Here is an interesting post about an odd "screen saver" game I'm definitely going to try. I won't like it - as mentioned, I'm no extrovert - but I do want to see it.
This is interesting for another reason: people can't communicate meaningfully about the outside world in game. They can only communicate via glyphs, and even that is limited, as far as I can tell, to having your name glyph pasted above your head.
You may have noticed that games tend to adopt "real world" influences. For example, various comics have guilds in various MMORPGs. Similarly, popular/famous people receive a large amount of attention, even if they don't want to. This is also true of forums, which are in many ways based on the same kind of social interaction as a MMORPG.
However, in the Endless Forest, they cannot organize by these outside world principles. They can't say, "I love your comic!" because there's no words for comic, and probably no words for any of the other concepts in the sentence.
So, if you're famous in the "real world", and they connect that with your in-game presence, you'll see an unusually large number of deer... but the lack of communication means the magic circle will remain unbroken. "Role playing" is forced on you by language limitations.
The intrinsic problem is that limiting the communication limits the interaction - by definition. Interaction is the heart blood of most MMOGs. There's certainly some room for low-interaction MMOGs like Endless Forest, but most games want communication.
What I'm thinking is a wholly different kind of communication:
What if you never even met the other players? Like Spore, this would be a "massively single-player game". But you could affect the world. By planting trees, or building buildings, or diverting streams. When you are away from any place you've modified, other players can walk in and see your modifications. And "communicate" by making more modifications.
The difficulty, here, is that there's so little interaction that there's very little sense of "feedback". The world would be interesting to roam in, but things like "guilds" and "team play" would be practically unknown. I suppose it could be supported by a vast out-of-game forum, but that would introduce "impurities".
Hmm.
Well, the idea is very interesting... a kind of dream-world MMOG. But the interaction level is too low. I wonder how it could be made stronger without ever allowing two players to communicate in text.
I suppose everyone could just be mute, and there would be no way to determine what player was which account...
Hm.
Interesting thought experiment.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Fortune Cookies
The local takeout Chinese food restaurant gives out fortune cookies. The brand?
"foookies"
I'm trying to figure out whether that's a horrible brand name... or an awesome one.
"foookies"
I'm trying to figure out whether that's a horrible brand name... or an awesome one.
Data Representation
I'm big on data representation, and I've posted on this matter before.
Being able to analyze large amounts of diverse data is growing ever more critical, especially since our level of specialization means we're going to have ever more complex foreign data to analyze.
The real key to this is adaptive displays, which is pretty obvious. From the same data set, you want to be able to extract the relevant data and display it in the most useful way for any given member of the audience.
The most obvious use of this is data compression. Extremely lossy data compression backed up by nonlossy secondary queries. In the same way that you only read the threads on a forum that you find interesting, you don't need a lot of data to tell whether something is worthwhile to you.
For example, del.ico.us allows you to bookmark things you think are cool. Such a system would be absolutely perfect for this niche if it let you do one thing differently:
Rate other del.ico.us users.
This is a private rating - nobody else gets to see it. However, what this ends up doing is passing you "important" links. For example, if I like Sue at 5, Bob at 3, and Larry at 2, then everything Sue bookmarks will be popped over to me, but in order for a Bob or Larry bookmark to reach me, it has to be bookmarked by someone else as well.
This propagates. People who Sue rates highly get "shadow points", and unless that feature is turned off, their bookmarks will occasionally reach me as well. So, if Sue likes David and Bufbug, and one of them bookmarks the same thing as Larry, it gets passed to me as a likely point of interest.
There are better ways to do it, but this way would require a fairly small change to del.ico.us, rather than an entire rewrite.
:)
Being able to analyze large amounts of diverse data is growing ever more critical, especially since our level of specialization means we're going to have ever more complex foreign data to analyze.
The real key to this is adaptive displays, which is pretty obvious. From the same data set, you want to be able to extract the relevant data and display it in the most useful way for any given member of the audience.
The most obvious use of this is data compression. Extremely lossy data compression backed up by nonlossy secondary queries. In the same way that you only read the threads on a forum that you find interesting, you don't need a lot of data to tell whether something is worthwhile to you.
For example, del.ico.us allows you to bookmark things you think are cool. Such a system would be absolutely perfect for this niche if it let you do one thing differently:
Rate other del.ico.us users.
This is a private rating - nobody else gets to see it. However, what this ends up doing is passing you "important" links. For example, if I like Sue at 5, Bob at 3, and Larry at 2, then everything Sue bookmarks will be popped over to me, but in order for a Bob or Larry bookmark to reach me, it has to be bookmarked by someone else as well.
This propagates. People who Sue rates highly get "shadow points", and unless that feature is turned off, their bookmarks will occasionally reach me as well. So, if Sue likes David and Bufbug, and one of them bookmarks the same thing as Larry, it gets passed to me as a likely point of interest.
There are better ways to do it, but this way would require a fairly small change to del.ico.us, rather than an entire rewrite.
:)
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
I wonder...
I wonder how much my being subscribed to Darius' del.ico.us stream changes his likelyhood of adding one of my posts to that stream...
Carnivores
A lot of people like the idea of a "singularity", or other, similar theories.
Personally, I love the idea. But there is something to remember:
99% of humanity isn't interested in participating.
This creates one hell of a drag! As far as I can see, there are only three ways a "singularity" could occur. On the plus side, I can't see many ways in which a singularity will fail to occur - just ways in which it can be pushed forward and back.
1) The early adopter curve. In theory, a singularity could be steadily "adopted" in. The way the internet has been. This would probably take 20 years per "stage", plus an additional 20 years. However, I don't see this as very likely when compared to the other options.
2) A biological upgrade. The reason there's so much cultural drag is because the majority of people are against changing. Offer eternal youth, that 99/1 ratio becomes a 1/99 ratio. Given the remarkable advances in biotech, this is plausible. However, given society's behavior about such research, it would be akin to an act of sheer anarchy to provide it. If this route is followed, human society would utterly collapse and be rebuilt in less than twenty years.
3) Carnivores. This is the way I see as most likely. Carnivores don't much care about bringing humanity out of their ancient ways. Instead, we - uh, I mean, they - utilize existing human infrastructure to fund our future, thanks to our vastly improved ability to manipulate it. The end result from the human side is "business is good"... but the end result from our side is "thanks for the space ship, see you never." The end result is an obsolete, languishing humanity watching the ever-growing exploits of their children, who may be in space or might stay on earth. Please note, this is compatible with type (2), if type (2) bioadvances are restricted, either by law or by cultural norms.
The idea of intelligence amplification and artificial intelligence are entirely type 3. Most of humanity won't get amped. That's even more true if it's an AI, rather than a human, doing the thinking. I hold that true AI is inevitable, but my short-term bet is on IA, which is happening as we speak. As you read this blog, for example.
The final thought here is a bit unsettling:
All your "learning" is useless, save as practice. What you need to do is adopt practices which increase your capacity for learning and cogitating. You can expand your "vision" by, say, reading really good blogs, but that doesn't actually increase your capacity above what the intellectual excersize provides.
Increase your capacity by using all the methods you can find. For example, making friends with geniuses is a great way to increase both your and their intelligence. Unfortunately, this is still very difficult on the internet due to a lack of peer pressure. Keeping extensive and well-networked data records is another way to increase your intelligence, as is subjecting yourself to extensive memetic control (also known as "reading something incredibly inspiring every day").
To expand your intelligence in the "correct" direction requires you to know what direction you're expanding in.
I'm still working on that bit...
But if you don't think of your mind as a device that can be improved, you're really missing out. Whatever your intellectual capacity, it can be shoved through the roof if you try.
Don't think about acting. Act about thinking. Then thinking about acting will be so much easier!
Personally, I love the idea. But there is something to remember:
99% of humanity isn't interested in participating.
This creates one hell of a drag! As far as I can see, there are only three ways a "singularity" could occur. On the plus side, I can't see many ways in which a singularity will fail to occur - just ways in which it can be pushed forward and back.
1) The early adopter curve. In theory, a singularity could be steadily "adopted" in. The way the internet has been. This would probably take 20 years per "stage", plus an additional 20 years. However, I don't see this as very likely when compared to the other options.
2) A biological upgrade. The reason there's so much cultural drag is because the majority of people are against changing. Offer eternal youth, that 99/1 ratio becomes a 1/99 ratio. Given the remarkable advances in biotech, this is plausible. However, given society's behavior about such research, it would be akin to an act of sheer anarchy to provide it. If this route is followed, human society would utterly collapse and be rebuilt in less than twenty years.
3) Carnivores. This is the way I see as most likely. Carnivores don't much care about bringing humanity out of their ancient ways. Instead, we - uh, I mean, they - utilize existing human infrastructure to fund our future, thanks to our vastly improved ability to manipulate it. The end result from the human side is "business is good"... but the end result from our side is "thanks for the space ship, see you never." The end result is an obsolete, languishing humanity watching the ever-growing exploits of their children, who may be in space or might stay on earth. Please note, this is compatible with type (2), if type (2) bioadvances are restricted, either by law or by cultural norms.
The idea of intelligence amplification and artificial intelligence are entirely type 3. Most of humanity won't get amped. That's even more true if it's an AI, rather than a human, doing the thinking. I hold that true AI is inevitable, but my short-term bet is on IA, which is happening as we speak. As you read this blog, for example.
The final thought here is a bit unsettling:
All your "learning" is useless, save as practice. What you need to do is adopt practices which increase your capacity for learning and cogitating. You can expand your "vision" by, say, reading really good blogs, but that doesn't actually increase your capacity above what the intellectual excersize provides.
Increase your capacity by using all the methods you can find. For example, making friends with geniuses is a great way to increase both your and their intelligence. Unfortunately, this is still very difficult on the internet due to a lack of peer pressure. Keeping extensive and well-networked data records is another way to increase your intelligence, as is subjecting yourself to extensive memetic control (also known as "reading something incredibly inspiring every day").
To expand your intelligence in the "correct" direction requires you to know what direction you're expanding in.
I'm still working on that bit...
But if you don't think of your mind as a device that can be improved, you're really missing out. Whatever your intellectual capacity, it can be shoved through the roof if you try.
Don't think about acting. Act about thinking. Then thinking about acting will be so much easier!
Relative Perception and How We Act
Relative perception can be used for designing games, casinos, and web pages, sure. I have found it to apply to a much wider range of things, however.
Here is a blog entry. It's just a blog about how to be rich - same advice as everyone else on the matter - but this particular entry is interesting. It's about barriers, and how to deal with them. And use them.
Barriers are very much a relative perception concept, as my post here shows. The act of removing or creating barriers to change your daily life is simply an application of relative perception.
Don't want to watch TV? Don't have a TV around. Obviously, right? However, most people think like this: "I'll just watch less TV." They should be thinking like this: "I need to get rid of the TV," because the human mind is shaped by its environment. Controlling your environment is the first step into controlling your mind, and it's easy to understand which parts of your environment need to be modified if you think in terms of relative perception.
Darius is running a series on networking, which you can find here. Darius is the best networker I know, so the series should be very high quality. My point here is that networking is a simple application of relative vision: Darius is shaping his environment by exposing himself to as much up-and-coming mojo as he can.
This not only puts him in the "in" crowd, it shapes him into a more successful person personally: when you know and are measuring yourself against successful people, you will push yourself harder than if you weren't. This will make you more successful even if your goals and resources are exactly the same.
You navigate the patterns which are avilable to you. Every pattern you can sense exerts a pressure on you, depending on how well you understand that pattern and how much emotion you've invested in it.
----
That was the ending. This is an appendix.
I'm far more brutal than Darius. At least, if he's as brutal as I am, he hides it better than I do. But, that said, his lesser brutalities are on a scale I can't hope to match.
What do I mean? I had better explain, since he'll probably read this.
I'm talking about networking.
You only network with people you think have a future. Or, I suppose, you think are of some use to you. You don't network with the naive kid, you don't network with the "losers" - however you choose to judge it. They suck up time and often money, without offering any possibility of anything of value in return.
My discarding of people I don't see any reason to associate with is quick, pre-emptive, and thoroughly brutal. However, I don't really meet very many people I need to disassociate myself from, so it's relatively rare to see me perform my "asshole dance". I'm sure if you keep your eyes on this blog, you'll see it eventually.
Darius, on the other hand, is a networker who meets hundreds of people every time he goes to anything. He makes friends with a very specific subset and "discards" the rubbish. Unlike me, he doesn't actually discard them, he simply never approaches them or brushes them off when they approach him. Man, he's more patient than me. Still, even if they don't realize it, they have been judged and found wanting.
Both of our behaviors can be easily explained using relative perception.
We are both expanding our vision. Imagine your brain is a casino, and each thought and opportunity is a customer to your casino. Every contact, every friend you have, is a slot machine or other gambling device.
The thing is, not all slot machines are equal. Darius and I, along with 99% of everyone else out there, want to use the best slot machines we can find. We want our thoughts and opportunities to put their quarter in, pull the lever, and get a rush of money.
If a slot machine has a shitty chance of paying off, we won't use it. The only reason we would ever have it would be for ambience.
Darius has a lot of slot machines, and is constantly acquiring more.
I, on the other hand, don't much like to gamble. Therefore, I don't go looking for slot machines. Occasionally, someone comes to peddle me one. 99% of the time, it's someone trying to peddle me one with really bad odds.
Therefore, I take preventive measures. It isn't worth my time. Darius has a different set of priorities, so he doesn't have to take preventive measures.
That's the way it works. I can even show you the math. :)
Here is a blog entry. It's just a blog about how to be rich - same advice as everyone else on the matter - but this particular entry is interesting. It's about barriers, and how to deal with them. And use them.
Barriers are very much a relative perception concept, as my post here shows. The act of removing or creating barriers to change your daily life is simply an application of relative perception.
Don't want to watch TV? Don't have a TV around. Obviously, right? However, most people think like this: "I'll just watch less TV." They should be thinking like this: "I need to get rid of the TV," because the human mind is shaped by its environment. Controlling your environment is the first step into controlling your mind, and it's easy to understand which parts of your environment need to be modified if you think in terms of relative perception.
Darius is running a series on networking, which you can find here. Darius is the best networker I know, so the series should be very high quality. My point here is that networking is a simple application of relative vision: Darius is shaping his environment by exposing himself to as much up-and-coming mojo as he can.
This not only puts him in the "in" crowd, it shapes him into a more successful person personally: when you know and are measuring yourself against successful people, you will push yourself harder than if you weren't. This will make you more successful even if your goals and resources are exactly the same.
You navigate the patterns which are avilable to you. Every pattern you can sense exerts a pressure on you, depending on how well you understand that pattern and how much emotion you've invested in it.
----
That was the ending. This is an appendix.
I'm far more brutal than Darius. At least, if he's as brutal as I am, he hides it better than I do. But, that said, his lesser brutalities are on a scale I can't hope to match.
What do I mean? I had better explain, since he'll probably read this.
I'm talking about networking.
You only network with people you think have a future. Or, I suppose, you think are of some use to you. You don't network with the naive kid, you don't network with the "losers" - however you choose to judge it. They suck up time and often money, without offering any possibility of anything of value in return.
My discarding of people I don't see any reason to associate with is quick, pre-emptive, and thoroughly brutal. However, I don't really meet very many people I need to disassociate myself from, so it's relatively rare to see me perform my "asshole dance". I'm sure if you keep your eyes on this blog, you'll see it eventually.
Darius, on the other hand, is a networker who meets hundreds of people every time he goes to anything. He makes friends with a very specific subset and "discards" the rubbish. Unlike me, he doesn't actually discard them, he simply never approaches them or brushes them off when they approach him. Man, he's more patient than me. Still, even if they don't realize it, they have been judged and found wanting.
Both of our behaviors can be easily explained using relative perception.
We are both expanding our vision. Imagine your brain is a casino, and each thought and opportunity is a customer to your casino. Every contact, every friend you have, is a slot machine or other gambling device.
The thing is, not all slot machines are equal. Darius and I, along with 99% of everyone else out there, want to use the best slot machines we can find. We want our thoughts and opportunities to put their quarter in, pull the lever, and get a rush of money.
If a slot machine has a shitty chance of paying off, we won't use it. The only reason we would ever have it would be for ambience.
Darius has a lot of slot machines, and is constantly acquiring more.
I, on the other hand, don't much like to gamble. Therefore, I don't go looking for slot machines. Occasionally, someone comes to peddle me one. 99% of the time, it's someone trying to peddle me one with really bad odds.
Therefore, I take preventive measures. It isn't worth my time. Darius has a different set of priorities, so he doesn't have to take preventive measures.
That's the way it works. I can even show you the math. :)
Koster and Emotion
So, Koster and Bateman are having a friendly non-conversation on their respective sites.
I'm interested because they're talking about Koster's theory, which is similar to mine in most respects. But, you know, I'm just about the only commenter on their posts, which makes me feel very nervous. There should be dozens of designers and would-be designers reading and posting - both Koster and Bateman have written well-respected books on game design. Bloglines shows them as being astonishingly non-popular, with no more subscribers than me.
I don't know what's going on - maybe they're just terrifically bad at getting people to notice their blog. But since it makes me uncomfortable, I'm not going to start up a conversation in their commentary.
Here is one of Koster's most recent posts. You can read the post, if you like, but my interest is in the comments, where it's just me and Koster.
I'm big on emotion. Koster says he just kind of takes it for granted because it's obvious.
Obvious or not, it is an integral part of making any game design - or, in fact, any kind of design at all. What the player has invested in a given system will determine what kind of depth and detail he will want out of that system.
For example, Machine City has a lot of side information you can get. People who enjoy the genre, people who like RPGs - these people will want to read that information and will have an almost unlimited capacity for it, paced properly. On the other hand, a lot of players don't like that sort of thing, and will be irritated and bored if I force it on them.
This is one of the core tenets of Pattern Adaptation Control. You want to use patterns which affect the player strongly, and to do that you need to measure what kind of play they like.
As you can see, my whole approach orbits around emotion and interest.
But I don't think I'll clutter up their commentary with posts of this type. After all, they have no investment in me or my ideas, so they are unlikely to have much interest in reading them.
I'm interested because they're talking about Koster's theory, which is similar to mine in most respects. But, you know, I'm just about the only commenter on their posts, which makes me feel very nervous. There should be dozens of designers and would-be designers reading and posting - both Koster and Bateman have written well-respected books on game design. Bloglines shows them as being astonishingly non-popular, with no more subscribers than me.
I don't know what's going on - maybe they're just terrifically bad at getting people to notice their blog. But since it makes me uncomfortable, I'm not going to start up a conversation in their commentary.
Here is one of Koster's most recent posts. You can read the post, if you like, but my interest is in the comments, where it's just me and Koster.
I'm big on emotion. Koster says he just kind of takes it for granted because it's obvious.
Obvious or not, it is an integral part of making any game design - or, in fact, any kind of design at all. What the player has invested in a given system will determine what kind of depth and detail he will want out of that system.
For example, Machine City has a lot of side information you can get. People who enjoy the genre, people who like RPGs - these people will want to read that information and will have an almost unlimited capacity for it, paced properly. On the other hand, a lot of players don't like that sort of thing, and will be irritated and bored if I force it on them.
This is one of the core tenets of Pattern Adaptation Control. You want to use patterns which affect the player strongly, and to do that you need to measure what kind of play they like.
As you can see, my whole approach orbits around emotion and interest.
But I don't think I'll clutter up their commentary with posts of this type. After all, they have no investment in me or my ideas, so they are unlikely to have much interest in reading them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)