Survivor Creator Inspired by Video Games

[Kefkataran]

Via Voodoo Extreme (http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/725/725427p1.html): Wired has an article up talking about how Survivor creator Mark Burnett has been extremely inspired by video games and John Nash's game theory. From the full article (http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,71581-0.html?tw=wn_index_5):

"What Nash's theory predicts is that whenever you have a group of people competing, they collude to squeeze one guy out, again and again, until there's only two guys left," Burnett notes. "Yet when there are only two of us left, we're surprised when one of us fucks each other over. That's the fun part. It surprised John Nash himself, but it happens every time."

... So this year, Burnett introduced the Exile Island: A player is banned to an island, and the solitary confinement physically weakens them -- unless they find a hidden immunity idol, which immeasurably strengthens their hand. In game-design terms, it's a classic "come from behind" mechanic, key to keeping gameplay fresh.

Extremely interesting stuff. It's nice to see talk of video games, even on a pretty abstract level, being such a major part of pop culture. Maybe the author's right and we are headed towards a "golden age of play".

[Rook34]

I haven't watched survivor since season 2, but unless there's no food on that island, I think it'd be kinda nice to get away from all the backstabbing and bullshit, and treat it like a mini vacation! ...Except of course you still have camerra men there with you.

[Borys]

Excuse my ignorance (didn't read the whole story) but isn't John Nash the schizo math guy from "A Beautiful Mind"?

[Varsity]

No, Russel Crowe.

[Zacharai]

Excuse my ignorance (didn't read the whole story) but isn't John Nash the schizo math guy from "A Beautiful Mind"?
Yes, but oddly enough, he's better known for the Nash equilibrium than he is for the movie. Much of his work was directly or tangentially related to game theory.

[Stupid Fat Hobbit]

Yes, but oddly enough, he's better known for the Nash equilibrium than he is for the movie. Much of his work was directly or tangentially related to game theory.

Maybe he is if you're a mathematician or an economist... I'd say not one person in fifty had heard of him before the movie, though.

[The Continental]

Maybe he is if you're a mathematician or an economist... I'd say not one person in fifty had heard of him before the movie, though.

The Nash equilibrium is pretty standard fare for even the most basic college level economics class, of which all students, regardless of major are required to take at least one.

[Xerxes]

The Nash equilibrium is pretty standard fare for even the most basic college level economics class, of which all students, regardless of major are required to take at least one.

Where, Havard?

[Borys]

Please don't argue guys.

Funny how his name was stuck in my head and popped up after what, 4 years?

Perfect sign that it was a pretty moving movie.

[Camel]

If you took a basic economics class you more than likely heard a ittle game theory. The Prisoner's Dilemma is the example I remember. At least I think that's game theory, I was a science major so what do I know?

As for the article, I think it makes some stretches to try and associate things with gaming. Making alliances to topple those who are stronger? Underdogs coming from behind? Using headgames and bluffs to get what you want? Those are things that I suppose you could apply to games, but I would think of other stuff first.

[The Continental]

If you took a basic economics class you more than likely heard a ittle game theory. The Prisoner's Dilemma is the example I remember. At least I think that's game theory, I was a science major so what do I know?

You are correct sir, and the Nash equlibrium in that case would be the scenario in the Prisoner's Dilemma in which both prisoner's refused to talk, thus minimizing jail time for the both of them.

[Dag-Sabot]

Funny how his name was stuck in my head and popped up after what, 4 years?

-Perhaps you have a beautiful mind.

[bean19]

As for the article, I think it makes some stretches to try and associate things with gaming. Making alliances to topple those who are stronger? Underdogs coming from behind? Using headgames and bluffs to get what you want? Those are things that I suppose you could apply to games, but I would think of other stuff first.

I was about to make a post on this too. :) "Game theory" is not the same thing as "Game-Making Theory".

Game theory is a hybrid branch of applied mathematics and economics that studies strategic situations where players choose different actions in an attempt to maximize their returns. First developed as a tool for understanding economic behavior and then by the RAND Corporation to define nuclear strategies, game theory is now used in many diverse academic fields, ranging from biology and psychology to sociology and philosophy. Beginning in the 1970s, game theory has been applied to animal behavior, including species' development by natural selection. Because of games like the prisoner's dilemma, in which rational self-interest hurts everyone, game theory has been used in political science, ethics and philosophy. Finally, game theory has recently drawn attention from computer scientists because of its use in artificial intelligence and cybernetics.

From the wiki on game theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory).

If you have taken any advanced speaking courses, then you have probably run into instances of this as well, as compliance gaining and persuasion methods are enhanced by an understanding of game theory.

[Xenkylm]

Ehh.. I'm not sure I'd agree with his interpretation of Nash's theory though. The Nash Equilibrium is more about taking one for the team than it is about screwing over everyone else. The Nash equilibrium point exists at some pair of strategies where you cannot benefit from changing your strategy, and your opponent cannot benefit from changing his (assuming you both change strategy simultaneously... game theory changes a bit when you know the opponent's strategy up front). Generally a scenario is presented (prisoner's dillema is a good example) where there are really really good outcomes for you, and really really good outcomes for someone else, but if you both have a strategy of picking your best outcome, you'll end up with the worst.

For example, "you can go free if you rat on your friend (he'll be in jail for 20 years)," would be an option for both you and your friend, as would "keep quiet but stay in jail for 10 years." If you both rat on eachother, though, you go to jail for life. Obviously the best outcome for you is to go free, but if both of you have that strategy, you'll be in jail forever. The Nash Equilibrium point is staying quiet, because even though it's not the best possible outcome for you, you can't benefit from selecting a different strategy.

The point is that even though there are behaviors that can benefit you the most in any given situation, if everyone chooses those behaviors, everyone will lose.

It applies to Survivor only if there's an outcome where more than one participant can benefit from the overall experiment, and/or if you are ignorant of everyone else's strategy. Say survivor were changed such that none of the players ever saw eachother or communicated in any way, then Nash equilibrium point for Survivor would be if everyone abstained from the vote. It's the only way to guarantee that you will not be eliminated from the show.

Obviously the mechanics of the game don't allow that, and because of the exposure to other players you can guess what strategy they might have. So in my opinion the Nash equilibrium isn't a great match for the show, though it certainly can apply to videogames or other gameshows.

***edit***
1) beaten to it!
2) yes, "game theory" is VERY different from "game-making theory." Much in the same way a Deer is game and Monopoly is a game.

[bean19]

Who Made The Boards Look Like Ass Just Now?

[Camel]

Who Made The Boards Look Like Ass Just Now?
Haha it's kind of funny, every time I refresh the colors change! Now most text is dark red.

[Kefkataran]

The Nash equilibrium is pretty standard fare for even the most basic college level economics class, of which all students, regardless of major are required to take at least one.

Not true. I'm not required to take an economics class. :) Luckily I know a teensy bit about game theory anyways.


As for the article, I think it makes some stretches to try and associate things with gaming. Making alliances to topple those who are stronger? Underdogs coming from behind? Using headgames and bluffs to get what you want? Those are things that I suppose you could apply to games, but I would think of other stuff first.

I think the article does a fair job of relating the two. Like I said in the original post, it's sort of an abstract relation, but it makes sense at least.

[The Continental]

Not true. I'm not required to take an economics class. :) Luckily I know a teensy bit about game theory anyways.

Where are you going to school? What kind of degree are you seeking?

[Delacroix]

For example, "you can go free if you rat on your friend (he'll be in jail for 20 years)," would be an option for both you and your friend, as would "keep quiet but stay in jail for 10 years." If you both rat on eachother, though, you go to jail for life. Obviously the best outcome for you is to go free, but if both of you have that strategy, you'll be in jail forever. The Nash Equilibrium point is staying quiet, because even though it's not the best possible outcome for you, you can't benefit from selecting a different strategy.


I can't believe this is what finally gets me to start posting, but staying quiet is not a Nash equilibrium here; you can do better by ratting on your friend and going free (if you were trying to describe the prisoner's dilemma, you messed up the payoffs :cool:. You've got the theory right, though). The Nash equilibria here are actually the situations where one person stays quiet and the other rats him out; in this case, neither person can do better by changing his strategy.

Anyway, since it's already been pointed out several times that video game design and game theory are usually completely different things (although game theory is useful in, say, multiplayer games, when you generally don't want any player to have a domianant strategy), I'll just provide a link to the Prisoner's dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma) for anyone interested in game theory to meditate on.

[The Continental]

I can't believe this is what finally gets me to start posting, but staying quiet is not a Nash equilibrium here; you can do better by ratting on your friend and going free (if you were trying to describe the prisoner's dilemma, you messed up the payoffs :cool:. You've got the theory right, though). The Nash equilibria here are actually the situations where one person stays quiet and the other rats him out; in this case, neither person can do better by changing his strategy.

Anyway, since it's already been pointed out several times that video game design and game theory are usually completely different things (although game theory is useful in, say, multiplayer games, when you generally don't want any player to have a domianant strategy), I'll just provide a link to the Prisoner's dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma) for anyone interested in game theory to meditate on.

I always understood it as the Nash equilibrium was the strategy that proved the most beneficial to all parties, given that they were all alowed to communicate and base their strategies off of knowing how their opponents were going to act. So like Xenk said, both prisoners keeping quiet, knowing that the other is going to do so as well, would benefit both equally. I've always heard the scenario you mentioned refered to as the Dominant Strategy, or the strategy that benefits you the most, regardless of how your opponents acts.

[Kefkataran]

Where are you going to school? What kind of degree are you seeking?

University of Minnesota Morris (a hardcore liberal arts school that constantly touts the balanced education they make their students get), and I'm going for a major in English, minor in Political Science. I'm required to take one math class, but no economics class specifically. My one math class was Intro to Stats because it was required for the Poli Sci back when I thought I was going to major in it.

Anyway, since it's already been pointed out several times that video game design and game theory are usually completely different things (although game theory is useful in, say, multiplayer games, when you generally don't want any player to have a domianant strategy), I'll just provide a link to the Prisoner's dilemma for anyone interested in game theory to meditate on.

Nice first post. :) Hope to see you posting more often!

[bean19]

Btw, I'm also not required to take any Economics courses and I'm a General Studies major (would be Computer Science but I think that learning literature, creative writing, communication skills, and just the coding classes that are relatable to game design will actually be more useful to me in becoming a game designer than all the other crud that CS majors take that is more related to being able to design computer hardware than software creation.)

I just pulled out a book that shows different requirements for various majors at my school and the only majors I could find that require an economics course are business majors.

[Kefkataran]

I just pulled out a book that shows different requirements for various majors at my school and the only majors I could find that require an economics course are business majors.

That seems to be the case here as well, for better or for worse. Man, business majors. Bunch of heartless bastards.

[Adewade]

Where are you going to school? What kind of degree are you seeking?

Requiring an Economics class sounds more like the exception, than the rule...

But I live in Canada.

[The Continental]

That seems to be the case here as well, for better or for worse. Man, business majors. Bunch of heartless bastards.

Your affinity for business majors aside ;), I know that here in Florida, a general studies A.A. (essentially your two year degree before you choose a major) requires either Micro or Macro Economics. Business majors on the other hand have to take both. Many of those I've talked to from out of state said the same thing, so I made the mistake of assuming it may have a been a requirement for one of the accredidation bodies.

I was obviously wrong in my assumptions, although you damn liberal arts heathens should take an econ class anyways, it'll learn ya somethin' good!

[Xenkylm]

I can't believe this is what finally gets me to start posting, but staying quiet is not a Nash equilibrium here; you can do better by ratting on your friend and going free (if you were trying to describe the prisoner's dilemma, you messed up the payoffs :cool:. You've got the theory right, though). The Nash equilibria here are actually the situations where one person stays quiet and the other rats him out; in this case, neither person can do better by changing his strategy.

You're absolutely right. It's been a while (5 years! wow.) since I took a class on that stuff and I did in fact mess up the payoffs. Very nice first post, feel free to cut me down whenever you like ;)

/On second thought, scratch that. Never cut me down again, or I'll hunt you down.

[Delacroix]

I always understood it as the Nash equilibrium was the strategy that proved the most beneficial to all parties, given that they were all alowed to communicate and base their strategies off of knowing how their opponents were going to act. So like Xenk said, both prisoners keeping quiet, knowing that the other is going to do so as well, would benefit both equally. I've always heard the scenario you mentioned refered to as the Dominant Strategy, or the strategy that benefits you the most, regardless of how your opponents acts.

Ah, but once we've both agreed to keep quiet, what's to stop me from selling you out to get a better outcome for myself? That's the thing about game theory; it's very selfish. A Nash equilibrium is simply a combination of strategies such that no player can improve his payoff by deviating (hence "equilibrium"). Your definition of a dominant strategy is correct, and a Nash equilibrium will indeed result from each player playing his dominant strategy (why would they play anything else?). Interestingly, in the game Xenk described, neither player has a dominant strategy. There's always Nash equilibrium though, even if it's mixed.

Okay, I'm getting a little long-winded here...

You're absolutely right. It's been a while (5 years! wow.) since I took a class on that stuff and I did in fact mess up the payoffs. Very nice first post, feel free to cut me down whenever you like

/On second thought, scratch that. Never cut me down again, or I'll hunt you down.

:(

Heh, no worries. Anyone who knows their game theory is okay by me.

I was obviously wrong in my assumptions, although you damn liberal arts heathens should take an econ class anyways, it'll learn ya somethin' good!

Agreed!

[Kefkataran]

I was obviously wrong in my assumptions, although you damn liberal arts heathens should take an econ class anyways, it'll learn ya somethin' good!

But... but... my soul? :(