Ways of Speaking

[droqen]

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

[droqen]

> 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.

[droqen]

Quote from Shadow Games (The Black Company)

I am not interested in understanding why Glen Cook wrote this passage, as in, why he wrote it as an artist, but I am interested in resonating with why Glen Cook wrote this passage, as in, how it came out of him as a human being, how he learned to illuminate such a part of himself, as well as how such a part of himself resonated with me, and how such illumination inspires me.

I do not read The Black Company to understand Glen Cook, but through reading it I feel a connection to another person. I read The Black Company to feel connected, which is part of what Sylvie writes here.

But not the whole part, and this non-wholeness is the beginning of where I feel disconnected from the idea of art as communication. . .

Through the course of my life, I have come upon a total stranger's diary, which I have read several times over and no longer possess. I will never meet its owner. This is the diary of someone so unlike myself, and yet it illuminates my sense of humanity more than most things I have ever read. I feel deeply conflicted about the role of art. Art must present itself in order to be seen. And yet I find that the most resonant art is often that which is not presented, which is not designed to be seen, which is not thought of as public, which is not shared easily.

This is a great and painful paradox, this paradox lies at the root of this space I've created for myself, this newforum -- it lies at the root of droqever, which is a site I hesitate to share, or to share broadly. It is just discoverable enough that it is indeed discoverable, but not so discoverable that I cease to treat it like a diary, like an extension of my self. I use my newforum, I use droqever, these are things which I maintain for my own purposes.

I just leave the door a crack open.

A trick of the mind.

[droqen]

Sylvie writes.

> Once a common language of patterns is established, designers can speak by subverting them. But they can also speak by building on them, and combining them in novel or idiosyncratic ways.

> One way for the designer to speak is to establish a pattern themselves, then subvert it. But designers can also subvert patterns that were established outside the game . . .

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

> My reason for writing this article is to better understand the mechanics of the dialogue - the ways in which designers and players speak.

> What do you want to share with the player?

> . . . the journeys you invite players on, and your beautiful constructions are used to reveal things about yourself instead of the game systems.

> "One Clever Mechanic" games often feel to me like they speak in a stiff and dry manner, almost more like a lecture than a dialogue, while "Anarchic Maximalism" games are wild and chaotic, like a conversation that runs off into new tangents every few sentences.

> Subverting patterns gives the designer a presence

> . . . a conversation instead of a call-and-response . . .

> . . . the designer can try to predict how the player's headspace evolves through the game. And if this process keeps the player engaged, they learn more and more about the designer's fixations, and begin to decide whether they share the designer's feelings.

[droqen]

This calls for a Kinopio. I need to understand how these things connect, so that I can understand how I feel about them.