The Game Prototype That Had to Be Banned by Its Own Studio

It's really interesting how a game with just a few rules can open up so much of the complexity of human interaction. In a sense, "Among Us" is much more forgiving, because communication is reduced to a minimum, you are mostly judged for your behaviour, and you can actually win gracefully together.
But this is basically: how much do you want to win? And how ruthless can you risk to be in the process? It levitates everyone to the social minimum, not the maximum.

tl;dr people played a strategy and got butthurt when they got outstrategized by their friends and started pouting and sulking

loll i was gonna say this weirdly sounds like survivor

This reminds me of the game Rust. I can only play it once or twice a year because of the emotional cost caused by the time spent on it.

Don't tell them about Game of Thrones, or Diplomacy, or many other board games which are much nastier. On boardgamegeek there are multiple people rating Diplomacy at 1 with notes like 'an evil game' or 'this game destroys friendships'. Fortunately, a minority - most people either don't care about this kind of games, or are mature enough to not translate real life relationships to in-game relationships. Hell, if a couple always colludes with each other, even if it's against in-game interest of one of them, they are never invited again to a game night. The good thing about Diplomacy is that once you are eliminated, you are properly eliminated. In GoT you can lose all your armies and castles in the first half an hour of the game, but can't quit because you still vote. So you sit for the remaining 6-7 hours, or however long it takes, drinking beer and cheering. It has happened to me. There are board games I always lose, and my chances are forfeited soon after the game starts, but I still like playing. Above all, it's a social experience, an occasion to spend time with friends and not talk shop, gossip or whatever. You remember betrayals for years to come and they get brought up repeatedly, but it is in a light-hearted manner, and I really can't understand people getting seriously angered or outraged over a game, as long as no one behaves in an abusive or toxic manner over the board. It really baffles me. Unfortunately, video gaming community is incomparably more toxic than board game community for some reason I do not understand. I never met a toxic board gamer, and never met a player at any kind of organized events who were not a good sport, even if they were pummelled mercilessly.

this makes me feel better about getting genuinely pissed at someone who betrayed me in a game and feeling like it was a reflection of who they were as a person loll they didn’t have to do that

sounds like they need to design a co-op game

You made a game simulating warfare and were surprised it was affecting people, whaaaaa!?!

people literally just take things too seriously

If riot games realized how Bad their Idea was, if they stopped, I would still have a part of my life

Amazing video, so much insight here

For thoose interested, that's the same problems you can encounter in diplomacy.

If players forget the game aspect and play their friendship and trust, it easily end the same.

this game is just like capitalism fr

This game is basically The Prisoners Dilemma, but played under a rule set that the "society" experiment is doomed and everyone but the survivor WILL die. It is a psychologically experiment, not a game. The studio was smart to abandon it, the paradoxical nature of Tank Tactics can induce REAL harm. Cooperate and Betray, the fundamental basis for these games is REAL. This is one of the examples of why allowing "science " to dictate design and create addicts with technology is so grim. Studies have shown how social order is breaking down due to lack of human connection AND the fake sort of surreal experience social media perpetuates trying to keep you addicted. It is a very risky Pandoras Box to play a game with people and their primal emotions.

Ok, I really enjoy playing social deduction games, but I always remind the other players before we start playing that it's a game, everything is allowed except for aggressive manipulation and storys like this are the reason for it. What happens during the game stays in the game.

But the tshirt move? That's just not Ok. That's far beyond the limits.

the creators of UNO realizing how many friendships they ended:

This could be the plot of some horror Fallout Vault

Cant wait when someone makes a PvE version using AI

I don't think you need to be playing games to have this happen in the office. All it takes is for a temporary financial constriction or a certain type of project manager to arrive, and one or two people slip into a zero-sum mindset, and it becomes hell.

Why anyone would design this into a recreational activity is beyond me.

reminds me a lot of SUBTERFUGE, a navy sea sub game recommended but SUSD/Cool Ghosts 7 years ago. supposed to only play for a few minutes per day but the betrayal possibilities are so engrossing you play all day and all night for days on end

I cannot play these kind of games, All betrayal is real because wasting someone's time is the worst thing you can do to someone.

for me it is an among us but in a steroid I would say

The dynamics of this highly resemble the very long, slow, but simple board game "diplomacy"

It’s amazing they didn’t make a game out of… their game?…

these people must never have played Diplomacy

Bunch of softies

Npcs cannot distinguish between a game and reality. The game sounds fun, the people sound like fgts

tank tactics more like trauma

Let me be real: If these kind of games emotionally affect you, don't play them. If you can separate your personal life from a game with no real life consequences and a predetermined conclusion, drop out. When betrayal is the only way to further the game state, don't get mad at people who do it.

Yeah, I used to play an online mafia strategy game, and people would form families and alliances that would last over multiple rounds of the game, with each round lasting between one and several months. You couldn't get anywhere in the game without those relationships. And everyone chatted in IRC chat, so there were actual relationships that were being built as well between people. There were even outside websites run by players that tracked statistics and made a "newspaper" of important game events,, doing interviews with significant players and devs. But of course, it was still a mafia game where you got a tremendous strategic advantage from deception, manipulation, and backstabbing people right when they trusted you the most, for example, if you were trusted with access to the family bank, or their upcoming war plans. It became quite stressful to play, especially the higher you climbed the "power ladder" in that type of game. Which I guess is probably accurate if you are trying to simulate what it is like in the real mafia.

Naw seems to me like too many people took this too seriously, I've played enough secret Hitler style games to know that if you play with the right people it just makes for great memories. They took it too seriously

I’m disappointed they didn’t pursue the project further—sounds awesome!

The problem was, you created a game that showed how people truly are, and they couldn't face that. Make it an indie game, instead, and go down in history.

This is what happens when you kids don’t get out and play sports.

Keep producing mindless trash instead of interesting games because “feelings”

I would have made some rule changes:
1) A player can have no more than 6 action points.
2) A tank in motion (a tank that’s on a different square this turn than last turn) grants another turn (as an “immediate interrupt”) so long as it still has an action point, if it takes damage. A stationary tank gets no such benefit.
3) A player can, on any turn, use an action point to:
a) fire on another tank in motion or stationary,
b) move one square adjacent to it, that’s not blocked by another player’s tank,
c) upgrade it’s firing range by 1 square, or
d) repair their tank. this restores one HP.
4) A player must have 3 action points AFTER trading one or more action points to another player. This means any player has to have 4 or more action points before they can give theirs to another player.
5) A destroyed tank coughs up its action points in the square where it died. Any tank that runs over this square picks up all the action points, up to a maximum of 6. Any left over are picked up by the GM (game master), and are thus not available after that tank moves off the square.
Finally, 6) A player may not leave action points on the map as bait for other players. The only way action points end up on the map is via rule #5 above.
Enjoy! 😊

This is a little like the game Diplomacy

They really hired a bunch of people who take shit too seriously huh. Like buddy if you havent agreed betrayal is fun, dont play a game about alliances and betrayals. We love a game about backstabbing and lying to your friends but you clearly do not have good friends.

I've grown up playing and hosting games like Mafia/werewolf, Civilization, Advanced wars, etc. You make alliances with the understanding that betrayal is part of the game and you cant trust your friends further than you can throw them, because thats the whole point.

They really hired a bunch of people who take shit too seriously huh. Like buddy if you havent agreed betrayal is fun, dont play a game about alliances and betrayals. We love a game about backstabbing and lying to your friends but you clearly do not have good friends.

I've grown up playing and hosting games like Mafia/werewolf, Civilization, Advanced wars, etc. You make alliances with the understanding that betrayal is part of the game and you cant trust your friends further than you can throw them, because thats the whole point.

I wonder if being strict with the amount of time put into such a game would lessen its effect. This one was onto something by only giving one action a day, but apparently it wasn't enough

So basically it destroys relationships like Monopoly does.

Too many rules, too many players, too many opportunities to backstab. If the game were over quicker with only one or two "villains" per round, people wouldn't take it so seriously

It would have been interesting to test the game with at least one different group. Mobile game developers are a fairly specific group of people and it's not exactly surprising that they would have their cages easily rattled by a little conflict.

This is the same thing I explain to people about how we structure societies. If our system is designed around competing then not everyone can win and people will do this exact same thing. Society however is not a game and needs to be structured around helping every citizen and promote working together.

I don't get why you would ever move instead of upgrading range?

What about the internet, and social media, and the psychological effect that it has on society?

Someone get Valefisk on the Phone

Dokapon

That only took 8 days?! Wild