you would think that Lisps would have readable error tracebacks, considering that they rely heavily on runtime errors to tell the user that something is wrong (since they can’t be statically analyzed at all (except Fennel))

but no, for some reason Lisps have some of the worst error tracebacks I’ve ever seen, which is a horrible combination with the lack of static analysis tooling

ugh okay I think I’m probably going to give up on Clojure too. to be honest there’s not much that I like about this language anyway - it feels a little bit like Racket, but doesn’t have any of the things that I like about Racket. and having to manage every project with lein is a huge pain - especially if I want to have just a few loose files that can be run independently, instead of a whole big project with a config file and everything

also, Malli’s documentation is really really bad, and Clojure’s error tracebacks are even worse than Racket’s

that is such a shame. I think I’m about ready to say “an S-expression based language is a very good idea, but there aren’t currently any nice-to-use Lisps. they’re all at least a little bad and painful to use”

I still like Fennel, though. maybe I’m just looking back at it with rose-colored glasses

one of my most and least favorite parts of game dev so far as been working with others; specifically game designers. in my experience, there is a predominant belief that game design is inherently driven by systems/mechanics and aesthetic is simply a way to flavor those things. i've been told that anything other than a systems-first approach to game design is wrong and doesn't make sense

as much as i know that this belief is wrong, it has consistently made me feel like i'm not good at what i care about. i don't like systems-heavy or even systems-first games. i believe that game design exists on several continua, one of which is mechanics and art. i don't believe that they're necessarily at odds with one another, but i do think that there's often a preference as to which one drives the game.

i'm about to paint with broad strokes and there will be many examples which directly contradict what i'm about to say. games can be whatever we make them and it's impossible to neatly categorize them all

systems-first games tend to focus on mechanical progression, complexity, or novelty. the primary experience of these types of games is engaging with these mechanics somehow. i would suggest that traditional roguelikes, puzzle games, and fighting games often live on this side of the continuum. many of them can have beautiful art or music, but *usually* that's not the main appeal of the game.

narrative/aesthetic first games focus on portraying a feeling or emotion. the mechanics are usually simplistic and not as complex or innovative, usually existing as a way to carry the player from moment to moment while keeping them immersed in the world or story.

*most* games are somewhere close to the middle with very few existing at one extreme or the other. often the blending of these two things is what creates a satisfying experience. however, i don't think it's accurate to say that mechanics *must* underpin a game in order for it to be satisfying. i feel that it's entirely possible to develop mechanics which support a narrative or overall vibe.

i really dislike morality systems. their entire concept disturbs me and makes for an overall worse gameplay experience for me. to clarify, the type of system i’m talking about is one that attempts to describe a character by the actions they’ve taken through the game.

red dead redemption 2, mass effect, fallout 3/NV, fable, and a ton more all have these types of systems and i dislike them all.

the first and most immediate issue is context. since these systems analyze an independent action, they fail to consider most factors leading up to that point. sure: an npc can be marked “evil” and killing them nets positive karma, or maybe they can even change the karma points based on who aggressed first. in some cases, it will even consider why the NPC initiated aggression and still deduct karma from the player for killing them (what if the player broke into their home and refused to leave after repeated warnings?).

the problem is that this still misses so much nuance and context that exists within the game but isn’t accounted for. what if the player ran into the nearest house that’s owned by an npc because they’re being chased by something horrible? what is the “moral” option here? this is necessary if the system is attempted to describe the character by their actions.

unfortunately, i’m not sure that morality systems are meant to be entirely descriptive. often it feels as though they’re prescribing morality to an action and guiding the player through their own ethical framework. and of course, judging a single action irrespective of its surrounding context is very moral objectivism. this leads to my other major complaint.

morality systems are not disconnected from the real world ethical views of their authors. i don’t want to be judged by a bunch of game designers for how i play a video game. it wouldn’t be an issue if it were just some numerical value on a stat sheet, but this almost never is the case. chances are good that it influences gameplay or dialogue or the ending somehow. that fucking sucks a lot.

i love the idea of exploring morality and ethics through video games, but attempting to gamify it by attaching a number to it ruins the entire thing

in 2011, Soren Johnson wrote, “Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game.” that idea has bothered me ever since i first heard it and i haven’t really known why. i hear it repeated in GDC talks, GMTK videos, game design podcasts, forums, and practically anywhere else where a game has any type of optimal strategy.

i’ve forever subscribed to the notion that game designers and developers aren’t the ordinants of fun. they don’t identify some objective sense of fun and build a set of rules in order to codify that fun experience. this type of mentality is most apparent in board games but can be seen anywhere. inevitably, someone will criticize a game by saying it’s not fun and — equally as inevitably — someone will reply “you weren’t playing it right.” it seems that there’s a belief that strict adherence to the designer’s vision will infallibly lead to fun and it’s the deviance which ruins the experience. i have separate, even stronger opinions about that but that’s for another time.

in my mind, game designers are more like sociologists – they try to observe what different demographics of people find fun and identify patterns. all of our information comes from observing players, not the other way around. it’s silly to think that we tell them how to have fun.

to be clear, i think the soren johnson quote has truth, particularly so when faced with issues like the skill inflation problem. in games like Overwatch, TF2, LoL, etc where as the community matures and the average skill level increases, it becomes much harder for beginners to play. the game has been so heavily optimized by the core players that outsiders can’t join (which, of course, is an eventual death sentence for the game).

but where i think the quote doesn’t make sense is when applied to single player games or games where one style of play won’t affect other players of the game. as far as i can tell, this application of the quote insinuates that players don’t know what’s most fun for themselves and, because of their overwhelming desire to win and do better, will eschew the fun modes of play for optimal ones. because of this phenomenon, we decreers of fun must protect players from themselves lest they ruin they ruin the pure vision for us, themselves, and everyone else!

who says being rewarded for playing optimally isn’t fun? obviously not everyone enjoys it, but that’s where the subjectivity of fun becomes relevant. but i’m pretty sure this is the entire appeal of puzzles – being rewarded for correctly solving it. using binding of isaac as an example, the creator lamented not adding item descriptions despite it being a deliberate design choice. he wanted to capture the sense of mystery that old games had and encourage experimentation. however in the age of the internet, it’s really hard to preserve any game mysteries so players just made wikis with all the item info. who is “at fault” for this – the players for playing incorrectly, or the creator for designing incorrectly? both? neither?

i also think it’s misguided to assume that players will play a game long-term without having fun. instead, i think that fun matures and evolves with the player. i really like melee and symphony of the night, but i most certainly don’t play them like i used to when i was young and i definitely don’t play them the way they were intended by their designers. i like to speedrun symphony of the night and i used to enjoy playing smash competitively. it’s because the games are fun that my style of play continues to change.

alright i’m realizing this should’ve been a post on my blog, it’s way too long i’m sorry. i’ll probably have more to say on this later but it’s just something that constantly bugs me.