ElvenMonk wrote:Currently I don't see say my doughter playing this game, just because it's not educational enough.
Quite a bad example.
I don't see that as indicator of how educational is a game. How many kids do really take head on hard (for their level) problems? Very a little.
The educational part is not the problem, rather the environment around the problem that is provided by the community.
If you have a book of exercises, you learn next to nothing peeking at the solution to solve the exercise. Rather you try, you fail and you have a study group or a teacher that tells you what to improve.
Same with kids. Kids try, fail, and have parents there to help and try again.
Left alone the majority (I'd say 99% of the people) quit, there is little to say about this.
See the drop rates in whatever hard problem solving environment. Chess, go, coding challenges, math challenges, sport challenges, and so on. Very few persist and those that persist normally participate in communities to share ideas or motivate themselves.
I don't see anything bad if Den asks for help to improve. But copying AI sounds like people that used Pew's simple bot back then.
They copy it. They reached 1700 (the equivalent of 2100 today) then they had to think with their mind, they tried around without understanding and failing, they got frustrated, and they quit saying "well at the end this game sucks".
History of competitive challenges is full of those examples. Mostly the problem is the approach to the challenge, not the challenge.