Top Law Schools

I've never really thought about it until now,but most games give you some deductions from the outset, but maybe one (if that) gives you the ability to make really "game breaking" deductions where they allow you to figure out all the possible scenarios that pretty much give everything you need for that particular game.

Which leaves basically a rules driven scenario where most games are predicated on you making small inferences that come out of your application of the rules. Would that be fair to say? Especially for games within recent years.

I wrote something like this before wrt the disappearance of "weird" games like pattern games:

If a game relies on some major (and difficult) inference at the beginning but is otherwise easy, it will separate people into those who missed that initial inference and then got all the questions wrong, and those who figured out the initial inference and got all the questions right. That's very crude from a testing perspective, so instead they use familiar game types with increasingly elaborate inference chains. Then difficulty scales well, with many gradations, and you can have easy questions, medium questions, etc., all within the same game.

RZ5646 wrote:I wrote something like this before wrt the disappearance of "weird" games like pattern games:

If a game relies on some major (and difficult) inference at the beginning but is otherwise easy, it will separate people into those who missed that initial inference and then got all the questions wrong, and those who figured out the initial inference and got all the questions right. That's very crude from a testing perspective, so instead they use familiar game types with increasingly elaborate inference chains. Then difficulty scales well, with many gradations, and you can have easy questions, medium questions, etc., all within the same game.

Yeah. I can see this.

They have more rules now, that's for sure.