For less
recent
fare,
consult the
archives
at left.

A note to the Curmudgeon

Okay, game history 101 here.

  • Woz created Breakout. He then went on to create the Apple line of computers.
  • Nishikado took Breakout and extrapolated it into Space Invaders.
  • After Ed Logg updated Breakout into Super Breakout, he took SpaceWar! and extrapolated it into Asteroids.
  • Asteroids and Space Invaders each has more of an overt narrative structure than its predecessors. In the former there is a complex and ever-shifting set of goals and a gameworld that changes with every decision the player makes. In the latter there is a distinct, inevitable progression toward a story-based conclusion. These two models effectively shape the American and Japanese schools of design, the former eventually leading to the open-ended, procedural, and sandbox design we see over here and the latter leading through Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, and Super Mario Bros., to the linear, controlled design we tend to see over there.
  • Yeah, the whole deal with Activision and Electronic Arts was that they were positioning their designers as individual authors. That was the focus of their advertising campaigns. The whole premise of Activision was that authors wanted individual credit. The whole premise of EA was, well, right in the company’s name. They packaged their early games like records, and publicized their authors like rock stars.

If you can’t follow along, that’s your fault. Not mine. So back the fuck off.



The Nose Before Your Face

by Eric-Jon Rössel Waugh

Part eight of my ongoing culture column; originally published by Next Generation, under the title “The Value of Simplicity”.

So lately we’ve been swinging back toward thinking about games as a medium of expression. It’s not a new concept; way back in the early ’80s, companies like Activision and EA put all their energy behind publicizing game designers like rock stars – or better yet, like book authors – and their games as unique works by your favorite authors. This all happened just after figures like Ed Logg and Toshihiro Nishikado started to extrapolate Pong and SpaceWar!, incorporating more overt narrative frameworks and exploring more elaborate ways of interacting with the gameworld. From this initial explosion of creativity came Steve Wozniak and the Apple II, providing an easy platform for all of the early Richard Garriotts and Roberta Williamses and Dan Buntens to come.

Then stuff happened, particularly though not specifically the crash; the industry changed in focus. On the one hand we had ultra-secretive Japanese companies that – like Atari before them – usually didn’t credit their staff for fear of sniping and for the benefit of greater brand identity; on the other, what US companies remained tended to inflate beyond the point where small, expressive, intimate games were economically feasible. And then there’s just the issue that, as technology grew more complex, design teams grew larger and larger, making it harder for any one voice to stand out, leading to more of a committee-driven approach.

( Continue reading )



Missed this when it happened

Hey, seems Trip got annoyed at Jamdat’s GDC speech, too. Of course, much of the reason he’s annoyed is that he’s now forced to compete with EA. Still, this is getting fun.



Desktop Graffiti

Windows should have an option to “tag” every file (much like blog posts), to allow a person to immediately rifle through and find every related and relevant file on one’s hard drive, wherever it might be stored.



Not starting a debate; just observing.

In essence, to suggest that there’s free will is to suggest that there’s objectively more to us than the matter and energy we’re built out of. As special and wonderful and complex as our systems are, I don’t really see much basis for the conclusion that we’re somehow removed from the causal framework that involves and guides all the other masses in the universe. All our matter and all our energy comes from somewhere. True, it’s gotten to be where it is through a set of reasons so complex as to be untraceable; still, unless you start throwing in something mystical that elevates us above the material plane, that’s pretty much all we’ve got to work with.

That said, there’s not much we can do about the situation, mind, body we’re handed other than the best we can. As it turns out we’ve been wired to be generally curious, self-checking entities with the capacity to make decisions based on a complex web of personal biology, experience, reason, and current circumstances. That we’re wired this way for a reason, and that to an extent our choices would seem to be inevitable based on the infinitely complex circumstances behind them, shouldn’t be taken as damning or directive, as those circumstances are so complex and so much of them is outside our conscious control that really for practical purposes “free will” is as good a sketch as any. It’s that abstraction that makes us people, rather than a bunch of polygons depicting gritty reality.

Lack of control over lack of control doesn’t exactly equal self-control. I guess it’s close enough for practical purposes, though.

EDIT:

Not necessarily. There are plenty of philosophies of free will that are based off of the inherent randomness of quantum mechanical shit. I don’t know how valid they are, and while it is most likely the case, I don’t think it’s completely safe to say that the laws of the universe would prohibit free will from existing (seeing as how we do not, you know, fully understand the laws of the universe).

That’s an interesting point: subatomic wacky shit.

I don’t see where that really ties into human psychology, though, where all our decisions do have some basis, conscious or not. I don’t know if anyone’s capable of acting completely randomly. Even flipping a coin and following its result is a deliberate decision. Hell, it’s more deliberate than a lot of decisions we make.

Though the subatomic wacky shit might well play some role in the mechanics of consciousness; getting this stuff running at all. That’s a pretty strange phenomenon itself.