Quote from: Luis HernandezI find narrative games harder to replay. So, I just avoid the game for a number of years so that I forget all of the little details. eventually I can replay it, perhaps with a bit less shock.

not everything needs to be replayable, but I find too many games are forgettable.

tweet link

I make a lot of platformers, but I do very little character-work. I think it's very important to me to acknowledge the player on the outside of the screen; you're a real person playing this game. So who are you? I want to give you the tools to be yourself in here. Do you embody the character better when you can see the character or when you can't?

I have trouble designing UI because there's nothing for you to embody. You're a person at a computer, doing computer things.

@radiossauro's tweets about "games like they're places"

Quotethe games that I like to replay are usually spaces I like to inhabit, be it because of a sense of nostalgia or just because they feel nice.

I and my brother played a lot of tfc, every once in a while I log in to hang out in those places and hear those noises.

Quoteits very much about virtual places I like to inhabit to me, or some feeling like that that brings me calmness, in puzzle games like tetris etc

Quotethere's a couple of servers where people still play, there are ones with bots too, but when the ones with people are kinda full I go in, lots of old maps get revived and the community is small and chill, people voice chatting and stuff, its very much about virtual places I like to inhabit to me, or some feeling like that that brings me calmness, in puzzle games like tetris etc

see tweet from beetlenaut (luis hernandez)

Quotei don't know if "replayability" is necessarily a useful term. eg in narrative-heavy games that hype up their replayability by emphasizing explicit narrative/moral decisions, if i replay such a game i usually just end up making the same decisions

because if this is a game i'm only gonna replay again in 2-3 years if ever, why would i spoil this playthrough by making decisions i think are bad? so the "replayability" is entirely notional in practice

vs the games that i actually want to and do replay the most often are games like doom or blood that are viscerally satisfying moment-to-moment, even if there's less room to make different choices within the game

games that lean heavily on random/procedural content also have. you know, the old saw about "every run is different!" meaning "every run is basically the same in important ways", such that again any "replayability" just comes down to whether i enjoy the game moment to moment

thread of 4 tweets by googoogjoob

Quotei really enjoy games which reward curiosity and experimentation, which let you incrementally develop a relationship with the space over time.

tweet by loren schmidt

QuoteA game is a machine the designer crafts and tweaks to respond to play.

link

I want to relate to a game by its play.

I've never thought about replayability this way... it's not about replay value for me as a player, but replay value for me as an archaeologist. To play a game is to study its play, to relate to its players, to see what they love about it.

The longer the game, the more play there is to dig into.

Regarding "Empathy as play, and vice versa", in particular "I seek out a game designed by its player - by someone who is enthusiastic about the idea of playing the game"... I want to relate to a game by its players, and in the case of an indie game, I want to relate to a game by its designer-as-player. If a game isn't replayable, it means the designer has long since ceased being its player...

QuoteEssentially, you can think of games as either big or small, and either short or long:

Big vs. small refers to how long the project would take to complete and/or how many people. Short vs. long refers to how long the game lasts to the player. A game that lasts a few minutes or a couple of hours would be short, a game that lasts tens or hundreds of hours would be long.

The space of big games, either short or long is explored by lots of people. The space of small short games is also explored by lots of people, generally indiedevs. But the space of small long games is largely ignored.

Perhaps ignored it too strong a word, but for some reason people assume that projects that last people a long time should also take a long time to make, but to me it seems like this isn't true. So I've set my sights on exploring this space, largely because it aligns well with what I'm interested in making.

The above is pretty much the entire piece that I'm responding to. Seeing Empathy as play, and vice versa, I find myself wanting to make a 'small long game' again because of how 'replayability' lends itself to this form of play for other people, and for myself: I'm going to have to spend a long time working on a game in order to make it complete. It needs to remain playable to me throughout development. For that to be the case... it needs to tend towards small longness.

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?