10 November, 2009 at 9:12 am (Story Theory)
Tags: boarderlands, make a story, story, video game
MMO crunch asks is borderlands a mmog, and in doing so asks if there is a story http://www.mmocrunch.com/2009/11/09/is-borderlands-a-mmog/
This is what I had to say in short:
In terms of story, I always look at gamers who expect to read a story in an interactive medium and think “Wha!?”. It’s an interactive medium – YOU make the story.
What I would grant is that these games, not at all right now, have any tools to record player actions and layout a story (or atleast a log of cool events). So it’s easy to forget the story you just made.
I wrote more on my other blog
Leave a Comment
4 November, 2009 at 7:29 pm (Philosophy, Story Theory)
From here
Specifically
I’ll give this one last shot and I’m done.
Do you think I’m wrong in detecting a ‘I’ll give this one last shot, because I’m absolutely certain I’m right on this…there is no room for doubt in my mind. I can not be wrong at all on this at all’
Even Richard Dawkins, who raves about Evolution, will actually provide you methods to disprove his beloved theory, like ‘Fossilized Rabbits in the Precambrian’ (I think that was the time period – it was definately a time period they shouldn’t show up in. Comments left will prompt me to find the reference).
I mean, I don’t think it means one more shot at understanding the details of any evidence against it, as the rest of the post is just trying to add more evidence for it, rather than asking questions or such.
Here’s a quote from me, which has probably been said in the past, but I have paralel developed it.
“The man who is absolutely certain is the man who does not care what happens if he is wrong”
Leave a Comment
3 November, 2009 at 7:27 am (Story Theory)
Tags: agreement, consent, control, moral, roleplay
As a supplement to my thread here.
Looking at the D&D forums, they also have a little forum culture where they start granting themselves rights. Like ‘Oh, the GM can’t cheat’ and such. And they have a thread where they all agree with each other that that is the case. And ‘thus’ it’s the case for their group. Except it’s only the people on the forum who have agreed with that, not their group.
4 Comments
2 November, 2009 at 4:01 pm (Story Theory)
Tags: design, gaming, play to turn the page, roleplay, video game, writers block, writing
Wow, writing for a ‘play to turn the page’ format is sooooooo easy! No wonder it’s so prevalent!
‘Play to turn the page’ means you play a game, but it means absolutely nothing to the story – you just play so as to bring up the next cut scene or text. It’s like playing a game simply to turn to the next page in a book – it’s pretend interactivity.
And it’s so easy to code for! I’ve been writing another game for use in the ‘effort’ revenue model, as I posted about before – and once you make it just to gather effort rather than having the action make some sort of story in itself (or atleast more story than ‘I shot all the space invaders’), it’s just so easy to slap together something!
Well, that’s good for getting over writers block. But man, it does repeat the million and one play to turn a page games already out there. Still, I’m doing it as part of a ‘effort’ revenue model and doing it is helping me practice my skills toward something that combines both play and a sense of story.
Leave a Comment
28 October, 2009 at 5:11 pm (Story Theory)
Tags: design, income, money, roleplay, RPG, video game
I’ve been thinking of making some sort of CRPG world – you might remember a survey from a few posts back (thank to the one soul who did vote 
).
Now the thing is with content, this is the dilemma – it’s speculative work in regards to actually getting any sort of income from doing it (and hell, I’m not even talking in purely fiscal terms – if I asked for poems from people in exchange for more CRPG content, I might not even get poems – ya know what I mean?).
So what content to provide, that’s engaging? And all my history of RPG gamers is that they always want complicated, dense stuff, or they wander away very quickly. And making complicated, dense stuff with relatively low chance of return? Umm, no thank you. I don’t mind making some stuff, clearly, but doing tons and tons on the hope of a tossed coin or two?
I would like to make something simple, like this thing I made awhile ago. Latter I’d develop it more relative to the amount of interest that was shown.
Possibly I could have some parts of it named or partly decided by readers even before any money transactions, as that give a bit of sense of being in on the project, rather than just another project that wants money. People are more likely to invest when they already have a personal stake (come to think of it, that’s how world of warcraft works…).
But the main issue is:
Effort for low chance of return Vs low interest for non dense and complicated material.
I’m thinking one work around is text, since that’s easier to generate (look ma, I’m doin’ it now!). But I have to figure some simple way of getting around the ‘wall of text’ problem.
Anyway, thinking through the problem out loud…
Leave a Comment
22 October, 2009 at 6:44 am (Philosophy, Story Theory)
Tags: design, roleplay, RPG, video game
I’ve been thinking that most of the games, whether it be video games or even table top RPG’s, have such alot of production and work in them that it’s a bad thing.
Think of it from your own perspective – there are these sparkly games that draw your attention and maybe spark your imagination. But do you have the raw production capacities to actually make one yourself? To various degrees, the answer is no. Perhaps if we rewind to early D&D, or to video games on the c64, yes. But otherwise no.
So your entranced and in love with something you can’t actually make yourself. This throws you into the position of follower only – you can’t lead, because you need to be able to make it to lead. You can only follow.
A mix of sometimes following and sometimes leading is alright, but always following? That’s a bad thing, if you happen to share any values I have on self guidance.
I’m looking at all these things again and thinking wow, all the fancy production just leads me into being a follower. Pah!
Edit: And why on earth can I google this new post I made only an hour or two ago, yet I can’t google my new blog?
6 Comments
10 October, 2009 at 7:12 am (Story Theory)
Tags: arguement, confirmation bias, debate, discussion, mistake, moral, morality
There’s this thing, which I ran into recently on the forge and I’ve seen it quite a few times before, where you get assertion overload.
It’s kind of like the equivalent of a service denial attack – a bunch of assertions are given at once and apparently it’s entirely up to the other guy to probe, question and disprove them (if needed).
The thing is with that idea, it’s incredibly easy to keep piling on more and more assertions, usually in responce to those questions (like the old ‘if the earth rests on an elephants back, what does that elephant rest on’ ‘another elephant’…there’s always another fookin elephant). And alot of people who seem to believe stuff have many, many, many assertions to give. It amounts to a service denial attack, where the other guy is swamped in work.
I’m writing this in advance to say, no, your not making a point, your just swamping the other guy. Writing this in advance to show it’s not just some dodge tactic made up in the moment. Well before the arguement ever came to exist, this was written.
Provide supporting evidence for your assertions and even more importantly/more directly to the point, attempt to disprove your own assertions before giving them!!! Yes, attempt to disprove your own assertions – don’t give in to confirmation bias.
Or alternatively, tell me one assertion you had, but you disproved yourself because you found it faulty. Perhaps can’t think of any? Nothing you do is ever faulty? Is that god like perfection on your part, or have you been failing to actually weed out and disprove assertions on your part which are faulty? Is it someone elses job to do that? Even if it was, can they when you pile on a bunch of other assertions which you haven’t vetted for errors? And then pile on even more unchecked assertions when those get questioned, and so on?
Your a force on this earth, despite what you might think. Do you want to be applying that force onto other people in the name of those assertions, if you can’t name any you’ve weeded out as faulty in the past? Because unless you have god like perfection, if you can’t name any assertions you’ve weeded out, then they’re still in there and your acting upon other people in their name.
14 Comments
27 September, 2009 at 3:42 pm (Philosophy, Story Theory)
Tags: creativity, pay, productivity, RPG, support, video game, writers block
Probably not interesting to anyone, but I’ve just kind of realised that I was making or attempting to make games with the firm impression there was a reward involved. Originally it was peer accolades, more recently money of some level.
I think because I’ve been thinking on the money, I’ve come to the perhaps obvious realisation that no one is going to give me anything for making a game. No ones waiting to do that. With the peer accolades, way back when I first encountered double dragon and wanted to make a game, I thought those peer accolades and pats on the back were on offer. Same goes for a traditional table top roleplay game and making one of those. I don’t think anyones guaranteeing (like any of you who work, are guaranteed to be paid) me any money to make a game, and I don’t think anyones guaranteeing me any peer accolades either. I just had the impression, a naive one, that it was. I wont blame myself for that – it comes from a child like part of me and I wont blame that into non existence in a hurry.
So perhaps that’ll help with my writers block? No ones offering anything. Perhaps after I make something perchance I’ll get paid or a pat on the back. But no ones guaranteeing me something for having made something – not even five cents – no ones giving me any sense of certainty or security/support in that way.
I think I can work that way, but my point with this post is that I think the idea that I was offered certainty on some sort of reward for work was sputtering and bleeding away. And so too was my productivity. I suppose I was stuck in a cycle of throwing effort at something with the idea I would get support – but at the same time I felt no…possitive feeling? I guess this is pretty childish, but this is what they teach you in your early formative years at school – the pat on the head and appreciation from teacher for getting the work done. There will be no pat on the head – at least not of a level that befits me as an adult now (and by befits, I mean not just my due as an adult, but in practical terms of supplying resources for my adult life).
I think I can work and produce without the idea of any such support. A more clinched, tight work, but work done rather than lolling in a sense of non inspiration (that absent inspiration being the absent support). It’s funny, one of my own phrases is ‘Praise subverts agenda’ and here it is again. Waiting on that praise can subvert what your doing.
And I don’t mean praise mayonnaise - I keep several boxes of it stored away in case of any sort of mayonnaise emergency. At 18kg, you can bathe in the stuff! I know I do! >:)
Leave a Comment
16 September, 2009 at 8:18 am (Story Theory)
Tags: design, fiction, roleplay, RPG
I posted this here, and given it highlights a fairly massive divide, I’m putting it here as well
I suppose I’m scratching my head because it seems easy enough for fiction to be prompted by procedure, demonstrated in this account as well, but just about everywhere design focus is on fiction/freeform first. But that doesn’t appear to be able to go anywhere in terms of design – if the rules can’t direct the fiction, new rules designs wont change anything about the fiction produced. In a fiction/freeform first design, any new rules will only be inacted if it seems to fit the fiction – and even if those rules do manage to affect the fiction somehow, they’ll be quickly rejected since the priority is on the fiction choosing the rules and not on the rules choosing the fiction. It seems a dead end, in terms of design (not that it can’t prompt ideas for procedure first games – it’s good at that, I find).
I’m thinking it needs to be a banner, because I’ve had so many conversations that just got complicated and not heading towards any resolution – probably because I am operating from a rules first. And probably the other guy was working from a fiction first position. Except, atleast to me, you can’t go five minutes with fiction first without breaking out of it – if you want to do something, you do something – you can’t leave it up to some fictional idea. You implement a rule. And design, or atleast to me it is, is doing something.
Anyway, I think it needs to be a banner to get rules first discussion out from under fiction first discussion. Because currently if you try and discuss rules first with fiction first people, they go along with it for a little while, then more and more they start critiquing it in terms of fiction first. It’s that ‘going along with it for a little while’ that subverts rules first designing, because it seems to be talking about the same thing, but then those critiques from above kick in … and basically those critiques can never, ever be satisfied until you give up rules first and go fiction first. It subverts the idea of “Hey, with rules I can somehow satisfy the conditions they are critiquing the game on’. Anyone who sticks to that just gets frustrated at lack of progress with these people who appear to be rules first. Anyone who gives up at that frustration and goes fiction first is allowed into wonderful ’story gamer’ land. A stagnant land where no rule can prompt any new fiction, because rules don’t get to prompt fiction.
Since it’s a blog I’ll just change subject slighting – the weird thing is that the ‘freeform’ play DOES have patterns of repeating behaviour that are much the same as rules. It’s just that they aren’t conciously aware of those patterns. Because whenever they do become aware, they instantly reject the pattern because ‘rules don’t control fiction’. Yet fiction is just a bunch of structures, much like rules - you just can’t conciously articulate them.
Anyway, that’s one post on the matter completed, even if it wasn’t with a great deal of planning and drafting!
Leave a Comment
« Older entries
