comex

clarification - that doesn’t mean I think she deserved to be fired, or that there weren’t legitimate factors predisposing her (among many others) towards being... unimpressed with rando replies.

(which may also have objective aspects), without meaning to imply that the objective aspects are wrong. </monologue>

but from the streamer’s perspective, I suspect the wording was influenced by a sense of “I disagree subjectively about how much to value player choice”. not that that’s what he said, exactly. but the subjective aspect makes it possible to “disagree” with a statement [..]

which I suspect contributed to the conflict. I can see how responding to a *factual* exposition with “allow me to disagree” could come off as very patronizing - as a suggestion that you don’t know what you’re talking about. [..]

ultimately, this is to a large extent a matter of opinion: do you prioritize player choice enough to spend a lot of time/budget making a complex branching narrative, or do you spend that time/budget making something else cool instead? [..]

and there’s no doubt that Price (like anyone else with experience in the matter) was well aware of the possibility of branching dialogue, and just didn’t mention it because it would be a large discussion by itself. nevertheless, not mentioning it makes it a valid objection. [..]

this matters because she started out with the broad claim that “I'm not sure if it's possible to make an MMORPG character compelling”, and the explanation does ignore that possibility. now, obviously there are good reasons to limit branching dialogue - it adds a lot of cost.

it’s not a, quote, “explanation of how narrative design influences player expression in the sort of games that Price narratively designs.” it’s very specifically a criticism that the original tweets don’t consider the possibility of branching dialogue. [..]

- reading the same memory address on two different cores (both in a loop) yields two different results (depending on the core) - adding a cache flush instruction fixes it - the mapping is marked as cache coherent - wtf

BTW, is there a name for the game that results if you take chess and replace all pieces with kings? Is it playable?

Or perhaps ‘just’ make pieces be infinitely long in one or more dimensions, perhaps allowing them to rotate (or else different dimensions for different pieces). I’m not sure if that would actually fix the defense issue… it probably depends on the total number of dimensions.

Or, you could basically abandon the idea of “collision” being meaningful and accept that pieces will go shooting around wherever they like, but add new rules that somehow give strategic value to different locations… I suppose this probably wouldn’t feel very much like chess.

The problem of course is that in high dimensions there’s a ton of space to maneuver around things, so it’d be very hard to have anything remotely resembling a defensive formation. One idea: give each player thousands of pieces. (The resulting game would be best played by AIs.)

So has anyone tried to create an actual game of n-dimensional chess (n>3)? Per Wikipedia, there have been various attempts at rulesets for 3D chess, but that doesn’t fit the latest memes.

(In Gmail’s case, I cared so little I forgot that they stopped doing it last year.)