waywo What Are You Working On?

[Westin 2,174]

On 9/28/2019 at 9:12 AM, a Chunk said:

Flow can certainly be used to refer to intuition.  It can also be used to refer to ease of movement.  It can also be used to describe an intended or desired path.  The word 'flow' can be used in multiple ways and refer to completely different things.  The same is true of 'intuition', or any other word that may be used to further explain 'flow'.  It's the nature of language, and not a problem related to using any particular word.

 

In other words, the problem doesn't start or end with any particular word or phrase.  The problem is the inherent challenge of using words to describe thoughts, feelings, sensations.  None of the words being discussed here are more or less valuable than any other words.  If there's any problem with them, it's that some people already have a concept of what they mean, and that concept may differ from the meaning that's intended by other people, so there are misunderstandings that result from this.  But again, it's not a problem of the words, it's a problem of language in general.  And regardless of which words are used, this is still going to be a problem.  It can be somewhat alleviated by fully explaining the meaning of every term that's used, but that really isn't realistic.

 

Having said that, there is most definitely value in explaining the context of terms that are used within a specific piece of writing on a specific subject.

I don't think there's a problem with the language. I think the spoken word is perfectly capable of relating perfect truth, and yet, many have taken terms like flow and used them in such broad and ambiguous ways that they stop meaning anything. It's a people problem.

 

Even more than that, I could see how the recently agreed upon definition of 'flow' is even still too broad, and I think that may be something that Christian dislikes about it, although we've never talked about it so idk.

 

Look, we make PVP levels, which means that we aim to give players the ability to improvise and make decisions based on contextual information. Where is my teammate? Where are the enemies? Am I in a grenade trap? What weapons do we all have? What pickups are nearby or coming up? Do I want to reposition or team-shot? What are my personal strengths? Am I confident enough to make this lantern jump? With all of these contextual factors in mind and infinitely more, we make decisions, which allows every game to be a new personal composition of notes, assuming the map allows for it (I think that's the definition of a good map if I had to give one). We make instruments, we don't write songs. Assuming this is your goal, all of that means that the designer can't possibly account for flow in any meaningful way, and so, I don't think it's a goal we should even aim at. As soon as the designer can predict flow to the point that the term carries weight, you've probably gone too far in terms of directing the player, to the detriment of their personal impact. Yes, we generally know where players can go, because after all we're making the map and putting up the walls, but at that point, isn't the term a little too cryptic to be useful? Not everyone wants to be so strict with the words they use, and that's fine. Maybe flow is a useful term to you, but the way I see it, I don't think it has a place in good level design, not until it starts meaning something more than 'people moving'.

 

On a side note, that term is often used to justify stupid design decisions, and I think that is partially due to the enigmatic character of the words sporadic use. Like, okay, flow is general player movement. But what is good flow? What is bad flow. What principles are you using to define good/bad flow, and in the case you actually have articulate principles, couldn't you just skip the middle man and abide by those principles directly? The problem is that nobody actually knows, people just say word after word as if it'll eventually start to mean something, and at that point anything goes. Just off the top of my head, for some reason many define "good flow" as perfectly distributed player movement, which is just a stupid Idea. You don't go top catwalk on Legion or Box's map but every 25 games it seems, and yet its mere presence, the threat of the position influences the rest of the map, while you hardly ever "use" the position. That's just one example of how easy it is to glaze over what really matters in a map with phrases and words like this one.

 

TL/DR: Stop saying 'flow', stop saying 'risk vs reward', stop saying 'combat loop', stop saying 'sequences' stop saying 'fun', stop saying 'balance', stop saying 'interesting'. If you can't tell me what you want without these words, you probably don't have anything real to say.

[purely fat 1,276]

1 hour ago, Westin said:

I don't think there's a problem with the language. I think the spoken word is perfectly capable of relating perfect truth, and yet, many have taken terms like flow and used them in such broad and ambiguous ways that they stop meaning anything. It's a people problem.

 

Even more than that, I could see how the recently agreed upon definition of 'flow' is even still too broad, and I think that may be something that Christian dislikes about it, although we've never talked about it so idk.

 

Look, we make PVP levels, which means that we aim to give players the ability to improvise and make decisions based on contextual information. Where is my teammate? Where are the enemies? Am I in a grenade trap? What weapons do we all have? What pickups are nearby or coming up? Do I want to reposition or team-shot? What are my personal strengths? Am I confident enough to make this lantern jump? With all of these contextual factors in mind and infinitely more, we make decisions, which allows every game to be a new personal composition of notes, assuming the map allows for it (I think that's the definition of a good map if I had to give one). We make instruments, we don't write songs. Assuming this is your goal, all of that means that the designer can't possibly account for flow in any meaningful way, and so, I don't think it's a goal we should even aim at. As soon as the designer can predict flow to the point that the term carries weight, you've probably gone too far in terms of directing the player, to the detriment of their personal impact. Yes, we generally know where players can go, because after all we're making the map and putting up the walls, but at that point, isn't the term a little too cryptic to be useful? Not everyone wants to be so strict with the words they use, and that's fine. Maybe flow is a useful term to you, but the way I see it, I don't think it has a place in good level design, not until it starts meaning something more than 'people moving'.

 

On a side note, that term is often used to justify stupid design decisions, and I think that is partially due to the enigmatic character of the words sporadic use. Like, okay, flow is general player movement. But what is good flow? What is bad flow. What principles are you using to define good/bad flow, and in the case you actually have articulate principles, couldn't you just skip the middle man and abide by those principles directly? The problem is that nobody actually knows, people just say word after word as if it'll eventually start to mean something, and at that point anything goes. Just off the top of my head, for some reason many define "good flow" as perfectly distributed player movement, which is just a stupid Idea. You don't go top catwalk on Legion or Box's map but every 25 games it seems, and yet its mere presence, the threat of the position influences the rest of the map, and yet you hardly ever "use" the position. That's just one example of how easy it is to glaze over what really matters in a map with phrases and words like this one.

 

TL/DR: Stop saying 'flow', stop saying 'risk vs reward', stop saying 'combat loop', stop saying 'sequences' stop saying 'fun', stop saying 'balance', stop saying 'interesting'. If you can't tell me what you want without these words, you probably don't have anything real to say.

I am not a believer in spoken word at least the english version of it but that is a different discussion and I know where your belief in that comes from so that discussion would be a waste of time.

 

I think fun and interesting are terrible terms to use because they are subjective terms.

 

I think rather than shitting on these terms, your time would be better spent trying to understand these terms and their proper meaning/place to help improve others who just spit these terms out for whatever the fuck they want. This has bit me in the ass with people like the fated fire where he took things I said and used them incorrectly all the time. (risk versus reward being a big one) he fucking abused the shit out of it to the point that it lost meaning when it something we encounter even in everyday life.  I wholeheartedly agree that these are not things you use to describe your design goals (those would be some pretty lame duck design goals) "I designed my map for risk versus reward". That shit makes me crack up considering r v r is an intrinsic value of the human experience and is inescapable in any form of competition.

 

For example I don't think flow goes beyond anything but a floor plan and I don't think it defines how much a player uses a map or anything of that sort. It is only the ways in which a player can move much like a river bed defining how water can move through it. Player movement is player movement, map usage is map usage, etc. Here is an example of flows place in design to me:   

 

 The line represents the general flow path that the maps space will be built around. It doesn't define how the players will end up using it. ( I made this in about 5 seconds sorry it sucks)

 

 

[Soldat Du Christ 3,230]

"For example I don't think flow goes beyond anything but a floor plan and I don't think it defines how much a player uses a map or anything of that sort. It is only the ways in which a player can move much like a river bed defining how water can move through it. Player movement is player movement, map usage is map usage, etc. "

 

Expertly explained, except i think they will give you will get crap for mentioning a  top down floor plan, lol . Flow is literally how intuitive the space is to navigate, when you translate it's dictionary definition to apply it to level design. It's  more of an aesthetical value . It does have practical value, up to the point where the superficial learning curve is all but gone when all players understand the map.  Good design is sometimes unintuitive, but that's not really a bad thing necessarily . However, when it comes to highly competitive scenes like game design or level design, intuition becomes increasingly  more valuable when it essentially means players will be able to get to the real meat of what you have to offer  faster. But still, if you ask me we shouldn't compromise depth for intuition. 

 

While that may be the best way of translating the term into design application,  other people might be using it in a different way which is why we need to define it like xxandrith said. Very unpractical but important. 

 

I suspect we all come to agree on terms here on NLD and begin to separate ourselves from the messy origins of the forge community, thus creating a good foundation for the future of this forums communication

Edited September 30, 2019 by Soldat Du Christ

[a Chunk 2,795]

I love you guys.  This is exactly the kind of discussion our community needs to engage in to be able to evolve to another level.  

 

I feel like this conversation has a good flow going.  You're all fair and balanced, and there may be a little bit of risk in sharing your perspective, but the reward far outweighs it.  My intuition tells me that we will successfully navigate the path to greater knowledge and understanding, and end up in a more advantageous position as a whole.  ?

 

Seriously though, I really do appreciate all of you, and the great discussion that's taking place.  

[Soldat Du Christ 3,230]

53 minutes ago, a Chunk said:

I love you guys.  This is exactly the kind of discussion our community needs to engage in to be able to evolve to another level.  

 

I feel like this conversation has a good flow going.  You're all fair and balanced, and there may be a little bit of risk in sharing your perspective, but the reward far outweighs it.  My intuition tells me that we will successfully navigate the path to greater knowledge and understanding, and end up in a more advantageous position as a whole.  ?

 

Seriously though, I really do appreciate all of you, and the great discussion that's taking place.  

[Westin 2,174]

The lighthouse map, formerly known as Mario, now known as "With Love" was completed tonight. Just short of 1600 objects, fully lit, fully contained, fully playable. I have a map trailer coming, and for it I'll need gameplay clips, so we'll be running it if anyone is interested. 

 

I'm sure small things will come up here and there. Optimization, extra detail, clamber fixes, and so on, but the map is essentially finished with very minimal frame loss, and I'll post some NLD exclusive screenshots tomorrow?

 

 

 

[icyhot 2,822]

13 hours ago, Westin said:

I don't think there's a problem with the language. I think the spoken word is perfectly capable of relating perfect truth, and yet, many have taken terms like flow and used them in such broad and ambiguous ways that they stop meaning anything. It's a people problem.

 

Even more than that, I could see how the recently agreed upon definition of 'flow' is even still too broad, and I think that may be something that Christian dislikes about it, although we've never talked about it so idk.

 

Look, we make PVP levels, which means that we aim to give players the ability to improvise and make decisions based on contextual information. Where is my teammate? Where are the enemies? Am I in a grenade trap? What weapons do we all have? What pickups are nearby or coming up? Do I want to reposition or team-shot? What are my personal strengths? Am I confident enough to make this lantern jump? With all of these contextual factors in mind and infinitely more, we make decisions, which allows every game to be a new personal composition of notes, assuming the map allows for it (I think that's the definition of a good map if I had to give one). We make instruments, we don't write songs. Assuming this is your goal, all of that means that the designer can't possibly account for flow in any meaningful way, and so, I don't think it's a goal we should even aim at. As soon as the designer can predict flow to the point that the term carries weight, you've probably gone too far in terms of directing the player, to the detriment of their personal impact. Yes, we generally know where players can go, because after all we're making the map and putting up the walls, but at that point, isn't the term a little too cryptic to be useful? Not everyone wants to be so strict with the words they use, and that's fine. Maybe flow is a useful term to you, but the way I see it, I don't think it has a place in good level design, not until it starts meaning something more than 'people moving'.

 

On a side note, that term is often used to justify stupid design decisions, and I think that is partially due to the enigmatic character of the words sporadic use. Like, okay, flow is general player movement. But what is good flow? What is bad flow. What principles are you using to define good/bad flow, and in the case you actually have articulate principles, couldn't you just skip the middle man and abide by those principles directly? The problem is that nobody actually knows, people just say word after word as if it'll eventually start to mean something, and at that point anything goes. Just off the top of my head, for some reason many define "good flow" as perfectly distributed player movement, which is just a stupid Idea. You don't go top catwalk on Legion or Box's map but every 25 games it seems, and yet its mere presence, the threat of the position influences the rest of the map, and yet you hardly ever "use" the position. That's just one example of how easy it is to glaze over what really matters in a map with phrases and words like this one.

 

TL/DR: Stop saying 'flow', stop saying 'risk vs reward', stop saying 'combat loop', stop saying 'sequences' stop saying 'fun', stop saying 'balance', stop saying 'interesting'. If you can't tell me what you want without these words, you probably don't have anything real to say.

 

We've been over those last examples a million times, we know they are meaningless without the proper context. But this raises a really key point:

 

How do you formulate a principle at all? And in particular, as design principle? That depends entirely on the thing you're designing, and what it's use is. So, if you want to define a principle of 'flow' for an FPS map, since we know that 'flow' is some element of player experience, you have to first analyze the entire sandbox, and then systematically sort these elements, identify the various ways they relate to each other, and then build your principles out of that analysis.

 

Something I've noticed is what I've come to call the Hallway vs Octagon dichotomy. What this is, is the mistaken view that the only way to give players 'freedom of play' is to either artificially constrict player motion from 'hill' to 'hill' and smash players into each other along the way, or to just have a completely open area with arbitrarily placed cover that plays about as well as a sweaty warmup octagon.  

 

In the Hallway map, there is no freedom of motion. The contextual knowledge used in decision-making is moot, as the decision is made for you. In the other, the context is unimportant, except as it relates to the other player. The modern developer maps that are most memorable toe the line between these incredibly closely. Guardian, Lockout, Midship all cater to this unholy union of forced induction and uncontained combustion, much like the way CoD maps have almost exclusively followed the 3-lane formula for the last 12 years; it seems like they are designed this way, on principle.

 

The maps we make are played upon by players. If you want to build a player's guitar, you have to understand the principles of music and of guitar technique. You're going to want to understand the particular characteristics of a guitar, and how the tones are created, and build around them - make them easier to achieve, or even more powerful when executed properly. But these instruments don't just give you whatever. Notes are clearly defined, pulled from the pitches a vibrating string or other material can make. A cello or bass may not have any frets, but they are still limited in range by the size of the instrument. Plus, a performer can't make music if they don't know how the various pitches they can choose - from within the reach of their hands and fingers - will relate to each other and interact. And even then, the human hand can only draw so many tones out of an instrument without using a totally different tool.

 

The engineer who puts together an engine has it easy. The extent to which he must account for free will is only as far as his machine will allow a person to push it according to the laws of physics. In a certain sense, this holds for the luthier and level designer as well. But what the level designer does that the luthier doesn't, is set the stage for not only the "notes" players can play, but also the kinds of "rhythm", "counterpoint", "modulations", and "phrases" players can induce through their interaction not only with the level, but with each other; the level provides scaffolding for the melodic, harmonic, tonal structure of your choice.

 

As to whether or not 'flow' is more than people moving? It has to be. There's the 'flow' of individual players, there's the 'flow' of a particular series of sightlines, there's the 'flow' - or rhythm, both temporal and spatial - of individual encounters, and there's the overall 'flow' - or rhythm , again, both temporal and spatial - of a match, as all of these individual cases are considered. The trouble is that these distinctions are hardly ever considered by designers, and the term becomes a catchall; "flow" means all or some of them at the same time, in unspecified combinations, and therefore cannot be parsed without destroying the integrity of the design. And many of these elements of "flow" depend entirely on a player's individual strategy and skills.

 

Indeed, the actual gameplay would likely not reflect the intended 'flow', unless you design a Disneyland attraction, which is basically an on-rails shooter. Either that, or you eschew 'flow' entirely, and provide next to no direction for the player. I, for example, couldn't be fucked to learn how to best play a match of the new Modern Warfare, because I have already experienced the kind of gameplay the game encourages. The game uses an engine and a system of reward designed to be played by toddlers wearing cereal boxes on their heads, running around like lobotomized chickens - only the new sandbox asks these toddlers to be patient and keep their heads - still covered by the box - on a swivel, and feel scared all the time. It's a mess, and combined with the level design, you basically have no "flow" at all. Unless you call intermittent, inconsistent bursts of adrenaline a 'flow'.

 

And the level design - it's so saturated with options and direction and complexity that none of it is any more valuable than anything else in the face of the sandbox. In a style of game based around freedom of movement and positioning, I don't know what could possibly be worse.

[purely fat 1,276]

Wasn't going to post this but it is probably better that I do.

 

Another reason I don't like talking about design is because a person needs to be clear about what they mean. We often design maps through some sort of process that may or may not include more than a singular phase. When I say floor plan I am speaking of a phase a person can choose to do or not.   

 

Also, intuitiveness... ugh

it is too vague for me because it is a culmination of many things and I don't want to think about it but I will pick at the one thing you were talking about.

 

A map that is hard to learn is not unintuitive... ugh but it is different from the norm in playstyle (good or bad) which gives the player negative emotions initially. Once the map is learned and it falls in line with the gameplay norms that players expect to a degree that are not the map itself,  players will find it intuitive... ugh. Real life example: chopsticks for people outside of Asia. At first they are uncomfortable because they were raised on knife, spoon, and fork but overtime someone could grow to be just as comfortable with chopsticks as they are with knife and fork.

 

It would be unintuitive... ugh if the player had to fight the map but then the issue is what if the game/map is designed around players actually fighting the map. Then is it really unintuitive. 

 

I think a better term to describe that would be player comfort or map familiarity (there are more but I would have them fall in line with this. Honestly map familiarity probably falls under player comfort as well) both can work separately as well.

A map could be unfamiliar but do a good job of creating a comfort level through a number of variables.  

If a map is like another map, all the Halo clone maps ever made, then it will create player comfort through map familiarity.

 

Don't mind the ughs I just hate certain words.

 

[purely fat 1,276]

3 hours ago, icyhotspartin said:

 

We've been over those last examples a million times, we know they are meaningless without the proper context. But this raises a really key point:

 

How do you formulate a principle at all? And in particular, as design principle? That depends entirely on the thing you're designing, and what it's use is. So, if you want to define a principle of 'flow' for an FPS map, since we know that 'flow' is some element of player experience, you have to first analyze the entire sandbox, and then systematically sort these elements, identify the various ways they relate to each other, and then build your principles out of that analysis.

 

Something I've noticed is what I've come to call the Hallway vs Octagon dichotomy. What this is, is the mistaken view that the only way to give players 'freedom of play' is to either artificially constrict player motion from 'hill' to 'hill' and smash players into each other along the way, or to just have a completely open area with arbitrarily placed cover that plays about as well as a sweaty warmup octagon.  

 

In the Hallway map, there is no freedom of motion. The contextual knowledge used in decision-making is moot, as the decision is made for you. In the other, the context is unimportant, except as it relates to the other player. The modern developer maps that are most memorable toe the line between these incredibly closely. Guardian, Lockout, Midship all cater to this unholy union of forced induction and uncontained combustion, much like the way CoD maps have almost exclusively followed the 3-lane formula for the last 12 years; it seems like they are designed this way, on principle.

 

The maps we make are played upon by players. If you want to build a player's guitar, you have to understand the principles of music and of guitar technique. You're going to want to understand the particular characteristics of a guitar, and how the tones are created, and build around them - make them easier to achieve, or even more powerful when executed properly. But these instruments don't just give you whatever. Notes are clearly defined, pulled from the pitches a vibrating string or other material can make. A cello or bass may not have any frets, but they are still limited in range by the size of the instrument. Plus, a performer can't make music if they don't know how the various pitches they can choose - from within the reach of their hands and fingers - will relate to each other and interact. And even then, the human hand can only draw so many tones out of an instrument without using a totally different tool.

 

The engineer who puts together an engine has it easy. The extent to which he must account for free will is only as far as his machine will allow a person to push it according to the laws of physics. In a certain sense, this holds for the luthier and level designer as well. But what the level designer does that the luthier doesn't, is set the stage for not only the "notes" players can play, but also the kinds of "rhythm", "counterpoint", "modulations", and "phrases" players can induce through their interaction not only with the level, but with each other; the level provides scaffolding for the melodic, harmonic, tonal structure of your choice.

 

As to whether or not 'flow' is more than people moving? It has to be. There's the 'flow' of individual players, there's the 'flow' of a particular series of sightlines, there's the 'flow' - or rhythm, both temporal and spatial - of individual encounters, and there's the overall 'flow' - or rhythm , again, both temporal and spatial - of a match, as all of these individual cases are considered. The trouble is that these distinctions are hardly ever considered by designers, and the term becomes a catchall; "flow" means all or some of them at the same time, in unspecified combinations, and therefore cannot be parsed without destroying the integrity of the design. And many of these elements of "flow" depend entirely on a player's individual strategy and skills.

 

Indeed, the actual gameplay would likely not reflect the intended 'flow', unless you design a Disneyland attraction, which is basically an on-rails shooter. Either that, or you eschew 'flow' entirely, and provide next to no direction for the player. I, for example, couldn't be fucked to learn how to best play a match of the new Modern Warfare, because I have already experienced the kind of gameplay the game encourages. The game uses an engine and a system of reward designed to be played by toddlers wearing cereal boxes on their heads, running around like lobotomized chickens - only the new sandbox asks these toddlers to be patient and keep their heads - still covered by the box - on a swivel, and feel scared all the time. It's a mess, and combined with the level design, you basically have no "flow" at all. Unless you call intermittent, inconsistent bursts of adrenaline a 'flow'.

 

And the level design - it's so saturated with options and direction and complexity that none of it is any more valuable than anything else in the face of the sandbox. In a style of game based around freedom of movement and positioning, I don't know what could possibly be worse.

Fun way of describing the forced induction thing is fly to a light design. The map treats the players as flies and pulls them towards the light.

[Soldat Du Christ 3,230]

The new apex legend crypto is exactly what i thought the game needed next in a character, the ability to gather information with a drone that can be positioned around the map.  This will help reduce the random nature of encounters, and even empower teams who wish to move around the map faster. And they took it a step further adding an emp to the drone that can infiltrate interiors to counter wattson

 

 

Outstanding respawn, spooky amounts of parralel thinking going there

[Westin 2,174]

7 hours ago, Soldat Du Christ said:

The new apex legend crypto is exactly what i thought the game needed next in a character, the ability to gather information with a drone that can be positioned around the map.  This will help reduce the random nature of encounters, and even empower teams who wish to move around the map faster. And they took it a step further adding an emp to the drone that can infiltrate interiors to counter wattson

 

 

Outstanding respawn, spooky amounts of parralel thinking going there

I cringe at the thought of dying because there's a drone hidden in the top corner of some random room with a guy waiting for a team to enter, not to mention end game circle scenarios. It's a free triple arcstar and that honestly sounds obnoxious. CC is never not annoying, not to mention that it could come from anywhere via the drone

 

I also hate anything that let's you see people through walls in a shooter, without exception

 

This is the part where I say "it could be worse" and "at least it's not a Destiny super" and "the abilities have some benefit" but I'm at the point where I don't care to entertain those thought processes. That's how developer-brain seeps in. Yeah it could be worse, but it could also be better, and that's what I want to focus on

[Xzamplez 335]

@Westin Last time we had an exchange on the forums, i had a feeling you made somewhat of a breakthrough in being more passive and accepting to opposing opinions, but this seems to be more of the same.

 

I guess my question would be, whats the significance of this univesality of word use? Why is it wrong for people to use a term broadly? Why do you need people to have the same frame of thought as you in order for you to accept their perspective?

 

If its about trying to make it a more friendly learning environment for people that may not be able to infer the terms based on context, thats understandable. But i cant help but feel its something else. It feels less about exchanging and more about convincing.

 

 

Flow, to me, is essentially a heat map. Frequency of player movement. Good flow is defined by the intent of the designer. 

 

Intuition is accessibilty. The designer’s ability to communicate to the user through the design. 

[Soldat Du Christ 3,230]

1 hour ago, Westin said:

I cringe at the thought of dying because there's a drone hidden in the top corner of some random room with a guy waiting for a team to enter, not to mention end game circle scenarios. It's a free triple arcstar and that honestly sounds obnoxious. CC is never not annoying, not to mention that it could come from anywhere via the drone

 

I also hate anything that let's you see people through walls in a shooter, without exception

 

This is the part where I say "it could be worse" and "at least it's not a Destiny super" and "the abilities have some benefit" but I'm at the point where I don't care to entertain those thought processes. That's how developer-brain seeps in. Yeah it could be worse, but it could also be better, and that's what I want to focus on

Understandable

[Westin 2,174]

26 minutes ago, Xzamplez said:

@Westin Last time we had an exchange on the forums, i had a feeling you made somewhat of a breakthrough in being more passive and accepting to opposing opinions, but this seems to be more of the same.

 

I guess my question would be, whats the significance of this univesality of word use? Why is it wrong for people to use a term broadly? Why do you need people to have the same frame of thought as you in order for you to accept their perspective?

 

If its about trying to make it a more friendly learning environment for people that may not be able to infer the terms based on context, thats understandable. But i cant help but feel its something else. It feels less about exchanging and more about convincing.

 

 

Flow, to me, is essentially a heat map. Frequency of player movement. Good flow is defined by the intent of the designer. 

 

Intuition is accessibilty. The designer’s ability to communicate to the user through the design. 

Please don't openly diagnose whatever personality flaws you might think I have. I can tell you right now that we'll never go down that road again. I won't allow it of myself, and I'll try my best to ignore it coming from anyone else.

 

I don't think I've said that generalities have no place. Ambiguity has no place, and there's a difference. Even if you want to use broad strokes to speak efficiently (I don't think that's always the best idea) then at least define what you can about the brush. Words like flow and balance are often broad and ambiguous at the same time, which means that they are often without meaningful implication. You have to admit, designers rarely clarify, even to a vague degree. I'll usually have to guess as the word is repeated, as if it'll eventually generate meaning out of thin air. And on a side note, for anyone reading, don't use the word you're defining in your definition please lol

 

As a disclaimer, because I see this objection coming, I'm not necessarily talking about you or anyone else who has ever used the word flow. I use the word, all the time. The water flows. I want flights to flow towards this centerpiece. Anger flows from within me whenever I see that you quoted me, etc. etc. (kidding). 

 

Lastly, I don't think people need to share my own frame of thought in order to accept their perspective, I just want to know what they mean. Make up your own word for all I care. it's just a sound after all. We can have true communication as long as definitions are clear and agreed upon for use. Words represent real things, and reality exists, which means that we really can relate real realizations of reality with rhetoric 

 

[icyhot 2,822]

1 hour ago, Xzamplez said:

I guess my question would be, what's the significance of this universality of word use? Why is it wrong for people to use a term broadly? Why do you need people to have the same frame of thought as you in order for you to accept their perspective?

 

Like Westin said, Reality exists, and words are tools we use to represent it, grapple with it, and live in it with other people. If you call a mushroom a banana, when there is clear precedent from not only the accepted and recorded definitions that defines a banana as a yellow fruit from a tree, Reality will not hold any punches against you.

 

The issue of whether a definition is accurate enough, or has any bearing on reality is a separate, though obviously related issue. That's why we have abstract concepts in our language, and a clearly defined system of grammar. Without at least the recognition and cementing of a subject, object, verb, and related properties, you'd be hard-pressed to communicate, let alone define anything.

[Xzamplez 335]

55 minutes ago, Westin said:

Please don't openly diagnose whatever personality flaws you might think I have. I can tell you right now that we'll never go down that road again. I won't allow it of myself, and I'll try my best to ignore it coming from anyone else.

 

I don't think I've said that generalities have no place. Ambiguity has no place, and there's a difference. Even if you want to use broad strokes to speak efficiently (I don't think that's always the best idea) then at least define what you can about the brush. Words like flow and balance are often broad and ambiguous at the same time, which means that they are often without meaningful implication. You have to admit, designers rarely clarify, even to a vague degree. I'll usually have to guess as the word is repeated, as if it'll eventually generate meaning out of thin air. And on a side note, for anyone reading, don't use the word you're defining in your definition please lol

 

As a disclaimer, because I see this objection coming, I'm not necessarily talking about you or anyone else who has ever used the word flow. I use the word, all the time. The water flows. I want flights to flow towards this centerpiece. Anger flows from within me whenever I see that you quoted me, etc. etc. (kidding). 

 

Lastly, I don't think people need to share my own frame of thought in order to accept their perspective, I just want to know what they mean. Make up your own word for all I care. it's just a sound after all. We can have true communication as long as definitions are clear and agreed upon for use. Words represent real things, and reality exists, which means that we really can relate real realizations of reality with rhetoric 

 

 

I understand that the idea of questioning your motivation could be recieved as me looking to take a dig at you, but it wasnt my intention. I wasnt trying to expose you, just understand why we think differently about things like this.

 

Thats understandable. I just tend to use context to infer the meaning of their use of the word. 

[Westin 2,174]

[a Chunk 2,795]

This is one of the coolest things I've come across in a while: https://noclip.website/

 

You can fly through levels from a bunch of games: Dark Souls, Fez, Sonic, Zelda, Metroid, and a bunch more.

 

[Soldat Du Christ 3,230]

 

[Soldat Du Christ 3,230]

Speaking of dark souls, i finally built up the courage to trek through the tomb of giants the other day, i put it off for the longest time because of how scary it was when you first go in there with a lantern and you see those big ass skeletons lol. But it actually wasn't that bad, only took me around 2 hours. Neto was stupid easy, cost me 2 lives to figure it out. After my first death i learned to not agro the big skeletons in the back, and then after my second death i learned i could just bait out netos AOE attack that would kill all the minion skelies  and then just chip away at his health in between the cool down period. Like most of the bosses their attacks will miss you if you hug him and strafe

 

All i have left is the 4 kings and the final boss

Edited October 2, 2019 by Soldat Du Christ

[Westin 2,174]

11 hours ago, Soldat Du Christ said:

Speaking of dark souls, i finally built up the courage to trek through the tomb of giants the other day, i put it off for the longest time because of how scary it was when you first go in there with a lantern and you see those big ass skeletons lol. But it actually wasn't that bad, only took me around 2 hours. Neto was stupid easy, cost me 2 lives to figure it out. After my first death i learned to not agro the big skeletons in the back, and then after my second death i learned i could just bait out netos AOE attack that would kill all the minion skelies  and then just chip away at his health in between the cool down period. Like most of the bosses their attacks will miss you if you hug him and strafe

 

All i have left is the 4 kings and the final boss

Is this your first playthrough? 

[Soldat Du Christ 3,230]

Yes and no, that's as far as i've got on my main character but i have 4 different builds that i made to test out different stuff with varying progress

[purely fat 1,276]

My tip for the four kings is to poise up and brawl his ass down. Did you get the dlc?

[Soldat Du Christ 3,230]

No, prob won't either

[Westin 2,174]

If any game deserves out money it's DS1