Comments on: The demons of experimentation: The Programming Succubus http://www.ludomancy.com/blog/2007/02/12/the-demons-of-experimentation-the-programming-succubus/ games experimentality Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:11:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Blueflame Development » Blog Archive » Ludomancy http://www.ludomancy.com/blog/2007/02/12/the-demons-of-experimentation-the-programming-succubus/comment-page-1/#comment-7471 Blueflame Development » Blog Archive » Ludomancy Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:59:52 +0000 http://www.ludomancy.com/blog/2007/02/12/the-demons-of-experimentation-the-programming-succubus/#comment-7471 [...] Daniel’s work captivated me moreso than just about anything I’ve seen in quite some time. It stands out among the barrage of Flash garbage, not because it is deeper, longer, or more complicated; in fact, I think it’s the opposite. I think I enjoy his work so much because it’s so simple. He explains this philosophy a bit in this particular post. [...] [...] Daniel’s work captivated me moreso than just about anything I’ve seen in quite some time. It stands out among the barrage of Flash garbage, not because it is deeper, longer, or more complicated; in fact, I think it’s the opposite. I think I enjoy his work so much because it’s so simple. He explains this philosophy a bit in this particular post. [...]

]]> By: Kloonigames » Blog Archive » Ludum Dare 10 - First Screenshots http://www.ludomancy.com/blog/2007/02/12/the-demons-of-experimentation-the-programming-succubus/comment-page-1/#comment-3240 Kloonigames » Blog Archive » Ludum Dare 10 - First Screenshots Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:30:26 +0000 http://www.ludomancy.com/blog/2007/02/12/the-demons-of-experimentation-the-programming-succubus/#comment-3240 [...] Now it’s the beginning of the second day. Morning so to speak. I still have something like 15 hours to go, which should be plenty, if I don’t end up wasting it by doing something idiotic. Like starting to build this elaborate animation system, which seems really tempting… I sense the presence of a Programming Succubus. [...] [...] Now it’s the beginning of the second day. Morning so to speak. I still have something like 15 hours to go, which should be plenty, if I don’t end up wasting it by doing something idiotic. Like starting to build this elaborate animation system, which seems really tempting… I sense the presence of a Programming Succubus. [...]

]]> By: Daniel Benmergui http://www.ludomancy.com/blog/2007/02/12/the-demons-of-experimentation-the-programming-succubus/comment-page-1/#comment-2690 Daniel Benmergui Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:06:48 +0000 http://www.ludomancy.com/blog/2007/02/12/the-demons-of-experimentation-the-programming-succubus/#comment-2690 Tim, The "Trickster" might never realize he is actually a fool, and that the hinges actually can only be put on the right. His difference with "The fool" is that he can work out a good game anyway. In any case, the point is that investment in tools is dangerous when you are not sure what the game is about (remember it´s about experimental gameplay). Tools are an optimization of the development process, and the moment you create one, you are making a choice. Some things will become too hard to do, and others will be easier. But if you don´t know yet what the gameplay is going to be about exactly...how can you make a good choice? Now, if you are making a tool for a section of the game that you know you will be doing in any case, then a tool is a perfectly good call, like all the ordinary acadamic books tell you. It´s funny calling people who trip on this "Average Joe"...you would be surprised as to how many Joes that are not Average made this mistake... And the Demons are judgment calls, not rules :) Tim,

The “Trickster” might never realize he is actually a fool, and that the hinges actually can only be put on the right.

His difference with “The fool” is that he can work out a good game anyway.

In any case, the point is that investment in tools is dangerous when you are not sure what the game is about (remember it´s about experimental gameplay).

Tools are an optimization of the development process, and the moment you create one, you are making a choice. Some things will become too hard to do, and others will be easier.

But if you don´t know yet what the gameplay is going to be about exactly…how can you make a good choice?

Now, if you are making a tool for a section of the game that you know you will be doing in any case, then a tool is a perfectly good call, like all the ordinary acadamic books tell you.

It´s funny calling people who trip on this “Average Joe”…you would be surprised as to how many Joes that are not Average made this mistake…

And the Demons are judgment calls, not rules :)

]]> By: Tim http://www.ludomancy.com/blog/2007/02/12/the-demons-of-experimentation-the-programming-succubus/comment-page-1/#comment-2653 Tim Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:47:59 +0000 http://www.ludomancy.com/blog/2007/02/12/the-demons-of-experimentation-the-programming-succubus/#comment-2653 Though I get the gist of the parable, I disagree with it's message. The trickster takes the devil's offer, tricks him in the deal, and walks away with a smile and a wonderful tool. The fool says no, and stumbles off to mediocrity. <b>The Trickster</b> To cheat the devil, the trickster makes his tool great enough that if his game idea sucks, he can use the tool to make other games. In fact he even sells the tool as he (like others) see it's value His XML schema will deal in abstractions rather than absolutes and he has modeled a system and concept that works for games in Heaven, Hell or here on Earth. It is built on simplicity and has no special cases (truely the devil at work). It is flexibility in it's simplicity and purity. He smiles and says , "Sure we could do that" when something in the plan has to change and his followers wonder if the tools are up to the task. <b>The Fool</b> The fool ignores the Devil's temptation, and plows into developing the game. The fool says, "Well this is good enough to test the idea, I'll make it better later." The fool never gets there and "later" is always next week and shirks away just out of his reach each time he reaches for it. Surely the work of the devil. The fool has a toolbox with tools just like the others of course. However his soon gets to be too small as it is filled with bits and pieces, cobbled creations held together with twine and prayer. He never tries certain things as he knows his tools are shoddy. He only builds certain things as he only has tools and jigs for certain cases. "Hinges on the left of the door? Sorry, the jig only does them on the right. You will have to change your design to match." The fool always meant to stop for a while and organize the toolbox and perhaps replace a few things, but never got around to it. There is one other character of course, and that is Average Joe. Average Joe takes the Devil's offer, and is the stuff of the article above. We dont want to be an Average Joe. We might think ourselves clever by saying "No" to the Devil's offer, but then stumble blindly into his other traps. Traps far more insidious in some ways than the magic toolbox: the Temptation of Special Cases and the Labyrinth of the Messy Toolbox. Though I get the gist of the parable, I disagree with it’s message.

The trickster takes the devil’s offer, tricks him in the deal, and walks away with a smile and a wonderful tool. The fool says no, and stumbles off to mediocrity.

The Trickster
To cheat the devil, the trickster makes his tool great enough that if his game idea sucks, he can use the tool to make other games. In fact he even sells the tool as he (like others) see it’s value

His XML schema will deal in abstractions rather than absolutes and he has modeled a system and concept that works for games in Heaven, Hell or here on Earth. It is built on simplicity and has no special cases (truely the devil at work). It is flexibility in it’s simplicity and purity. He smiles and says , “Sure we could do that” when something in the plan has to change and his followers wonder if the tools are
up to the task.

The Fool
The fool ignores the Devil’s temptation, and plows into developing the game. The fool says, “Well this is good enough to test the idea, I’ll make it better later.” The fool never gets there and “later” is always next week and shirks away just out of his reach each time he reaches for it. Surely the work of the devil.

The fool has a toolbox with tools just like the others of course. However his soon gets to be too small as it is filled with bits and pieces, cobbled creations held together with twine and prayer. He never tries certain things as he knows his tools are shoddy. He
only builds certain things as he only has tools and jigs for certain cases.
“Hinges on the left of the door? Sorry, the jig only does them on the right. You will have to change your design to match.” The fool always meant to stop for a while and organize the toolbox and perhaps replace a few things, but never got around to it.

There is one other character of course, and that is Average Joe. Average Joe takes the Devil’s offer, and is the stuff of the article above. We dont want to be an Average Joe. We might think ourselves clever by saying “No” to the Devil’s offer, but then stumble blindly into his other traps. Traps far more insidious in some ways than the magic toolbox: the Temptation of Special
Cases and the Labyrinth of the Messy Toolbox.

]]> By: Ludomancy » The Demons of Experimentation: Feature Gremlins http://www.ludomancy.com/blog/2007/02/12/the-demons-of-experimentation-the-programming-succubus/comment-page-1/#comment-37 Ludomancy » The Demons of Experimentation: Feature Gremlins Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:28:48 +0000 http://www.ludomancy.com/blog/2007/02/12/the-demons-of-experimentation-the-programming-succubus/#comment-37 [...] This is the second article about the demons that plague the path to successful experimental gameplay. This time we’ll be dissecting the behavior of a creature even more dangerous than the Programming Succubus: [...] [...] This is the second article about the demons that plague the path to successful experimental gameplay. This time we’ll be dissecting the behavior of a creature even more dangerous than the Programming Succubus: [...]

]]> By: Patrick http://www.ludomancy.com/blog/2007/02/12/the-demons-of-experimentation-the-programming-succubus/comment-page-1/#comment-18 Patrick Tue, 13 Mar 2007 02:13:51 +0000 http://www.ludomancy.com/blog/2007/02/12/the-demons-of-experimentation-the-programming-succubus/#comment-18 You know what, this is kind of what happened with Play With Fire. Since the programmer was in India, the project didn't exhibit strong technical direction, and the engine was (needlessly) re-developed three times, effectively tripling the original project duration. Clearly Argentine's have a better grasp of gameplay programming than Indians do. No, thats just racist, but good points. You know what, this is kind of what happened with Play With Fire. Since the programmer was in India, the project didn’t exhibit strong technical direction, and the engine was (needlessly) re-developed three times, effectively tripling the original project duration. Clearly Argentine’s have a better grasp of gameplay programming than Indians do.

No, thats just racist, but good points.

]]> By: Santi http://www.ludomancy.com/blog/2007/02/12/the-demons-of-experimentation-the-programming-succubus/comment-page-1/#comment-9 Santi Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:17:40 +0000 http://www.ludomancy.com/blog/2007/02/12/the-demons-of-experimentation-the-programming-succubus/#comment-9 Less is more. I've recently read a book about the coders from 37signals (basecamp, etc). Not really good, but really interesting if I relate it to this post from you. They actually said that when thinking of competition as you make a product, you tend to put more features to surpass your competition.. and this guys said that all you need to do is the contrary: focus on one single aspect and make that aspect your killer feature. It's sort of "don't try to win a race against someone by going faster.. just reach the goal by going in the opposite direction".. or something like that. Those kind of approaches are the kind of things that I like to think about when I prototype. I've been prototyping for years now and it's good to find some spiritual guidance in your posts and conferences. Less is more. I’ve recently read a book about the coders from 37signals (basecamp, etc). Not really good, but really interesting if I relate it to this post from you. They actually said that when thinking of competition as you make a product, you tend to put more features to surpass your competition.. and this guys said that all you need to do is the contrary: focus on one single aspect and make that aspect your killer feature.
It’s sort of “don’t try to win a race against someone by going faster.. just reach the goal by going in the opposite direction”.. or something like that.
Those kind of approaches are the kind of things that I like to think about when I prototype.
I’ve been prototyping for years now and it’s good to find some spiritual guidance in your posts and conferences.

]]>