Fuzz Poll Tamperer

=== pkt ==================
A bunch of things I'd like to get out of the way first. I don't expect you to address these, merely acknowledge them. I'd rather have you spend your time on the second part, the one actually related to game design. (Just to make things clear, I won't be using your terminology of games* and puzzles*, for simplicity's sake.)

---

You said you considered making this a public discussion, which I conceptually have no objection against. However, I said before that you're very ineffective at getting your point across (and you said the same about me, hah), so the majority of the stuff would be a waste of the audience's time. If you were going to publicize it, it'd need heavy editing, to only keep the salient points of the discussion. If you're willing to do that, go ahead. Otherwise, I'm against it.

Braid and Perspective you were both eager to label as "generic puzzle platformers", and I'm familiar with both, which is why I've been consistently using them as examples. I'm open to alternatives, of course, but I do insist on using some tangible, objective concretion (i.e. existing games) as a reference, to ensure things are grounded in reality. If you're unwilling to agree to that, I'm out.

On the accusation of trolling: if that was my only purpose, I wouldn't need to bother coming up with reasonable, logical counterarguments. This seems like a knee-jerk dismissal on your part, another way to avoid having to substantiate your arguments. And in case you're wondering what your supposed motivation for _that_ would be: flawed ideas that aren't allowed to be scrutinized won't be proven wrong. See theistic religions for examples. Some have said that your being a published writer makes it so you can no longer afford to be wrong, even if you're less sure that you're right than you were before. There certainly is the perception that you act as though you're basically infallible. The way I see things, though, being wrong is a prerequisite for learning.

Which should also explain why I've given you dozens of opportunities to prove me wrong. I ask the questions I ask because I think they'll be helpful for achieving a better understanding, at least on my part. So dismissing them as unimportant is the least helpful option. Pointing out the questions that you think would be useful instead could be a step in the right direction.

Your task would be to explain why you think "puzzle platformers are basically the same". What are the points of similarity, how is this manifested in concrete examples, etc. I don't think you've explained that all too well previously. I'll explain my position, to give you an idea of where I'm coming from; and also address what I think your stance is, as best as I can approximate it from what little hints you did give.

---

Let's start with the analogy you used when I asked you to explain why "3D to 2D projections" (Perspective) and "spatial dimension linked to time" (Braid World 4) were "basically the same" things. The parallel chosen was an FPS deathmatch game either with rifles, pistols, or machine guns. They're different, but at the end of the day, it's basically the same.

First off, this fails as an analogy. The way those are supposed to work, in mathematical terms, is this: you have objects A and B (=examples), for which relationship r(A, B) is true. Then, you take a transformation that preserves this relationship (=resemblance), so that you get X = f(A) and Y = f(B). Only given all that can you conclude that the relationship r(X, Y) (=your original point) is also true.

In this specific example, the resemblance is not at all obvious. "3D to 2D projections" resembles "machineguns" the same way "spatial dimension linked to time" resembles "rifles" - which is to say, "not at all", as far as I can see. If this is indeed the analogy you want to go with, you've got a whole lot more explaining to do.

A better FPS analogy would be FPS deathmatch games with either rocket launchers, railguns, or machineguns only. The supporting framework ("FPS deathmatch") is the same, but the games test different skills, require understanding different things (prediction, twitch aim, and tracking, respectively). You could even say that the framework itself is not so important: you could switch the view to TPS, or sidescrolling, and the nature of the games would largely remain the same.

And so it is with puzzle platformers. The 2D platforming is merely a framework to explore whatever mechanics the game is actually about. The specific choice of 2D platforming can be explained by it being a minimal (required for puzzles to function), clean (makes it easier to parse information), intuitive (reasonably close to the 3D universe we're used to) context. Another obvious reason would be mechanical familiarity: the games being 2D platformers is relevant only insofar as it helps or hinders their ability to explore the puzzle mechanics. The job of the framework is to have the players not care about it, to get out of the way, criticism of it only makes sense in the context of the actual mechanics. Anything else betrays a lack of understanding, mistaking superficial aspects for the ones that actually matter.

Braid's "one key for two identical doors" puzzle in World 4 isn't interesting because you have to jump around to get to the other door, but because you need to realize which one's the correct door and why (Did you figure that out, by the way? No cheating!). The World 3 boss isn't about dropping chandeliers on the head of some monster, but figuring out how to do that five times when you can only drop two chandeliers. And so on. You could do all that in a TPS or on a 7-dimensional grid, if you really wanted to.

I think that roughly sums up my reasoning for why "puzzle platformers are basically the same" is a load of baloney. Now let's hear why you think it isn't.
(Additional reading: recent twitter comments, the reddit thread on Perspective [also some stuff in response to EnDevero there])
=== KB ===================
You're asking me to defend a general statement, so my answers are going to be general in nature.

Have you played Professor Layton?  That's an example of a very varied "puzzle collection" game.  If you play that game, you'll see that the range of possible different types of puzzles that exist is really quite large.  A puzzle is really just a "problem" (like my chart says!), and they can take all kinds of forms.  You have a puzzle that asks you to add one line to create a certain shape, one that involves moving sheep across a river with only X amount of moves, ones that are purely numeric, etc.  Puzzles can get completely abstract, and indeed, I do consider math problems puzzles.

Now, with that said, take a look at puzzle platformers.  They are all puzzle games with which you communicate by "jumping around" with a side-scrolling little avatar.  Doesn't that, alone, dramatically limit the variability in the kinds of puzzles you can see there?

I'm not saying all puzzle platformers are identical.  I'm also not saying that 3D to 2D projections are exactly the same things as "space / time" projections, but they are the same KIND of thing.  Basically, it all amounts to changing the world geometry for you to jump over.  This is what I've meant.

So, I can admit that "they're all basically the same" might be an overstatement, but they certainly are all quite similar.
=== pkt ==================
I've played the Layton games, yes. They're varied, yes. Most of the puzzles aren't that interesting or difficult, though. Novelty doesn't equal quality, breadth doesn't equal depth. I don't mind that the series exists, though, it's fun enough. I didn't really learn much new from the games, though, it's more like they keep your brain from getting rusty.

As for the "jumping around" being possibly limiting: yeah, it could be. But like I said, that criticism is meaningless without further context, as "jumping around" is simply a means to an end in the first place. At no point during Braid did I think "Man, they could've added a great new puzzle here, if only the game was based on a 7-dimensional grid!". If you did, you'd be better served by bringing those examples up, instead of just leveling vague complaints at no one in particular.

If you're going to go with "changing the world geometry for you to jump over" as the supposed point of similarity between puzzle platformers, you'd best take care it applies to the examples that have already been brought up, at the very least. Which it doesn't, since like I pointed out, neither even needs to have anything to do with platforming; you could put them in Braid: The Text Adventure, if you really wanted to. Or do you have some explanation to the contrary?
=== KB ===================
>Novelty doesn't equal quality, breadth doesn't equal depth

When did the discussion ever touch on depth or quality?  All I've ever talked about is novelty, or lack thereof.

> At no point during Braid did I think "Man, they could've added a great new puzzle here, if only the game was based on a 7-dimensional grid!".

You may have not thought that way.  That doesn't mean that it's not the case.

I recognize that you have produced examples to the contrary of my point.  I acknowledge that they are counter-examples, but I maintain that they are exceptions to the rule.
=== pkt ==================
I was merely making the point that novelty and quality are separate things. So if you're merely arguing for finding brand new ways to make terrible games, that's not going to be all that useful for me (and others, I'd imagine).

> You may have not thought that way.  That doesn't mean that it's not the case.

That seems dangerously close to "bullshit" territory. Are you just talking theoretical possibilites that might not have anything to do with reality? Like I've said before, that's hardly going to be useful. If not, give an example of that. Otherwise your argument seems to be no more than a variant of Russell's teapot, easily discarded through the application of Occam's razor.

And as for my examples being exceptions: it's not like you've lined up a whole bunch of examples that prove your point instead, so it'd be reasonable to dismiss it as false. Let me give you another analogy to illustrate.

If I make the general statement that "basically all ravens are black", I can then point out a whole lot of specific ravens that are black. In fact, seeing lots of black ravens might be what lead me to the general assumption that "ravens are black" in the first place. Whereas if I were to say "basically all ravens are white", if you pointed at a huge flock of black ravens and said, "where's the white ones, then?", it wouldn't be a very convincing counterargument to say that those are just exceptions. Unless, of course, you could then point to a superhuge flock of white ravens, against which the black ones seem like a tiny black dot on a large sheet of white paper.

So, where's your white raven?
=== KB ===================
> I was merely making the point that novelty and quality are separate things. So if you're merely arguing for finding brand new ways to make terrible games, that's not going to be all that useful for me (and others, I'd imagine).

Hold on.  Don't rush to "I'm arguing for ways to make terrible games".  Why would you say such a thing?  I'm arguing for innovation in general - some of which will be good, and most of which will be bad.

As to the rest of this discussion, I really don't understand what the point is you're trying to make.  If all you want me to say is that all 2d platformers aren't exactly the same, there you go.  They aren't all exactly the same and I hereby apologize if I ever gave that impression.
=== pkt ==================
> Hold on.  Don't rush to "I'm arguing for ways to make terrible games".  Why would you say such a thing?

It's the implications of your using Layton as an example, contrasted with Braid. Yes, the Layton games involve a wider range of mechanics, but that's at the expense of depth and quality. So pointing at it and going "hey, this is what Braid should be doing instead" is just arguing for a poorer future of gaming. If that wasn't your point, sorry, but you should've chosen a better example to illustrate it.

> As to the rest of this discussion, I really don't understand what the point is you're trying to make.  If all you want me to say is that all 2d platformers aren't exactly the same, there you go.

I thought I've been pretty clear about this: I'm not trying to have you say that 2D platformers aren't basically the same, I'm trying to understand _why_ you said they're basically the same. What is the evidence that lead you to this conclusion, filtered through what process of reasoning? Which is why I asked for concrete examples. So far, you've merely been doing the Jarbo routine. Remember that? (keithburgun.net/the-responsibility-of-an-opinion/)

- I assert "X"!
- Here's some reasoning for "not X".
- I assert "X"!
- Here are some examples for "not X".
- They're exceptions. I maintain "X".

You recognize this as insulting and a waste of time yourself, so I'm not sure why you do it anyway. Not that your motivation matters either way. This does highlight however that it's not just my standards that your answers fail to meet, but (presumably) yours as well.

In other words: If you have something to say on the subject that isn't just a broad generalization thrown out with no regard for whether it has any basis in reality, only intended to generate some easy pageviews through controversy, I'd like you to get to it _right now_.
=== KB ===================
>It's the implications of your using Layton as an example, contrasted with Braid. Yes, the Layton games involve a wider range of mechanics, but that's at the expense of depth and quality.

Actually I disagree.  I think the quality of puzzles in Layton are better.  Maybe we disagree on that point, but that's what I meant.

When I say that puzzle platformers are basically the same, you have to understand the level of perspective that I'm looking at it from.  I see that you have a very narrow field of vision with regard to it, and so you feel like there's this huge difference between each puzzle platformer.  I recognize that there is SOME difference, but I'm looking at the problem with a much wider scope.  So I'm thinking about ALL kinds of interactive entertainment.  When you look at the puzzle platformer thing just through that lens, they're very very samey.

Does that make sense?
=== pkt ==================
You ignored my request for an example again. So, for the last time, would you be as kind as to pick some specific puzzles from Braid or whatever, and explain how those lead you to conclude they're all basically about manipulating world geometry for you to jump around in?

> Does that make sense?

I'd call that "hopelessly vague", but it seems to me this actually crosses over firmly into "bullshit" territory ("bullshit" as used by Harry G. Frankfurt, to be specific). If your point is that "genres exist", or even "video games are a thing", that's technically true, but you could've simply said so then. You'd also be correct to say that "everything is a vector space" - you can always unfocus your view to a greater and greater degree, until things start looking similar. I don't see how that helps explain your view, though, quite the contrary. Before you say I'm arguing in bad faith for calling this out as a smoke screen, I'd like to note that your extreme aversion to provide examples points towards this as well.

To further illustrate why I don't think your response explains much, here's a follow-up to the earlier analogy:

You're essentially arguing that when you said that "basically all ravens are white", what you really meant was "if you consider that black and white, both being visible colours, are only a tiny part of the electromagnetic spectrum, they're basically all basically white". Or, as an alternative explanation, one could say you're simply colourblind.

(...lacking even monochromatic vision and only having depth perception, in this case, which may not even be possible in humans. But whatever, one can only stretch this analogy so far.)
=== KB ===================
>"if you consider that black and white, both being visible colours, are only a tiny part of the electromagnetic spectrum, they're basically all basically white".

I suppose that's the correct claim, but that's not the way I'd word it.  What I'd say is that platformers are all RED.  If you take an eyedropper tool in photoshop you can see that the hue/value is shifting a little bit with the different colors, but they're all basically red.  So yeah, you could say I'm colorblind for not seeing the difference, but I don't care.

Can we step back for a moment and figure out that you're not trying to learn anything here, and neither am I?  You're just trying to "get" me on something, and you want me in the position of trying to simply explain myself.  If you have any questions that could kinda advance either of our understanding about anything at all, that would be welcome.
=== pkt ==================
> I suppose that's the correct claim, but that's not the way I'd word it.  What I'd say is that platformers are all RED.  If you take an eyedropper tool in photoshop you can see that the hue/value is shifting a little bit with the different colors, but they're all basically red.

Photoshop is supposed to be an objective authority on this, is that the idea? This is a pretty blatant argument from authority, then: I show you a green pixel, and a blue one, you just declare them both red. That won't cut it.

> Can we step back for a moment and figure out that you're not trying to learn anything here, and neither am I?  You're just trying to "get" me on something, and you want me in the position of trying to simply explain myself.

...And that's an ad hominem. I am honestly trying to learn here, even if you aren't. (I'm guessing the implication that you want to NOT explain your points was an unintentional one, even if it's amusing.)

> If you have any questions that could kinda advance either of our understanding about anything at all, that would be welcome.

Like I've said before, I think you using concrete, tangible examples would be helpful for that purpose. If you refuse to even give that a shot, no matter what, simply say so, and I'll be done here.
=== KB ===================
< no response >