In a way a game is a time capsule... it's an artifact to be unearthed, to be studied through play.

"How was this used?"

I think it's critical that I repair my relationship to playing games. I need to let go of old forms of play that I don't enjoy anymore...

What do I like now?

Quote from: Ian Bogostrefusing to ask what could be different, and instead allowing what is present to guide us

Quote from: Zeigfried Cashhow does this game want to be played?

These direct me to a place of empathy... the first allows me to free myself from the idea that I can, or should, change the thing. The second points me forward at the work itself, so that I can adopt a responsive, seeking attitude.

The question I arrive at:

"How did the designer play with this game?"

which is really very similar to "How does this game want to be played?" except with a slightly more human bent. And in some cases it's not "How did the designer..?" but "How did my friend..?"

Quote from: Discussion: The Forbidden - Electron Dance (comments)JOEL GOODWIN:
I'm actually pretty happy with giving up the term "game" myself because it has so much historical baggage associated with it. I grew up with Space Invaders and the Atari console and Star Raiders: these came to define the popular meaning of the word "game" and trying to fight the will of people is like trying to stop a flood with your bare hands (cf. roguelike).

DROQEN:
I miss the historical baggage. I've tried to put into words my heartache many times: there is no word that means what game used to mean.

link

I wrote here that "there is no word that means what game used to mean."

There is some concept that exists, even if it has lost its name. What do I mean when I say, "what game used to mean?"

I seek out a game designed by its player - by someone who is enthusiastic about the idea of playing the game. There is this strange idea that a game might be able to present an idea that could only have been expressed through play... I think the most self-evident idea that can only be expressed through play is empathy with another player. To play a game and feel something is to connect with anyone, and everyone, else who has played the game and felt something. There is no content that only a game can deliver; the thing that is unique about games is that they are games.

I want to design games that I want to play, and replay.

What does that look like?

Have I forgotten?

QuoteI act on impulse most of the time, and otherwise do what I can to design a life that rewards my impulses with beautiful outcomes. I think designing games is like that: designing little spaces that reward my avatar's impulses with beautiful outcomes. Only, when I make a game I can share the experience with you; you can inhabit the same space, embody the same avatar, perhaps act on the same impulses, and – if serendipity allows – behold the same beautiful outcomes.

Through making and playing with games and other art, I hope to come to some deeper understanding of not the science of my brain, but the experience and meaning of being some specific person.

link

I want to design games that I like to play, because that's the way I like to connect with games -- for the most part I like to imagine "how was this meant to be played?" like an archaeologist unearthing a mysterious artifact and pondering its purpose.

Why make games? Make games because you love to play them, first and foremost.

To play is to empathize with other players. This is what I like about the art form, and about indies, and perhaps what I once loved about roguelikes and roguelites: they felt like mysterious "entertainment engines for one". And sometimes, I could make that two.

Quote[..] all our overlapping definitions of a game – a challenging or competitive passtime, a voluntary system of rules, win states, fail states, edge cases, learning curves, agon, ludus, product [..]

[The videogame is] not always ludic; it's not always narrative; it's often neither. It means something close to "digital entertainment product for one or more people that may or may not contain some interative systems".

link

Quote from: Electron Dance newsletter, 2021 Sep 24I'm genuinely interested in how Electron Dance readers personally understand the word "game" and how they classify what they consider "non-game". So let's agree to a short amnesty. Nobody gets to call out anybody for spilling their private definitions of game in the comments. Let there be no shame in the comments today, provided no one uses the word "roguelike".

* Cooking report: I left out a lot of ingredients and it still turned out quite good. Added beer instead of water (for my beef boullion), left out the tomato (i don't want to destroy my cast iron lol), uh, probably left out some other stuff. Oh, I forgot the corn starch too, sadly.

* Quite greasy. Maybe drain a little fat, but the corn starch would help solidify things up a bit next time tooo...

QuoteI want to be placed into seemingly impossible situations and feel the spirit of the dev cheekily suggesting "what, you can't do this?"

QuoteI think a lot of the things that I think I do to avoid writer's block is I write through songs that I don't like. I get an idea for a song, I just go ahead and do it, even though I don't think I'm going to like it.

And I feel like that frees me up to go to the next song.

I normally give up on things that I don't think I'm going to like, and free myself up and go to the next thing.

What if I finished them instead though? It's okay to finish things I don't think I'll like, right?

I think I've made this one before O: Gonna make it today.

Lulie's How To Argue claims that "meta drives arguments into black holes":

Quote1. Meta is off-topic.
2. Meta breeds meta.
• You can't contradict a meta statement without making another meta statement.
3. Meta engages emotions.
• Popper wants our ideas to die in our place. Meta wants to substitute us for our ideas, and less[sic] us die instead of them.
• Meta changes the focus from the substance of what's being argued to attributes of the speaker or the nature of the discussion.

What if we looked at this through the lens of "Play requires acceptance"? If we think about "arguing" as a form of play and synecdochally apply Lulie's advice on avoiding meta to the entire realm of playing?

Quote1. Meta is off-topic.

When engaged in play, going 'meta', that is, asking how the playing could be different, we are no longer playing. (I need to dedicate more time to this argument.)

Quote2. Meta breeds meta.
• You can't contradict a meta statement without making another meta statement.

Once engaged in a question beyond the play, the value of the play itself is damaged. Why play anymore, now that the rules are questioned? (Magic circle.)

Quote3. Meta engages emotions.
• Popper wants our ideas to die in our place. Meta wants to substitute us for our ideas, and less[sic] us die instead of them.
• Meta changes the focus from the substance of what's being argued to attributes of the speaker or the nature of the discussion.

'Meta engages emotions' is a weird downside: what about arguments about emotion? Arguments about how you feel when doing something, when thinking about something, and what that means. Of course these arguments must necessarily engage emotions! The other points are clearer and easier to discuss, without the loaded implication that engaging emotions is bad.

"Popper wants our ideas to die in our place." (Need to read more about Popper.)

Meta allows us to discredit the limitations which Ian Bogost proposes are necessary for play (need link).

Meta changes the focus from the substance of what's being played (limitations).

This barely hangs together in writing. Anyway, I'm not trying to break things down point-by-point to present an argument yet, this is just initial thoughtbreeding. Where to from here?

References
- Recognizing Play (jack, letterclub.games)
- "How does this want to be played?" (zeigfried, quote)
- Play Anything (bogost)