SMF - Just Installed!
- Welcome to droqen's forum-shaped notebook. Please log in.
Recent posts
#1
Close reading / Re: A DEFENSE OF GAMEPLAY
Last post by droqen - Today at 09:14:56 AMThere is a comment beneath pt 6:
First, I should note that the commenter's use of the word 'gameplay' does not align with mine, missing the key ingredient of fabricatedness; the domain of thinking and doing cannot all be gameplay. There has to be a qualifier, to satisfy this constraint of mine, and I propose this notion of game-actions' pointlessness fits the bill.
Despite this relatively focused prompt, Terrell does not engage with the notion in a way that satisfies me that gameplay draws from the same well as 'genuinely learning and doing real things' - though I am quite on the fence as to whether 'game programming' fits the bill at present, I think it should at least be understood to be more real than game-playing.
Terrell acknowledges the reality of what axcho is saying but does not get at the core issue for me, which is the wasting pointlessness:
This pertains to axcho's statement, "All I want is rest or entertainment".
I read this as saying something to the tune of, 'you have to build a life that supports the energy you want to put into the important things,' which I am a huge advocate for.
But why gameplay? While I have my nagging issues with gameplay, at the end of it all I have a great big question, the only one that matters, why gameplay?
Why the aesthetic form of learning, when there is so very much to learn!
Quote from: axcho. . . I have increasingly avoided playing games in my free time . . . because I'm experiencing so much gameplay (squeeze, stress, learning) in my day job as a game programmer that I have no desire for more.
First, I should note that the commenter's use of the word 'gameplay' does not align with mine, missing the key ingredient of fabricatedness; the domain of thinking and doing cannot all be gameplay. There has to be a qualifier, to satisfy this constraint of mine, and I propose this notion of game-actions' pointlessness fits the bill.
Despite this relatively focused prompt, Terrell does not engage with the notion in a way that satisfies me that gameplay draws from the same well as 'genuinely learning and doing real things' - though I am quite on the fence as to whether 'game programming' fits the bill at present, I think it should at least be understood to be more real than game-playing.
Terrell acknowledges the reality of what axcho is saying but does not get at the core issue for me, which is the wasting pointlessness:
Quote. . . it's hard not to gravitate towards what you're familiar with as you have less time and less energy to endure the squeeze/learn
This pertains to axcho's statement, "All I want is rest or entertainment".
Quote. . . I don't have endless time and energy. . . . removing [distracting] stimuli from my life helps me to relax more and enjoy what I do put my time into better.
I read this as saying something to the tune of, 'you have to build a life that supports the energy you want to put into the important things,' which I am a huge advocate for.
But why gameplay? While I have my nagging issues with gameplay, at the end of it all I have a great big question, the only one that matters, why gameplay?
Why the aesthetic form of learning, when there is so very much to learn!
#2
Close reading / Re: A DEFENSE OF GAMEPLAY
Last post by droqen - Today at 01:32:17 AMPT.6
QuoteIt's by studying what others do, considering why they do it, and finding out what you would do differently that you find your true expression. . . . By enduring the squeeze [the hardest part of the learning process] I find that I learn novel things about the system and myself.
#3
Close reading / Re: A DEFENSE OF GAMEPLAY
Last post by droqen - Today at 01:23:44 AMOkay, there's a lot of delicious meat here in pt 5. It doesn't answer my core complaint, and there's plenty I disagree with. But what Terrell is generally saying is: a lot of people are impatient and aren't interested in learning -- with a side helping of some kind of disdain, or sadness, or disagreement. What I mean is just that I believe Terrell strongly values learning.
I must recognize that I agree, deeply, so deeply that it is nearly invisible. Learning a new skill is hard, I have fallen into every trap he names, and he's right.
I have my complaint (gameplay is about learning fake things, and I only want to learn real things), but that is neither what Terrell is contending with nor something he intends to contend with.
I must recognize that I agree, deeply, so deeply that it is nearly invisible. Learning a new skill is hard, I have fallen into every trap he names, and he's right.
I have my complaint (gameplay is about learning fake things, and I only want to learn real things), but that is neither what Terrell is contending with nor something he intends to contend with.
#4
Close reading / Re: A DEFENSE OF GAMEPLAY
Last post by droqen - Today at 01:15:33 AMPT.5
I don't get this and I think it is a somewhat content-free and overly referential statement.
Okay, I genuinely get this one. If gameplay is essentially learning, then the desire for 'intuitive controls' is the opposite: the desire to not learn anything new.
To enjoy gameplay, Terrell's 'profound' gameplay, you must enjoy learning genuinely new things, and appreciate or at least accept all those difficulties that come along with such learning. I can't disagree with this, and I love learning new things --
yet, I have a condition now, which is that I only want to learn new things for a reason beyond learning them. What is the purpose of this thing that I am learning? I'm not sure whether the Terrell of thirteen years ago is ready to answer this question, and he might not have a good answer for me today, but it's important for me to register this complaint that I have right now.
I'll have to return to this, but I can quickly summarize as follows:
TERRELL (2012):
Gameplay is when you GENUINELY learn things
DROQEN (2025):
Gameplay is when you GENUINELY learn FAKE things
I want to genuinely learn (only) REAL things
I won't go further in detail on this at present.
QuoteGameplay is . . . profound . . . because of the unique fusion that is half-real experiences. . . .
I don't get this and I think it is a somewhat content-free and overly referential statement.
QuoteAny games who seriously finds fault in a game for its lack of intuitive design doesn't understand the limitations of intuitive design and the power of complexities in gameplay. Put simply, something is intuitive to you when you've learned it or something like it previously.
Okay, I genuinely get this one. If gameplay is essentially learning, then the desire for 'intuitive controls' is the opposite: the desire to not learn anything new.
To enjoy gameplay, Terrell's 'profound' gameplay, you must enjoy learning genuinely new things, and appreciate or at least accept all those difficulties that come along with such learning. I can't disagree with this, and I love learning new things --
yet, I have a condition now, which is that I only want to learn new things for a reason beyond learning them. What is the purpose of this thing that I am learning? I'm not sure whether the Terrell of thirteen years ago is ready to answer this question, and he might not have a good answer for me today, but it's important for me to register this complaint that I have right now.
I'll have to return to this, but I can quickly summarize as follows:
TERRELL (2012):
Gameplay is when you GENUINELY learn things
DROQEN (2025):
Gameplay is when you GENUINELY learn FAKE things
I want to genuinely learn (only) REAL things
I won't go further in detail on this at present.
#5
Close reading / Re: A DEFENSE OF GAMEPLAY
Last post by droqen - April 19, 2025, 12:10:42 AMI want to understand myself outside of the system.
#6
Close reading / Re: A DEFENSE OF GAMEPLAY
Last post by droqen - April 19, 2025, 12:10:00 AMPT.4
Yes, I agree with this.
What world view is served by the appreciation of gameplay?
Effort, learning (without purpose but to serve the machine), mastery...
Quote. . . your appreciation of gameplay reflects your cultural background and other world views.
Yes, I agree with this.
What world view is served by the appreciation of gameplay?
Effort, learning (without purpose but to serve the machine), mastery...
QuoteUnderstanding the system then understanding yourself within the system is the typical gameplay experience.
#7
Close reading / Re: A DEFENSE OF GAMEPLAY
Last post by droqen - April 19, 2025, 12:05:16 AMPT.3
I do hope Terrell explicitly follows up on the above claim.
Gameplay. Achievement... real, genuine. Through this lens I think about things that do feel real and genuine to me, skills that are more important than others. Reaching someone, understanding the full scope of a work of art, appreciating it through a new lens. Incredible stuff. Is gameplay that?
Terrell is preparing to talk more about trends. I understand his fascination with Starseed Pilgrim better now having read this; it has that "old school" sensibility, a revival of gameplay in the face of a perceived 'passivity' entering games.
But I am killing gameplay now of course. And these posts are very, very old. What Terrell so admires is what I am seeking to slay, the idea that the value of games comes at all from learning.
Learning is, of course, a pleasure. But we really must safeguard that pleasure, follow what it serves, not let it become one more metric to awfully maximize.
QuoteGameplay communicates ideas far differently than passive media.
I do hope Terrell explicitly follows up on the above claim.
Quote. . . if you do the work, you'll have gone through something real and genuine . . . For many old school games, just beating it was the achievement.
Gameplay. Achievement... real, genuine. Through this lens I think about things that do feel real and genuine to me, skills that are more important than others. Reaching someone, understanding the full scope of a work of art, appreciating it through a new lens. Incredible stuff. Is gameplay that?
Terrell is preparing to talk more about trends. I understand his fascination with Starseed Pilgrim better now having read this; it has that "old school" sensibility, a revival of gameplay in the face of a perceived 'passivity' entering games.
But I am killing gameplay now of course. And these posts are very, very old. What Terrell so admires is what I am seeking to slay, the idea that the value of games comes at all from learning.
Learning is, of course, a pleasure. But we really must safeguard that pleasure, follow what it serves, not let it become one more metric to awfully maximize.
#8
Close reading / Re: A DEFENSE OF GAMEPLAY
Last post by droqen - April 18, 2025, 11:51:45 PMPT.2
This part is much shorter than the first. Terrell talks about the learning process -- and I do believe he's very interested in it. In how learning works, as well as teaching.
He goes on to say that gameplay is not for those who wish to 'kick back, relax, and unwind'. This is fine, I'm not so interested in that myself. Who is gameplay for? What is it for? What does it do?
Quote. . . to embrace and appreciate gameplay you must embrace the fact that learning is a crucial part of most gameplay experiences.
This part is much shorter than the first. Terrell talks about the learning process -- and I do believe he's very interested in it. In how learning works, as well as teaching.
He goes on to say that gameplay is not for those who wish to 'kick back, relax, and unwind'. This is fine, I'm not so interested in that myself. Who is gameplay for? What is it for? What does it do?
#9
Close reading / Re: A DEFENSE OF GAMEPLAY
Last post by droqen - April 18, 2025, 04:17:30 PMPT.1
Terrell makes many claims very quickly here. I'm going to take them apart and see what makes them tick.
- games require learning
As a claim this is not that interesting. Everything requires learning. Or, maybe it is more accurate to say that everything can invite learning. Games are the medium which judge most plainly and clearly your learning, so while I have focused on "learning" as the critical pivot, maybe it is actually "require".
- learning is a process, slow, self reflective, often repetitive
- learning is hard to make fun and entertaining (see pt.2)
OK, right, I'm not the one making learning so central. Terrell loosely claims that video games are unique because they require learning, and focuses heavily on the problems with learning. But what about the problems with requirement, or the unified whole, requiring learning? We do not only choose to learn to play games, we must learn to play games, or else suffer the pain of their judgement.
We can learn on the internet, but the internet doesn't require us to learn. It only enables it. We can learn as much or as little as we like. And, to Terrell's point, there are at some times and for some people more fun and entertaining things to do than learning -- people will choose to prioritize things other than learning, under certain circumstances.
QuoteThe crux of my argument revolves around the fact that most gameplay, even relatively simple gameplay, requires learning . . . leaning is a slow, self reflective, and often repettiive process. . . . the core of what makes video games unique and interesting (complexity, gameplay, interactivity, and agency) are at odds with what many people find fun and entertaining. . . .
In part 2 I theorize why it's hard to make learning entertaining.
Terrell makes many claims very quickly here. I'm going to take them apart and see what makes them tick.
- games require learning
As a claim this is not that interesting. Everything requires learning. Or, maybe it is more accurate to say that everything can invite learning. Games are the medium which judge most plainly and clearly your learning, so while I have focused on "learning" as the critical pivot, maybe it is actually "require".
- learning is a process, slow, self reflective, often repetitive
- learning is hard to make fun and entertaining (see pt.2)
OK, right, I'm not the one making learning so central. Terrell loosely claims that video games are unique because they require learning, and focuses heavily on the problems with learning. But what about the problems with requirement, or the unified whole, requiring learning? We do not only choose to learn to play games, we must learn to play games, or else suffer the pain of their judgement.
Quote. . . there is no goal to the internet; it's simply a series of connected pages filled with content to explore and consume.
We can learn on the internet, but the internet doesn't require us to learn. It only enables it. We can learn as much or as little as we like. And, to Terrell's point, there are at some times and for some people more fun and entertaining things to do than learning -- people will choose to prioritize things other than learning, under certain circumstances.
#10
Close reading / Re: A DEFENSE OF GAMEPLAY
Last post by droqen - April 18, 2025, 04:07:08 PM[AB]