>emergent gameplay

File: giv.png (45KB, 778x512px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 778x512px

>>377836851
giv joost gf

>>377836851

>emergent penis

>>377836851
Do you retards actually think 'emergent' and 'gameplay' are meaningful in the sense you use them?
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_emergent_game_behavior_and_other_miracles/
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/gameplay/

>>377836851
How the fuck is her face so perfect when Quiet looks fat and ridiculous? God she's cute.

>>377838756
i came into this thread to post about her attractiveness as well

>>377838756
Quiet really looks like she has down syndrome or something. Why couldn't they just use the actress's face on her?

>>377839042
>Why couldn't they just use the actress's face on her?

Quiet's ridiculous body in stockings and a bikini all the time plus Joost's adorable face may just have been too much for everyone. Nutbladders around the world would be irreparably damaged. Also, maybe Kojima gave her a butter face because if Quiet were any more attractive, the whole "MUH SEXISM!" crowd would never shut up about her.

>collar

oh baby

>>377836851
She need to do JAVs asap, otherwise she wont have too much runtime.

>>377840721
Instead of JAV, she should do those VR sim dates like some of those idols are doing. That shit would fly off the shelves.

File: 1428522548117-2.jpg (18KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 240x240px

>I got blown the fuck out for 500 posts when I called the Breath of the Wild a PS2 game to prop up my based Geralt boohoohoo :(
Is there a better feeling than so thoroughly trouncing a bad opinion that they have to make one of these pathetic post

>>377841414
Wrong thread?

>>377841492
OP is trying to "subtweet" on 4chan like a gigantic homosexual because /v/ made fun of his favorite game and had a good argument for why it wasn't better than BotW

>>377841210
>not anime vr sim
>selling well in Japan
Only chance gaijin girls have is some weird rape porn desu.

>>377838015
>actually posting Alex's shitty writing

It's like someone from /b/ pretending to be a philosopher

>>377838015
Discounting the fact that the article sounds like it was written by a raving lunatic, he must also realize the internet is not a closed loop of feedback to gamers, but instead function machine that uses players as inputs. Two players interacting together will never output the same result, and specific combinations and permutations of players will produce interesting results that could not be foreseen by anyone

>>377841908
Stop pretending to be an authority on philosophy.

>contextual story

>>377842131
You didn't read the article, did you?

>>377842138
I'm not an authority but I know bullshit when I see it. The guys a laughing stock everywhere except NeoGAF, and even there he's simply tolerated.

>intuitive AI

>>377836851
I wonder if Joost knows there are literal 30 year old virgins lusting over her?

>>377838015
fuck off alex

File: screen102.jpg (99KB, 553x361px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 553x361px

>>377838015
What the fuck is this shit? Why do people who know nothing about game development like to pretend they do?

>>377842391
Yeah but what I was getting at is that your 'everywhere's and 'neogaf's aren't exactly theoretical websites. So then it's not necessarily an argument against him, that he invokes such antagonism there.

>>377842748
I don't even understand why he made that article. Meta-analysis are master work and often bother me when done by bloggers.
Anyway, like he's saying, a lot of parts of a game can be considered emergent. The first one being the code to the system, as with every code.
Then he babbles about emergent being too strong to fit gameplay. He's wrong, but right since video games can still progress about it and do amazing things (probably on portable/phone since it cost less to develop now and the interactivity is extended)

>>377842748
What do you have a problem with there? Do you not realise he's taking the 'emergent' logic to an absurd level to prove a point about it?

>>377842315
I got about 2/3s of the way through the article, specifically to the part when the author brings up artists attempting to convey something so nebulous in the real world. He's mainly dealing with the computerized feedback of a game, which to some extent is true, in that on the computer side of things, an infinite combination of players will produce the same limited set of 0s and 1s. What he entirely ignores, is that the game itself is irrelevant, existing only as a vehicle to convey thoughts, feelings, and emotions, and most importantly, ideas.

A game is much like a book, a movie, or any other set of media in that players input their own preconceptions and notions into the concept and receive an output. The output cannot be determined, since the input cannot be determined beforehand; thus, a video game can be similar to a function machine, in that different inputs produce different results. The function machine itself was never the sought after object, but rather what came out.

In this way, the author remains completely ignorant of that element, and discusses only the tangible, known quantities of a game, a sentiment I, for many years, might've shared with him. The short of it is that he cannot grasp the unknown quantities that surround art and media as a whole, and instead of attempting to approximate their effects, he chooses instead to ignore them entirely. It's that sort of person who would create a "well-designed game," pat themselves on the back, and then become furious and lash out when it was poorly received by its intended audience.

>>377843619
That website isn't a blog, it's a professional (read: revenues / requires subscription) publication.

>Anyway, like he's saying, a lot of parts of a game can be considered emergent
Don't pretend to have read the article properly if you still don't understand it. Read it over until you understand, if you want to discuss it. He explicitly says NO PARTS of a game can be considered emergent, from his understanding of computer science.

>>377836851
I love her mouth

>>377836851
POST MORE JOOST

>ergonomic UI

>>377844119
>A game is much like a book, a movie, or any other set of media in that players input their own preconceptions and notions into the concept and receive an output
I find this ambiguous. You are making no distinction between passive and interactive mediums, yet talking about input/outputs. Furthermore the generalised relationship you describe between subject (e.g. the reader) and object (the book), as your describe it, applies to reality in general. As described in the last 3rd of the article, reality itself is a two-way relationship between those who experience it, and the things they experience. tl;dr your description has nothing to do with art, nevermind games specifically.

>In this way, the author remains completely ignorant of that element, and discusses only the tangible, known quantities of a game, a sentiment I, for many years, might've shared with him. The short of it is that he cannot grasp the unknown quantities that surround art and media as a whole, and instead of attempting to approximate their effects, he chooses instead to ignore them entirely. It's that sort of person who would create a "well-designed game," pat themselves on the back, and then become furious and lash out when it was poorly received by its intended audience.
Basically you're saying that the writer chooses to focus only on things that can be known about games, instead of things that can't be known. That's hardly bad.

>>377844217
>from his understanding of computer science.

But playing a game isn't computer science. Sure, there are rules set by designers and systems hardcoded by programmers, but that doesn't mean players can't find interesting new ways to play those designs/systems. That's the basis of emergent gameplay.

File: 1493694956902.jpg (101KB, 700x695px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 700x695px

>>377836851

>>377846983
Very accurate.

>>377843909
Ignoring his shitty grammar and hyperbole, his opinions appear to be based entirely on first-hand experience rather than research into emergent gameplay and examples thereof.

"No way fag" isn't an argument.

>>377846983
Any girl who wears a choker sucks black cock.

>>377846983
Type F is best girl

I fell in love with Joosten after she accidentally farted really loudly on stream

>>377846983
If I had to pick I'd probably pick C

>>377845789
Gameplay can very well fall into the same notions of other medium in how they affect the viewer/reader/listener/etc. Sure, the internal output changes (IE, the player's action affects the outcomes of what else goes on in the gameplay), but just like a reader of "Of Mice and Men" can enter with preconceived notions of what to expect and thus alter what is received from it, a player can enter a game with a similar line of thought which causes the game to affect him differently. Although one is internally static (The book will say the same words no matter what the reader does with it) and one dynamic, the range of the dynamism of gameplay is ultimately just like that of the book -- static, because it has a fixed number of outputs, something the author of the article affirms himself. And yes, it does apply to reality in general, because games are a subset of reality and thus generate similar responses to other parts of reality.


In the second bit, the keyword there is ONLY. Focusing ONLY on the known quantities will lead to disaster, because it doesn't illuminate at all the human element of a game. Just because you don't have complete detail on the interaction of a element of a system doesn't mean you shouldn't attempt to influence it in any way, and that's my big complaint about the author's ideas and methods. As before, he sees something he can't measure, and instead at best ignores it, and at worst pretends it doesn't exist.

>>377846880
Pushiing buttons isn't not considered as emergent gameplay but as conditioning.
An emergent gameplay will be something like (I hope it to be clear)
The gamer can choose between different work jobs.
The environment can be modified.
That's an online game.
The natural world is ruled by an AI (biotopes, weather, animals, pollution), that can provide destrucitve events (calamities).

If the purple community grows too much, and starts to imbalance the world (one of purple's power is to transform trees into objects), then the other communities will have to react to stop the calamities (extending the blue community that can control storms).
So, if the game is massive enough, it can provide a complex interacting with the world, thus the reactivity of the AI will be considered as emerging (as a mix of lower events) relatively to the gamers behavior.

That's the way I understand emergent gameplay, a sum of defined elements (storms, work jobs, AI perception), that leads to a reaction from the AI, thus influencing gamers game.

>>377846983
All whores desu.

>>377848269
Are you comparing the meaning of words to finger moves?

File: 1459278864692.gif (277KB, 477x566px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 477x566px

>>377836851
>collar

>>377839042
really bugging me as well. what the fuck was going on with that face?

>>377836851
>>emergent gameplay
can someone give me a quickie rundown

>>377851064
you mean like some sort of basic gestalt?

>>377852524
no, gist