QuoteThe book also introduces the term meme for a unit of human cultural evolution analogous to the gene, suggesting that such "selfish" replication may also model human culture, in a different sense.

The Selfish Gene - Wikipedia

Quote from: @droqenvideogames are not organisms, but videogame genres are.

tweet

https://omnivorescookbook.com/wprm_print/15683

QuoteThe order should be: soak the noodles => marinate the meat => mix the sauce => prep and chop the herbs and veggies while soaking the noodles => stir fry

In a simulation of many sentient beings, each being has an opinion of each other being - not made of numbers, but more of a complicated flowchart/state machine. "You are my best friend." "You are my hero." "You are my crush." These relationships may be symmetrical and/or related, or they may not.

Each relationship is a "perceived role"; I will call the external role that describes "How A sees B" an "icon". Each such icon is a state which contains a set of behaviours including rules for changing into other states.

You have 5 "rolls", and for each roll you can choose to roll a smaller die and know the results, or a larger die with hidden results. Possibly:

- 2d4 visible (min 2, avg 5, max 8)
- 1d10 invisible (min 1, avg 5.5, max 10)

Needs a supporting system where succeeding, and knowing whether you succeeded, are both valuable independently. Maybe a wargame with fog of war (where do you commit additional resources?), or a political/social game where you are trying to sway people to your side (and usually aren't exactly sure where you stand with any individual, and again are deciding where to commit resources based on who you trust).

Possibly a tactics/jrpg "party management" game where you're rolling against characters' confidence levels or relationship levels to see who will do their action well, and who will do it poorly... like you can see if you rolled a miss, hit, or a crit ahead of time, before committing to a plan of action?

I was also thinking of "scouting" or espionage... the result determines how accurate the information you get is (from wildly inaccurate to missing details to perfect). But I think this one requires too much overhead.

The basic mechanics to play with:

Choose some proportion of "weaker visible dice" and "stronger unknown dice" in context of a situation where you want to win your rolls, but where you might reasonably not know whether you won or lost until later, at which point it might be crucial.

I don't think Starseed Pilgrim would be as successful today as it was when it came out, and that's not because of technical limitations. It did something that was, you know, new! It responded to the trends of the day, capturing the minds of gamers (that is, anyone who cares about games - maybe I should say "indie gamers") by indicating something close to what was already in the water.

I'm still not entirely sure how to put this into clearer language, it's frustrating, but I'll revisit this.

Game genres shift and slide around, are stolen from niche cultures when they become popular (see how collars came from meaning something specific to a specific subcommunity, to being a relatively mainstream fashion item divorced from that meaning; compare to how roguelikes came from meaning something specific to a specific subcommunity, to being a relatively mainstream videogame genre divorced from that meaning), and along with that lose their specific meanings in favour of something more broadly applicable.

Arguments about what something means are missing the point that everything means something different to everyone, and this is smeared not only across cultures and peoples but also across time. Encountering a first-person game today is different from encountering one ten years ago.

When I think back to Probability 0, I think of the entire game. It has three game-modes, fifteen enemies organized into three tiers (easy, hard, and secret enemies which only appear after 1000km or something), stars, punches, hitboxes, a skill tree (pictured below), four or five boss-type enemies, a menu, and more.

I need a procedure!

there is no wardrobe philosophy or shopping methodology that is ever going to result in an end state whereupon you are done choosing and purchasing clothes forever. -from a ffa reddit post

I was playing Kingdom Death: Monster and noticing how random everything is. As a player I make decisions, of course, but a huge part of the enjoyment I derive from this game is perceiving the algorithm at work, and telling stories about what happened, with my friends.

This isn't new (see Blaseball, for example, and the ages of sports fandoms that inspired it), but it's a really great alternative lens to seeing the pleasure of randomness as the pleasure of gambling. Stakes are merely an optional force that strengthens one's commitment to the magic circle. But the fundamental pleasure is deeper, and exists even without stakes.

When I visited Hong Kong for a few days, we noticed that a horse racing venue - a huge stadium - was on the way to where we were going, so we decided to drop in. Watching the horses race without a stake in the game, without any way to tell who was going to win, all I could do was watch and see these animals and their riders prance about in the pre-show, and then watch as some horses won, and others lost. We had picked some numbers, but didn't bet anything.

I don't remember if my guess was right.

Infinite generators churn out content without stakes.

Wordle and other daily challenges have stakes - there's only one today - it's a stake in time. Generative NFTs have stakes - there will only be however-many of these, they're worth something and have value. (I'm not a fan of NFTs and do not recommend getting into them, just like I don't recommend getting into gambling, which also involves stakes.) Cruel World had stakes - it would only be available for 1 day and would fall apart. (I sort of gave up on those stakes, an action which I now regret.)

Stakes grant meaning to the algorithmic unfolding, but there is an underlying beauty that can be appreciated, and cannot be denied. It's pleasurable to observe a random process. Somehow stakes give that pleasure meaning. I only have an hour, what will I see? This will only unfold once - how will it unfold? If I can generate a hundred thousand outcomes, no singular outcome has much meaning... unless it's meaningfully unique... once-in-a-lifetime.

Rarity.

Last year, and now this year again, I've been thinking about videogames as fashion, not in terms of it being something that you wear and that you can use to express yourself, but in that it is something with trends, not wholly predictable but certainly recognizable, something that can be theorized about, responded to, and seen.

I liked this quote a lot and I'd like to think about it for a while:

QuoteWe might say that "taste" is the abstract, moralized knowledge, while "style" is its visual expression.

Fashion makes taste easily visible as style, in part because its distinctions between color or cut in clothing are so specific and yet so random ("rules which we don't even know").

By contrast to malicious game design which is built around... pranks at best and cruel jokes at worst, magical game design is built around magic tricks.

https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1025683/Board-Game-Design-Day-King

Fairness is a new concept. For most of human history, cheating was the norm in love and war and games.

* * *
When presented with a process whose results are important to me (VITAL PROCESS?), it's pleasurable to compute what the results are going to be. If I'm entirely incapable of attempting to compute the result, I'll be frustrated... but if the act of computing is too trivial, the pleasure will go away... and if the act of computing is too expensive, it will become tiresome to compute in its entirety. However, for a suitably vital process, I will still be driven to compute it in its entirety, however tiresome, and burn out afterwards.
* * *

Unlike most of my other games Starseed Pilgrim was quite emotional... resonant poetry for people who still love playing with systems?

I've been moving away from thinking about literal representations of things, but what if I've been thinking about representing the wrong things? For example, in Oath, I've been thinking about how Favour is not just a game mechanic, it represents a facet of the world -- the shifting favour of the inhabitants of the world of Oath, as well as your relationship(s) to them.

But, Starseed Pilgrim was much more about an emotional experience, a state of ruminating. It was about thought and feeling and cognition. See front step to tianjin - it's much more about a state of mind; it doesn't dwell on the literal existence of where I am or where I'm not; it just touches on those things briefly.

I can talk about states of mind.

something i'm fond of is designing levels first by composition (i.e. using a tile editor to draw a bunch of tiles that look good) and then to find a way to make it enjoyable to play. i came to think about this process more clearly after reading bennett foddy's piece on mkapolk's process of designing "[fr0g] clan official server 24/7 zk map (for stranger)":

QuoteMy process for making the levels was to scatter geometry more or less randomly and then try to traverse it. Sometimes when I was going down a map if I thought that an area shouldn't be a dead end I'd add some more stuff to it, but that's about as far as it went.

but maybe i should have realized it earlier when i heard sylvie's description of how she designed JIGGLY ZONE

-- actually i don't know where i heard this. was it from sylvie herself? (researching)

Closed Systems

I've always enjoyed things that feel like this. It's not just generation ships or things that really do go out of their way to feel like 'bottle worlds', it's also the feeling of something being... cleanly, elegantly designed, self-contained, focused. Focus is a good word.

In games, there's a very special feeling I get from full-world simulations. Heat Signature, Dwarf Fortress, Oxygen Not Included, Crusader Kings 2... these games convey a sense that the entire world is 'one mode,' simulated, in a roguelike way. This isn't the only way to do this, of course...

Mount and Blade simulates a whole world in modes - you move between the world map and combat scenarios. The combat scenarios feel a bit tacked-on to me, though...

Up Close and in Real Time

On the other hand, I hate pausing these games, zooming around the whole world. No -- that's not quite true. I actually really like it, but it takes away from this feeling of wholeness, of living and breathing this world. It's seductive, having a tool so powerful available to me as a player. I love pausing these games, zooming around the whole world, and that's the problem.

I like playing Probability 0 and Dungeon Bounce. Cave Story and Dark Souls and Ynglet. I like getting into a flow, experiencing this "Up Close and in Real Time" effect.

Maybe zooming out to an overworld isn't a problem: it can give much-needed context? The problem is when the "Up Close and in Real Time" mode is unimportant, anything other than primary. Frequent interruptions have that effect on this mode for me. (Also see my above comment on Mount and Blade.)

... is this a Cursed Problem?

I'm going to have to think about this some more tomorrow.
Successful games to consider:
- Uurnog Uurnlimited
- System Shock 2
- Elona
- 31 unmarked games [Oct 25, 'Alien'] (too small though. look into scaling solutions. how do other games do it?)
- Starseed Pilgrim? (not a 'whole world', but still feels like a 'big' simulation. again a scaling thing: it's conceptually small, even if it feels traversable/large)
- Dark Souls? (maybe not a whole simulation)
- Clockwork Calamity in Mushroom World? (maybe not real-time enough)'
- Blessed Surface (I found it too... unpolished?)

Hmm. I didn't get into it. But:
- Noita

It really is terrible not having a pause button! And the way you can lose all your progress by slipping up... oof, that hurts. I boost jumped into the darkness a moment before it would have been the right time, and man, does that suck! hahaha. This game is not particularly kind.