Definitions Are Hard (aka Why A Game Director Is Necessary)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лют 2025
- I talk about how hard it can be to define the simplest of terms and why that means you need a Game Director.
Videos I reference:
How To Be A Good Game Director: • How To Be A Good Game ...
How To Be A Good Game Director, Part 2: • How To Be A Good Game ...
Ego And Game Directors: • Ego And Game Directors
What Is An RPG?: • What Is An RPG?
and then Diogenes brought a pool to the hall and exclaimed, "Behold, a cup!"
"This is why no one likes you, Diogenes!" Said Plato.
"Shut up, do like your master and drink your juice!" Said Diogenes.
Everyone said f off regard, and Diogenes said "I was only pretending to be regarded"
This reminds me of a video I watched where a dad asked his kid to give him instructions on how to make a PB&J, and the kid said "put the knife in the peanut butter" so the dad drops the knife, handle first, into the jar of peanut butter. It continued like this, with the kid reminding me of every developer watching someone break their app in the most unique ways.
Thought exercises like the cup thing are always a fun experiment. One of our professors had us try to write down all the steps of making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich without leaving anything out so that even someone who does not understand a single step of the process can follow it. You realize how many steps you take for granted in the process. Did you remember to state what tools are available and how to use them? Did you remember to open the jar?
My 5th grade math teacher did this one with us.
Algorithms, yay!
What's a jar?
Our teacher did this in high school, they ended up outside making a pb&j sandwich in the grass.
I think that very nearly everyone can agree what a cup is if asked “is this a cup” but most people cannot clearly define what a cup is so specifically that an AI reading their description could be instructed to use that description to generate 100 uniquely different cups and would have a 100% success rate.
Funny thing -- the first philosophy course I ever formally took *also* included the professor admitting that much of philosophy boils down to how you define different words (but then again, there's a big overlap between philosophy and AI studies)
As a philosophy major who's studied AI a lot, I agree. Marketing people keep trying to sell the idea of rapid progress in LLMs means AGI is on the horizon, so many responsibilities will be offloaded yadda yadda, and I'm just sitting here like "Even actual Generally Intelligent humans struggle with the basic problem of ambiguity." A lot of critical thinking arises from analysing the simplest problems we experience every day, and if more people appreciated that we'd have a lot more philosophers and fewer people being duped by marketing executives.
yep, my mum was a phil prof and yeah. yep. mhm. true. philosophy is defining words and formal logic. thats about it.
I feel very lucky to have found Tim's channel. invaluable informationfor aspiring or practicing devs. thank you sir
I use the ""Benevolent Dictator" way: I trust/delegate the team decisions, but in case of any indecision, my word is the final one.
I asked my students once to define the difference between a cup and a mug. It was indeed difficult for them to agree on any definition, but it was a great half hour of surprisingly animated arguments! 😅
It's easier to train an AI to recognize a cup than to define what a cup is.
pretty sure a cup is about ~236.6mL
You realize that _is_ defining what a cup is
@TheThreatenedSwan the OP? No it isn't
This takes me back to my philosophical metaphysics class. We had a very similar 90 minute debate on the definition of a hole.
I still have a strong opinion on the subject.
a hole is a hole. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Does a pipe have two hole or a single one?
So true. This reminds me of a technical writing class I had in college. The final was writing instructions to make a paper airplane. It was stunning how some of those folded monstrosities turned out...
Thank you! this was so true! I had a meeting in a game studio a couple of days ago, and they mentioned that they decided how to make the game by voting and asking each other opinions which in my mind was completely the wrong direction.
I work alone, and I decided to do things as I think is best, and as I personally would like them to be. For example I want an ammunition system that isn't just "don't forget to buy ammo", or a money sink, but its own mechanic where the player has multiple ways to interact with it. For example an attribute that increases ammo storage, an attribute that increases replication speed (but for multiple things), weapons that consume more ammo, ammo types (equipment for ammo) with different effects (like consuming less, dealing more damage, higher penetration, higher range).
On one hand I am the type of player who struggles to ever use consumables ("do I REALLY need it?"), but on the other hand I really like the idea of having limited amount of things you can run out of, in not just one "session", but multiple ones. Meaning you have to "ration" your things across any amount of fights.
Do people like it? I don't know. Because it's rare that it's done well, and I want to do it well, so I guess we'll see. And it fits the greater vision of the game.
Having few consumables or running low on ammo usually put players into hoarder mentality, idk if you want that you didn't say anything about the games genre etc.
Thanks for sharing this story, I really loved it.
Funny thing is, this is the reason big companies have a problem with Scrum. They have a committee of Product Owners, and they can't decide or worst they choose a suboptimal solution to have a common agreement.
We had a book in a philosophy course I took at uni the got us to look at this, but it was to define a chair.
Basically, there is no definition that is necessary and sufficient. Which indicates that our brain doesn't work this way, I e. Concepts are not definitions and have no definitions. They are something else. One psychology idea is that what we have is more like prototypes
There was that infuriating thread from that woman trying to look smart on X where she brought up the, but is a horse a chair, which just required twisting definitions and pretending a seat or any seat with a back is a chair which is not how anyone views the word.
As a linguist I have to add: Definitions are hard because language has to be vague and flexible for us to be able to adapt to new phenomena. Usually where a "normal" definition doesn't work (like cups) one can use the Wittgensteinian concept of family resemblance: All things that we assign to the cup family can be put in an order where you can see the resemblance going from one piece to another, but the extremes won't look anything alike.
I'm so grateful for these videos!
Everyone needs to go watch Blackadder the Third episode Ink and Inkability to learn just how hard the dictionary was to write.
Dog - not a cat
Buzzing thing
Not a dog
In your story, that professor sounds like a very clever teacher.
When you mentioned a commitee, I immediately thought of the quote from Robert A. Heinlein: "A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain."
As a treat my high school philosophy teacher let us define what a hot dog for 50 minutes, I forgot what we decided the definition was but that was one of the best classes I ever had
"I want you to define a cup "
Well, my ADHD brain has a new thing to obsess over for the day.
I have this problem a lot within my own game docs. Very much so if it is something I wrote years ago. Now days I find my self not just trying to describe something but also including my state of mind and sources of inspiration. As for game directors I never could understand why a company would shy from it. It seems inclusive to have a round table but I can't imagine Mona Lisa turning out very well with multiple artists chiming in at every stroke. The whole idea even has Frankenstein as it's mascot.
I would say a bucket can be a cup, but its important to be specific enough about ones additional requirements.
Lol. Love this. The whole time I'm sitting here thinking this is pretty complex. Even a cup. Think of the horror of describing a sponge. 😂
All those things are cups, all definitions are teleological. Things are ultimately defined by their final causes rather than their material, formal, and efficient instantiations. Glory to the rectification of names and to featherless bipeds.
Moss & Mikey's argument about what a sandwich is in FO4 comes full circle.
Good vid.
Best ending to a video ever
As a man who hates to do the dishes, I'd say that my definition for a cup is pretty encompassing.
Nothing in the cupboard? A cauldron can become a solid cup.
...And don't even get me started on plates!
Superb! An excellent video!
Tim Cain slowly creating a systematic critique of Anarchism out here.
Sad that no one responded "oh that's easy, a cup is something you use with a jock strap."
In Philosophy, we spent a class trying to define "chair."
It was hilarious to me, being in my early 30s at the time.
To your point oversimplifying the "Carbine" choice, it sounds a lot like ranked choice voting. Let everyone superimpose their own vision of the game they were about to collectively define the project. I'd argue lack of directorial ego check makes this kind of bootstrap collaboration harder than it's ever been.
This is the fundamental issue of dealing with existence, taking our words and definitions so seriously and literally, trying to define what in reality we experience the that is objectively real when all experience is subjective. Now apply this so religions, healthcare, governance, justice. This is THE problem at the root.
"Oh but we don't like auteurs!"
Games are VERY susceptable to damages from bad planning, so yeah a good (and uninterupted) Director is needed
Hey Tim! Define „random“!😂😂😂😂
cup- a handle-less concave container with one hole often made in a vaguely conical shape that the average human adult can comfortably hold in one hand and drink from with or without a straw from often made of glass, paper, dried clay/clay-like substances, or plastic, that is mostly used for common daily tasks, such as drinking thin liquids without solid chunks with or without a straw.
then if you add modifiers such as "trophy," or "measuring" the definition changes. this is the definition i would use solely for the noun referring to the object you drink from.
you could even modify it with words like "handled" or "cracked" to make the basic definition of the word "Cup" suit your needs. i find prescriptivism silly, if i can get what you mean, and you can get what i mean, we goob, we can communicate, all is well. doesnt matter the word choice. it helps if its mutually understood by a large group of people, but i do not understand why we would have to describe "cup" to a person who has never seen, heard, touched, tasted, smelled, etc a cup and has never come across the concept in their life. its pointless, as if that person existed they probably were dead thousands of years ago, and if they eisted today they probably wouldn't be able to grasp concepts like that as they are probably either a newborn or severly dsiabled. as time travel doesnt exist, and most if not all cultures have something equivalent to a cup in shape and function, it would nto be necessary to describe a cup like this, ever. i understand that its good for creative writing and making sure your descriptions are easy to understand, but you can do that without having to describe a basic noun. literally just read/audiobook and write a lot, and have your work reviewed for clarity by a group comprised of your target audience. then learn from it. thats it.
That's the difference between definition and prototype, thanks hofstader 😂
I find it funny how most people's definition of an RPG would make games like FIFA and Forza be RPGs
Thought I'd try the challenge.
Cup: a concave drinking utensil
That doesn't include bowls, buckets, or plates, as they aren't drinking utensils. It could include a shotglass, which is a form of a cup.
Hm, so a bottle?
@@danilafoxpro2603 A bottle is similar and for the same purpose. But while it incorporates concave shaping, it isn't itself a concave shape - its top is tapered off, which is also the only difference between a cup and a bottle. A bottle is a cup with a tapered-off top for sealing.
This is why I take a phenomenological approach to definitions.
Can you drink out of it like a cup? Then it's a cup, regardless of overlap with other definitions. Define the object by its action. For games, define the genre by the actions you take as a player. Sometimes, that means an RPG to one person is a shooter to another.
Without someone to take responsibility for establishing these in a situation, it's rough in creative pursuits. Even as a solo dev, trying to understand how to convey the experience I want, or even the level of graphical fidelity I should strive for, is a difficult task, because people will interpret and define their own themes and arbitrary definitions of things.
"Can you drink out of it like a cup? Then it's a cup, regardless of overlap with other definitions. Define the object by its action."
You used the word in its own definition, which was against the rules. I should have mentioned that, but I thought that was a given. This prevented definitions of "a cup is anything with cup-like attributes" or "a cup is anything people call a cup".
Oh good point!
If we're trying to communicate the idea, phenomenology is secondary. I'll need to rethink my approach:
For humans, any open-topped static container used optionally with one hand to pour liquid into your mouth is a cup.
Additionally, I think a "cup" will evolve in any situation where one does not exist, due to the base need to easily access liquids with our hands. I guess, in that sense, you could fundamentally define a cup as the result of the need to pour liquid into your body as efficiently and accessibly as possible. That means, for different races, "cups" will look very different!
How would a centipede define a cup?
How would a sentient single-celled organism?
That's what I love about phenomenology, and I'm hoping to make use of it in tandem with procedural generation to produce interesting organic objects and features in games!
I like this game! I should play it with friends some time.
see, now i cant get it out of my head. i just know it; im going to end up writing a book in the Darwinian fantasy style of Arcanum's texts, probably titled something like
Havis Grinbumble's Treatise on Phenomenological Topology
(its happened before)
if by some cosmic disaster it makes it to print, ill offer you a 1st edition
Ontology is fun!
So a cup is either what everyone agrees a cup is or what I say a cup is.
I'm guessing this is how the argument that a hot dog is a sandwich bore out.
THEY CALL HIM THE WHAT?! A CONCAVE OBJECT OF SORTS?! 🗣🗣🗣🔥🔥🔥
I see this in games with bad definitions, where theres frequent changes once the seniors notice the implementation wasnt what they intended. And obviously thats becauae them missdefined what the new stuff should do or where.
Definitions are easy, semantics are hard.
A great explanation why the "worst" games are made by committee. And by worst I mean the most bland generic game you can play. Even a bad game can find a couple of weirdos who like it.
Exceptions are never worth relying on as that audience is just too small. All the problems point to Concord. Too much decision-making, money and time sent on game nobody likes
Game Director is necessary to define a cup.
Excellent video.
The question immediately came to mind, is there anywhere a glossary has been made that would compile all the definitions for games?
I think that would be hugely important for programmers when figuring correct naming that other programmers can understand, naming folders where to put assets and everyday communication.
The experiment only proves how primitive and ineffective our entire verbal communication language is.
Define hit point 😅
Cup: small liquid container that is typically used for drinking from.
Is a Capri Sun a cup?
@@mattlambourne Yes. Finally I found someone else who thinks so too!
A small roughly silindric object made for the made for drinking
A cup is a tool which is commonly used to quench one's thirst, without itself being consumed. Hmm...
Like the holy grail, quenching our thirst for IMMORTALITY???🤨
For a game other than a game about cups, there should be a very short definition as there is no reason to have an expansive amount of cups. If there needs to be more than one cup in the game, a person or group of people working on the game should explain [why] before any expansion of that definition.
Definition has inherent uncertainty. A cloth can be considered a temporary cup.
Is the definition of some 'thing' fixed to the specific language we speak, or a specific mathematical formulation, or even to the specific sensory information we actually attend to when perceiving that thing?
In my opinion, "Immersive sims" are really just fully realised RPGs
Not exactly what you're saying, and perhaps actually the inverse, but makes me think of a book I still need to read: "Naming Things: The Hardest Thing in Software Engineering" by Tom Benner.
a vessel that comfortably but broadly fits in the average person's hand, with an opening at the top similar in size to the overall shape.
that's my idea for a cup, if anyone wants to poke holes in it that would be fun i think
A film canister is a cup
@NoahWanger not broadly fitting, fits too small-ly, though i can see it being a cup
Actually, I had a debate similar to this the other day with my brother. What is an RPG? Well, just looking at the words, it means a role-playing game. However, almost any game can meet that criteria. In gears of war, you are taking the role of marcus fenix while playing that game. That doest make it the same kind of RPG as something like fallout.
Heres the secret with human definitions - they are genreally centered on utility, what can it do for us. A cup is an object you pour liquid into and can be drunk out of by pouring through our unsealed lips. Yeah you can use a "bowl" as a cup, but it becomes a cup the moment you use it as such. Same with the classic platonic "chair", its anything you sit on, generally portable.
Recently I've been settling definition disagreements using AI :/ its fine... Google basically, when it was good
I think you can go further and say you need a well rounded game Director. Star Citizen is a great example of a well-intentioned guy leading a ship with no clue on scope or why keeping it targeted matters. This has led to a game that might launch in 2030 if they dial the scope back now.
It already cost fans more than double any other game in history. They already mismanaged that money so poorly they are somehow broke. How do you burn through well over 700 million in just over a decade. They have to keep releasing scam P2W content to keep funding the game with no end in sight. He got lost in trying to deliver everything.
Squadron 42, which is just parts of the game already made cut down so they can release it before another decade and help fund this disaster. The scope has ballooned so much that another completely different game is going to drop years before they have a date for the main game.
I feel sorry for that fanbase because his lofty ideas and refusal to limit scope are going to drain thousands and thousands more dollars out of each of those whales. I get that we make fun of whales but that doesn't mean it isn't an abusive relationship. Shame on Chris Roberts for taking advantage of them. He stared with good intentions then started developing a game that still has no date and might never because he is a bad game director.
what came first bowl or cup and when did hoomans go "this bowl . . . if it had a high surrounding wall..." or "if we take the wall surrounding this cup off..."
If you were a giant and pulled a swimming pool out of the ground, could it not be used as a cup ? And if something could be used as a cup why is it not a cup ? 🤔
Plato’s forms.
If anyone found the proffesor definition talk interesting, i can suggest looking into platos idealism.
To expand a bit, I'll try be brief. Basically, we start with the preparation that there is an "idea world", a world without matter where our thoughts and ideas are/come from. There's different interpretations, but the gist of it is that our material world is an attempt to recreate it. Classic example is a circle, in our minds we have the idea of a perfectly roujd circle. If we attempt to draw a circle then it won't be perfectly round at all, at least not mine. As I said it's an attempt to recreate the idea of it. That's basically it. Although it gets really interesting when he talks about concepts like beauty.
@@ThePirate193 Another good entrance to Plato's philosophy of the 'ideal' is the cave allegory, for anyone interested.
@hillehai Most definitely. I'd recommend finding summaries or at least, books with comments and explanations. Because straight up Plato isn't exactly the best introduction.
@@ThePirate193 For sure.
I always forget Josh Sawyer didnt work on the outer worlds😄.
I actually believe a handle is absolutely necessary for something to be a cup. If it looks like a cup but has no handle - it's a glass or a shot.
Yes, I don't think those tiny tea cups without a handle are cups.
But this is most likely a language thing. Cuz while you guys might call a paper thing for coffee "a (paper) cup" in Russia we call it "a (paper) glass".
It's even more specific. It's a word for "a glass", but in a diminutive form pretty much exclusively. Even if it's huge >0.5L thing from Starbucks, but made of paper/plastic - still "стаканчик", not "стакан".
Very King Solomon
What is the difference between a cup and a mug?
@skippyzkah so that's really a language thing, now I understand a bit more.
For me it was size (mug is larger than 0.33L, but cups can be of any size).
That's because I have a strong association between cup/mug and чашка/кружка. Чашка must have a handle. Кружка is just a large чашка.
A cup: a handheld object suitable for drinking out of
So a shoe is a cup. Got it
Oh so a bottle. Got it
Not to be mean, but I really hope this wasn't a genuine attempt at showing off.
@@DB-ku7vu
Or skull.
Isn't that a weird class, classification always have limitations
A cup is 8 ounces
Heh, that’s why we use object variables. It’s a cup if the programmer says it is. 😅😂
In Bloodlines, Morphine and Estrogen are Ammo.
Definitions are only hard when a group of people are actively trying to undermine them.
Oh boy, a class like that would drive me crazy.
I totally agree that a classroom full of students trying to work off each others' ideas would struggle to define a cup. I immediately thought of the size and depth constraints and the handle question. Sitting in a class of people making simple mistakes would drive me up the wall.
Personally, if given maybe ten or fifteen minutes on my own, I could define a cup just fine. This actually came up in my own field where a researcher argued that it was hard to define "a chair", then gave various examples. I took about ten minutes and have a definition of a chair that fits every edge-case example given and more, but only chairs (as opposed to stools or couches).
Definitions are hard and even harder when you try to define by committee.
They're not intractable problems, though, especially if you think a certain way.
(I agree about needing a director. In my academic work, I say every project needs a "champion": they're the first author)
Moral: use a dictionary or make one.
A cup is anything I can drink liquids from. No I will not tighten the parameters.
So universe is a cup?
The students could have agreed on what a cup is pretty quickly if it wasn't for the professor, though. The professor was clearly creating friction and was not being a team player. Just get rid of people like that you won't have any problems!
Two girls can easily define what a cup is. 😉
9:59-11:02
you are literally so wise
There's a certain highly politically motivated definition question that gets thrown around a lot these days and even had a terrible documentary made about it. The answer to the question is dead simple but it is self referential, but people refuse to accept that and instead go insane trying to define something undefinable. A cup is a cup because it's labeled as a cup.
From a certain philosophical point of view, sure. From a practical point of view, you're opening Pandora's Box with this kind of thinking; definitions are always imperfect by the nature of, I would say, both the ontological and epistemological conditions that we find ourselves in as humans.
However, in the same sense that one cannot find "objective truth" but should still strive to reach conclusions that at least suggest truth, it's necessary to use practical, if imperfect, definitions in order to be able to communicate properly with one-another and to reason. In a sense, rejecting the value of definitions wholly is rejecting the value of logic. Personally I believe you've decided to throw away common definitions - and re-defined certain words - for the sake of sating your need for your own worldview to be correct. Perhaps you should reassess that worldview instead.
That is technically correct, but if the people are not in agreement on the label it causes many issues.
What kind of a cup? D size / smaller / bigger? :)
The fact that your professor could give counter examples and your class acknowledge them indicates that there is a definition you all agreed upon and yet none of you could articulate.
PS. On the bright side I now know whose to blame for me not liking The Outer Worlds: Leonard Boyarsky.
Hahaha, same thought hahahaha
I liked system mechanics but visuals and writing rubbed me the wrong way
@@mountainmanmike1014 OF course a measuring cup is a cup. A sports cup on the other hand is no longer a cup. The phrase itself now means a spots competition.
There was a time when a cup was given as a trophy to the winner hence the name, but that's no longer the case. It hasn't been the case for a very long time. Hell, most trophies that used to be cups are no longer cup shaped. Mainly because trophy cups got bigger and bigger and ever more decorate, to the point where the cup functionality was lost and the expensive for giving out the trophy become prohibitive, becoming solely symbolic until even the cup shaped trophies started being replaced.
The problem is that without a hard definition there will be game breaking edge cases. Having a definition you can't articulate means the limits of the definition are not clear
@@derekskelton4187 The problem is that you don't need to be taught your native language to speak it well. Grammar is at it's core descriptive. It describes the rules of the means of communication people use. But the people that grew up surrounded by those rules don't actually have to learn the rules in a school setting and a formal manner to be proficient in their use. A computer or someone who want to learn the language on the other hand will need those rules. Nobody can define a cup as strictly as an AI will need a definition to be because nobody needs that strict a definition. LLMs don't because they're not actually aware of what they're regurgitating, but an actual general artificial intelligence will. Or, who know, maybe they'll learn the same way we will and AGI won't need those strict definitions either.
I think the problem is that the agreed definition is use based (i.e.: You drink out of it.) rather than being based on the properties of the object. We all agree how to use a cup, not what it is, nu?
that is what happens when stem ppl don't study philosophy.
I've found that many STEM-people are downright hostile to philosophical thinking because they have such a hard time grasping philosophical concepts. They'd rather just not accept that there's value in philosophy than accept they aren't as great at critical thinking as they like to tell themselves - I mean, after all, they're highly educated in their field and all that, so surely they must be smart in all aspects.
The cup is a lie