sylvie’s bleetskeet

exploration, discovery, and surprise

tests of skill -> endow a world with texture.

cyan cards like this one (but not this one) are quotes or paraphrases from sylvie

Knytt; too easy -> no texture, not memorable

“Knytt has a lot of funny creatures and unique environments, but [the world feels flat to me because] it offers no real resistance to going wherever you want.”

“the experience of exploring that world didn’t really stick in my memory.”

are they a good solution to adding texture? are they the ‴right‴ solution? this bothers me -- that i’m asking this question at all bothers me.

basically i want to ask, why add a test of skill instead of even considering a different solution?

for now i think it’s worth claiming that even if this is a problem with Knytt, adding texture via tests of skill is not necessarily a good solution, there are other ways to add texture.

tests of skill -> natural to the language of platformers

i’m not claiming that one must only execute good solutions, i’m not defining what good is, and i’m not saying that this isn’t a good solution -- but sylvie does not even make a claim or present an argument that tests of skill are a good solution. so we know it is a possible solution & nothing else

i totally vibe with this yeah

when writing a story with characters the natural things to do are like... hey what if character did thing X, or if thing Y happened to them, or drama, etc

with a platformer it’s a whole different language with different natural developments.

this basically corresponds to droqen’s reason (2). You don’t necessarily need tests of skill to access this design space.

when I start drawing out a platformer world, I fill it with tests of skill almost reflexively, without thinking

tests of skill mark certain areas as more dangerous or less dangerous, as places to remember and come back to, as mysterious and forbidding

Since tests of skill are often interesting to me, I don’t agree that tests of skill are a BAD Way to access this design space

This feels like it corresponds to droqen’s reason (3)

“it is part of the genre, how else would i make [genre] game (BAD: following a template without proper justification)”

this is alright -- in terms of the way the work unfolds, i think it goes like this:

Funeral Song for the Elemental Lords

1. you make a platformer

achieves a textured world through tests of knowledge and patience

2. when you have a platformer, you make levels, and the levels contain challenge, which produces texture

3. you become aware of the texture and use this texture to create a textured world.

observation puzzles

sometimes a bit of tedium

there is a subtle difference..

when sylvie writes ”tests of skill mark certain areas as more dangerous or less dangerous″ this is not the reasoning behind adding tests of skill; it is an analytical reflection upon the whole work and the place that tests of skill reside in it

think of any element, other than the player’s controls and jumping, that a platformer can have.

it is something she is aware of, but these follow from danger that arises from a different source

Exploring a world requires knowledge, time, and effort.

i’m mad about someone adding a platformer element without thinking about why they are adding it, and prioritizing “i am doing this because platformers have this”

I think “tests of skill” can be seen as an attempt to make the “effort” part more exciting.

a claim about the natural consequences of the mechanics.

a locked door and a key, let’s say.

To see something new, rather than mere patience, or the application of knowledge, you need to demonstrate a form of physical dexterity.

an implied goal/problem statement (the “effort” part is not exciting)

if you aren’t sure how a platformer works and are seeking to understand the structure by building it out of pieces (hi gabe), that’s a good thing

especially prioritizing the appearance of a platformer

i’m doing it because i want my game to appear more platformer-ish, i’m doing it to appeal to platformer-likers

and a proposed solution (tests of skill)

a core component of my personal complaint is the presumption that there must be any such cost at all!

like, you have to start somewhere

positioning physical tests of skill as an alternative to other costs

the claim that “Exploring a world requires knowledge, time, and effort” speaks to this

“i feel like there is an inherent cost to exploring a world! like at minimum it takes time, in real life it requires from physical effort.... what kind of costless games are you imagining? i think i was trying to get at the idea that “pure time” as a cost is “boring” or “tedious” to many people”

i think sylvie’s comment got cut off or lost or something - i’ve messaged in the kinopio discord to see what could have caused this but for now i’m just rescuing it in this way. -droqen