i strongly believe this digital drug is not inherent to the form i love.

A CRT on top of a 90s PC (with floppy disk) showing the Trans Pride Flag

Happy International Transgender Day of Visibility!
We're everywhere and we're cool.

Here's the trans pride flag 🏳️‍⚧️ on a mid-90s Pentium running DOS.

But the creativity of others will always be embedded within a video game, as a video game has an inherently constrained set of choices, simply limited by the programming. What gets coded as possible and what doesn't is a realm of creative expression.

Of course.

Should be a popular opinion. Imagine hearing this for any other artform. "We did 400 test screenings for movies. Here are their mistakes!" Imagine how constraining that would be. What we'd lose from those taking risks.

Fascinating! Do you remember any specific examples? Any especially tragic?

A big draw of the game-design-by-A/B-testing type thinking is that it absolves you from having to form your own opinions & taste. It allows you to outsource the most difficult part of any creative endeavour: actually believing in your vision.

One of the under-stated signs that this is all a bubble and even the players know it is that they’re rushing to build data centres in places that make zero sense if you actually plan on operating a data centre. The Paluxy watershed just does not have the water supply, this is all smash-and-grab.

It's interesting to think about the myriad other minor differences in ability people have that end up being mostly irrelevant. But in a slightly different society, not being able to rotate a cow in your mind could become a source of daily struggle.

Soon we may very well know the answer to the question nobody is yet asking — "What if Steve Reich made games?"

Fell off the game dev wagon for a bit, but finally back on it with substantial progress made towards a refined version of my GMTK 2025 submission.

I await the day I make the next great Chu♥lip-like.

Gary Larson: In my cartoon I invented Cow Tools as a cautionary tale

Cows: At long last, we have created the Cow Tools from classic newspaper comic Cow Tools

A photo from a book that reads as follows: "Then they called us in for a notes meeting," Frost recalled. "I remember an executive taking a list of notes out of his pocket and saying, 'I've got some notes if you're interested,' and David said, 'No, not really," and the guy quietely put the list back in his pocket with a sheepish look on his face. That set the tone of, You wanted something different so don't screw it up! And they did very little meddling."

I've been reading David Lynch's biography "Room to Dream" and while it's full of little gems, this stands out as my absolute favorite story so far. For context, this is about the original pilot for Twin Peaks.

Okay genuinely curious. Has Metal Garden been what you would consider "commercially viable?"

There was an "influencer" who "went live" after being entombed for three days. But you kids probably haven't heard of him

Screenshot from the video game Deus Ex (2000). A man states "I'm a classic example of the individualist. I do better on my own." He is homeless.

The fiction informs the states, helps us decide which ones we pursue. It's what separates the "game over" screen from the "you win" screen. It creates the emotional response that keeps us playing. And I think it often goes unspoken for or merely assumed.

The fiction may simply be a goal/value system (i.e. you want to maximize points, that is good/virtuous).
It might be a way of dressing up game actions (i.e. you are not merely moving your mouse and clicking on things, but aiming a gun to kill enemies).
It might be an entire world and story.

If I had to expand the original "games are a set of non-linear states" definition, I would say that games are these non-linear states, with a "fiction" attached.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what you mean by it, but I don't think players conceive of games as a series of states. They suspend disbelief and buy into games as a contained reality. The reality is facilitated by mechanics, by the states, but also incorporates other aspects to create something new.

I think obviously the mechanics, states, goals are obviously important, but I think they almost crowd the room when it comes to discussion. Games are reduced to merely just their "states," which I think is both dry and can leave out the emotional aspects that actually engages players.

I think a lot of games discussion center so much on mechanics, states, goals, progression, completion, engagement, chasing victory. Yet what captures me about games is immersion, imagination, and the sensation of how a game feels, looks, sounds, in dimensions more broad than mere "satisfaction."

My relationship with (video) games have changed so much as I have gotten older, more tired, and interested in different things. Lots of games no longer appeal to me. New games appeal to me in ways they never have before. And in some old favorites, I have been taken in by totally different elements.

This really resonates with me.

That's how it is to develop and refine any theory. Painful, but I don't know any alternatives so far!

I know that for myself I love video games, and have little interest in games more broadly. I don't tend to get hung up on these sorts of questions when I think about and develop video games, so it is worth asking if you need to as well.

I think video games (or computer games) are a class of "thing" distinct from merely games. They share a name and lots of attributes, but some things are unique to each class. So are you asking this question as somebody interested in critiquing and making games, video games, or both?

Same energy as "great acting appreciation" is used more often for loud scenes, like character meltdowns and other sorts of screaming, and less often for subtle and silent facial and body acting that communicates volumes.

We can tell you have talent. We want to encourage you!