[AprilLives]

Originally Posted by Simo Sakari Aaltonen

I know you were not talking about causality on the quantum level but I was. There is a fascinating section in Atlantis, The Lost Tales where causality gets slightly out of whack without becoming nonsensical... There is so much potential in that idea.

Would you mind elaborating a little on that?

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

Not at all, AprilLives. (I want to avoid spoiling the section for anyone who has yet to play it, though, but maybe I can explain the idea without giving away the specifics. The examples below are not actually from Atlantis, The Lost Tales.)

Ordinarily adventure games deal with very clear causal processes. Clicking the Pick Up icon on the flashlight will pick up the flashlight. This is perfectly fine for most scenarios. But there is no reason to always maintain the same causal distance between acts and effects. Terrific effects could be achieved by varying this distance (or relationship).

The protagonist is mentally ill. There is a table with a bottle of medicine and a knife. The player clicks on the medicine. The character picks up the knife instead. They are not well, after all, their thought processes are not working as they should.

The Last Express featured a similar effect where you could not escape from doing a certain thing. These examples are about limiting and creating tense focus. But the same thinking could be applied to opening up and creating freedom in so many ways.

The protagonist's friend is depressed. There is a table with a rose and a knife. In an ordinary adventure game only one act would cheer up your friend: picking up the rose and giving it to her. But there is no reason this should be so restricted. Do away with excess causal precision: let the friend be cheered by several things the player can do.

You pick up the rose. The friend looks up with a smile, anticipating your gift. This would be the ordinary adventure game. But in a more interesting adventure game, picking up the knife would also cheer her up: she is hungry and gets up saying, "Let's eat!"

There are all kinds of ways adventure games could be deepened by letting up on the old conception of one-to-one causality.

Simo Sakari Aaltonen
(simoadventurecompanion.com)

www.adventurecompanion.com

[After a brisk nap]

Neat gimmick. (That's all it is: a gimmick.)
Monkey Island did this 15 years ago. Try to get Guybrush to keep his crew in line after they raise the subject of keelhauling.

[AprilLives]

Originally Posted by Simo Sakari Aaltonen

Ordinarily adventure games deal with very clear causal processes. Clicking the Pick Up icon on the flashlight will pick up the flashlight. This is perfectly fine for most scenarios. But there is no reason to always maintain the same causal distance between acts and effects. Terrific effects could be achieved by varying this distance (or relationship).

I’m playing Tunguska right now and I’m observing that the items picked up for inventory are occasionally not used in traditional ways. This makes solving a puzzle more interesting IF the object is still used “logically” … albeit more creatively.

It’s also fun when one object (say a plank) can be applied to accomplish several different tasks (i.e.: making a bridge, a table, a weapon, a see-saw, a raft, a bolt for a door, a slide down a window). But if I clicked on the plank and got a rope instead, I might think I needed a patch. Of course, if this happened throughout the game, and one understood that this was how things worked in this world, one would adapt and it could be fun.

Nonetheless, I don’t think I fully understand your application of quantum physics and cause and effect. I don’t know a lot about the subject but I have read a little and I’m fascinated by such theories as in “What The Bleep Do I Know”. It seems quantum physics states that one “object” is in multiple places at the same time and that there are numerous outcomes depending on various factors, including thoughts.

Perhaps it’s in this area where a creative flow can break though in games.

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

AprilLives: Ah, I neglected to mention the connection: As above, so below. I take it as such a given that I did not think to mention it outright. I was applying findings regarding the microcosm, or quantum theory, to the macrocosm, or ordinary physical interaction.

The connection has been recognised for millennia, so quantum theorists are only rediscovering the wheel here, but whatever the soil of the ideas, several principles of logical-analytical scientism are called into question: causality (A leads to B), constancy of time (linearity), and objectivity (the belief that a separation can be made between the observer and the observed).

Quantum theory is by no means necessary for any of this speculation, I was just using it as an arbitrary avenue of approach. Buddhist tradition would arguably make for at least as fruitful an angle...

After a brisk nap: Creativity and variety a gimmick? Well... I suppose that is one way of looking at it! (I think it safe to say you are not thinking beyond my simplistic illustrations, which were meant as obvious, mundane, one-dimensional. Add a second, third, or fourth dimension or axis to the configurations of the scenarios and you are dealing with a whole different conception of reality.)

Simo Sakari Aaltonen
(simoadventurecompanion.com)

www.adventurecompanion.com

[After a brisk nap]

No: Targeted non-causality as a gimmick, as opposed to being "creativity and variety".

And a tip for you: Citing quantum theory in contexts it has nothing to do with immediately sets off my (and, I suspect, many other people's) BS-meters.

[Kurufinwe]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

And a tip for you: Citing quantum theory in contexts it has nothing to do with immediately sets off my (and, I suspect, many other people's) BS-meters.

Seconded.

(sorry, I just had to say that)

[Crapstorm]

I was alerted to BS long before quantum mechanics was mentioned.

[jacog]

i hear they snort a lot of xylitol in finland

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

After a brisk nap wrote:

No: Targeted non-causality as a gimmick, as opposed to being "creativity and variety".

And a tip for you: Citing quantum theory in contexts it has nothing to do with immediately sets off my (and, I suspect, many other people's) BS-meters.

Condescend to someone who is willing to take it. You have already shown you have no interest in the ideas being discussed. That being the case, one can only wonder what your motivation is for posting to this discussion.

No one here has cited quantum theory in contexts it has nothing to do with. That you fail to see the connection is your problem. Nothing wrong with that.

Kurufinwe wrote:

Seconded.

(sorry, I just had to say that)

No problem. You do what you have to.

Crapstorm wrote:

I was alerted to BS long before quantum mechanics was mentioned.

Crapstorm evidently finds it easier to make fun of individuals than actually take part in the discussion. That is usually the case when someone has nothing to contribute beyond a personal attack, no matter how feeble.

jacog wrote:

i hear they snort a lot of xylitol in finland

New depths being sounded. Congratulations, I expected better from you. Write it off as humour if you will, I'm no longer buying.

I think the topic is too interesting to waste on working out personal issues, which many seem to be doing. Do they have anything to say on the subject matter? Why not say it? I would be interested to hear their thoughts. Actual contributions, that is; calling something nonsense does not qualify if one gives not a single argument to support that opinion.

Otherwise you are just trolling. No other word for it, not as long as you give no reason to suppose there is substance to your reactions beyond personal animosity. No one is asking you to agree with anything, but neither do you have a right to rubbish other people's worldviews because they differ from yours.

Let me make it simple for you: What exactly do you find stupid about drawing ideas from one field and applying them to another? It is a simple question. It is on the topic. You must have a good answer to it, given the way you act.

Do share. (And let's keep it civil from now on.)

Simo Sakari Aaltonen
(simoadventurecompanion.com)

www.adventurecompanion.com

[MoriartyL]

When two fields are completely unrelated, combining the two will not give you truth- rather, it will give you an incorrect perspective. For instance, if I were to apply a lesson of physics -"A body in motion continues to move in a straight line with a constant speed unless and until an external unbalanced force acts upon it"- to the stock market, I'd be a poor man. Or if I made the superficial connection in my head between human memory and computer memory, I might be led to believe that computers are likely to lose any data which is not used. The principles of one field are not likely applicable in another, unless that field is closely related. One can make an analogy between them, to be sure, but that analogy is just a way of simplifying an issue to better understand it, not in itself truth. To think otherwise is a mildly amusing type of foolishness that leads to incorrect perspectives.

The way quantum physics deals with causality is limited to a quantum level. It has no meaning on any other level. The "breaking of causality" you mention in adventures is an entirely different issue, a fact you don't see because of this incorrect perspective of yours. In fact, the example you gave did not break causality at all- it just put a puzzle in between your input and the game's output. In that section, causality remains intact; it's just the rules which have changed. And the player solves the puzzle not by abandoning causality, but by figuring out what the new rules are. This is not an idea which has much potential beyond that specific puzzle- use it too much, and it's overkill. In other words, it's just a one-time gimmick, as has been noted. And there is no connection between these two concepts.

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

MoriartyL wrote:

When two fields are completely unrelated, combining the two will not give you truth- rather, it will give you an incorrect perspective.

In my view, quantum physics and ordinary physics are not completely unrelated. It is not two different realities, it is a system within a system, just as atoms make up molecules and molecules make up bodies. Nor am I looking for truth with any of this, only inspiration. An incorrect perspective emerges only if one draws false conclusions. In my view, the universe is one large system where everything affects everything. I am not asking anyone else to agree with this view, but I am entitled to it. I make no claim to eternal truth or even consistency.

For instance, if I were to apply a lesson of physics -"A body in motion continues to move in a straight line with a constant speed unless and until an external unbalanced force acts upon it"- to the stock market, I'd be a poor man.

No, you would simply be making a poor choice of what to apply and how. Take inertia instead and you're in business. Everyone working in stocks knows that stocks have inertia much like physical objects do. There are useful analogies to be drawn, you only have to be smart about drawing them.

Or if I made the superficial connection in my head between human memory and computer memory, I might be led to believe that computers are likely to lose any data which is not used.

I believe there is evidence to support the belief that, generally speaking, accessing data on an information-storage system, whether brain, VHS cassette, or hard drive, helps maintain the integrity of the data.

The principles of one field are not likely applicable in another, unless that field is closely related.

Where do you get this idea? I am honestly curious, because I see no self-evident basis for that claim. In fact, it seems that in this case you are applying a principle of mathematics or geography, namely distance, to a field I believe you have no reason to suppose closely related, namely information theory.

One can make an analogy between them, to be sure, but that analogy is just a way of simplifying an issue to better understand it, not in itself truth.

Your conception of analogy differs from mine, which is of course fine. I can see that someone would use analogy as a heuristic tool, an aid to understanding something else. But it can be more than that. It can be a way of looking at a familiar field from a fresh angle, which is very useful to prevent inbreeding. I argue for a multiplicity of perspectives, not sterile, binary truths.

To think otherwise is a mildly amusing type of foolishness that leads to incorrect perspectives.

Only if one fails to see how the different perspectives are useful in respect of each other.

The way quantum physics deals with causality is limited to a quantum level. It has no meaning on any other level.

It does in many people's views. Causality breaks down or, better said, acts non-linearly on other levels as well, and quantum processes (or what current science terms quantum processes; the theory will likely be revised at some point) are going on in everything around us, and inside us. I have no problem with your apparent belief that what happens on the quantum level exists in a different reality unconnected with macrocosmic existence. I only believe differently: heat wood, and motion accelerates on the atomic level, leading to motion and physical manifestations on the suratomic level.

The "breaking of causality" you mention is an entirely different issue, which you don't see because of this incorrect perspective of yours.

I see how your interpretation of my views would lead you to think that they are based on unclear thinking. But I must point out that your interpretation of these views is itself incorrect, invaliding that conclusion. We are not arguing about provable logical points, but about worldviews.

In fact, the example you gave did not break causality at all- it just put a puzzle in between your input and the game's output. In that section, causality remains intact; it's just the rules which have changed. And the player solves the puzzle not by abandoning causality, but by figuring out what the new rules are. This is not an idea which has much potential beyond that specific puzzle- use it too much, and it's overkill.

Now this is a fair criticism of the examples I thought up. You are right, they did not illustrate the points I was trying to make. One thing though: I am not suggesting abandoning causality as that would only lead to nonsensical results where meaningful gameplay is concerned. I believe instead in broadening our conception of causality beyond the simple A-leads-to-B type (usually in adventure games causality works on a one-to-one basis, not very true to reality: a single act affects a single variable; one-dimensional, or single-axis, thinking).

At this point I am dropping the quantum analogy. What I advocate is nothing more controversial than making the gaming world more of an interconnected place. The simplest I can phrase it is to have more actions available, and have more actions affect more variables. Or to be reductionist, simply have more flags. We are back at the basics of good storytelling, creativity and variety.

But isn't it pretty useless to talk about these things, some might ask? Surely everyone in the business is already being as creative as they can be? But are they? I mean, are they doing the hard work to follow through on their ideas, and are they exploring fertile enough areas?

Simo Sakari Aaltonen
(simoadventurecompanion.com)

www.adventurecompanion.com

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by Simo Sakari Aaltonen

MoriartyL wrote:

When two fields are completely unrelated, combining the two will not give you truth- rather, it will give you an incorrect perspective.

In my view, quantum physics and ordinary physics are not completely unrelated. It is not two different realities, it is a system within a system, just as atoms make up molecules and molecules make up bodies.

Who's talking about ordinary physics? I'm criticizing your connection of quantum physics to adventure game storytelling. And thank you for dropping this silly analogy.

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

MoriartyL wrote:

Who's talking about ordinary physics?

I am. You are. Look over your previous message. (Quantum, atom, molecule, body, world, universe.)

I'm criticizing your connection of quantum physics to adventure game storytelling.

Yes. (Adventure-game storytelling: roughly between quantum and world.)

And thank you for dropping this silly analogy.

You are welcome. Thank you for your opinion!

Simo Sakari Aaltonen
(simoadventurecompanion.com)

www.adventurecompanion.com

[AprilLives]

“Foolish perspectives” … I like the sound of that. When brainstorming for originality, perhaps one ought to allow a little room for silliness to arrive at fresh ideas.

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

Yes! Very well said.

I know I would rather work for a company called Foolish Perspectives than Serious Visions.

Simo Sakari Aaltonen
(simoadventurecompanion.com)

www.adventurecompanion.com

[Crapstorm]

I'd just like to point out that this conversation has nothing to do with adventure games (or much else) and probably ought to be continued in another forum.

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

Crapstorm wrote:

I'd just like to point out that this conversation has nothing to do with adventure games (or much else) and probably ought to be continued in another forum.

It has a lot to do with adventure games, though you refuse to see that, and it may not be anything you are interested in discussing. I am sure you can see the difference. But why not contribute in a way that would make the conversation relevant to you as well? (I suggest we avoid the meta stuff. Just my opinion.)

Speaking of which, I missed your answer to the question: what was the BS you were referring to and why did you feel violently enough about it to call it that? You do actually have arguments to give... don't you?

It is not very nice to ridicule the views of another person, you know.

Simo Sakari Aaltonen
(simoadventurecompanion.com)

www.adventurecompanion.com

[Crapstorm]

I guess I don't understand the premise of the question. I found your statements nebulous and irrelevant, which is why I classified them as BS. Now I am being violent? Dude, relax. I mean you no harm.

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

Crapstorm wrote:

I guess I don't understand the premise of the question. I found your statements nebulous and irrelevant, which is why I classified them as BS. Now I am being violent? Dude, relax. I mean you no harm.

Okay. I can understand that. Thank you for answering. I think you are completely entitled to find my posts irrelevant or nonsensical. Those are terms that are not deliberately insulting.

I reacted so badly because I dislike seeing anyone's views called BS, especially when that someone has already admitted they might not be doing as good a job of explaining those views as they would wish.

When an idea fails to communicate, a person can always ask for clarification, and if it still seems to make no sense, it would help to say what part is unclear. Then the other person could address that.

Even if they still failed to communicate everything, at least they would have avoided a complete breakdown in the discussion.

But no hard feelings as far as I am concerned, Crapstorm.

Simo Sakari Aaltonen
(simoadventurecompanion.com)

www.adventurecompanion.com