 [Blog] |
[Archives] |
[Wiki] |
[Photos] |
[Alice] |
[Post] |
[Mail] |
|
|||||||
|
[Previous entry: "More New Music"] [Main Index] [Next entry: ""]
03/20/2005 Entry: "Game Design and Stuff"
 superseth |
Game Design and Stuff:
 Here is an article about game story-telling, which Kyle and I babbled about most of this evening. It includes some excellent quotes from people that know whats going on so check it out. Also check out this transcript of the GDC panel on creative games which also has an all star cast. And if you were wondering who the person above relates to, check out this preview of Dreamfall, the sequal to The Longest Journey. (That would be one of the best story based games ever peoples.) Posted by superseth @ 11:55 PM PST |
|
Comments! Replies: 7 comments i wrote a narrative for you guys. greg and seth had this argument, and it made no sense. -the end. p.s. it's called astronomy greg, an astrologist has no idea what gravity is, but i'm sure they could tell u what a capricorn is or something. and for the love of God i think this website would definately have helped these posts. www.dictionary.com Posted by Kyle @ 03/25/2005 02:28 PM PST M A T H and 5 + 5 = 10 Math is a word. This word is given arbitrary meaning by society. Language is made up of words. Language is given arbitrary assingment of meaning by society. Math is a concept. It is represented by the word "Math". It is an assigned term for the concept, action, and description of instances in the universe. 5+5=aribitray assigned meaning, becasuse these are all characters that represent things in the real world. These principles we view are through the eyes of numbers and formulas in math. These numbers(and equations) are based off a prefabricated system. As soon as that system fails, so do our VEIW of these principles. I.e. find 15 top astrologists and get them to agree on gravity. They wont unless you pck only ones that agree (lol selective picker you) The failure of the system does not me dissapearnce of previously seen principles such as moving at the "speed" of light. Could we not see the same principle differently. Time that Distance travels around light: if we find light is stationary and the universe is moving. the principle is still viewed. btw. i swear i mentioned context involving formulas. Once again that was a likely story made up of words. Nothing you can say or illustrate (that would be narrative btw) can be physical truth. Sure you could toss me off a roof and that would be that. You could even show me something. You cant say anything without it being subject to being truth or untruth. No context, No theory, No formula, can be taken without a bit of faith involved. Those formulas you use you didnt come up with...so you are trusting both a person, and math as a principle. Posted by Greg @ 03/24/2005 09:35 PM PST I did not claim what I was saying wasn't narrative, though I would argue most of it wasn't, just ignore that for now. I think you forget that the basic definition of a story in your context revolves around the telling of events, my point is that many things in science and math do no speek about events or in the case of math anything at all. You claim that KE = 1/2 x m x v^2 exsists “Not to explain it in cosmic prefabrication but in a detailed language(math) that tells a story about its attributes ,” but that sir, is wrong. The entire point of algebra,and the calculus that Newton gave us was to create conditionally universeal ways of understanding the world or to create “cosmic prefabrications” if you like. It is not “An account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious.” The data set for this forumla is everything in the universe that moves at less than the speed of light. That isn't one event, that is an infinite amount of events occuring in an infinite. Even if you want to argue that definition, that is one fricking vague story. Back to math. 5 + 5 = 10 means NOTHING without context. Put into a REAL narrative such as "He had 5 chickens and 5 roosters for a total of 10 birds." Now you are cooking. I don't speak about purpose, I speak about statements, pure and simple. And those do not have to tell a story. Thus is why I say that while you can argue anything with meaning into being a "narrative", it is a poor chioce of words. You say truth is not subject to narrative, and I agree fully,but I never claimed that. I claim that math and science concern themselves solely with the subject of truth and reason, and those are confines under which narrative is not restrained. For now I am dropping the love argument as my repsonse to that would be a pain to read here and is too based on personal beliefs to really go with the more objective discussion we are having. Oh and one final note, I am for story, narrative, and that we are merely the products of our history. Storytelling is one of the most important and universeal abilities of human culture. I think that to try and claim everything that can be communicated is a story brings the concept low. Math can tell a story, but math must be given events, context, and emotion to be a true story because it is not in itself a story. So in general I am basically agreeing with your original ideas here, I just think that if you were in computer science they would say you were using the wrong data type, representing a number with a string. (that is an array of characters) Oh and one final thing to remember in college crazy Greg, the idea is the same no matter how you say it, so why not just say it as plainly as possible and move on. It's hard sometimes, but I would think that Steven King would have driven you over to his side by now, maybe you just need more Gunslinger. Posted by Seth @ 03/24/2005 10:40 AM PST All of what you just said was a story. It was based on obvious truth but it is detailed by your narrative. You ELPAINED something to me with markings given arbitrarily assigned meanings (words) and created a context in which to dispute / discuss ... what have you. The physical concept you detailed is not known as such in the real world. You make markings that explain a natural truth is not nature itself. I.e. it does not float around in space in the form of KE = 1/2 x m x v^2. It simply is. The actual keying of KE = 1/2 x m x v^2 is not narrative, but if an equation was a simple as KE = 1/2 x m x v^2 it would be pointless to have them. Their purpose is to be solved, what then? To explain something. Not to explain it in cosmic prefabrication but in a detailed language(math) that tells a story about its attributes . Truth is not subject to narrative. I.e. the stars did not shrink in number when man could only see what is visible to the naked eye. What was beyond was beyond us. To say that KE = 1/2 x m x v^2 is truth is irrelevant. The principle of KE = 1/2 x m x v^2 is a description of obvious workings of the universe. Furthermore, love as a concept could not have been known. Love as romantic or "superficial" principle is obviously not my point of discussion. The concept of marriage and intimacy is my point of debate. These things while perhaps constituted on "evolutionary" principles are not common to the animal kingdom, monogamous creature or no. Thus begs the question of its origins which is obviously society. What makes society? In my opinion a collective explanation for things around them. A group definition for things. I.e. language: the word dog represents to us the animal, but to the Spanish it is a perro. Greek had three words to describe love and English has one (thus the abstract idea). These differences are constituted by different ideals of love; stemming from sex? Perhaps, but sex you successfully establish the origin of love not the fabrication of DEEPEST facets of modern concepts of love. Posted by Greg @ 03/23/2005 10:02 AM PST Oh and another thing, to be a something like the Law of Gravity, it has to be proven true to the best of human ability. A narrative provides no promise of truth, making it a bad description of the subject. A square maybe be a rectangle, but you can't square the length of one side of a rectangle and know you have the area. Posted by Seth @ 03/22/2005 12:10 AM PST In answer to your last question in the comment, there would be love as there is today, if you want to talk romantic love then it depends on how superficial you want to be, as the covering of romantic love is society but the underpinnings will always be there. As to everything being a story, no. KE = 1/2 x m x v^2 is not a narrative, as it does not relate to any one event or set of things that have occured. It is saying that if ANYTHING where to EVER have mass and velocity, then it would have kinetic energy. It doesn't ever have to have occured, nor does it say it will occur, as it would still be true if there was nothing moved at a sub-light speed. just in-case someone wanted some info on what we are talking about read below: Narrative is a term which has several and changing meanings. In origin it is a Latin word which came into English via the French language. A 'narrative' is, originally, a story or part of a story spoken, written or imagined from the viewpoint of one of the (possibly fictional) participants or observers. In recent years the meaning has been widened to imply the construction of a 'story' from a particular angle or viewpoint. In this form it is often used (and perhaps overused) in intellectual discourse so that even inanimate objects can be said to provide a 'narrative' about a particular subject. Narrative can also be a synonym for a story or tale. Posted by Seth @ 03/22/2005 12:04 AM PST Im taking a literary analysis class 3OO level, and we read these essays on literary priciples. One was on "narrative." It was life changing. The essay states that we need stories, that it is integral to our being. That stories create/re-create society. Everything written is narrative. History, science, religion. Because its a story. Sure a rock falls this fast and leaves this big of a dent in the ground, but its just a story of what actually happened. I argued with my enviormental studies prof about how it was narrative. (it was civil) we sat and he would state a truth, like the law of gravity. After he was done, I said it was a nice story. Narrative has a negative connotation, as can be seen by telling a christian that the Bible is a likely story. However, it is a narrative. Religion, science, and math are all stories about reality. Discriptions, retellings. Why do we love stories? They affirm society, the teach us, and shape us. The need for so many different stories is because no story is perfect, and we basically just fill in holes. (I believe the Bible is perfect however :0 ) Bank on the story people. Its in all mediums any way. People want them, reality is subjective to stories. Would there be love (the way we westerners see it) if there was no readings about romeo and juliet? Or of Samson and Delighla??? Lets write stories, and damn good ones at that. Posted by Greg @ 03/21/2005 03:21 PM PST |
|
|