droqen's forum-shaped notebook

David Giles started a conversation with me on bluesky which eventually led to the creation of the video; probably some of this conversation {inspired / made it into} the video, so it may be relevant: "I just beat The End of Gameplay and was reading through some of your posts[ on newforum.droqen.com, I expect]. . . (https://bsky.app/profile/fourteendays.bsky.social/post/3ltxt2g7mfs2p)"

[0:05] "I want to talk to you about our preconceived notions of what is good art"

^ David doesn't get back into this right away, instead goes into Starseed Pilgrim stuff! I won't touch on it, but, he mentions his connecting with its poetry which is nice.

[3:45] "The End of Gameplay doesn't really have the most exhilarating gameplay."
^ ah, i see this expressed in aplove's video, too! it's funny to say that the gameplay is not exhilarating or is standard, but then to praise it later on (aplove does, anyway?).

"intentional decision" re my square pixel art guys

[4:20] "Why does it become acceptable if the creator knows better? Why is Picasso or Jackson Pollock high art when your nephew's watercolor belongs on the fridge?" no conclusion provided here :) just the question. "I love a lot of classically trained creative goes off the deep end and makes weird shit type stuff . . . the intentionality is obvious . . . in what it's communicating in a way that an amateur isn't really going to be able to do."

David discusses punk and basement rock type stuff. "Punk music's raw emotion and energy isn't able to be replicated by experienced musicians." I sort of disagree with this! It's pretty common for experienced musicians to move away from this kind of raw emotion and energy, but I don't think it's because they've lost the ability to do so. Rather they've, I would say, fallen into a certain kind of trap... I say that because I really value the raw emotion and energy (BLOOD, I might say), and I see e.g. illustrators, great illustrators, draw powerful, raw sketches... and then ruin them by finishing them. It isn't the nature of the finishing that they choose which ruins it, but the act of finishing itself. They're still capable of the raw stuff.

They have just learned that they prefer to erase it.

"it is because it is someone who i trust that i'm willing to give this the time of day." (-6:00)

Giles' initial definition of pretentious: "trying to make a statement of truth, reaching for higher goals and [is achieving?] while being overly proud of itself despite the failure." (-6:43)

he goes on to suggest a few other underlying/unstated definitions that i don't necessarily agree with; people are concerned with mainly the 'being proud of itself', people fall back on anything 'trying to make a statement of truth' at all, people 'complain about the lack of subtlety in media', people don't like feeling preached to...

re: preaching, he brings up the "Trump is bad" posts and i agree with the anti-preachiness sentiment here, the dynamic of 'let's complain about a thing we don't like and reinforce one another in complaining'

"[7:20-] . . . is it a fucking church? have we all gathered to shake hands and pat ourselves on the back and say, "we have the good beliefs"? [-7:26]"

i'm picking up on Giles' frustration with the inconsistent ways in which people, especially masses of people, express derision at things for trying to 'say' something while seeming to simultaneously enjoy saying different things themselves. i've experienced this from all angles. generally i find this frustration comes from an oversimplified model, wherein a mass of people is collapsed down to an entity whose behaviours ought to make sense. i think the part of The Nature of Fascism about ideology was very illuminating for me, worth reading: here (https://newforum.droqen.com/index.php?msg=4924), and also here onward (https://newforum.droqen.com/index.php?msg=4927).

anyway, then he brings it back to TEOG

following this discussion of pretention and preachiness, Giles claims that The End of Gameplay doesn't 'hit you over the head' with its message, and  "after beating the game, I wasn't entirely sure what it means to kill gameplay." then he shares his perspective on what he does think it's about:

"I find [TEOG] to be a deconstruction of the ideas and expectations of what the purpose is behind any game mechanic in a game. . . . [that] every decision has to play into this overarching whole, that a level must progress this learning process." [-7:53]

i wonder, what is the difference between "hitting you over the head" with a message, and a message simply being unclear, difficult to decipher or access? i struggle with this very much. i think that my approach has become, over time, to try saying things as straightforwardly as possible, but also preferring to say things as arcanely as possible, leading to finding arcane things to say -- things that i have trouble saying not out of fear of speaking clearly, but out of sheer lack of ability to speak clearly. saying things that i barely understand myself.

ideally, these are also things that others barely understand themselves. in my theory this is the best way to justify poor communication. otherwise it is just a "skill issue."

when Giles says The End of Gameplay is [7:40-8:00 ish] "a deconstruction of the ideas and expectations of what the purpose is behind any game mechanic in a game. The idea that every decision has to play into this overarching whole, that a level must progress this learning process", I relate to this very much and some of my recent bleets are very on-topic here, I'm interested in deconstructing game design which I have associated with gameplay in a perhaps incorrect way. I'm not sure. Game design has been tied so closely to games for so long that it's hard to separate them.

bleet (https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:6anaxnkrxl7qltjonctnkq4t/post/3luxy735chk2b) (click and see other bleets for context)

QuoteThe key parts of your definition are
- making choices ABOUT how players perceive or interact with a game, and
- with the goal of creating a specific experience

There's nothing wrong with this as the definition of a design craft, but presuming this to be the goal of every creator is off, to me.

what Giles says is very much in line with this, so it could be said that TEOG is attempting to deconstruct game design -- maybe 'common game design principles' but whatever the work says i would definitely describe my currently interest as the foundations of game design -- not the strategies which are commonly employed (which will inevitably change over time), but the actual values. what is game design?

[7:55-] "I wanted to know more. So, I went to [droqen's] website for more context."

oh no it begins

"[Based on what droqen is saying about games being judgement machines incapable of love], should all games be without challenge?" [-9:18]

[10:10-] "I'm okay with Soulsborne games rejecting the version of me that doesn't learn its rules. . . . it provides me with . . . a momentary endorphin rush. I've enjoyed learning . . . it is an experience I can't get anywhere else. But there are plenty of people who don't get anything out of it." [-10:38]

i don't argue against the idea that games give a momentary endorphin rush, but is it a stretch to say here that Giles thinks the effort poured into Dark Souls is worth that? i don't think it's enough, enough payment for my time, enough return for my effort. is it enough for his? in exchange for rejection, he hasn't described what he gets other than 'a momentary endorphin rush' ... but does imply the existence of other benefits. 'an experience i can't get anywhere else'. you can definitely get an endorphin rush somewhere else, so i think this is an incomplete description.

[10:59-] "I'm okay with being molded by Soulsborne into someone who it will allow to engage with it. I trust . . ."

ah, the trust returns here! okay, i understand how we're connecting some of these dots.

". . . I trust [these difficult games] to have something underneath that friction, but I think that this idea of killing gameplay has more meaning to a developer than to a player or writer like myself."

ah, something. something, something. but something what? and, i suppose, is the cost justified? i want Giles to connect these dots for me.

- Dark Souls rejects the version of the player that hasn't learned its rules.
- Giles trusts Dark Souls to have something underneath that [rejection].
- Giles receives "a momentary endorphin rush."
- Giles has "an experience [he] can't get anywhere else."

My question: is the rejection necessary? What makes it necessary? The specific construction, "something underneath that friction [of rejection]," very roughly implies that the underneath-thing is not the friction itself. So what is it??? And why does it need to be underneath anything, let alone the friction and rejection of gameplay?

[11:40-] ". . . a game's design decisions are just parroting past ideas from so long back without really exploring what it says and why it says it." [-11:49]

connect to my earl;ier thoughts on design, game design. gameplay as an extension of game design - copying and recreating gameplay without understanding, what underlies this dynamic?

Giles still loves gameplay but believes questioning it is important.

[games] "have been building on top of a foundation of previous design decisions without concern for what they say themselves or why they say that." [-12:52]

[12:52-] "[In contrast to what droqen writes,] . . . I don't consider questioning as a form of judgement or a lack of love or judgement incompatible with love. . . . a means of trying to reach some greater truth by comparing notes. . . . your reality is different from mine. Have we done the same math to get here? I do not understand and would like to." [-13:16]

trying to follow but getting a little lost here. i wonder, how important is mere questioning to me? but i relate to what Giles says. i want to compare notes, too. i guess this is what the questions are for.

[13:50-] "in The End of Gameplay, the game killing the player is not doing so to tell the player you've done something wrong; failing a jump is not a critique of the player. It's a statement about developers. . . . the places where it is even possible [to die are so rare that it's clear] that the player is meant to use it to learn . . . why we use negative reinforcement in games." [-14:21]

i'm too much an anti-design freak to agree with this statement as written; i wouldn't say that i intended to deliver this lesson to someone who plays. and i might also say that the game killing the player actually is explicitly about saying you've done something wrong, but it's doing so knowingly, it's drawing attention to it, it's guilt.

let's talk about da money.

[18:38-] "The $20 price tag . . is a bold decision. . . . I've paid more money for worse food. . . . I've paid for a speeding ticket, and I didn't like that at all." [-19:00]

[19:25-] "I think this is a game for developers. . . I think this is a game for critics. . . I think this is a game for people who like poetry. . . I think this is a game for people who spent even 10 seconds looking at it with interest. I think this is a game for people who like vulnerability more than being cool. I think this is a game for people who have been told they like something pretentious more than once in their life." [-20:00]

there are bits about Giles personally in here! an ex-game developer, a poet, a critic, someone who has put up walls. [18:39-] "I agree with [the bold twenty dollar price tag]. Maybe it's because I'm someone who tries to push people away who won't actively engage with my art. Maybe it's because of some sunk cost fallacy that makes me say I've paid 20 bucks, so I have to believe it was good." [-18:48]

noting here that a lot of what Giles is saying is quite personal, is connecting, is not necessarily a logically or rationally justified statement. he's not saying his agreement comes from reason, but from relation. sometimes i think this way and other times i don't! it's an interesting push & pull but in an external concrete work such as this video i can see that specific perspective shining.

[20:47-] "I don't want this to come across as me doing self-promotion, but I don't know how to talk about my own relationship to my own art without sounding like a shill." [-20:59]

ah, shill, not shill, it's all the same to me, david! what i get from this isn't that you're a shill, but it doesn't matter how much i tell you that -- i think you're holding on to a self-judgement; you think you're shilling, and this is probably the overthinking about stupid shit (i'm loosely paraphrasing your words to throw them back at you for effect, not calling your shit stupid!) you were talking about earlier. i hope you can let it go, someday. i think you know why you're talking about your work. represent that and don't worry about misunderstandings. you can just clear them up as they come.

there's also, i think, a self-judgement in there -- what is a shill, anyway? i think you have a hangup about the idea of sharing or representing your own work as important or valuable -- of  being proud of it. the fear of being seen as a shill, or that your work might be seen as pretentious (though you didn't make this connection, i'm suggesting it now), is preventing  you from being comfortably proud of what you make.

Giles' inspirations.

Giles' habits, interpersonal and emotional.

Topics and projects, "The characters [in my book] are still in some way me. . . . the worst parts of myself being amplified." [-22:29]

". . . [Grieve Tiger, a game idea I have, is] just me processing grief from a pet cat . . ." [-23:04]

Giles' history with game dev, other history, family.

[23:45-] "I think taking in good art helps me make better art."

"I've always classified my art as some form of obstruct art. . . . this belief that I should put things to block the viewer from immediately getting what I'm doing."

"I don't want the consumer to get anything from my art without them putting in any of the effort themselves."

sounds exactly like how you've described certain interpersonal habits, too! you're sharing -- this is your experience, your life, your choices. "It's certainly given me exactly what you'd expect, no fans." what about the interpersonal habits? is there a pattern? "Still, I found myself drawn to this idea for as long as I've been a pretentious asshole." lol

"visual form of poems" -> "poems in Starseed Pilgrim"

Giles' poem. "I'd like you just to sit with it before I give my explanation."

and sit with it i did.

[26:14-] "I guess I ask, what do you think it's about? What meaning, what emotion, what, like, what do you get from the poem? I know this is a lot to ask, sorry." [-26:24]

i could try to tell you what i think or what i thought, but it is, or was, formless. i don't think it would  survive the transition from my mind to the page. when i tried back then, i could only use the one word "longing".

i noticed that you are concerned with how you're received -- as an artist, focusing on terms like "good art" and pretentiousness -- and your response in some cases is to try and take control of such reception: asking me to sit with your poem and reply in a certain way... testing and pre-judging your own relationships with people... is my describing how i responded to or interpreted your poem a kind of test of our relationship? of your art?

when i noticed this impulse within myself, i tried to get a handle on it, i made newforum.droqen.com to let the hell go of notions of control and observation. i don't know who reads this, i don't know when or where they do so.

even now, haha! as i make passing observations about you (sorry), perhaps i am doing so to avoid admitting how i feel. should i share how i feel? i think i feel as though i couldn't experience your poem on my terms, and a lot of what you've said about 'obstruct art' is very close to the impulse that i feel in myself that i wanted to shut down.

i think i talk about this idea in this video from 32:00 onward (https://youtu.be/281BIYf6v-A?si=dU1YfNLTsDAT-yNf&t=1918), in a furious rant stoked by Liz Ryerson, haha. but especially "this belief that I should put things to block the viewer from immediately getting what I'm doing. . . . I don't want the consumer to get anything from my art without them putting in any of the effort themselves" strikes me as the role of gameplay in some games, though obviously this hostility is possible in any art form, in any circle of life.

in myself, observing your way of existing in the world, i feel inspired to strip away even more of this defensiveness in myself, to unblock. to ease effort. it feels counterproductive to what i want...

"the audience can never fully know you or your intentions and we only can go off what is in the text." [-28:32]

this is what makes death of the author so tempting, but that doesn't make it true. death of the author excludes something real about the work, it is a diminishing lens - one which might be wielded with purpose, but reflects the whole truth less.

[28:42-] "Have you ever written a  about a specific thing only to have another event happen in your life that recontextualizes the poem into a completely new meaning for yourself? That, in some way, is a part of death of the author that you are doing to yourself."

HAHA. I LOVE THIS.
i already left a comment on Giles' video to this effect.
"death of the author" as in a metaphorical acceptance that i am no longer who i was.

but i don't vibe with some of the ideas here about canon. i already regard myself as constantly dying, being replaced. i have such a loose grasp on who i was that i've long accepted that i won't even be myself as soon as tomorrow.

"You have chosen to disregard . . . killing . . . your own past established canonical interpretation."

regarding death of the author in this context, i think there is a considerable grey space between the author's perspective as canonically correct, and the author's perspective as realistically true.

i have never been a defender of canon! i haven't read enough about what death of the author truly represents; i like freedom. if death of the author suggests we may look at a work without considering the author's opinion, that's fine. but if it suggests that we ought to or must ignore the author's opinion, i.e. the historical context of the work itself, i think that's wrong - it's reality-rejecting.

"I get it completely. Nothing hurts more than having someone like art you care about the wrong way." [-29:20]

it may go without saying at this point that i don't relate ;)

but, i should say that i relate in a different way? i don't hate it. i sympathize for your hating of it, and it makes sense with my earlier observation. what happened to me with Starseed Pilgrim is that i actually absorbed what other people liked about my art, displacing my own delicate intentions -- what i enjoyed about making it, what i thought about while i made it. 'death of the author' indeed.

if i had hated people for enjoying my work in a different way than what i thought or knew was 'good' about it, then i'd be in a very different place now. as it stands, it took me a long time to dig myself back out of other people's perspectives in order to find my own again.

i still don't hate it! it's an honour.

bleed bleed bleed

parting thought on GOOD ART.

dear david, i'm curious about what good art even means, to you! is this is a subjective good or an objective good? actually, looking back, you even started your video with it!

one thing that you said clearly about good art was "I think taking in good art helps me make better art", and this made me wonder whether you think it's an objective thing, that there is good art, and there is bad art, and that your ability to extract value from good art is a reflection of your skill as a person.

i would define it the other way round, where any art that inspires you to do what you do -- for example, "helps you make better art" -- is good art. but this places it squarely in the realm of the subjective!

it's for this reason that i don't think of making good/better art much, or when i do catch myself, i try to define it and tear it down from that pure place of Quality. if good art is what people take away from it, then it's not my responsibility. i just have to make the art that i like making, and make it accessible enough for the right people to experience it.

who are those people?

scary question.

Hmm. I did 't mean to write a letter in here. These notes are meant to be for recording, making sense of my thoughts & ezperiences. I should keep that in mind, next time.