Entertainment desk
< January 26	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 28 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 27

Do video games throw games?

This isn't just a Wii Sports question, but I'll use it as an example. I go through periods when I don't play it, but it seems that no matter what my level is when I last leave it off, I always win a few games when I return to the habit before losing a great many more. I don't see how that's possible. I expect that rustiness would make defeat more likely at the beginning, but it doesn't happen that way. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Uston once wrote that gamers will go through streaks ... have a few good games, then a few really bad ones, then some of their best ever. Now he was talking in regards to games like Pac-Man and Asteroids, not today's very complex games, running on even more complex computing hardware. Some social games on Facebook will occasionally give you bonus items if you haven't played in a long time, as an effort to get you back into the game. There's also the "freshness" factor; sometimes it helps to step away from a game for a short time, then when you come back, you may be trying something new you hadn't thought of (or maybe you played another, similar game and take what you learned back to the old one). --McDoob AU 93 01:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Video game AI is a complex thing, but basically they all throw games. Take say Madden NFL, or other sports games, the game has to essentially cheat itself. In theory, there is no reason for the computer to throw an incomplete pass, it has perfect knowledge of what is happening, and its reaction time is as fast as the game runs. The AI in the game is essentially designed to mimic a human opponent, to deliberately make mistakes and react slowly, as a human would. You aren't really playing against a computer, you are playing against a computer programmed to take it easy on you. Some games do this better than others; the "suspension of disbelief" required to make the game playable and fun requires the programers to make the game appear competitive. For example, lets say in the computer opponent got a first down on every play whenever you were ahead in the game, even by one point, but went 3-and-out every time you were behind in the game, even by one point. It would become plainly obvious the computer is cheating just to keep it competitive. The game wouldn't be fun. The trick is to make the behave like a human player, make similar decisions humans would make, commit the same mistakes a human would, etc. Racing games (especially those made for young kids) are notoriously obvious in the way they make the computer race. Again, there's no reason why you should ever win a racing game; the computer knows exactly how to drive the perfect line, when to turn and accelerate and whatever, and so should win every time. So what they do is adjust their ability to yours. If you suck at Mario Kart, all the computer players crash all the time for no reason. If you are way in first, oddly the second place racer is right behind you, no matter how perfectly you race. That same computer racer that crashed every time you did when you sucked is now right on your tail when you race well. Just remember, the AI always cheats to let you win. The question is how convincingly it cheats... --Jayron32 02:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent post, but on the other hand I would like to add some video games take the opposite approach, RTS games in particular are notorious for AIs that "cheat" on harder difficulties, including knowing where your units are, how your base is layed out or where your base is when a legitimate opponent would have no way of knowing where you are. If you ever see a massive attack headed your way without ever seeing a scout in an RTS, the AI is cheating to raise the difficulty by cheating to compensate for the inability to overcome certain AI limitations (like the inability to engage in unpredictable trickery or exploit bugs in the game) 65.29.47.55 (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that when you first start playing, you're likely in a good frame of mind and play well. Once you lose once or twice, you may get frustrated and start trying high-risk plays to get back to winning, and end up sinking your chances further. That's a big reason for coaches calling timeouts in sports... if your team's getting pounded, take a break, settle down a bit, don't panic, get back to playing calmly. 142.179.81.220 (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd mention that while AI balancing is no doubt relevant, it doesn't directly answer the issue the OP raised, which is that of games being thrown on your first few games after a long break, not the way they cheat overall for balancing. It's something I've wondered often. In a similar vein, the first time I unlock a shotgun I'll get a million kills with it and it'll be the most amazing weapon ever, and then after that it'll seem a bit average and not so amazing. 90.193.232.5 (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you and the OP are alluding to is a reactive AI; that is one that adjusts its cheating on the fly to respond to in-game situations; this is classicly refered to an AI that "learns". In Madden NFL, for example, the AI will start off picking defenses roughly at random against you, however it also penalizes "predictable" play by becomeing really good against the plays you pick a lot. It does this two ways. First of all, the game appears learn a little bit; it looks like it tracks what plays you pick, and starts to pick defensive plays which are good choices against that. But it doesn't even have to do that. It could have the same effect if it just reduced its own handicap in response to predictable gameplay. For example, the fourth time you run the same play, the computer just plays better than the third time you picked it, and so on. It doesn't have to learn anything beyond amping up the difficulty every time you make the same choice. FPS games can do the same thing; as you note they are perfectly capable of beating you from the first second the game starts. So the first time you try a new weapon, it looks awesome because the AI intentionally sucks. If you keep using the same weapon for too long (regardless of what that weapon is), the AI just turns off its "autosuck" feature and starts to kick your ass. It doesn't actually "learn" how to deal with the shotgun better, its just programmed to become harder the longer you use the same weapon. --Jayron32 13:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is probably just a result of you learning. Learning involves experimenting, experimenting is risky. On returning to the game you initially resume your old, successful techniques. Once you lose interest in that, you try out slightly different new ones, which fail. 81.131.49.248 (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some games absolutely throw the game. Racing games are notorious for this. (Many of them try to keep you "in the pack" regardless of how fast you're going.)

Other forms of games do this too. It's properly known as Dynamic game difficulty balancing, but often known by the derogatory term Rubber Band AI for the way opponent race cars seem like they're tethered to you. APL (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Limit on number of episodes in Japanese TV series

I just saw someone comment on a particular YouTube clip that "Japanese broadcasting rules require you to end your series at episode 999..." Is that true? 98.116.65.131 (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems rather dubious. What possible reason could there be? I don't know about Japan, but according to this American(?) list, WWE Raw has the most episodes at 679. If you assume 26 episodes a year (per a recent question), you're looking at over 38 years worth. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Raw is pretty impressive at 679 episodes, but it isn't even close to SportsCenter, which has aired well over 35,000 unique episodes... --Jayron32 03:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that you could call a sports broadcast an "episode". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second. Where's Guiding Light on that list? IMDb shows 1689 episodes. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sesame Street is usually near the top of these sorts of lists with 4,256 episodes, but this have very little to do with the question asked. APL (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest running TV shows by category says Sazae-san has more than 6000 episodes. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Life ended on the 11th Episode and Sazae-san has been going weekly (every Sunday) since 1957. I would relegate this 'rumour' to 'stuff that people have no clue about post on the internet'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it meant that the last episode of any series will be identified as 999 no matter number it really is (like many American shows which start their numbering at 100). But yeah, it's more likely that this is a "those crazy Japanese! They so crazy!" sort of thing. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK TV Advert for Capital FM features various artists praising it, Who is

The advert seems to contain two female artists by themselves. One blowing a kiss to the camera and one who is just dancing . Who are these two ladies please, and please state which one is which. One has medium length hair and one has longer hair and as I said both are on their own and not in a group of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.71.205 (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone else asks, the advert can be found here. Going by the tags on the video, the ladies you are looking for are Rihanna and Nicole Scherzinger. Rihanna is the red-haired one. --Viennese Waltz 12:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]