"I felt like I pretty much knew as much as them despite having barely played the game" When games are significantly random, the skill cap is almost always god-damn low, but there's this "phantom skill area" that people spend years and years pursuing. I mean it's what I've talked about before with my Game Placebo article and my other articles on randomness, but I don't know, I feel like I haven't been strong enough on this problem. Or more specifically, I've been too lenient on games like Poker which have these giant crowds of apologists who will fight all day long to defend the position that it has a ton of skill to it. And I can't disagree because I myself haven't spent years pursuing it of course.... What it appears to me is that there's a lot of games where people really solve them after just a few plays, but then spend years in placebo-skill land where they think they're learning lessons and stuff but really just random information is hitting them over and over. I think what I've said in the past is, well randomness sucks because it severs the tie between player agency and feedback and therefore understanding, which is the whole point of games. But what I'm saying now is slightly different - in addition to that, random games necessarily have a super low skill cap. Is that always true?