Get Info: #critique

A haze of inspiration

by Matt Sephton — Sat, 28 Sep 2024 17:46:00 +0000

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away I had to give an impromptu presentation about something I didn’t know much about. The goal of the task was to see how well we could ad-lib a presentation under pressure. Everybody in the room had to think of a topic whilst waiting for our turn. The person next to me couldn’t think of anything and asked me what I had thought of, I said “the off-side rule” (it’s a football/soccer thing, don’t worry about it). Then that person was called before me and proceeded to give a presentation about… the off-side rule. I was mortified, and when my turn came I was still so shell shocked that I can’t remember what other topic I picked was, or even how the rest of the day went. Afterwards I chatted with the person—at the time we were good friends and continue to be to this day—who told me when their name was called “a haze of inspiration” came over them and the only thing they could think about was the topic I’d just mentioned. And so it was.

From whence it came

Just as a haze obscures clear vision, the creative process can blur the lines between our own ideas and those we’ve encountered. We can be inspired by everything around us, in an unconscious way. I’d venture to say that this is the most common form of inspiration, you’re just existing and soaking up as much as you can. In some ways it is automatic and unavoidable. As a result, we share a lot of common experiences and so this sort of natural inspiration can lead to the Zeitgeist, with similar ideas emerging simultaneously in different places. A sort of opposite to this is the concept of incremental innovation, where small changes happen to existing ideas that are occasionally enough for it to feel new. And then there are the types of new ideas that can’t be easily found elsewhere, that are provably innovative and totally new. By definition the haze of inspiration is a very grey space, difficult to navigate, and open to interpretation. There’s no absolute right or wrong, unless you are in a position to flex legal muscles. Below is my own interpretation of how I see things, it’s expected that you won’t agree with all of it.

Navigating the haze

I often pause and examine my own creative process. This serves a number of purposes: it helps me notice opportunities for improvement that might otherwise be missed along the way. If my head is down, I might not notice that I can save time by refining my workflow, or gain new understanding by looking at a problem from a different angle or through a different lens.

Tracking or keeping a record of things you find inspiring is very useful. Some might use Pinterest, bookmark managers, scrap books, print outs, notebooks, folders of saved files. Whatever works for you, really.

At this point I feel it’s worth mentioning the challenge of distinguishing between inspiration and imitation. We can all be inspired by something, but how we choose to act on the inspiration can be a challenge. How much you take away from the inspiration might mean you cross the line into imitation. The difference between the two is open to interpretation, and legally it’s a very grey area, so it requires understanding of our own moral compass. More on that later. But for me the difference can be summarised by how comfortable I am in the knowledge that I put enough of myself into the idea, then I’m inspired. If I don’t put enough of myself into the idea, then I would call it imitation.

Original thinking

Thinking can be difficult, and coming up with original thoughts is even more difficult. One could ask if it’s even possible at all to have an original thought? I think it is, though it’s often said that “everything is a remix”. My personal feeling is that an original thoughts can only come when you take yourself out of the equation. Famous artists used drugs, alcohol, and more. Karl Wallinger of the band World Party (check out the album “Goodbye Jumbo”) famously “never worked straight” (~25:30), he would always smoke a joint with the idea being “to get yourself out the fucking way”. John Lennon, too, though perhaps with harder stuff.

On the other hand Quincy Jones used a technique where he would get himself into what he called “the alpha state”, a kind of liminal space between being asleep and awake, where he would routinely have all of his best ideas. Miles Davis used improvisation. Salvador Dalí used a technique he called “paranoiac-critical method” to access his subconscious through fear. David Lynch uses meditation. Brian Eno used a deck of cards called “Oblique Strategies” to add constraints to the creative process. David Bowie used a “cut-up technique” (also called découpé), adapted from one used by William S. Burroughs but with much older origins, where existing works were cut up and rearranged into new works. My current favourite pop star, Lo Lauren, creates songs in 10 minutes over a found beat using three suggested words to focus the topic of the lyrics. It’s encouraging to realise that there is more than one method and that you can most likely find one that works for you.

My own method is to recede into the haze itself, into darkness. The simple act of laying down in a quiet room, and closing my eyes for a few minutes is usually enough for me to navigate through the haze and come out with an original idea, solution to a problem, name of a new product, or whatever.

Research

For me, outside of the actual act of creation, this is most fun part of the creative endeavour. The world is literally your oyster. Given that 99% of stuff happened in the past, I prefer to consult historic sources. Old magazines, books, interviews, and of course the video games and music I grew up with are now old enough to qualify. Ha! The most important thing here is to look outside your field of view. It’s easy to be inspired by the things right in front of you, but more difficult—and more rewarding—to be inspired by things further afield. Reach deeper, go further, get outside your comfort zone, take the road less travelled.

Once inspired, or locked on to an idea, it’s important to do some due diligence to check that it’s unique, or not protected by any laws or copyright, or even just to check that a name is free enough to be used. Domain names can be taken, hashtags can be already used. My funniest example is when I was originally calling my hit game YOYOZO by another name: YOYOZORA, which is a combination of the words YOYO (the toy) and YOZORA (the Japanese word for night sky). I quickly changed plans when a hashtag search revealed somebody posting dick pics.

It’s worth noting that some creators intentionally avoid external influences during their creative process, believing this leads to more original work. Nick Cave, for instance, avoids listening to music while writing to prevent unconscious imitation. Filmmaker Jim Jarmusch tries not to watch other films, or even the scenes he has already shot, while working on a project to maintain his unique vision. Even in tech, Steve Jobs was known for his “not invented here” syndrome, often preferring to develop ideas from scratch. This approach isn’t about ignoring the world entirely, but about creating a space where your own ideas can flourish without immediate external influence. It’s a delicate balance – you want to be informed, but not overly swayed by what’s already out there.

Attribution

By now you’ll know in your heart if what you’re dealing with is imitation or inspiration. What next? Methods of attribution might include: direct credit, “inspired by”, footnotes, a mention, etc. Or if the inspiration is barely visible at all there might be no attribution needed. There’s that moral compass again.

Attribution can add value to your work, as it shows not only are you compassionate and considerate, but that you value the creativity of other people. In some fields, like music and visual arts it’s perhaps more difficult to do some forms of attribution. You can’t put a list of credits on a painting or in an audio recording, but you can put them in supporting material. There’s always a way.

I won’t spend much time on the topic of “AI”, or to be more precise “generative tools”, but it’s worth mentioning them briefly at this point as they lack any method of attribution which of course is a problem. How big a problem depends on how much originality is in the result and that is a very difficult thing to measure, though I would say not impossible at least regarding the series of prompts that led to the output. Anyway, the results from the use of such tools is also open to interpretation and perhaps this is even more of a grey area than the haze of inspiration itself.

Communication

So how do you figure out how best to attribute? By reaching out and having a conversation. But that’s easier said than done, I think.

I’ve never gone so far as to write a formal letter or anything like that, I’ve been more casual about it. I’ve written to game developers whose games I wanted to port. Having something for them to see is always good—a prototype—and explaining the expectations and reach of the agreement will make everybody feel comfortable. There will surely be some anxiety and reticence for an idea to be taken by somebody else. In my experience I try to frame it in as positive a way as possible. Answer the questions they might have before they even have a chance to think them.

Timing is always key. I always make such an approach as soon as possible. With my game Fore! Track, I contacted the developer whose game I was inspired by as soon as I had a prototype up and running. At that point, if they’d have objected to the idea I wouldn’t have lost much time. If I’d have contacted them with a finished game, it might not have made much difference to their decision making process, but I would have had more invested in it and more to lose. Contacting somebody with only an idea for me feels like the wrong way to go about it, as ideas are relatively easy and execution is everything.

With such discussions it’s important to have open conversations, which will can lead to mutual understanding and respect. Leave your ego at the door and bring truthfulness, compassion, open-mindedness and you will be rewarded. Misunderstandings will inevitably happen through the course of the conversation, but by being open both parties can rest assured that there will only be movement towards resolution rather than escalation.

By far the best outcome of such open discussions is the fact that two heads are better than one so the solution is almost always better than the original idea or approach. This means it’s in your own interests to have these sorts of conversations as often as possible. They might lead to better ideas, collaboration, partnerships, refinement, suggestions you would never have thought of, about turns, and of course rejection.

Rejections are always hard to take, but I’m a firm believer that with time, and enough water under the bridge, that newer and stronger ideas will emerge. For me that can take weeks, months, even years. But every time it happens I think “the Universe provides” and smile.

Ethical considerations

So, about that moral compass I keep mentioning. Ideas are more than a feeling, especially when executed and turned into something that can be seen, heard, played. They turn from intangible to tangible, and this process is guided by your moral compass.

When it comes to that “haze of inspiration”, intellectual integrity is the needle on your moral compass. It helps you navigate through the fog without stepping on anyone’s toes. It’s about asking yourself not whether you could use an idea, but whether you should. It’s about being upfront about what inspired you, maybe asking for a thumbs-up if you’re borrowing heavily from someone else’s work, and generally just being a decent human in the creative playground. By sticking to these principles, you’re not just keeping your own nose clean. You’re helping to create an environment where ideas can bounce around freely, where people aren’t afraid to share their cool thoughts, and where everyone gets their due credit. It’s like keeping the idea ecosystem healthy, you know?

Intellectual integrity is really just about not being a jerk with other people’s ideas. It’s about giving credit where it’s due, trying to get your facts straight, and not twisting things to fit your narrative. It’s also about owning your work, warts and all. If you messed up or your info isn’t 100% solid, just say so. Nobody’s perfect, right? And here’s an important addition: be open to other viewpoints. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they’re wrong (even if you really, really think they are).

All ideas build on previous work. I subscribe to the idea that everything is a remix, and I also know that being cool, kind, and considerate costs nothing. Being uncool, unkind, or inconsiderate can cost you more energy in the long run. Time teaches that particular lesson, so consider it being mentioned here a free power-up. We are lucky enough to be able to stand on the shoulders of giants, so it’s important to not make a mess whilst we’re up there.

Personal growth

Growing is hard and with it come a lot of pains. Road blocks, wrong turns, bad luck, but hopefully it will trend towards progress.

One key aspect of growth is synthesis. Plants turn light energy into chemical energy through photosynthesis. The output is vastly different to the input. I think this is a useful lens through which to look at techniques for turning influences into something truly novel. You can look at the The Great Wave and print your own version of it if the goal is to imitate it as closely as possible (as David Bull has done), or you might choose to draw it instead and replace the crests of the wave with bunny rabbits (as kozyndan did), or you might sculpt it from digital clay and add some mahjong tiles to it (like vxcl did for my game Sparrow Solitaire).

I like to think of this synthesis as a road—you can turn off at any point but the further you go the more wonderful the sights will be. I’d like to make a short detour to mention constraints and how they can foster creativity. Whilst the road might be long, it’s not sprawling but a single direction. Navigating a complex road system would be much more difficult, so I encourage you to impose additional constraints if there don’t seem to be enough, or if the way forward isn’t clear.

Any period of not creating that you end up in is just as important as a period of intense creativity that you might rather be in. My favourite quote about this (by BT, the musician; I’m paraphrasing) is that creativity comes in waves, sometimes you’re in the doldrums and not much is happening but there is no doubt that the next wave will arrive at some point, so you just have to be ready to jump on and ride it when it does!

It’s a fine balance between being influenced and being derivative. Sadly your moral compass is not fitted with a warning alarm of any sort, so you’ll have to rely on your heart, head, and those of others to give you guidance here. Having respect for others’ ideas can be considered a constraint in and of itself and can actually push you to be more innovative. Being derivative is a trap to be avoided, not only would you not gain as much personally from the endeavour but you might also inadvertently dilute the idea, brand, vibe of the originator. You should instead consider the person who has inspired you as a mentor, supporter, team mate, power-up, voice of reason, or even shoulder to cry on. The important take-away is that they are there to help because, hey, they were there first.

Embracing the future

With enough searching, or metaphorical travelling, you’ll be able to find your own voice, style, brand, or “vibe” as I prefer to call it. I’m a bit of a hippie at heart. The ultimate goal is to find that rug that really ties the room together. Then cherish it, feed it, sculpt it, even defend it if the need arises. You’ll have the ideas, make a dent in the universe, and develop a vibe that other people will be influenced by, and hopefully they will take the right path and be inspired by it rather than choose to imitate it. Perhaps that’s the ultimate goal? It’s your turn to set a good example for those that come after you.

Excerpt from The Big Lebowski (Ethan & Joel Coen, 1998)

This behavior is by design

by Matt Sephton — Wed, 28 Aug 2024 21:46:00 +0000

Back in the mid-1990s I was using Windows 95/98 and running up against bugs, problems, driver issues, unexpected things happening. I would often end up on the Microsoft Knowledge Base support web pages, where the issue would often be accompanied by the line “This behavior is by design”, which remains in use to this very day.

This mantra has stuck with me over the years, and it came to light in a recent discussion about the design of Lucas Pope’s Mars After Midnight for the Playdate handheld game console. It has a black interstitial screen between some scenes, which was enough to get me thinking about the intent behind the design of a screen that contains …nothing at all.

To be or not to be

I’m as guilty as anybody in wondering why certain things are how they are in the software, apps, or games I’m using. It’s a fundamental truth about software development that often goes unnoticed by end users: every aspect of computer software is the result of deliberate human decisions, from the broadest feature sets right down to the placement of individual pixels.

This intentionality in software design has profound implications. It means that the user experience—whether frustrating or delightful—stems from choices made by developers, designers, product managers, and perhaps even the users themselves. How enjoyable or not the software is to use, the accessibility (or lack thereof) of user interfaces, and even the bugs and glitches we encounter are all products of the human decision-making process. This perspective challenges the notion that technology is impersonal, as there are human minds and motivations behind every aspect.

However, it’s worth noting that while every element is designed, not all design decisions are made with equal deliberation or foresight. Some choices are carefully considered and tested, while others might be rushed, overlooked, or based on flawed assumptions. Additionally, the complexity of modern software means that interactions between different design choices can sometimes lead to unintended consequences. More on that later.

Examples

Given that we could go on forever with examples, here are 10 off the top of my head:

whether or not there’s a black screen between scenes in a game
size of padding or border around the edge of a dialog box
radius of a rounded rectangle
spacing or kerning between specific letters of a font
aliasing or anti-aliasing around the edge of a circle
speed at which an object moves across the screen
what happens when you press a button or do an action
wording on a menu item or dialog box
order of two competing buttons that mean cancel or proceed
the number of digits used to represent a high score

Making a game involves deciding on thousands upon thousands of tiny things like this. I love it.

Happy accidents

While most aspects of software are meticulously planned, sometimes unintended behaviors or glitches lead to serendipitous discoveries. These “happy accidents” might result in a breakthrough in design and can become beloved features if developers choose to keep them.

A famous example is the “creeper” in Minecraft, which resulted from a coding error while creating pigs. The game’s creator, Markus Persson, liked the mistaken entity so much that he decided to keep and refine it, turning it into one of the game’s most iconic elements. Similarly, the wavedash technique in Super Smash Bros. Melee was an unintended consequence of the game’s physics engine, but it became a crucial part of high-level play after creator Masahiro Sakurai opted to leave it in. These instances remind us that even in a world of intentional design, there’s room for the unexpected—and the human decision to embrace and incorporate these accidents can lead to some of the most innovative and engaging aspects of software.

Deciding by not deciding

Some might argue that you don’t make a choice when you accept the default settings, like the white background and font in a Word document. Or you might make the same argument about using an existing framework, package, template, or SDK in your software. However, I would argue that by using the defaults you are implicitly agreeing with the designers’ choices. As a user you become complicit in the design decisions simply by not changing them.

This tacit agreement with default settings is another aspect of design that often goes unnoticed, yet it plays a significant role in shaping the end product. Somebody at Microsoft decided that with Office 2007 the default font would become Calibri, replacing Times New Roman which had been the default since forever. There’s no better example of the implications and reach of a single human decision.

Thinking about the future

At the end of the day, computers do only what we direct them to do, so every aspect of software has been touched by the hand of a human. With the rise of machine learning and “AI” coding assistants, that human touch may become increasingly abstracted from view. However, rest assured it is still there. Even in systems that utilize artificial intelligence, humans are designing the algorithms, curating and creating the training data, and making decisions about how to implement and apply these tools. The fundamental truth remains: behind every line of code, every pixel, and every feature, there are human decisions shaping our experiences.

Game Critique: Frantic Architect

by Matt Sephton — Fri, 10 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0000

Frantic Architect for iOS and Android is a great casual game by Will Kwan/BulkyPix in which you have to build as tall a tower as possible, with the kicker being that you have limited control of where exactly the next building block will go. A video will help explain better:

The game has a high degree of polish and the user interface design and screen layout is excellent. However, play of more than a few minutes will lead to frustration, which is something that really needs to be managed by the developer. Too much frustration and the player will go away and never open the game again.

I think there’s one change that could be made that would make the game easier and less frustrating to play:

The block should lock into place on the “touch up” event, rather than on the “touch down” event as it is now.

This simple change would enable the player to reduce their reaction time by keeping their finger on the screen until they exact moment they want to lock a block in place.

The physical movement of lifting the finger off the screen is a lot faster than the the double movement of first touching the screen followed by lifting the finger off again.

Game Critique: Hill Racer 2

by Matt Sephton — Thu, 09 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0000

From time to time I’ll be posting critique of video games in this way. It’s meant as constrictive criticsm in the nicest possible way. It also goes to show the type of feedback I give to developers when asked to test or review their games.

Recently I’ve been playing a fair bit of Hill Racer 2 on my Apple TV. It’s kind of like Tiny Wings, but with cars. Right up my street! Check it out:

It’s quite well done, but there are a few small details that the developers could look at to easily improve both user experience and engagement.

Game over, man!

When you run out of gas (or petrol as we say in the UK) the game ends immediately. This is quite jarring, and it would be much better if the accelerator stopped working and the car could then slowly come to a halt under its own moment. The benefit of this would be twofold:

the experience would be smoother and less jarring for the player,
the player stands a chance of reclaiming their game as they might be able to reach the next checkpoint even when they have run out of fuel. I have fond memories of clinching victory from the jaws of defeat like this in SEGA’s arcade classic Out Run.

Caught in a trap

Once you upgrade your car a few times you’ll have quite a decent top speed. This should be a good thing, but in fact it’s not. This is because the car body moves about a bit and can actually get stuck in bridges as you drive across them. This should be an easy fix by adjusting the collision of bridges against the car body only whilst the wheels are touching it.

Grinder

You can tell that the game is an iOS port, as it’s built around grinding, in this case that’s earning in-game currency to be able to upgrade your car or buy a new one. On iOS this keeps users in the game and means that the developer can run more ads, and earn more money. On Apple TV ads in games are not an option, so I think the developer should have rebalanced the game to favour less grinding. This last one is a judgment call, though, as it would mean the game would be different across platforms.