Play Smarter Not Harder

(goto: "Choose Your mode") [Wait one day!]<wait1| (click: ?wait1)[(set: $time to ($time + 1))(set: $flow to true)(set: $ski to it + 1)(set: $con to ($con + 1))(set: $cha to it + 1)(set: $anx to it + 1)(set: $hap to it + 1)(set: $bor to it + 1)(goto: "room 2")] [Wait two days!]<wait2| (click: ?wait2)[(set: $time to ($time + 2))(set: $ski to it + 2) (set: $con to it +2) (set: $cha to it + 2)(set: $anx to it + 2)(set: $hap to it + 2)(set: $bor to it + 2)(goto: "room 2")] [Wait three days!]<wait3| (click: ?wait3)[(set: $time to ($time + 6))(set: $ski to it + 6) (set: $con to it +6) (set: $cha to it + 6)(set: $anx to it + 6)(set: $hap to it + 6)(set: $bor to it + 6)(goto: "room 2")] [Wait four days!]<wait4| (click: ?wait4)[(set: $time to ($time + 4))(set: $ski to it + 4) (set: $con to it +4) (set: $cha to it + 4)(set: $anx to it + 4)(set: $hap to it + 4)(set: $bor to it + 4)(goto: "room 2")] [Wait five days!]<wait5| (click: ?wait5)[(set: $time to ($time + 5))(set: $ski to it + 5) (set: $con to it +5) (set: $cha to it + 5)(set: $anx to it + 5)(set: $hap to it + 5)(set: $bor to it + 5)(goto: "room 2")]

{(set: $time to 0) (set: $con to 0) (set: $confidence to "fail") (set: $ski to 3) (set: $skill to "fail") (set: $bor to false) (set: $hap to 0) (set: $happy to "fail") (set: $anx to false) (set: $anxiety to false) (set: $cha to 1) (set: $challenge to "fail") (set: $flowRatio to ($ski / $cha)) (set: $bal to false) (set: $flow to false) (set: $goals to false) (set: $feedback to false) (set: $weekend to false) (set: $timeLimit to 50) (set: $daysLeft to 50) (set: $pages to 0) (set: $revised to false) (set: $feedback to false) (set: $flowOnce to false) (set: $holistic to false) (set: $enhance to false) (set: $flowCount to 0) (set: $troubleshot to false) (set: $joyActivities to (array: "Work out", "Watch TV", "Socialize", "Read a book for fun", "Go to the movies", "Nap", "Eat cake", "Go for a walk", "Go to the doctor", "Go to the dentist", "Visit family", "Write something else just for fun", "Listen to music", "Practice an instrument", "Play a video game", "Get coffee with a friend", "Meditate", "Play with your pet", "Make something fun")) (set: $anxActivities to (array: "Procrastinate", "Think about failure", "Stare at screen", "Get on twitter", "Feel like an impostor", "Drink", " Wallow in existential dread", "Play Dark Souls", "Check your email obsessively", "Google yourself", "Look yourself up on Rate My Professor", "Go to the doctor", "Go to the dentist", "Visit family", "Panic", "Question your life choices", "Pace", "Contemplate impostor syndrome", "Go to a committee meeting", "Binge watch an entire season of that show you’re too embarassed to tell others you watch")) (set: $dontWork to (array: "It’s not working.", "Why isn’t it working?", "Maybe I just need to troubleshoot some more.", "C'mon, work already!", "Please, oh, please, work so I can submit this thing!", "I need to troubleshoot before I can submit." )) (set: $debug to false) (set: $header to false) (set: $feedCount to 0) (set: $footer to true) (set: $colleague to false) (set: $nm to false) (set: $pageCounter to 15) (set: $reference to "No-reference") }

[Procrastinate!]<wait| (click: ?wait)[ (set: $time to ($time + 1))] [[room 3]]

==> right align [[room 2]]

(if: $debug is true)[(display: "Debug")(show: ?commentary) ] ==> (if: $footer is true)[|cite>[References]] (click: ?cite)[(set: $footer to false)(set: $header to false)(goto: "Works Cited")] {(hidden:)|citation>[(display: "Current-Citation")](set: $reference to "No-reference")}

{ (if: $ski < 1)[(set: $ski to 1)] (if: $cha < 1)[(set: $cha to 1)] (set: $currentpassage to (passage:)'s name) (if: $daysLeft < 1)[(set: $cha to it + .2)] (set: $daysLeft to ($timeLimit - $time)) (set: $flowRatio to ($ski / $cha)) (if: $flowRatio > 2)[(set: $bor to true)(set: $bal to false)(set: $anx to false)] (else-if: $flowRatio > .8)[ (set: $bal to true)(set: $bor to false)(set: $anx to false) ] (else:) [ (set: $anx to true)(set: $bor to false)(set: $bal to false)]  (if: $bal is true and $goals is true and $feedback is true)[(set: $flow to true)](else:)[(set: $flow to false)] (if: $flow is true)[(set: $flowOnce to true)] } |heading>[(if: $header is true)[(if: $debug is true)[''$currentpassage''] ''Days left:'' (if: $daysLeft >= 2)[You have |time>[$daysLeft] days left.](else-if: $daysLeft is 1)[There’s only ONE day left?!](else-if: $daysLeft is 0)[OMG it’s due! ACK! What am I gonna do?](else-if: $daysLeft is -1)[I’m a day late.](else:)[I’m |time>[(abs: $daysLeft)] days late.] ''Pages written:'' You have written |pages>[$pages](if: $goals is true)[ of your planned $pageCounter] pages. (display: "Emotions")(display: "States")] ] { <script>$('html').removeClass('flow');</script> (if: $flow is true)[<script>$('html').addClass('flow');</script>] }

(if: $cha is 0)[(set: $challenge to "unskilled")](else-if: $cha is 1)[(set: $challenge to "almost capable")](else-if: $cha is 2)[(set: $challenge to "moderately skilled")](else-if: $cha is 3)[(set: $challenge to "surprisingly capable")](else-if: $cha is 4)[(set: $challenge to "accomplished")](else-if: $cha is 5)[(set: $challenge to "expertly skilled")]

''Emotions:'' You perceive yourself as (if: $bal is true)[evenly skilled and challenged, leaving you feeling balanced](else-if: $anx is true)[more challenged than skilled, leaving you feeling anxious](else-if: $bor is true)[more skilled than challenged, leaving you feeling bored].

[(either: ...$joyActivities). (one day(hidden:)|commentary>[ +1 skill])]<fun|{ (click: ?fun)[ (set: $time to ($time + 1)) (set: $bor to false) (set: $anx to false) (set: $daysLeft to ($timeLimit - $time)) (set: $flowRatio to 1)  (if: $flow is true)[ (set: $time to it - (either: 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2)) ] (replace: ?time)[$daysLeft] (replace: ?bor)[$bor] (replace: ?anx)[$anx] (display: "Emotions") (goto: "Print Research 1") ] }

Double-click this passage to edit it.

(set: $pageCounter to 15 + (either: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10))|directions>[You are beginning a new article. You have |time>[$daysLeft] days to complete it. This game will take you through the process of getting your article written and published. Make sure to keep an eye on your status above, as it can affect which options are available to you. Research shows that people are most productive when they find a balance between perceived challenge and perceived skill. Too much perceived skill leads to boredom. Too much perceived challenge leads to anxiety ((link-repeat: "Csikszentmihályi, Abuhamdeh, and Nakamura,")[(set: $reference to "Mihaly")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)] 2005). Winning the game depends on three elements, one of which is this balance between perceived challenge and skill. The other two will be explained at the end of your first playthrough. While scholars typically want these elements broadcast from the outset, one of the great joys of video games is the slow discovery of the systems that constrain play and the development of strategies or <q>metas</q> to optimize play. When you complete these win conditions during the game, the background colour will change colour (or change to grey if you are in black and white mode), signifying that you have achieved <q>flow.</q>] Choose whether you’d like it to be traditional print or include new media elements. [Print (six to ten weeks total(hidden:)|commentary>[ +2 skill])]<print| {(click: ?print)[ (set: $ski to it + 2) (goto: "Print Check") ] }[Include New Media elements (More, I guess?(hidden:)|commentary>[ +2 challenge])]<newMedia| {(click: ?newMedia)[ (set: $cha to it + 2) (goto: "New Media Check") ] } (hidden:)|commentary>[ ''Commentary'' As I mentioned on the last page, this was a difficult decision for me when creating this game. With just two weeks, I was very tempted to default to print. It seemed like it would save so much time. In retrospect, though, the new media option actually made it easier to get done. As you no doubt experienced when playing the game, flow states cause the work to get done much more quickly. I wonder if I would have gotten the article written if I’d chosen print. It’s not that flow states are impossible when composing for print. They’re just not encouraged as heavily by the medium itself—to achieve flow in print, I often find myself having to do more active reflection. New media make some of the flow requirements automatic, offering immediate feedback through their interfaces, creating opportunities to increase challenge and skill, and requiring clear goals. ] [Research]<research| (click: ?research)[ (replace: ?research)[(link-repeat: "Brown and Simpson")[(set: $reference to "Brown")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)] (2014) argue that <q>Scholarly processes, perhaps humanist ones in particular, are far from linear, involving a dialectic between source materials and scholarly engagement that results in revisiting sources, revising sources, and producing iterative versions of materials as they are refined and revised over time.</q> It was important that this article not elide the inherently nonlinear nature of traditional scholarship. Nonetheless, print scholarship, digitally enhanced scholarship, and digitally born scholarship are radically different from each other. One surprising feature of new media scholarship is the immediate feedback it offers. I often joke with my students that if you miss a semi-colon in an essay, it’s a pretty minor error that most people won’t notice. If you miss a semi-colon in your code, it won’t run. That kind of immediate feedback can make new media scholarship really engaging to create. According to (link-repeat: "Arbuckle and Christie")[(set: $reference to "Arbuckle")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)] (2015), <q>Evolving modes of digital scholarly communication change both the field and the players in this process.</q> They argue that the openness of digital scholarship makes our methods more accessible to a wider audience. But that changes us as much as it changes them.]]

Great! It’s important to keep your goals in mind throughout the process. Would you like to create a checklist to keep you on track or just get on to the scholarship itself? [Create a checklist. (two days)(hidden:)|commentary>[ sets goals to true]]<check| {(click: ?check)[ (set: $time to ($time + 2)) (set: $goals to true) (goto: "Print Research 1") ] }[Get on to the scholarship! (no days)]<intro|(click: ?intro)[(goto: "Print Research 1")] (hidden:)|commentary>[ ''Commentary'' A checklist is just one way of creating clear goals. While clear goals would often help guide print scholarship, I’ve found that I’m less likely to create them. The more manageable an assignment feels, the less I feel the need to create checklists and outlines. I can write a conference presentation with pretty vague goals. A monograph is going to require pretty clear goals and the ability to revise them. New media scholarship has so many moving parts that it requires extensive planning. In my experience, new media scholarship requires planning and reflection on a scale similar to a monograph even though it does not require near the amount of writing. Interestingly, skipping this step really hurt a lot of my playtesters. They assumed the game was broken because they could not click <q>Submit</q> despite having composed quite a few pages. They didn’t realize they hadn’t hit the requirement because they never created a checklist that told them what the requirement was. I debated warning players about this <q>error</q>, but decided to let them discover it themselves. It reflects the feeling of writing too well for me to cut it. ] [Research]<research| (click: ?research)[ (replace: ?research)[(link-repeat: "Brown and Simpson")[(set: $reference to "Brown")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)] remind us that <q>Knowledge work is not always in the form of writing. Digital work can be tied into things like ontologies or tools</q> (2014). Digital scholarship can make these paratextual supports more obvious, but they are just as necessary in print-based scholarship.]]

Would you like to spend time studying an area that’s new to you or work in any area that you’re already pretty familiar with? [Let’s look into something new! (ten days(hidden:)|commentary>[ +1 challenge])]<new|{ (click: ?new)[ (set: $cha to it + 1) (set: $time to it + 10) (goto: "Print Research 2") ] } [Let’s stick with what I already know (four days(hidden:)|commentary>[ +1 skill])]<old|{ (click: ?old)[ (set: $ski to it + 1) (set: $time to it + 4) (goto: "Print Research 2") ] } (display: "PR1 Activities") (hidden:)|commentary>[ ''Commentary'' This is the first time I introduce non-research activities. These activities are randomly pulled from two lists: one with positive activities and the other with negative. Both are forms of procrastination, but not all procrastination is equal. Some of the activities increase the players perceived challenge and others decrease it. I created an initial list of each and then expanded the lists based on player feedback. ] [Research]<research| (click: ?research)[ (replace: ?research)[I’m very conscious that my argument could be perceived as anti-print. (link-repeat: "Bath")[(set: $reference to "Bath")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)] points out that print-based design becomes more not less important with the advent of the digital: <q>Book design still matters in the digital age, but not for some of the more obvious reasons. One should not study book history in order to attempt to create <q>electronic books.</q> There are valuable lessons in information design which can be gleaned from traditional practices and applied to new forms. More importantly, the makers of new reading interfaces need to understand how they, their products, and their users continue to be influenced by book culture if they truly wish to create a new reading experience</q> (2012). Understanding the material design of print-based scholarship becomes more important in digital contexts. One minor effect of remediation is our awareness of practices that we were already engaged in. ]]

{(set: $nm to true) }Great! It’s important to keep your goals in mind throughout the process. Would you like to create a checklist to keep you on track or just get on to the scholarship itself? [Create a checklist. (two days)(hidden:)|commentary>[ sets goals to true]]<check|{ (click: ?check)[ (set: $time to it + 2) (set: $goals to true) (goto: "Remediate") ] } [Get on to the scholarship! (no days)]<intro|(click: ?intro)[(goto: "Remediate")] (hidden:)|commentary>[ ''Commentary'' Multimodal scholarship demands clear goals. A checklist is just one way of creating clear goals. <img src = "goals.JPG" width = "80%" alt = "Photograph of an office wall littered with post-it notes. The words on the notes are illegible. It appears to be a brainstorming tool."> The image above is from an early planning stage for this project. I organized my early thoughts with colour-coded post-it notes. I started with blue notes for the traditional components of scholarship: Introductions, Methods, Results, and Discussion. Then I used green for the emotions I wanted to elicit: comfort, confusion, a return to confidence. Then I used yellow notes for interactions and pink for the research behind each element. Interestingly, skipping this step really hurt a lot of my playtesters. They assumed the game was broken because they could not click <q>Submit</q> despite having composed quite a few pages. They didn’t realize they hadn’t hit the requirement because they never created a checklist that told them what the requirement was. I debated warning players about this <q>error,</q> but decided to let them discover it themselves. It reflects the feeling of writing too well for me to cut it. ] [Research]<research| (click: ?research)[ (replace: ?research)[(link-repeat: "Ruecker, Adelaar, Brown, Dobson, Knechtel, Liepert, MacDonald, Peña, Radzikowska, Roeder, Sinclair, and Windsor")[(set: $reference to "Ruecker")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)] (2014) point to the necessity of clear goals and reflection in digital scholarship. Academic prototyping is one method for moving quickly while still maintaining rigor and creating knowledge: <q>That academic prototyping is an iterative process intended to produce knowledge rather than software should be reflected in the planning, management, and expectations of everyone involved.</q> Too often we forget that making is thinking.]]

Would you like to spend time studying an area that’s new to you or work in any area that you’re already pretty familiar with? [Let’s look into something new! (ten days(hidden:)|commentary>[ +1 challenge])]<new|{ (click: ?new)[ (set: $cha to it + 1) (set: $time to it + 10) (goto: "NM Research 2") ] } [Let’s stick with what I already know (four days(hidden:)|commentary>[ +1 skill])]<old|{ (click: ?old)[ (set: $ski to it + 1) (set: $time to it + 4) (goto: "NM Research 2") ] } (display: "NMR1 Activities") (hidden:)|commentary>[ ''Commentary'' This is the first time I introduce non-research activities. These activities are randomly pulled from two lists: one with positive activities and the other with negative. Both are forms of procrastination, but not all procrastination is equal. Some of the activities increase the players perceived challenge and others decrease it. ] [Research]<research| (click: ?research)[ (replace: ?research)[All scholarship requires researchers to be open to new areas of research. Digital scholarship is particularly difficult, in that the area itself is constantly renewing itself: <q>The object of study is a moving target because we are trying to find emergent affordances in a changing landscape of technologies and user needs, capacities, and expectations</q> ((link-repeat: "Ruecker, et al.")[(set: $reference to "Ruecker")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)], 2014). But moving into new research areas can be rewarding. Creating interdisciplinary connections broadens our audiences and keeps our thought from becoming stale due to academic echo chambers.]]

{(set: $feedCount to 0) }Alright! You’ve chosen your area, now it’s time to pick a methodology. [Let’s look into something new! (fifteen days(hidden:)|commentary>[ +1 challenge])]<new|{ (click: ?new)[ (set: $cha to it + 1) (set: $time to it + 15) (goto: "Print Compose") ] } [Let’s stick with what I already know (five days(hidden:)|commentary>[ +1 skill])]<old|{ (click: ?old)[ (set: $ski to it + 1) (set: $time to it + 5) (goto: "Print Compose") ] } (display: "PR2 Activities") [Research]<research| (click: ?research)[ (replace: ?research)[(link-repeat: "Keramidas")[(set: $reference to "Keramidas")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)] argues that old media resist new methods: <q>Through the process of time and formalistic stagnation, we have developed the kind of <q>automatism of perception</q> that Shklovsky warns of when it comes to modes of intellectual work. This automatism has led to an implicit sacralization of books and book design practice in the production and assessment of scholarship. As a result, a small set of information delivery formats have come to shape the process of academic work, often stifling the possible range of discourse</q> (2016). You can keep your gameplan the same or change it up, but the fact of the matter is, you’re playing the same old game.]]

{(if: $feedCount > 0)[ (set: $feedCount to it - 1)](else:)[(set: $feedback to false)] (if: $flow is true)[(set: $flowCount to it + 1)] }Time to get on to the thing itself: writing! Get enough pages written, but make sure not to get so anxious you can’t submit your work. (display: "Write") (display: "Write Flair") (display: "feedback")(hidden:)|commentary>[ sets feedback to true, but because it must be "immediate" feedback, this effect decays over time dropping you out of flow after a few days] (if: $pages > 4)[(display: "PC Revise")](else:)[Not enough pages to revise.] (display: "Fun Compose") (display: "Anxious Compose") (display: "Submit") (hidden:)|commentary>[ ''Commentary'' This is the main screen and it took the most time to create. It has more than a half dozen dependent elements, some of which include randomness and most of which affect some variable or another. Some playtesters really struggled because they had gotten so anxious they could not submit. It didn’t seem to matter how many times I added a reminder in the instructions that you can’t submit while anxious; players just ignored them. I wonder how much this reflects scholarship and our lack of willingness to reflect on the ways our emotions shape our scholarship. While this project is mainly about the media in which scholarship appears, many players perceived it to be about the affective components of research. Medium is much more clearly addressed in the Research buttons and the gameplay itself, but the affective components seemed to land harder for the players. Clearly more research on the affective dimensions of scholarship is called for. I intentionally failed to contextualize Keramidas' quote below because I knew players would spend most of their time on this screen. This increased time allows them increased reflection. Players tend to supply the context through this reflection. ] [Research]<research| (click: ?research)[ (replace: ?research)[<q>For the most part we remain beholden to the hegemony of the codex. The possibilities of digital publication have the potential to expose that hegemony and challenge those formats and conventions that have become very deeply ingrained in how we compose our scholarship</q> ((link-repeat: "Keramidas")[(set: $reference to "Keramidas")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)], 2016)]]

(print: $enemyStats's Name) HP: [(print: $enemyStats's Health)]<enemyHP| (print: $enemyStats's Description) Player damage dealt last turn: [$totalPlayerDamageDealt]<playerDamage| Enemy damage dealt last turn: [$totalEnemyDamageDealt]<enemyDamage| (link-repeat: "Attack")[{  (set: $totalPlayerDamageDealt to it + ((random: $playerStats's WeaponMinDamage, $playerStats's WeaponMaxDamage) + ($playerStats's Strength / 2))) (set: $enemyStats's Health to it - ($totalPlayerDamageDealt - $enemyStats's Defense))  (replace: ?enemyHP)[(print: $enemyStats's Health)] (replace: ?playerDamage)[$totalPlayerDamageDealt] (replace: ?enemyDamage)[$totalEnemyDamageDealt] }] <link rel="stylesheet" href="bw.css" id="dark" class="alternate">

{ (if: $ski < 1)[(set: $ski to 1)] (if: $ski is 1)[(set: $skill to "unskilled")](else-if: $ski is 2)[(set: $skill to "almost capable")](else-if: $ski is 3)[(set: $skill to "moderately skilled")](else-if: $ski is 4)[(set: $skill to "surprisingly capable")](else-if: $ski is 5)[(set: $skill to "accomplished")](else-if: $ski > 5)[(set: $skill to "expertly skilled")] (if: $cha < 1)[(set: $cha to 1)] (if: $cha is 1)[(set: $challenge to "unchallenged")](else-if: $cha is 2)[(set: $challenge to "underchallenged")](else-if: $cha is 3)[(set: $challenge to "neither challenged nor unchallenged")](else-if: $cha is 4)[(set: $challenge to "challenged")](else-if: $cha is 5)[(set: $challenge to "facing serious challenges")](else-if: $cha > 5)[(set: $challenge to "facing near superhuman challenges")] (if: $bor is true)[(set: $boredom to "bored")](else:)[(set: $boredom to "engaged")] (if: $anx is true)[(set: $anxiety to "anxious")](else:)[(set: $anxiety to "calm")] }

[Write serviceable prose (one day, more pages, but less fun)]<write|{ (click: ?write)[ (set: $time to it + 1)  (if: $flow is true)[ (set: $time to it - (either: 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2)) ] (set: $pages to it + (either: 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 8, 9)) (goto: "Print Compose") ]}

[(either: ...$joyActivities). (one day(hidden:)|commentary>[ +1 skill])]<fun|{ (click: ?fun)[ (set: $time to ($time + 1))  (if: $flow is true)[ (set: $time to it - (either: 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2)) ] (set: $ski to it + 1) (set: $daysLeft to ($timeLimit - $time)) (goto: "Print Compose") ]}

(if: $pages < $pageCounter and $anx is true)[Not ready to submit yet. I haven’t written enough, and I’m feeling anxious.](else-if: $pages >= $pageCounter)[(if: $anx is false)[Submit! (one day)]<submit|(else:)[Not ready to submit yet. Too anxious. Maybe I should do something fun or relaxing until I can get to a more balanced status.]](else:)[Not ready to submit yet. Not enough pages.]{ (click: ?submit)[ (set: $timeLimit to 14) (set: $time to 0) (goto: "Revise Print") ]}

{ (if: $flow is true)[(set: $flowCount to it + 1)] }You got a <q>revise and resubmit</q> and have about two weeks to get it done (see the changed timeline above). Woohoo! That’s good, right? I mean, it’s basically accepted, right? Right? Ugh. (hidden:)|commentary>[ ''Commentary'' Despite what readers might assume, this page is not meant to be a reflection on the submission process of this article. Other than this commentary, I have not changed the page since its original submission. That said, it did result in a <q>revise and resubmit</q> decision and I did feel many of the emotions you may have felt as you played it initially. ] (display: "Rev Print") (display: "Fun Compose 2") (display: "Anxious Compose 2") (display: "Rev Print Feedback") (display: "Submit2") [Research]<research| (click: ?research)[ (replace: ?research)[<q>We should not diminish the magnitude of what has changed. A writer—say it is myself, say it is right now—presses a key and completes a circuit and a spark of voltage flashes through a silicon chip to open a logic gate that illuminates a pattern of pixels on a liquid crystal display screen (could the terminology be any more wonderful?); the writer presses another key and the process repeats, or maybe that first letter disappears as the electrical charge briefly held within the system’s solid-state memory rearranges itself into another configuration as the typo is corrected, or the writer settles on a word just a little more juste. This is an extraordinary act, and it is a trivial act. It is also a material act</q> ((link-repeat: "Kirschenbaum")[(set: $reference to "Kirschenbaum")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)], 2016, p. 247).]]

[Put in some flourishes! (one day, more fun, fewer pages)]<flair|{ (click: ?flair)[ (set: $time to it + 1)  (if: $flow is true)[ (set: $time to it - (either: 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2)) ] (set: $pages to it + (either: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5)) (goto: "Print Compose") ]}

(if: $revised is false)[Revise! (four days)]<write|{ (click: ?write)[ (set: $time to it + 1)  (if: $flow is true)[ (set: $time to it - (either: 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2)) ] (set: $revised to true) (set: $pages to it - (either: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2)) (goto: "Revise Print") ]}

(if: $revised is true)[Resubmit! (one day)]<resubmit|(else:)[Not ready to resubmit yet.]{ (click: ?resubmit)[ (set: $timeLimit to 14) (set: $time to 0) (goto: "Publish Print") ]}

{ (if: $flow is true)[(set: $flowCount to it + 1)] }Congratulations! The article has been accepted! Time to celebrate and [reflect]<reflect| on the process. [Research]<research| (click: ?research)[ (replace: ?research)[<q>We must think about how both new and old media can play a role in broadening our sense of what it means to publish, and create intellectual structures and designed experiences that engage larger audiences. Digital media are not the answer to all the problems of contemporary publication (for instance they still require significant labour and costs), but their newness and flexibility, their unfamiliarity, can help us to think more deeply about our process and product</q> ((link-repeat: "Keramidas")[(set: $reference to "Keramidas")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)], 2016).]] (click: ?reflect)[(goto: "reflect")] (set: $feedback to false)

[(either: ...$joyActivities). (one day(hidden:)|commentary>[ +1 skill])]<fun|{ (click: ?fun)[ (set: $time to ($time + 1))  (if: $flow is true)[ (set: $time to it - (either: 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2)) ] (set: $daysLeft to ($timeLimit - $time)) (set: $ski to it + 1) (set: $daysLeft to ($timeLimit - $time)) (goto: "Revise Print") ]}

(hidden:)|commentary>[ ''Commentary'' This was the most difficult page to make. There are just so many moving parts. For example, here’s the code for just the third bullet point of the report on your flow: <q>`0.0. (if: $colleague is true)[(if: $nm is true)[Choosing to work in new media created the opportunity for immediate feedback. Talking to a colleague also gave you more immediate feedback.](else:)[Talking to a colleague gave you some immediate feedback, but this effect lessens over time.]](else-if: $nm is true)[Choosing to work in new media created the opportunity for immediate feedback.](else:)[You chose to work in print, a medium that doesn’t offer immediate feedback in the same way that new media do. You also didn’t share your work with a colleague, who could have offered immediate feedback.] 0.0. This (if: $colleague is true)[(if: $nm is true)[enabled flow.](else:)[enabled flow.]](else-if: $nm is true)[enabled flow.](else:)[inhibited flow.]`</q>That’s a combination of nested ifs, else-ifs, and elses to handle each contingency. It represents over an hour of work. The order of contingencies matters a great deal here, and some of it was just trial and error. And that doesn’t get us to the actual win vs. lose of the endings and having only one of them unlock debug mode. Restarting the game in debug mode requires resetting 27 variables, some of which have dependent variables that will also be reset. Creating this page felt a great deal like the [Troubleshooting]<tshoots| page: change a variable, refresh to see if it works, repeat.(click: ?tshoots)[(goto: "Revise NM 2")] ]The article is done, and that feels good, but let’s check in on how you got there. The major system running in the background of this game is based on psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihályi’s concept of flow. Flow states can appear in sports, art, music, and almost any other human activity. We can achieve flow states while working or playing. It’s that sweet spot between boredom and anxiety where time starts to fade from our attention and we become immersed in our activity. A flow state can make work feel like play. In my own experience of creating new media scholarship, I often experience flow states. While making this game, I had worked quite a few late nights. What’s exciting to me is that those nights didn’t feel like work. I awoke the next morning feeling recharged and excited to return to the project. I talk more about this in the commentary available in debug mode. Throughout Csikszentmihályi’s expansive body of research, he’s isolated a variety of factors that contribute to flow. For this game, I choose one article that focused on three factors: 0. Clear goals 0. Balance of challenge and skill 0. Clear, immediate feedback ((link-repeat: "Csikszentmihályi, Abuhamdeh, and Nakamura")[(set: $reference to "Mihaly")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)], 2005) |directions>[The explanation below is based on your playthrough. For example, the first sentence is based on whether or not you achieved flow at any point in the game. However, some of the others shift throughout the game. The second bullet point is based on how you finished the game.] In this playthrough, you (if: $flowOnce is false)[did not achieve flow](else:)[achieved flow (for $flowCount turns)]. Because each of these factors contribute to flow, the list below indicates whether each enabled or inhibited flow for your playthrough. To achieve flow, you need to have had all three enabling flow at the same time. 0. Clear goals: 0.0. After choosing your medium, (if: $goals is true)[you chose to create a checklist.](else:)[you chose to not create a checklist]. 0.0. (if: $goals is true)[This enabled flow](else:)[This inhibited flow]. 0. Balance of challenge and skill: 0.0. Throughout the game you had a variety of opportunities to affect your perceived challenge and skill. Debug mode allows you to see how each decision affects your ratio of challenge to skill. For example, choosing print as your medium increases your perceived skill while choosing new media increases your perceived challenge. 0.0. At the end of the game, your ratio of perceived challenge to skill made you feel (if: $flowOnce is true)[balanced](else-if: $anx is true)[anxious (more challenged than skilled)](else-if: $bor is true)[bored (more skilled than challenged](else:)[balanced]. 0.0. This (if: $flowOnce is true)[enabled flow](else-if: $anx is true)[inhibited flow](else-if: $bor is true)[inhibited flow](else:)[enabled flow]. 0. Clear, immediate feedback: 0.0. (if: $colleague is true)[(if: $nm is true)[Choosing to work in new media created the opportunity for immediate feedback. Talking to a colleague also gave you more immediate feedback.](else:)[Talking to a colleague gave you some immediate feedback, but this effect lessens over time.]](else-if: $nm is true)[Choosing to work in new media created the opportunity for immediate feedback.](else:)[You chose to work in print, a medium that doesn’t offer immediate feedback in the same way that new media do. You also didn’t share your work with a colleague, who could have offered immediate feedback.] 0.0. This (if: $colleague is true)[(if: $nm is true)[enabled flow.](else:)[enabled flow.]](else-if: $nm is true)[enabled flow.](else:)[inhibited flow.] (if: $flowOnce is false)[Because of your choices above, you didn’t achieve a flow state. In order to unlock debug mode, [restart]<restart| the game and get into a flow state at least once before the ending (or click the secret debug button to the right of the author’s name on the title page). You’ll see a very different ending. Use the checklist above to help yourself find flow. Don’t worry: it will go much faster the second time.](if: $flowOnce is true)[Because you achieved flow, you may have noticed that time moved more slowly. In this demo, that means sometimes tasks took less time than you expected. But that’s not quite how flow works. Instead, flow causes you to be more willing to spend time on projects. I approximated this by giving you more time. That’s what flow feels like: free time. My hope is that this article allows you to develop a better scholarly meta. Meta is a term from the gaming community (particularly esports) that refers to the strategies currently in use by the strongest players. Thus, its semantic range falls somewhere between <q>best practices</q> and <q>strategies,</q> with an emphasis on revision—there is no final meta, just new opportunities to improve current meta. Similarly, creating flow is a way to improve your scholarly practices, but is not any kind of be-all and end-all of scholarly best practices. Also, you’ve unlocked debug mode! [Play again in debug mode]<debugs| to see how each choice affects different variables. In debug mode, I discuss some of my original intentions and reflect on how they changed based on playtesting and editorial feedback. In particular, the point I want to emphasis to players is that they are playing again, a new game. I also think this would be a good place to define the terms that appear in the debug menu. (display: "Debug Key") Debug mode can also be accessed via a secret button right after the author’s name on the title page (in case you have to refresh this page). Just hover your cursor until it turns into a finger indicating a link. Clicking the button above will take you back to the title screen with added commentary. From there, just proceed through the game as you did the first time but now with additional information. ] [Research]<research2| (click: ?research2)[ (replace: ?research2)[As scholars, we tend to value transparency, but transparency is just another obfuscation: <q>As any programmer will tell you, generally the more <q>transparent</q> the interface, the more work is being done for the user and the more code is needed. Like the printer concerned with crafting <q>crystal goblets,</q> the designer of transparent interfaces needs to hide their considerable influence on the text</q> ((link-repeat: "Bath")[(set: $reference to "Bath")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)], 2012). (link-repeat: "Lanham")[(set: $reference to "Lanham")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)] (2006) offers a lengthy treatment of the uses of transparency and opacity in digital design.]] (hidden:)|commentary>[ ''Commentary'' Many of the playtesters I sent this to were able to articulate my argument clearly: the medium in which we create scholarship shapes our arguments. However, more than a few felt the argument was about achieving healthy balance. I admit, I certainly wanted to consider a variety of constraints that typically get left out of academic conversations about scholarship. Achieving a broader view of our scholarly activities can allow us to achieve flow, making our scholarship more rewarding. I suspect this was what they were reacting to. The idea that flow depends on a balance between perceived challenge and perceived skill comes from (link-repeat: "Csikszentmihályi")[(set: $reference to "Mihaly")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)]. The details of which activities contribute to a challenge and which to skill is based on my own perceptions. However, balancing perceived challenge and skill is just one piece of flow. The other two factors, immediate feedback and clear goals, did not seem to be as salient to players. This is likely because the balance between anxiety and boredom could be achieved at any time during the game with clear options. Clear goals was selected only once and immediate feedback was partially supplied by the medium. These variables could be set to <q>true</q> once and then forgotten, but that does not make them less important. In making this game, I found myself having to return again and again to planning stages, once again giving myself clear goals. Balance is just one piece of a larger system. I must also admit the weaknesses of this game. Probably the largest weakness is the universalizing nature of its representation. In the early planning stages, I considered having the player choose a character at the beginning of play. I would have liked to include scholars from underrepresented groups and use the game mechanics to recognize the different constraints they each face. Faculty from various underrepresented groups have higher service expectations than their colleagues from dominant groups, to pick just one example of how this might have been enacted. Adding such a critique would have been difficult and technologically complex, but it also would have faced the danger of getting lost in the already robust systems. Such video game systems would never match the systems of oppression that exist in the real world. Instead, I believe it would need a distinct game devoted to it and probably quite a bit more. All representation is imperfect, but new scholarly forms are often especially imperfect. My goal with this game was not to create a perfect simulation of scholarly activity, but to provoke player-scholars to reflect on their own methods and think critically about the media in which they work. In that sense, its failures are relatively unimportant. The largest part of this article’s argument is not in its words, nor even in its interactions, but in its existence. By getting to this page in debug mode, you have officially won. Go on to the next page to celebrate. [You win]<winner| (click: ?winner)[ (set: $header to false)(set: $debug to false)(goto: "You win") ]] { (click: ?debugs)[ (set: $debug to true) (set: $time to 0) (set: $ski to 3) (set: $bor to false) (set: $anx to false) (set: $cha to 1) (set: $flowRatio to ($ski / $cha)) (set: $bal to false) (set: $flow to false) (set: $goals to false) (set: $feedback to false) (set: $timeLimit to 50) (set: $daysLeft to 50) (set: $pages to 0) (set: $revised to false) (set: $feedback to false) (set: $flowOnce to false) (set: $holistic to false) (set: $enhance to false) (set: $flowCount to 0) (set: $troubleshot to false) (set: $feedCount to 0) (set: $footer to true) (set: $colleague to false) (set: $nm to false) (set: $header to false) (set: $pageCounter to 15) (goto: "Title") ] (click: ?restart)[ (set: $debug to false) (set: $time to 0) (set: $ski to 3) (set: $bor to false) (set: $anx to false) (set: $cha to 1) (set: $flowRatio to ($ski / $cha)) (set: $bal to false) (set: $flow to false) (set: $goals to false) (set: $feedback to false) (set: $timeLimit to 50) (set: $daysLeft to 50) (set: $pages to 0) (set: $revised to false) (set: $feedback to false) (set: $flowOnce to false) (set: $holistic to false) (set: $enhance to false) (set: $flowCount to 0) (set: $troubleshot to false) (set: $feedCount to 0) (set: $footer to true) (set: $colleague to false) (set: $nm to false) (set: $pageCounter to 15) (goto: "Choose Your Mode") ]}

{ (if: $con is 0)[(set: $conFIN to "Your lack of confidence really slowed you down.")](else-if: $con is 1)[(set: $conFIN to "Your lack of confidence slowed you down.")](else-if: $con is 2)[(set: $conFIN to "You maintained an adequate level of confidence.")](else-if: $con is 3)[(set: $conFIN to "You were decently confident throughout.")](else-if: $con is 4)[(set: $conFIN to "You had confidence to spare! Loan me some, would ya?")](else-if: $con is 5)[(set: $conFIN to "You had confidence to spare! Loan me some, would ya?")] (if: $ski is 0)[(set: $skiFIN to "You ended the game feeling pretty unskilled. Sorry.")](else-if: $ski is 1)[(set: $skiFIN to "You seemed somewhat skilled.")](else-if: $ski is 2)[(set: $skiFIN to "You seemed moderately skilled throughout.")](else-if: $ski is 3)[(set: $skiFIN to "You were surprisingly capable.")](else-if: $ski is 4)[(set: $skiFIN to "You were quite accomplished throughout. Good on ya!")](else-if: $ski is 5)[(set: $skiFIN to "You developed substantial skills. Go make a game of your own!")] (if: $bor is 5)[(set: $borFIN to "You were so bored.")](else-if: $bor is 4)[(set: $borFIN to "You felt pretty bored. Find ways to enliven your work.")](else-if: $bor is 3)[(set: $borFIN to "You were moderately bored by your labour.")](else-if: $bor is 2)[(set: $borFIN to "While you had some fun, you have to admit you were a little bored.")](else-if: $bor is 1)[(set: $borFIN to "You were not bored at all!")](else-if: $bor is 0)[(set: $borFIN to "You seemed pretty engaged by your work!")] (if: $hap is 0)[(set: $hapFIN to "unhappy")](else-if: $hap is 1)[(set: $hapFIN to "Overall, this was not the happiest experience for you.")](else-if: $hap is 2)[(set: $hapFIN to "I guess it could have been worse?")](else-if: $hap is 3)[(set: $hapFIN to "You had just enough fun—and not one ounce more!")](else-if: $hap is 4)[(set: $hapFIN to "You had a lot of fun!")](else-if: $hap is 5)[(set: $hapFIN to "Your work didn’t even feel like work! It was super fun!")] (if: $anx is 0)[(set: $anxFIN to "You achieved kensho.")](else-if: $anx is 1)[(set: $anxFIN to "You were pretty serene.")](else-if: $anx is 2)[(set: $anxFIN to "Despite some difficulties, you stayed relatively calm.")](else-if: $anx is 3)[(set: $anxFIN to "The whole process was a bit unsettling.")](else-if: $anx is 4)[(set: $anxFIN to "Let’s face it. You were anxious.")](else-if: $anx is 5)[(set: $anxFIN to "Scholarship doesn’t need to give you an existential crisis! But this article felt that way sometimes.")] (if: $cha is 0)[(set: $chaFIN to "Honestly, you never broke a sweat. Easy stuff.")](else-if: $cha is 1)[(set: $chaFIN to "You probably could have taken a tougher route.")](else-if: $cha is 2)[(set: $chaFIN to "This was about what you could handle in terms of challenges.")](else-if: $cha is 3)[(set: $chaFIN to "This was almost more than you could handle in terms of challenges.")](else-if: $cha is 4)[(set: $chaFIN to "This was more challenging than you could handle.")](else-if: $cha is 5)[(set: $chaFIN to "This was way more challenging than you expected.")] }$conFIN $skiFIN $borFIN $hapFIN $anxFIN $chaFIN

[(either: ...$anxActivities). (one day(hidden:)|commentary>[ +1 challenge])]<procrastinate|{ (click: ?procrastinate)[ (set: $time to ($time + 1)) (set: $cha to it + 1) (set: $daysLeft to ($timeLimit - $time)) (goto: "Print Compose") ]}

[(either: ...$joyActivities). (one day(hidden:)|commentary>[ +1 skill])]<fun|{ (click: ?fun)[ (set: $time to ($time + 1)) (set: $ski to it + 1) (set: $daysLeft to ($timeLimit - $time)) (set: $flowRatio to 1)  (if: $flow is true)[ (set: $time to it - (either: 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2)) ] (replace: ?time)[$daysLeft] (replace: ?bor)[$bor] (replace: ?anx)[$anx] (display: "Emotions") (goto: "Print Research 1") ] }

{ }Alright! You’ve chosen your area, now it’s time to pick a methodology. [Let’s look into something new! (fifteen days(hidden:)|commentary>[ +1 challenge])]<new|{ (click: ?new)[ (set: $cha to it + 1) (set: $time to it + 15) (goto: "NM Learn") ] } [Let’s stick with what I already know (five days(hidden:)|commentary>[ +1 skill])]<old|{ (click: ?old)[ (set: $ski to it + 1) (set: $time to it + 5) (goto: "NM Learn") ] } (display: "NMR2 Activities") [Research]<research| (click: ?research)[ (replace: ?research)[(link-repeat: "Keramidas")[(set: $reference to "Keramidas")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)] (2016) argues that <q>Defamiliarization is a powerful tool in the digital age in that it allows us to identify the stagnant qualities of older media and discern which features of those media are due to their specific affordances, and which are accretions of practice made to seem inherent due to time and behavioural inertia.</q> But we should remember that medium is not the only opportunity for defamiliarization. Methods too can be made new.]]

Ok, but how much new media do you really want to do? [Try to weave new media into the argument holistically. (ten days?(hidden:)|commentary>[ +3 challenge])]<holistic|{(click: ?holistic)[ (set: $time to it + (either: 7, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 12, 12, 13, 14)) (set: $feedback to true) (set: $cha to it + 3) (set: $holistic to true) (goto: "New Media Research 1") ] } [Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Maybe just throw some media in at the end (two or three days, max(hidden:)|commentary>[ +1 challenge])]<enhance| {(click: ?enhance)[ (set: $time to it + (either: 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5)) (set: $cha to it + 1) (set: $feedback to true) (set: $enhance to true) (goto: "New Media Research 1") ] }(hidden:)|commentary>[ ''Commentary'' It’s a lot easier to add new media at the end of a project to <q>enhance</q> it than it is to consider medium from the beginning. I’m sure some would accuse me of the reverse, simply adding scholarship at the end. The truth is, I was doing both simultaneously or at least alternatingly. ] [Research]<research| (click: ?research)[ (replace: ?research)[There are a number of current pushes for enhanced publication, <q>the development of Web venues that integrate the traditionally published book with the diverse materials related to an overall research project</q> ((link-repeat: "Jankowski, Scharnhorst, Tatum, and Tatum")[(set: $reference to "Jankowski")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)], 2012). But it is important to remember that such enhanced publication is distinct from new media scholarship. While traditional print texts can be enhanced through addition, I worry that the very term <q>enhance</q> undercuts the labour and transformation that such projects comprise. Still, digital scholarship creates new opportunities for engaging audiences: <q>One key affordance of multimodal research is its ability to inspire and provoke diverse means of grasping and interpreting arguments</q> ((link-repeat: "Christie")[(set: $reference to "Christie")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)], 2014). Christie reviews current scholarship to discover various <q>calls for understanding the interactive nature of new media through their ability to model and communicate scholarly arguments, making interactivity not (uniquely) a function of interface, but rather one of interpretation and argument. In other words, interactivity in the context of multimodal knowledge representation means grappling with arguments and ideas, beyond simply manipulating images, text, and the like.</q> At the same time, we want to be careful to avoid technological determinism. As (link-repeat: "Galey, Cunningham, Nelson, Siemens, and Werstine")[(set: $reference to "Galey")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)] (2012) note <q>Although past practices do not necessarily determine the future, the study of new technologies in historical context can reveal patterns of cultural use and meaning that connect past and future knowledge environments on the same continuum.</q> I would argue that we must simultaneously remember that no medium is neutral.]]

{ }Alright! You’ve chosen your methodology, now it’s time to actually make this thing! [I think I might need to develop some new tech skills. (three days(hidden:)|commentary>[ +3 skill])]<newTech|{ (click: ?newTech)[ (set: $ski to it + 3) (set: $time to it + 3) (goto: "NM Compose") ] } [I’ll look up just enough and no more. (one day(hidden:)|commentary>[ +1 skill])]<someTech|{ (click: ?someTech)[ (set: $ski to it + 1) (set: $time to it + 1) (goto: "NM Compose") ] } [I can probably handle things without learning anything new. (no days)]<nada|{ (click: ?nada)[ (goto: "NM Compose") ] } (display: "NM Learn Activities") (hidden:)|commentary>[ ''Commentary'' This screen is probably the most counterintuitive but also one of the most representative of real life. There is such a temptation to just buckle down and finish, cutting out whatever will take more time. But increasing skill is so vital when you’ve increased your challenges. I watched players repeatedly make the <q>wrong</q> choice here, and I’ve seen students make a similar choice in real life. Increased challenges demand an increase in skill, and learning is the only way to do that. ] [Research]<research| (click: ?research)[ (replace: ?research)[Learning new technological skills often introduces as many problems as it solves. As (link-repeat: "O'Donnell")[(set: $reference to "Odonnell")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)] (2012) argues, <q>Our challenge, as designers of a complex edition that takes advantage of these new technologies in order to look at a group of objects in novel ways, is to make sure that our audiences understand what our representations mean and what they can and cannot do.</q> While new techniques are exciting, they are not an end unto themselves.]]

[(either: ...$joyActivities). (one day(hidden:)|commentary>[ +1 skill])]<fun|{ (click: ?fun)[ (set: $time to ($time + 1)) (set: $daysLeft to ($timeLimit - $time)) (goto: "NM Learn") ] }

{ (if: $flow is true)[(set: $flowCount to it + 1)] }Time to get on to the thing itself: writing! Get enough pages written, but make sure not to get so anxious you can’t submit your work. (display: "NM Write") (display: "NM Write Design") (display: "NM Learn 2") (display: "NM Feedback")(hidden:)|commentary>[ sets colleague to true (feedback is already set to true because of medium, but there’s no harm in getting more feedback)] (if: $pages > 4)[(display: "NM Revise")](else:)[Not enough pages to revise.] (display: "NM Compose Activities") (display: "NM Compose Anxieties") (display: "NM Submit") (hidden:)|commentary>[ ''Commentary'' This is the main screen and it took the most time to create. It has more than a half dozen dependent elements, some of which include randomness and most of which affect some variable or another. Some playtesters really struggled because they had gotten emotionally imbalanced and could not submit. It didn’t seem to matter how many times I added a reminder in the instructions that you can’t submit while anxious; players just ignored them. I wonder how much this reflects scholarship and our lack of willingness to reflect on the ways our emotions shape our scholarship. While this project is mainly about the media in which scholarship appears, many players perceived it to be about the affective components of research. Medium is much more clearly addressed in the Research buttons and the gameplay itself, but the affective components seemed to land harder for the players. Clearly more research on the affective dimensions of scholarship is called for. ] [Research]<research| (click: ?research)[ (replace: ?research)[(link-repeat: "Saklofske")[(set: $reference to "Saklofske")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)] (2016) describes <q>a growing sentiment in upcoming scholars that favours creative, prototypical experimentation and the foregrounding of process in scholarly communications.</q> Just wanted to remind you of that as you toil away with your experimentation.]]

[(either: ...$joyActivities). (one day(hidden:)|commentary>[ +1 skill])]<fun|{ (click: ?fun)[ (set: $time to ($time + 1)) (set: $daysLeft to ($timeLimit - $time)) (set: $ski to it + 1) (replace: ?time)[$daysLeft] (replace: ?bor)[$bor] (replace: ?anx)[$anx] (display: "Emotions") (goto: "NM Compose") ] }

[Compose, focusing on meaning. (one day)]<write|{ (click: ?write)[ (set: $time to it + 1) (set: $pages to it + (either: 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 8, 9)) (if: $flow is true)[ (set: $time to it - (either: 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2)) ] (goto: "NM Compose") ]}

[Compose, focusing on functionality and form (one day, more fun, fewer pages(hidden:)|commentary>[ +.3 challenge])]<flair|{ (click: ?flair)[ (set: $cha to it + .3) (set: $time to it + 1) (set: $pages to it + (either: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5))  (if: $flow is true)[ (set: $time to it - (either: 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2)) ] (goto: "NM Compose") ]}

[Sharpen those tech skills with a quick tutorial. (one day(hidden:)|commentary>[ +1 skill])]<newTech|{ (click: ?newTech)[ (set: $ski to it + 1) (set: $time to it + 1) (if: $flow is true)[ (set: $time to it - (either: 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2)) ] (goto: "NM Compose") ] }

{ (if: $flow is true)[(set: $flowCount to it + 1)] } (if: $flow is true)[You got a <q>revise and resubmit</q>and have about two weeks to get do it (see the changed timeline above). Woohoo! That’s good, right? I mean, it’s basically accepted, right? Time to get back into it. You’re kind of excited to, aren’t you? Admit it. This is actually kinda fun. ](else:)[ You got a <q>revise and resubmit</q> and have about two weeks to get it done (see the changed timeline above). Woohoo! That’s good, right? I mean, it’s basically accepted, right? Right? Ugh. And because you’re doing new media stuff, everything is gonna take longer.] (hidden:)|commentary>[ ''Commentary'' Despite what readers might assume, this page is not meant to be a reflection on the submission process of this article. Other than this commentary and some minor revision, I have not changed the page since its original submission. That said, it did result in a <q>revise and resubmit</q> decision and I did feel many of the emotions you may have felt as you played it initially. ] (display: "Revise NM Rev") (display: "NM Revise Anxieties") (display: "NM Revise Activities") (display: "NM Submit 2") [Research]<research| (click: ?research)[ (replace: ?research)[Making new media scholarship can be amazingly fun. This page actually includes two different messages depending on how your various variable have been interacting, one that expresses aggravation and another that expresses exhilaration. (link-repeat: "Keramidas")[(set: $reference to "Keramidas")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)] (2016) writes, <q>The digital medium provides us with seemingly infinite design and interaction possibilities by which to reconceive the way we produce scholarship and participate in public discourse and scholarly communication. Working within these new frameworks, our work can retain its rigour, complexity, and deep intellectual thought, while becoming more accessible to a public increasingly acclimated to shorter segments of prose, non-linear reading practices, networked texts, and cross-platform experiences.</q> But there are serious trade-offs in terms of the amount of labour such projects demand.]]

(if: $revised is false)[Revise! (four days)]<write|{ (click: ?write)[ (set: $time to it + 4)  (if: $flow is true)[ (set: $time to it - (either: 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2)) ] (set: $revised to true) (set: $pages to it - (either: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2)) (goto: "Revise NM") ]}

(if: $revised is true)[Resubmit! (one day)]<resubmitNM|(else:)[Not ready to resubmit yet.]{ (click: ?resubmitNM)[ (set: $timeLimit to 14) (set: $time to 0) (if: $holistic is true)[ (goto: "Revise NM 2") ] (else-if: $enhance is true)[ (goto: "Publish NM") ] ] }

[(either: ...$joyActivities). (one day(hidden:)|commentary>[ +1 skill])]<fun|{ (click: ?fun)[ (set: $time to ($time + 1)) (set: $ski to it + 1)  (if: $flow is true)[ (set: $time to it - (either: 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2)) ] (set: $daysLeft to ($timeLimit - $time)) (replace: ?time)[$daysLeft] (replace: ?bor)[$bor] (replace: ?anx)[$anx] (display: "Emotions") (goto: "Revise NM") ] }

{ (if: $flow is true)[(set: $flowCount to it + 1)] }It’s accepted! Whew. That feels really good. (if: $troubleshot is true)[And it works. That feels even better.](else:)[ Unfortunately, some of the new media stuff isn’t working right. I guess acceptance means something different for new media work. You’ve got two weeks to fix it. Time to spend some time troubleshooting it until it works! Get your <a href="https://rubberduckdebugging.com/" target="_blank" style="tw-link">rubber ducky</a> ready.] (display: "Troubleshoot") (display: "Revise NM 2 Anxieties") (display: "Revise NM 2 Activities") (display: "NM Submit 3") (hidden:)|commentary>[ ''Commentary'' This is the page that is the most emotionally honest. The code sets up ''Troubleshoot'' as a 50/50 chance of success. But the invisibility of the odds is what makes it feel so right. Troubleshooting feels like banging your head against the wall until something works. It’s vital to have a ducky on your desk. ] [Research]<research| (click: ?research)[ (replace: ?research)[Multimodal scholarship requires more editorial mentoring than traditional scholarship, more rounds of revision, more time, and often more technical revisions after being accepted, sometimes even after being published ((link-repeat: "Ball")[(set: $reference to "Ball-2013")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)], 2013; (link-repeat: "Ball and Eyman")[(set: $reference to "Ball-2015")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)], 2015). Each additional round of revision adds another chance to improve the argument. Thus, multimodal scholarship has the potential to be even more rigorous than traditional print-based scholarship. (link-repeat: "Ruecker, et al.")[(set: $reference to "Ruecker")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)] (2014) define academic prototyping as <q>an attempt to reify an idea to a sufficient degree of fidelity that knowledge gained from the prototyping can be applied back to the idea. The necessary degree of fidelity will vary according to the kind of knowledge being pursued.</q> Importantly, such prototyping must be rapid, to allow for multiple iterations: <q>a prototype is not a product in the sense that the end of an iteration is the stopping point at which production takes over from development. Instead, academic prototyping is inherently a process with multiple iterations that expand and enrich the value of the core thinking that prototypes are intended to embody for the purposes of interrogation.</q> I like to think that all scholarship is academic prototyping. In a long view, scholarly interventions are feedback mechanisms, but they’re not that rapid. In my own experience, I’ve found that new media scholarship offers more opportunities for immediate feedback to improve the prototype. ]]

{ (if: $flow is true)[(set: $flowCount to it + 1)] }Congratulations! The article has been accepted! Time to celebrate and [reflect]<reflect| on the process. [Research]<research| (click: ?research)[ (replace: ?research)[At this point, I’d like to reflect a bit on the entire structure of multimodal scholarship. In allowing gameplay to make arguments, there is the danger that nuance will be lost. The game may seem to be advocating for newness for the sake of newness. Disrupt! <q>New media cannot survive if they simply are disruptive—new, singular, for the first time—for what matters is not first contact (the mythical patient Zero <q>responsible</q> for a viral outbreak) but the many ones that follow. Most concisely, habituation and the new are the dreams and nightmares of new media companies</q> ((link-repeat: "Chun")[(set: $reference to "Chun")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)], 2016, p. 2). Multimodal scholarly publications are part of an ecosystem, a community, and a history. As such, they need to cultivate that community moving forward. Disruption is not enough. Materiality, biology, ecology cannot be forgotten, as Rosi (link-repeat: "Braidotti")[(set: $reference to "Braidotti")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)] is careful to point out: <q>Posthuman zoe/geo/techno-bound ethics is also a praxis, collectively desired, upheld and implemented, that aims at reworking and transforming negative affects and relations</q> (2017, p. 27). This coming community of multimodal scholars must put ethics first. That is part of the role that anxiety plays in this game. ]] (click: ?reflect)[(goto: "reflect")](set: $feedback to false)(hidden:)|commentary>[ ''Commentary'' Now seems as good a time as any to talk about crunch. This is the evil flipside of flow. Crunch is a term used in video game development to describe overtime spread across more than a week. For video game development, crunch is situated around big release dates, typically the fall so that games will be available for Christmas. That means the typical 40-60 hour workweek becomes 80-100 for the entire summer. According to a recent study, more than half of developers reported that they were required to crunch with about a third of employees working 60-70 hours a week during crunch and one out of seven working more than 70 hours a week during crunch ((link-repeat: "Weststar, O'Meara, and Legault")[(set: $reference to "Weststar")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)], 2018, p. 23). All this despite the fact that decades of research has shown that overtime is counterproductive and doesn’t actually result in more getting done (Robinson, 2005). So, why crunch? Writing for Waypoint, Tanya (link-repeat: "Short")[(set: $reference to "Short")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)] (2016) argues that crunch has ten self-replicating factors, that is, ten reasons employees crunch without management asking them to. Some of these reasons for crunch parallel the requirements of flow. That helps explain why crunch isn’t always a top-down mandate. Self-employed indie game developers crunch too, even without firm release dates looming over them. And this brings us to Pekka (link-repeat: "Himanen")[(set: $reference to "Himanen")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)]’s Hacker Ethic. As opposed to the protestant work ethic, the hacker ethic privileges joy and creativity with a free-flowing work schedule. As Himanen notes, it’s also frequently practiced in academia. When paired with flow, the hacker ethic can be a powerful force for scholarly excellence. But it’s vital we not connect those findings directly with software and game developers whose is being exploited by employers who rely on crunch culture and lobby hard to prevent employees from unionizing. Academics have more access to unions than game developers do and our crunch is more self-imposed. But even self-imposed crunch carries dangers. The relationship between these two forms of crunch requires more investigation, and I am currently working on a project on academic labour practices that explores this more fully. ]

(if: $troubleshot is false)[Troubleshoot! (one day(hidden:)|commentary>[ 50/50 chance])]<write|{ (click: ?write)[ (set: $time to it + 1) (if: $flow is true)[ (set: $time to it - (either: 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2)) ] (set: _num to (either: 1, 2)) (if: _num is 1)[ (set: $troubleshot to true) (goto: "Revise NM 2")](else:)[ (goto: "Revise NM 2")] ]}

{(if: $troubleshot is true)[Resubmit! (one day)]<resubmit|(else:)[(either: ...$dontWork) ] (click: ?resubmit)[ (set: $time to it + 1) (goto: "Publish NM") ]}

|debug>[ ''Debug Menu'' Skill: |ski>[$ski] Challenge: |cha>[$cha] Anxiety: |anxiety>[$anxiety] Boredom: |boredom>[$boredom] Flowratio: $flowRatio (try to keep it between .8 and 2 to achieve balance) Flow: (if: $flow is true)[(print: "yes")](else-if: $flow is false)[(print: "no")] for $flowCount turns (created by meeting the three criteria below) * Balance: (if: $bal is true)[(print: "yes")](else-if: $bal is false)[(print: "no")] * Goals: (if: $goals is true)[(print: "yes")](else-if: $goals is false)[(print: "no")] * Immediate feedback: (if: $feedback is true)[(print: "yes")](else-if: $feedback is false)[(print: "no")] Enhance: (if: $enhance is true)[(print: "yes")](else-if: $enhance is false)[(print: "no")] Holistic: (if: $holistic is true)[(print: "yes")](else-if: $holistic is false)[(print: "no")] Troubleshot: (if: $troubleshot is true)[(print: "yes")](else-if: $troubleshot is false)[(print: "no")] Revised: (if: $revised is true)[(print: "yes")](else-if: $revised is false)[(print: "no")] (link: "Show debug key")[''Debug Key'' (display: "Debug Key") ] ]

|directions>[That hook just to the left of this sentence is the undo button. I will use this formatting throughout to denote navigational instructions that differ from the intellectual work of the game itself.] This is a short video game about modes of scholarly production. In it you will take the role of a scholar writing an article over a |time>[$daysLeft]-day period. You will be given opportunities to go beyond traditional print modes if you choose. (hidden:)|commentary>[ ''Commentary'' As you might imagine, this <q>role</q> hit pretty close to home while I was making this. Due to an overactive junk mail filter, I was not informed that my article proposal had been accepted to move on to article submission. When the editors reached out to see why I hadn’t submitted my article, I asked for two additional weeks. They kindly granted it, but that left me with just two weeks to compose an article. Fortunately, I had 13 pages of notes that I had made during my original proposal stage six months earlier. Unfortunately, my proposal had also stressed that my article would <q>take advantage of the digital affordances SRC presents, relying on visuals, interactivity, and surprise as rhetorical tools for scholarship.</q> After spending a few days debating my medium, a graduate student (Kayla Sparks) convinced me that I needed to actually make something multimodal for my argument to be consistent. I completed the game in three days, spending a total of 30 hours on the first draft, and then sent it to playtesters. Since then I’ve spent dozens of hours revising and debugging it through multiple rounds of submission and revision resulting in over a hundred distinct versions along the way. I regularly experienced the flow state described in the game, and was able to use the arguments from the game to improve my research as I went. Whenever my work hit a wall, I would reflect: <q>What am I missing? Feedback, balance, or goals?</q> That often led to me repairing my methods and falling back into a productive flow state. While creating a scholarly article in just two weeks is far from ideal, it reflects the <q>game jam</q> system popular in game development. In a game jam, developers are given a short period of time (typically 48 hours to a week) to create a game from scratch. Game jams can jumpstart creativity and help developers break through writer’s block (similar to a writing retreat). However, they also depend on spending long hours over a limited time frame. As the commentary continues, I’ll reflect on the similarities between this and <q>crunch</q> in the games industry. ] There are two main arguments in this article. First, that the medium of scholarship is never neutral. Second, that specific practices can make scholarship more effective. These arguments are developed across the game with the first argument appearing in the game itself and the second generally not fully realized until you’ve played the game at least twice. In fact, my choice to structure this argument as a video game is a big part of the argument and shapes the ways the argument works. If you <q>win</q> the game by achieving certain productivity goals, you will also unlock a debug mode that shows you the various systems and how your play affects them. Debug mode also enables you to see my commentary which reflects on the design decisions behind the game as well as how playtesting shaped revision. (hidden:)|commentary>[ ''Commentary'' During testing, I was relieved to learn that the above was actually occurring for most players. The interactions created the argument, but that argument was only apparent after repeated playthroughs allowed more time for reflection. The research links in particular gain from repeated playthroughs. ] A great deal of the scholarly value of this piece is explained in the commentary. This can be frustrating for players. As academics our time is precious, and we’d like to get to the point quickly. This is one of the limitations of choosing video games as a scholarly medium. Rather than offering an executive summary, games often rely on surprise and reversals of expectations. In commercial games, multiple playthroughs are often required before the meaning of the game can be understood (Nier: Automata’s <q>true</q> ending is its fifth ending which can only be achieved by unlocking the previous four, requiring 30-40 hours of gameplay) or include a director’s commentary to explain how the creators achieved specific effects (Firewatch’s commentary can be accessed through an in-game <q>audio tour</q> of the national park in which the game is set). Every medium carries its own constraints. Anastasia (link-repeat: "Salter")[(set: $reference to "Salter")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)] has done groudbreaking work in video games as scholarship, but writes about her own work that <q>It is difficult to provide many of the hallmarks of what we expect from scholarly analysis with a structure and emphasis of this kind.</q> Scholarly research and communication is currently inseparable print modes. This game is one gesture toward other possible futures for scholarship. I encourage you to replay until you are able to unlock debug mode. If you find this difficult, there is a hidden button just to the right of my name on the first page. Click it to unlock debug mode from the outset, but know that you will likely lose out on some of the affective dimensions of the game if you enter debug mode before playing it through once. It should be noted that this is an emergent game rather than a progressive one. Emergent games depend on a series of rules that create a multitude of outcomes; progression games feature branching narratives that lead linearly to one or more outcomes ((link-repeat: "Juul")[(set: $reference to "Juul")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)], 2005, p. 67-83). Choose Your Own Adventure style games are typically progression games. However, this game has emergent elements. Your choices are actually affecting a host of variables off screen (over 30). Some of those variables are represented in a status bar at the top of the screen, which you’ll see on the next page. Keep an eye on that status bar, as it will constantly change and affect which choices are available. For example, to submit your article you will need to have written a set number of pages and you will need to keep yourself emotionally balanced. The game’s use of emotional balance reflects the affective dimensions of scholarly production and research from psychologist Mihaly (link-repeat: "Csikszentmihályi")[(set: $reference to "Mihaly")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)] on autotelic states. At various points in the game, you will be given opportunities to procrastinate. These opportunities can affect the player character’s level of anxiety. Going for a jog can decrease your anxiety. Going on Twitter can increase it. Some activities can do either and the player won’t know which before they do them (a jog can lower anxiety, but if you get chased by a dog, that can raise it). Every medium carries constraints and limitations. The game’s mechanics depict anxiety as though it’s easily controllable, as though it’s simply a matter of picking the <q>right</q> option. Of course, that couldn’t be farther from the truth. Anxiety is a mode in which control escapes us; in fact, it might be most easily defined as our reaction to that lack of control. But video games have a tough time simulating that. The game approximates anxiety but does not simulate or recreate it (though it could certainly cause it for some players). Perhaps more complex mechanics could have more closely approximate anxiety, but that’s not quite the goal of this game. Instead, this game reminds players that anxiety is often a part of our academic lives and shapes our work. In doing so, it points toward some approaches that might be more humane and productive than our typical work habits. The language used in the game came from me and the players I initially tested it on. I asked testers to suggest other procrastination opportunities (both positive and negative), and they offered more than I could put in the game. The playful, more casual prose of the game is not meant to be dismissive or condescending. Instead, it’s meant to make the gameplay more immersive and more reflective of the experience of actual academics. It is not an accident that a game about academic publishing would involve anxiety: so does being an academic. Because this game functions as a scholarly article, you’ll find many opportunities to learn more about the research behind the game by clicking on research links like the one below. [Research]<research| { (click: ?research)[ (replace: ?research)[Bernard (link-repeat: "Stiegler")[(set: $reference to "Stiegler")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)] (2002) argues that scholarly inquiry cannot be separated from its modes of communication: <q>just as certain kinds of writing actually liberate certain kinds of reflexivity (for example, certain kinds of linear, alphabetic writing, without which law, science, and in particular history would be inconceivable), so certain kinds of image-objects are doubtless destined to liberate reflexivity in the domains of the visible and of movement, just as alphabetic writing reveals the discrete characters of language</q> (p. 162). I find his argument surprisingly optimistic. We do not yet know what forms of knowing digital writing will unlock. On the other hand, these new forms of reflexivity will tend to be resisted by dominant modes. This game does not fulfill all of the potential of an academic game, but it does begin to point in the direction of some of that potential.]] } |directions>[These research links will always be formatted like this. They have no direct effect on gameplay, but they should have an effect on the player. They’re merely informative, supplying a portion of the literature review. However, they often lack the typical framing and contextualization of a literature review. Instead, that contextualization is performed through the gameplay itself.] While this game is not structured like an academic article, each element of a traditional academic argument is distributed across it: * The literature review occurs mainly throughout the research links. * The methods occur across the gameplay itself. They are mainly intuited until debug mode is unlocked, making them more explicit. * The results begin in the final pages of your first playthrough, and then are reflected throughout your second playthrough (assuming it only takes two playthroughs to <q>win</q>). * The discussion is found in the <q>author’s commentary</q> unlocked by winning the game. As you will see, these elements will look radically different from a traditional article. As stated above, the research links do not adhere to the motivated literature review format that I teach to my students in which scholarly conversations are categorized, analyzed, and summarized. Instead, I rely on the gameplay itself to motivate the literature review. The traditional motivated literature review is shaped by print media. This is one imagining of how a literature shaped by video games might look. (hidden:)|commentary>[ ''Commentary'' Integrating a literature review organically was one of the more difficult aspects of this game. If I wrote a traditional literature review, it would need to be separated from the rest of the game, undercutting my implied argument that video games are a valid scholarly form. Trying to group previous scholarship into conversations would require players to maintain those threads across multiple screens. I devised a system that reflected a video game version of a literature review. Initial reviewers asked for more contextualization of the quotes throughout, and I’ve added quite a bit. However, I’ve also maintained my initial system on a few screens, asking players to provide the contextualization by reflecting on their own play. ] Whenever you are ready, click below to begin. [Let’s Play.]<choose|(click: ?choose)[(goto: "Choose Your Mode")] (set: $header to true)

<articleTitle>''Play Smarter Not Harder: Developing Your Scholarly Meta''</articleTitle> Jason Helms[XXX]<debugger|(click: ?debugger)[(set: $debug to true)(goto: "Title")] Texas Christian University ''Abstract'' This game performs two related arguments through interactivity and play: first, publication medium shapes research and second, the concept of flow can increase scholarly productivity. Publication medium is a choice that is always made and often forgotten. This game argues that no medium is neutral and that medium choice shapes knowledge production. You play as a scholar composing an article for publication: choosing your medium, researching, writing, and revising. Through successive plays the game develops the concepts of crunch and flow, and explains how to develop a new scholarly meta (an e-sports term for strategy) that makes research more productive. The game takes roughly twenty minutes to <q>win,</q> unlocking a debug mode that makes its arguments more explicit. The game may help you improve your own scholarly decisions around medium choice and productivity. [Introduction]<intro|(click: ?intro)[(goto: "Intro")] |directions>[''Instructions'' Click links like the <q>Introduction</q> link above to make choices. To restart at any point, simply refresh your browser. To undo a choice, use the undo and redo buttons in the left sidebar. They are currently not visible because there is nothing to undo. I’ll show you them on the next page. For a black and white version of this text designed for colour-blind users, click <a href= "PlaySmarterNotHarderBW.html">here</a>.] (hidden:)|commentary>[ ''Commentary'' Originally, these instructions didn’t exist. I added them based on play testing with students and colleagues. This was a bit of an oversight on my part, in that I’ve added similar instructions to other new media scholarship in the past based on reviewer comments. I changed the colour based on further reviewer comments so that the directions would be more clearly separated from the argument itself. Click the link below to continue going through the game’s introduction in debug mode. Then continue on throughout the game itself. There will be commentary on almost every page. [Introduction]<intro|(click: ?intro)[(goto: "Intro")] The debug information below does not tell you much until you begin the game proper in two screens (once your decisions begin to affect your character’s confidence and anxiety, etc.). ]

{(live: 1.3s)[(replace:?media1)[ (either: ...$medium)] ] (live: 1.6s)[(replace:?media2)[ (either: ...$medium)] ] (live: 2.5s)[(replace:?media3)[ (either: ...$medium)] ] (live: 1.4s)[(replace:?media4)[ (either: ...$medium)] ](live: 2s)[(replace:?media5)[ (either: ...$medium)] ] (set: $medium to (array: "Print", "Video", "Video Game", "Mobile App", "Cooking", "Comics" , "Website" , "Blog" , "Painting" , "Calligraphy", "Calligram" , "Poetry" , "Music" , "Podcast" , "Social Media Campaign" , "Ballet Shoes" , "Speech" , "Email" , "Play-doh" , "Performance Art" , "Theater" , "Photography" , "Macaroni Art" , "Hip-hop" , "PowerPoint" , "Fortune Cookies" , "Diorama" , "Bar Graph" , "Document Design" , "Rollercoaster" )) }I want to point out that this game started out with a false dichotomy: the choice between print and multimodal scholarship. I did this for two reasons. The first is that <a href="https://twinery.org/" target="_blank" style="tw-link">Twine</a> (the tool I used to create it) is fairly linear. It likes to simplify things into choices. The other reason is that scholars privilege traditional print-based media to such an extent, that we treat them as a default. [Research]<research| (click: ?research)[(replace: ?research)[I resist adding my own words to these clickable research elements, especially this one. My reviewers wanted more words, always more words pinning down meanings: <q>When all else fails, use words. Why? Because when academics are neither trained to teach or read aesthetic modes of communication in the pursuit of scholarship, we fall back on the assumption that writing does not also merge form and content. And it most certainly does. We just often fail to see it that way</q> ((link-repeat: "Ball and Moeller")[(set: $reference to "Ball-2008")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)], 2008, p. 3). The desire for me to expand my explanations is due to an assumption that form and content can be separated and that words are pure content. I prefer to let the gameplay contextualize these quotes. In terms of my representation of non-digital multimodal arguments, see (link-repeat: "Shipka")[(set: $reference to "Shipka")(replace: ?citation)[](show:?citation)]’s (2011) extensive discussion (the ballet shoes pulled randomly from the array are a nod to her argument that they are a medium).]] But the choice of medium is never binary—it’s infinite. So maybe this would have been a better set of options: * [Photography]<media1| * [Print]<media2| * [Macaroni Art]<media3| * [Video game]<media5| * [Comics]<media4| (hidden:)|commentary>[ ''Commentary'' This page was one of the earliest to appear in my mind and one of the last to be created. From the initial moments of this project, I wanted to make the argument that print is just one medium among many and no medium is neutral. As soon as I began thinking about the project as a game, I thought of the idea of setting up the false dichotomy of print vs. non-print scholarship and then explaining why it is false. I.e. the choice is not between print and non-print but which medium, not a dichotomy but a multiplicity. My sense was that this argument worked much better by being felt than described. I’ve also gotten requests from play testers to explain how the animated bullet points above work. I created an array of a few dozen examples of a medium. Then I created five commands to pull a random member of that array. Then I set up each of those commands to refresh at different speeds. Whenever you’re curious about how something works, you can always just download this page (by choosing <q>Save as</q> in your browser) and then open the downloaded file in Twine. You’ll then see the same editing interface I used to make it. ] Regardless, it’s time to find out what ending you got! [Endings]<endings| (click: ?endings)[(goto: "Endings")]

[Present your ideas to a colleague (one day, a little scary, but feedback could be helpful(hidden:)|commentary>[ +1 challenge])]<feedback|{ (click: ?feedback)[ (set: $cha to it + 1) (set: $time to it + 1)  (if: $flow is true)[ (set: $time to it - (either: 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2)) ] (set: $feedCount to 3) (set: $colleague to true) (set: $feedback to true) (goto: "Print Compose") ]}

[Revise (one day(hidden:)|commentary>[ reduces number of pages written])]<revise|{ (click: ?revise)[ (set: $time to it + 1)  (if: $flow is true)[ (set: $time to it - (either: 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2)) ] (set: $pages to it - (either: 1, 1, 2, 3)) (goto: "Print Compose") ]}

[Present your ideas to a colleague (one day, a little scary, but feedback could be helpful)]<feedback|{ (click: ?feedback)[ (set: $cha to it + 1) (set: $time to it + 1) (set: $colleague to true) (goto: "NM Compose") ]}

[Revise (one day(hidden:)|commentary>[ reduces number of pages written])]<revise|{ (click: ?revise)[ (set: $time to it + 1) (set: $pages to it - (either: 1, 1, 2, 3)) (goto: "NM Compose") ]}

(link-undo: "Go back") (display: "References")(link-undo: "Go back")

[Present your ideas to a colleague (one day, a little scary, but feedback could be helpful)]<feedback|{ (click: ?feedback)[ (set: $cha to it + 1) (set: $time to it + 1)  (if: $flow is true)[ (set: $time to it - (either: 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2)) ] (set: $feedCount to 3) (set: $feedback to true) (set: $colleague to true) (goto: "Revise Print") ]}

Thank you for taking the time to play through this game. I’d also like to thank the editors and reviewers at SRC and my play testers, Daniel Archer, Andreley Bjelland, Mikayla Brewer, Nicholas Brown, Allie Diaz, Ben Helms, Sofia Huggins, Cody Jackson, Shannon Mae Kelly, Jongkeyong Kim, Sean McCullough, Joddy Murray, Colin Robins, Rachael Ryerson, Joanna Schmidt, Brooke Smith, Kayla Sparks, and Hannah Taylor.

(live: .3s)[(display: $reference) ] (display: $reference)<reference|

''References'' (display: "Arbuckle")(display: "Ball-2013")(display: "Ball-2015")(display: "Ball-2008")(display: "Bath")(display: "Braidotti")(display: "Brown")(display: "Christie")(display: "Chun")(display: "Mihaly")(display: "Galey")(display: "Himanen")(display: "Jankowski")(display: "Juul")(display: "Keramidas")(display: "Kirschenbaum")(display: "Lanham")(display: "Odonnell")(display: "Robinson")(display: "Ruecker")(display: "Saklofske")(display: "Salter")(display: "Shipka")(display: "Short")(display: "Stiegler")(display: "Weststar")

Arbuckle, A., & Christie, A. (2015). Intersections between social knowledge creation and critical making. Scholarly and Research Communication, 6(3).

References will appear here when citations are clicked.

Ball, C. (2013). Assessing Scholarly Multimedia: A Rhetorical Genre Studies Approach. Technical Communication Quarterly, 21 (pp. 61-77).

Ball, C., & Eyman, D. (2015). Editorial Workflows for Multimedia-Rich Scholarship Journal of Electronic Publishing, 18(4). Retrieved from <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0018.406" TARGET="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0018.406</a>

Ball, C., & Moeller, R. (2008). Converging the ASS[umptions] between U and ME; or how new media can bridge a Scholarly/Creative split in English studies. Computers and Composition Online. Retrieved from <a href="http://www2.bgsu.edu/departments/english/cconline/convergence/index.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www2.bgsu.edu/departments/english/cconline/convergence/index.html</a>

Bath, J. (2012). Tradition and transparency: Why book design still matters in the digital age. Scholarly and Research Communication, 3(3).

Braidotti, R. (2017). Posthuman, all too human the memoirs and aspirations of a posthumanist (The 2017 Tanner Lectures ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Brown, S., & Simpson, J. (2014). The changing culture of humanities scholarship: Iteration, recursion, and versions in scholarly collaboration environments. Scholarly and Research Communication, 5(4).

Christie, A. (2014). Interdisciplinary, interactive, and online: Building open communication through multimodal scholarly articles and monographs.5(4).

Chun, W. H. K. (2016). Updating to remain the same: Habitual new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT P.

Csikszentmihályi, M., Abuhamdeh, S., & Nakamura, J. (2005). Flow. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 598-608). New York: Guilford P.

Galey, A., Cunningham, R., Nelson, B., Siemens, R., & Werstine, P. (2012). Beyond remediation: The role of textual studies in implementing new knowledge environments. Scholarly and Research Communication, 3(1).

Himanen, P. (2001). The hacker ethic: A radical approach to the philosophy of business. New York: Random House.

Jankowski, N., Scharnhorst, A., Tatum, C., & Tatum, Z. (2012). Enhancing scholarly publications: Developing hybrid monographs in the humanities and social sciences. Scholarly and Research Communication, 4(1).

Juul, J. (2005). Half-real: Video games between real rules and fictional worlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT P.

Keramidas, K. (2016). Writing for publics, designing for platforms: Complexity and fluency in service of accessibility. Scholarly and Research Communication, 7(2).

Kirschenbaum, M. G. (2016). Track changes: A literary history of word processing. Cambridge, MA: Belknap P.

Lanham, R. A. (2006). The economics of attention: Style and substance in the age of information. Chicago: U of Chicago P.

O'Donnell, D. (2012). Move over: Learning to read (and write) with novel technology. Scholarly and Research Communication, 3(4).

Robinson, E. (2005). Why crunch modes doesn't work: Six lessons. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.igda.org/page/crunchsixlessons" TARGET="_blank">https://www.igda.org/page/crunchsixlessons</a>

Ruecker, S., Adelaar, N., Brown, S., Dobson, T., Knechtel, R., Liepert, S., . . . Windsor, J. (2014). Academic prototyping as a method of knowledge production: The case of the dynamic table of contexts. Scholarly and Research Communication, 5(2).

Saklofske, J. (2016). Digital theoria, poiesis, and praxis: Activating humanities research and communication through open social scholarship platform design. Scholarly and Research Communication, 7(2/3).

{Salter, A. (2015). Alice in dataland. Kairos: a journal of rhetoric, technology, and pedagogy, 20(1). Retrieved from <a href="http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/20.1/inventio/salter/index.html" TARGET="_blank">http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/20.1/inventio/salter/index.html</a>}

Shipka, J. (2011). Toward a composition made whole. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P.

Short, T. (2016). The curious appeal of crunch. Retrieved from <a href="https://waypoint.vice.com/en_us/article/yvwnqk/the-curious-appeal-of-crunch" TARGET="_blank">https://waypoint.vice.com/en_us/article/yvwnqk/the-curious-appeal-of-crunch</a>

Stiegler, B. (2002). The discrete image. In J. Derrida, & B. Stiegler (Eds.), Echographies of television: Filmed interviews (J. Bajorek Trans.). (pp. 145-163). Malden: Polity P.

Weststar, J., O'Meara, V., & Legault, M. (2018). Developer satisfaction survey 2014. summary report. international game developer association. IGDA.

{(align: "==>")|x>[(link:"&#10006")[(replace: ?citation)[]]][(display: $reference)]}

* Skill: Your character’s perceived skill level. This can be negatively impacted by choosing difficult tasks and positively impacted by learning new things to help with those tasks. Other activities listed at the bottom of your choice menu (<q>Go for a walk</q>, <q>Visit family</q>) have an effect on this but that effect is not always clear (just as visiting family can sometimes lead people to feel anxious or relieved). * Challenge: Your character's perceived challenge level. This can be negatively impacted by choosing easy tasks and positively influenced by choosing not to learn new things. Other activities listed at the bottom of your choice menu (<q>Go for a walk</q>, <q>Visit family</q>) have an effect on this but that effect is not always clear (just as visiting family can sometimes lead people to feel anxious or relieved). * Anxiety: A yes/no variable determined by the ratio of skill to challenge (more challenge than skill leads to anxiety). * Boredom: A yes/no variable determined by the ratio of skill to challenge (more skill than challenge leads to boredom). * Flowratio: The ratio of skill to challenge with some wiggle room. I've defined <q>balance</q> as the space between .8 and 2. Otherwise balance would be difficult to achieve. * Flow: The number of turns you've achieved flow for (created by meeting the three criteria below during a single turn). ** Balance: I've defined <q>balance</q> as any skill to challenge ratio between .8 and 2 (see above). ** Goals: Achieved by creating a checklist at the beginning of your project. ** Immediate feedback: Achieved either through a medium that offers immediate feedback (new media) or by talking to a colleague. Because of the word immediate, this variable decays over three turns from talking to a colleague (but is always present in new media). * Enhance: Achieved by choosing to add new media enhancements to a project. * Holistic: Achieved by integrating new media holistically into a project. * Troubleshot: A yes/no variable that describes whether or not a project has been successfully troubleshot. * Revised: A yes/no variable that describes whether or not a project has been revised.]