Something of a Program [edited]

 Just thinking tonight about purpose. As I have mentioned before I would like to find some sense of purpose. To some extent this is serving the God of Games, but that is still a bit vague. So then I was thinking more about this blog and the idea of "developing the culture of video games". That seems to be a worthy purpose for this blog. I guess that might sound a bit ponderous. I will make it a bit more clear. Basically there are several levels to this that I will go into.

(Note) First off, the "video games" part of that is somewhat negotiable in that in many ways it could be replaced by the more general "gaming". But video games are the subdomain of games that I have been spending most of my time on this year and seems to be where my interests lie right now. One reason that "developing the culture of video games" works well though is because video games are a relatively new medium. They are developing and the story telling and art is getting gradually more sophisticated and developed. But it is still early days in many ways so it feels like it is relatively easier to participate in the discussion. There is a lot of writing and videos online by all kinds of people but it is less of a "cultured" realm of games. So in a way it seems like there is more room to say something interesting. Sports, chess, and go for example all have a well developed culture of writing and making movies or videos about them. So it is harder to find fresh ground to say something valuable. There is also a big skill gap. To really participate in the discussion about strategies you have to be at an advanced level. Video games as a realm seems a lot more wide open now. That being said, I am still interested in other games and can see myself coming back to them in various ways.

I.) So in some ways the top level is my religious ideas about the God of Games. Some of these ideas were cemented in a discussion with my wife the night before this one. This seems a creative development of the culture of gaming in that I haven't heard anyone else talking about this. It seems to be my original development. I have done a bit of this but have another post planned on the nature of Gods and what it means to worship / serve them.

II.) The next level down is my ideas about how games and the art of pursuing games meshes with serving the God of Games in the life of the gamer. That is how games and life are related. To some extent this has been done by other people. There seem to be a fair number of books at least in the chess realm about how life and games are related. But I think I might be able to expand the discussion. I have done some of this but intend to do more.

III.) The next level down is reading books about gaming or ludology and writing my thoughts on them. Some of these are books that I have but haven't read such as "Play Matters" or "Homo Ludens" (I started but didn't get very far with it). But there are also a number of books that I have already read but would like to re-read and write about such as "Struggle" by Lasker or "The Beauty of Games". This is another area that I don't see people doing much of at least in the places I browse. So I think by reading these books and writing about them I will be contributing something at least somewhat fresh.

IV.) [Post edited the next night to add this because I forgot and it seems important] The next level is continuing to read writing and watch videos on the internet and trying to engage in discussion with them even if it is only to call attention to something I really liked. I have done this some. It seems possible to do this in a fresh way because it seems like although there is a lot of material online, it is somewhat uncommon for writers to engage with other writing. RPS does this a bit with a feature they call "The Sunday Papers" which is a roundup of some interesting writing from around the internet and some light comments. But I feel like there is a lot of unexplored writing or videos out there. [/edit]

V.) The next level down is seeking to play interesting games and write about them. Again, here I mostly have in mind video games. I also have in mind lesser covered games whether they be AAs or true indie games. This seems to be fairly easy to do. There are lots of ways of finding new and interesting video games and I already have plenty in my library that I haven't played or written about yet. But, on the other hand, this is one area where it is a lot harder to do something to actually develop the culture of video games just because for any given game (even the offbeat ones that I tend to play) you can generally find a lot of reviews written by users and posted on Steam or on other sites. There are also generally some reviews written by more professional reviewers for many games. I have decided to freeze spending on games for awhile again so I won't be seeking out new games (although I do seem to have some channels for getting free games). But I think this is one area where I will just have to practice. I think there are two dimensions to this. One is playing as many games as possible to build up my experience and the second is practicing writing about them and trying to say something interesting. I probably won't be able to compete with sites like Rock, Paper, Shotgun or Buried Treasure at least at the beginning for a whole variety of reason. But I think I want to be able to learn to do a better job at this. I have done some of this with my reviews so far but would like to continue.

VI.) The last level that I have in mind is being a creative player and writing about that. What I mean by this is developing creative strategies in the games I play and seeking out games that offer the player broad scope for creativity. There are several points I want to make.

VI. A.) So first off, by saying creative I am kind of purposefully not talking about a "hardcore" "git gud" or "min/max" approach to gaming. I have tried that to some extent with chess and it just ended in frustration. I think this is a big step for me in some ways because I have for a long time clung to the idea that I could learn to be really good at games and have approached games that way at least in terms of my expectations but haven't met those expectations with my actual success rate. I think I need to re-evaluate that and focus on "fun" as the priority and in a lot of ways to me fun mean two things, variety and creativity. Variety is another reason that video games are appealing. There is such a wide variety of games on the market that you can really explore a lot of different kinds of experiences. But even in one specific game whether it be chess or go or Magic or Civilization, variety is the spice of life. That being said, losing all the time isn't fun and the point of games is to try to win, so I do want my strategies to be at least a little bit successful.

VI. B.) So on the other hand, I am also not super interested in some extreme worst case for the sake of worst case kind of strategies. What I mean is that there are many examples of people playing games in strange bizarre ways to purposefully set themselves a much harder challenge. Sometimes this can seem amazing, like when someone gets through a Dark Souls game without ever being hit by an enemy. But sometimes it just seems kind of self-defeating. There was a recent RPS article about playing Schedule 1 without committing any crimes. If you can't guess from the title, it is a game about being a drug dealer. So although he technically found some ways to make money without committing crimes he wasn't really playing the game. I have no interest in playing Schedule 1 but it seemed kind of a pointless effort. 

VI. C.) So what I do mean is finding ways to do interesting things that appeal to me. This could be as simple as playing Saladin in Civ 6 because I am interested in making science and religion work together philosophically so it is cool that in this game this leader has mechanics that do that. I don't think Saladin is considered the worst leader but I don't think he is considered the best either. But in general I am looking for ways to develop new ideas or ways of playing for the sake of new ideas. One example is Victoria 2 which is a video game about world affairs in the 1800s. It is a complicated simulation type game and models a wide variety of social phenomena. There is also no win condition. You set your own goal. For a lot of people this will be world conquest. But a goal I set for myself was to play as the UK and research all the cultural techs by the games end date without losing my world number one ranking. This may prove too difficult and I may have to modify it so that it is "research all the cultural techs while remaining in the top ten" or something like that. Again I haven't seen anyone else implement this idea. It was my own. Magic is in some ways a great example because it is a game that has a lot of creativity in the deck building. But there are several issues. One is that Magic is a very expensive game. That is probably the biggest issue. But it is also very complicated and a lot of people are playing. So, although it is relatively easy to build a deck that no one else is playing just by jamming cards together, it is harder to do something creative that actually has some chance of winning some matches.

VI. D.) So, I think that in some ways, this goal is a little bit contradictory with the previous one because the previous goal is more about breadth. The goal there is to play a lot of games and get a lot of different experiences under my belt so it is easier to say something interesting. This goal of being creative is more of a depth approach because to some extent it involves spending more time learning the systems of a specific game so it is possible to do something interesting. Also, again, while I want to put fun first, winning is a big part of the game. So while I will be content to win on lower difficulty settings, I do want to win sometimes. That takes time to learn the systems well enough to do that. There is also the issue that this approach is more restrictive in terms of the games that I will be seeking out. There are many interesting games that for whatever reason don't allow a whole lot of room for creativity although they may present interesting choices or have complicated narratives. Also, the previous goal is more about playing offbeat stuff that doesn't get as much coverage, but big games with a lot of scope are often quite popular.

VI. E) As to how easy it is do this in a fresh way, I feel it is another one for practice. There are very many people creating content about all sorts of strange and interesting ways of playing many games. So it might be challenging to find ways of doing something interesting. One possible solution is finding lesser known games that still have broad possibilities. Of course I am not trying to set the bar too high, and in some ways I think it is relatively easy to do something that suits me (such as playing Saladin) or something I haven't heard other people doing (like my Victoria 2 example). But as I practice and get more experience I hope I will develop more of a knack for coming up with original ideas.

VI. F.) So this is isn't something I have done much of in this blog so far. I did post my Taoist sage NPC but I haven't posted other examples really. I am not sure exactly how I will go about writing about this aspect of playing. But hopefully the method of explaining will come to me as I try out more ideas.

"Nobody Wants to Die" first play through

I played this game over the last three days. The game is a noir mystery story about New York City in the future when people can transfer their consciousness to a new body. The game opens with a case of a rich politician who died permanently due to damage to the substance / mechanism that allows this transfer to be done. (Usually people can be saved even after the death of their body).

I was feeling pretty hooked when I first jumped into it for a few reasons. The graphics and visual style of the game are a lot better than a lot of the games I play. Secondly, I had been playing "Lamplight City" before jumping into this and the contrast was pleasing because the writing in "Lamplight City" had felt kind of mediocre and safe. "Nobody Wants to Die" felt edgier right from the start.

So, overall, I felt mixed about this one. In some ways I quite liked it but in some ways I felt disappointed. I think the first cause of disappointment was just that it is quite short. I finished in under 6.5 hours and just three play sessions. I was hoping for something a bit more involved and substantial.

I think the biggest reason might be that I didn't get a very good ending. There seems to be some branching and various outcomes are possible. The ending I got wasn't very happy and it seemed to leave some things unresolved like specifically what happened to the murderer.

 I did like the story for the most part although it got a bit too psychological and head-trippy for me. There are definitely cliched elements but that is only to be expected in a story that bills itself as a "noir detective story". In some ways though the game felt a bit railroaded. It promises that your decisions affect the story but a lot of it felt pretty one-directional. I noticed afterwards that it bills itself as "an interactive story" which seems to place the emphasis on it as a narrative rather than as a game.

I thought the mechanics were interesting. There is a device that allows you to reconstruct past events. At first I was worried that using this was too complicated and I wouldn't be able to remember all the commands but I seemed to get the hang of it pretty quickly. (Part of this process seems a bit silly and doesn't make a whole lot of sense but it didn't bother me while playing. That is more what I thought afterwards.) But this is another aspect of the game feeling a bit one-directional. Basically it is constantly telling you exactly what to do and so in some ways the investigation mostly consists of following the cues that the game explicitly gives you about how and when to use the various gadgets. This is kind of mixed because it definitely reduces frustration with the process of investigating and allows for a more complicated narrative of the events to unfold but it also takes away a lot of the player's agency in the game. 

Another interesting aspect was the deduction board. I have played a number of different detective games and this aspect of forming specific conclusions from the evidence seems to be a difficult nut to crack. I have seen a number of different ways of handling this and none of them have really felt completely satisfying although they all have points in their favor. The deduction game in "Nobody Wants to Die" is interesting visually in that is played on any floor by setting up your device and then placing evidence "pieces" (they are presented very much like game pieces) on a board of hexagonal tiles. The pieces will be linked by lines. This process is kind of interesting but again, the game explicitly tells you when you are right and when you are wrong.

My main conclusion after finishing and writing some notes in my notebook about it was that it is begging me to play it again. It seems to really want me to try messing around with it and exploring some different options and to try to get a different ending. I want to do this to see how much variety is actually achievable and how much the story is predetermined. I am unsure though whether I want to jump right back in or wait awhile. There is a save file from near the end of the game that I can use to redo just that part. (The save system is an autosave that overwrites the previous save.) Or since the game is not that long (and it might go a bit faster the second time through). I could start again from the beginning.

As far as whether I recommend it or not, it is hard to draw a conclusion. I feel like I need to mess around with it more to figure out the whole of the game and whether additional playthroughs add enough value to make it worth the purchase price. ( I got it on sale for about 450 NT which is about 14 USD.) My feeling is that it is not worth the full price of over 20 USD.

 

 

Chrono Trigger Review

 *Disclaimer: I played most of the game on my own but very close to the end of the game I got stuck and resorted to a guide. I played the rest of the game with the guide. I got ready to fight Lavos after doing the side quests. I used the "crash the epoch" method to defeat Lavos' first manifestation, then I beat the second manifestation. I died on the third manifestation and realized I would have to redo the second manifestation every time I die on the third. So I haven't technically totally finished the game but I just don't seem to have much motivation left for this game.*

 *Disclaimer 2: This review was mostly written part way through at maybe like the 2/3s point. But after getting like 99% of the way to the end I still agree with everything.*

 *basically overall very mixed feelings. 5/10

+Bought and played because it seemed to get a lot of votes in a reddit thread that I found about what are the best jrpgs to start with. Since starting it I have come across a lot of references to it in "best" lists and youtubers mentioning it as a classic game that really want to get to some time. Also, I mentioned it on the weekend thread on RPS a couple of times and got some good responses. In some ways this has motivated me to play and made feel excited that I am engaging with the history of video games. This is my first real exposure to retro gaming and I think it was a pretty good place to start.

-at the same time, it has often felt like that motivation is kind of abstract. Sometimes I feel like if it wasn't for all that I wouldn't really be playing or sticking with this game. So there is a bit of disconnect between an abstract intellectual motivation and some kind of more direct engagement with the game.

+I have enjoyed playing enough to keep playing. That is just to say that if I really wasn't enjoying it I probably would have quit and moved on to something else.

-But at the same time, despite the fact that I do enjoy my time with it, it has sometimes been a struggle to get myself to pick it back up. I think part of this is just my own psychology as sometimes I just feel resistance to continuing with a game even when I am more engaged. For example, I was pretty into the Thaumaturge but there was still part of me that put up some resistance to continuing with and wanted to play some other things. But I also think with Chrono Trigger some of the mixed feelings have exacerbated that issue so I have gone a week or more between play sessions on several occasions.

+the characters and story have some interest. the story has had some twists and turns that helped to keep me engaged. The whole time travel thing is cool and gives some variety. Some of the characters have a bit of backstory that sort of makes them seem more interesting.

-at the same time, these things aren't really very fleshed out. For example the main character in the story is a total blank slate. There is no backstory to him and there are basically no dialogue options other than a couple of yes/no answers given at a couple of points. The other characters are a bit more interesting but not in any sense deep or complex. Modern rpgs give you a lot more chance to do some actual roleplaying with dialogue choices and story options. Characters also tend to be a lot more complicated and with moral ambiguity in modern rpgs. The story is also for the most part pretty straightforward in terms of there being a great evil that has to be defeated and you progress through without any kind of complications or wrinkles to that basic premise.

+the tone of the game is pretty upbeat and happy, there is a world ending apocalypse that has to be averted but the characters don't seem down about that. They are totally ready and willing to save the world. In some ways this is a nice change of pace from modern games that can sometimes be in your face about making you feel bad about how grim and dark everything is. The only one with any real trauma is the frog guy. But the heroes pretty quickly solve his problem and get him back on track with being a hero.

-but at the same time the tone feels kind of childish or bubble gummy so there is some lack of engagement compared with more sophisticated modern titles.

+the game is quite easy (up until the very end) which makes it easy to progress and continue the narrative. It is also possible to avoid a lot of encounters if you want to.

-While the Steam page for the game touts the fact that the encounter system allows you to skip most encounters this isn't quite true as there are plenty of places where you can't go through without dealing with the enemy in that area. Enemies also respawn every time you leave and come back so you have to deal with them no matter how many times you have been through that area. I often found myself being bored with encounters that posed no challenge and just seemed to be a time suck. Even most of the bosses I beat on the first try or only with one death and retry. gold is plentiful and shops have infinite supplies of the resources they offer. It is easy to get upgrades that are just a straight improvement over previous equipment.

+there is a bit of a nostalgia factor as it is from the same era as the original Final Fantasy game that I played and beat with my brother on the original NES. That has been kind of fun.

-at the same time that nostalgia factor isn't very strong and doesn't do much work in terms of carrying the game. 

+it works very well on the steam deck.

-depite the fact that I am playing a PC port it seemed impossible to play with keyboard and mouse.

+most of the stuff in the game is pretty intuitive

-the main exception is the save system. there are two kinds of saves, bookmarks and save files and they seem to be mutually exclusive. when you can do one you can't do the other. the bookmark system seemed to have some features of autosaves because there were some places where the game bookmarked for me. But this whole system makes no sense. The save points give rise to some interesting shenanigans that one Youtuber called (in a video that is not specifically about Chrono Trigger) the greatest evil a game could commit.

-another place that is not very intuitive are many of the side quests that you do at the end. If I hadn't used a guide I wouldn't have been able to do some of them and I would have missed out on key wrinkles even if I had progressed through them. This also kind of left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.

=Conclusion: I am glad that I played this but at the same time if wasn't for all the references to it as a classic game I probably would have given up on it. I am likely to think twice about retro gaming in the future. Part of it may be that I just am not a fan of JRPGs but I am not totally ready to throw in the towel on that score yet.

Playnite

 Recently I discovered a video game manager called playnite. Basically games have an icon in the software and you can launch them from it. One of the really cool things about it is that it can bring together all your games from multiple different sources. (I mean PC games). So basically I have games in Steam and from Epic. These are in separate launchers so if I want to browse my games I had to do that separately. One result of this was just that my Epic games tended to get less love because they are almost all free games even though there are some really good games and ones that were on my wishlist before I got them there. So now I can browse them all together which I feel is really cool. It can also bring games from many other launchers together. Best of all playnite is free.

At first I had gotten interested in GOG Galaxy. This is another piece of software that is also free. It is associated with another video game store. The great thing about this store is that when you buy games there you can download the actual installer and can play DRM free.  (With Steam you can play in offline mode but with the Epic launcher you have to be connected to the internet to play). GOG is also very committed to making old games work on modern computers and have committed to keeping games functional. So in a lot of ways I like the ethos of GOG. But the Galaxy software just doesn't work that great at unifying your library despite the fact that this is advertised as one of its main features. Basically it is difficult to get it to work to import the games and this functionality is entirely in the hands of the community rather than the actual developers at the company.

Playnite works much better in this regard. Another big advantage is that it is not tied to any specific storefront. It is just an open source project. One of the issues with these other launchers is that in a lot of ways they are designed to get you to spend money. They do this in one big way. When you open the program it immediately goes to the store page rather than to your library. With playnite because they are not selling anything it just brings up your library. So I may still need to access the other launchers particularly when actually installing the games. 

Basically, I want to freeze my spending on video games for a variety of reasons. I have plenty of games to last me a long time. My hope is that playnite will help me by cutting out the stores. Of course whether this alone will be effective remains to be seen but this is my hope.

I will say on the downside, I find the actual menus and navigating the software is not very intuitive. I hope that as I get familiar with it, it will start to seem less strange but it has been a bit of a challenge. Less so than getting the GOG integration to work but still. Something they could improve on.

Dwarf Fortress Documentary

Dwarf fortress is a real cult classic video game. It is one of the most intricate simulation games ever developed if not the most. Players create settlements for dwarves but everything down to the dwarves' eyelids are simulated in the game and can have dramatic effects. It has been developed almost exclusively by two brothers over decades. For a long time it was a free game and it used ASCII graphics (which means that everything is represented by a text character). At some point they overhauled it and created actual graphics and released on Steam (the ASCII version is still available for free I believe). The game was a hit and the brothers are set for life but continue to work on this project.

This Youtube channel called noclip made a single video about the developers and the game years ago that I watched at the time but just in these last few weeks they have released a four part documentary that delves a lot more into the personal lives of the creators although there is also a good amount of anecdotes about the game itself. I definitely recommend this video series. Like I said, it kind of slants more towards the personal lives of the creators so it should be pretty accessible to non-gamers.

Part One 

Part Two 

Part Three 

Part Four 

Fun and Discipline

 Sometimes I get pretty hipped on the idea of discipline being important in games. In these times it will seem like accomplishing something (like even just finishing the video games I start) requires some kind of discipline. This is because, getting my mind to focus on something over a longer span is like herding cats. It is just difficult for me to stay on task. I don't think I have ADD because I can focus on something for a few hours no problem. It is more when it comes to extending over several days, weeks, or months. I often try to set up projects like this and I really admire people who can follow through on stuff. I just seem to have some deep personality characteristic that prevents me from doing that most of the time. That is not to say it has never happened but those cases are definitely exceptions rather than the rule. So when I am feeling some stronger desire to accomplish things then the bugbear of discipline will crop up.

But after my previous post on this topic I got to thinking some more. And today on a walk I asked myself the question, "Why is discipline pleasing to the God of Games?" And when I put it that way I didn't really have a great answer. I had some general ideas like "Discipline means effort and all Gods appreciate effort on their behalf." That's not a terrible argument but it doesn't seem to really hit home about the God of Games. In that moment it seemed like "fun" is much more the operative virtue.

But then I have been thinking a bit about fun and discipline being opposite sides of a coin. Particularly with games. There is always discipline in terms of following the rules of the game you are playing. And when skill comes into question then there is definitely discipline. But at the same time, discipline without fun is drudgery.

 Then later I was thinking back to a triad that I had created that I could place games in the middle of. Fun, discipline, and creativity. I imagine these as the three vertices of a triangle. Games can be placed in the triangle according to their distance from each of the three vertices. So I was imagining something pretty simple and entertaining as occupying the fun angle. Basically simple games that you can enjoy without too much effort. Crazy eights would be one example but maybe also like candy crush or something. In the discipline angle would be games like chess and go. And in the creativity angle would be pencil and paper and imagination roleplaying games. But the cool thing is that really all of these have all three aspects. They aren't completely in one angle or the other. So there are elements of creativity in chess and go, and all games should have some fun aspect. And as I mentioned above, just following rules takes a small amount of discipline.

So really all three of those are pleasing to the God of Games. But somehow there seems to be some sense in which fun should predominate. But I think this comes down to your reasons for playing. Cho Chikun the great record breaking title holder in go said at one point that he hated go. I think I heard a quote from Tom Brady that playing in the NFL wasn't fun at all or something like that. If you are playing for a living and the pressure is on then maybe fun isn't even on the radar. But when you are an amateur like me then fun is the predominate thing.

I think that is why although I have a certain desire to try to make a living from games somehow there seems to be a sense in which I would prefer fun to be the main the consideration. A reviewer needs to review certain games regardless of how they are feeling. It becomes a job. In some ways professionals are admirable because they have knowledge and skill. But to some extent or another they have to make compromises with the spirit of fun.

But even amateurs are divided into people who really care about discipline and getting good, and other people who are more casual and willing to try things out that may not work in the name of fun. I think part of being a gamer is finding your place in that triangle I mentioned above. Some people are naturally more drawn to the creative aspects and some people are more drawn to discipline, and some people are more drawn to easy-going casual fun. Part of being a gamer is finding the mix of those three that you prefer.

That is why I kind of feel conflicted about naming one of the angles "fun". Because it seems like really fun is the specific synthesis of those three things that you enjoy. Of course one of the nice things about gaming is that there is such a wide variety so you don't have to always play the same kind of games. But there is clearly a sense in which people gravitate towards certain kinds of games.

I guess the answer is just that I am still in the process of finding my mojo or my niche. Of course it may vary. But I would like to find my main comfort zone.

Discipline

I've been thinking some more about the question of strategy in terms of approaching my hobby. But it has to do with life as well. Basically there are two parts, discipline and relaxation / cutting loose.

Basically the main issue is that what I need is discipline. I need discipline in all areas of my life. But in gaming specifically, I want to accomplish things, particularly finishing games. That takes discipline to face up to the challenges that I encounter along the way.

However, (and this is a big however), this is neither a binary switch nor a linear process. What I mean is that a lot of times when I think I need discipline I will set up some kind of schedule or goal or like pattern of behavior and then will go into it with the mentality that it is all or nothing. And even when I have recognized that it is a process I have gone into with the mentality that it is a linear process of constant improvement. I also tend to neglect the fact that I have a job and responsibilities and treat my hobby like it is the center most thing and then that it can be regimented.

The reality is that while I really do need greater discipline, I can't just flip a switch, and I can't just make a beeline for greater discipline, and I can't insist on all discipline all the time (particularly in my hobby).

So what this means is that while I think it is an ideal that I would pick one game, finish it, and move on. I think the reality is that there are going to be times when the whole "stick with one game" is going to need to give.

So, more specifically, I am dealing with Chrono Trigger. I want to finish this game but I felt stuck and I was really not wanting to jump back into it and this was causing me to feel some pretty negative feelings. So I did two things. Firstly I played some other games. I jumped into Satisfactory which I had been feeling some strong desire to play. I also jumped into some other games but without much expectation of sticking to them. Just trying them out. Secondly, I looked up some guides for Chrono Trigger and it seems that while the game had been pretty linear up to that point, it had suddenly gotten much more open with many options and I had chosen an option that was better saved for later. I hadn't even really realized that I was making a choice. I was still under the impression that I was just doing the next thing to be done and that is why it had been so frustrating that it suddenly seemed like a big difficulty wall. Some grinding may also be necessary, meaning I will have to fight some lesser enemies to build up my level and my stats. 

So reading about some of what lay between me and the goalpost had made me feel some desire to just give it up. And that is part of what had gone into writing the "April Strategy" post. But almost immediately I started to feel some sense of feeling lost and directionless that was one of the motivations to choose a stricter or more definite strategy in the first place.

So, my conclusion now is that I do need and want discipline, particularly in terms of finishing the games I start. But, I need to make room and have tolerance for deviations from that discipline. This is tricky because it operates in some middle ground and it is easy to lose steam with the process of developing discipline. But I think the trick is to not give up. There are going to be times when I am more on the relaxing side and maybe jumping around. I think partly there has to be some trusting myself. So, I am going to go back to my goal of finishing Chrono Trigger. I am just going to treat the last two weeks as a necessary break from the discipline goal.

 

Book Review: Works of Game

 I found this book because it is part of a series that I had read two other books from. The series is called "playful thinking" published by MIT press. I originally got interested because I had heard of Jesper Juul one of the editors and also an author of some books in the series and I was interested in reading one of his books. The other two books I have read in the series are "The Art of Failure" and "The Beauty of Games". I like this series because it takes on some interesting topics related to my interests in philosophizing about games but the books are meant to be "readable". I guess this means less of the academic jargon and stuff like that. I feel they achieve this goal in that they are pretty fun to read but also do a good job engaging with the issues. Overall I would say that I liked "Works of Games" less than the other two but still found it worthwhile and interesting to read.

Sharp is interested in bridging the gap between the worlds of modern art and games. The books is a series of case studies of different approaches to this project. He covers a number of specific artists and projects but places them in three groups. 

The first is what he calls "Game Art". In this section he discusses people who primarily identify as artists who use some game related material in projects that aren't themselves games. This includes things like taking still images from buggy games software and then displaying the images as art. Or a couple of projects where the artist hacked Super Mario Brothers to make a purposely pointless experience. 

The second category he calls "Artgames". These are games that meant to be played but that have some deeper significance that can be understood by playing them. Of these, "Braids" seems to be the one that is most clearly a game in a sense a gamer would understand. But the other games he considers are also clearly positioned as games although through various methods they are attempting to deal with issues that are deeper or more complex than we usually understand with games.

The third category is what he calls "Artists' Games". These are works that do seem to straddle the boundary better than the other two categories. They seem to be artistic experience projects. These are projects that are found in museums but that have a clear participatory aspect that does seem to resemble games. The art work seems to be the experience of playing the game rather than as in the first group more something that is passively experienced by the audience. They are however positioned more as art installations that seem to be experienced in museums and things like that. Some of these do seem to have significant gameyness to them in that they are actually played by the audience. 

In the conclusion, Sharp seems to be leaning toward this third category as his preferred means of crossing the divide although in some ways he seems to be relying on examples that fit a bit better into the second category.

So to start with what I liked about the book. I thought it was very different from "The Beauty of Games" in that it is much more interested in modern art and using that as an avenue to bridge to a much broader notion of game. This brings out a lot of stuff that I hadn't heard of or thought about before. So it was interesting in terms of broadening my horizons. I feel reading the book has made me more conscious of somehow interpreting games (particularly video games) and getting some meaning from them. It's a very different tack to my own approach to some of these issues. I feel in these ways it was an interesting and thought provoking read.

On the other hand, it's difference from some of my thoughts is also why I liked it less than the other two books. I am significantly less interested in modern art than Sharp seems to be. Both its theory and praxis. I think Sharp's project here is interesting and worthwhile but to some extent it very different to my approach. I am much more interested in games as a medium for meaning in their own right. I am less interested in what I see as the extreme fringes of game design and trying to play by the rules of modern art. I feel the other two books I read were more clearly written by gamers who were wanting to think about their experience. Sharp seems to be more of a theoretician. This is reflected in his use of terminology. I felt the other two books were pitched in a more popular tone. Sharp's book seems to have some of the academic fixation with terms such as his use of the term "affordances" and the terms he invents for the different categories.  I think he also seems to have more tolerance for work that slides into the sort of hamfisted social critique characteristic of a lot of academic work that seems very divorced from the concept of fun. Overall, I thought it was an interesting read but that it is going in a different direction from the one I am going in.

 

April Strategy

 So I have been reflecting a bit on my video gaming strategy and on what type of gamer I am. Basically it seems like in January I had a pretty good amount of fun and I played significantly more than either before or after. Since then I have kind of adopted a strategy of trying to focus on just two games at a time: a morning coffee puzzle game and a bigger game for the rest of the time. But this has resulted in me feeling more stress and playing less. So I think for April I am wanting to go back to a much looser strategy of just playing what I want.

I just feel like in some ways there is something really attractive about the whole idea of "FINISHING" games. Somehow there seems to be something kind of satisfying about that and part of me really wants to have a long list of games that I have played through entirely to the credits. I have been watching a bunch of videos from this guy Mortismal gaming on youtube and his deal is that he reviews rpgs mostly after he %100s them. What this means is pretty much doing everything there is to do. This includes the usual definition of getting all the achievements but also includes other stuff. I saw some comments where people suggested giving up this approach but his main answer is that this is just how he enjoys playing video games. And there is something really attractive about that from a "waste not, want not" kind of perspective. Like basically it seems like a sin to waste content. Somehow that just seems really intuitive. There is also some idea in my mind that this is how you "get good". You just cope with every challenge that comes your way in a straight beeline through everything and you will build up your skills.

But the reality that seems to come up in a variety of places is just that I just don't work like that. It is the same thing with chess. I constantly had the idea of like setting some plan or like schedule or like one book at a time, kind of thing. But the reality is that it just never worked.

So it just seems like in general I am just a person that likes to jump from thing to thing. That said, there have been times when I have gone pretty straight through something whether that is a chess book or a video game. I think I shouldn't make any hard and fast rules. So for example, I don't know that I really want to set up a challenge like I did for January where I am "supposed" to play something different every day. But we will just have to see how the month evolves.

I think the main issue here is just the "get good" problem. There is some part of me that really is attached to the idea of trying to "get good". I think there are various reasons for this. But part of me really feels there is some kind of connection between finishing things and getting good. So I think that to some extent I may have to give up that idea. I think I would like to focus more on having fun. But I feel like it is easier said than done. I am sure the idea that I need to be super skilled will pop up again later.

So I think I am kind of making a decision to relax some and basically not stress out. I am pretty much a novice in the world of video games, so I kind of just want to maybe chill out a bit and see where things take me. I do feel like the whole thing of sticking with a puzzle game and trying to work through the puzzles that stump me even if it takes a few days is generally more pleasurable than the other deal. So I might continue with that.

Hopefully one side effect will just be that I will have more to talk about on this blog.