I was in the same boat, but I started noticing that if I force myself not to do silly multitasking (like not paying attention to what I am doing because my mind is thinking about irrelevant other things) it gets better. Since I stopped the infinity doom-scrolling it has improved a bit
Stress and lack of sleep also affect me a lot. Both are omnipresent, since I am a parent of young-age special-need kids.
We (me and my 8 year old) loved the Dungeon one and really enjoyed, as a carry-with-you-for-when-you-are-bored item.
Also cool is their d6 pencil, so you can roll a dice without having a dice, very smart idea.
I am really inspired by ideas like this: you can generate engagement with simple things like a piece of paper and a pencil. And despite some of the comments, I love that they call it an "App" because it makes you think what is an app after all: the code? the fact it runs on a phone? or that fact that it is readily available to engage when you are bored?
It's a sad realization. When our culture only values profit as a measure of success there is a strong incentive to cut down costs (now) in exchange for quality (that will only be perceived in the future). It slowly moves down the threshold, bit by bit, until you suddenly realize how much we all lost for a few very rich people to become a little bit richer.
This is very interesting, thanks for posting! Makes me think of the big choice diagrams in Detroit: Become Human. I wonder if there is any literature about this?
I'm curious about Alpha Protocol. Probably the #1 game I've played for choices matter.
Detroit is interesting, in that it includes some choices made by passing or failing QTEs. They really did the "You will get emotionally stomped if you screw this up!" well in that game. I don't know its structure well, as I only played it once. (So experience only one path.)
Unless you count time caves like The Stanley Parable!
Came here looking for the same.. some kind of map from the game design angle more towards game theory.
Fun semi related tangent, I was curious to know authors background, and the About page quotes Borges “garden of forking paths” which jives nicely with tfa. Cataloging rather than inventing is an underrated activity in math sometimes, and we need to do both. Game garden taxonomy!
This type of scams prey on the ego of the target. In the attention economy everyone wants to project an aura of expertise. Someone interested in your expertise is just about the perfect bait. Literary agents, publishers, VCs, sponsorships, etc.
I think the problem is the pressure to "monetize" projects that today's internet puts on everything: either monetize the attention (ads) or by generating expertise (the "personal brand"). Back then it was just for fun, so it looked and felt more human and less corporative. We need to make the web human again, specially now with generative AI.
The Internet has a big discoverability problem now that search has a big advertising conflict of interests. The only way to find web "human" content is to rely on the curation of other humans.
Funny enough mining those links is what made Google the giant it is now. But this time around we will not be fooled by the next "don't be evil" tech giant :D
I already posted a top-level comment about this but I tried to tackle this specific problem when I built Recess (https://github.com/yakkomajuri/recess) which might interest you. Never got any traction so I dropped it.
The idea was to be a content aggregator for what I called "siloed content" (personal websites, blogs, etc). The ideas are outlined here if anyone's keen:
(This is more a comment to the whole thread than this one comment that initiated it)
There is no clear answer to what art is, but there are many approaches to try to answer it. That is essentially what Theory of Art (or Philosophy of Art) is concerned about as a field of study.
Those approaches appear at distinct points in time and their ideas are rooted on the art and context of that time.
If you want to look at this site like Kant looked at art, from a pure aesthetic form, then you will say it is not art. You may even be offended that the question is asked.
But look at it through the lens of modern art theory, where art is communication, where art is experience, where art is interaction, where art is more about the content than the form, then it is definitely art.
If Kant had access to the Internet and was concerned about privacy, he might have found it to be art too :)
Thanks, I sincerely appreciate this comment. I think the prevalent opinion is that viewing art through aesthetic or formalist perspectives are "outdated" and that we've replaced them with a more refined, more evolved, deeper understanding of art.
I am mostly arguing that modern/contemporary art theory is just one alternative - it's not "above" more traditional views of art, and there isn't some linear progression from Kant to Rosalind Krauss.
I think the more modern view has dismissed beauty as some lower form of making and understanding art. As something superficial and entirely optional, perhaps even discouraged by some.
I'd prefer to synthesize the more traditional perspectives on aesthetics with some of the modern insights, rather than assuming newer theories must supersede older ones.
One book in my to-read list is After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History by Arthur C. Danto. I hope it is going to hit this nail right in the head.
Stress and lack of sleep also affect me a lot. Both are omnipresent, since I am a parent of young-age special-need kids.