It seems rather appropriate that as I finished this chapter, I finally came up with what will arguably be the lynchpin of my potential website. In fact, a slow hunch is an accurate description of the idea for this site in general and many other unusual ideas I've had for stories, video games, and even philosophy. For years now, I've been developing a theory about the world that many would consider cynical, and although there was a moment I can point to as the "eureka" where the idea finally took complete shape, I know that it was actually a slow hunch that is still developing in my head as time passes.
The theory itself is one that argues all reality--from the objective perspective--is constantly in a state of equilibrium and that no matter what we do, that equilibrium will cause things to break even much as they do in physics. For instance, a period of economic expansion will inevitably be followed by a period of recession that--if the two were quantified based on intensity, benefits, and negatives--would ultimately not make us better off, but simply change our current state. This idea is considered cynical because it says that our world and humanity can't actually improve; that we can only shift or change the state we're in, much the same way matter can take the form of solids, liquids, or gases. As we all know, none of these states is unquestionably superior to the others under all circumstances. They are simply distinct states of matter. In the context of the previous chapter, it can be argued that liquids are the most balanced and productive state, but that doesn't mean reaching for balance does not demand sacrifices that equal the potential good that could come from pure chaos or pure rigidity. As time has passed, this idea--which I sometimes refer to as "Equilibrium Theory"--has grown and evolved. Like all theories, it has flaws, and the slow hunch that started them is still coming to me bit by bit over time.
In terms of game ideas, I once read a novel called Redwall. (Surely you've heard of that one Mr. Hedges.) I thought to myself that there should be an interesting way to translate something like that into a game. Something that involved mice and rabbits and other animals, but was clearly distinct from Redwall's setting. This idea stayed with me for years and at one point even morphed into something simpler: a game where you simply play as a mouse living in the walls of a house trying not to be detected by humans or cats. But that didn't seem like something that could work very well or be original enough. Then, several years after the initial idea came to my mind, I walked into Wal-Mart looking for PS2 games to purchase and noticed a game called Pirates: The Legend of Black Kat. I realized at once what I'd been missing: the setting needed to be different. In my mind, I took the mice and animals I'd wanted to use as a central part of the game and transposed them over the high seas, pirate setting, and today my idea is called "Pirats: Hearts of Gold." Naturally, this idea has not been created, and as I've thought more and more about it, the shape of the potential game has morphed into a strategy, sandbox, platform-adventure hybrid that will require some REALLY good programming to function properly, should it ever be made.
Reading about the commonplace book made me realize how important writing down ideas really is. I just might start keeping one for every insight I have. Because I know from experience that--as the textbook says--it's difficult to keep slow hunches alive, though I would add that sometimes they die off for a reason. Not all slow hunches--especially the ones I get from dreams--are ideas that are really worth pursuing. Stephen King mentions that his novels are entirely based on situations and not upon plot notes, and these situations occur to him as slow hunches. But he always gives each of them time to gel in his desk drawer before taking them out to work with them. This allows the more interesting ideas to mature while the worse ones die off.
In any event, this chapter was extremely interesting, and in the process of reading it, I finally got an idea for what my site should be focused on: reviews of entertainment reviewers. A site dedicated to using psychology and philosophy to analyze why gamers and/or critics view a game the way they do, break it down, and suggest a different way to look at it. There could be ratings of the individual people doing the reviews, perhaps with a ratings system similar to the ones that are used on gaming sites and in gaming magazines. (i.e. a number from 0.0 to 10.0, 0 to 5 stars, or perhaps just a choice of adjectives) In addition, there could be forums for presenting viewpoints that are atypical and discussions that go deeper than they do at traditional gaming websites. Discussions that involve psychological principles and philosophical thinking. I'm still not sure what to call my site yet--though I continue to get suggestions from my friends--but this is a big turning point for the project.
Now all I have to do is figure out how to create ratings meters, implement forums, and...oh crap. I've still got a ton of work to do! Bye! :)
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Liquid Networks: A Response
Boy oh boy. If rigid corporate CEOs could see a chapter like this one. This is a fine example of other things I've argued for years, primarily the idea that the best method is always in the realm of compromise--often the very center of the two extremes--not on the edges where one idea is "evil" and the other "good."
While it might be a stretch to suggest these rules apply across the board to everything--as this chapter seems to imply--the ideas it presents and the comparisons it makes conjure up a ton of little nuggets of info I've learned over the years, especially in the examples it presents. For instance, the idea of the "edge of chaos" is actually a primary principle in the view of evolution. The idea is that you can track which species became extinct and which didn't by how they adapted. If they adapted too little, remaining rigid in their ways, they died off. If they adapted too easily or too often, slipping into the realm of "chaos," they died off as well. It was the species that managed to live on the edge of chaos that managed to continue surviving for the longest period of time. (NOTE: This might not be an aspect of the theory of evolution per se. It is more in line with chaos theory applied to evolution.) The comparison between solids, liquids, and gases is almost perfect. Gases are too chaotic, solids are too rigid, but liquids are just the right mixture of both (though to be fair, the victims of Hurricane Katrina might have some more harsh words for liquid than the rest of us. BA DUM TISH).
It is also true that Carbon makes up the vast majority of living things, and the probable cause for this is its versatility in combining various elements. In a way, this is a reflection of the adjacent possible, as most innovation consists of combining old things in new ways. How appropriate then that the atom capable of the greatest number of combinations with the lowest energy input is the source of life and arguably the source of innovation itself. The more old things you can combine into a single entity, generally the more innovative the result will be.
Reading this chapter makes me think of the only job I've ever held and the experiences I had in it. When I was working as a courtesy clerk at Albertsons, I started off in what felt more like a liqiud network, but gradually it became more solid until I couldn't take it anymore and quit. To be fair, I'm far from what you'd call "adaptable," so in a sense, I was just as "solid" as the corporate rules were, but I think most people would agree with me that a company like Albertsons runs itself very rigidly. Part of the reason I got to have a more "liquid" setup was because I was the closer. I had a long list of tasks that had to be completed, and there were generally rules for doing them, but nobody was really looking over my shoulder giving me orders. I was kind of free to try changing the order I did things, the ways I did them, and what I chose to prioritize. About 2/3 of the stuff I did worked, and the other third got lukewarm reactions and sometimes ridicule. Most of the time, there were genuinely good reasons to ridicule my methods, and that was frustrating. However, if I do say so myself, I think I was able to find some interesting ways to do my job that most others wouldn't have.
For example, there was often a problem dealing with go backs. They were all put in a cart for me to push around the store so I could reshelve them. However, I would sometimes come back and find that another cart of go backs had shown up. This bothered me for two reasons: 1) it made me feel like I had accomplished nothing when I brought back my cart empty, and 2) it meant that the cashiers had to run to the cart bay and get a new one to put go backs in whenever I took the original one. So I began carrying the go backs by hand, which was not as efficient as the cart might have been, but prevented my job from burdening the cashiers. Unfortunately, this solution was pretty much the opposite of practical, and I got in trouble for it a lot. Then a solution was proposed to me: go get a new cart from the bay before I start doing go backs and effectively replace the one I take. This seemed like a great compromise. This method gave way to another method when I realized that most of the time the new go back care was just getting snatched up by people who needed it: I started putting the go backs into a smaller handheld basket to carry around.
Other aspects of my job changed in a similar fashion, though none of them were what I would call "appreciated" by my employer, and I'm pretty sure that's because it was a more solid than fluid environment. I tried doing various jobs at different times, starting them sooner or sometimes later. I came up with shortcuts that I thought could make things easier, though to be fair some of these weren't exactly appropriate for a customer oriented grocery store like Albertsons. (I'd often find places to temporarily store things instead of putting them away because I would get called away quite often and it just wasn't efficient--or sometimes practical, in my opinion--to go out of my way to put things away. Too often, when I took the longer route, I'd end up getting called away again and have to waste more time putting away something I just spent a few minutes getting out for the third time.) In fact, I actually came up with some ideas that I thought would be useful and original, and none of them were adopted for one reason or another.
The most significant example I can think of is that the bottle area--like it is at most stores--was kind of frustrating to deal with because the machines were so crappy. Half the time they wouldn't take bottles from products we carried and we had to hand count them. Since Albertsons was strict about only giving money for products that we carried in the store, there would be an awful lot of time spent trying to figure out whether we carried something or not. So I suggested to the store manager that he put together a large poster listing everything we carried and posted it in the bottle area. This would make it easier for both the customer and the courtesy clerk to figure out what we could accept and couldn't. I was told this was a good idea, but what we carried changed so much that it wouldn't adequately reflect what we could accept anyway. In retrospect, this seems like a real cheap excuse, as the same argument could be made in favor of making a poster like that, but apparently the inadequacy of the bottle machines was considered a better measure than anything we could create to make the job easier.
Eventually, because of my own stubborness and the stubborness of the basic corporate structure of Albertsons, I wasn't able to continue working there anymore. (That's when I went back to college, where I could put my talents to more creative use. Coincidence? :) ) They wanted me to just do what I was told, and I couldn't. I had to be able to think bigger and work more freely. Not that there's no downside to this; honestly, it can be just as frustrating as living under rigid rules. But it makes better use of my ideas and talents. In the long run, I believe it will pay off better to have a more free-thinking job than the rigid one I held for three and a half years.
I am loving this textbook Mr. Hedges. It almost saddens me that we have no new reading over this weekend. (Almost. I have a lot of catching up to do in my other classes.) I just hope that I can find ways to be innovative enough with this project that it turns out okay. Because doing things differently is very important to me. I don't like to be derivative at all.
While it might be a stretch to suggest these rules apply across the board to everything--as this chapter seems to imply--the ideas it presents and the comparisons it makes conjure up a ton of little nuggets of info I've learned over the years, especially in the examples it presents. For instance, the idea of the "edge of chaos" is actually a primary principle in the view of evolution. The idea is that you can track which species became extinct and which didn't by how they adapted. If they adapted too little, remaining rigid in their ways, they died off. If they adapted too easily or too often, slipping into the realm of "chaos," they died off as well. It was the species that managed to live on the edge of chaos that managed to continue surviving for the longest period of time. (NOTE: This might not be an aspect of the theory of evolution per se. It is more in line with chaos theory applied to evolution.) The comparison between solids, liquids, and gases is almost perfect. Gases are too chaotic, solids are too rigid, but liquids are just the right mixture of both (though to be fair, the victims of Hurricane Katrina might have some more harsh words for liquid than the rest of us. BA DUM TISH).
It is also true that Carbon makes up the vast majority of living things, and the probable cause for this is its versatility in combining various elements. In a way, this is a reflection of the adjacent possible, as most innovation consists of combining old things in new ways. How appropriate then that the atom capable of the greatest number of combinations with the lowest energy input is the source of life and arguably the source of innovation itself. The more old things you can combine into a single entity, generally the more innovative the result will be.
Reading this chapter makes me think of the only job I've ever held and the experiences I had in it. When I was working as a courtesy clerk at Albertsons, I started off in what felt more like a liqiud network, but gradually it became more solid until I couldn't take it anymore and quit. To be fair, I'm far from what you'd call "adaptable," so in a sense, I was just as "solid" as the corporate rules were, but I think most people would agree with me that a company like Albertsons runs itself very rigidly. Part of the reason I got to have a more "liquid" setup was because I was the closer. I had a long list of tasks that had to be completed, and there were generally rules for doing them, but nobody was really looking over my shoulder giving me orders. I was kind of free to try changing the order I did things, the ways I did them, and what I chose to prioritize. About 2/3 of the stuff I did worked, and the other third got lukewarm reactions and sometimes ridicule. Most of the time, there were genuinely good reasons to ridicule my methods, and that was frustrating. However, if I do say so myself, I think I was able to find some interesting ways to do my job that most others wouldn't have.
For example, there was often a problem dealing with go backs. They were all put in a cart for me to push around the store so I could reshelve them. However, I would sometimes come back and find that another cart of go backs had shown up. This bothered me for two reasons: 1) it made me feel like I had accomplished nothing when I brought back my cart empty, and 2) it meant that the cashiers had to run to the cart bay and get a new one to put go backs in whenever I took the original one. So I began carrying the go backs by hand, which was not as efficient as the cart might have been, but prevented my job from burdening the cashiers. Unfortunately, this solution was pretty much the opposite of practical, and I got in trouble for it a lot. Then a solution was proposed to me: go get a new cart from the bay before I start doing go backs and effectively replace the one I take. This seemed like a great compromise. This method gave way to another method when I realized that most of the time the new go back care was just getting snatched up by people who needed it: I started putting the go backs into a smaller handheld basket to carry around.
Other aspects of my job changed in a similar fashion, though none of them were what I would call "appreciated" by my employer, and I'm pretty sure that's because it was a more solid than fluid environment. I tried doing various jobs at different times, starting them sooner or sometimes later. I came up with shortcuts that I thought could make things easier, though to be fair some of these weren't exactly appropriate for a customer oriented grocery store like Albertsons. (I'd often find places to temporarily store things instead of putting them away because I would get called away quite often and it just wasn't efficient--or sometimes practical, in my opinion--to go out of my way to put things away. Too often, when I took the longer route, I'd end up getting called away again and have to waste more time putting away something I just spent a few minutes getting out for the third time.) In fact, I actually came up with some ideas that I thought would be useful and original, and none of them were adopted for one reason or another.
The most significant example I can think of is that the bottle area--like it is at most stores--was kind of frustrating to deal with because the machines were so crappy. Half the time they wouldn't take bottles from products we carried and we had to hand count them. Since Albertsons was strict about only giving money for products that we carried in the store, there would be an awful lot of time spent trying to figure out whether we carried something or not. So I suggested to the store manager that he put together a large poster listing everything we carried and posted it in the bottle area. This would make it easier for both the customer and the courtesy clerk to figure out what we could accept and couldn't. I was told this was a good idea, but what we carried changed so much that it wouldn't adequately reflect what we could accept anyway. In retrospect, this seems like a real cheap excuse, as the same argument could be made in favor of making a poster like that, but apparently the inadequacy of the bottle machines was considered a better measure than anything we could create to make the job easier.
Eventually, because of my own stubborness and the stubborness of the basic corporate structure of Albertsons, I wasn't able to continue working there anymore. (That's when I went back to college, where I could put my talents to more creative use. Coincidence? :) ) They wanted me to just do what I was told, and I couldn't. I had to be able to think bigger and work more freely. Not that there's no downside to this; honestly, it can be just as frustrating as living under rigid rules. But it makes better use of my ideas and talents. In the long run, I believe it will pay off better to have a more free-thinking job than the rigid one I held for three and a half years.
I am loving this textbook Mr. Hedges. It almost saddens me that we have no new reading over this weekend. (Almost. I have a lot of catching up to do in my other classes.) I just hope that I can find ways to be innovative enough with this project that it turns out okay. Because doing things differently is very important to me. I don't like to be derivative at all.
The Adjacent Possible: A Response
Reading "The Adjacent Possible" felt like a genuine relief. As I develop my site for troll slayers--or, arguably, trolls like me--it will be important for me to keep this in mind.
To be honest, it kind of changed my views on innovation. See, I tend to define innovation in much more extreme terms. Before I read this article, I pretty much considered true innovation to be creating something essentially out of thin air. Of course, I knew this wasn't entirely the case, as many of the most innovative things in the world took elements from other places. Still, it seemed to me that "true" innovation always contained an element or elements that were genuinely conjured up from the "genius" of exceptionally gifted people. In many ways, this led me to be very dismissive of many games that have been deemed "innovative" because I felt a lot of those "innovations" weren't really changing things; just rearranging them and sometimes borrowing them from other places.
As it turns out, though, innovation isn't something that really happens--even partially--in a vacuum. It pretty much consists of taking what's already there, tearing it apart, taking the pieces from various places, glueing them together, and then seeing if it works. Strangely, I find this a bit liberating, though I still feel as though my potential for innovation is significantly lower than that of others. Guess we'll just have to see as this class moves forward.
This new view of innovation is not without downsides, though. See, for the longest time, I've been arguing with gamers about what constitutes innovation, as they have a strong tendency to scream and moan over the lack of "original" stuff being put out in the industry nowadays. In addition to believing innovation is the only way to move our industry forward, these same gamers proclaim it's not even that hard to do it. I've been arguing against both these claims. I believe that innovation happens in our industry all the time and many players just don't stop to appreciate it. I also believe that innovation is probably one of the hardest things for a developer to do.
Given the way "The Adjacent Possible" defines innovation, I can prove that innovation is not the amazing land of "originality" that gamers keep claiming it is, as it consists largely of recycled and reshuffled parts. But that also means they can more legitimately claim that innovating "isn't that hard." After all, if it's just taking old stuff and presenting it differently, where's the "effort"? In short, this article will prove both invaluable and a handicap in the essays I'm currently writing: "The Myth of Greatness" and "Innovation Crapovation." I'm planning to post both of these on my prospective site for "troll slayers" like myself.
Getting away from how this article will be useful to me in arguments, I want to say that it actually encapsulates some things I've felt for a long time. I used to argue, for instance, that telling people to "think outside the box" was effectively asking them to think outside their own minds, a literal impossibility. In that sense, I believed much innovation was just an accident, some random piece of genius people just stumbled across almost by luck, albeit while thinking hard about doing things differently. What this article calls the adjacent possible is a pretty good synonym for that: our minds are constrained by the parts we have, and we can only grow the mansion by recycling things, not by skipping ahead rooms the way people like Charles Babbage did.
It's too bad more people can't see innovation this way. Otherwise, I think there'd be less complaint about our free markets lacking the drive for innovation. Overall, this was very interesting, and I'm looking forward to the next chapter.
To be honest, it kind of changed my views on innovation. See, I tend to define innovation in much more extreme terms. Before I read this article, I pretty much considered true innovation to be creating something essentially out of thin air. Of course, I knew this wasn't entirely the case, as many of the most innovative things in the world took elements from other places. Still, it seemed to me that "true" innovation always contained an element or elements that were genuinely conjured up from the "genius" of exceptionally gifted people. In many ways, this led me to be very dismissive of many games that have been deemed "innovative" because I felt a lot of those "innovations" weren't really changing things; just rearranging them and sometimes borrowing them from other places.
As it turns out, though, innovation isn't something that really happens--even partially--in a vacuum. It pretty much consists of taking what's already there, tearing it apart, taking the pieces from various places, glueing them together, and then seeing if it works. Strangely, I find this a bit liberating, though I still feel as though my potential for innovation is significantly lower than that of others. Guess we'll just have to see as this class moves forward.
This new view of innovation is not without downsides, though. See, for the longest time, I've been arguing with gamers about what constitutes innovation, as they have a strong tendency to scream and moan over the lack of "original" stuff being put out in the industry nowadays. In addition to believing innovation is the only way to move our industry forward, these same gamers proclaim it's not even that hard to do it. I've been arguing against both these claims. I believe that innovation happens in our industry all the time and many players just don't stop to appreciate it. I also believe that innovation is probably one of the hardest things for a developer to do.
Given the way "The Adjacent Possible" defines innovation, I can prove that innovation is not the amazing land of "originality" that gamers keep claiming it is, as it consists largely of recycled and reshuffled parts. But that also means they can more legitimately claim that innovating "isn't that hard." After all, if it's just taking old stuff and presenting it differently, where's the "effort"? In short, this article will prove both invaluable and a handicap in the essays I'm currently writing: "The Myth of Greatness" and "Innovation Crapovation." I'm planning to post both of these on my prospective site for "troll slayers" like myself.
Getting away from how this article will be useful to me in arguments, I want to say that it actually encapsulates some things I've felt for a long time. I used to argue, for instance, that telling people to "think outside the box" was effectively asking them to think outside their own minds, a literal impossibility. In that sense, I believed much innovation was just an accident, some random piece of genius people just stumbled across almost by luck, albeit while thinking hard about doing things differently. What this article calls the adjacent possible is a pretty good synonym for that: our minds are constrained by the parts we have, and we can only grow the mansion by recycling things, not by skipping ahead rooms the way people like Charles Babbage did.
It's too bad more people can't see innovation this way. Otherwise, I think there'd be less complaint about our free markets lacking the drive for innovation. Overall, this was very interesting, and I'm looking forward to the next chapter.
Monday, June 6, 2011
DMF203 Assignment 6: Final Game
Here is a link to the website where I have posted all three files for my Final Game.
I ultimately--due to circumstances and an absurdly inexcusable amount of procrastination--had to settle for what I provided: a modified game of Pong. I'm sorry my final game does not match my original proposal.
Click here to go to my Google Site.
I ultimately--due to circumstances and an absurdly inexcusable amount of procrastination--had to settle for what I provided: a modified game of Pong. I'm sorry my final game does not match my original proposal.
Click here to go to my Google Site.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Saturday, May 14, 2011
DMF203 Description of Final Game
I started this term with a specific game in mind. The idea for it grew a little, and it is now likely impossible to pull off completely. But I believe I can get at least ONE of these games made before the term ends.
My idea is inspired by a subject that fascinates me: chemistry. If you read my first post from this term, I described how I'd like to turn the basic ideas in chemistry into a puzzle game. I even split it into three disciplines, which is why I'm going to do THREE games if there's time. I'll describe my plans for each of them.
TITLE: CHEMISTRY WARS
GENERAL: This discipline deals primarily with how to read the periodic table and the bonds formed between atoms of each element. My idea for the game is to make the mouse the primary method of play. When the round starts, a random element from the first 20 in the table is chosen and replaces the mouse pointer. When the player clicks, it lays down the element. Then another random element is selected and the process repeats. If the player sees that two elements can form a molecule or begin the formation of a molecule, s/he lays them next to each other. For every completed molecule, a set amount of points are added to the total and extra time is added to the game clock, which signifies when the game will end. The more complex the molecule formed, the greater the points and added time. The completed molecule will also disappear from the field.
There are three elements in the first 20 called Noble Gases that cannot form bonds. These are indicated with a star in the background. These are the "bonus blocks." If a player lays one down, it will automatically bond with everything around it and remove those elements for a huge bonus.
ORGANIC: Organic chemistry deals mostly with nomenclature (that's how to name molecules) and identifying "groups." For example, a carbon bonded to 4 hydrogens is called "Methane," two carbons bonded with 6 hydrogens is called "Ethane," three carbons bonded with 8 hydrogens is called "Propane," and so on. The game version is kind of the reverse of the GENERAL discipline. There's a random group of elements ALREADY on the field and the player needs to click on elements to create specified groups. If they complete a molecule, another one is randomly selected from among the possibilities programmed in, and the player now has to complete the NEW molecule. Naturally, the player scores points every time s/he completes a molecule. As with the other game, there's a time limit that can be restored as molecules are completed.
BIO: Biochemistry deals with DNA and the atomic structure of many biological molecules like carbohydrates and fats. It also explains how the body constructs proteins. For me, the DNA is the most interesting part, so I intend to focus on that. In this version of the game, the player takes the complimentary bases found in DNA--adenine pairs with thymine and cytosine pairs with guanine--and uses them to construct DNA strands. In addition, there is a single strand called RNA that uses uracil instead of thymine, and the player can construct either of them at the same time. A completed strand of either RNA or DNA nets the player points and a fresh strand. This is probably the simplest of my ideas.
So this is my game idea(s). Let me know which of these sounds the most interesting and which is the most feasible in the three weeks we have. :)
My idea is inspired by a subject that fascinates me: chemistry. If you read my first post from this term, I described how I'd like to turn the basic ideas in chemistry into a puzzle game. I even split it into three disciplines, which is why I'm going to do THREE games if there's time. I'll describe my plans for each of them.
TITLE: CHEMISTRY WARS
GENERAL: This discipline deals primarily with how to read the periodic table and the bonds formed between atoms of each element. My idea for the game is to make the mouse the primary method of play. When the round starts, a random element from the first 20 in the table is chosen and replaces the mouse pointer. When the player clicks, it lays down the element. Then another random element is selected and the process repeats. If the player sees that two elements can form a molecule or begin the formation of a molecule, s/he lays them next to each other. For every completed molecule, a set amount of points are added to the total and extra time is added to the game clock, which signifies when the game will end. The more complex the molecule formed, the greater the points and added time. The completed molecule will also disappear from the field.
There are three elements in the first 20 called Noble Gases that cannot form bonds. These are indicated with a star in the background. These are the "bonus blocks." If a player lays one down, it will automatically bond with everything around it and remove those elements for a huge bonus.
ORGANIC: Organic chemistry deals mostly with nomenclature (that's how to name molecules) and identifying "groups." For example, a carbon bonded to 4 hydrogens is called "Methane," two carbons bonded with 6 hydrogens is called "Ethane," three carbons bonded with 8 hydrogens is called "Propane," and so on. The game version is kind of the reverse of the GENERAL discipline. There's a random group of elements ALREADY on the field and the player needs to click on elements to create specified groups. If they complete a molecule, another one is randomly selected from among the possibilities programmed in, and the player now has to complete the NEW molecule. Naturally, the player scores points every time s/he completes a molecule. As with the other game, there's a time limit that can be restored as molecules are completed.
BIO: Biochemistry deals with DNA and the atomic structure of many biological molecules like carbohydrates and fats. It also explains how the body constructs proteins. For me, the DNA is the most interesting part, so I intend to focus on that. In this version of the game, the player takes the complimentary bases found in DNA--adenine pairs with thymine and cytosine pairs with guanine--and uses them to construct DNA strands. In addition, there is a single strand called RNA that uses uracil instead of thymine, and the player can construct either of them at the same time. A completed strand of either RNA or DNA nets the player points and a fresh strand. This is probably the simplest of my ideas.
So this is my game idea(s). Let me know which of these sounds the most interesting and which is the most feasible in the three weeks we have. :)
Monday, May 9, 2011
DMF203 Assignment 4: Animation Symbols
Please click on the link below to visit my Google site. My animation symbols are naturally the two files labeled "Animation Symbols."
Click here
Click here
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
DMF203 Assignment 3: Programmatic Collage
This is what I was trying to do:
Unfortunately, this is all I could accomplish: Visit my webpage
And this is the code I used to get it:
package {
import flash.display.MovieClip;
import flash.text.Font;
import flash.text.TextField;
import flash.text.TextFormat;
import flash.events.Event;
public class Main extends MovieClip{
var shapeOne:MovieClip;
var shapeTwo:MovieClip;
var shapeThree:MovieClip;
var shapeFour:MovieClip;
var shapeFive:MovieClip;
public function Main() {
// constructor code
trace ("I really hate coding this shit!");
//End printing stuff
shapeOne = new TitleScreen;
shapeTwo = new PeriodicTable;
shapeThree = new BioCollage;
shapeFour = new OrganicCollage;
shapeFive = new InorganicCollage;
//Now, the stage manipulation stuff...
//the colon says "It MUST be a MovieClip"
//CHANGE "Chlorine" -> the "Linkage" of one of your symbols
addChild(shapeOne); //add to stage
addChild(shapeTwo);
addChild(shapeThree);
addChild(shapeFour);
addChild(shapeFive);
shapeOne.x = 125;// location LEFT RIGHT
shapeOne.y = 100; //location UP DOWN
//NOTE: Y-DOWN is Positive
shapeOne.scaleX = .5;
shapeOne.scaleY = .5;
shapeTwo.x = 88;
shapeTwo.y = 187;
shapeTwo.scaleX = .5;
shapeTwo.scaleY = .5;
shapeTwo.rotation = 45;
shapeThree.scaleX = .5;
shapeThree.scaleY = .5;
shapeThree.x = 224;
shapeThree.y = 324;
shapeThree.rotation = 315;
shapeFour.x = 280;
shapeFour.y = 67;
shapeFour.scaleX = .5;
shapeFour.scaleY = .5;
shapeFour.rotation = 315;
shapeFive.scaleX = .5;
shapeFive.scaleY = .5;
shapeFive.rotation = 45;
shapeFive.x = 0;
shapeFive.y = 0;
} //Function Main
}
}
And this is the code I used to get it:
package {
import flash.display.MovieClip;
import flash.text.Font;
import flash.text.TextField;
import flash.text.TextFormat;
import flash.events.Event;
public class Main extends MovieClip{
var shapeOne:MovieClip;
var shapeTwo:MovieClip;
var shapeThree:MovieClip;
var shapeFour:MovieClip;
var shapeFive:MovieClip;
public function Main() {
// constructor code
trace ("I really hate coding this shit!");
//End printing stuff
shapeOne = new TitleScreen;
shapeTwo = new PeriodicTable;
shapeThree = new BioCollage;
shapeFour = new OrganicCollage;
shapeFive = new InorganicCollage;
//Now, the stage manipulation stuff...
//the colon says "It MUST be a MovieClip"
//CHANGE "Chlorine" -> the "Linkage" of one of your symbols
addChild(shapeOne); //add to stage
addChild(shapeTwo);
addChild(shapeThree);
addChild(shapeFour);
addChild(shapeFive);
shapeOne.x = 125;// location LEFT RIGHT
shapeOne.y = 100; //location UP DOWN
//NOTE: Y-DOWN is Positive
shapeOne.scaleX = .5;
shapeOne.scaleY = .5;
shapeTwo.x = 88;
shapeTwo.y = 187;
shapeTwo.scaleX = .5;
shapeTwo.scaleY = .5;
shapeTwo.rotation = 45;
shapeThree.scaleX = .5;
shapeThree.scaleY = .5;
shapeThree.x = 224;
shapeThree.y = 324;
shapeThree.rotation = 315;
shapeFour.x = 280;
shapeFour.y = 67;
shapeFour.scaleX = .5;
shapeFour.scaleY = .5;
shapeFour.rotation = 315;
shapeFive.scaleX = .5;
shapeFive.scaleY = .5;
shapeFive.rotation = 45;
shapeFive.x = 0;
shapeFive.y = 0;
} //Function Main
}
}
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
DMF203 Assignment 3: Reflective Essay
I have wanted to make video games since I was a kid, though there have been many other things--movies, books, acting, writing--that have intrigued me immensely enough to want to be part of them. When I was a kid, I used to come up with all kinds of ideas for games. I wrote down an idea for an alternative sports stunt game with Nintendo characters, Spider Man, and tons of other creations, a couple beat-em-ups with Looney Tunes characters and the old cartoon series Darkwing Duck, and an idea for what could simply be called the longest friggin' RPG ever conceived. (Okay, maybe not, but that was the idea. :) )
As all this should suggest, the most natural fit for me is a position as designer. I love coming up with unusual ideas that haven't been done before. I also believe this would work better because I personally have a great deal of trouble doing programming on computers, and the designers--though I'm sure they need to understand programming to an extent--don't need to program nearly as often as most of the other professions call for. I'm also a very good writer. At least, if those around me are to be believed, and narrative is an essential part of being a designer. In general, being able to create my own ideas for games is something that just makes my mouth water, so yeah, designer is definitely the position I would choose if I could.
That being said, the chance to participate in making a commercial game in almost any fashion is one that I'd happily embrace. Being able to do artwork for a game as an Artist is something I'd enjoy participating in, as is the Level Design and the Sound Design. In fact, as a designer of the game, I'd probably insist on helping in the other departments as well, just because I consider those aspects to be such a necessary part of creating the designer's vision. The only two positions I think I'd be hesitant about--though not hesitant enough to refuse--are the Programmer and Tester. The programmer's job is one that I hear is not very pleasant in the gaming industry, as they tend to be worked to the bone to get code written. Furthermore, the programmer has little to no say in what the actual content of a game is, effectively making him/her a very secondary position to the creation process. Instead, the programmer pretty much just takes orders from the designers and then has to find a way to please them. There is little time for the programmer to "play around." The Tester, meanwhile, might not be quite as difficult or boring a job as the Programmer's, but as before, testers tend to get worked extra hard and they tend to have very little say in the creative process, though they DO at least get to provide input on whether a game is fun to play.
I love entertainment to death, especially gaming, and the chance to create something that will give people the goosebumps, adrenaline rushes, senses of wonder, and joys that I've experienced so many times is one that makes me glad I'm in college taking this course and working towards a degree that will hopefully employ me in the industry some day. I hope I can become a designer, but if I can become ANYTHING in the industry, that will be enough to satisfy me. BOTTOM LINE: I'd love to be a designer, but I'll take any position you're hiring for, sir! :)
As all this should suggest, the most natural fit for me is a position as designer. I love coming up with unusual ideas that haven't been done before. I also believe this would work better because I personally have a great deal of trouble doing programming on computers, and the designers--though I'm sure they need to understand programming to an extent--don't need to program nearly as often as most of the other professions call for. I'm also a very good writer. At least, if those around me are to be believed, and narrative is an essential part of being a designer. In general, being able to create my own ideas for games is something that just makes my mouth water, so yeah, designer is definitely the position I would choose if I could.
That being said, the chance to participate in making a commercial game in almost any fashion is one that I'd happily embrace. Being able to do artwork for a game as an Artist is something I'd enjoy participating in, as is the Level Design and the Sound Design. In fact, as a designer of the game, I'd probably insist on helping in the other departments as well, just because I consider those aspects to be such a necessary part of creating the designer's vision. The only two positions I think I'd be hesitant about--though not hesitant enough to refuse--are the Programmer and Tester. The programmer's job is one that I hear is not very pleasant in the gaming industry, as they tend to be worked to the bone to get code written. Furthermore, the programmer has little to no say in what the actual content of a game is, effectively making him/her a very secondary position to the creation process. Instead, the programmer pretty much just takes orders from the designers and then has to find a way to please them. There is little time for the programmer to "play around." The Tester, meanwhile, might not be quite as difficult or boring a job as the Programmer's, but as before, testers tend to get worked extra hard and they tend to have very little say in the creative process, though they DO at least get to provide input on whether a game is fun to play.
I love entertainment to death, especially gaming, and the chance to create something that will give people the goosebumps, adrenaline rushes, senses of wonder, and joys that I've experienced so many times is one that makes me glad I'm in college taking this course and working towards a degree that will hopefully employ me in the industry some day. I hope I can become a designer, but if I can become ANYTHING in the industry, that will be enough to satisfy me. BOTTOM LINE: I'd love to be a designer, but I'll take any position you're hiring for, sir! :)
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
DMF203 Assignment 2: Reflective Essay
Shigeru Miyamoto is a legendary game designer. Many other "legendary developers" have cited him as a source of inspiration. That's one of the most significant things I got from the article. What's really interesting, though, is that Miyamoto doesn't really fit the stereotype that most of us have created to describe a gamer or a computer science junkie. And I believe a lot of stuff can be gleaned from his lifestyle and attitudes that could be a big slap in the face to GAMER demands and attitudes.
It's actually ironic and contradictory that gamers get upset when developers don't give them what they ask for, and yet also get upset when corporate bodies use surveys to determine what should be included in certain games. Shigeru Miyamoto flies in the face of the idea that surveys should be used to determine a game's content. He makes games that HE enjoys in the name of recreating childhood experiences he had, not stuff that players ask for. This of course can be a double-edged sword, but I think for Miyamoto it's been more of a good thing then a bad thing. In fact, the only thing he's come up with that I think the hardcore community has almost exclusively gotten upset over is his desire to take Fox McCloud out of the Arwing from Star Fox and make him venture on foot in Star Fox Adventures and Star Fox Assault. (I've actually read an interview with one of the original creators of Star Fox, Dylan Cuthbert. He actually has said that Miyamoto doesn't really care that the core fans want Fox to stay in his vehicle.)
It's also interesting that most of Miyamoto's inspiration for gaming doesn't come from other games; it comes from childhood experiences outdoors, particularly the trips he took through a cave with a lantern that inspired The Legend of Zelda. Since gaming wasn't even AROUND when he was a kid, his status as one of the world's top game developers is potentially all the more puzzling (to hardcore gamers who think you've got to be obsessed with the industry to make it) and significant. The fact that he doesn't even have TIME to play games anymore yet continues to be a powerhouse in the industry is also very significant.
My upbringing was actually kind of similar, though I don't mean to suggest I could ever become as great as Miyamoto, or that I'll ever even make it in the industry as I hope to. I spent a good portion of my youth doing things that ordinary kids do: going outside, playing with miniature cars and toys, and hanging with friends. When I got older--into 6th grade during the launch of the N64 to be precise--I started to skip out on many other things in favor of being indoors and gaming constantly. This served as both a help and hindrance for me in retrospect, not only in the ideas I have for gaming, but also in terms of my mental and physical well-being. Many of my best ideas are ones that are derived--to one degree or another--from other games I've played. While that may be true of all created things, it's something that could potentially render many of my ideas too generic.
What I believe we can learn from Miyamoto's example is that being a shut in with one specific hobby (gaming) that occupies most of your time is not going to serve you well in being creative in the gaming industry. You need to have experienced life as well. Even Miyamoto has made sure his little girls can't spend all their time gaming by requiring them to go outside on the weekends. What we can learn is that good gaming is about taking real life experiences that brought joy and finding ways to provide those same feelings in a digital form. It's not strictly--or perhaps even as much--about creating something that truly hasn't been experienced before as it is about RE-creating what brings us joy in real life.
Monday, April 11, 2011
DMF203 Assignment 2: Collages
 |
| My proposed title screen with the option to choose the three game variations |
 |
| A screen of the Inorganic Chemistry game (also called the "General" game) |
 |
| A screen of the Organic Chemistry game |
 |
| A screen of the Biological Chemistry game |
 |
| A representation of the periodic table with my symbols |
Monday, April 4, 2011
DMF203 Assignment 1: Reflective Essay
Darn. These aren't easy questions to answer, not only because my primary method of playing games is VIDEO games, but because they require deep thought on the subject.
Well, I've got to say late night Hide and Seek is one of my all time favorites. Plus, I'd like to include a couple similar games under the same heading that don't exactly have "names." One is a game I liked playing where I'd hide specific objects for others to find. (Would that be called an "Easter Egg Hunt"?) The other was similar except that each player had a weapon and if you were "hit", you had to give a hint as to where a specific hidden object was located. What I guess I loved so much was the chance to be creative in coming up with my hints or the places I could hide. Successfully deciphering the puzzle aspects of the games was always quite rewarding for me too.
In these particular games, there were strong visual components, not only in simply being able to find things that were hidden, but also--and this was something I really loved--in being able to find things that were sometimes sitting right out in the open. I fondly recall placing something that was red right on top of something decorative that was ALSO red and watching my friend search endlessly for it while it was right under her nose.
I think it's easy to see how this could be used in my design. At least, in terms of puzzle games like the ones I'm interested in making for this particular class. Hiding things that are right in front of the player is something designers in that genre are generally very good at. However, when it comes to simpler fare like platformers and action games where the focus is on movement with minimal thought, I don't think these ideas have quite as much use to them. They are inherently ideas that require conscious thought as opposed to subconsciously putting yourself into someone else's shoes, so they don't work as well outside of puzzle games. Either way, though, these ideas are VERY useful.
Well, I've got to say late night Hide and Seek is one of my all time favorites. Plus, I'd like to include a couple similar games under the same heading that don't exactly have "names." One is a game I liked playing where I'd hide specific objects for others to find. (Would that be called an "Easter Egg Hunt"?) The other was similar except that each player had a weapon and if you were "hit", you had to give a hint as to where a specific hidden object was located. What I guess I loved so much was the chance to be creative in coming up with my hints or the places I could hide. Successfully deciphering the puzzle aspects of the games was always quite rewarding for me too.
In these particular games, there were strong visual components, not only in simply being able to find things that were hidden, but also--and this was something I really loved--in being able to find things that were sometimes sitting right out in the open. I fondly recall placing something that was red right on top of something decorative that was ALSO red and watching my friend search endlessly for it while it was right under her nose.
I think it's easy to see how this could be used in my design. At least, in terms of puzzle games like the ones I'm interested in making for this particular class. Hiding things that are right in front of the player is something designers in that genre are generally very good at. However, when it comes to simpler fare like platformers and action games where the focus is on movement with minimal thought, I don't think these ideas have quite as much use to them. They are inherently ideas that require conscious thought as opposed to subconsciously putting yourself into someone else's shoes, so they don't work as well outside of puzzle games. Either way, though, these ideas are VERY useful.
DMF203 Assignment 1: 30 Symbols
So I'm envisioning a puzzle game that I've had the idea for since my Chemistry classes at RCC. The way the Periodic Table of Elements is set up is very deliberate in demonstrating what elements can bond with other elements. See, it is the nature of molecules to try and fill their orbitals with the maximum number of possible electrons (which is 8). As you move left to right on the table, the number of electrons in the orbitals of the atoms of the specified element increases. For instance, Hydrogen has 1 electron, Helium has 2, Carbon has 4, and Oxygen has 6. The way compounds are created is by elements coming together and sharing electrons to create full orbitals that equal a total count of electrons that is a multiple of 8. This is why water is sometimes referred to as H20: it's one oxygen atom with 6 electrons combined with two hydrogen atoms that each have 1 electron apiece for a total of (Surprise!) 8 electrons. The elements farthest on the right are called "Noble Gases." They have full orbitals totaling 8 electrons and cannot make bonds at all. The elements in the middle of the table have the ability to create the most bonds (Carbon is an example) because electrons must "pair up" in order to bond atoms. Those to the left of center can make fewer because they don't have enough electrons to pair, and those right of center can make fewer because their orbitals are already close to being filled. Therefore, from left to right on the table, the first elements can form 1 bond, the second can form 2, the third can form 3, the fourth can form 4, the fifth can form 3, the sixth can form 2, the seventh can form 1, and the eighth (the Noble Gases) cannot form any.
I explain all this because my idea is one similar to Tetris where various elements fall from the top of the screen. However, the catch is that you don't pair up similar colors or make complete lines; instead, you form molecules based on these principles of Chemistry to score points. This is why the first 20 symbols I created are all representations of the first 20 elements in the Periodic Table. Pair up a carbon atom with two oxygens and bingo, you've made carbon-dioxide gas for 1,000 points! Pair up sodium (Na) with chlorine (Cl) and bingo, you've made table salt for 200 points! The Noble Gases Helium (He), Neon (Ne), and Argon (Ar)--which I just explained cannot make any bonds--are the bonus blocks that give you automatic points or--perhaps--blow other extraneous elements out of the grid.
So what are the other symbols for? Well, the thing is, I'm envisioning a game with multiple play modes. Three to be exact, which is what the three test tube symbols are for. What I just described is General (also called Inorganic) Chemistry. There are two other types of Chemistry I'm familiar with. One is Biochemistry, and in that "mode of play," I'm envisioning something similar except the goal is to pair up the bases to create DNA molecules. As explained in the previous post, Adenine pairs up with Thymine and Cytosine pairs up with Guanine. (I totally spaced doing a Uracil symbol.) The other symbols relate to Organic Chemistry and are essentially filler to complete the assignment, though I can see ways to turn those into game elements too. Organic chemistry deals primarily with molecules that include Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and sometimes Nitrogen. It has more to do with identifying groups, so I created some symbols relating a few of the most basic organic molecules. (Essentially, they're all just carbon atoms surrounded by hydrogen atoms, and their names derive from the number of carbon atoms in the molecule. You might notice that they're all a type of gas.)
So that's my idea and my explanation. Hope it clears up what I decided to make for this assignment. :)
DMF203 Assignment 1: Internet Pics
I came into this assignment with an idea already in mind for a game. Whether it will become the first or last one I make this term will be determined later. For now, here are some pictures I found to reference a little while I made my symbols.
My topic is "CHEMISTRY."
All of these were helpful in me determining what symbols I would create. If they seem a little puzzling, I apologize. I will give a brief explanation for my 30 symbols that should clear these up better.
My topic is "CHEMISTRY."
 |
| This is a fancy model of an Oxygen atom. |
 |
| Same as above, except it's a model of Nitrogen. |
 |
| This is a different style model for a Calcium atom. |
 |
| This is a Hydrogen atom, the smallest model and yet also the best looking in this instance. :) |
 |
| A group of Magnesium bars. Not entirely relevant, but close enough |
 |
| A model of the double helix of DNA strands. (Part of Biochemistry) |
 |
| The process of DNA replication. The helix is split apart and RNA is used to match up the base pairs. |
 |
| This is the chemical formula for Adenine, one of the four base pairs that make up DNA. |
 |
| This is Thymine, the second of the four bases. It is always paired with Adenine. |
 |
| This is Cytosine, the third of the four bases. |
 |
| This is Guanine, the fourth base. It is always paired with Cytosine. |
 |
| This is Uracil. It is a base that replaces Thymine in RNA molecules. |
All of these were helpful in me determining what symbols I would create. If they seem a little puzzling, I apologize. I will give a brief explanation for my 30 symbols that should clear these up better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)