While We Wait: Part 4

[Symphony D.]

So, given this book and it's conjectures:

By and large, people don’t play games because of the stories. The stories that wrap the games are usually side dishes for the brain. For one thing, it’s damn rare to see a game story written by an actual writer. As a result, they are usually around the high-school level of literary sophistication at best.

For another, since the games are generally about power, control, and those other primitive things, the stories tend to be so as well. This means they tend to be power fantasies. That’s generally considered to be a pretty juvenile sort of story.

The stories in most video games serve the same purpose as calling the über-checker a “king.” It adds interesting shading to the game but the game at its core is unchanged.

Remember - my background is as a writer, so this actually pisses me off. Story deserves better treatment than that.

Games are not stories. It is interesting to make the comparison, though:

• Games tend to be experiential teaching. Stories teach vicariously.
• Games are good at objectification. Stories are good at empathy.
• Games tend to quantize, reduce, and classify. Stories tend to blur, deepen, and make subtle distinctions.
• Games are external - they are about people’s actions. Stories (good ones, anyway) are internal - they are about people’s emotions and thoughts.

In both cases, when they are good, you can come back to them repeatedly and keep learning something new. But we never speak of fully mastering a good story.

Could it be concluded that the age old argument of "Are NESes Stories or Games" is decidedly conclusively in favor of "Game with story elements?"

 

[North King]

Uhhhhhhh... No? NESing isn't exactly like chess.

EDIT: By which I mean, it's not a game with stories wrapped in. The theories there don't exactly focus on classifying as something as a game rather than a story; rather they focus on what the effects of having it be one or the other is. NESing isn't a normal "game", if a "game" at all given the usual definitions, and so this website is rather useless for the purposes of our "debate".

 

[Symphony D.]

His arguments are meant to apply to all games. All here used in the sense of "every single possible permutation, genre, presentation, type, or kind."

Show our contestant what he's won, Vanna! It's the Illiteracy Prize!

 

[North King]

Then his arguments are ********, because there's no way you can say Chess and Life appeal to the same parts of the human brain. QED, thank you, good bye.

 

[Symphony D.]

By which I mean, it's not a game with stories wrapped in.

As he explains, virtually all games, including Chess and Checkers, have story elements included.

The theories there don't exactly focus on classifying as something as a game rather than a story; rather they focus on what the effects of having it be one or the other is.

Those things are equivalent. If something does not display the hallmarks of being X, it is not X. NESes are not vicarious, absolutely no good at empathy or conveying emotion, and not terribly distinct or subtle. They convey none of the trademark signatures of a story, though they may foster stories based on their content. How are they stories then?

NESing isn't a normal "game", if a "game" at all given the usual definitions,

In that it doesn't have a final victory condition, no. Then again, given he also discusses Primate Dominance Mechanics in the form of a game, and that isn't open-ended, and is precisely what NESing is about (on a large scale) I would say it's included.

and so this website

Excerpted book.

is rather useless for the purposes of our "debate".

I've heard this somewhere before.

Then his arguments are ********, because there's no way you can say Chess and Life appeal to the same parts of the human brain. QED, thank you, good bye.

Complete the sentence, class! If you're not going to argue coherently, then: _________________?

 

[Perfection]

Then his arguments are ********, because there's no way you can say Chess and Life appeal to the same parts of the human brain. QED, thank you, good bye.

I dunno, I cheat at both Chess and Life.

 

[Angst]

Where did he come from now?

 

[North King]

As he explains, virtually all games, including Chess and Checkers, have story elements included.

Okay, seriously, are you trying to say that Chess has a comparable degree of storytelling as NESing?

Those things are equivalent. If something does not display the hallmarks of being X, it is not X. NESes are not vicarious, absolutely no good at empathy or conveying emotion, and not terribly distinct or subtle. They convey none of the trademark signatures of a story, though they may foster stories based on their content. How are they stories then?

...Yeah... Um... There's more than one way to play an NES, y'know?

In that it doesn't have a final victory condition, no. Then again, given he also discusses Primate Dominance Mechanics in the form of a game, and that isn't open-ended, and is precisely what NESing is about (on a large scale) I would say it's included.

NESing isn't a game for a lot more reasons than the lack of a final victory condition. I really shouldn't have to explain why.

Excerpted book.

You linked to a website, regardless of the subject of that website.

Complete the sentence, class! If you're not going to argue coherently, then: _________________?

post this sentence, evidently!

 

[Symphony D.]

Okay, seriously, are you trying to say that Chess has a comparable degree of storytelling as NESing?

No, but they are both games, with story elements. Degree is a secondary concern to the primary element; ie: which factor is clearly the greater.

...Yeah... Um... There's more than one way to play an NES, y'know?

I figured making the cognitive leap to imagining I was talking about both orders and updates was simple, but apparently it was not.

NESing isn't a game for a lot more reasons than the lack of a final victory condition. I really shouldn't have to explain why.

Apparently you do, because you're not doing a terribly good job of making an argument without them. If you don't care enough to do it, why are you bothering at all?

You linked to a website, regardless of the subject of that website.

Except the material is from a book, thus it is a book in question, regardless of where the material is displayed. I even went so far as to class it as that in my first post. At this rate we'll have to get you a medal chest for these awards you're accruing.

post this sentence, evidently!

Two quotes up, final sentence. It's a hint. Another hint: one possible response is an Internet Meme involving a WWII-era American soldier and coffee.

 

[North King]

Except the material is from a book, thus it is a book in question, regardless of where the material is displayed. I even went so far as to class it as that in my first post. At this rate we'll have to get you a medal chest for these awards you're accruing.

Except I was referring to the website you linked to, quite obviously. Jesus, Symphony, are you deliberately being a snot just to look "smart"? It's really kind of sad, I try to give you some respect (I tell people in IM conversations to lay off of you all the time) and then you have to go and post this travesty of an "argument", then bash one of the few people who sticks up for you on occasion.

Ech, it's done on my part. Consider yourself as having "won" if you like; next time if you want to have a "debate" don't make an assertion, then repeat it and expect that that makes it true. You offered minimal evidence to support your core thesis (NESing being a game with story elements), thus making most tangential points meaningless, then you go an insult people because they -- oh my god! -- disagree with you. Even you should have learned by now that this is not the way to convince someone of your point.

I'm aware you have the doctrine firmly in mind of trying to rule by fear, but currently you're trying to rule by abrasiveness, and quite frankly it's working in one respect -- it's abrasive. I am done with it. Continue to post your little rants if you'd like, assert what you want, but until you can stop debating like a three year old who's annoyed because no one's taking his word as gospel, you won't get a reply from me.

 

[Masada]

EU BG's, Eurocrats with guns! They have the dubious honour of existing either on paper, or in practice (and I stress, practice). Value to the taxpayer and NATO nil.

 

[Symphony D.]

then bash one of the few people who sticks up for you on occasion.

I bash anybody for not paying attention. If you were Jesus, Buddha, the President of the United States, or my Mother, I'd treat you exactly the same. I can do much better if I want to launch personal attacks, believe me.

next time if you want to have a "debate" don't make an assertion, then repeat it and expect that that makes it true.

The point of a debate, last I checked, was to present points and, if they are false, shoot them down. Calling something "********" doesn't make a convincing counterpoint and if you're going to bother making an argument, it should be a good one. Otherwise, I will do the nice thing and set up the target again for you to take a better shot at, in the hopes you might hit it.

You offered minimal evidence to support your core thesis (NESing being a game with story elements), thus making most tangential points meaningless, then you go an insult people because they -- oh my god! -- disagree with you.

To the first, I simply threw out a hypothesis. It isn't "my" thesis. To the second, I'm "attacking" you because your response has so far had little logic, no weight, and no substance. I set out a point. You apparently didn't examine it at all before responding, and instead decided to kind of half-heartedly flail at it with no real thought or reason. I think that's worthy of mockery regardless of who does it or why.

Even you should have learned by now that this is not the way to convince someone of your point.

I never stated I agreed with the point. I do, but that's tangential. I want to hear what people think, on a deeper level than emotional gut reactions--which is all you've given, since you've decided this is some sort of elaborate personal attack on you, specifically.

I am done with it.

Please point out to me when I ever mentioned your name explicitly in solicitation.

but until you can stop debating like a three year old who's annoyed because no one's taking his word as gospel

Indeed, I am truly the one throwing a tantrum here. Look at me whine, oh people of the NES forum. Verily, it is fearsome.

 

[Symphony D.]

Alright, redirect.

After some discussion with North King (and hopefully, without angering him for posting this) we came to the following:

[16:20:58] SnowKing666: So obviously you treat it like a game -- that's what you're looking for in it. Obviously I treat it like a story -- that's what I look for in it.
[...]
[16:24:40] SnowKing666: I read an update for different reasons than you and get a different response out of it than you. Okay? Capice? No, I'm not going to dredge up an old update and walk you through my reaction to it. You're going to have to trust me on it. Sorry.
[16:25:54] Alec Walton: There you go. All you had to was actually say that.
[16:26:02] Alec Walton: Instead of ever so vaguely implying it.
[16:26:31] SnowKing666: that's hardly the first time I said it.
[16:27:12] SnowKing666: I said the exact same thing in my much criticized "Um, people look for different things in an update, ya know?"
[16:27:26] SnowKing666: Sure, it was in a less eloquent form, but you don't need to spew fifty words onto a page to make a point.
[16:28:34] Alec Walton: Fine. Then what we have here is a collective failure to communicate.
[16:28:58] SnowKing666: yarr.

So, setting aside all of this argumentation, let us raise an important question. This is open to everybody and is being asked because it may be of utility to moderators.

If the Story-Game experience is seen as co-existent in NESing, as stated in the above, then what are methods for optimizing both aspects (factual content and emotional context) in an update? If the player's processing of information is relative, how do you cater to different types of audience effectively at the same time?

 

[Shadowbound]

As a mod, I intend to give out in-game bonuses for story-writing. It is intended to be a player's main way to improve their nation's growth rate. I hope that more game-oriented players can be enticed to write stories if they believe it will benefit their nations.

 

[Perfection]

Where did he come from now?

Don't italicize, capitolize!

 

[Symphony D.]

As a mod, I intend to give out in-game bonuses for story-writing. It is intended to be a player's main way to improve their nation's growth rate. I hope that more game-oriented players can be enticed to write stories if they believe it will benefit their nations.

Tried and true. However, how does one limit the effect to prevent there from being an "arms race" of stories on any given turn? Quality is subjective, and even if it is taken into account, those with more free time continue to have a decided edge. Does one use diminishing returns? Or something else?

Also, though that functions as a possible solution for the player portion of the equation, what of updates themselves? If a potential equilibrium between the two aspects exists, should all moderators move to adopt it? And what would it be to begin with? Something like Birdjaguar's style in the first BirdNES? Or something else entirely?

 

[Shadowbound]

Diminishing returns, partially. The formulas are going to need some tweaking during the first few updates, but after that I should find a nice balance.

I have to confess, I was never really able to understand what was going on in Bird's updates. It all seemed so confusing. So, I guess I wouldn't use his style.

 

[Kozmos]

I always thought of stories as a way to customize your nation, it helped to shape it the way you saw fit. The bonuses you got by them were usually small but big enough to make a change in your nation to something that appeals to your aesthetic taste.

At least that how I looked it. A means to an end.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

If the Story-Game experience is seen as co-existent in NESing, as stated in the above, then what are methods for optimizing both aspects (factual content and emotional context) in an update? If the player's processing of information is relative, how do you cater to different types of audience effectively at the same time?

It seems to me that is why we have both a write-up and stats. If NESing were a pure game, we'd only need the stats (and/or maps, graphics, etc, which I place in the same category); if it were a pure story we'd only need a write-up (if we needed one at all).

Having made that admittedly fairly obvious point, I'd like to make another one--for game purposes, only the situation at the time of the update matters. Yet a write-up is almost never just a summary of the current situation (which is what the stats are, though they can also contain mini-histories); instead, it covers a period of time. So, for example, it doesn't ultimately matter whether "country x gradually expanded over the century" or "country x had a great emperor at the beginning of the century who conquered huge swathes of land; over the rest of this century, most of this land gradually seceded from country x." Yes, you can nitpick this example and point out differences in the situation, but I think the point stands--you can dissociate the game and the story within the update.

 

[Symphony D.]

It seems to me that is why we have both a write-up and stats. If NESing were a pure game, we'd only need the stats (and/or maps, graphics, etc, which I place in the same category); if it were a pure story we'd only need a write-up (if we needed one at all).

I'd say that's completely fallacious actually. Stats and map together just tell you the final result, not what actually happened to get there. Given the method of arrival is non-mechanical, even in the most mathematically assisted examples, you cannot realistically understand the game without the write-up. Similarly, with just a write-up and no stats or map, visualizing relative capabilities or positions becomes virtually impossible and murky. Both components are necessary to understand a situation in full.

The second one I'm also uneasy with but less willing to bother with now. At any rate, in saying both these "obvious" things, you have totally avoided the questions being asked.