Quote from: 36:xxThe more surround yourself by people who are super excited just to get to make games at all, the more you'll remind yourself it's kinda cool that I get to make games at all, instead of being an accountant, or a software developer, you know, at an insurance company.

One step forward, two steps back. McWilliams advocates for... inoculating yourself to the things you're unhappy about, here? I don't know. The first thing she starts this longer section with is that "You're making games because you love games! Pay attention to other games more," and I don't know, it just sounds like... submitting to the cult, lol. I like "get a hobby" more than "get a hobby that involves playing more games, making more games, and teaching other people who want to make games how to make games so that you can feel better about not enjoying making this game"...

There's something in there, but I really don't like the specific culture she's coming from or speaking to.

"Get a hobby" hahaha yeah. Let go. Let go. Making a big commercial game is not the place for getting super attached to owning your piece of the work. And yet you can still be proud of it! This is pretty good advice.

"We're actually enjoying the process of making the game. It has nothing to do with the game we're making, it has to do with the fact that we love being game developers, and we love making games." - 31:56

"If you do it right, everybody likes the same stuff in games." -28:00

I agree with this... but... not what she follows up with... Maybe I should pick it apart.

"They want an immersive experience that makes them feel like they did something special and they're unique and special and they develop skill while doing it."

-an immersive experience
-do something special
-feel that you're unique and special
-you develop skill while doing it

HMMM. I need to think about this. McWilliams really casually is like "yep this is what everyone likes about games!"
I thought about it. ~ SYNAPSE I don't make art to make people happy, I make it to provoke epiphanies.

For usability testing: Take a video, watch it, you'll learn the things people do

Ask them to test OTHER games, your competitor's games :O
Ask them to compare your game (half-finished though it may be) to other games. Expect to be worse.

Ask them more questions, and listen to them - not just about game design but also what do you think of our art style? (the story? the presentation? the controls? etc)

Focus tests! - Use them to understand how users people think.

Slide 18:XX

Talk As A Group
- What makes the game work?
- Why do players like it?
- What can we do as well as they do?
- What's feasible on our budget and in our timeframe?

I would say: If there are negative voices, e.g. "this other game sucks", keep the conversation focused on answers to these constructive and respectful questions. It sucks -- okay, but what works? What can we do as well as they can? (This is a clever one: not better, just as well as they can.) Why do people like it and play it? (Keeping it constructive, positive - don't accept answers that focus on unhelpful/disrespectful things.)

The negative language in this slide at 17:00 is so bad that I'm not even going to quote it! Let's keep it to "Meet the competition, and show some respect."
Or, as Donella Meadows says in Thinking in Systems,
"Before you disturb the system in any way, watch how it behaves. . . . study its beat. . . . watch it work. Learn its history. Ask people who've been around a long time to tell you what has happened."
". . . admit ignorance and be willing to be taught, by each other and by the system."

Okay at 15:XX, we have a slide called "Eat Your Own Dogfood" which is... ugh... can we please think of a more appealing way to talk about the work we're doing? oh my god. Just have the same concepts, and don't present them in an intentionally corporate-yucky way!!

But the idea is cool. Get everyone on the team to spend a considerable amount of time with our competition. (3-5 hours.) This makes a lot of sense, though again I would prefer this to be more vibey. Spend time embodying our characters, soaking in the mood, etc. There are more fulfilling things to do than just align ourselves with media.

Still: "Meet The Competition (and show some respect)"

At 14:XX, there is a fun slide that says "Personify Your Audience" -- which is like, create a character who represents your audience? It actually sounds like a lot of fun. The bullet points on the slide read:

• Create representative players
• Give them names
• List their hobbies
• What do they want from your game?

~ SYNAPSE Systems have two parts - subsystems and connections

In this diagram we take a system (a large whole unbroken black circle) and see it as a collection of three types of things -
elements (five small whole unbroken black circles)
interconnections (seven red lines connecting some elements to others)
a function or purpose (a pink line projecting outwards from the system)
. . . there is also a boundary (a dotted grey line indicating where the large whole unbroken black circle once was)

Imagine zooming in, or out. This system is an element in a larger system; the elements are themselves systems; interconnections, seen up close, are functions or purposes; functions or purposes, seen from afar, are interconnections.

Rather than three types of things, a system is only two: elements; and connections, which may be internal connections or external connections.

See ~ SYNAPSE: Self sufficient subsystems, and evolution. especially the ~ Hierarchies fable

Rather than focus on output, result, consequence, function, purpose, I much prefer this perspective: We look out at the larger system(s) of which this system is a part and ask, "What outside connections does this system have with the larger world of systems?"

Rather than function or purpose, which imply intent on the part of the thing-itself or its creator... Rather than discernible macrobehaviour, which implies subjectivity... What is the name for the consequence which emerges, the result which gives the system its place in the larger system?

Oh, of course. Allow me to refine Meadows' definition of a system:

. . . a system must consist of three kinds of things: elements, intraconnections (between elements within the system), and interconnections (between this system and elements or systems outside).