Adding the time limit and actually making the clock go faster when a player is (purposefully) going off the rails is a sinister trick to ensure that players get the expected ending message. Clever that the programmer throught of these cases.
Well, I do always look both ways when crossing the one-way street where I live.
But not because of programming experience, but because of late-night Taxi drivers who drive like Doc Brown (https://youtu.be/vHake6w4Su0?t=17) and believe that "reverse" is some kind of cheat code that flips the direction of the road.
"Three programmers come to a one-way street. The academic looks to the right, doesn't see any oncoming cars, and crosses. The corporate programmer looks to the left, then looks to the right, and then crosses. The distributed systems engineer looks to the left, then looks to the right, then looks up to make sure there aren't any planes falling out of the sky…"
"... the hacker looks down to check for landmines and footguns, and then runs to catch up with the rest, grumbling something about computer scientists and off-by-one errors."
The distributed systems engineer definitely uses a mirror to watch both directions at the same time while crossing the street. They've been caught by Time of Check - Time of Use errors before.
In tourist-filled parts of the world where they drive on the left side of the road (e.g. UK, Australia, Japan), you sometimes see signs reminding the tourists to look right before crossing the road.
London in particular has the signs ("Look left", "Look right") written in words on the road surface itself at obvious crossing points, especially near stations etc. So pedestrians look down at them as they go to cross the road.
On the middle one they only check if you go backwards from the position of the key (I got it to work clockwise). If you continue on the intended path and then go back the clock won't go faster. You have to be fast though.
Hmmm. I tried about a dozen times before giving up. I thought the game was broken before reading your comment.
Nothing in the game visually indicates that going back is worse than going forwards. As the level is symmetrical, the distance is literally the same. A one-way door, or crumbling floor, would have been easy solutions I think.
IMO, the game design mistake here was having too little momentum. There should be an excessive amount of momentum, so the player immediately understands that the levels will be impossible if they turn around.
There's just barely enough time on the middle and last levels to double back even with the faster clock movement for going the wrong direction. Fun little challenge
I don't know enough about web stuff, but I wonder how much this depends on the system
I got past the second one, and oddly was able to 'sit still' in the middle while rearranging my fingers for a remarkably 'long' time (couple seconds or so, hard to guage)
For anyone smarter than me: I'm on Linux with Wayland and a 144Hz display, output should be synchronized if this plays a part
Best thing I clicked today! Love it! I somehow expected "adding your personal message" to generate a level that would trace out my custom message though.
If it's the second frame of the three-panel strip, then, as another commenter hints, the trick is not to double back. You must complete a circuit around the map. I got frustrated and quit long before trying this until reading that comment, but it (arguably) pays off.
I think game theory is really cool and all, but I'm not sure it actually has much relevance for analyzing human behavior. It is always taught in that way, to simplify it for undergrads, but the mathematical concepts, I think, are significantly more important than the "ethical" questions.
Makes me wonder how you could apply this to social media.
What if you had a social media site where you could only see the same set of people? (Say, 150 people - Dunbar's number)
This isn't perfect by any means, but how would you fix it from there? Would you make it mix the population every few months? Maybe just comments/reactions are restricted to your cohort but you can see all posts? Would you mix the population based on some kind of score? Could that score be multi-dimensional?
It probably wouldn't work, because social media is voluntary. People can just reduce participation, or just leave, and find alternative ways to get whatever value they were getting from the social media site. Users stay because it's fun, or because their friends are staying (network effect); your proposed interventions would both frustrate the users and weaken or destroy the "glue" that keeps them coming back.
In contrast, those natural social networks of yore - tribes, villages - were all-encompassing, and you were stuck with them. The modern social networks that are strong - school, university, work - also have this strong "like it or not, I'm stuck here with this people" component. Sure, it's easier to change a job than a tribe, but it's still costly.
I liked playing this game! The art style, animations, and overall messages were a really good experience! I look forward to sharing this with my friends later.
Echoing all the others that this Trust game is great, I noticed something else that struck me in some of the "play with the dials" stages.
The game showed us that when you decrease the reward for Cooperate/Cooperate from +2 to +1, the Always-Cheats take over. But I tried increasing the reward for above the default of +2 to +3 or +4 and an interesting thing happened: The naïve Always-Cooperates actually took over!
It made me think about how a lot of cynical people -- of both sides of the political divide -- play the 'game' as 'cutthroatly' as possible. I think if you asked these people how they see the world, they'd tell you that "the system is rigged anyway" such that there's barely any benefit to cooperating. "So why shouldn't I exploit everything I can to get mine?" And in a world where there's arguably not enough reward for cooperating, I can see how people arrive at a cynical conclusion and become Always-Cheaters. This is why people who work for minimum wage generally don't want to work hard and provide great customer service. And it's why companies who employ them don't want to pay them a living wage and benefits. Both sides would tell you that the rewards of doing that aren't worth the risks or the cost.
If we could somehow bring about greater rewards for good-faith participation (working hard → a very high likelihood of affording a moderately nice lifestyle), I think a lot of cynicism would be outcompeted by more cooperative attitudes. Obviously I'd already be President of the World if I knew how to just make that happen, though.
I love this game and think it is one of the most important things on the internet, but I hate the consequence. The intended message is great: cooperate and forgive so that you can live in a great society. The corollary is absolutely awful... If you let defectors win, you are responsible for creating the defection.
Indeed! It's awful, but all-too-true. Those who enable the bullies can be as bad for the group as the bullies themselves. Cultivating, protecting, and maintaining a peaceful and trustful society is an active effort, not a passive one.
Just when you are thoroughly resigned to the fact that humanity is just terrible, and that a large asteroid would be just the thing the planet needs, someone comes along and puts something out into the world that is just nice and beautiful.
The art style reminds me of some classic games/animations from Newgrounds. Forgot what they were called. Pretty violent and heavy on social commentary, so it's a bit of a shock to see that style used in such an opposite way!
121 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 189 ms ] threadBut not because of programming experience, but because of late-night Taxi drivers who drive like Doc Brown (https://youtu.be/vHake6w4Su0?t=17) and believe that "reverse" is some kind of cheat code that flips the direction of the road.
Also, cyclists.
Nothing in the game visually indicates that going back is worse than going forwards. As the level is symmetrical, the distance is literally the same. A one-way door, or crumbling floor, would have been easy solutions I think.
I got past the second one, and oddly was able to 'sit still' in the middle while rearranging my fingers for a remarkably 'long' time (couple seconds or so, hard to guage)
For anyone smarter than me: I'm on Linux with Wayland and a 144Hz display, output should be synchronized if this plays a part
I don't play video games at all so playing a game where I have to figure out the goal. Ugh.
I always remember "parable of the polygons"
https://ncase.me/projects/
Everything seems fresh, though this door one was 2015.
Hell, they are all great!
[0] https://ncase.itch.io/wbwwb
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation
What if you had a social media site where you could only see the same set of people? (Say, 150 people - Dunbar's number)
This isn't perfect by any means, but how would you fix it from there? Would you make it mix the population every few months? Maybe just comments/reactions are restricted to your cohort but you can see all posts? Would you mix the population based on some kind of score? Could that score be multi-dimensional?
In contrast, those natural social networks of yore - tribes, villages - were all-encompassing, and you were stuck with them. The modern social networks that are strong - school, university, work - also have this strong "like it or not, I'm stuck here with this people" component. Sure, it's easier to change a job than a tribe, but it's still costly.
The game showed us that when you decrease the reward for Cooperate/Cooperate from +2 to +1, the Always-Cheats take over. But I tried increasing the reward for above the default of +2 to +3 or +4 and an interesting thing happened: The naïve Always-Cooperates actually took over!
It made me think about how a lot of cynical people -- of both sides of the political divide -- play the 'game' as 'cutthroatly' as possible. I think if you asked these people how they see the world, they'd tell you that "the system is rigged anyway" such that there's barely any benefit to cooperating. "So why shouldn't I exploit everything I can to get mine?" And in a world where there's arguably not enough reward for cooperating, I can see how people arrive at a cynical conclusion and become Always-Cheaters. This is why people who work for minimum wage generally don't want to work hard and provide great customer service. And it's why companies who employ them don't want to pay them a living wage and benefits. Both sides would tell you that the rewards of doing that aren't worth the risks or the cost.
If we could somehow bring about greater rewards for good-faith participation (working hard → a very high likelihood of affording a moderately nice lifestyle), I think a lot of cynicism would be outcompeted by more cooperative attitudes. Obviously I'd already be President of the World if I knew how to just make that happen, though.
“First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me”
—Martin Niemöller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
Well, shit.
And THANK YOU!