Pax 2017 Panels day 1

Tags: posts, pax, conventions, other people's games, panels, queer, visual novels, from tumblr,

Today was an unrivaled success. I didn’t break anything.

Western Dating Sims: Beyond Tsunderdome

Barbara Kerr https://ms45.itch.io/ Jack Crnjanin Pritika Sachdev Cassiel Kelner localiser, translates from Japanese to English Shakari former insomniac now indie Jess Zammit games critic Queerly represent me

Not a competition between Western and Japanese dating sims, both are good. But there are trends.(The panel talked a bit about Japanese games too anyway)

Main difference: more established genre in Japan, less accepted in the West.

Basic framework: generic main character. Selection of different kinds of love interests, often very tropey. Situations range from mundane to fantastical.

Kenka Bancho Otome  Dating sim where you are crossdressing as your brother at a fighting school and have to beat the boys to get them to respect. (Not available in English but checking the spelling lead me to an anime adaptation on Crunchyroll, no idea if it’s any good)

Often don't have much family, no mention of that background.

Freshman and Sophomore cute have f/f. (Couldn’t find links for these, sadly)

Saying exactly what somebody wants to hear until they kiss you- is that bad?

Everyone showered DAO characters with gifts.

Desire in the west to mirror the complexity of real relationships.

Examples mentioned: Cute Demon Crashers, Lady Killer In A Bind.

Strategic dating is good:

Kindness Coins: dating sims are safe. I can't be hurt, if I get scared I can shut it down. Safe space. Explore sex, relationships, communication.

Counterpoint: Strategic dating is bad:

Tusks: gay orc dating sim. Can enable NPC autonomy. harder than he expected.

Queer relationships (Queer and gay used as synonyms a lot this panel :/) Producing your own games allows you to reflect yourself Coming Out On Top: straight dev, lots of consultation. A bit tropey in parts but not too bad. Tusks: complex variables & approval w queer orcs Lady Killer In A Bind BDSM safety warnings in loading screens The Crown and The Flame it's good to be the queen. Pixelberry just lets you bang anybody. Kind of have to pay to follow the f/f path fully in some games.

Further recs:

There was a liveplay of part of Dream Daddy. The audience voted overhwhelmingly to talk to Damien first.

Are we having fun: Playing games critically

Rami Ismail: @tha_rami Alayna Cole: @AlynaMCole Dakoda Barker: @JiroJames David Hollingworth: @CPTHollingworth Jess Zammit: zammitjess

Distinction between playing for work and fun?

We do this because we like games, except for the games we do in fact hate.

Rami: Started making games before he started playing, modding code in simple ways in QBASIC (this is also how I got started).

Alayna: Being paid in neocoins to make people's profiles. Didn't realise until after highschool that coding skills could be used to make games.

(And then I stopped keeping track of who said what)

Took a while to realise it could actually be a job.

Having been a critic changes the experience, doesn't make it less fun just different. Same with reading or watching tv when you're a writer.

Yonder the cloud catcher chronicles: playing to review took away from her enjoyment because she had to get a review done quickly when it's supposed to be played in a slow, relaxing way.

As a creator he’s looking for shortcuts and tricks. Walks back and forth to test out where he thinks a loading point is. "Did you see that cool action scene?" vs "Did you see that cool slow zoom??"

Played intro area of Mario Odyssey. This is so good I’m angry, time to pack up the games industry.

"I wish I could do that"

Used to be a rule never to give 10/10. Now they do it if they just really love a game.

Have to put a game down to play the next one, it’s frustrating.

Criticism doesn't have to be finding flaws but can be figuring out how it works. Creator’s job is to trick the player into believing that the world of the game is real and the plot is important.

What does it mean to you to play games critically?

Looking at the game means looking at the creator. What are they trying to do or say? How do they execute it? Even AAA games have a group of humans behind them.

Rami cheerfully ruined games for everyone eg FIFA goalies perform worst at the end to give more last minute wins. Every game with percentages is lying. If you are told it's 50% accuracy people expect not to lose more than one time in a row. Humans think stuff is "fair" when it's in their favour.

"It's a platformer where you shoot things...about love." How is that mechanic making you feel love?

Bad games can be informative. Earth Defense Force. Defending cities from giant ants. "I want ants. 1000!" "That can't work with the frame rate" "AND LASERS."

Every bit of a game is controlled. Someone chose every detail to be the way it is. Ask why it is the way it is.

Good to question the choices people see as default. "Did you notice every character is a white dude?" Things that are considered important vs things that are just made "the default"

Is there a conflict as both critic and developer? Even the positive feedback made him feel bad, he just focused on any negative aspect. Conscious as a reviewer of not attacking the developer themselves. Still write spiteful humourous reviews, but avoid attacking developer, know there are things they can do better.

Giving feedback is hard. Rather than questioning intent, help them achieve their intent better.

By the time you get most negative feedback, you know about the flaws, have heard about it all before. Let people be angry for three weeks, then fix. Half the time they end up fine with it.

People who play a game a lot will say it's too easy, if you listen to them you’ll make a game that puts off new players.

A player might say "this weapon is too strong" but they mean "the boss is too easy" or "you get the weapon too early". Listen, but not too hard.

Multiplayer game, teams supposed to be balanced, but one team kept winning. Turned out one had louder guns, made them more aggressive so they won.  FEEDBACK IS HARD.

Who you are giving the feedback to makes a big difference. A student, a friend, a developer you want to help, asked to write a snarky review.

Games CAN be fun, but expecting them to be JUST that is reductive. Games can let you feel something, find catharsis.

We are affected by everything we engage with.

Games are part of a wider industry. Pays peoples wages, needs to be looked at critically.

Even if it's just fun for you, someone else might have a different experience from the same game. I won't tell you what games are for you and you don’t tell me what games are for me.

If you're at PAX you spent money to be here, you care.

"just" for fun implies “fun” is not a great value.

Knowing his game helped someone in hospital deal with pain.

If you want to be a good game maker, play lots of games and see how they're made. Keeping a journal of every game he plays.

If you are playing a game and feel something, figure out why.

When giving a student a game, give them a challenge like "explain X to me", so they have guidance, a direction to go in.

Thinking critically in a fun way: fun to write reviews when you're angry. Critical isn't negative, just more active.

You can't force players to engage in any specific way, just make the game and let them do their thing.

Some players will get really angry anyway so just make your game.

Hype can work against you as a reviewer, makes it hard to be objective if the game disappointed you. Can also be hard to say you loved a game if everyone else hated it.

Balance frustration with a sense of achievement. Frustration is a tool, as is a grind. The “random” drops aren’t entirely random: if you haven't gotten anything good in a while it'll give you something nice, and if you get a good drop too early it gets held back. Testing, see how people feel. If people aren't complaining you're doing something wrong. If everyone complains about all classes it's balanced.

Nanojam 3.0: Wacky Live Game Design

Jason Imms, Rami Ismail, Paul Verhoeven, Leonie Yue, Maize Wallin, Lucy Morris** **

So a little before this started my body went NOPE NOPE NAP TIME, and while I did manage to drag myself in near the end I wasn’t up to taking notes. I had a great time though, it was hilarious. The panel got given silly ideas for games and brainstormed them together, while an artist drew illustrations.

The State of Queer in games

Ashton McAllen @acegiak Saf Davidson @wanderlustin Charlie Francis kennedy @CharliethGfish Alayna Cole @alynamcole queerly represent me Jess Zammit @zammitjess David Hollingworth @cpthollingworth

What have the panelists played in 2017 that was really good queer rep:

Little moments that people enjoyed:

Recs from audience:

Stumbling blocks and salt:

List of demands: