QuoteAshbury himself can't articulate what they are about. They are the ideas in their purest form, presented in words as best as he could manage. They are their own explanation.

link

This is in that space of "truths that maybe can't be turned into bricks". To say that something is an idea in its purest form is, of course, metaphor. I am tempted to break down the metaphor here, and describe what its constituent parts are. But a dissected frog dies, and metaphors are tools for the brain...

What's to be done?

In MMORPGs, text and reading is one window of many. Chatting with friends happens alongside the action, not in its own game-locking mode. Dark Souls has a similar feeling: the game isn't waiting for me to finish reading; it's up to me to find a time to read when it's comfortable for me.

Hmm.

I could characterize this as "indifference" but I'd rather not.

Perhaps I can simplify. Creating a dichotomy of good and evil... I don't want to do that. Show me where I'm going, not what I'm running from.

Aliveplay is now Lifeplay, as in life-play (see jack's Recognizing Play), as in the act of playing with life. Living beings. Where possible, I want to fall in love with - or dislike - the life in something, the human desire and activity reflected in it.

Recontextualized in this manner, a big-budget, big-team game contains people driven by more sorts of things. But even acting in pursuit of money is quite fascinating as far as human pursuits goes.

The life-player can see that there is no such thing as a Deadgame.

I will post more in "aliveplay", but i appreciate the focus of this piece on human concerns

This is a way of looking at games through the lens of "what is randomness?"

I can relate to it, but where do we go from here? What use is it to stratify paths to victory into these three categories? For the most part, I abandoned thinking about this when I stopped worrying so much about winning individual games. Hmm.

Quote from: The Monstre King1) RPS - you make a choice, opponent makes another choice. To make a good game, you have to give different weighs to the choices (and usually have multiple choices at the same time). this only takes into account other players
2) Puzzle - every interaction with an AI is either a puzzle or the next one - figure out what works here, what you have to do, what's the pattern etc. a simulation of 1) in many cases
3) Random - unpredictable by any player. while my quote is very cruel to randomness, i'm generally fine with random-but-balanced SITUATIONS for pvp (a symmetrical procgen level), a bit less difficult with the "-but-balanced" part for PVE

Quote from: droqenso these are the rules of all the ways that someone's relationship to winning/losing exists?

1) RPS - predicting another human to win
2) Puzzle - solving for a systemic solution to win
3) Random - hoping the numbers give you the win

Also: videogames that seek to posture, that is to do the INVERSE of emersion, will often suffer from the relatively low portability of computers... poems are much more portable.

This isn't a problem to be solved, just a fact to be considered and played with.

QuoteTo feel a poem to its greatest extent, read it out loud, in a contiguous mental state, or a contiguous place. Read love poems when you are in love. If you find a poem about being in the woods, make a trip to the woods and read it again.

Videogame mechanics with friction and gamefeel provide a texture, a medium in which to enter this 'contiguous state': the videogame that immerses is a poem which provides its own 'contiguous place'.

Sometimes, I think, I resent that. It is a false place. I'd rather have you read my love poem while in love than play my game while it spins a construct of love for you to feel.

But it is fantastically powerful.

This is all to say: of course I really truly want to make more games that exercise text as texture. Starseed Pilgrim does it. I think a lot of the text in YRKKEY'S PARADISE is a little too 'locky', although a lot of it is quite easy and unnecessary and incidental-skippable (my favourites are the NPCs in 2-1 who speak to you while you're using them to solve a little climbing puzzle). The text in HANDMADEDEATHLABYRINTH issue 0 is straight up too locky.

Zara (Guilherme Stutz Töws) linked this tweet in paradise and I immediately latched onto the fact that there's a "Platformer Design" tab (directly linked in big link above). I have designed platformers for like my whole life, and I like getting mad at people's attempts to codify something that I never properly learned, but have developed an intuitive taste for. Fun for everyone!

I browsed through some of the posts prior to having this forum-y outlet. I may never continue this thread but I wanted to have it ready in case I do browse through again & find anything that interests, or more likely incenses, me.

* I find it stressful when I see a lot of text and assume I have to read it all. And Other Stories is the singular game that made me feel the most free to miss things; if something can break through that level of stress then I feel way better. I love the feeling.

What does it mean for a statement to be 'a brick in a foundation'? This is only a metaphor; what do I mean? There is the idea that we can move towards a whole truth, even if we never arrive at it. A foundation is one truth that supports the next, deeper, truth, and a brick is something that moves us towards arriving at the first truth. Perhaps with creative art, there is no truth, therefore we cannot approach the truth. That's terribly convenient and terribly inconvenient.

If I were to analyze the quote "no-one can read videogame text anyway" with the analytic fervour I used to analyze Melos' Deadgames and Alivegames, it would not hold up either; it's not a factual statement, but it communicates something that I find personally to be more valuable, so I give it more slack. How should I approach situations like this? If someone were to argue "This is factually untrue," how could I make thecatamites' quote more factual without making it overlong or less impactful?

Jesse Schell's lenses may provide a way to approach it but "It's just a lens" seems like a weak response. Anything can be a lens, and anyone can fall back on "It's just a lens, therefore my position is unarguable." Is there a way for thecatamites' quote to be a brick in a foundation, rather than just an ephemeral call to arms for those it inspires?