Because games are often based on progression and success, that combat is a very natural shape. Uh, it works because it's usually visually stimulating and visceral. Uh, it has a very clear risk-reward structure, you know, I beat you or you beat me. Um, it has very clear, you know, real world uh, consequences. If you beat me, I'm-I'm destroyed. If I beat you, you're destroyed. And don't underestimate the power of being able to get something out of your world as a game designer. So, you know, uh, on the Sims I always used to use the example, or even on [unintelligible] of, you know, if we wanted a social game, the social consequence of losing a social battle with you is severe embarrassment. You know, and the problem with that is, I'm embarrassed, but I'm still here, you know, and what happens next, so you get this, and then, and then, and then problem. Whereas with combat, you luckily end up with nothing, you know, you end up back at zero. Uh, uh, I think all of these things contribute to make it just a-a juicy um, easy second-to-second mechanic for games, and the other problems are very difficult to solve. And you know, you even see in movies, there's a reason why action movies do so well, it's very -- it's very similar, you know, it's high energy, exciting, clear, endpoint's clear uh, uh, you know, outcomes for the viewer uh, and-and it's one of the great unsolved problems is how to do the -- the romance game.
