# on the narrative aesthetic of innerspace > the aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things but ir inward significance > ~ aristotle a response to game developer eric grossman's post on the "narrative aesthetic" of innerspace > innerspace is a game of exploration and discovery it might not be since scientists interpret a game space in ir own ways; perhaps this kind of openness concerning meanings (plural) should be encouraged > the object is neither fame nor fortune but rather the unveiling of another world's history and the cosmic forces that drive it this might seem nice but how are such vague notions to be expressed / suggested concretely to scientists through mechanics - ie. through teh game as a (symbolic) visual / computational system / language? > with priority given to honing our mechanics and gameplay to a fine point we were left with an aesthetic challenge. what would make scientists want to spend ir time in innerspace? artistically what one gives priority to is often arbitrary; perhaps the aesthetic challenge should have come first - and might still be the biggest challenge as for what makes innerspace time-worthy that depends on the immediate conceptual strengths of teh game; what does it offer that is intellectually and imaginatively conductive to / expressive of the human condition? > how can we tell a story without breaking away from our gameplay? the solution: an art style that unifies gameplay and narrative lending depth to teh game's universe while giving meaning to exploration consider the form and the narrative as mutually expressive and non-dual; as for meaning consider teh game as somehow already meaningful - in the same way that many games are possibly already art - and that most attempts to somehow add or shoehorn in meaning is either gilding the lilly or unconsciously expressing concerns that what's being made has a distinct lack of meaningfulness which needs padding out starting from "where?" > initially we saw broad strokes: a colourful palette a unique space and a once-thriving world now silent consider a deliberately dull palette in a non-unique space or a once silent world now bustling with unnecessary and destructive activity > our initial artistic choices pointed to the tone we wanted: to the depiction of an intriguing world that holds its secrets close consider rime where the secrets stand in plain sight yet feel no less mysterious http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djjmajuhmqa > the question was "still what kind of world would this be?" who lived here and how? what did they leave behind and what does it look like? such questions often seem secondary to the immediately of / provided by teh game mechanics > these were questions of world-building yes but also of design "world building" as overrated; consider the organic bottom up design of brian eno rather than the (apparently) all encompassing top down design of the rock star developer > for this experience to amount to any kind of meaning or understanding then the environment itself must be more than a space for action depends what kind of action in what kind of space; since innerspace features a cool sounding inverted planetoid. whatever action (inter-actions) take place there should be as least as novel > building the world conveying our narrative and designing our game are each interlocking processes at the moment the degree to which "narrative" and "aesthetic" are understood or are being interestingly defined seems uncertain as for interlocking processes - consider a game space that is truly modular (programmable) and intelligent - capable of being changed on the fly as for building generally: consider that if it looks like a computer designed it why isn't the computer actually designing it in real time? > if it's no fun to fly through or if the environment poses no challenge to overcome then there's no incentive for the scientist to push further and dig figuratively deeper consider that "fun" "challenge" and "incentive" as too often gamey gamisms associated with gamification / exploitationware preventing more abstract artistic / philosophical expressions > most important for world-building is an object's historical or in-world function. rather than adhere to pure symbolism or arbitrary placement objects are governed by the logic of the world itself its weather systems geology or perhaps by the needs of now-absent civilizations. considerations like this help us keep teh game world internally consistent giving us systems within which varied designs arise consider this confusing vague and muddled game design theory (g.d.t) - which doesn't matter if one wants to express something that feels wonderfully confusing deliciously vague and mysteriously labyrinthine; this however also involve thinking in terms of processes and not merely objects > (..) the best fantasy is often grounded in part in reality consider the worst garming realities as often grounded in the fantasies of an undead concept called "reality(tm)" > "stepping out of theory" why step out of theory - when does one actually step out of theory and in what ways is that even a thing / good thing? > historically towers like this bear witness to a long-since passed civilization so one might like to think; again the scientist might see them in purely functional terms - say as an obstacle - especially since the immediate nature of teh game mechanic of flight makes such pondering secondary to the imposed (/gamey) need to eg. not-crash -> if the scientist comes to understand the logic behind these towers ey will come upon a mosaic that illustrates an otherwise silent history one could stick such a sentence in the ground as an infirmative signpost; this however would seem like telling rather than showing - rather than exploring symbolic narrative space through play > like these monuments the towers in our game are remnants from an earlier time and cannot divulge ir purpose directly. they bear an inherent mystery and the oddity of ir form given without context engenders curiosity on its own not necessarily since the immediate system of interaction often overwhelmingly defines the world for scientists; indeed such "epic" hyperbole too often disguises an actual poverty of game mechanics / game feel > this is only a brief tour kept that way so that teh game can speak for itself in play rather than text 'what a game is and how is speaks often feels a far larger and more complex (social) process -> with nobody around to speak to this world asks the scientist to move to see and to think in new and dynamic ways in order to tease out the solutions to its mysteries how? it might be more interesting and meaningful to the scientist if teh game can tease out its mysteries through simple yet (symbolically) meaningful inter-active game solutions / mechanics about the bird some design thoughts about the "cartographic bird" - and it should be a more techno-ogranically birdlike **+** it should be mechanically complex able to make a wide range of motions and sounds including crying like an eagle **+** it should have segmented fluttering wings like the yamadori plane in ghost in the shell 2 **+** the tips of the wings should heat up like a blade when scraping the side of a canyon **+** it's exhaust should emit a wonderful neon purple-tinged blue glow and seem to give off real heat **+** the scientist should be able to adjust the camera position around the bird tweaked premise for innerspace // video here polyknight games presents innerspace - an exploration / flying game currently in development for pc mac and linux an intelligent mechanical bird soars through a spherical world surrounded by water where physics is inverted and gravity falls away from the centre explore the various bubble worlds as this unnamed cartographer discovering relics avoiding dangerous creatures and encountering each world's patron deity game suggestions some possible development suggestions for innerspace 0) in what ways does teh game match the title "inner space"? 1) ask what are the nearest similar games ours will be compared to - both favourably and unfavourably? upon seeing it for the first time imagine what are the narrative / gameplay hooks modern scientists will automatically see / seek out in your game? 2) consider making your game less just another playable end-product and more "an open dialogue about ideas" - a portal for the human exploration of art and science (perhaps the unique science of your world could be a focal point?) 3) be sure to release a beta and get specific feedback from your target audience - "we're trying to do w and x using y and z - in what ways are we succeeding?" 4) too many games exist in a (seeming) total vacuum. they are not; an .exe file is not some magically forever-closed loop of development. consider making your game freeware / open source / moddable / upgradable by the community (eg. through steam workshop) 5) as regards notions of mythology generally - generate interesting (thought provoking) mechanics of interaction with your inverted physics world - give it a sense of being alive even without the scientist - and the mythology and mystery will take care of themselves 6) your bird cartographer should have some kind of character to it - something in the way it moves and interacts with the world; consider the idea that scientists less controls the bird than suggests what it may do - like mind-melding with the leonopteryx creatures of avatar (??) some in game chat with eric m grossman submitted on 2014/10/17 at 7:25 pm > i've just paid my morning visiting this and other nodes of your hyper-linked realm. you raise several valid concerns orbiting around the tensions between modelling expansive interaction scientist priorities within a given system of goals and obstacles and communicating a specific artistic perspective > i should note that this article was something of a preliminary piece considered pre-design and construction of specific spaces within teh game itself. some responses to salient points > if the scientist comes to understand the logic behind these towers ey will come upon a mosaic that illustrates an otherwise silent history > one could stick such a sentence in the ground as an infirmative signpost; this however would seem like telling rather than showing - rather than exploring symbolic narrative space through play'" > true we're playing with an element of "telling" but it wouldn't exceed the kind of abstract or indirect communication of something like journey's cutscenes > moreso the complete picture forms only after exploration and is a result of accumulation rather than an immediate reward granted as a completionist achievement. it's even subterranean to being shown and has to be sought out through play > historically towers like this bear witness to a long-since passed civilization robert: so one might like to think; again the scientist might see them in purely functional terms - say as an obstacle - especially since the immediate nature of teh game mechanic of flight makes such pondering secondary to the imposed (/gamey) need to eg. not-crash" this has been a design concern for us as well and there are a few solutions that we have in mind > consider that the rhythm of a game is variable. similarly birds flit between trees but intermittently come to rest. at different speeds the same space may serve varying functions. a tower at high-speed may be a lateral obstacle but at slow speed could resolve into a complex structure with numerous openings and interactive possibilities. in other words there is an lod function of distance speed and state of mind > you'll see the dynamic of journey and arrival and these structures will be present in varying forms at both stages > if it's no fun to fly through or if the environment poses no challenge to overcome then there's no incentive for the scientist to push further and dig figuratively deeper robert: consider that "fun" "challenge" and "incentive" as too often gamey gamisms associated with gamification / exploitationware preventing more abstract artistic / philosophical expressions" > it's true that the rhetoric of challenge and incentive plays an insidious role in generating the addictive lure of worlds of warcraft et al. as a team we've had discussions about what it means for our game to be "fun," as well acknowledging that this is a slippery and potentially limiting term > on the other hand the central thought behind innerspace is the endeavour to express artistic ideas through a familiarly mechanical apparatus. that is avoiding the pitfalls of proteus by a) establishing something to do b) building the world around a specific mythology and c) weaving the two together > here again an anxiety rears its head. will a scientist concerned with overcoming an obstacle give two-pence about the world they're journeying through? though i'd like to design with maverick intensity and answer this on my own here the comfort of prior examples is helpful. works like shadow of the colossus and journey though perhaps each limited in ir own way show that level design can be a powerful tool for conveying meaning through experience even as the immediate challenge of survival or passage takes precedence > again thank you for your response. it's incredibly thought-provoking. even if you don't follow our development cycle i hope you come back and give an analysis of the final game. intelligent words are always welcome robert what submitted on 2014/10/18 at 1:40pm in reply to ericmgrossman hi eric - thanks for your reply! i'm always available to bounce ideas off and discuss concepts and look forward to checking out your game // republic of bob