no knowledge that they would be part of a research project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We ranked the games based on four criteria: firstly, the brainpower required to play; secondly, the replayability index as stated by this researcher (Sophie Liu); thirdly, the replayability index as stated by this researcher\u2019s elder sibling, Jason Liu; and fourthly, the functionality. Functionality refers to the extent to which the game achieves its main purpose(s). The following is the ranking and analysis of 11 games that were played in a one-week time period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zombs.io<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
Figure 1.1: J. Liu demonstrates the low brainpower inherent in Zombs.io<\/em> as he spam-builds ten layers of walls. Then again, considering Zombs.io<\/em> is, after all, about zombies, the lack of brains is not surprising.<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Zombs.io<\/em><\/a> is, based on my observations, an online battle royale game purportedly meant to prepare participants for a zombie apocalypse. However, as what amounts to a clicker game, it is sufficiently unrealistic as to hold absolutely no real resemblance to an actual zombie apocalypse and thus useless for the purpose of survival. The first game of our experiment, J. Liu chose to play this game because he was bored during the layover in an airport. On informing his roommate of said boredom, his roommate suggested Zombs.io<\/em> for unspecified reasons. As such, like how terrible pizza tastes divine when one is hungry, our reception of Zombs.io<\/em> was likely more positive than it ought to have been. Even so, we know it would not be enjoyable on a second run-through. Low brainpower, low functionality, and low replayability from both of us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Baba is You<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

To be entirely transparent, Baba is You<\/em><\/a> was actually the first game of the experiment, rather than Zombs.io<\/em>, but I forgot all about it<\/s> <\/em>due to its single-player nature, it is a different form of game than all the others, so Zombs.io<\/em> was deemed to be a better introductory game. Baba is You<\/em> <\/em><\/strong>is a puzzle game in which the rules are written on the screen and you, whatever you happen to be at the moment, can push the rules around until you win. The game is clearly geared towards self-discovery and giving people mid-life crises: throughout the game, it encourages the player to question their identity and provides a simple, yet still mind-boggling, method to change their identity. It also teaches gamers that death is but a temporary, easily-reversible state of being. Considering that J. Liu, who played the game every free moment he wasn\u2019t dragging me off to play board games, has not yet informed me that he has a new name such as \u201cNosaj\u201d or that he\u2019s immortal (or, in other words, that he\u2019s a vampire), Baba is You<\/em> does not seem particularly successful at promoting either self-discovery or misunderstandings about mortality. Thus, the functionality must be ranked as low. However, brainpower and replayability according to both J. Liu and this researcher must be ranked as high.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2048 and Variations<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The next game to be considered is 2048<\/em><\/a>. To be more specific, it was actually GetSimmons<\/em><\/a>, a parody of 2048<\/em> that J. Liu (who lives in Simmons Hall) found wherein the tiles are MIT dorms ranked (once again, note the human tendency to rank) by the number of windows in each dorm. As Simmons Hall has 5,538 windows, Simmons is the best<\/s> has the most windows, by far. Another similar parody that J. Liu found and played was GetMIT<\/em><\/a>, wherein the tiles are colleges ranked from worst to best, from Caltech to MIT. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Figure 1.2: Because 2048 and its variations encourage education and math skills, naturally, in GetMIT, the tile ranked beyond MIT is IHTFP, the truest and most heartwarming compliment students can give any and all educational institutes.<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

The main purposes of these games vary minutely. The purpose of 2048<\/em> is simple: to train players\u2019 math skills, as sufficient gameplay will ensure that gamer knows all the powers of 2 up to 2^11. For instance, 2^7=129, or something. GetSimmons <\/em>and GetMIT<\/em> also provide math practice, though in a more round-about way. In addition, those games educate the player on the number of windows in MIT dorms and the superiority of MIT, respectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The purpose of all three games is clearly achieved. Case in point: J. Liu has impressive math skills, is well-acquainted with the windows of MIT dorms, and understands the superiority of MIT. As such, the functionality is high. Brainpower is mid. Replayability according to this researcher is high, as 2048<\/em> and all parodies have long since been proven to be highly addictive, and this researcher was in fact distracted into playing one or two or ten<\/s> rounds halfway through writing this analysis. Replayability according to J. Liu is mid, as he sees no point in replaying once he wins.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chinese Checkers<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Chinese Checkers<\/em> is a board game meant to encourage strategic thinking, confusion, frustration, incorrect racial profiling (because in fact, the game is German), and familial discord. For those who are color blind, the game also encourages despair\u2014or, if one were to look at it more charitably, a good memory to remember who played which pieces where. Functionality, replayability, and brainpower are all through the roof.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tractor<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Tractor<\/em> is a Chinese card game (it\u2019s really Chinese this time, unlike the German game above) meant to teach cooperation and the subtleties of trust. Oftentimes, players aren\u2019t certain who their friends are until halfway through the game, so they must base their gameplay on social deduction skills and intuition. However, in this case, many moves were based on communications in the form of \u201cPsst! S. Liu, play hearts!\u201d or other so-called \u201ccheating.\u201d Not only are these communications supposedly illicit, according to the disgruntled losers (ahem J. Liu), but they also aren\u2019t entirely subtle. As such, though the game is rather successful at teaching cooperation, it teaches the bluntities rather than subtleties of trust. Replayability is high, brainpower is mid, and functionality is mid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clue<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The purpose of Clue<\/em> is to provide training for wannabe modern Sherlock Holmes. It gives winners a huge boost of confidence and crushes the dreams of losers, which means its functionality is at most middling, as whether its purpose is to bring players down to earth or send them off on their glory-seeking detective sprees, it only succeeds for half its players. Furthermore, Clue <\/em>is far more luck-based than logic-based, resulting in an inaccurate portrayal of detective work. This brings the functionality down even further. Replayability according to J. Liu is low, as he won and found the game repetitive and dull. Replayability according to this researcher is high, being certain that another game will certainly result in a win. Brainpower, well. It could be worse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Risk<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

If you\u2019ve ever seen the set-up of Risk<\/em>, its purpose would be self-evident: the game takes advantage of nostalgia for childhood by providing a socially acceptable way for teenagers and adults to play with toy soldiers and superhero figurines. After all, most of the game consists of putting tiny soldiers, horses, and carriages onto a map and fighting it out. Because this researcher never played with toy soldiers as a child and instead stuck with princess figurines as a child, the nostalgia aspect of the game did not come into effect. This researcher thus did not find the game particularly replayable or, in fact, playable in the first place: it was too long, too much effort, and too much brainpower. J. Liu, however, found it highly replayable and kept failing to persuade S. Liu to finish the game. Functionality was relatively high.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Blokus<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYou may not pass!\u201d is the catchphrase of both Gandalf and Blokus<\/em>. You might think that this means that Blokus<\/em> is meant to fuel the fantasies of sci-fi lovers, but in truth, it\u2019s an LGBTQIA+ awareness-raising program. Just look at how colorful it is! The shapes of the blocks also make it clear: no block is the same shape and they\u2019re unconformist, unconventionally shaped\u2014just like the many individuals in the LGBTQIA+ community who pride themselves in their uniqueness and non-cis-white-male-ness. Furthermore, though every shape is different, they all share something on the inside: they are all made of the same triangles, like how those in the LGBTQIA+ community share the same core despite their differences. Honestly, it\u2019s not even subtle: Blokus is an allegory for gay. Functionality: mid. Replayability: low to mid. Brainpower: low, as J. Liu and this researcher managed to play the wrong version of this game that had half the pieces needed, despite having all the necessary access to instructions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Word Hunt<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Word Hunt<\/em>, and Game Pigeon<\/em> as a whole, <\/em>are meant to connect friends and ensure social interaction online. After all, it\u2019s a game sent to others over Messages that you must interact with friends in order to even play. However, Word Hunt<\/em> is not particularly good at encouraging social interaction, as games can be spam-sent to friends and enemies alike with no response required in order to play for hours at end, can be sent to oneself, and hardly result in any meaningful discussion even when used correctly (conversations amount to \u201cur so bad,\u201d \u201cwtf,\u201d \u201csuch bs,\u201d \u201cdestRoYED,\u201d and other such pithy, utterly informative statements). This researcher enjoys it because it\u2019s really ridiculously addictive; J. Liu found it stupid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Phase 10<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Phase 10 <\/em>is a bit more of a puzzle. Perhaps one could argue that it\u2019s meant to enhance strategy and problem-solving skills, but there\u2019s so woefully little brainpower required in the game that such a supposition is clearly false. One might argue that it\u2019s meant to show the futility and unpredictability of luck, but then there\u2019s a tad too much brainpower involved in the process. Examination of the game name, however, reveals the game\u2019s purpose: anyone with half an experience with Star Trek<\/em> will know that phase sounds like \u201cphaser,\u201d a well-known weapon in said show. Clearly, Phase 10<\/em> is the real sci-fi nerd haven, not Blokus<\/em>. It\u2019s all in their marketing :). The concept of the game is still boring enough to not work very well as a haven, however, so the functionality remains rather low. The naming props it up a tad, bringing it to perhaps a 4 on a hypothetical functionality scale of 10. J. Liu, for reasons unknown, quite enjoyed Phase 10<\/em> (perhaps he\u2019s a closet Trekker?). This researcher rates its replayability as low.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Life<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Life<\/em> is the most obvious: it\u2019s a map, a guidebook, to one\u2019s path through life. It teaches children all about the most important things in life: school, jobs, marriage, kids, and retirement. It\u2019s honestly pretty accurate, up to and including the extent that luck plays in success. However, it also tricks children into believing that a roll of the dice is really all that\u2019s necessary to get, say, a PhD. It creates damaging expectations but it\u2019s also ridiculously fun for a game that consists of rolling die and little else. Functionality: low. Replayability: high. Brainpower: low.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Results<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

There are two parts to the diagram below: first, there\u2019s the replayability plane, wherein I graphed each game\u2019s replayability according to Jason and I. Note how each element is a different color: that is because I\u2019m bad at drawing 3D graphs, so instead, I used color as my third dimension. This third dimension is the second part of the diagram, which is the brainpower required to play each game. Note how it ranges from \u201crock\u201d to \u201ceinstein.\u201d This means that a rock could probably play Zombs.io <\/em>given a sufficiently lucky rock, while Einstein would probably enjoy playing Baba is You<\/em>. It also means that I don\u2019t know how to capitalize, though I rather imagine that is sufficiently clear from everything else that I did not capitalize. See the Appendix for a graph without the labels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/
Figure 1.3: A graph of brainpower and replayability.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Before we continue on, credit must be given to Jason Liu, who provided much motivation for gathering results as he constantly dragged this researcher off to play terrible board games.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Discussion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Thus ends this researcher\u2019s forray into ranking games. It is this researcher\u2019s sincere hope that the in-depth explanations and descriptions provided in this paper can further along other researchers\u2019 work in regards to human psychology, particularly in the field of ranking and other seemingly useless practices. Perhaps it can be a small brick in the foundation of explaining why humans enjoy order and control. Other papers similar to this one\u2014in-depth rankings or other examples of humanity\u2019s nonsense\u2014could be future avenues of research to expand on this topic. Such research may be small pieces of the larger puzzle, but sufficient small pieces can stack to make a beautiful mosaic. This research will certainly assist in building the complex mosaic of human psychology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Appendix<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"\/
Figure 1.4: A graph of brainpower and replayability, without the labels. Recall that: Zombs.io<\/em> is represented by a skull because zombies and skeletons are both undead; Life<\/em> is represented by a leaf; Phase 10<\/em> is represented by a spade, as spades are famously associated with card games; Blokus<\/em> is represented by one of the many shapes contained in the game; Word Hunt<\/em> is represented by a bird as it’s a subsidiary of Game Pigeon<\/em>; Clue<\/em> is a magnifying glass because Sherlock Holmes is never without one; Tractor<\/em> is represented by a microcar because this researcher cannot distinguish cars; Chinese Checkers<\/em> is represented by the Star of David because apparently the makers of the game decided that incorrect racial profiling wasn’t enough, they also needed to misappropriate religions to make the shape of the board; Risk<\/em> is a horse with a weapon because horses are so heavily involved in war, they really ought to have a weapon; Baba is You<\/em> is a cat stuck in a cloud because Baba is supposed to be a sheep, but decided to change identity halfway through; and there we go, now this caption is as ridiculously long as captions for science articles generally are.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Also known as: a diary entry written in scientific article format. Sophie Liu Abstract Ranking is a common habit of humanity. People enjoy ranking things Continue Reading<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[77,8],"tags":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/giftofpresent.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/315"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/giftofpresent.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/giftofpresent.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/giftofpresent.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/giftofpresent.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=315"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/giftofpresent.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/315\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":317,"href":"https:\/\/giftofpresent.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/315\/revisions\/317"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/giftofpresent.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=315"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/giftofpresent.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=315"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/giftofpresent.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=315"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}