Reading about Games

[aperson]

What on Earth are choice molecules and why should people talk about them?

 

According to Rules of Play choice molecules are a core concept in interactivity. A core concept! They are an "action > outcome" unit, as part of a long discussion of what "choice" is as part of an even longer discussion of what "interactivity" is.

 

To me this is inane. To each their own I suppose, but I think I have a pretty good idea of what "choice" is. Enough to make games and enough to understand the games other people have made. This is the sort of thing I'm referring to when I say this type of work is an attempt to be recognized as a pioneer - we already have words to describe "choice molecules" and action-outcome units: "choice" and "consequence." Those are perfectly good words that everybody already understands.

 

Calling choices and their consequences "choice molecules" is introducing pointless new jargon. The only upside is that if the language catches on then the authors of the book can be credited for it.

 

It's actually worse than that. If you say that "action > outcome" exist as paired units you're implying that each "choice molecule" is independent or at least separable, which is not how choice and consequence works. If you have two binary choices you could have three different outcomes that depend on how both choices were made. (A & B, A & !B, !A and !B ) So not only is it silly new lingo when we already have the plain English words to describe the same concept, it's a bad metaphor as well.

 

Harumph I say! Harumph!

[brkl]

Ah, okay. The index didn't have that working and it's barely mentioned in the book. I could only find it through Google Books. If you had talked about the action > outcome unit, I'd have caught on. 'Molecule' is a metaphor they use for it:

At the heart of interactive meaning is the action > outcome unit, the molecule out of which larger interactive structures are built.

That works for your point as well. You can separate iron molecules from other iron molecules, but if you split a hammer in two it's not useful for driving nails. Quoting directly from the book:

As the game progresses, each new moment of choice is a response to the situation onscreen, which is the result of a previous string of action > outcome unites. The seamless flow that emerges is one of the reasons why Asteroids is so much fun to play. Rarely are players aware of the hundreds of choices they make each minute as they dodge space rocks and do battle with enemy ships -- they perceive only their excitement and participation inside the game.

So unitary choices are not very meaningful, but meaning emerges from how the outcomes of previous choices affect the following choices. They go on to dissect the unit into five stages which can be used to analyse situations in any game. I'd forgotten that bit, so thanks for that, as it's potentially quite useful for me.

 

But the reason people go through the trouble of defining terms in books such as this is not to own them but to clarify how the terms are used in the work. There's a massive amount of terms that have different meanings in different fields. At least when I read about theories regarding learning and such, practically all books define the terms they use even if they are not introducing those terms. That's actually very useful, since few writers seem to conceptualize those terms in exactly the same way. 

[aperson]

I am perfectly willing to argue that "choice molecules" is clearly an example of obfuscatory jargon that conveys no new specific meaning and leave it to readers to agree or disagree. Quite honestly it sounds like parody.

 

Jargon can be useful. This jargon is not.

 

I hope that my flow of denotative molecules and the meaning lattice they have built sufficiently address your concerns. If not perhaps I can string together more meaning-conveyance units so that we can continue our bidirectional choice-molecular interactions.

[brkl]

No, I don't have any more energy to spare. Like I said, you aren't even referring to any term they actually use in more than passing reference. Rules of Play is perfectly plain in its wording so that criticism is baseless.

[osmosisch]

That's some impressive goalpost-moving and handwaving, aperson. You are very unpleasant to argue with, from what I've seen here.

[aperson]

That's some impressive goalpost-moving and handwaving, aperson. You are very unpleasant to argue with, from what I've seen here.

 

You seem to have confused insulting me with making with making a valid point. (About how unpleasant I am no less)

 

You really poked a lot of holes in what I said though! So congratulations on that.

[clyde]

Can you think of any metaphors that helped you visualize complex concepts aperson? I often use metaphors that might appear to be obfuscatory jargon to inspire me to think of the subject in a different vernacular. Thinking of birds as buildings asks me "Can they fly?" Of course it's an absurd question, but if I allot two minutes to the task of assuming that buildings have some equivalent to the wings of a bird and that I can figure out what it is, I often end up with an interesting observation that may inform a more practical solution.

I wonder if your attribution of a fame-motive to the authors has discouraged you to listen to some arguments that you may find useful or interesting.

[aperson]

Can you think of any metaphors that helped you visualize complex concepts aperson?

...

I wonder if your attribution of a fame-motive to the authors has discouraged you to listen to some arguments that you may find useful or interesting.

 

I don't think these are complex concepts. That's the problem. I think these are, for the most part, extremely simple concepts that are being dressed-up.

 

I would also say that metaphors are often obfuscatory. You see this all the time in forum discussions - someone uses an analogy that doesn't really work then everyone ends up arguing over the analogy. There are times when analogies are very handy of course, but they are often employed to extremely poor effect.

 

Metaphors are great when you take a difficult-to-understand concept and relate it to a well-understood one. I don't think why Asteroids is fun or how games are interactive are difficult concepts.

 

About the fame motive stuff - I've read most of these books on design because I was interested in them. It's only after I read them that I came up with this "fame motive" hypothesis. I don't think I had any reason to dismiss them a prioi.

 

Let me examine one passage in depth, in my typical "handwaving" manner:

 

As the game progresses, each new moment of choice is a response to the situation onscreen, which is the result of a previous string of action > outcome unites. The seamless flow that emerges is one of the reasons why Asteroids is so much fun to play. Rarely are players aware of the hundreds of choices they make each minute as they dodge space rocks and do battle with enemy ships -- they perceive only their excitement and participation inside the game.

 

First of all this is a needlessly complex way of describing why Asteroids is fun that conveys almost no meaning.

 

Second of all while it's jargon-based it's not precise, which is why it's a poor use of jargon. Choices in asteroids are not discrete. Modelling Asteroids as a series of discrete choices is very unwieldy. (Without getting into discussions about whether time is discrete etc...)

 

Third of all, there's no need to model Asteroids as anything, at least not in this manner. Asteroids is easily graspable. This is pretty useless to anyone familiar with Asteroids as well as anyone unfamiliar with it.

 

Fourth, and maybe most importantly, this is a terrible explanation of why Asteroids is fun. Almost any real-time game could be described as a series of "action > outcome units." Including ET and Superman 64. Asteroids is fun because of specific design decisions. It's fun because you need to shoot asteroids, but when you do that they split in two and the game becomes harder. It's fun because steering the ship is physics-based in a way that is hard to control but not in way that's frustrating.

 

This analysis of Asteroids is like saying that a movie is enjoyable in part because it's a series of individual frames that play in order to produce a coherent narrative. Rarely are watchers aware of the individual frames. Sure - on some level that does describe movies. But that's a poor base for the analysis or creation of movies, and also a pointless one for anyone familiar with the basics of movies. It might work as one paragraph in an introduction, but an entire book full of that sort of thing would be pretty silly.

 

 

Can you think of any metaphors that helped you visualize complex concepts aperson?

 

Sure.  For example comparing the cardinalities of integers and real numbers by imagining integers as the inch marks on an infinite ruler and the real numbers as the space in between.

[osmosisch]

You seem to have confused insulting me with making with making a valid point. (About how unpleasant I am no less)

 

You really poked a lot of holes in what I said though! So congratulations on that.

I did not call you unpleasant, nor was that my intent.

[Merus]

I'm with osmosisch, this aperson guy is not an interesting person to have an argument with. I enjoyed how he took osmosisch's statements about aperson's logical fallacies as a personal attack, thereby proving his point, but just look at that wall of text he's got there hanging on an out-of-context quote. He's not here to engage or discuss or learn anything, he's here to be the clever Dan, and those kinds of people tend to see no-one engaging with them as meaning they were right. I think if we ignore him, he'll get the self-proclaimed victory he wants and hopefully he'll rack off.

[clyde]

I'm with osmosisch, this aperson guy is not an interesting person to have an argument with. I enjoyed how he took osmosisch's statements about aperson's logical fallacies as a personal attack, thereby proving his point, but just look at that wall of text he's got there hanging on an out-of-context quote. He's not here to engage or discuss or learn anything, he's here to be the clever Dan, and those kinds of people tend to see no-one engaging with them as meaning they were right. I think if we ignore him, he'll get the self-proclaimed victory he wants and hopefully he'll rack off.

aperson answered my query in a satisfactory manner. Although their tone seems arrogantly dismissive, I enjoy passionate opinions enough to look past that.

If aperson saw osmosisch's comment as a personal attack, then it's good that they called it out. Imo, the intent of a perceived personal attack is not as important as the reception of it. aperson required a little clarification. I don't want to pick sides; I want to appreciate what everyone feels they can offer.

I think it's a good time to mention that I'm fond of input from every person on this forum. I can't think of a single member with more than five posts who hasn't provided me with an interesting observation that I would be incapable of witnessing without their willingness to share.

Also of note:

Sometimes I make a statement and then you all make a convincing argument. I'm lazy, so I don't enumerate the points you've changed my mind on, and I move on to additional concerns. This practice may lead some of you to believe that I'm being arrogantly dismissive, even though I'm listening and conceding points based on what I hear. If we were having coffee or beers together, you would see the agreement on my face. Text-based interactions have some weaknesses that I haven't yet trained myself to routinely address.

[aperson]

I'm with osmosisch, this aperson guy is not an interesting person to have an argument with. I enjoyed how he took osmosisch's statements about aperson's logical fallacies as a personal attack, thereby proving his point, but just look at that wall of text he's got there hanging on an out-of-context quote. He's not here to engage or discuss or learn anything, he's here to be the clever Dan, and those kinds of people tend to see no-one engaging with them as meaning they were right. I think if we ignore him, he'll get the self-proclaimed victory he wants and hopefully he'll rack off.

 

If I'm not here to engage or discuss why are my posts long, explanatory, and rooted in close textual reading? If you are here to discuss why aren't you actually discussing?

 

osmosisch didn't point out any logical fallacies. He said they existed but didn't bother to say what they were. In addition he said arguing with me was unpleasant. How am I supposed to interpret that? That I'm a very pleasant person but arguing with me is unpleasant because his keyboard is covered in acid and thumbtacks? "Your face in unpleasant to look at - no offense!"

 

kinds of people tend to see no-one engaging with them as meaning they were right.

 

I interpret people making garbage posts with no substance as meaning they aren't capable of making intelligent posts. Not quite the same thing.

 

How many garbage posts are you osmosich going to make under the guise of encouraging better discourse?

[aperson]

aperson answered my query in a satisfactory manner. Although their tone seems arrogantly dismissive, I enjoy passionate opinions enough to look past that.

 

 

As I have mentioned in other places that's just my writing style, I really mean nothing by it. Too many years of debate club in high school. Also I learned on this very forum that tone doesn't matter and in fact objections based on tone are "smarm." I'd have to double check but I'm pretty sure that Merus was my teacher on this subject! So I guess what I'm saying is - whatch your smarm! (Note: I'm not actually saying that!)

 

I admit to being dismissive of "Rules of Play" because frankly I think it's inane. I am not however dismissive of you, brkl, or anyone interested  in genuine discussion.

 

I am dismissive of thread shitters with nothing of substance to contribute - something I am never going to feel guilty about!

[Zeusthecat]

I am dismissive of thread shitters with nothing of substance to contribute - something I am never going to feel guilty about!

 

No, you have pretty much been dismissive to everyone on this forum that doesn't share the same opinions you do. Take a look around and you'll find that people around here maintain a certain decorum when arguing points and are careful not to present opinions as facts. You seem to be so convinced that you are right about everything that you don't even realize the distinction between what is your opinion and what is a fact. And since you like to use fallacies so much in your arguments, I assume they are an unfamiliar concept to you. Clyde provided an excellent chart in the Philosophy and Economics thread listing the most common logical fallacies. I recommend you read through these and hopefully it will give you a better understanding of why so many people are fed up with the way you carry yourself around here.

[TychoCelchuuu]

I think learning to make arguments without sounding like you think your interlocutors are idiots is a very valuable skill.

[Twig]

I think it's a good time to mention that I'm fond of input from every person on this forum. I can't think of a single member with more than five posts who hasn't provided me with an interesting observation that I would be incapable of witnessing without their willingness to share.

D'aww that's so sweet I love you too.

[prettyunsmart]

I think there's something to be said for being dismissive with some qualifications. It's one thing to say "that's just not what I'm interesting in reading about," and entirely another to say "that line of inquiry is worthless and anyone pursuing it is just engaging in intellectual masturbation." Many of us are interested in games for different reasons, and that is pretty awesome. 

 

EDIT: I may not always be the best at controlling the tone in my posts, but I hope I don't come across as condescending or smarmy. I only posted this to say that let's all embrace our differing interests in the medium and have a big group hug or something like that.

[aperson]

Take a look around and you'll find that people around here maintain a certain decorum when arguing points and are careful not to present opinions as facts. You seem to be so convinced that you are right about everything that you don't even realize the distinction between what is your opinion and what is a fact. And since you like to use fallacies so much in your arguments, I assume they are an unfamiliar concept to you.

 

 

1. Smarm.

 

2. I'm being lectured by someone who's idea of decorum is calling others ignorant idiots.

 

3. I'm perfectly aware of logical fallacies. Feel free to point some out rather than simple name checking them.

[TychoCelchuuu]

Someone whose idea.

[SilentBtAmazing]

I think learning to make arguments without sounding like you think your interlocutors are idiots is a very valuable skill.

This is pretty good advice for life, I would say.

Similarly, I have a friend who constantly harms his professional and personal relationships by not letting any inaccurate statement from anyone, in any context, pass by without a challenge. Add in that he argues in a way that rubs almost everyone the wrong way and it winds up as an actual impediment to his enjoyment of life.

Sorry to be so far off topic here but this is meant to be an oblique suggestion that maybe some of these recent threads could benefit from a higher dose of consideration and a willingness to walk away from some elements of a conversation if they either turn nasty or seem headed that way. Maybe I am off base but I see these forums as a place to engage in interesting discussion, not intellectually fence.

[Zeusthecat]

2. I'm being lectured by someone who's idea of decorum is calling others ignorant idiots.

 

Ad hominem. 

[aperson]

Someone whose idea.

 

Great post. Clearly you are my superior. You sure schooled me!

 

Ad hominem.

 

No. It's not ad hominem. It's pointing out hypocrisy.

 

Maybe the next time you find a wiki entry on fallacies you should try reading them? Why would I take your arguments seriously when you clearly don't believe them yourself? Keep calling for decorum while acting like a flaming moron - it's super effective.

 

Done whining yet?

[Gormongous]

 

No. It's not ad hominem. It's pointing out hypocrisy.

 

Maybe the next time you find a wiki entry on fallacies you should try reading them? Why would I take your arguments seriously when you clearly don't believe them yourself? Keep calling for decorum while acting like a flaming moron - it's super effective.

 

Done whining yet?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

 

Can we move on now? This used to be an interesting thread before people started shitting in it.

[aperson]

Can we move on now? This used to be an interesting thread before people started shitting in it.

 

 

Nope. Sorry, you don't get to post just a link as some sort of brainless rebuttal then try to get the last word in.

 

I discredited his position with "1, smarm." If you want to read a long rebuttal of his position go read that Gawker piece. (My rebuttal also serves to mock the idea of smarm. So many layers!) Separately I'm pointing out that he doesn't even believe the argument he's making. I'm going to assume (admittedly for no rational reason) that's he's really smart and has put a lot of thought into his position, and hence the fact that he doesn't believe it himself is reason for me not to believe it either. (Oh noes! An appeal to authority!!!)

 

You had the power to move on by posting something relevant to the topic at hand. Instead you decided to continue the shit posting. Only you have the power to prevent shit posting!

 

What's the name of the logical fallacy where people keep making shitty off-topic posts to try to score points? Argument ad typical internet dipshit? Sorry, my Latin's not the best. Or my English, as Tycho so devastatingly pointed out.

[Zeusthecat]

No. It's not ad hominem. It's pointing out hypocrisy.

 

Maybe the next time you find a wiki entry on fallacies you should try reading them? Why would I take your arguments seriously when you clearly don't believe them yourself? Keep calling for decorum while acting like a flaming moron - it's super effective.

 

Done whining yet?

Let me add that you are also using a red herring. Any ignorant/idiot comments I've made were never directed at anyone I was arguing with. What you are accusing me of is a misrepresentation of my argument.