Weekly Incremental Check-in
This thread is meant for people to share what they've been doing this week. Incremental game recommendations are encouraged, although other topics are welcome as well. Just remember to keep it casual, be helpful, and have fun!
If anyone reads this, chat is down.
Starting to prefer chat on some level but in another seems more open to post here.. Have been playing the new Midnight idle, pacing back and forth about continuing it. Something funny happened though, while the game's case of 'overly long' wait until 'long idle' seems unavoidable, the the ebb of not wanting and wanting to play it has this effect! With similar resolve I slowly continue Shgabb clicker, as the suggestion it's a product of previous clicker lineages is exciting to some extent. Right now am mostly using the effect of 'well are we actually bogged down or can we push to the next?' which is a newly opaque feeling although I haven't played an endgame(post earlygame?) in a while, the deference of which now is outdated! due to all the substance now in mind for them. Also broke past my low record in Armory and Machine actually (seemingly 3rd party required, apk download), following Midnight idle's citation (still haven't played AD either so not the strongest reason) I stopped playing it with a feeling it's boring - largely a falsehood with in this case a cause of it looking similar to the classics... check your watch for that mistake of reason, not that that reason is likely the real one vs just being tired...I heard it's good to listen to your thoughts I guess because they sort out things like that, getting to the root of it like that lets me wonder if it's true to some extent..
Yea and still playing Trimps although I don't typically hold consistencies.. am not sure playing trimps is exactly a foil to that. It's still definitely a USI like, really setting itself apart from other old games though as the core mechanic feel so big... like sure it still introduces new mechanics, but their more like augmentations to the main one rather than just connected by resources. so am still wired, some monumental things have been going down with the game dev devs I follow with scenes like the one pictured, but I'm still holding out for incremental games (and escape games). even if the game seems random or robotic your own experience of it is never so, so please see if you can avoid that interpretation of need for connection.
Why was the image removed?
Don't actually think having a more clear statement is worth the need to spell out a whole characterization, am prepared to do the work, yet now more fully think it's a loosing battle. Kindof unfair though so after I make my own replys I'll see about it
I am so confused by the "kill gameplay" thing, and looking at this person's profile just adds to the confusion.
Numbers are gameplay. (Interactive) Web sites have gameplay. What even is gameplay? Is the very act of attempting to understand this person's ideas an example of it?
(Edit: I suddenly started wondering if this person uses a Gemini or Gopher client) (Edit 2: Sorry, I think I was being a tad hostile. Worldview-flipping ideas and all...)
I wonder if they have a different understanding of what "gameplay" is
Maybe shouldn't have actually linked something technically external, but now to diligently give some detail. For one thing yea it seems they are not using their ideal on/as their process, something I also struggle with so will cut some slack. Maybe it's just fine though 'don't criticize character' from the list of fallacies seems relevant. That being said, my thought is that the understanding has a basis in 'alive' and 'dead' as like robots are dead and so is kind of trying to claim gameplay is interacting with a robot as inherently inhuman. it's assuredly hailing from pushback against like all the media targeting early stages of game making, which maybe cause worry about it becoming the whole picture(making foremost appealing games) vs the idea you would move on to try and express yourself, humanisticly.. well the quote is funny as a copy pasta because it questions potentially long time ago assumptions. which here is used on this idea of people who maybe got caught up on this early stage or pattern of game making. which may or may not be definable as having remotely retentive gameplay.. going through more closely though I personally finally noticed to distinguish upset comments as vs suggestive comments, ie the main issue is people involving meta criticism contents in a game as opposed to feeling something about it. So the idea does seem to fit as getting past the extent gameplay makes you think about zeitgeisty stuff vs yourself.. which is a mess because identities are kindof like that as well, or actually not and it is just people bringing up old feelings which remain valid and potentially separate from old system following.. Might continue(although I am interested in alternatives to immediately finishing thoughts) but I realize all that needs to be said is regarding all this talk the criticism clearly isn't literal lol.
Doesn't seem like a particularly well thought out initial stand from the OP, wherever they are. It's hard to argue against someone who isn't even here, but I'll give it a bash.
Playing with toys and solo games are absolutely gameplay. It's how game developers get a finished product - they play it out running one or more players themselves to see how the game functions. As children we play by ourselves at times. As adults we frequently play by ourselves (only it's the adult games on our phones as we're going to work, or of an evening on our computers). Some of our oldest artefacts are of toys made tens of thousands of years ago and buried as grave goods with beloved children when they died, and children play with toys to the present day, alone or in groups. The idea that "gameplay" cannot exist with one person and an inanimate object is nonsensical.
I strongly recommend separating your stranded thoughts out into paragraphs for easier reading and comprehension by the reader. When I was a student one of my teachers said, "The purpose of communication is to be understood," and the fewer barriers we place between our message and the recipient the better.
My interpretation of this after some thought is that "gameplay" here refers to any part of a game that sacrifices part of its message and/or "creator's mark" (vague, I know) to make it more appealing to a more general (gaming) audience. In this case, even a small community dedicated to a really niche genre counts as "more general".
I don't know if there is a proper term for it. I'm guessing "gameplay" is used because it's what people expect to find when playing a game. So "killing gameplay" could mean making players abandon the expectations they acquired from prior experience with games. (Like games being fun, as a particularly cynical example.)
I'm not sure how correct I am with this.
Hmm.. sacrificing a message or artist's vision for mass appeal.
If a game developer is working for someone else then they're being paid to produce what the client or employer wants. That's the contract they sign.
If they're working indepedently then their choice might be to be true to their own ideal but with low use, or something less niche with wider use. I'm not entirely certain how useful it is to create something that nobody sees. Even a diluted message that reaches more people is more useful (this isn't the word I want to use but it's the only one I can think of right now) than one that reaches almost no-one.
This is a question each creator must answer for themselves.
I like the statement about the purpose of communication, and I ended up concluding to myself that sharing an understanding is important, in the sense of sharing incrementals here. When you said barriers I feel like that makes the most sense as barriers between similarity of existing understanding, and can't make it out so much as any kind of delivery of understanding. So that you are not actually delivering any understanding but making what you say relevant to any shared thing, essentially extending your reach to develop it beyond one person.
Also it seems relevant with moderation, taken as meaning each person is comfortable with the relevance of the conversation. The heroic guy of the original quotation finished now and it does seem it's not more complicated than a case of time/energy waste worry. saying about wanting self determination and to disavow things that bring unease, which is similar to sharing experience about a shared approach between multiple people, with the extent both are a sweeping mitigator of discomfort. So I mean it's helpful for me thinking about what makes a place safe, but ofc we are not exactly running a controlled trial here for each new gameplay. so it's ongoing Want to reply with what you each say as good practice... How I am reading it now with this is that you can play on your own but then for the brunt all missteps it's only you, (as both creator and player). And then creator's mark would be the understanding they value to use, either talking with specific peers or querying a wider amount on something else, like normal. Of course things can still get made anyway with just the hope of catching on.. Maybe there is still a thread with them of not wanting to use any particular understanding (they are not really part of any group on social media). am not sure about that but do know the extent of wanting to freely move between understandings upon different difficulties is a thing. there was some leaning to ask what are predetermined beautiful things as vs this activity of somewhat constantly reappraising what works in particular, but ideally I guess the thing in common would be a predetermined safe thing on some level so, like using moderation to offset risks, like the how the default is doing nothing. talking to others is like trying to stack your odds, but it has layers of odds because understandings are weird but it doesn't need to be from first principles it can be a weird understanding that you start with - or otherwise a weird situation of people to talk to such that you only can get reassurance/stacked odds with particular things. I definitely struggle with wanting to stack my odds before doing things a lot of the time, probably just proportional to personal history of danger. so yea different histories and access to reassurance may cause these different relations with what gameplay.. as a
(in order)