source tree is nice, but github for windows makes me scream with delight when I use it

o rly? I just use command-line git.

ugh, sliders....

of course in the face of fun maybe have fun.

that's how coding happens. that's why I use mocking and testharnesses now allthetime.

My 2 cents is, do not rewrite unless you are really motivated to do so. If you have to, fine. If your game is tiny that's okay too. I don't know ruby/c++ interop - or about steam.

hard work. it works!

I love fire. The pheonix idle is nice.

yeahcheers seems to be talking about the definition of narrative. I agree with him. I can look at a snowflake and see a narrative more interesting than Star Wars, depending on my state of mind. But what is the likelihood that that will happen? Very low. We can't have a "snowflake show" and expect people to get their money's worth.

So to re-frame around what Fallsburg is saying, we don't have systems for good narrative. We would need computer programs - or rule sets - that model the skill-set of an author.

Though, thinking about it, I remember playing Rome: Total War in University. My arts friends - gamers - would layer much of their actual knowledge of history onto their game experiences, and relate tales to me that were a combination of the two. The stories were rich in flavor.

So this is what Alec/Sinclair/cheers are saying. The above situation is clearly different than a movie. There is far too much potential for a random player to not get the same experience as my friends did. A prerequisite was their imagination, and actual knowledge.

People would clearly not mind a Mass Effect adventure with DF freedom.

So the economy is the leveling? (In simple terms).

already done: puzzle quest

I find just climbing the ladder in SC2 to be fairly rewarding.

the sounds aren't yours? weak but effective. idk.

I like your classification of monopoly. I think it is accurate.

Are you saying battle is necessary because it is about "economy." Can you expand?

Emergence is basically a statement of ratio: minimal design work, construction work, IN; maximum experience OUT.

It is obviously good.

Imagine two games:
 a. Some good game.
 b. The same game with more emergence

Emergence cannot inherently harm design, because it allows only more things for the player to do. It is more. It is just hard to design for. In a practical sense the b game would likely bust the challenge curve, or have weaker story.

Theoretically though if we added emergence "properly" to any game it would improve. There is a lot of potential in emergence, and eventually we'll see all games become progressively more emergent as we learn how to design for them.

Think of Half-Life and Deus Ex: both shooters, one more emergent than the other. They have their strengths and weaknesses.

(I guess my answer to the question is this: emergence has the potential for greatness, and we're latching onto that; what we overestimate is our current ability to deliver emergence properly)

Pheonix Wright is on my todo list already.

Music or otherwise the important bit is that frictions are like fundamental components. Even beyond that they are much more. Games are repetitive. It may be better to say that frictions are like the possible notes (and timbre of them) of an instrument your are designing. Then levels are patterns that must be overcome using certain potential combinations of notes.

One of the neat things about guitar hero is that the ideal flow state of a playthrough is easy to comprehend; it is an existing song. Also the game is very popular without a lot of player freedom. The _best_ playthrough is obvious, and always the same. Execution is the only tough thing.

I came up with a categorization I like, that extends the discussion. Icycalm hates the word gameplay, because he says all game elements are a part of play, and thus the word is misleading. But, mechanics/interaction are very different than passive consumption. I felt odd about "gamefeel" as a word too. But then I realized we do not have a good substitute for it, that it describes something unique, and I can't think of a reason why it is bad other than it sounds funny.

Game's encompass 3 things: passive consumption (dialogue, cinematics etc), interactive execution (doing things with the controller), and decision-making (in your head).

Games includes all 3, gameplay gets the last two, and gamefeel gets the second one.

All categories influence each other.

Yeah, challenge curve control and proper reward giving like to do battle.

ice water, espresso

me neither.

Doubtful. RSA just does hand-drawns over top talks gleaned from other organizations. So maybe - but usually not.

It was a good video. Often the fight over "giving" can become about the image of giving more than the act of giving. That is part of his point.

it is open

There's one side note here that I haven't seen mentioned - tho maybe elsewhere on the web. Putting a face you recognize on a disease actually helps generate awareness. Studies show that people donate more if they can make a "human connection" to the recipients. I don't have a position on the issue at hand, but that fact is something to think about.