寱语 kzeng's blog

I commented on Google's Da Vinci Code Quest game the other day and said that the design of the game was flawed.I still think so although now I am among the finalists. Since we're free before the final phrase starts, let's talk more about the first phrase of the game.

Axiom 1: A good game tests players' ability and singles out finalists accordingly.

Proposition 1: Google's Da Vinci Code Quest game is not a good game because at most it only tests the ability of players from a subset of the whole population.

Proof: Suppose players have two types, either high ability (H), or low ability (L) (Alternatively one may assume the ability of players has certain distribution over the whole population but here I just want to keep it simple so I use binomial dist.). H players can solve the puzzles quickly while L slowly. Moreover, since most of players are not totally free everyday, let's suppose that the number of players starting to solve the puzzles over time follows a certain distribution F (Normally it could be a Poisson one but generally there is no need to specify it). Or in simple words, some players will start playing the game earlier than the others. Then H players have a dominant strategy that is to solve the puzzle quickly and then reveal the solutions publicly via INTERNET. In this way, they can "kick out" other H players who have to start playing later by bringing in enough L players who just got the solutions via INTERNET. As a result, the small portion of H players can increase the possibility of winning finally because those L finalists are less competitive. Since all H players have such incentives and it's very easy to disseminate information quickly and effectively via Internet, the game can only tests the ability of players from a small subset of the whole population. Therefore, it is not a good game. □

Empirical Evidence: Everyday the solutions of the puzzle are revealed in the Internet 3-5 minutes after the game started. This is also true for the last and most important puzzle. The solution was revealed 4 minutes after the game started. That's why even one submitted his/her answers at 10:07 but still wasn't a finalist.

Comments: Who should be blamed for the stupid game? Not those H players but the designers of the game. The worst and most stupid thing they did is to choose an observation puzzle as the final one because it has a unique solution!

However, we know that Google and Sony Pictures are not stupid but fairly smart. Therefore, they may just have a different axiom for a good game. For them, a good game may be the one that __________________. You can fill it :-)