next »

[Graham-]

As for the current topic, can we at least all agree that games that aestheticize a larger subset of reality (i.e. advanced gun physics and robots in a 3D recreation of New York City) are better than games that aestheticize a smaller one (i.e. gravity and brick arrangements in a void), and the larger this subset grows the closer you get to the spirit of so-called "procedurally generated stories" simply by the size and scope of the world's possibility space increasing? I'm using that word because saying "simulate" seems to confuse some people in this topic because, hey wait, robots with advanced guns don't actually really exist in New York City, huh what, how can you possibly simulate something that "doesn't exist".

I agree that it's a good idea to build larger worlds. Larger simulations provide more opportunity than smaller ones. Games will slowly trend in that direction.

I disagree with an implication - that may be unintentional - that the most important step towards proc-gen is larger simulations. What we need are better simulations. Take Fable or Mass Effect. They only have one gradient of player choice (more-or-less): good/evil. How realistically do their worlds react to these player decisions?

We don't even have simple simulations working properly. What we really need are stories/characters built in a way so that they can be responsive to player input. They need to be defined differently. We don't program every possible outcome for each possible input in a Mario game. We don't say, "when he jumps in this context have him land in this way," "but when we jumps in this slightly different context have him land in this slightly different way, except in these 3 cases (etc)." We just program general rules for jumping, and rules for interacting with enemies, that very per enemy, and vary per type of jump and so on. We don't write/program characters this way. We still see them as static things.

How does a character change _in general_ in-response to a player input (i.e. good/evil). What is the function there?

[J-Snake]

can we at least all agree that games that aestheticize a larger subset of reality (i.e. advanced gun physics and robots in a 3D recreation of New York City) are better than games that aestheticize a smaller one (i.e. gravity and brick arrangements in a void)

That implies you don't understand much about games.

[Graham-]

I think he means if the quality of the simulation (density?) is comparable.

[Frаnk Mir]

Charlie Sheen is a little late. He begs for your pardon.

You should.

I really only care about what's good. Now, of course, good and successful aren't mutually exclusive but you get my point.

Lightly chatting is socializing. You know, when you're hanging out while going for a walk? Maybe you're in line somewhere? Maybe you're visiting your Mom and you're in the kitchen cooking something and she's messing around over there?

Of course.

Ok, so you're talking about narrative consistency here.

That's right.

Banding does not inherently force a narrative to be inconsistent.

That *might* be true. In which case, I'd say it's a good technique for making money.

The italics: you've stumbled onto the very reason games don't have to be challenging. When you are busy facing the challenges given to you by the rest of your life you want activities to complement that. It's the same with Flower, with RPGs, with anything that lets you relax. Even driving counts. If I am busy talking to a friend, and focused on them, I don't want to do a Sudoku. That would distract me. Though maybe I could have a beer, or drive, or ... play a game: something that would complement my core focus.

But a human being cannot live without a challenge. You are merely saying that games are less challenging than real life, which is true, but that does not justify Flower and games of that kind. In fact, nothing justifies Flower because I don't like that game.

He is a lot like Icy. His opinions on games are a lot like Icy's. When I first read Icy I saw him in it. He doesn't understand why anyone would want to play an RPG. He wants his games to challenge him directly. He views RPGs as filled with arbitrary diversions.

But I understand why people want to play Flower. It's not that I don't lol.

[vids]

Wait. Dwarf Fortress is a simulation and what makes it JUST a simulation and not a game is that it leaves it to chance for those 'organic wholes' of narrative to EMERGE.

That's why I think we need the playwright, which is not cheating.

[Graham-]

Flower is justified because no one knows another person.

Let's say I go out and meet the "girl of my dreams." She rejects me, but I'll probably see her again. What am I going to think about? Do I want to play Chess? Do homework? ... I probably want to do something that compliments my raging feelings. The challenge in my life is brought by the momentum of my experiences with said woman.

Tea might compliment my mental state, or listening to music, or watching trash tv... or maybe Flower, maybe. I'll be thinking about the girl. I'll be thinking about work. I'll be thinking about the insignificance of my social status. Flower just helps me along. It adds the one ingredient I need.

If I am already calm and need challenge then challenge is what I seek. Games fill a minor role in our lives. What makes them valuable or not have general principles, but is also based on what other elements our lives already have, at the time we play them.

---

Banding does not inherently force a narrative to be inconsistent.

That *might* be true. In which case, I'd say it's a good technique for making money.

Is true. Stories are flexible things.

--

Good convo.

--

vids, you mean the playwright to write narrative i.e. man-written?

[vids]

vids, you mean the playwright to write narrative i.e. man-written?

No, I meant playwright in machina, like an AI Director.

It's funny because the player can be thought of as both the producer and the consumer of the narrative.

The player participates in an experience that is also being orchestrated. A perfect simulation should be thought of as something else, a perfect holodeck should not be our ultimate goal.

[Graham-]

Yeah, that's what I meant.

Note, the holodeck - i.e Star Trek - actually had running narrative in it: interactive Sherlock Holmes etc.

General note. The interaction of player and story should be thought of like this:
  . good simulation within the confines of what would be a good story
  . good story around all possible simulations

If all the player can do is be terse or forgiving, on a scale, and the rest is static, then the world must "simulate" all possibilities given the input of the PC acting terse or forgiving (on a scale).

Basically you restrict the simulation enough so you can tell the story you want, simulate well where the player has a choice, then write the surrounding story well.

These statements are kind of obvious.

example: Mario.
  . simulate running and jumping based on simple inputs, incl jumping-on, bumping into, enemies.
  . create (static) levels that suit all possible simulations
i.e. No matter how the player conquers the first Goomba, he will for sure have "passed" it. Make further challenges under the assumption the player has passed one simple jumping challenge.

[Frank Мir]

Graham, we indeed choose what we're going to do based on our mental state but isn't that beside the point? I, for example, have no need to watch trash TV. There exists no mood which trash TV trumps. For every possible mental state my mind goes through, trash TV is ranked very low. You'd have to lock me in a room with nothing but a TV and keep me there for life in order to make me watch it.

[Graham-]

Doubtful. You just need the right trash. Sometimes we want to tune out.

The point is that no matter how much you want to judge the interests of another, you can't _really_ do so by judging how much you appreciate the thing that they like. You have to ask what state are they in, and whether or not they are really engaged.

Buddhist monks sit around and stare at colored stone discs. How simpler can you get than that? What can we say about an activity from the source of media alone? Not much. You have to understand the person too. If trash tv relaxes a person, because she is stressed, and you can verify that, then it is a good thing.

There is a symbiosis between entertainment product and person. You must understand how the two work, by understanding both. Humans are so diverse that it is difficult to blanket types of games as being good or bad.

[Evan Balster]

I think the error in that remark might have been the notion that the game in question is being made for an audience of all people.  Different people have different tastes, and as independents we generally do best when we cater to a subset of those tastes which match our own.  Thus we make the trash for ourselves, and rely on the fact that there are a great many individuals out there who are similar enough that they'll like it as much as we do.

[Graham-]

Which remark?

[Evan Balster]

This one.

Graham, we indeed choose what we're going to do based on our mental state but isn't that beside the point? I, for example, have no need to watch trash TV. There exists no mood which trash TV trumps. For every possible mental state my mind goes through, trash TV is ranked very low. You'd have to lock me in a room with nothing but a TV and keep me there for life in order to make me watch it.

[Graham-]

Ok, I wasn't sure.

Since Frank Mir represents the "Insomnia" crowd, I'll fill in some backing for context.

Insomnia has this general position that games should push you. If they can't push you as well as a book can, in the same way, then they must push you through their mechanics. Therefore their mechanics must push you.

Sometimes this idea gets turned into a blanket statement, to simplify the answer to the question, "what makes a game great?" So their standard counter to what you are saying is that the gamers in question are "lesser" for liking "lesser" media, whether that media was intended for them or not.

And my counter is... prove it.

[Evan Balster]

I get an objectivist vibe from icycalm and the insomnia crowd.  Rationalism, a strong belief in a verifiable objective truth, and a fixation on "greatness" of individuals and works, where all which does not qualify is valueless.

[Graham-]

Yes, they are single-minded. I find them insightful and strange. They say poorly thought out things and over hype them, but most of the time they say useful stuff, I find.

Really they like to attack aggressively. I like listening to them though.

[Chаrlie Sheen]

hello gents. lets get this done.

Doubtful. You just need the right trash. Sometimes we want to tune out.

trash is by definition something you dont need. if i need it then it isn't trash.

If trash tv relaxes a person, because she is stressed, and you can verify that, then it is a good thing.

yup, its a good thing for them just like a shitty coat is a good thing for a homeless man. so what does that mean?

The point is that no matter how much you want to judge the interests of another, you can't _really_ do so by judging how much you appreciate the thing that they like. You have to ask what state are they in, and whether or not they are really engaged.

it doesnt matter whether THEY are engaged or not. if they spend time with these games then they are indeed engaged. and following that logic it's easy to conclude that for every game , there is at least one person who enjoys it. if we go further with that logic we can then conclude that it's impossible to rank art (or anything for that matter).

Insomnia has this general position that games should push you.

how do you mean "push you"?

I get an objectivist vibe from icycalm and the insomnia crowd.  Rationalism, a strong belief in a verifiable objective truth, and a fixation on "greatness" of individuals and works, where all which does not qualify is valueless.

you can't be more wrong.

Yes, they are single-minded

and you are multi-minded?

[feminazi]

can you proceduraly generate a icy fanfic

[Graham-]

Probably.

Trash is a common term. It's a genre type.

Everyone is single-minded sometimes. We all have flaws.

The quality of art is measured by how much engagement it (potentially) produces. Or you could say "valuable engagement." Just because you respect something that reaches out to someone doesn't mean everything is equal.

Art is art. If it helps 3 people that's good. If it helps 6 that's better. If it helps no one but has the capacity to help - i.e. contains truth - then that's good too. You have to question the intent of the author. If something accidentally engages us, does that make the work good? I don't know. You don't have to marginalize someone to have a ranking system.

"push you" = challenge you directly.

the shitty coat analogy is poor.

[Charliе Sheen]

Trash is a common term. It's a genre type.

yup and to me it's all trash i.e. i dont need it.

Everyone is single-minded sometimes. We all have flaws.

what does it mean to be single-minded? quick! some examples please. also, what is opposite of single-minded? multi-minded?

The quality of art is measured by how much engagement it (potentially) produces.

potentially? how do you mean POTENTIALLY produces? the rest is true though.

Or you could say "valuable engagement."

what is "valuable" engagement? can you give some examples of "valuable" and "invaluable" engagement?

Art is art.

and charlie sheen is charlie sheen.

If it helps 3 people that's good. If it helps 6 that's better. If it helps no one but has the capacity to help - i.e. contains truth - then that's good too.

oh right, so even if it doesn't help anyone it still could be good? that's what you're saying right? kinda like those artists who weren't famous during their lifetime, right? is that what you're getting at?

You have to question the intent of the author. If something accidentally engages us, does that make the work good? I don't know.

so you could have art intentionally engage you and unintentionally lol. what about life? how does life engage people? intentionally or unintentionally? does god exist?

You don't have to marginalize someone to have a ranking system.

there must be someone at the bottom of the ranking system. otherwise, it's no ranking system.

"push you" = challenge you directly.

what does it mean to "challenge me directly"?

the shitty coat analogy is poor.

why is it poor analogy?