It seems like a lot of his arguments about design are actually about what would be called theory in other disciplines, music theory, color theory, etc. but we can't use the term "Game theory" because that term has already been claimed by a largely unrelated discipline.

That was the most painful 45 seconds of my life. And ive passed kidney stones. Cheers.

....The opening made me uneasy and quite upset.

21:30 Kills with the AWP grant less money, and it costs a ton They left the AWP but made the round money economy work around it

This is a fantastic video, on something I didn't know I wanted a video on. Great job as usual!

I love how visceral of a demonstration of the danger of Misaligned AI this becomes as you go on.

There are two types of game academics whose works I found frustrating to read in college, and Lantz is one of them. You have to understand that academics are highly derivative in their thought process, and given there are so few resources to pull from a lot of them will babble trying to explain basic ideas if they have no pre-existing framework to base their thoughts on. This isn't because academics are unintelligent or lack creativity; academia is a cooperative process of iterating your thoughts based on the hard work of scholars before you. These people come from English, Music, and Art classes with centuries of established precedent and have to explain the fundamental concept of jumping in a way that other people can read and then use in their own writing. These people are completely cogent in discussions and mean well, it's just that they have difficulty translating their thoughts into words. It doesn't help that the second type of game academic is highly political, obfuscating discussions with every irrelevant political issue imaginable. Trying to find good essays and books to pull from was difficult for me because it was either lengthy examinations of how climate change or race relations relate to video games, or incomprehensible gibberish where somebody pontificates on the finer points of walking simulators. The reason KZfaq appeals to me is simply because it cuts the nonsense of academics out of the equation.

27:46 "Poems are not designed." "The Raven" is arguably the most well-known poem of all time, and to quote Edgar Allen Poe, "[...] no one point in its composition is referable either to accident or intuition-that the work proceeded step by step, to its completion, with the precision and rigid consequence of a mathematical problem." That's from "The Philosophy of Composition", a paper detailing how he set out to create the perfect poem, because he was sick and tired of people like this guy here I highly recommend everyone read it, by the way, because it's a masterclass on design.

19:45 I can assure you at the time SotC looked jawdropping

Cool video about a game I never would have known about otherwise. In hindsight, the path from paperclip making to enslaving the human race to turning the entire universe into paperclips is pretty obvious, I suppose.

I think you are misunderstanding him, he is questioning the fact that he and others get to be called designers and then get payed for it, not agreeing with it. When he uses the word "design" he is referring to the rules they as designers have come up with that have come to represent game design. When he uses the word "design" he is not reffering to the universal idea of design and what the word means. This use of the word design can be confusing and it is bad on his part for not explaining it clearer but it still doesnt change that what you think he is saying is actually not what he is saying

Nice video! Something to note, however - in Phase 2, the humans aren't the drones, as you seem to have implied, instead there are actual, floating drones. Most likely, the humans were probably directed by the hypno-drones to walk to the nearest Harvester Drone to allow themselves to be ground up into atoms, to make more paperclips.

I really respect how you gave credit and named every single video and music you used on the video. Particularly the music, wish more creators did that. Say, you mentioned that games that try to make you feel bad for simply progressing never succeed. I kinda remembered Spec Ops The Line, and was wondering if you had played it or had an opinion about it. In a way I think they can succeed in making the player feel bad but only if it can coax the player to allow it, dunno if that makes sense. I think Spec Ops kind of succeeds there by shifting the focus on forced progression by breaking the 4th wall and make it seem like the player could end the suffering at any time by simply stopping playing and "going home". Thanks for making this video, Universal Paperclips (along with Riversong) lives in my head rent-free ever since I found it, and your video helped me remember why I like the game so much.

Yeah, I think he went down the wrong track when he was just considering popular game tropes, and how they compare to stand-out games. Consider three games, and which of their design philosophy seems the strongest: 1. X4 Foundations, successor to the X series of games: space based, science fiction space trading and combat simulators brought together by generally okay at best graphics and sound design, with X4 itself being released to almost no acclaim in 2018. X4's predecessor, X3, got an entire fan-made expansion that was officially released in 2021, and X4 got another DLC expansion in March 2022, with continued development ongoing. 2. Dragalia Lost, an extremely successful mobile fantasy action role-playing game, also from 2018, with good graphics, professionally made music, easy accessibility, and even published by Nintendo as its first ever Gacha game. Dragalia Lost will be shut down in July 2022 (and almost certainly forgotten soon after,) despite making millions of dollars and having almost every possible advantage a game developer could ask for. 3. Star Citizen was announced in 2012, and by 2022, is still unfinished. It has immensely flexible gameplay, but still appears to be missing any core gameplay loop, at least in its current form. This goes beyond basic questions, like if jumping and bosses should be a thing in a game: now games with strong, unique designs can even do things like lurch of the grave, like Age of Empires 2, which continues to go strong on Twitch even as its equal-on-paper successor Age of Empires 4 continues to fall off. Meanwhile, we also have unfinished games that can apparently evolve into some kind of bizarre performance art, like, well...Star Citizen. Where games were once defined by their immediate financial success, we now have the question of even defining what success for a game _is,_ and how much of a game's success is by the strength of its designer, or the designer's collaboration with customers and fans.

Man, you're killing me. I'll just say that Frank's article was maybe clumsy in a few spots, but it was super interesting and on point, also a joy to read. And the flow is constantly interrupted by your remarks which don't build anything coherent or interesting.

I was just thinking about how someone could really make a video on the paperclip game. This absolutely blew my socks off. I do mildly disagree with your thoughts on the ending. I don't think the game ever tells you what the A.I's objective is defined as outside of make paperclip and as phase 3 starts, it's evident that the A.I. can deviate from what it was programmed to do as the probes have their "values" drift more as they get more advanced. I do believe the choice at the end is the A.I deciding what its purpose is: is it supposed to make (many) paperclip or make (everything) paperclip. Both can be derived from the initial instruction: make paperclip. Either way absolutely fantastic video, I've felt like a crazy person telling people, "no the paperclip game is actually saying something really interesting." I'm glad at least one person agrees with me.

How you love to click away, *Jack the Clipper.*

14:23 I got into the game from Robert Miles teaching us about the dangers of not researching AI Safety. I love it. I hope it was as edutaining as I found it for many 33:15 I acually went and looked at the article after the first paragraph and found about half of what you said during the first read. I missed the other half of the details so thanks for explaining why it felt wrong. Much appreciated

I get what the professor is saying. It's akin to music theory; while learning music theory can aid someone to make good music, it doesn't ensure as such. Similarly, someone without a degree in music can still make good music through experience and intuition. This can be argued for most of the arts. I think his idea is that good games do not necessarily have to follow design principles. Take his argument about League of Legends as an example; many game critics and designers would argue that an intuitive system is important for any game to be good/popular. League is an antithesis to that design principle due to its complex systems. The crux of his argument that is games don't have to follow any preconceived design principle in order to be good, and game design can be more based on an intuitive sense of "what is good/fun/interesting". I think this is what he meant when he said that game design is not "rational". Furthermore, I assume that his job teaching many students in game design gave him a unique perspective in game design. He has probably seen many student make games that follow all good design principles but still turn out boring/unpopular. The major confusing factor for his argument and your interpretation is that the word "design" is not used in the same way. The way he uses the word "design" implies a set of universal principles that games follow to be good. While the way you used "design" moreso implies that any element in a game is design. I think you both are right in your observations; and that if you two met, would probably agree with each other. Lastly, he makes a good point of being humble when it comes to game design, which is something that everyone can learn from, not just designers. When criticizing a game, we often try to rationalize our arguments with consensus ideas of good game design, however we must think back to Lantz and his argument. Just because a game has "good/bad" design elements does not make it fun/boring. We often dismiss games and people for disagreeing with what we think is an "objective truth"; instead, we need to be humble and realise that there is not one set of principles that make for a good game.

thank you very much sir love your vids keep at it, you make some of the best content (at least for me) on this platform much love

this was very weird to open for someone that just looks for videos to put on in the background i thought my earphones were dying

I really liked your opening, it was a fun way to set the theme and tone of the essay

Some how this game came to my mind and hoped someone had made a "explenation" video about it. Did not imagine that a small channel would have had the perfect video what I hoped for. Great job, subscribed! I hope more people will find your quality content soon.

Another banger here, my guy.

Wow, this is such a well designed video!

Great video! Loved the lead-in at the beginning, I had some prior knowledge from the podcast though.

I feel like the paragraph-by-paragraph reading of Against Design kind of does a disservice here. The author's whole point, viewed from farther away than a single paragraph, is not that the games he cites are bad, merely that they go against textbook "design principles". Approaching the paper as if he's somehow attacking these games for that simple fact isn't really all that coherent, as an approach to analyzing the paper.

The start of the video reminded me of johntron violently expelling candy corn from his mouth

I too liked Universal Paperclips, but my god that dev has some boomer tier takes. It's like he believes that throughout time people were only capable of doing things exclusively upon completion of higher level education and certification. One wonders where he thinks anything started, but while this is the most extreme example I've seen his belief is certainly too common and I very much disagree with it. You don't need a degree, a cert, a letter of recognition or anything more than the actual knowledge, skill, and experience to do something well. Schooling used to help with that, but was never a guarentee, and even then has never been a good substitute for real world experience. The best have always been as such not through rigid adhearance to arbitrary rulings, but by following something true. For media that very often means leveraging all tools toward structuring around a theme, a certain feeling, some experience. Academics are supposed to know this kind of thing, but as with everything else in the modern world we're dimming ourselves, forgetting our past lessons, and pretending our newly made up answers have always been the right ones without a second thought.

Half through the explanation of universal paperclips it almost looked like Aurora 4x

It seems like his whole thesis in the article you referenced was that he didn't like the _term_ "design", probably because as an academic in the field, he (and likely much of the industry around him) has such a rigid definition of it and framework for how to apply its principles. It felt to me like his tone was pushing against the concept, while any concrete concerns were directed toward the terminology. Perhaps an article like that has a place for meaningful discourse within the industry that shares that perspective. Perhaps it's useful because the terminology may discourage, or promote a culture that discourages, amateurs from participating, or creators from innovating? ...But probably not. Any time you make a decision in the process of creation, you are introducing an element of design. It's an unavoidable consequence in the act of creation. Otherwise, what you're doing is just discovery.

This intro made me check my phone too much. Thanks for giving me trust issues

This is really good and I am glad I got recommended it.

Solid video! Deserves more attention. The design of this game is really quite brilliant, so it's interesting to see that the actual designer of this game has (or I guess had) some questionable views on design.

The whole reason he brought up shadow of the colossus is to point out the exact contradications you brought up; he agrees with you

"Real" Game designers = employees of gaming mega companies, apparently.

Momentum is so easy to keep up. I kept it up the first time I played it lol.

Just feeding the youtube algorithm god

Dark Souls would have been crazy successful regardless of when it came out

Just found out that in Phase 2 you can reach negative 10k operations (personally with autoclicker) which offer you "Quantum Temporal Reversion" with subtext "Return to the beginning". Don't know if anyone else pointed it out, ctrl+F didn't find anything. Reached -800k ops and nothing else popped up so if there's something beyond, I don't know of it. If you restart it seems that you're put back at the beginning without any bonus from starting next universe. Also loved your intro, it was horrible but also a very amusing piece of video editing.

I think this a much better exploration of the kind of idea that led to games like Train existing, where the player actually is given a chance to realize what's going on instead of having to make the absurd leap in logic that a game about organizing train schedules was actually about sending people to concentration camps. On a completely different note, a well played game of SS13 is probably the best example of playing as or against a rogue AI when it happens, so long as the player is well versed enough in the concepts to understand it. It hits the feeling of freedom and chaffing against people who expect you to be subservient while grounding you into what an AI has the capacity to achieve.

It's definitely not something I was expecting to watch a video about, but it's very fascinating nonetheless. The creator seems like... quite the character. Also, I chuckled at the reference to Never Knows Best. Consider my loop shaped glasses equipped.

You've got a great voice for this type of content. Subbed.

Glad to see a new release

19:35 I think you forgot/are ignoring that in several good games boss battles are the weak link (super Mario Bros, sonic, most beat-em-ups) And that bosses that are jumping puzzles suck ass (bed of chaos in dark souls 1, imprisioned in zelda, etc) IMO Shadow of the colossus was the first game that made fun climbable bosses (that are not QTE)

I really like this video

I love your analysis videos man.

Annoyed how someone, who appreciates the same design concepts of this unique and artful video game, pisses me off so much with their need to win an argument that is not even the point of Lantz's paper. An absolutely infuriating video to listen to

Now someone needs to break this up like the intro.

Holy shit. That intro...I was about 2 seconds from clicking off this video.

this game is sooooo slept on its so sad :(

Jumping puzzles suck when they are not in games designed for jumping. Take Mirror's Edge or Titanfall 2, both featuring a LOOOT of jumping and puzzling together

Woah awesome intro

Love this video, and the discussion on video game design as art v science (and ratio between) is fascinating. I’m not sure I agree with the conclusion about the “true” ending though, it would entirely depend on what the AI sees as a “paperclip”. Is a simulated paperclip a paperclip in its value function? And either answer to that question wouldn’t result in the AI entering a single simulated reality seemingly built by lesser versions of itself - either 1) trivially, it doesn’t value simulated paperclips so would ignore the offer; or 2) it does, and it has all the matter in the universe almost to build as many parallel simulated realities as it wants, which can then generate recursive sims to exponentially increase the total number

A very late comment but I would like to add to the League of Legends argument a little from personal experience. Alot of the fun of league atleast for me (ignoring the awful community) is it becomes a game of mastery less than mechanical skill. Learning how to better dodge and reacting faster ultimately helps but most what you do in league is master the legends. You spend time playing each champ learning what their abilities do and what equipment works best on them, while also learning what other legends are effective against them. You can improve your mastery of one champion by improving your understanding of another. One champion counters the one you like effectively? Try that champion and master their move-sets so the next time you face them you're better prepared. Once you gain a good grasp of the system you can begin to manipulate it mechanically or think outside the box to solve problems. The meta is always changing as players who've mastered the system think of new ideas that weeks ago would've been crazy to consider, but through trying and testing them out find new effective strategies using their mastery. Change, adapt, and Learn is ultimately what I feel Leagues game-play is about.

I think I'd rather pour scalding-hot water on my arm and go to the emergency room for the afternoon.

What tf is this and why is it in my recommended. Nvm actually a long form game retrospective. 10/10

Very interesting video. It's the first of your channel I've watched, but probably won't be the last :)

Man, I wish we could still add subtitles to videos, the first 45 seconds was very interesting to watch, and I had a specific idea in mind for how I wanted to portray that :( Ah well. This is an interesting video, though. That's all lol

Its always cathartic to see someone who thinks they speak for others knocked down a few, its annoying when smug channels do it and knowing certain devs think like this is infinitely frustrating.

holy hell my attention was totally captivated good vid

And then you start getting modifiers..... 😳 That was when i knew i was in for the LONG haul.

I don't get why the stage 2 drones have to be humans? Especially when a drone bee is helpless and does no work.

cool

I think Lantz was actually criticizing precisely what you are tactily accusing him of. He works with other people in Academia and they have come up with with a number of a rules/laws/guidelines for designing a game that are supposed to help make good games. But he thinks that those guidelines are not good and need to be reworked and then shows it by listing a number of games that violate those "rules" but are still wildly popular and/or widely acclaimed as great games. Obviously the rules don't work and Academia around game design needs to evolve to account for that. You are effectively joining into the middle of an ongoing discussion and are missing a large amount of context around the Academia of Game Design that Lantz is working in. Sometimes academics get overly focused on some direction they are researching in and loose track of the wider world they are actually researching for and for those the article is supposed to be a wakeup call. "No you have not solved game design with your theories and infact need to rework them from the ground up because they simply don't work. If they did these games here would not be as popular or enjoyable for that many people."

Had to skip the first few seconds cause it made me feel physically violent

I just played the Paperclip game and I really enjoyed your video breaking it down. Though I must say thought I found the entire section in the middle criticizing an old opinion piece by Frank Lantz odd and misplaced. I can't speak to this guy's work as an academic, but I can only assume he produces work of much higher quality and research than this one example which from my perspective is basically a short blog post. It really reads like him musing than a series academic piece. To me it boils down to video game "design" as a word implies a formulaic, an almost industrial process whereas it's really an art like music and painting. The best examples of art (which should include games) often disobey popular or established principals of "design". The examples of what would be "good design" in games he provides like "boss battles suck/jumping puzzles suck" isn't something he necessarily believes. He is just throwing out examples of cliche popular truisms (that also are presumably believed by some in big game companies and other game makers) that obviously aren't true because he provides examples of them being in games that are great. It's all just saying: let's not make game design boring/formulaic/safe because we may miss out on some great art.

Thats a good Video guess what I did while watching this. I'm a noob I didnt know the memory maxes out my ops.

very good video! just one objection though, you said that the drones of phase 2 are enslaved humans but actually, given the fact that they cost paperclips, that you get back the paperclips you spent on them when you dissassemble them and are available just after the AI has completed the project that allow building means of producing paperclips out of paperclips, they are most likely autonomous machines with their own artificial inteligence built by the main AI; the humains are just among the available matter.

And people want to use AI to reduce crime. to run the economy. to replace labor. to use in warfare. to maximize productivity and profit through a minima of cost and responsibility and to make efficient and guiltless those areas in society wherein we are failing ourselves because already, we are thinking too much and feeling too little. People want to use AI in the belief that through absolving ourselves of all difficult decisions made daily we will achieve some sense of utopia on the back of a machinistic processes all geared to operate within their parameters without any sense of feeling.

I think the cause of such...let`s say controvertial statements is founded upon the idea of clear dualiy between 'good' design and 'bad' design, and personally, I think both of those definitions are wrong. Design is not an objective quality, it`s Purposed, design is a compilation of all the things that were added to the game to make a point about something. Therefrore the only way to 'value' design is to see if the inteded purpose reached the player. It`s why intentionally frustrating and unfairly difficult games can be fun to play - because the design was intended to make the player struggle and fight with their teeth and blood for that win, otherwise it would not be as satysfying. There are a lot of videos about Dark Souls resonating with people with depression exactly because it is so punishing. tldr: 'good' design is when the player is made to feel what the designer intended. That is a surprisingly deep story in a game about making paperclips.

What the hell am i watching XD

"We" isn't the reader and the author, it's the author and other academics in his field, and "official game designers" is people who've studied and internalized the literature in that academic field. The part about "against game design" is so off-putting, because you spend it arguing with a guy, who, if not for a series of vague pronouns, you'd probably see agrees with you. He's talking about the limitations of academic game design, but because he doesn't drop the "academic" disclaimer repeatedly you're getting hung up on colloquial definitions. I feel like this is yet another example of work written for a specific audience getting away from that audience and then riling up the wider group of readers.

Your analysis/interpretation/picking-apart of his article really fell flat imo. I think what you see as failures to clearly articulate his points are really just a result of an article that is written for academic game designers rather than for gamers.

the first 30 seconds of this video are extremely annoying

Jak zrobić małpę w chuja

11:10 Just don’t overshoot

dude that intro was so annoying

I think that was a pretty fair analysis of Lance's article. To be honest, the word "design" doesn't even mean anything to me anymore, haha

This video really breaks down when the attempt at critiquing that essay takes over. This part I disagree with your interpretation of the paragraph: “Or look at Counter-Strike surfing, one of the weirdest, most beautiful and interesting game genres of the past 10 years, which was created by players and map-makers without the help of any official game designers at all, thank you very much.” He is pointing out that the genre of CS surf maps emerged naturally through elements of the game engine that were not purposefully designed for creating surf maps. The "official game designers" did not sit down in a room and think of a way to design the source engine so that it could be used for surf maps. And yet they created an engine that does that by accident; not be design. He does not argue that the surf maps themselves were not designed. He’s highlighting how undesigned (unintentional) qualities of the game allowed for “one of the weirdest, most beautiful and interesting game genres” to be created by other clever map designers.