DOTNUKE + Game Center

DOTNUKE just got updated, lots of new stuff!
Download DOTNUKE

If you're unfamiliar with DOTNUKE, it's an art game in which you bounce a dot (your DOTNUKE) into enemies (boxes) that fly from the right side of the screen. The more you hit, the larger your dot grows, until it fills the screen and detonates. You then start again with a small DOTNUKE.

The question is: do you want to detonate your DOTNUKE?
You could aim for the enemies, hit them, and detonate quickly. But another challenge might be to avoid enemies, and prolong detonation as long as you can. I've added a detonation timer and Game Center Achievements and Leaderboards so you can try these challenges yourself.

New Leaderboards:

• War: Fastest detonations
• Peace: Slowest detonations
• Detonations: Most detonations

Another neat thing about this update:
All of your data is tracked solely on Game Center. This means, if you have an iPad as well as an iPhone (or iPod Touch), or if you log into Game Center on a friend's device, you can continue to accumulate detonations any time, anywhere!

Who's Really Open-Minded?

An atheist, agnostic, and Mormon appear at your door...
Who's the most open-minded?

Let's say you don't open the door. After all, you're not the one knocking on doors, trying to convert people. But does that make you open-minded?

• Open-minded: Your head is "open".
  You consider all information, but what ends up in your head (and what stays) could be up to chance.
• Closed-minded: Your head is "closed".
  You are resistant to new information. You cling to current beliefs, rejecting potential truths.
• Critical Thinker: You have an information filter.
  "Open-mindedness" is a prerequisite. You consider all information, but then form consistent conclusions, and find / accept truth, even if it goes against what you "want to" believe.

So who's open-minded? You? A Mormon? Agnostic? Atheist?
Open-minded would imply that a person "listens" for starters...

In my experience, there is no convincing a Mormon that their church is false. I don't mean to say it is or it isn't in this blog post, just that: IF there were criticisms made of the Mormon church, a Mormon (I feel) would be quick to disregard them, clinging to his initial beliefs. By that logic, (most) Mormons can't listen / are not open-minded.

The Book of Mormon Musical we can say makes criticisms against the church. It pokes fun at Mormon history, suggesting that the Book of Mormon is fiction, completely made up. One song, "Turn It Off" is about missionaries who shut out and "turn off" negative or homosexual feelings, like a light switch...

How would Head of Public Affairs for the LDS church, Michael Otterson respond to the Book of Mormon Musical?

I should preface by saying, Michael Otterson did not watch the musical. His faith stands against rated-R movies and profane shows like this, but I would think the Head of Public Affairs should make an exception in this case. Anyway, his article is titled, "Why I won't be seeing the Book of Mormon Musical":

Of course, parody isn't reality, and it's the very distortion that makes it appealing and often funny. The danger is not when people laugh but when they take it seriously—if they leave a theater believing that Mormons really do live in some kind of a surreal world of self-deception and illusion.

Otterson's statement seems to me like a blind dismissal of the show, because:

• Isn't truth often found in parody?
• Has he considered that the Book of Mormon (scripture) might be made up?
• Are gay Mormons not expected to hide (or overcome) their sexuality?
• If so, how are Mormons not living in self-deception and illusion?

In much of his response, Otterson goes on to highlight humanitarian efforts made by Mormon missionaries in Africa. I agree, Mormons should be given credit for their work. That said, the validity of a person's beliefs have nothing to do with the "good" that they do. You can be a good human being, do great work for people in need, but live in a "surreal world of self-deception and illusion", to use Otterson's words.

Finally, Otterson quotes Jewish New York Times writer, Levi who says:

Shame on you, New York Times, shame on Broadway, and shame on all of us who stand idly by and do nothing while the faith of others is mocked. Religious and cultural Jews need not support such bigotry.

Again, Otterson (and Levi too in this case) are dismissing the content of the musical. They feel that it is wrong to "mock religion", and so they fail to consider the validity of any claims made by the musical.

I feel that a lot of good-hearted people (Christians, agnostics) are "closed-minded" in this same way. "Live and let live, to each his own," may seem like an open-minded perspective - but not if you're incapable of hearing a person speak out against religion. Some atheists are closed-minded too! Lack of belief in god doesn't make a person educated about religion, or capable of listening to other perspectives.

My point is, regardless of your beliefs:
Anyone who can't listen, or think, or consider information, even if their excuse is that they're "taking the high road" or "being open-minded": is closed-minded.

But maybe the core issue here is:

• Are you wrong if you don't listen?
• Are you wrong to speak out?

I don't doubt that the Book of Mormon Musical, or (educated / scientific) atheists, or others who speak out are viewed as abrasive. People naturally go on the defensive when they feel attacked, when beliefs they hold dear are questioned...

But sometimes people speak out with good reason, and I think it's worse not to listen. What do you think?

Ignore Negative Feedback

Eric Feurstein tweeted words of wisdom earlier this month:

I've been thinking about this mind-blowing concept a lot lately:
The idea that any creative person might actually be MORE productive and successful if they just ignore / don't read negative feedback!

I think it comes down to this. Just looking at my own numbers:

• When I make and release apps or updates, I make more money.
• When I do not release anything, I do not make money.
• Creative people have vision, and know what to work on next.
• If their work is broken, they'll often already know to fix it.
• If you listen to negative feedback, you will lose vision / productivity.
• If you DON'T listen to negative feedback, you won't lose productivity.
• Your end goal is to maximize productivity, not to please everybody.
• Whether you listen or not, haters gonna hate!

Case in point, and I'm really glad this person posted on this video of all things, someone tore apart my "How To Make An Egg Cream" video on YouTube, stating:

I'm sorry but this is not an egg cream -- it is more of a travesty. A real egg cream uses Fox's Ubets syrup, milk, and seltzer. There is absolutely no ice as that would water it down. Also ginger ale? And store bought chocolate milk? Really? Hopefully, no one will ever suffer the fate of actually having to drink this.....

Like I said, haters gonna hate: NO MATTER WHAT!
So ignore negative feedback...

Maybe this seems obvious. But I often see creative people get down about hurtful comments, or bad reviews: aka THEY'RE READING THEM! I then see posts from successful indies and creatives, reminding folks to "man up" and keep doing what they do. Subtext: the smart ones ignore negative feedback?

Coming from a community management background, I like to act like I have thick skin, and can identify constructive criticism even within the most scathing posts. But really, who wants to put their heart and soul into something, only to get stomped on?

Consider Plan of Attack, a Half-Life 2 mod that Eric worked on with me, and its colorful community forums (the first forum I helped moderate):

• Plan of Attack Beta 1.0
  Players: Ideas! Feedback!
  Devs: Wow! People are playing!
• Plan of Attack Beta 2.0
  Players: They didn't implement my idea! They nerfed the guns!
  Devs: Hmm... new map isn't going over too well...
• Plan of Attack Beta 3.0
  Players: I preferred Beta 1! I preferred Beta 2!
  Devs: I don't even want to work on this anymore...
• Plan of Attack Beta 4.0
  Players: Soo... what happened to the dev's?
  Devs: Have fun with the source code.

You see at launch, players and developers alike are passionate about Plan of Attack. By Beta 2, we (the dev's) are listening to feedback, but losing personal vision. By Beta 3, we see that you honestly can't please everybody. The more you change the game, the more you alienate SOMEONE who liked the game the way it was, or someone else who wishes you took the game in their direction.

A typical, good hearted, open-minded creative might think:
I MUST respond to negative feedback, by providing updates, fixes, and implementing new (requested) features. Otherwise I will get more negative reviews and this will hurt me / my project / hurt sales.

But my argument is:
YOU already know what you want to provide in your updates, following your own creative vision. YOU are likely already aware of problems / fixes that require your attention. Most negative comments will fall under: taste and preference. And you're not going to please everybody by making changes. Instead, you'll lose sleep, interest, and productivity. So don't listen to negative feedback!

One problem left though:
How do you identify "negative" feedback without reading it first?

Eric, in his tweet, proposed a means to sift through comments, but his method requires the assistance of his lovely and talented girlfriend, Jess. If you're single like me, I think I have a rule of thumb to help identify negative comments (if you're going to read comments at all). The key is: ANONYMITY.

• iTunes: High Anonymity -> Mostly Hateful Comments
  Besides that, you're only asked to "review" when you delete an app...
• YouTube: Medium Anonymity -> 50/50 Comments
  Really, most feedback is positive, from fans and subscribers.
• E-mail / Blog: Low Anonymity -> Mostly Nice Comments
  Friends and people who find me online tend to love my stuff.

Thanks to Eric for (indirectly) sharing valuable words of wisdom with me! It was fun working on Plan of Attack with him. I admit, his enthusiasm and constructive feedback helped me stay passionate about PoA even through Beta 4.0!

Five Facts About Booga Bear

Meet Booga Bear! He's that bear in my avatar.

Booga Bear has graciously compiled a list of five fun facts about himself, and he would also like to give a shout-out to all his loyal fans and followers.
Without further ado:

• Booga Bear is a bear
• Booga Bear likes gummi bears (favorite flavor: Red)
• Booga Bear is not particularly good at video games (but thinks he's good)
• Booga Bear's rapper name is Notorious B.O.G.
• Everything Booga Bear says is implicit. So anything Booga Bear says is heard in the form of someone else saying, "Booga Bear said ____."

You may have noticed that Booga Bear makes an appearance as an achievement for two of my games, the two that have Game Center support: Number Guesser Deluxe and Why You Gotta Be A Vampire?

This achievement in each game is called "Beat Booga". You earn it by scoring a "bear minimum" number of points. "Beat Kenny" is a similar achievement, for playing very well, enough to beat my score as the developer!

Booga Bear says thanks, and also to stay tuned for more from Kenny's Apps!

Mormons, Bulletstorm, and Gray Area

We grow up with heroes and villains, good and bad, right and wrong.
Don't kill, don't steal. It all seems black and white.

A big component of Mormonism is to "choose the right".
You're given revelation on what's wrong, which includes:

• Alcohol, coffee, and tea
• Cigarettes and illegal drugs
• Rated-R movies
• Sex before marriage
• Foul language

Imagine what a Mormon would think then to see Grayson Hunt:
The foul-mouthed, drunken hero of Bulletstorm!

Actually, the LDS church doesn't explicitly take a stand on:

• Video Games
• Soda

That's "gray area": individuals can interpret whether rated-M games are the equivalent of rated-R movies. I think Bulletstorm's cursing might make a Mormon parent or spouse flip, but other M-rated games might be considered OK.

Same idea with soda: it wasn't around in Joseph Smith's day, it's arguably worse than coffee and tea, but it's "gray area": open to interpretation, unlike coffee and tea which are explicitly listed as "not for the body" in the Word of Wisdom.

Consider that Bulletstorm's hero is named "Grayson". During the game he's often referred to as "Gray". Coincidence? I think it's an appropriate name for a morally ambiguous, "gray area" hero.

My favorite book is The Picture of Dorian Gray. It's about a man who explores morally ambiguous natural pleasures, treading into darker and darker territory. His portrait takes on all his pain and age, while he keeps his youth and beauty. His name's Dorian GRAY, see where I'm going with this one?

...my ex actually suggested Dorian Gray to me, but was annoyed that I finished reading it much faster than the Book of Mormon. In my defense, I had made it through 2 Nephi at the time which is notoriously boring (lots of Isaiah quotes). A BYU girl taught me a joke about a Mormon police officer who was saved from a bullet shot to the chest. The bullet struck his Book of Mormon... but nothing can get through 2 Nephi! More gray area: am I allowed to laugh at this joke? Should Mormons?

As adults, we (should) realize that actually, the world is complex. It's "in color", there are "shades of gray", and issues with "gray area". All the points listed above, things that Mormons consider wrong, can be enjoyed responsibly or in moderation.

People are complicated too. Sometimes they'll surprise you, or make choices you disagree with. That doesn't make them bad people (or good people necessarily). They're just people!

Another thing about gray area?
You realize that things don't have to be accepted "all or nothing". Mormonism for example can teach true principles about family, volunteering, and so on regardless of its mythology or historical accuracy...

...and Sucker Punch can be an awful movie, yet have an excellent soundtrack:



^ Enjoy the drug references in that one!

It's interesting to consider whether there's such a thing as universal truth or morality. My opinion is that everyone is entitled to personal freedom (their life, their body), and the freedom to make choices that affect (even hurt) themselves as they wish. On the other hand, any choice that affects another person, taking away their freedoms (in my opinion), requires their consent. By my logic:

• Tattoos, coffee, and tea are OK
• Alcohol is fine unless / until it causes you to hurt others
• Never smoked, but I have no problem with other people smoking
• Stealing is wrong: because you're taking without consent
• Murder is wrong: you're taking away a person's choice to live

But most all of us kill animals (or plants), without their consent, in order to eat food. Does that make us inherently immoral?

Questions for Today:

• Do you believe in universal right and wrong?
• What do you consider wrong? (From the Mormon taboo list?)
• Why are coffee and tea wrong, but not soda?
• Is a list of right and wrong inherently arbitrary?
• Would it be better to provide guidelines to identify morality?
• Do you agree with me that morality is about freedom and consent?
• Where did you learn your morals? Church? Parents?