Larry Smith wrote on Thu, Jul 2, 2009 04:19 PM UTC:
In the pursuit of mathematical definitions for games and their pieces, one
of the basic qualities, often over-looked, is fun. Primarily because it is
impossible to fully quantify, but also it is very subjective.
Allow me to point out a game which I find quite enjoyable. This is V. R.
Parton's Royal Fury. One which he claimed as a futuristic form of Chess.
It contains many pieces of power, both strong and strange. Therefore it is
un-forgiving in its play. One mistake can lead to disaster.
I had written a Zillions implementation, primarily for my personal
use(since it can be difficult to find human opponents who were willing to
risk such a game), to test out the potential of this game. And discovered
its high level of aggravation(a quality which I thoroughly enjoy). Also,
that Zillions was really not up to the task of prosecuting a good form of
play with this game.
I even tried various alternate set-up patterns to see if there was an
optimum. And discovered that Parton's was most probably the best(at least
in comparison to those I had attempted). So I now accept its master's
wishes.
Like Nemoroth, Royal Fury has pieces which affect and are affected by
other pieces. This can be a source of great frustration for many new
players. Yet I find this quality of frustration(primarily within myself)
again enjoyable.
I point all this out to demonstrate an aspect in the nature of fun. Not as
an absolute value but simply as a subjective facet. Other might not enjoy
such games, nor should they be forced to play such(this would be seriously
contrary to the nature of fun). But there are many in this world, whose
population is numbered in billions, who might enjoy an occasional game of
Royal Fury.
