Way With Worlds Update 4-4-2016!

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, www.SeventhSanctum.com, and Steve’s Tumblr)

Been awhile since a Way With Worlds Update!  So let’s find out where we are on my essays-rewritten-and-now-a-book on worldbuilding.

First, there’s a web page for the first book that gives you some idea of what I’m up to.  You can also see the sample cover art – and you’re going to love the final cover!

I also got the book back from my editor.  My editor is a “word of God type editor” – when it’s edited it’s done.  So I spent an entire day going through her edits for the first book.  After about ten hours of work, I have a book that is mostly ready for publication.  One more read through and it’s ready for publishing (which itself is going to take a few months).

This brings up a really good lessons – there are several kinds of editors and you have to know how to work with them.  Some are like a friendly guide with advice.  Others are the Word Of God.  Yet others are instructional.  Each is different and you have to figure which works for you, your works, and your goals.

For instance, these books, though being creative and chatty are instructional.  I needed a Word Of God editor on them.

On the other hand, some of my more intimate career books need a lighter touch as an editor.  They’re chatty and friendly.

My upcoming Sailor Moon book has yet a different editor, a fansourced editor with an academic background and a fandom background, which seems perfect.

Now there’s also been a few schedule changes, so let’s recap!

  • The First Book is out end of July as planned.
  • The Second Book is out the end of October.  It was originally August, but between the editor’s needs, my schedule, and the fact it’s damn stupid to put a sequel out a month later.
  • After that is still a special surprise.  Stay tuned.

I think you folks are going to love the books.  It’s really my near-final word on Worldbuilding, and there’s a wealth of worldbuilding advice.

– Steve

Trump Voters: Left Behind

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com and Steve’s Tumblr)

Over at Mahablog, the proprietor does an in depth and painfully thought-provoking roundup of the question of “how we ended up with Trump.”   I don’t always agree with the poster, but she’s got good points.

Going through several conflicting opinions, here conclusions are rather painful:

  1. Elites in both parties don’t get the Angry White (mostly male) voters.
  2. The parties are now split (ala Zach Carter) between a sneering Republican aristocracy and a smirking Liberal meritocracy.
  3. The Angry White Male is sort of a trope we drag around without exploring it.
  4. The media (and a lot of us) haven’t done a thing to solve these problems in a long time. Try, decades.

I can easily agree on #1, #3, and #4. But I also agree on #2 more than I’m comfortable with, as I’ve touched on on my previous essay on Trump. It seems the elites of both parties, and indeed a lot of said parties who are non-elites, aren’t exactly fond of the Angry White (mostly-male) demographic.

A painful dynamic has been at work here. Republicans have swept in and taken advantage of the Angry White (mostly-male) demographic for years, from crude Southern Strategy tactics to the modern Fox news propaganda festivals. We’ve seen everything from Willie Horton to Kenyan Muslim President Obama conspiracies – with Trump it’s just been completely cut loose from any ties to reality.

But with Liberals, who’ve borne the brunt of this directed anger, I think they’re not exactly feeling charitable towards the Angry White (mostly-male) audience. It’s a little hard to care when people actively hate you because of what some schlub on talk radio said, and it’s certainly harder now that they’ve got a demagogue to follow like Trump.

So as a Liberal, I really have to wonder what we’re going to do for these people. However we may feel about them, rightly or wrongly, a lot of these folks have been just plain screwed by the economy and politics. Yes, they often voted against their own interests, but we don’t seem exactly charitable about it – and it’s hard after decades of Vince Foster conspiracies, blatant racist propaganda, and now the bizarre antics of Trump.

Unfortunately, I think we Liberals are about the only people even inclined to do anything to help. Conservatives and their elite are permanently stuck in a mixture of pandering bias and pseudo-libertarian politics to actually do anything. States with Republican governors are smoking economic ruins, yet they can’t help themselves.

I’d like to think we’ll do something. Sanders gives me some hope, though his campaign does not. Clinton has gone left (doubtlessly in pat due to Sanders’ influence) and knows how to work the system. There’s talk of raising minimum wage around the country which may help some.

But I feel like there’s not enough confronting the elephant in the room, that there’s a vanishing middle class that’s incredibly obvious, reported on constantly, and often left to rot. The Republicans don’t care at all, but we Liberals need to ask what we’re going to do.

Or what we can do. Maybe we’re afraid of either answer. Or that there isn’t one.

Why ‘No Man’s Sky’ Can And Should Only Be So Deep

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, www.SeventhSanctum.com, and Steve’s Tumblr)

I’m looking forward to No Man’s Sky – which is apparent if you see my Twitter, Facebook, blogs, or just talk to me. The procedural space adventure fascinates me as it pushes all my buttons – and of course I’m big on procedural generation, so of course I’m following it.

Acknowledging this, this is fair warning you’re gonna see some No Man’s Sky posts. It’s relevant to my interests, to what I do here, so I hope they’e informative and interesting.

As I’ve scanned internet posts and Steam communities, one useful insight I’ve seen is that the game may face an issue of being “a mile wide and an inch deep.” A game, in short, of great breadth but not a lot of depth. I think this concern is worth addressing, as it reveals some truths about games, procedural games, and their development.

The concern is one I feel is legitimate for some in the audience. NMS’ videos make it clear that the game presents an enormous Sandbox galaxy, with straightforward systems of crafting, exploring, fighting, trading, and reputation-building. This may be enough for many (such as myself), and certainly enough for a broad, wide adventure – but it may not be enough for everyone attracted to the premise.

The “mile wide” may stand for people, but for some people the game may not have the depth they want – or the kind of depth they want. You won’t be building structures, negotiating trade agreements, or going on elaborate story quests – hallmarks of other games and science fiction. For some NMS will have everything they want – for others it’ll be a beautiful galaxy that might not have what they want, or enough of it.

I analyze what I see from NMS’s designers and ads, because watching this dream game evolve has taught me a lot about games and procedural generation. The concern about NMS not having the depth some one made me ask, simply, what if the game tried to add more?

It’s not hard to imagine adding some more classic science fiction elements from the novels that inspired it. Take the simple alien language engine and add some negotiation and trade deals. Allow some encounters to spawn some quests – like smuggling something thorough a blockade. Maybe even a bit of building or improving buildings. Just a bit more maybe . . .

. . . and this is where it gets complicated.

First, even if there is a desire to add “more” we’re talking a game with a setting the size of a galaxy, filled with procedural content so large the devs had to make in-game probes to study the worlds. Any addition of new features could produce development nightmares, adding them onto an already careully developed and tweaked engine.

Second, the developers would have to choose what new features to add to their already polished set. What would sell? What do people want? S much work is procedural, so much unknown, can the devs predict what people will want? Will they be able to balance demands? They can’t be sure how people will react to the game – potential pirates may become explorers, traders decide to cut out the middlemen and become pirates, and explorers may drop their archiving duties to just swap rare minerals for cash. Throwing in more features requires careful consideration of how the audience will reacts.

Third, if the new items could be added, then comes the question of testing. Adding new features onto procedural content produce a new nightmare of testing it and making sure nothing else broke and all the pieces work together. That “mile wide” part means a lot more testing work when you try to make that “inch” a bit deeper.

Fourth and finally the extreme “width” of the game means that, with too much “depth” the game might become a muddle of choices and options. NMS may give you the stars, but its focus on being a kind of space exploration/survival game provides useful boundaries for play. Throw in a few more features and a game that already provides little direction could end up a muddle.

Those concerned about depth have a legitimate concern – for some of the audience (again, I think most people buying NMS who are informed will know what they’re getting). But I think the creators have a sweet spot of features for this grand enterprise, and changing beyond that is fraught with dangr.

Is it the right choice? Well, we find out in June 2016 . . .

– Steve

www.StevenSavage.com

www.InformoTron.com