All





Games





Music





Television





Films





Personal





Happiness




 

I never went to the Game Developer’s Conference as a journalist, but this year I took a week off and flew out to San Francisco on my own dollar to attend it as a developer. I was mainly there to demo Gunpoint for the expo crowds at the IGF Finalists Pavilion, but I was also invited to give a five-minute talk as part of the closing talk of the Independent Games Summit: the Indie Soapbox Session.

It’s a rapid fire sequence of ten indie devs giving quick talks about what’s getting them fired up at the moment – rants, new ideas or advocacy. I was honoured to be asked, then completely terrified when I saw the room I’d be speaking to, then totally calm milling around on stage beforehand, then debilitatingly nervous when I actually had to speak.

The GDC photographer also managed to capture three extraordinary and bizarre pictures of me on stage.

I’m told it went well, by several nice people who ran into me later in the week, and a few others have asked for the slides. I can actually do one better than that – correctly predicting that I’d be unable to form sentences on stage, I wrote my notes for the talk as a full script. Here it is, updated slightly to reflect what I think I actually said, and with a few notes on context and how people reacted.

-

My day job is to write about games, but I’m also making one in my spare time called Gunpoint. It’s in the IGF, actually, so I feel good about that now.

(The act I had to follow was the creator of Solipskier explaining that “Nobody gives a shit about the IGF”.)

It’s my first game, and it’s not finished yet, so I don’t feel qualified to lecture anyone about development.

I want to talk instead about explaining games. It’s easy to screw that up when it’s a game you’re close to, but it’s also really important to get right if you want anyone else to play it. And I had a headstart with this, because I’ve been explaining other people’s games for eight years.

When you’re trying to describe your game – for its website, in an interview, or in a trailer – you can’t assume the reader is a reasonable, interested, intelligent human being. Because in the worst case scenario, your reader might be me. And I’m an asshole.

(I wasn’t sure if people would notice the slide change here, it was funny to hear a delayed laugh in a few parts of the audience)

The current methods of explaining games don’t work for assholes, and I’ll explain why. Then I want to show you how I’ve used my first hand experience of being an asshole to explain games in a way that even an asshole can understand.

The first bad way to explain your game is to not explain it at all. People often put out some raw footage or a screenshot and let it speak for itself.

The trouble is that doesn’t. It probably speaks for itself if you know what it says, but you have no way of imagining how little sense it makes to other people. Sometimes we can’t even tell which thing you’re controlling.

 
Mistake number two is thinking that to explain your game, you should explain your artistic intent.

So you might describe it as “a game about loss.”

OK, but what the fuck does that mean? For all I know Off-Road Velociraptor Safari might be about loss. I think Minotaur in a China Shop actually is.

(Matthew Wegner, from Flashbang, is the one who invited me to speak. Flashbang made both these games)

But your message, your theme, and your artistic intent don’t tell me anything about how I play the game or what I can do in it that’s interesting or different.

 
Mistake number three is thinking that explaining your story explains your game. “The people of Darksun are under threat from the elder Gods…”

If you ever catch yourself writing something like that as an explanation of your game, just stop and delete it. No-one gives a shit about the people of Darksun except the person who made up the word ‘Darksun’. And in this case, he doesn’t either.

I’m sure your story’s good, and I’m sure it’s important to your game, but it’s not going to be good in ten words. And if you write any more than ten words, no-one’s going to read it.

(I heard some people bristle at this)

 
Mistake number four: stating that your game is good, as if this will persuade us that it is.

No-one has ever read a developer describing their game as “innovative” and thought “Wow, that sounds innovative.”

We have read developers describing their game as innovative and thought, “Wow, he sounds like a tool.”

Those are the ways that don’t work. So how do you explain something nuanced and cool to an impatient asshole like me?

You have to get to the point, incredibly quickly, in plain and simple language.

In fact, you have to get to four points, in about three sentences, or we just stop reading.

 
Point number one is to tell us what type of game it is.

You don’t have to stick to traditional genres, but try to use a word that reflects what you actually do in the game. Maybe it’s not a platformer, but it’s a “2D exploration game.”

 
Point number two, before you even finish your first sentence, is to tell us the coolest unique thing about it.

And you can summarise drastically. We don’t need to know how it works, but we want to know why it’s cool.

The main mechanic in my game is hard to explain in eight words, but if I say “you can rewire its levels to trick people,” you get an idea.

 
Point number three is to give us some context: who am I, where am I, what am I trying to do?

The plot will never sound good in ten words, but the fantasy might. You’re a spy? You’re a god? You’re saving kittens? You’re a kitten-god saving spies? All those things are cool.

 
By that point we should have an overview, but it might be a bit dry. So point number four is to give us an example of how it plays.

Describe a moment the player can experience that’s typical of the game, and illustrates the best of what you’ve just told us.

If you say it’s a game about possessing your enemies, I’m interested. But if you tell me I can possess an enemy, throw him into a friend, and knock them both into a landmine before I switch back to my own body and watch them blow up… at that point I’m throwing money at the screen.

If you can do that, you’re done.

And when you read it back to yourself, it doesn’t actually sound like it was written for an asshole. It just sounds like it was written with a respect for the reader’s attention.

And the truth is that most of your readers aren’t assholes like me, they’re intelligent, reasonable people. But reasonable people still respond better to writing that values their time, and doesn’t waste it to gratify the writer’s pretensions.

This isn’t really about indie versus mainstream, or arthouse versus commercial. It’s just about communicating efficiently enough that everyone who would like your game ends up playing it. I think it’s a shame when that doesn’t happen.

Thanks!

 
 

Freelancer: I fear I'm behind the curve with this, but I'll have a go with the game I'm developing:

OreSome is a 2D strategy game about ore – exploring space for it, fighting aliens for it, blowing up planets with it. Build a network of frames and bots to defeat your enemies – or just throw a sun at them. In a dying, decrepit universe full of foes, build up your forces and mine your way to the top of the food chain to explore further and further out into the void.

By the time you’re ready, you’ll be powering light speed jump drives with stars, building Death Star style super weapons with black holes and in charge of the largest scale mining operation ever known to man – all working for one of humanity’s least scrupulous corporations – and there’s a lot of competition. See http://www.oresomega... ...me.com for more...
 

Gmail’s new look is optional – FOR NOW – in the same way that Twitter’s was – FOR A WHILE THERE. And like Twitter’s, it’s sort of vaguely pretty but twice as awkward to use for all of my most common tasks.

I just found a script that lops off most of the wasted headspace that scrunches all the e-mails down, even in Compact mode, and it’s made a huge difference for me.

Works natively in Chrome, needs Greasemonkey in Firefox.

It’s weird how all the extra spacing made the default view look claustrophobic. To a certain mindset, white space isn’t open air, it’s the walls closing in.

 
 

Pentadact: H brings back the search box, but I do think that's one thing it could improve: there's room for it between the action buttons and the pageturners on that single navigation line.
 

I danced around the room like an imbecile when my story got into the original Machine of Death collection. I didn’t really know what it was doing there, next to all these awesome ideas, but I didn’t care.

Until it came out.

It’s flattering to be in such wonderful company, of course, but I can’t help wincing at the way EXPLODED painstakingly re-explains the concept, and details the creation of the machine as if you’ve never heard of such a thing.

Explaining yourself clearly is the first thing you learn in games writing, but it totally backfired for me in this context. And I hadn’t thought about how heavy a collection of stories about people who know how they’ll die could be. EXPLODED has jokes, but it dwells on its deaths.

One of my favourites in the collection is TORN APART AND DEVOURED BY LIONS, because it’s such a breath of fresh air. It doesn’t explain the concept, and it doesn’t even really have a plot, but it’s so funny, breezy and fun that you don’t want it to end.

The third demoralising thing I realised reading Machine of Death was that I suddenly had a much, much better idea for a story on this concept.

The crux of so many stories comes down to that Can’t Beat The Machine rule, and I got thinking about what would happen if you started from that. If the characters in your story had all read this whole collection, and were intimately familiar with the weird ways fate would bend itself to make the machine’s predictions come true. And then you tried to write an action film.

That’s when Machine of Death 2 was announced, and it wasn’t a hard decision to enter. Writing EXPLODED was a quick and enormously fun process, a handful of evenings, something I’d do again without any hope of inclusion.

So I wrote out the story idea I’d been kicking around, looked at it, and ditched it.

The problem was that it was about heroes – soldiers, really, but soldiers about whom I could only ever say one of a few things:

  • YAY hero soldiers!
  • WAIT some soldiers are jerks!
  • GUYS war can be bad sometimes.
  • OOH maybe what they’re fighting for is CONTROVERSIAL?

These are the four worst story concepts ever. And they don’t exactly lend themselves to the light, breezy tone I wanted to steal from DEVOURED.

The truth is, I don’t give a shit about fictional soldiers. I’ve watched them, been them, killed them more times than makes sense. I just liked the concept of how these guys would work in a Machine of Death world, how they would use that to their advantage, and wanted to write a story where things worked like that.

Really, the only interesting thing I could ask about some Machine of Death-enhanced superheroes was “What would it be like to fight them?” It would fucking suck. It would be like fighting the player in a videogame, or the hero in a movie – the asshole all the bullets miss, for whom every twist of physics seems to land in his favour.

What’s that like? Ask a supervillain. Actually, ask his henchmen.

LAZARUS REACTOR FISSION SEQUENCE is about three henchpersons, the supervillain they work for, and the supersoldier superheroes who keep fucking up their shit.

It got accepted into the Machine of Death 2 collection on my birthday, and I danced around the room like an imbecile.

More   
 
 

Bret: Going to agree those are pretty bad, but the worst? I dunno, it's probably a personal thing, but I've always liked "YAY! Hero Soldiers" better than the all time favorites for school assigned reading

GUESS WHAT? Teenagers angst!

and

SURPRISE! The past (or what I skimmed of it from an encyclopedia) sucked!

I mean, at least the first one sometimes leads to a trio of ski patrol brothers fighting dinosaurs in Antarctica while two of them are snow blind.
 

 

Update! Loaf 2.

I’ve had this recipe for Italian peasant bread bookmarked for about a year now, finally got round to trying it. Added a topping before the final lidless crusting blast.

I think the professor’s flour-to-water ratios are off, or he’s using a different kind of flour: 2:1 is pretty much liquid, doesn’t come away from the bowl. I erred on the side of sticking to the numbers rather than tweaking until it did.

Came out deliciously crispy and super soft, but quite dense in the middle. Next time I’ll keep adding flour till it’s a bit more solid, probably skip the fold-twice step, and leave it to prove in the same pan it’s going to be baked in.

Bread is the most satisfying thing to make. I will definitely die from it.

Update: Loaf 2.

Made from a frozen portion of the dough for Loaf 1, thawed out and baked. Curious success! Wasn’t sure it would survive the chill, but it rose as it thawed out, and then proved more or less as it should.

Same consistency as the last one, so I floured it heavily before proving. The last loaf seemed to deflate when I reshaped it for baking, so for this one I tried just leaving it in the pot and putting it straight in. You’re supposed to pre-heat the pot, but I still got the amazing crust I was after.

Also added 15 minutes to the lid-off baking time, as planned. Definitely a good idea. This is not a bread you can eat quietly, but it’s a hugely satisfying crunch. I think that’s also why the middle is much lighter and fluffier.

 
 

finale: "This is not a bread you can eat quietly, but it’s a hugely satisfying crunch."

I think you've found your Crosslink sound.
 

The latest PC Gamer UK is about 50% bigger than usual, has the coolest subscriber’s cover I think I’ve ever seen, and is probably the best issue we’ve done in years. Also you get a free Team Fortress 2 hat with it.

We finally got to the point where the perceived value of the coverdisc was less than the value of the extra pages we could make with the money it costs, and dropped it. As a former disc editor of PC Gamer, I will say this: thank fuck.

We’ve done lots of new stuff with the extra space, but I’m particularly happy that this issue is packed with diary-type stuff. It’s my favourite kind of writing both to read and write, and I got to do loads of it this issue, and read loads more by better people.

My main thing was a 10-page Skyrim diary – I got a nice long session with it, so I just wrote up the whole weird story of my experiences with it. It’s awesome. Properly fresh, huge and new. And like Oblivion, rough, crazy and over-ambitious. In the 2-page interview that follows, Todd Howard tells me what happened on his wedding night.

The other big diary feature is about Artemis, a multiplayer game where each person mans one station on a Star Trek style bridge. I was the engineer, O’Francis, and it was honestly the nerdiest thrill of my life. Tim asked me how long repairs would take, I estimated half an hour, then got it done in five minutes. It doesn’t get more authentic than that.

Then there are 8 Now Playing pieces, our shorter diary bits about whatever we’re up to. Great pieces from a few less common faces in there this issue, including Chris Impossibly Nice Donlan on Super Crate Box, Duncan I Also Work For Wired Geere on Universe Sandbox, and Phil Octaeder Savage on Frozen Synapse.

Normally I’d suggest you grab it from our online shop, but rather embarrassingly we’ve already run out of stock for individual issue sales. It was a bit of an experiment, and it went better than expected. You can still subscribe, though I don’t know which issue it’ll start with.

We’ve just launched with this issue on iTunes’ new Newsstand, and we’re already on Zinio. I’m not totally sure if and how the hat comes with the various digital options – in the physical mag, it’s a printed code. And in the UK at least, shops still exist.

 
 

Urthman: I absolutely understand why the cover disc is now obsolete, but it makes me sad and wistful. I still remember the thrill of a new COMPUTE! magazine that came with a 5.25" floppy disc FILLED with NEW EXCITING SOFTWARE AND GAMES!
 
 
 

Md.Akteruzzaman: Dear Sir,

Please send to me some Ice Cream coated name & specification.
 

This tale of abruptly losing a Google account without explanation, via roBurky, made me realise I should be backing this stuff up. Not so much because “It happened to him, therefore it will happen to me!” Just because the story makes you realise how boned you’d be if Google did shut you out, and how absurd it is to have total faith they never could. In all probability someone hacked this guy’s account and did something bad without his knowledge, in which case it has nothing to do with anything he did.

If you try to explain how much stuff you’ve entrusted exclusively to Google, then replace the word ‘Google’ with any other company name, it starts to sound terrifyingly stupid.

Backing up is surprisingly easy, though. You can’t do it via that weird Data Liberation Front thing they keep shouting about – that’s just for, like, status updates and Picasa for some reason. But for mail and docs, the two things I care about, neither method is hard.

Mail

The simplest way to have a local copy of all your Gmail is to install a mail client like Thunderbird, which is free and quite pretty these days, and tell Gmail to let you download it with that. Click the cog in the top right, go to Mail settings > Forwarding > Enable POP for all mail.

If you go with Thunderbird, the next bit is weirdly easy. It asks for your e-mail address and password, and then figures out what all the POP and SMTP servers should be automatically. Last time I messed with that stuff, you had to actually make a phone call to find it out. I am old.

Then you just check mail, and you’ll have about 20,000 new messages. Any time you want to update this backup, fire up Thunderbird and check again.

Docs

Google now has an in-built way to back up all your documents. Right click any one of them, and sneak past the two battling context menus to find the Download option.

In there you’ll find an ‘all items’ tab at the top – click that and you can pick what formats you prefer for each document type, then click a big download button to receive them all in one big zip. Surprisingly it was only about 300MB for me (1,000 odd docs).

Digging through all this old stuff has reminded me that for a brief golden age, a group of us managed to introduce “Snakes on a Plane” as a general expression of nonchalance – a sort of “Whaddya gonna do?” As if to suggest that in a world where snakes can be encountered on planes, anything less troubling is trivial.

Person 1: I’m not even dressed yet.
Person 2: But you got home before me!
Person 1: Snakes on a Plane.

 
 

Morne: Lost all your Google files? Snakes on a Plane, man.
 
Or: I’m Completely Misunderstanding Google+

The main part of Google+ is a social updates feed like Facebook or Twitter. With Facebook, you have to confirm someone as your friend before they see your updates. With Twitter, anyone can see your updates without asking permission, unless you make a special ‘locked’ account. With Google+… Christ.

Sometimes when I think about it, it seems like the best of both worlds. But then I try to use it again.

If I’m misunderstanding, please let me know – most of my complaints are of the form “You can’t do X, except by awkward method Y, and even then not really.” I’ve looked, but if there’s a proper way to do X that I’m missing, I’d like to know.

Bad news, guys. Notch said one thing, so now that’s all I can see of my feed without scrolling. On the plus side, I completely agree with him here.

To add someone, you have to put them in at least one Circle – the default ones are stuff like Friends, Family, Work. You don’t need their permission, like Twitter, but just adding them doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll ever see anything they say. That’ll only happen if they also put you in a circle, and then make a post that’s tagged with that circle, or if they make a new post and tag it as Public.

You can sort of see the idea: you might conceivably want to say something to your friends but not your family, so this is a sort of highly customisable privacy. But there are all kinds of baffling, awkward, clumsy things about the system that make it completely counter-intuitive, painful to think about and confusing to use.

  1. It assumes you want to read everything everyone in every circle you make ever says. Your homepage is always an aggregate of all posts from everyone in your circles, and there doesn’t seem to be a way to customise that. You can click individual Circles to see what people you’ve put in those are saying, but there’s no easy way of clicking all the ones you care about and seeing an aggregate feed of those. Short of creating and then maintaining a separate circle that you have to update any time you update any one of the circles you want to include in it.
  2. It assumes that the people you want to read are the same people you want to broadcast to. So if I make a ‘Team Fortress 2′ circle to post nerdy comments only TF2 players might care about, Google+ assumes I want to a) follow everyone I allow to see those posts in my general feed, and b) populate my Team Fortress 2 circle with everything those people say.
  3. I can only categorise posts by who they’re by, not what they’re about. If I have a PC Gamer circle, and everyone at PC Gamer does, and we only post PC Gamer talk to our PC Gamer circles, I’ll still see all that stuff in my general feed, and since these guys are also my friends, I’ll also see all that work talk in my Friends circle. As far as I can see, there’s no way for my work friends and I to ever keep our work talk separate from our social plans, say. That’s less of a problem when you work for PC Gamer, but it seems like an incredibly common distinction to want, and the kind of thing the Circles system was built to address.
  4. You can’t see what circles people have put you in, but they’re not exactly private either. For one, if you don’t manually disable resharing on each post, anyone in the circle you post it to can share it to people outside that circle. Which may well include people who are in your circles and wonder why they didn’t see that post from you in the first place. If you do disable resharing each time, because the people you’re sharing to don’t know what circle they’re in and who is or isn’t in it, they have no way of knowing who they can say “Hey, did you hear Dave’s having a party/baby/midlife crisis?” to without causing awkwardness.
  5. Every time I have ever gone to post something, the default circle to post it to is one I have never posted to before and never would. It’s different every time.

Ultimately, it assumes the main thing you care about in life is preventing certain people from seeing certain things you say online, but that you don’t much care what you read. That’s the exact opposite of my relationship with the internet.

I would never broadcast anything, even on Facebook, I wasn’t happy for the world to see – the internet is now 60% fueled by screenshots of people doing that. But I’m incredibly fussy about whose thoughts I want to mainline.

The running joke, the universal truth, the most crushingly obvious thing about social networking since the moment it took off is this: there’s a vast gap between the number of people I like and the number of people whose verbal newsletter I want to subscribe to.

The two big social networks are both terrible at acknowledging that. Facebook won’t let me follow anyone unless I claim they’re my friend and they confirm it. Twitter won’t let me filter out people I like but don’t want to hear every thought from except with lists, which still don’t work properly and are getting harder to access with each new design. Now, Google have come out with something that combines the worst of both worlds in a manner so confusing that it’s taken me a week to figure out what it even is.

Or: Google have done something else in a manner so confusing that it’s taken me a week to fail to figure out what it is.

 
 

Some reflections/comparisons of social networking sites | Faith and Technology: [...] Tom Francis at Pentadact thinks Google+ Is The Exact Opposite Of The Social Network We Need [...]
 

    Older posts