Twitch Plays Pokemon Somehow Manages to Beat The Game - Update

[Bindal]

The game was released in 1996. -___-

I know, and games have only gotten even easier since then.

And obviously you couldn't beat an action game via Twitch. You couldn't beat "Dear Esther" via Twitch either, because you can't accurately point a 360*360 degree camera using up-down-left-right, nor can you properly set walking distances. That's why they chose a game that doesn't require any precision.

Doesn't matter. The very fact that they can have people randomly inputting commands while others troll them means that the game is pathetically easy, and that's not a good thing.

It does matter. The fact that you can play a game on a grid made it possible in the first place to play it. Someone else set up one with Super Mario Bros. Want to know what happened? People didn nothing but run face-first into the first Goomba. Constantly.

Your mentioned Final Fantasy I? That would totally doable. Undoublty it would take longer but impossible to beat? Nope.

 

[Gizen]

Snip

A game that any random person could pick up and beat with hardly any real effort defeats the entire point of playing that game to begin with. One of the main reasons people play games in order to feel like they are actually accomplishing something, and making a game pitifully easy greatly diminishes that accomplishment. I'm not asking for games to become so hair-pullingly difficult, I'm asking for games to pose a reasonable amount of challenge, at the very least enough that random crowd commands can't beat it.

Nnnno, I'm pretty sure the purpose to playing a game is to have fun. If you happen to personally enjoy a challenge, then by all means you should play a difficult game, but to say that there's no point to a game that isn't challenging just because you don't personally enjoy that leaves me thinking you're the one who doesn't understand why people play games. There are many different varieties of fun, and games should cater to all types. Hell, turn-based RPGs themselves traditionally have not been hard, as the primary entertainment that comes from them tends to usually be the story rather than the difficulty.

 

[lacktheknack]

A game that any random person could pick up and beat with hardly any real effort defeats the entire point of playing that game to begin with.

Mind exploded. What is this?

One of the main reasons people play games in order to feel like they are actually accomplishing something, and making a game pitifully easy greatly diminishes that accomplishment.

Speak for yourself. I don't know a single person in real life who plays games to "accomplish" something.

I'm not asking for games to become so hair-pullingly difficult, I'm asking for games to pose a reasonable amount of challenge, at the very least enough that random crowd commands can't beat it.

Again, if the crowd commands were truly random, we'd still be in one of the first two towns at this point.

The commands aren't "random", the goal-oriented people were trying to actually proceed towards the goal. And they did, given 300 hours. That's not "random commands".

For all intents and purposes it is random commands, since even without the trolls dozens of people who all have different ideas as to what they are supposed to do at any given moment are sporadically giving out commands to the game and the game has to follow all of them, at the most it's a controlled chaos.

Controlled chaos is just that: Controlled.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Nnnno, I'm pretty sure the purpose to playing a game is to have fun. If you happen to personally enjoy a challenge, then by all means you should play a difficult game, but to say that there's no point to a game that isn't challenging just because you don't personally enjoy that leaves me thinking you're the one who doesn't understand why people play games. There are many different varieties of fun, and games should cater to all types. Hell, turn-based RPGs themselves traditionally have not been hard, as the primary entertainment that comes from them tends to usually be the story rather than the difficulty.

Fun? That's my entire point. There is no fun in any game that lacks any actual challenge whatsoever.

For instance, try doing this: Sit in a chair and do absolutely nothing but press some random button over and over again for an hour straight. Felt pretty pointless right? It felt pointless because it didn't accomplish anything and it took no effort to do. That is what it is like to play a game that lacks any challenge, a boring tedious slog, there's no fun involved. There's no fun, no sense of accomplishment, and no feeling that you didn't waste your time from playing a game that any random person could beat.

I'm not asking for a significant challenge, I'm asking for a challenge, I don't care how high that challenge is, just as long as it's high enough that actually takes effort, that it has an actual chance of failure, something that a brain dead chimpanzee couldn't do.

 

[Bindal]

Nnnno, I'm pretty sure the purpose to playing a game is to have fun. If you happen to personally enjoy a challenge, then by all means you should play a difficult game, but to say that there's no point to a game that isn't challenging just because you don't personally enjoy that leaves me thinking you're the one who doesn't understand why people play games. There are many different varieties of fun, and games should cater to all types. Hell, turn-based RPGs themselves traditionally have not been hard, as the primary entertainment that comes from them tends to usually be the story rather than the difficulty.

Fun? That's my entire point. There is no fun in any game that lacks any actual challenge whatsoever.

For instance, try doing this: Sit in a chair and do absolutely nothing but press some random button over and over again for an hour straight. Felt pretty pointless right? It felt pointless because it didn't accomplish anything and it took no effort to do. That is what it is like to play a game that lacks any challenge, a boring tedious slog, there's no fun involved. There's no fun, no sense of accomplishment, and no feeling that you didn't waste your time from playing a game that any random person could beat.

I'm not asking for a significant challenge, I'm asking for a challenge, I don't care how high that challenge is, just as long as it's high enough that actually takes effort, that it has an actual chance of failure, something that a brain dead chimpanzee couldn't do.

Well and in this case, the challenge was to finish a game with up to 100.000 players AT THE SAME time using the same controller, resulting in all possible and impossible non-sense.
If play a game, ANY GAME, and have every second about 1k command inputs for the game while you play it (some trying to also get to the end, some trying to avoid it, some trying something else and some just random), then every game becomes a challenge.

 

[GAunderrated]

The game was released in 1996. -___-

I know, and games have only gotten even easier since then.

And obviously you couldn't beat an action game via Twitch. You couldn't beat "Dear Esther" via Twitch either, because you can't accurately point a 360*360 degree camera using up-down-left-right, nor can you properly set walking distances. That's why they chose a game that doesn't require any precision.

Doesn't matter. The very fact that they can have people randomly inputting commands while others troll them means that the game is pathetically easy, and that's not a good thing.

Also, why is gaming getting easier, if it really is (I think it has more to do with people getting better at games), "not a good thing"? Under what circumstances is a lack of rage-quitting undesirable? If you're going to say "I like a challenge", then good for you. Stick with the Souls games and retro gaming if you like challenge and leave the rest to the audience that likes them. If, however, you have a good non-personal reason why easy games are bad, please explain.

I can answer your question. The reason why people are so dead set against "easy games" is because they need to feel like they actually achieved something with gaming. If everyone can beat a game they beat then they can't take pride in it. It isn't about having as much fun as possible as it is about wanting to feel like you achieved something.

 

[GAunderrated]

Nnnno, I'm pretty sure the purpose to playing a game is to have fun. If you happen to personally enjoy a challenge, then by all means you should play a difficult game, but to say that there's no point to a game that isn't challenging just because you don't personally enjoy that leaves me thinking you're the one who doesn't understand why people play games. There are many different varieties of fun, and games should cater to all types. Hell, turn-based RPGs themselves traditionally have not been hard, as the primary entertainment that comes from them tends to usually be the story rather than the difficulty.

Fun? That's my entire point. There is no fun in any game that lacks any actual challenge whatsoever.

For instance, try doing this: Sit in a chair and do absolutely nothing but press some random button over and over again for an hour straight. Felt pretty pointless right? It felt pointless because it didn't accomplish anything and it took no effort to do. That is what it is like to play a game that lacks any challenge, a boring tedious slog, there's no fun involved. There's no fun, no sense of accomplishment, and no feeling that you didn't waste your time from playing a game that any random person could beat.

I'm not asking for a significant challenge, I'm asking for a challenge, I don't care how high that challenge is, just as long as it's high enough that actually takes effort, that it has an actual chance of failure, something that a brain dead chimpanzee couldn't do.

Bro I hate to break it to you but it doesn't matter how you try to justify it, you are wasting your time with video games. Games are entertainment and time wasters by nature but they have grown through the years because people have FUN. The great thing is that being a time waster isn't a bad thing because it brings joy and relief for many people.

At the same time its really unhealthy to put gaming as your primary form of pride and achievement

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I'd say this is less of an impressive act and more like very strong evidence of how piss easy games have become.

You couldn't defeat Final Fantasy 1 like this, and you definitely couldn't beat an action game like MegaMan or Ninja Gaiden like this.

You couldn't beat a lot of modern games like this either, even some piss easy ones. Pokemon was chosen because the controls are simplistic and the gameplay is not real time. Either of those makes for a game that would be impossible with this method.

 

[Epic_Bubble]

There is no evil in a per-determined path. A path is not necessarily good or evil. Its what the person who walks that path does that makes its good or evil.

Anarchy has its place in the world, and so does democracy. Let us not judge all those that follow the democracy path that they are evil, rather judge them on their actions.

Praise Lord Helix!! May his Withdrew shelter us all.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Bro I hate to break it to you but it doesn't matter how you try to justify it, you are wasting your time with video games. Games are entertainment and time wasters by nature but they have grown through the years because people have FUN. The great thing is that being a time waster isn't a bad thing because it brings joy and relief for many people.

There's a big difference between wasting your time and enjoying yourself. Humans by their very nature are going to be doing things that aren't necessary to their survival, in short a waste of time. Especially in this day and age humans have fun because they need something to do with the roughly 8 or so hours of every day they aren't spending sleeping or working to get food, water, and a roof over their head, and while they could just sit there and do jack, it's not enjoyable. Whether you are watching TV, movies, playing video games or sports, or commenting on an internet forum like you are now you're wasting your time, you do it because you enjoy it not because you would die if you didn't. Easy games take that enjoyment out of what would otherwise be a good time, and if you can't see that then I can't help but feel pity.

At the same time its really unhealthy to put gaming as your primary form of pride and achievement

When did I ever say my primary for of pride and achievement is video games? I didn't, and it wouldn't have mattered if I did anyway. Regardless I should feel pride and a sense of accomplishment when I do anything regardless of the importance of the action, including video games and the same goes for everybody else.

I can answer your question. The reason why people are so dead set against "easy games" is because they need to feel like they actually achieved something with gaming. If everyone can beat a game they beat then they can't take pride in it. It isn't about having as much fun as possible as it is about wanting to feel like you achieved something.

A sense of achievement and pride equals fun, and easy games rob one of that, I don't see why you and the others can't understand this. One can do something just for fun at first but boredom quickly sets in if one does not feel like what they are doing is of value. So yes, it is about having as much fun as possible.

 

[immortalfrieza]

I'd say this is less of an impressive act and more like very strong evidence of how piss easy games have become.

You couldn't defeat Final Fantasy 1 like this, and you definitely couldn't beat an action game like MegaMan or Ninja Gaiden like this.

You couldn't beat a lot of modern games like this either, even some piss easy ones. Pokemon was chosen because the controls are simplistic and the gameplay is not real time. Either of those makes for a game that would be impossible with this method.

It should be impossible even in games with simplistic controls and with gameplay that is not real time. The results of this Twitch experiment should've end up causing Red to get his ass beat over and over again pretty much from his first battle until they decided to drop this even with the criteria you mentioned.

 

[JayRPG]

I'd say this is less of an impressive act and more like very strong evidence of how piss easy games have become.

You couldn't defeat Final Fantasy 1 like this, and you definitely couldn't beat an action game like MegaMan or Ninja Gaiden like this.

You couldn't beat a lot of modern games like this either, even some piss easy ones. Pokemon was chosen because the controls are simplistic and the gameplay is not real time. Either of those makes for a game that would be impossible with this method.

It should be impossible even in games with simplistic controls and with gameplay that is not real time. The results of this Twitch experiment should've end up causing Red to get his ass beat over and over again pretty much from his first battle until they decided to drop this even with the criteria you mentioned.

This was a game released in 1996, well known to be marketed to young children and is incredibly imbalanced.

I'd like to see twitch breed a perfect pokemon in white 2 - Impossible.

And besides, apart from the very first few games in the series, the series was never meant to be some epic, hard, story-driven RPG. It is about multiplayer, competitive play, collecting pokemon, breeding pokemon.

CoD is fuck easy, the campaign can be breezed through with little to no effort, the fun, the accomplishment, the challenge - it all comes from multiplayer, the games true intent.

 

[Bindal]

I'd say this is less of an impressive act and more like very strong evidence of how piss easy games have become.

You couldn't defeat Final Fantasy 1 like this, and you definitely couldn't beat an action game like MegaMan or Ninja Gaiden like this.

You couldn't beat a lot of modern games like this either, even some piss easy ones. Pokemon was chosen because the controls are simplistic and the gameplay is not real time. Either of those makes for a game that would be impossible with this method.

It should be impossible even in games with simplistic controls and with gameplay that is not real time. The results of this Twitch experiment should've end up causing Red to get his ass beat over and over again pretty much from his first battle until they decided to drop this even with the criteria you mentioned.

Except it was not FULLY random (there were people with a goal in mind trying to reach it). Another stream DID use a RNG to play the game and even THEY managed to get somewhere (around the first badge), but that didn't got that far either.
Face the reality: ANY game could be beaten by an RNG, assuming the randomness also contains the lengh of a command if various lengh is required (like with platformers).
And considering this didn't need to press buttons in a specific length but only in an order AND it was not fully random, beating this game (or any game with the requirements "turn-based" and "basic controls not requiring timed inputs") is possible. They could probably also beat games like Rogue that way.

 

[Rabish Bini]

*snip*

Question: Have you ever actually played Pokemon?

 

[immortalfrieza]

*snip*

Question: Have you ever actually played Pokemon?

Everything from Red, Blue, and Yellow to Black and White, including both Colosseum games and the Mystery Dungeon series, if you must know.

 

[Rabish Bini]

*snip*

Question: Have you ever actually played Pokemon?

Everything from Red, Blue, and Yellow to Black and White, including both Colosseum games and the Mystery Dungeon series, if you must know.

So then you must have enjoyed the Pokemon games, and quite a bit to play every one of them, no?

If so, then why are you bemoaning the games apparent lack challenge, and therefore fun?

 

[immortalfrieza]

*snip*

Question: Have you ever actually played Pokemon?

Everything from Red, Blue, and Yellow to Black and White, including both Colosseum games and the Mystery Dungeon series, if you must know.

So then you must have enjoyed the Pokemon games, and quite a bit to play every one of them, no?

I DID enjoy the Pokemon games... at first, when I first picked up the first couple generations and thus the novelty is still fresh. By the third generation the novelty was gone and without any challenge to maintain it my interest faded fast, I'd say I picked up the main series games after G&S more out of habit and a fading hope that this one might be a challenge and thus worthwhile this time than anything else, and after B&W I stopped.

If so, then why are you bemoaning the games apparent lack challenge, and therefore fun?

It's because it's true, the main games at least. I barely play anything but the spinoff games anymore because they are the only ones which mix up the formula and provide any actual challenge anymore. The novelty and nostalgia can only blind one to the faults of something for so long.

 

[Bindal]

If so, then why are you bemoaning the games apparent lack challenge, and therefore fun?

It's because it's true, the main games at least. I barely play anything but the spinoff games anymore because they are the only ones which mix up the formula and provide any actual challenge anymore. The novelty and nostalgia can only blind one to the faults of something for so long.

Except they aren't any easier or harder than the main games. They are just different.

 

[immortalfrieza]

If so, then why are you bemoaning the games apparent lack challenge, and therefore fun?

It's because it's true, the main games at least. I barely play anything but the spinoff games anymore because they are the only ones which mix up the formula and provide any actual challenge anymore. The novelty and nostalgia can only blind one to the faults of something for so long.

Except they aren't any easier or harder than the main games. They are just different.

The very fact that you can say that shows you've never actually played them.

 

[RJ 17]

*watches the feed for about 10 minutes* Excuse the language, but this is fucking ridiculous.

In a hilariously "making me giggle in an awkwardly giddy fashion" kind of way.

Captcha: "one way"
Swing and a miss on that one, Captcha.