What’s the difference between “practice” and “performance”?

Just to throw out some basic definitions for the purpose of this post: Both words refer to performing some sort of activity that requires skill. It could be playing the piano, writing a webcomic, programming, whatever. “Practice” is when someone performs an activity primarily for the purpose of increasing their skill. “Performance” is when someone has another specific purpose in mind—Perhaps this activity is something they do for money, like a professional musician playing at a club. Perhaps it’s a skill exercised as part of their job, like a software developer writing a program, or perhaps they are creating some work, like writing a novel. (Notably, creating something is a “performance” that results in a tangible product, like a story that may be sold.)

How does one practice a skill? By performing it, mostly. Sometimes there are drills or exercises that are used for practice but are unlike performances; pianists will play scales, for example, which are boring to listen to. More interesting are creative endeavors, like writing. One practices writing by writing…and every time you write, you end up with a piece of writing.

There may be value in these bits of writing. Not that this is anything new; I suspect most people who get into writing assume that everything they write is ultimately intended for publication. Is it possible to write “exercises” that are never intended for publication, but only to increase one’s writing skills? Of course; it’s probably even a good idea. And yet…One of those odd bits of writing just might be worth something to the right journal. Every bit of practice is also a potential performance.

Let’s look at this from the other side. Let’s imagine someone writing with the intent to sell what they’re writing. Do they learn, do they develop their skills while performing this activity? Of course they do! Every instance of performing a skill results in that skill being improved. It’s easy to see this is by reading the archives of a newspaper comic strip that has been drawn for decades by the same person; the improvement in art over the years is obvious. However, I’m not saying you should simply expect your work to get better and better with no slipups; it’s probably more valuable to stretch yourself and try things that might not work. Every creative work attempted by an artist increases their skill, even if it ultimately turns out to be a failure. Especially if it turns out to be a failure! Every performance is also a practice session.

My conclusion, therefore, is that you (yes, you) should look upon performance and practice as the same thing. Create things, stretch your skills, try out new ideas, create things. Any project you create can stand on its own as a work of art—and it can also be viewed as an opportunity to develop, a set of lessons for your skills. Don’t be afraid to embrace all these possibilities. Go forth and create!

Human society nowadays has a lot of groups. A group has both an inside and an outside; even if you define a group as people who are included, you also define people who are excluded.

I suspect a lot of people take pride in their groups, without realizing how much exclusion is implied. For example, many ravers supposedly follow a credo summarized “Peace, Love, Unity and Respect“, but this only applies to people within their own group—people who know where raves are, how to dance, and all the social cues that allow to be considered part of the in-group. Similarly, Lady Gaga’s “Born This Way” helps Lady Gaga fans feel accepted and better than everyone else.

Another good example comes from computing; if you buy an Apple computer, you’re buying an idea of style, coolness, a culture of elites. If you a buy a Windows computer, you’re buying…a computer. (And don’t even get me started on Linux.)

If you’re responsible for creating or administrating a community, it might be worthwhile to spend some time considering…What are you doing to help people become part of the community? What are you doing to let outsiders know they’re allowed to become part of it? Are you just another clique?

I’ve been thinking about what’s appropriate for this blog. Should it be solely about games and game design? The subtitle says “Explorations into game design and creativity”…and I think that’s the answer. Creativity is important to me, and game design is one of the most important expressions of creativity for me…but it’s far from the only one. The truth is that games, books, comics, movies, they all merge together into one big ocean of creativity in my brain. And this happened even before stories that spanned multiple media.

I Enjoy Worlds

I enjoy media that create worlds and allow me to imagine things within them. To put it another way, I enjoy media that encourage me to be creative. Growing up, I watched cartoon shows—with toy lines that encouraged kids to play out their own adventures. Whenever I read a novel, I often imagine small scenes of myself meeting and talking to the characters; It’s not like it’s a huge part of reading, but it’s always there.  Comic books, mainstream US comic books at least, are designed to accomodate any number of characters and storylines. A story goes from start to finish; a world can engender any number of concepts.

Creating Worlds—The Secret Hobby?

Then, of course, there are tabletop roleplaying games. Perhaps more than any other type of work, a tabletop roleplaying game expects the reader to expand upon what’s given.

I’ve read quite a few tabletop roleplaying game books in my life. I’m sure that’s had some effect on me. Some of these books are written with the expectation that it’s the author’s responsibility to pass along the “true” information about the fictional world; many a supplement has been released detailing some corner of the world or some arcane sub-society. However, other books exhort, even require the reader to fill in the blanks along the way. I don’t want to judge one thing as bad and another good; the one point I want to make is that detailing a fictional world, and detailing how a reader can expand upon a fictional world, are two different skills.

Roleplaying is a hobby that encompasses many different skills, many different activities; world-building is only one of them, and it’s one that’s often glossed over in the books. (Perhaps the most notable exception is Universalis.) And yet, you can find accounts of people who love building worlds, who pursue it in their spare time, to obssessive ends. It seems like worldbuilding is something that’s assumed but not talked about. Perhaps this is a market that’s underserved.

Computer Games

Computer games can evoke worlds in a way no other medium can, by allowing the player to explore them in real time. This was particularly evident in early arcade games, such as Zoo Keeper; it always seemed like there was more to the world than was actually shown. As computer technology improved, it became the norm to portray game environments much more realistically. One could argue that increasing realism made for decreasing mystery, and thus less engagement in the process of imagining the world; I believe there is a fair point there, but I also believe that it is entirely possible to have an intriguing and mysterious world rendered with great realism.

Procedural Generation

It’s possible for programs (such as Dwarf Fortress) to generate well-nigh infinite amounts of internally consistent worlds. However, what knowledge can we gain from these worlds? It depends on how hard we look at them; just look at the case of Tholtig Cryptbrain, Dwarven Queen. Programs can create any amount of data, but meaning comes only from human thought.

Conclusion

As I see it, the process of creation is a neverending loop. Someone creates a work, and that work inspires others, who inspire others in turn—often the original author as well. In some cases the loop is tight, in others it’s more of a cascade; in any case, the tools helping us with our creative efforts are only getting better.

Many efforts have been made to divide computer game players up into different types, in attempts to better understand why players play games, and thus how to make computer games that players will enjoy. One of my favorite attempts at player classification is Mitch Krpata’s A New Taxonomy of Gamers (this link goes to the third in an eleven-part series). The important insight that I want to talk about occurs in the section I linked to; this is the distinction between “Skill Players” and “Tourists”. In a nutshell, Skill Players play the game in order to achieve some form of mastery over it, while Tourists play in order to experience all the high points and cool bits of the game.  (Please read the article for more detail!)

A similar article is Mark Rosewater’s Timmy, Johnny and Spike Revisited.  This article is from the perspective of Magic: the Gathering design, which has several interesting features.  New expansions are released several times a year, each with more than 100 cards; therefore, a lot of cards must be designed on a regular basis. The gist of Mark Rosewater’s article is that he and his team have created several psychographic profiles which encompass the reasons for which people play M:tG. Each profile represents a type of player, but more importantly a reason to play M:tG. Once again, read the article for more detail! And once again, in a nutshell:

“Timmy” plays to experience something, whether it’s something amazing happening within the game, something completely new or just some fun times hanging out with friends. In my mind, this ties in well with the “Tourist” player type from Mitch Krpata’s articles. The focus of this player type is on experiencing something cool that happens within the game.

“Spike” plays to prove something, usually skill, by winning. Of course, M:tG encompasses several skill sets, so there are Spike players who focus on very different parts of the game; finding new deck types, tuning decks or mastering play tactics. This ties in well with the “Skill Player” appellation, seeking mastery over the game.

And finally, “Johnny” plays to express something. These players usually focus on deckbuilding; their decks can contain innovative card interactions, or the decks can be constructed in offbeat or themed ways. This ties in with…wait.

The missing player type

It seems to me that Mitch Krpata has missed an interesting point here. But he’s in good company, as I haven’t heard this idea discussed very often.

There are computer game players who wish to express something with their play. Here are some of the ways they do so:

Some players create things which are meant to be artistic, using the game as a medium. The Dwarf Fortress Map Archive allows players to submit and rate maps, showing things they have created in Dwarf Fortres—tunnels, walls, fortifications, living quarters, treasure rooms, magma fountains and so on. (The most popular map is Flarechannel—Be sure to zoom in to zoom factor 1, actual size, then drag the map around and go to other levels!) Minecraft is also known for this sort of appeal.

Some players will play through a game and make a record of their actions, calling it an “After Action Report” or a “Let’s Play“. These transcripts can be written in the form of a narrative, as with GuavaMoment’s X-COM Apocalypse/Interceptor Let’s Play, or Porkness’ Uplink: Trust is a weakness Let’s Play. Sometimes the narrative emerges through play, as with Boatmurdered. (And I have to say, while Boatmurdered is probably Not Safe For Work with tons of profanity and occasional gore, it’s also hilarious and astonishing.)

Dominions 3 is a fantasy strategy game with a staggering amount of possible unit combinations and strategies. One of the best players goes by Baalz; he’s spent a lot of time playing the game (I hesitate to speculate exactly how much), and he’s good at coming up strategies for just about any nation. The interesting part is that he writes guides to these strategies, which are in themselves quite fun to read! Baalz is really able to express his personality with these guides.

I would also argue that players can express themselves through character customization—not just picking clothes, but also choosing equipment and strategies. And there’s an entire “Narrativist RPG” idea I haven’t touched on. But I think this is a good starting point, at least; that creative expression can be an important part of games, and it will only become more important in the future.

Flow is a term that gets bandied about every now and then in game design. For a good overview, there’s Jenova Chen’s MFA thesis. I’ll provide a very quick summary:

If a game is too easy, the player can feel bored.

If a game is too hard, the player can feel frustrated.

In that zone of “just right” the player can enter a state of intense concentration called flow. Many people seem to find it pleasurable. Of course, it’s probably not appropriate for every game experience.

Let’s assume for that moment that flow is a good thingm that we are designing a game in which we want to guide the player into a state of flow. One of Jenova’s key ideas is that the player should be able to adjust the game’s difficulty level at any time.  If they’re frustrated, they can “step back” and make things easier; if they’re bored, they can seek out greater challenge.

One problem with changing the difficulty level is that it often has no in-world explanation. Difficulty level is a concept about the game, an expression of game mechanics, not something that happens in the game. It’s tough to come up with a reason for the player to be able to change the game’s fictional reality in such a fundamental way and not in such a way as to let them win the game instantly.  Kingdom of Loathing is the only game I know which provides justifications for the player changing the difficulty level.

Difficulty Locks

Some games implement an idea I think of as difficulty locks. The player reaches points in the game where they may attempt harder challenges, or they may stay at their current level and continue playing until they feel ready. Many computer role-playing games use this model; the player may wander around and fight random monsters, acquiring loot and “experience”, until they finally decide to take on the next boss.

Castlevania: Symphony of the Night is an interesting example in that it tests both player skill and time (as I’ve written about before). The player may wait until they have a character powerful enough to definitively defeat the boss, or they may rely on their skill to win the fight. In other words, if the player finds a fight that is too frustrating, they can wander around the areas just before it until they become powerful and/or skilled enough to progress.

Dwarf Fortress: Delving Too Deeply (minor spoilers)

Dwarf Fortress contains an interesting set of features in this vein (pun intended). Playing Dwarf Fortress, you start with a settlement of dwarves on the surface. You can direct your dwarves to dig into the ground to construct rooms and hallways. From the surface, your fortress will most likely be attacked by goblins, and perhaps wild animals like wolves or elephants.

Digging deeply enough will bring you to an underground cavern layer. Here you will find more valuable gems and ores, but you will also find tougher monsters like cave crocodiles. Delving still deeper will yield entry into a second cavern layer, then a third, each with progressively more powerful denizens. Below the three cavern layers lies a magma sea. And below that is something DF players obliquely refer to as “Hidden Fun Stuff“…in other words, something really bad.

With this set of features, Dwarf Fortress allows the player to take on additional challenges whenever they feel up to it. It’s not as finely grained as it could be, but it does have the advantage of being completely justified by the world’s setting.

Starting up iTunes and visiting their Anime News page, you notice that TV Tokyo has finally licensed Nurse Angel Ririka SOS for digital download. Having heard good things about it, you buy the first episode for $.99 and choose an English subtitle track from the several available. After watching the episode, you decide the show is worthwhile, so you pay $29.99 for the first season. Looking at the subtitle pack, you see that it was translated and timed by a group based in Wales; you consider trying out subtitles offered by some other group, but this one seemed quite serviceable, so you pay the $4.99 for the first season subtitle pack and write a good review on the fansubbers’ profile page.

The smallest distance between two points on a square map whose edges wrap like a torus.

So there are two coordinates, x and y (I don’t have any idea what a 3D toroidal mapping would be like, but it’s intriguing, huh?).  Let’s say that x goes from 0 to w-1 (“width”), and y goes from 0 to h-1 (“height”).

We can consider x-distance and y-distance independent of each other.  (Let’s call them Δx and Δy.)

Let’s assume that the two x coordinates are x0 and x1, and also that x0≤x1.  There are two possible values for Δx: x1-x0 and (x0+w)-x1 (looping around).

The same argument holds for y0 and y1.  (Note that the two points could be (x0,y0) and (x1,y1), or they could be (x0,y1) and (x1,y0)—doesn’t matter!)

So:

Δx = min(x1-x0, x0+w-x1)

Δy = min(y1-y0, y0+h-y1)

And finally, our standard Euclidean distance:

d = sqrt(Δx² + Δy²)

I just figured out a couple of things in PHP, so I thought I’d share them.

PHP has a useful include statement.  (This is a language construct, not a function, as the PHP documentation makes sure to mention!)  Within one PHP file, you can include another and execute it.

Recently I started wondering: Is it possible for PHP code to know whether it’s being included, as opposed to executed directly?  In a word: Yes.  PHP has myriad predefined variables that hold information about the environment.  In particular, $_SERVER["PHP_SELF"] holds the relative path of the file being executed.  Here’s some code.

# If our file is http://example.com/php_stuff/php_file.php then our relative path is:
$relative_path = "/php_stuff/php_file.php";
# Note the leading slash. This is how it works on my system; I encourage you to use the useful phpinfo() function to find out how your system works.
# So, above we defined the relative path that we are expecting. Now we test the PHP_SELF variable to see if we've been included.
# (Note, the strcmp function returns a 0 if the strings are identical. I found I had to use this function instead of an operator. Test and see what works for you.)
if (strcmp($relative_path, $SERVER["PHP_SELF"]) == 0)
$included = false;
else
$included = true;
# And now the $included variable holds a value telling us if we've been included.

I’m sure there are other ways to accomplish this, of course.  For example, you could have the including script set a variable; if the variable is not set, the file has not been included.  However, in that case you have to make sure every including script sets the same variable; With my method, the included script has all the information it needs.  The only caveat is that the relative path must contain the current location of the script—if the value is outdated, the script will always think it’s being included.

Games are systems of rules.  Many games have a goal or object that is not a single event, but rather a continuum or score.  In other words, in many games the player is attempting to maximize some score or value.  Looked at this way, the players have this goal in mind as they play: “My job is to perform actions within the game rules that give me the highest score possible“.

However, game designers intend games to be played in certain ways.  They usually expect players to perform a certain series of actions—but players can discover otheractions that provide higher scores.  This might be an example of an exploit.

An “exploit” is a strategy that is permitted by the rules but has some sort of “unfair” advantage.  By contrast, cheating is a strategy that goes outside the rules.

What makes an exploit unfair?

This is the real difficulty.  The things I’ve been talking about are vague and subjective: “designer intent”, “unfair advantage”.  As I mentioned, designers intend games to be played in certain ways—but players don’t necessarily know what the intent is.  The game itself is the medium by which designers convey their intent.  It’s entirely possible for players to disagree about what strategies are exploitative vs. fair.  We could be cynical and say that players benefiting from strategies are less likely to consider them exploits…and other players, feeling slighted, would be more likely to call them unfair.

Is it a player’s job to figure out what strategies are unfair and avoid them?  Strictly speaking, the answer is no.  A player’s “job” is only to take actions that are within the rules of the game—whatever actions they see fit.  On the other hand, some people are willing and able to make judgements about the unfairness of strategies.  I think of antitrust law as an example of this; At one point companies hit upon strategies that made them a great deal of money, but the strategies were considered unfair by society at large.  (An economic system is not a game, but it does share some characteristics with games—namely, it’s a system of rules with a score system.)

I believe that games are becoming a larger part of society as time goes on.  With that in mind, more people have experience playing and designing games.  Perhaps society will develop a greater awareness of rules systems and a greater willingness to judge strategies on the grounds of fairness.

Well, perhaps “snob” is not the right word.  Perhaps “gourmet” or “aficionado” would be better; the point is that I have discerning tastes and I want specific things from computer games.  It’s a provocative title, though, right?

Recently I’ve been thinking about what sort of games I want to play—and more to the point, what games I want to see get made.  I’ve narrowed it down to three basic ideas.

• I want to see games that explore what games can do, I want to see games that push the envelope and advance the art and craft of game design…or at least try something to provide a new experience.  Like The Baron, or Manufactoria.
• I want to play games that have deep, interesting and intricate mechanics and/or simulations.  Disgaea is a good example, or Dwarf Fortress.
• And sometimes I just want simple fun.  A recent game is Diesel Valkyrie; a less recent one is DOOM.

Simple Fun

Actually, I have no trouble finding “simple fun” games.  There are many out there, and I never have trouble “scratching the simple fun itch”, so to speak.  So, the other two ideas are more worthy of exploration.

Indie Gaming

Where can you find games that try new things?  Exploratory games, risky games?  Most often in the indie game design community.  A good place to learn about this is The Independent Gaming Source (TIGSource).

In order for people to create indie games, they need a platform that is free to design for as well as accessible.  Modern Windows operating systems are pretty good for this, especially with utilities like Game Maker and FlashDevelop.  It’s important to have a control scheme that is easy to use and easy to program, with well-defined inputs.  A keyboard is ideal, especially since every Windows computer has one; game controllers are also pretty good, as they’ve been around long enough to be pretty well standardized.

Interface Innovation

But some people might wonder exactly how innovative it’s possible to be with only a keyboard as input device, especially people who have read about Nintendo’s genre innovation strategy.  It’s true that there are games that use new interfaces in innovative ways, like Boom Blox or Bowling.  However, for the most part I haven’t been too impressed with these new experiences.  I’m glad they were made, but I don’t see much need for me, myself, to go out and play them.

Hardcore Gaming

Actually, the term “hardcore gaming” is pretty useless; see Mitch Krpata’s “A New Taxonomy of Gamers” for a great discussion on this point.  What I’m really talking about are games which require a lot of careful thinking and exploration of mechanics, and also possibly a large investment of time.  They’re often niche games, where terms like “genre addiction” or “grognard capture” can be applied.

If you play a game that has a lot of time investment, you’re usually doing lots of actions over and over.  You want these actions to be as efficient as possible; you want the input interface to be as efficient as possible.  The whole point is to master the interface so you can get in a sequence of commands as quickly as possible.

Snobbery

So, I have tastes that are somewhat niche; I’m willing to seek out non-mainstream experiences to get the sort of enjoyment I want.

To me, this is no different from film aficionados seeing indie films at an arthouse theater.  Someone who really enjoys a medium will figure out what sort of experiences they want and spend most of their time seeking out those experiences; they may also search for completely new experiences, things that have never been done before.  Either way, the mainstream doesn’t usually cut it.

The one part of the definition of “snob” that I don’t like is the idea of “inferiority”.  I have my own tastes, but I don’t believe they’re “better” than yours; I just think they’re better for me.  It’s possible to argue that some games are better designed or better made than others, but at the same time people have valid reasons to play “worse” games—certain specific elements they enjoy, nostalgia, and so on.

The Point of the Kinect

The Kinect is Microsoft’s new input interface for the XBox 360. It tracks your body movements to figure out what you want to do in the game.  The point, as I see it, is to provide a way for people inexperienced with games to get into the hobby.  It’s “the game where you do not need a controller“.

And in my opinion, this is—wonderful.  Yes, it’s awesome.  If more people get interested in games, then game companies get more money and the medium as a whole becomes more successful—and that means more risky and niche titles, more games that I like.  So yes, if you like the Kinect, go for it.  I would never tell someone to stop having fun.

What the Kinect Can’t Do

I don’t think the Kinect will lead to much true innovation in games.  A game where you fight people by actually moving your limbs?  That’s called “martial arts”, it’s been around for thousands of years.  A game where you move characters around on various types of terrain?  Kind of like chess, or perhaps Warhammer.  I don’t see the potential for innovation in game mechanics—I’m willing to be proven wrong, but I’m not holding my breath.  Sure, there can be innovative games on the Kinect, but they would be the kind of games that would be innovative with any interface.

I don’t think the Kinect is good for games that require a lot of time, a lot of intense, you know, gaming.  Think of moving your limbs around, versus twitching your fingers to press a button.  How much energy does it take to make one selection?  How tired will you get if you have to do it 500 times?  The 2002 film Minority Report had a sequence where the main character uses a gestural interface to control software.  It’s laughable.  Who would stand there flinging their hands around for 2 hours?

Of course, it’s possible that the Kinect software will get good enough to detect fingers twitching.  Then all you’d need is perhaps somewhere to rest your hands, and maybe a guide to make sure you put your fingers where you want them to do.  So, some little board with lots of keys printed on it.

Or just, you know, a $40 computer keyboard.

Golf Clubs

So, if you want an easy way to play mainstream games, the Kinect would probably work.  But some people will want more than that.  Some people will want something more suited to experiencing everything the medium has to offer.

Imagine someone learning to play golf.  They buy a set of clubs; if they want to play on a regular basis, they buy a country club membership so they don’t have to play on public courses.  Eventually they will start buying their own specialized clubs, shoes, golf balls…

If you get into gaming, you’re going to want a controller.

(Until the hardware gets good enough to read impulses right from your brain.  That will be super awesome.)