He did say "kind of"

The Everway RPG's tarot deck

I am an 80's dork RPG player

Yep, you got me 🙂

🙂🙌

It reminds me of the blips in Space Hulk 🙂

Every night in my dreams, I see you, I feel you
That is how I know you go on
Far across the distance and spaces between us
You have come to show you go on
Near, far, wherever you are...

That was my first thought too!

Also, don't start at 1. Start at 2, 3 or 5.
The difference between 1 and 2 is too big.

Data levels of abstraction

1: Good. Creates categories that can add depth to gameplay (e.g. alert behaviors, water-based enemies)

2: Rare. For innovative or very complex systems (e.g. transient or entity-altering categories).

3: Over-engineered unless game exposes level 2 to the player.

Why do you ask?

One rattle after another

I should really oil it

I think it's about the weight of having individual thoughts once you've basked in the hive.
It's painful but it's the only way through.

The Bizarre World of Fake Video Games YouTube video by Super Eyepatch Wolf

There are two great videos of his on this topic: youtu.be/Q8GnM5xD1k4

Yodel is "vibe rato"

My instinct is to adopt the opposite strategy: build a LLM on a game's world model.
The challenge being decribing a world in operative terms that both make sense for a LLM and can be interacted with using such an interface.
The way LLMs are built right now makes interating toward this a nightmare.

Salamander getting out of the puzzle:

A reptile disjunction

Less funny in Dutch ;)

You learn the limits of the model of a game through the failure of your epistemic actions.
Interactions with LLMs never clearly fail.
Ergo, you can never master such a game to the point that you have a genuine feeling of agency.

Good for psychedelic/poetic rides, bad for games.

Not at all!
It was fun to reminisce :)

It was the "intriguing" part in the first post I responded to.

I try very hard to not mansplain ;)

Oh! I thought you didn't know about these games.
Yeah, my memory is fuzzy too, but I do remember some frustrating timing puzzles from Space Quest.

Indeed :)

In those games, most enemies were location-based. You had to be in a certain part of the screen to be affected, often somewhere you wanted to go. The puzzle was how to distract or disable the enemy, or how to avoid it with the right tempo.

It's drawing as fast as the computer was able to do it at the time :)
This kind of games taught you to really think whether you had done all you wanted to do before changing screen.

The Score by C. Thi Nguyen: 9780593655658 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books “Mind-expanding . . . The Score is so exuberant and readable that the depth and seriousness of its insights almost sneak up on you.” —Jennifer Szalai, The New York Times “Brilliant...

"We need infrastructures of art and infrastructures of play."

It's stunning when someone can express your life's purpose in one sentence, at the end of an eloquent and often joyous book.
Thanks @add-hawk.bsky.social

www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/735252...

BOUBA IS YOKE

Oh, I see.
It's the meal that's happy.
Common mistake.

It's already hard enough to learn games just by playing them.

Some games are about obfuscation of the underlying model so that enchanting discoveries can be made.
Most of the time, though, you want to empower your players by letting them deeply interact with the game's model without needing a layer of interpretation where mistakes can happen.

And E. Coli should be "echo lie"

You'll probably like Shroud too then :)
(but you can wait a bit since it's also a first contact story)