kavaris

Like i dont really go for tetris, is wat im tryina get at, as i think of riddles AS part of the story ~ And then the mechanics are like, i mean.... its a reliefs to have mechanical character things to do, cause it then gives you alot of breathing room.

I think of puzzles as, i guess, part of that geometric-quandary spectrum, leaning towards those ideas, moving the little blocks around, or shifting things one notch to the left, like a puzzle that is shorter term quandary — Versus riddles i feel are a longer term, sometimes passive question that doesnt always have an immediate consequence, its more like, something odd and bewlidering, But... .... when i think of inserting riddles into a game, then they start playing into the story at that point, otherwise its like, we are stressing something different that isnt the riddler's question. I mean, i wouldnt make a game of nothing but riddles, but generally, in a game where we stress riddles, theyd have to function in ways that challenge that sortve constant *choo-choo* ride, but the riddles ALSO have to have within, some sortve rhythm to follow along to, orherwise its leaning too abstract... It also cant be a puzzle that becomes the constant, Cause i dont like puzzles (8f thats wats meant by puzzles, to yous too)

I like riddles, but its not really a thing that many games are tryina stress, As it starts competing w/ that \*rhythmic element, that "constant", but if there was ever a way to remove the puzzle, and insert the riddle back in, id go for something like that, i just dont even know what that is, right now, outside of normal rpg kinds of "solve the things".

Or you know wats funny? The youngest generations, they dont even care or realize... So like, if they accidentally make E.T. Phone Home, the Sequel, theyll be like "We just like it", Like they wont even care what happened in the past, like Roblox i believe is wat reminds me of it, cause wat the heck is roblox? i thought it was a virus. Its like, An example of something that already existed, but a generation just said, "We just like it now".

Now granted, i dont know how many xtimes you can strip away things, before it starts turning into like, older sortve, E.T. or tetris, and things like this, Like weve already done many simple games, in our past... And i guess, its not obvious as to how much room is left in that category of like, simple, simple — meaning, in the like Baaaare - baare basic - basics, Like theres certainly lots of little mini games you could think of (im thinking of puzzle pirates typeve thing) but that is like, an anomoly, cause its iterating over an idea, and each puzzle is inside of a larger idea, So thats something different. I just mean more like, 'how many games can be as simple as possible, And really get big for being As simple as possible... Ideas are sortve like, in my head, they start out in a sega dreamcast, like they are unique cause they are tryina play with data, and think of data as a way to move things around... You could also think of like, just a totally open world game -context, and make it like, An engine that is itself fascinating too, Like firget the content and just make it am engine, and that is then the interesting part,showing off the possibilities, how theres 2d metadata attached to 3d, how each thing is like, a symbol that can become anything you want, Like thats where many games left off at, in rpg lands

(See my previous message) Its sortve why that really dumb Vampire game got so big, the one with nothing but like, mouse movement, or keyboard arrows or watever it is, vampire survivor, cause they just stripped away all the bs, and just said to theirselves "wats the most essential pieces here — rhythm, and — insert-whatever-else', like they just got down to the bare bottom of that rhythmic thing im talkin bout, and made something somewhat different.

Oh heres somethin i noticed in certain mediums, games... for anything rather.... And granted, its edging towards a technical way to view games... And everything else... But i think it matters, to me atleast, in the right way to think bout the base line of like... "What drives you" And thats how everything has a rhythm, a heart beat to it — Not necessarily in the soundtrack, cause, obviously there are times where its just sound effect / or nothing, And then there are times where its like, a single sustained chord... however. , the content it self has a rhythmic pulse, like if it wasnt for the visuals performing that *gathered rhythm*, there would be no sense to it, like it would be that "single sustained chord" i mentioned, which doesnt have a pulse you can follow, And... maybe its just me... I just seem to be noticing that the visuals, atleast in the most playable games, it takes the place of the rhythm, the beat, and keeps the game like ... Iuno how to explain it... because its borderline musical, mystical, its like, how to write a song in a visual way, with repetitious elements you can follow

Thats knda interstin. Ive not really thought about it as two categories like that, which youd think would be onvious, i guess thats a new one, that id have to think bout myself (i havent played games recently, but i think in a way that is gamish and still has relevance, for me, i believe)

Let me just sorta point out, im also the wrong person to have any opinion, cause i technically am not in pursuit of any one idea, so all of my opinions are in areas that are like, borderline dream behavior and things that are like "The character lives inside himself, meeting versions of himself, and solves riddles in like, materialized forms of...", You know .. weird things... probably

Oh. is that way yous were talkin bout. im just joining the thread, So all i know is Zelda was involved; Alas, are you making the game? Like making-making a game?

Yall want us to make the next hype game? Is that wat its coming to? Jk. Im joking somewhat, as i simply dont have the patience, right now. But if it involves just me doing the windowing and text, and yous do the rest (which even that is still too much work to continue from) its like, i dont know if i have the patience, even being paid, as its not bout money for me. I just have to have like, not chaos around me, And then ill move mountains.

If anything, it draws attention to cycles. Like Bicycles, the company (n/m) The point is, that there are these cycles that give rise to anything. But its not like we can say much on it anyway, like theres not one universal way to speak of it, but it gets yas thinking, those whove been here already, cause yous prolly understand it. Anyone new here wont even know what it means anyway. We can assume that, we all have long winded contemplation journals describing such things.

^n/m. ignore that. Thats an unsolvable pretzel. Ignore that.

I mean this is part of the problem i always have, which is like, these cycles, some are meant to be, and then, some are troublesome (...like... just in a pragmatic sense of the word) and other times, i just dont even get it. And thats the pretzel of frustration. Trying to understand it in both directions, or something... i dont even know, its a pretzel.

We can name the thing, we can experience it, unravel it, but can we understand it as the unravelling is recycling itself (and can we do it without directly viewing the content, since thats what is causing the endless cycle of content)

I agree... if only to say, "things" in the material world, are very difficult to pin down, however, even going back one more notch to talk about what the material world is, i still dont know what it is, ever. Which gives rise to all of these possibilities, and ways to define / describe experience and reality. In some sense, i have a better idea of what it feels like, than i do an idea of what it is, when its just a purely physical sandbox, i mean, i dont rven know what a physical sandbox could be, its just something to use as a landmark for now. Good one. I would say.... Probably nothing. Nothing is consciousness. But i would say, in the sympathetic circle, where nothing is becoming the new God, i would reshuffle it to say, "Being", is just existing, and things just spring up willy nilly, granted no thing is alwaysthis looming possibility, but its alongside separation -sortve in anabsolute realm that, isnt even really something that can be explored in a day, its the obvious foundation, for a world that will, and is,always existing, so long as its like, being conscious in this moment, i mean... At some point weve reached as much as we can on that front, As i see another subject matter on the horizon, speaking to this weird, neverending cycle -thing.

(cont.) im just waking from a quik nap, but thats like, the foundation for everything. And depending how you want to define the things in experience, those things may also be treated as no things, but its in a totally new context, cause we would be talking about "what causes something to go from idea to physical thing", whereby, theres a spectrum of things we could say, tech., they dont exist, but they CAN exist, and in some way they even DO exist, and will exist in the future. Hence it being a spectrum of existence, in that way (thats a diff question of course, cause before, we were simply asking, "is it all real, and by that same token, what does realness mean... or in my opinion, what does it mean to "imagine" so much that it feels real, is a, possibly, better question, possibly)

A Jehovahs witness came to my door today, And he said something that got me thinkin, it was something bout like, letting others do... something, or something for ya, but in a way that was appropriate to the bible, And its like, i dont understand how to even begin to think about reality in that way where its like, letting go, or taking control, besides from what i know, however i can answer some of these questions, such as, This is one of those technical ideas, that people get mixed up in, because its assumed nothing defines the all pervaiding force that is consciousness and its content. However, dont think of it in them terms Think of it like, everything always just "exists" because of consciousness, and no thing, depending on context, isnt something you have directly experienced, in this moment, which is important, otherwise you can stop the questioning, cause we are experiencing, we are seeing something via conscious exp., and its neither something as simple as, "ts all real, for me", but nor is it as simple as calling it nothing ... As "things" most often speak of "the content of experience", but somehow, you want to ask about "experience itself", without tackling the question directly.

And keep going, w/ that idea, what is it (why not)

Thats probably the most well put, well worded things you can ever say, a collective delusion. I mean, its a metaphor that can serve you for now, if course. it is like that, yeah. Its like that because — its the first idea ~ Like if someone gaves you a piece of paper and it said "Its all yogurt. Reality is all yogurt", its like, now the world is literally under the impression of, like... Its a baseline that, from that point on, is to be taken for granted, cause "Reality IS yogurt". Nothing is there to refute it, nothing is there to take away yogurt in order to replace it, reframe it, or otherwise challenge it in some way. Reality is yogurt. What can you do about it? Everything you see now, is in itself, defined as yogurt. Yogurt is now at this top of a hierarchy that you, as a simple citizen, cant get around. After the first psychedelic trip, that is like, the door into summer, As its a new season to tell yourself something different. But i digress. As, there are truths... Like. Its not like, its all just this "baseline, grounding" thing. Theres a sense of enlightenment that can be found, within yourself, And, most prevalant, is how you frame it all, or really, 'how you ask the question to begin w/ Most people start w/ God, like is God behind it all, does God = Consciousness, And i would just say, thats a mistake, a big one to be made along the way (... theres more to it than that of course, im just beating around the bush) its something to consider at least, how to frame it all. Or, rather, how to ask the question, towards "answering the question of"

Like, in other words, its rare that we, as the active developers of English, actively shape an older and, pre existing word, to be the positive thing it once was, Like if it can lean negative, we are like "Yes. Press the button. submit". Like...

I mean, generally, English has this little quark (or it tends to have this quark, maybe its around 90% of words that can lean in one direction or the other, have this quark in English) where everything is made to be negative, or its chosen to lean further to negative in those cases, is wat im tryina say. Which, granted, we can make things "make sense" with, or without that negative connotation.

I rarely use ego uniformly, And i mostly edge on, just, getting straight to business, however... Ego in its most basic form, is synonymous to that archaic form of the pleasure (not over abundance), like its what the ancient peoples wanted to talk about, fused w/ something like, the pursuit of, like theres also something sacred to the ego (i) or Being, so it has a spectrumy-thing to it, granted i personally dont always view it as "egoic personality", but one function for ego is to frame it as, the most negative parts of a person, or something like that. I personally dont find myself engaging on that lvl either, so i dont ever bring it up (in that way), still, the ego in a uniform sense does atleast have elements we can relate to, for its the same w/ most words, it depends on context, what we are talking about... Like, can we point to a landmark that makes enough sense, so that the words can start to make sense. I mean all words suffer from this dilemma as well.

This is somethin i was thinkin bout ~In regards to the idea of something like ego, Sneaking through, And that is how, say we were talking about [sense] perception, or a similar topic, and how our most recent perspectives shift the fabric of what we believe. And then you introduce that idea, And we have two ideas, one regarding perception -but on a subject matter that- on its surface, seems like the most reasonable, pragmatic of the two — Then you have this other thing, this psychedelic realm, where things like ego get dissolved (something like that) which is itself a topic that, in the least, interferes w/ the fabric of beliefs. I want to know what THAT is, that change of blood, in the most absolute sense, cause THAT change over is, in effect, pure chaos, cause you cant win in either direction, right?... If you view it from the truth of this psychedelic thing, its becoming more psychedelic, if you view it as this other thing its changing to this other thing... My point is that, the very question of "what is reality" or what we are, it is predicated on the belief in things, and those most-recent ideas dominate everything else, regardless, And even in finding truth, or how its working, the only thing you could ever do is to try to understand "WHAT it is, WHILE it is" Its a collapse in meaning, but its still somewhat functioning, in an absolute sense, in the very least.

You can navigate the ball of yarn, And even unravel it, but can you see the ball while its in active yarning. p.s. the cat sees it, but its still in a ffurse, a "fully functioning raveled state".... e.