Coding "Choice"/Story Pt.2 Also Life Update

Quick life update
I'm happy to say that I now know my last semester went better then I felt it was going, not as well as I hoped but much better than it felt like at the time. Also I can officially announce that I have another job, soon as my two weeks goes through i'll be in a *fingers crossed* more manageable double employment position. So that's that.

Coding Divergent Stories Pt.2

So as we discussed last time the gameplay in itself is not only inseparable to the story but in it's range of possible actions effects the themeing beneath the games overall experience, I'd argue that every memorable game experience has an element of this modeled into it's design. Mario is played by avoiding and overcoming obstacles, the theme is overcoming adversity. The Stanley Parable's gameplay is interacting with and against the narrator, the theme is agency against predestination. First person games are played by a single point, a projected you, as interacting manipulating and surviving a projected other, and the themes in first person games are often man against the world or against the horrific unstoppable other. There's alot of interesting stuff that could be said about how the layout of interaction changes the tone of a game for the player, like the modes of interaction put the player in a different mind space, or encourage them to create a different narrative (look at me staying on topic). 

The apparent problem we were left with last time was how divergence allowed by interaction possibly undermines the narrative or theme of the game. And, at first I honestly didn't know how to answer this, but I think this wasn't so much an issue of the medium, but the manner that we think of story that lead us to the specific question. This is one of those problems every English major will encounter when writing essays. While themes and narrative are real things that do exist in stories, they are tangible to the reader and definite within a story, because after the piece of art is sent out in the world it's a finished work. But in another way it isn't, there is an intrinsic final part of art, that being the reception by the reader. Now, I'm not talking about the whole phenomena of a reader having to physical look at the words for the ideas those words mean to "re-create" the story before they can access it. No, what I mean is the themes are a thing that is received by a thinking feeling individual, and because of that what those themes end up meaning exactly is not set. Themes, while definitely inherent by the creators design. On purpose or not, they are in there. (I've written a paper about parental conventions of death and god as represented in Curious George episodes alone.)

What we're saying is that beneath the surface narrative texture, there are themes, ideas about stuff, which the audience will come and interact with to some degree. They might not know it but that episode about the Daleks and Oswin is an exploration of the themes of autonomy, of what constitutes human and self. Oswin figured she was sealed away from the nanobots that convert humans into the robot Dalek, a conversion that is a literal reconstitution of autonomy. The independent thinking human becomes a robot, a creature whose very name originates form slave, and is in it's nature one that follows it's programming, completely devoid of individual autonomy. Also there's a small element of Odysseus ship, the thought experiment of "How many parts do you have to replace on a thing before it becomes a new, different thing? Does it?"; Oswin made a small fantasy world inside her mind that she wasn't being converted into a Dalek by nanobots, but instead was sealed up in a crashed ship and was surviving and burning time before rescue, while her entire body was replaced there was supposedly this small element of will left that retained the part that made the mind of the converted Dalek still Oswin the human. And you can do this will all of media to better understand the anxieties behind the fictions and better understand the draw their audience has to them.

So What Does These Mean For Games?

Themes are not definite, notice the theme in the Odysseus's Ship story is a question, overarching narratives are not complete always complete thoughts. The best kind often aren't, because art that recognizes these big ideas and questions are not definite or answered yet, leave this element of ambiguity in the characters, this is where the story's human element is. Socrates famously said "Know Thyself", but he never meant that to directly mean "understand who you definitely are", he meant "know what you are not, in being definitely sure what you do not know, you can better seek knowledge". Really good stories, almost never explore their themes by directly answering questions, often they explore these questions by presenting what the situation is not. 

Are the Replicates who have differing "empathetic" responses then humans, not sentient? Well, they're not dumb, and what they feel can't be called insincere... Is that what sentience is?
Good questions raise further questions, and so the reader is unconsciously diving further and deeper into the fantasy.

I'd never say that stories always attempt to have an ambiguous ending, or even that only the good ones do, that'd be dumb. What I'm saying is that in every bit of fictions exploration of a theme, just that you can't spell it out for the reader without either being insulting or making the story sound contrived.

Contrived plots are the biggest problem for young writers. Contrived is when the story feels like a certain point is pushed onto the series of events, seemingly because the author wanted it. Why this is so noticeable, is because instead of the girl leaving the scum bag that sexually assaulted her in the dive in theater, instead of her not trusting him after he showed he doesn't understand the word no and manipulated her trust, instead of all that... after he wins the race she dresses up to get him all hot and bothered because that's what he wants and now she wants just what he wants. Because happy endings is how it should be. God I hate Grease. The arch of that film that had the most tension the moment most people remember and relate to as "thee" important part of Grease, is the race. Notice it's never a problem just that the hero wins at the end, it's a problem if this doesn't make any sense with the rest of the story, that's what contrived storytelling is.  

 Insulting is when what was clearly conveyed, or at least could be understood by watching the scene is spelled out, the cop dramas that have each clue and what it could indicate getting described before the scene cuts.. yes that boring part, imagine those shows without the drama of who is sleeping with who or who showed up drunk, or whose terrified of their wife having a child in this rotten city. ect. There is the real meat of the narrative. The lesson is to not go 100% with the story, you decide how much you want your viewer to work to understand your story, but you never go 100%. If you do your fiction becomes a lazy read, the reader is left without the need to think about the character actions or make their own reading of intentions or emotions, and is left utterly distinguished from the fiction. Whatever percentage you make them work to fill out the rest of the story, "Who was right? Rorschach or Ozymandias?" whatever percentage that is is what invests them in your work.Think about what the characters and events are asking of the player while you create, but also recognize that this end result you're giving space for, you don't need to have control of that, you don't even need to have a definite version for yourself.

This is not just about giving space for the reader to work and invest and, well read, into your narrative. But this is about letting go of the idea that you need to control or even know what they are going to add to that space. And knowing this, approaching creating divergent stories changes. It's not so much, "how do I let them explore a story they''ll create and let them feel like they're the ones that created it while still designing a satisfying ending?" and suddenly the question is more, "how do I create tools that let them explore questions to their satisfaction?" The latter, is much easier to discuss. But again, it's late and I have quite a busy work weekend head of me and I think this is enough for one post. Goodnight, and thank you for reading.  

progress/personal update

I don't know why precisely, but I feel compelled to write one of those updates that happens for regular blogs. I don't expect it to have the same effect, I mean, those are active social spaces where this is more a passing space. Like an empty billboard on a country highway that the occasional commuter glances at in case of a new advertisement. So I will keep it brief.

So, for those curious souls, I am still alive. I am still "working" on my game. More so I'm working on my two jobs and majors, but I break out the scribbles on the algorithm every now and again. Don't do anything with them to be honest, but I look at them. My efforts are in my grades and fixing my financial setting, I have plans to help finagle that where I'll possibly only need one job. But the logistics are still out on that one. I'm crossing my fingers that it'll work out and I'll be financed to extend my education and better round the knowledge set I want, first for my field... and, well second for this unhealthy game design addiction I have. But in the short term I've made some investments in classes for my other addiction hobby that could potentially provide another avenue of return.

For theatrical effect I'll leave that secondary hobby a mystery until I can get a nice collection of photos to display my work. But to give an idea of this as compared to game production, where I've been working on my production knowledge and skill set since I was 18 and didn't get so much as a potentially paying gig until I was 20 (which ultimately fell through); I started this hobby about a year ago and was offered payment for my (absolutely awful) work within two days. I have yet to sell a piece, but that's only because I first refused to sell a piece when I wasn't sure of it's quality, and in another instance when there was a disagreement over pricing and interest broke down. It's like many specialized art fields, where interest is primarily from novelty and less occasionally from an understanding/appreciation of the skill set. Requests come easy without understanding of the cost or man-hours, and the serious requests take networking and years of experience to build. The potential for (relatively) quick return is there, but the potential for fair return is few and far between for people new to the scene.(and no I'm not talking about porn) And that is why the classes, first to expand my skill set and clean up the quality of my work and secondly to provide some qualifications for the self-taught image my work comes with.  

So that is the production side of things. Stressed and crowded but promising.
A short digression; on a personal level, I want to say that the position I'm in, despite all obstacles, is better then it's been in longer then I care to admit. For all the possible setbacks and work on my plate, I'm still feeling ready to take on the world, and I look forward to the coming year and all it's challenges and lessons. 

On the subject of Experience. Better titled; Work Ethic for students

I apologize, this isn't about Experience as in video games, or any kind of talk about design and leveling up. 

This is a note about Work Ethic and Learning

Spring Break is just around the corner, in truth I'm standing at the corner now, but until I complete and email some papers I won't be officially on break. And with how I've been working on these papers and my thoughts of my plan of working on these three game projects of mine over break and my history with finishing projects I had a thought.

Originally this came from a sentiment brought up in the young adult novel a friend lent me (The Rithmatist by Brandon Sanderson), in the book there's this alchemist-ish power that derived from certain individuals ordained as Rithmatists can conjurer from drawing chalk on a two dimensional surface. Drawing specific geometric patterns can create protective fields around the Rithmatists where drawing things like knights or dragons will bring to life the creatures who can break down another Rithmatists defenses. Set in a steampunk universe, there are specific schools that teach the privileged Rithmatists their science. Of course my first thought is how easily someone could fudge with the typical design of a turn based rpg and change it to time based, each of the different drawings and defenses taking a specific number of seconds to execute before effective. Missions could unlock learning new techniques. Experience points earned could be spent studying and improving your drawing speed, accuracy, or artistic ability (empowers drawn creatures). Then currency could be spent on chalk, quest items, game items, ect. (okay there was a little design.)

As expected in a young adult novel there is a protagonist who is gifted in some aspects but completely lost in others. While the protagonist is extremely intelligent with math, science, and able to draw Rithmatists patterns extremely well.. He is completely inept at art, history, or anything else that doesn't have to do with his beloved Rithmatist subject. Which of course leaves him at odds with a majority of his schoolmates and adult friends as he isn't actually a Rithmatist and doesn't have any power. His knowledge and passion of all things seems for not. Through the beginning of the novel he is barely applying himself in his studies outside of trying to sneak into Rithmatic lectures (non-Rithmatists aren't allowed in the special Rithmatists' classes). A character with a almost hopeless dream, pursuing his passion while ignoring what he is not passionate about... A character we all could have gotten behind at one or another point in our life. The entire "do what you love, forget the rest" way to live mentality seems to be a common aspect of our culture these days.

Jump back to the book. Our young protagonist finds himself in a unique possibility where if he applies himself in certain subjects he can learn from one of the Rithmatist professors, the big step in actualizing his dream. Personally, I had been on the route for the culinary profession until my Senior year of high school. ... maybe it was the end of my junior year.. idk. I had always enjoyed and played games, after finding critics and journalist that discussed design I developed an introductory level vocabulary to discuss and explore design/theory/storytelling, that is why I credit people like Yatzhee for the moment I became a "real" gamer. Not because before I didn't care about it, but because individuals like that were the catalysts for my realization that making games wasn't out of my reach. And after that I felt an investment and love for the medium like never before.. The difference between when someone feels towards language and storytelling was just a reader to when they became a writer. And like the young spirited protagonist of a ya novel I passionately threw myself into my dream subject as if it was my life's purpose, also like that protagonist I gave little consideration for the rest, until that moment an opportunity presents itself. There was a experimental game design class in the tech department. I had taken 3d modeling early on in my high school career, but other then that I hadn't spent much time in the computer labs. Senior year I lived in those labs. Basically any study hall, any lunch period, I was there. 

In my design class I realized suddenly that coding was a great deal of math, art I was okay at, but math didn't really capture me. It just made sense after a time. So I was doing as the protagonist did, throwing myself suddenly into the subjects relevant to my passion and giving enough consideration to the rest to pass will good grades(B or around there). Here's the issue with that mentality, something it took admittedly a few years in college and a book to completely learn. School work isn't about learning to get by so you can do what you want, it's about learning how to do work even when you don't want. That sounds like one of the "bs" answers you might have gotten from one of your grade school teachers one day after "forgetting" to do an assignment, but it's true. We try to convince ourselves that once we're in a class, or working in a specific field, that we're interested in that we'll be perfect students. But that really, really isn't true, and we know it. 

Remember that one class you loved, you paid attention in all the lectures and discussed the subject with your teacher and friends and felt pretty confident about it. But homework wasn't counted as late, or the grade percentage wasn't very high so you felt okay letting one or two assignments slide. Besides homework's about learning the material, and know the stuff right? Then you blink and suddenly you're late assignments are piling up, and while them being late doesn't phase you, not getting the grade at all for not having them turned in at the end of the semester and failing despite your strong grasp of the subject matter terrifies you. 

Think about that time in English where all you had to do was read outside of class, and talk about the material in class. You did a bunch of the readings, sometimes maybe you'd have to read it in the study hall before that class, or you'd only skim it though, sometimes you'd just rely on what you remember from past readings of the material, maybe you'd just talk with friends who had read it so you get an idea of the events and formulate from that some interesting points about the cultural meaning of the text, or the authors purpose, or foreshadowing. Say you have to write a paper on it or do a test, at first your feeling pretty confident so you put of reviewing the text or starting early on your draft.. Then when you get the test they're asking you about specific quotes from the start of the book that you don't remember or names of characters that were only mentioned in a brief segment, and suddenly you don't know the book nearly as well as you thought. Or you're writing the paper last minute and suddenly you realize the requirements are more demanding then you thought or after writing your thesis you realize you don't know the text well enough and have to go over it all again to find direct examples that support your thesis, or you realize you don't know how to start your paper and just sit there for too long panicking, or you stare at all the material and notes you've pulled together, all the interesting thoughts... and can't boil it down to a single strong thesis statement.

Think about the art classes where you mostly talked with friends and thought about what you planned to do, and spent the last night before presenting the final projects sleeplessly trying to polishing it.

Same with science projects.

Same with any presentation.

The realization to be drawn from here is that despite enjoying or even loving the material we don't specifically love the work, or at least we don't love the work aspects of the work. We might love the creation aspect. Like how most writers actually hate writing, if you don't believe me ask a writer if they have trouble with writer's block. Writers write to tell a story, not to write. They want to tell a story so much it overpowers their natural aversion to work and they start writing, once writing the story comes more easily, they fall into the story, and the writing (the work) seems effortless because they've been seduced by their love of creation. 

Homework, busy work, it teaches us to get past that natural aversion to work by regularly getting us to the benefits of the work. Most people who practice a craft or play an instrument will tell you that all you have to do to get into something, is to just do it. The artist feels the benefits of creating art through repeatedly creating, it's only through that repetition that we get good. I think this is the second point where people get caught up, especially myself. We see the people that are good at what they do, at what we want to do, and when we try we see the difference. We see our weaknesses, inexperience, and the hints of our ignorance in the light of their work and put it off. I've done this for years now. I see my mother draw something, try to duplicate and can see the issues in my proportion, "well I need to watch let's draws and hear some experienced artist's tips on shading, or how to judge if you're getting the angles right". I play a game and realize I can't wrap my mind around how code made that specific interaction possible, "going to have to subscribe to some coding channels and watch some tutorials". Man that guy's talking game design terms and theory I've never even heard about, guess I need to read those now before I do anything." 

Now don't misread this, I will always be emphatic about the value of research and study. But that valuable cultivation of thought and experiment in your mind only gains worth when the thought/experimentation is actualized. This is a key aspect of the "Fail Faster" first rule game making. Actually fail faster should be the first rule of anything. If you're not 100% sure about that lecture that just happened and you're hovering on a public student failure by going up to the teacher and asking a question or postponing that until it's a private failure by going home and reviewing the material until it makes sense, it's better to just talk to the teach. We think of it as a failure because it wasn't a success, we didn't grasp the material with a "this is self evident" absurdness that we do when we feel like smart good students. But as we know, smart good students are the ones that are always raising their hand, and asking questions, and taking notes, and leaving apples on the front desk. That's why I want to teach, free food.

We try to apply the "better to remain silent and be thought a wise man then to open one's mouth and remove all doubt" to the class room.. Maybe it's applicable to confrontation ,or a challenge to debate, something, but in a class room it doesn't work. The people that never say anything when the questions are asked might very well know the material, they might just be shy or giving other people a chance, but that doesn't make them look wise. At worst they look apathetic about the material, at best they look bored about the material, either way wise is the very last thing they look. And it's very possible they can go off and learn all the material and comfortably pass on their own without much interaction within the classroom. I'm not going to condemn anyone's student habits, if it's working for you, then good for you. But consider the potential, consider your own potential, with a highly qualified individual at your disposal. (typically) At school or in the university you are in a setting where you are encouraged not only to propose questions around the material, but inquire past the level before you. You can be completely bored with the surface reading of a specific text, crave something that's more interesting or challenging, and all it takes is a raised hand to get the discussion onto a more advanced level. Remember that your teacher is someone whose not only more familiar with the material, but has spent a number of years engrossed in the higher level (actually interesting) corner of that material's field. If you're talking about Distopian literature and it feels dry, all it takes is a few questions on what next-step aspect of this you're trying to wrap your head around and suddenly you're talking about philosophy and the nature of fears and the other, and dreams and the subconscious, and studies about human behavior, and sociology, and the Nazis. Most teachers are big fans of tangential learning. 2168 words until "Nazis" showed up.

It's true sometimes when the material will lead into your question and you're just thinking a lesson or two ahead and the teacher doesn't want to confuse the rest of the class sometimes you're asked to wait. But that's not stopping you from trying to ask the teacher after class, more so that's not stopping you from reading and doing the homework ahead of time. As long as you're able to continue getting help from the teacher when you run into trouble and you don't end up completely lost then why not? Sure you could respond (well I have a life and I don't want to spend my whole day doing homework.) If you're ahead of the class, you're going to have more time to relax when you're home. Think about it, imagine if you could go back in time every year and redo all of your classes as if it's your first try. You'd understand assignments the moment they're assigned and be able to get through them almost effortlessly, your work would undoubtedly be of better quality. Well reading ahead a little bit, giving yourself that much more exposure to the material, is how you begin to accomplish that. Einstein said, "I have no special talent. I am passionately curious." 

Here's some fun latin for you. nanos gigantum humeris insidentes 

You've probably heard the metaphor, "Dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants." All this means is that discovery is always built on previous discovery. Einstein had some groundbreaking ideas, but his ideas were only groundbreaking because he asked a "what if" no one had asked before. He knew it was something unknown because he read a bunch in scientific journals, and then thought a bunch. Take a look at every discover in history, that's all it is. They question, they think, and they test. When they fail, they think deeper, question deeper, and retest. 

But really, when you come to a problem or challenge you feel ill prepared to deal with, your hesitation to tackle it isn't just because you don't like the work, or because you feel the information is beyond you and you don't want to admit that or need more time to research. Alot of this semester this is what I thought and this is what I've always tried to focus on: assuming that through learning more, forcing myself to complete the work, actively ask questions when confused, that somewhere along the line I'd start to break my bad old habits and take on a more proactive productive lifestyle. 

And to a degree I saw success doing this. I've greatly improved my writing, I've written and participated in a professional setting for film and game journalism. I'm actively part of the writing department for a small group of game developers. While available I've been actively writing on this blog about my theories with design, things I've learnt, my game development status. But that work experience and learning has only increased the quality of my work, not the quality of my work ethic. I still have the same unproductive habits, I still find myself over-stressed with writers block staying up late into the night and early morning trying to catch up on late work like I would in high school. So at first, I blamed the load of work. Then I accepted that I had plenty of hours in the day when utilized to complete any work. Then I blamed the difficulty of the work, but I'm able to grasp everything the teacher says, the classes provide materials, and the teachers are there to help for any confusion, so it's impossible to say that learning the material is above my capabilities. I refuse to believe any learning is above anyone's capabilities, all that's required is self application. And with that I came back around to the question, why can't I learn to be a better student? Why can't I learn to not let myself get in situations where I get so stressed out and worn down? And for a moment in that sad place I thought maybe it was just a way some people were, some disposition that the proactive people were constantly at war with behind their smiles. I'm certain in some situations that is the case, but that can't be the definitive way that it is. I can't imagine that all adults feel like this all the time, I don't remember feeling like this when I was young and I certainly don't believe that a bit of development in brain chemistry from age and a change in height and experiences lead with necessity to a less happy life. 

But then the other day I wrote a piece on luck, as luck would have it.... I'm sorry that was terrible, please keep reading. 

I wrote a piece on luck and I'll admit I wasn't ready to write it when I received the assignment, I had no idea what to write on luck, and I hadn't found anything that sparked up in my head by the time I sat down to write it. But I sat down to write it regardless because I had forgotten about needing to write it as I left school, then went to visit a friend before their break was over and came home and hoped onto the computer with twenty minutes to write the piece before it was due to be published. Please never do this to your team, it's really terrible thing to do. I had been thinking on the topic, I wasn't completely sure on a thesis though, I hadn't found any super interesting facts or ideas that would work into strengthening the piece. But as I wrote, I enjoyed the creation, I enjoyed explaining and narrowing my thought process on the label of luck down and working it out on paper. I knew my thought process, in writing I just needed to work out how to explain it well, that's the fun challenge of writing. I came to a thesis about the nature of the label, and what it implied about humanity. I felt very proud of my piece. Then after publishing it (just in the nick of time), and then realizing I hadn't formatted it with the code (edit that in real quick), putting up on the site's facebook page, having my great team send me small notifications of things to edit (more rushed editing). It was done and it felt right. Literally the very next day in my English theory class we were discussing and going over Derrida... learned the theory of stuff I had just a few short hours ago published on had a specific name. I was talking about luck as defined through a present absence. All I could think was "Dang, if I had finished my reading for this day (I had previously been introduced to Derrida so I convinced myself I could skim the reading and focus on other work)- If I had finished the reading I would have known and been able to incorporate that into my piece about luck." At first I looked back in-hindsight and thought "I wasn't ready to write that yet, I need to be more prepared." But in truth we cannot always be prepared for things, there will be times we are thrown a challenge and all we can do is our best. The quality of my work does is not diminished by what I know now. I'm still proud of my segment on luck because I feel it's well written, and I think it successfully explains the affect of present absence without using the linguistic term.

Next time it would be better to use the term, of course, now that I know it. But I can still appreciate the work, I can appreciate the challenge it posed and feel good about overcoming it. A while back in an earlier post on this blog I described a thought of mine. I hadn't spent any extra time looking into this theory of mine, just had an idea and started writing. Later I learned the kind of "game story" I was talking about had a name, "ludo narrative", to other's it's probably not much but to me I feel that's an accomplishment. With the information I had a think about games and mechanics and proposed something, it wasn't something completely original, but it was original to what I knew. And that, the act of creation, contains value. So often we try to place value on the voices of others, and possibly worse, ourselves and we think we should leave things for other people; for people more qualified, or talented, or educated. How is it we so easily fool ourselves into thinking that those esteemed others who are "better suited" then us are made from people exactly like us. They were curious, passionate, and ignorant. They let their passion guide their curiosity, their curiosity fuel their passion, their passion lead them to realize their ignorance, and their ignorance to fuel their curiosity. 

You can't wonder about things you already know. Realize you yourself could very well know nothing and the world is full of exciting wonder. Be a kid again.

Trust yourself that you have something to say and trust it to contain some worth. When I started this I thought that I might not have enough to say to fill a post, I thought I shouldn't bring up the present absence until I've read Derrida over again, I felt I had lost my point when I was talking about high-school, I questioned -still question- if this post flows and has enough to be engaging to someone(besides myself), and near the end I wondered if all of this built to any coherent thought. I am always filled with self-doubt whenever I start anything. But while at first it feels sporadic and poorly done, trust yourself to continue, be mindful of your actions, be okay with the possibility of mistakes, and in the end. In the moment you realize that work to its natural conclusion, look back at all that you accomplished in doing that. Instead of giving up, instead of giving into doubt and quitting or not starting at all, or convincing yourself to not care and doing it rushed so you try to feel impervious to judgments on your work, you did it. Good on you.