Adding the time limit and actually making the clock go faster when a player is (purposefully) going off the rails is a sinister trick to ensure that players get the expected ending message. Clever that the programmer throught of these cases.
Hmmm. I tried about a dozen times before giving up. I thought the game was broken before reading your comment.
Nothing in the game visually indicates that going back is worse than going forwards. As the level is symmetrical, the distance is literally the same. A one-way door, or crumbling floor, would have been easy solutions I think.
There's just barely enough time on the middle and last levels to double back even with the faster clock movement for going the wrong direction. Fun little challenge
I don't know enough about web stuff, but I wonder how much this depends on the system
I got past the second one, and oddly was able to 'sit still' in the middle while rearranging my fingers for a remarkably 'long' time (couple seconds or so, hard to guage)
For anyone smarter than me: I'm on Linux with Wayland and a 144Hz display, output should be synchronized if this plays a part
On the middle one they only check if you go backwards from the position of the key (I got it to work clockwise). If you continue on the intended path and then go back the clock won't go faster. You have to be fast though.
Echoing all the others that this Trust game is great, I noticed something else that struck me in some of the "play with the dials" stages.
The game showed us that when you decrease the reward for Cooperate/Cooperate from +2 to +1, the Always-Cheats take over. But I tried increasing the reward for above the default of +2 to +3 or +4 and an interesting thing happened: The naïve Always-Cooperates actually took over!
It made me think about how a lot of cynical people -- of both sides of the political divide -- play the 'game' as 'cutthroatly' as possible. I think if you asked these people how they see the world, they'd tell you that "the system is rigged anyway" such that there's barely any benefit to cooperating. "So why shouldn't I exploit everything I can to get mine?" And in a world where there's arguably not enough reward for cooperating, I can see how people arrive at a cynical conclusion and become Always-Cheaters. This is why people who work for minimum wage generally don't want to work hard and provide great customer service. And it's why companies who employ them don't want to pay them a living wage and benefits. Both sides would tell you that the rewards of doing that aren't worth the risks or the cost.
If we could somehow bring about greater rewards for good-faith participation (working hard → a very high likelihood of affording a moderately nice lifestyle), I think a lot of cynicism would be outcompeted by more cooperative attitudes. Obviously I'd already be President of the World if I knew how to just make that happen, though.
Makes me wonder how you could apply this to social media.
What if you had a social media site where you could only see the same set of people? (Say, 150 people - Dunbar's number)
This isn't perfect by any means, but how would you fix it from there? Would you make it mix the population every few months? Maybe just comments/reactions are restricted to your cohort but you can see all posts? Would you mix the population based on some kind of score? Could that score be multi-dimensional?
It probably wouldn't work, because social media is voluntary. People can just reduce participation, or just leave, and find alternative ways to get whatever value they were getting from the social media site. Users stay because it's fun, or because their friends are staying (network effect); your proposed interventions would both frustrate the users and weaken or destroy the "glue" that keeps them coming back.
In contrast, those natural social networks of yore - tribes, villages - were all-encompassing, and you were stuck with them. The modern social networks that are strong - school, university, work - also have this strong "like it or not, I'm stuck here with this people" component. Sure, it's easier to change a job than a tribe, but it's still costly.
I love this game and think it is one of the most important things on the internet, but I hate the consequence. The intended message is great: cooperate and forgive so that you can live in a great society. The corollary is absolutely awful... If you let defectors win, you are responsible for creating the defection.
Indeed! It's awful, but all-too-true. Those who enable the bullies can be as bad for the group as the bullies themselves. Cultivating, protecting, and maintaining a peaceful and trustful society is an active effort, not a passive one.
I think game theory is really cool and all, but I'm not sure it actually has much relevance for analyzing human behavior. It is always taught in that way, to simplify it for undergrads, but the mathematical concepts, I think, are significantly more important than the "ethical" questions.
I liked playing this game! The art style, animations, and overall messages were a really good experience! I look forward to sharing this with my friends later.
The message at the end was cute, but playing this was infuriating. :(
It took me like 20 tries just to get past the first panel, because it was buzz with failure every time I got to the door after picking up the key. It took forever to realize the buzz was from the timer, because it always buzzed once I was already at the door, like the door was the wrong goal.
Then once I realized it's time-based, another 20 tries to do the second panel in a short enough time. The third panel was easy, though.
So something seems to be miscalibrated. (Macbook Air M1 on Chrome, and it's not like I've got a slow key repeat configured or anything.) I get that it's trying to force you to take the shortest distance, but playing this made me incredibly angry because it felt like it was unwinnable. And when I finally did succeed on the first and second panels, it felt random -- maybe it gave me extra time or something? It's not like I got any "better" at it.
Best thing I clicked today! Love it! I somehow expected "adding your personal message" to generate a level that would trace out my custom message though.
Just when you are thoroughly resigned to the fact that humanity is just terrible, and that a large asteroid would be just the thing the planet needs, someone comes along and puts something out into the world that is just nice and beautiful.
Readit News
Nothing in the game visually indicates that going back is worse than going forwards. As the level is symmetrical, the distance is literally the same. A one-way door, or crumbling floor, would have been easy solutions I think.
I got past the second one, and oddly was able to 'sit still' in the middle while rearranging my fingers for a remarkably 'long' time (couple seconds or so, hard to guage)
For anyone smarter than me: I'm on Linux with Wayland and a 144Hz display, output should be synchronized if this plays a part
Deleted Comment
The game showed us that when you decrease the reward for Cooperate/Cooperate from +2 to +1, the Always-Cheats take over. But I tried increasing the reward for above the default of +2 to +3 or +4 and an interesting thing happened: The naïve Always-Cooperates actually took over!
It made me think about how a lot of cynical people -- of both sides of the political divide -- play the 'game' as 'cutthroatly' as possible. I think if you asked these people how they see the world, they'd tell you that "the system is rigged anyway" such that there's barely any benefit to cooperating. "So why shouldn't I exploit everything I can to get mine?" And in a world where there's arguably not enough reward for cooperating, I can see how people arrive at a cynical conclusion and become Always-Cheaters. This is why people who work for minimum wage generally don't want to work hard and provide great customer service. And it's why companies who employ them don't want to pay them a living wage and benefits. Both sides would tell you that the rewards of doing that aren't worth the risks or the cost.
If we could somehow bring about greater rewards for good-faith participation (working hard → a very high likelihood of affording a moderately nice lifestyle), I think a lot of cynicism would be outcompeted by more cooperative attitudes. Obviously I'd already be President of the World if I knew how to just make that happen, though.
Deleted Comment
What if you had a social media site where you could only see the same set of people? (Say, 150 people - Dunbar's number)
This isn't perfect by any means, but how would you fix it from there? Would you make it mix the population every few months? Maybe just comments/reactions are restricted to your cohort but you can see all posts? Would you mix the population based on some kind of score? Could that score be multi-dimensional?
In contrast, those natural social networks of yore - tribes, villages - were all-encompassing, and you were stuck with them. The modern social networks that are strong - school, university, work - also have this strong "like it or not, I'm stuck here with this people" component. Sure, it's easier to change a job than a tribe, but it's still costly.
Hell, they are all great!
I always remember "parable of the polygons"
https://ncase.me/projects/
Everything seems fresh, though this door one was 2015.
[0] https://ncase.itch.io/wbwwb
“First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me”
—Martin Niemöller
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
It took me like 20 tries just to get past the first panel, because it was buzz with failure every time I got to the door after picking up the key. It took forever to realize the buzz was from the timer, because it always buzzed once I was already at the door, like the door was the wrong goal.
Then once I realized it's time-based, another 20 tries to do the second panel in a short enough time. The third panel was easy, though.
So something seems to be miscalibrated. (Macbook Air M1 on Chrome, and it's not like I've got a slow key repeat configured or anything.) I get that it's trying to force you to take the shortest distance, but playing this made me incredibly angry because it felt like it was unwinnable. And when I finally did succeed on the first and second panels, it felt random -- maybe it gave me extra time or something? It's not like I got any "better" at it.
Have you tried upgrading your M1 processor to an AMD Ryzen? /s (sarcastic, but with love)
There was a ton of time for me. Either something odd with your computer, or developer's timing algorithm doesn't work the same on all machines.
Well, shit.
And THANK YOU!