notpron

April 10

Information gates, information keys
Chapters of a book
Roguelikes...
The Stanley Parable...

"On small circles"

So I aspire to it, to some degree. I mean, I hate the style, and enthusiasm about a style I hate is... man, I don't know how to describe the depths of my disdain. And I think that this disdain is quite ugly and useless, I have no love for this emotional response of mine. I should be happy for him, I'd like to be happy for myself, because I want to be him.

I want to loudly embrace an idiosyncratic style. No—I only want this because I have a style, I am idiosyncratic, the only problem is I'm not deadly publicly enthusiastic about it, and I wish I were.

April 9

"On small circles"

Following... people posting about following, feeds, popular mass appeal...

There is a guy in Toronto who goes to the same show twice a year and enthusiastically peddles these little figures he makes. I avoid talking to him because he is so damn enthusiastic about something I have no love for whatsoever.

It occurred to me that this dude is living his best life basically being an indie funko pop. Not that his works are cultural references. But he has a style and that style has become his identity (at least within a narrow scope), and obviously somebody out there likes his stuff.

He's loudly his style.

> In recent years, I've arrived at the view that games are a conversation between designers and players.

> Designers can only react to the player's actions by anticipating what players will do and programming a response.

> at what point does the metaphor of a conversation break down? Is it still a conversation if one party isn't technically present, and isn't keeping track of what they're saying?

> a game designer puts time into making their game, and a player spends time playing it. I like playing games because it feels like I'm getting a sense of that person - a reminder of the breadth of our world. -Melos Han-Tani

> the gameplay acts as a common language. -Antti Ukkola

> Patterns

> the designer initiates the dialogue with the player. They present their game to the player and wait for a response.

> Subversions

> Establishing patterns is like agreeing that both participants in the conversation will speak in English as opposed to another language. Subverting patterns is a way for designers to actually say something to the player.

strong/clear implication that the patterns are not themselves a way to say something to the player

> designers can speak by subverting them. But they can also speak by building on them, and combining them in novel (innovations) or idiosyncratic (fixations) ways.

ah, i was too impatient

> The subject of the dialogue is the designer sharing something they care about with the player.

i am rereading this article because i have been making a game every day and i don't know what it means. i'm not trying to say anything. i suppose that here sylvie is making a latent statement: "understanding art, from some perspective, is valuable".

but i wonder.

> "Please try to understand me." That's the unofficial motto of my studio, Love ♥ Game.

> If I show you something I created that is full of the things I love, and you tell me that it is poorly designed, I will think you are rude and weird.

> I want players to understand me. . . . to feel energized about finding someone who shares their passions. Or . . . perhaps the game gave them a new passion they'd never considered. . . . I want to reach players who feel the same longing that I do.

> If someone doesn't like my game. . . I want them to reflect on why someone would care about those things, and maybe gain a new understanding of them.

> Golvellius

> . . . the boss stages ramp up in difficulty, and I gain an increasing sense of the designer's fixations.

> the punishing, trial-and-error nature of the stages is a fixation: it is something the designer wanted to explore, and they explored it deliberately and thoroughly

> the silly and inconsequential secret cave tricks in the overworld establish a sense of playfulness.

> the apparent cruelty of the boss stages should also be viewed in a playful light.

> Golvellius hopes players will find something to love within repeated failure and struggle.

my relationship to being 'read' in this way has become negative, over the years. i'm not sure how else to say this: i've developed a kind of, i wouldn't call it thick skin, but rather a negative, painful response to being interpreted. this is, i believe, the opposite of what sylvie experiences and the opposite of the impulse that drives sylvie to interpret Golvellius. she believes that this attempt to understand is good: that interpretation is valuable, that it is valued.

> The sense I get of the designer is that of a person who likes exploring the sharp edges and messy parts of games, diving deep into them instead of trying to excise them. I think Golvellius resonated with me so strongly because I try to design games in the same way. It almost felt like I had found a kindred spirit . . .

> a sense of recognizing and being recognized.

i don't know that i'd like to be recognized, but if not that, then what? i'd like for someone to feel something. i want to create work that makes someone's life more full. but i don't want to be a part of that. i don't want to be connected, i don't want to be recognized.

i don't want to be recognized. i want you to recognize other people in your life, other people in the world, other facets of your self. i want you to recognize yourself. i want you to be recognized by yourself.

Regarding Sylvie's
"2024.04.05 (Ways of Speaking)"

I am not so interested in thinking about patterns. I wish to use them and experience them without noticing.

The idea of dialogue... I am becoming less and less interested in speaking as if I care about patterns or subversions... No, I guess it would be easier to say I am not interested in being playful with patterns, in using them or not using them for effect. I prefer to be blissfully ignorant, like a child, and let the patterns return to a transparent state — leaving only the feeling, leaving pure effect.

This is how I'd like to enjoy a work, as appreciator and creator. As pleased maker.

April 5
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_rsh_VfTGA-Bho_hidKtzhXsk7x31PUTtw-LOoPrdcM/mobilebasic

Sylvie writes about the dialogue between player and designer.

I was hanging out with a friend in her apartment, and she sat down at the piano and played me a tune she was working on.

I've been posting daily games on droqever.com in an attempt to catch this hypercasual hanging out vibe.

In this context it isn't any longer "Why did this person choose to share or curate this, in particular?" but instead i want to have a relaxed, what do i think of this?-type experience. It isn't noise, it's a calmly steady signal. A hum, a buzz.

March 13
Today's game was very instructive, but I'm not proud of it... It isn't a game that I "wanted" badly enough (Agnes Martin).
What I learned
- sound makes a huge difference, but in terms of process it feels like a large extra step of effort/polish
- interactions with npcs and interfaces, still lots to explore there
- style with "head" and "body" as different sprites really increases the amount of work (2x area does that), but stylistically doable and useful

Meta:
- sometimes I don't feel like making an ending. Could be nice to have an automatic ending structure available to me like 31 had?