Talk:Zero-player game

Gratuitous space battles

The video game Gratuitous Space Battles challenges the player to design ships and create a fleet, but does not involve the player in the battles themselves, effectively rendering the game a zero-player game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.117.127.143 (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Creatures

There is player intervention in Creatures. For instance, you can slap or caress (tickle) the norns so as to attempt to discourage or encourage whatever behaviour they are currently exhibiting. However it is true that in theory you can leave the computer and the norns will take care of themselves, i.e. eating and reproducing.--Peter Knutsen 02:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Snakes and Ladders

Does the board game Snakes and Ladders count as a zero-player game? It depends only on the roll of the dice- no skill and no decision by the humans is necessary. 88.108.214.251 (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This applies to any game which is entirely based on luck. Should we consider any game determined 100% by random numbers to be a zero-player game? I personally don't feel like this definition fits because the players are still in a sense affecting the game's outcome as it happens, in contrast with games which are determined by their initial conditions. —Entropy (T/C) 21:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete this page

I came to this page through game theory articles, where it's really inapplicable. Looking at the article now, it looks like complete WP:OR. I'm planning to propose deleting it, but figured I'd solicit defense of the article here before taking that step. Is a "zero-player game" actually a recognized term/idea in some field? CRETOG8(t/c) 03:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. The whole concept doesn't make sense. How do you define a game, especially when it has no players?

The first sentence defines a zero player game as a game without any human players (no citation). The second sentence defines it as a game played by artificial intelligence. Whether the player is human or machine, there's still at least one player.

And if the Game of Life has no players, is it really a game? Or is it an algorithm or mathematical "thing"? If you grow a flower or a crystal, its not a game. So when you grow the "Game of Life", is it really a game?

Or if one considers the programmer/user as the player, since they will be the one to pick initial board, then it's not really a zero player game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.18 (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a legitimate concept but whether it will support a standalone article is doubtful. A merge to a Game or Game theory might be a good solution. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm against the deletion of the page. I'll agree that the page in its current state isn't particularly useful, but the concept of a zero-player game is legitimate and this article has the potential to be useful once more information and theory is added. —Entropy (T/C) 21:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Examples

Please do not add unsourced examples - they are numerous and would overwhelm the page. For an instance to be added it requires independent sourcing that, not only is it a zero-player game, but that attests that it is a notable example of the genre. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

♦ They certainly are numerous, but the section you removed had only two and was just a few lines long. I don't see how that "overwhelms" the page, and it seems useful for clarity to have a few examples that may be more familiar to non-mathematical readers. I restored the section but left in a comment about how we don't need many. --R27182818 (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The examples you have added back are unsourced. I will tag them for sources that show that they fit this category but, if they remain unsourced after a reasonable time, they will need to be removed. Bridgeplayer (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

♦ I certainly agree that sources for these games would improve the article, but I don't agree that removing them entirely is better than leaving them unsourced, because having them in significantly improves the explanatory utility of the article. Besides, it's not a particularly controversial claim.

What kind of sources did you have in mind? It would be easy to find the rules of these games, I'd assume. --R27182818 (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

We need an independent reliable source that says, in terms, that these games are zero-player games. Deducing that they are from the rules is OR. Your opinion or my opinion about the games is not relevant - the only acceptable opinion is from a reliable source. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

♦ My argument is, essentially, that the perfect is the enemy of the good, and that's why it is better to have unsourced examples rather than no examples. Besides, this article is stub-class and I feel that setting the bar so high prevents its advancing.

Do you think it would be useful to ask for a third opinion (WP:THIRD)? --R27182818 (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. My argument is not that these examples are unsourced but that they are not sourceable - I have looked for sources and have found none. Consequently there is no basis for judging that the examples are valid and invalid examples are worse than none. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's useful to just list every example of a zero-player game. However, there are some special cases such as AI vs. AI mode and game bots which I think deserve a mention and relevant example. —Entropy (T/C) 21:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Candy Land as zero-player game

I disagree. The players aren't just following the instructions from some purely random number source; they are actually physically interacting with dice, so in prosaic reality they do affect the game. 86.131.98.77 (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

♦ Well, all you're doing by rolling the dice is activating a random number source (dice are about as good as it gets). The game could be played just as easily based on a list of random numbers from 1 to 6. You could also argue that simply looking at the board affects it, by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. --R27182818 (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think physics is more unified in the stance that there is a causal relationship between exerting force on dice and their rolling vs. one not-too-liked version of the Copenhagen interp. Saying "you could just as soon argue this by Heisenberg" is a copout way to hinder complexity of variable consideration. Bleedingcherub (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

♦ You guys are arguing that children playing a casual game influence the numbers that come up on rolled dice in a way that meaningfully affects play. That's either ridiculous or insanely pedantic. --R27182818 (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There are no dice in Candy Land, so if we're arguing about Candy Land, the argument is mute. Candy Land absolutely is a zero-player game, the game is determined at the beginning by the shuffle of the cards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.28.237 (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment; Candy Land is no different from Conway's Game of Life in that sense. The outcome of the game is based entirely on initial conditions and the actions of the players after the initial shuffling is the equivalent of someone pressing the "step" button in the Game of Life. Players can choose to advance or not advance the game but they cannot actually affect the game in any way after it's started. —Entropy (T/C) 21:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced examples

Very many games can be considered 'Zero-player games'. However, those added here previously were unsourced and clear WP:OR. Examples should only be added when accompanied by a reliable source that states they are a 'Zero-player game'. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My Brute

My Brute might be a decent example. There is only minimal player input, and battles all take place automatically. SharkD  Talk  23:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Lacks definition of game

This article defines its subject using the term "game" (obviously), but does not define "game". It's telling that "game" isn't even wikilinked here. If it's a concept used in reputable sources, we can report that use, and how they define it if they do. But we shouldn't pretend we have a meaningful and well-defined concept, unless we do. (There's an old thread above, #Delete this page, and there's a recent (now reverted) [1] at Conway's Game of Life, along the same lines.)--Nø (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)