then i read golumbia's essay, games without play (on JSTOR)

here are a few of the passages that i found most impactful:

Quote[..] we have simply and in some cases uncritically accepted the views that all video and computer games are games and that what we do when we use them is to play. [..] The commonplace view that either narratology or ludology will be the right method for analyzing computer games turns out to be based on the unexamined assumption that the phenomena in question are stories or games to begin with. [..] To understand whether one can play video games, we need to consider [..]

questioning "whether one can play video games" was huge to me -- the question asks not only what if 'play' is not "what we do" with videogames, but what if it is actually not even possible to do? what if it is categorically not possible to 'play' video games?

QuoteThe path of use of an FPS has virtually no play in Derrida's sense; rather, the player submits to the issuance of orders and then follows them as precisely and efficiently as possible. The player only controls variables like the rate at which he or she fires a weapon or the choice of weapon itself.

then golumbia goes on to describe some details, i liked this one^

QuoteWhat separates WoW or Half Life from the worker's business world is thus not variability or "give" but rational certainty, the discreteness of goals, the general sense that such goals are well-bounded, easily attainable, and satisfying to achieve, even if the only true outcome of such attainment is the deferred pursuit of additional goals of a similar kind. [..] It seems hard on any account to call this sort of activity "play" and even less to understand why it is proper to see it as a "game."

and finally points out similarities between these things and work. he goes on and makes a number of comparisons like this, likening computer games to work and/or training. i wasn't completely satisfied but i had something to chew on. then i returned to my favourite book in recent times...

before i get to actually addressing those questions, though, how did i get here from kill gameplay? last thing i knew i was still holding the knife. well... dot's video was full of comments, and a lot of them (like a lot of them) were about sudoku. in a clip from dot's video, a couple people from the audience are cited as saying these two things:

Quote from: Audience member 1[25:57-]. . . we've always had things like sudoku or crosswords; stuff to keep your brain active. So I think when you're designing games, you kind of have to decide: am I making a game to express or relate . . . [Sudoku] is just to keep you active.[-26:15]

Quote from: Audience member 2[26:31-][Sudoku] makes you feel smarter[-26:32]

if you watch the video, i'm interrupting and reacting to these comments!
there are a number of comments on dot's video that talk about sudoku:

Quote. . . the mere mention of sudoku derails the talk - because it's existence and the fact that millions play it daily indicates that this just isn't an issue. (comment)

QuoteWhen the audience member brings up sudoku and how it doesn't express anything, Droqen is upset by that. Based on this, it seems as if he believes a game is not meaningful unless it expresses something, and therefore a game must be less meaningful if it spends less time expressing things and more time with mechanics. (comment)

Quotelosing one's mind over the concept of someone playing sudoku is ridiculously funny to me. every day after lunch, my dad plays sudoku. he sometimes replays old ones from months ago to see if his time got better. part of the goal is to retain mental acuity, sure, but he also just enjoys it. (comment)

etc.

something i've never done is make a sudoku puzzle myself, so i thought i would give it a try.

in part, my motive was to kind of show through demonstration that i don't have a lack of understanding of what sudoku is and how it can be fun and expressive - and through doing so i realized that i hadn't bumped up against a lot of these problems in practice in a while. i'll talk more about this at a later date, but i wanted to make sudoku according to both the constraints of 'good puzzle design' and certain idiosyncratic creative whims, and i re-discovered this:

making something the way you want to make it, while also following additional constraints, is harder.

doing one thing for no reason is sort of easy for me, but doing two things at the same time for no reason is harder, and the temptation to fold on one or the other is pretty strong, knowing that i could easily be done if only i had not defined the challenge so stringently.

i also did a few sudoku puzzles, copying them out of books i found at the bookstore. one i even completed on my first try! i don't think i need to do more, though.

in the above quotes, dot is making a large number of claims directly about gameplay (forever), and i thought: maybe i have something to say to all of this? here are six separate claims that i feel can be addressed in some interesting way:

• gameplay (forever) is badly designed
• gameplay (forever) is badly designed on purpose
• there [is] no rhyme or reason to what blocks appear where in gameplay (forever)
• gameplay (forever) generates impossible situations to climb through
• gameplay (forever) is one of a number of "lackluster parodies of better games"
• gameplay (forever) is asking why anyone would bother with it

the event that happened to motivate me recently was reflecting upon certain obviously (to me) incorrect assumptions/conclusions in this youtube video by "i am a dot." about my game the end of gameplay: "I Played the Game That Hates Gameplay and I Have Thoughts"

Quote from: i am a dot.[22:32-]In the case of "gameplay (forever)", this endless tower is badly designed. It's bad on purpose, but it's still bad. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to what blocks appear where, which leads to impossible situations to climb through. Also, the controls are weird, and floaty.[-22:47]

this claim of dot's is part of a larger theme in his video -- he observes that many of the levels are, or appear, impossible, and concludes all these seemingly impossible levels comprise a kind of rhetorical expression of futility: why would you play, if there is no reward?

this particular level or sub-game or poem within the end of gameplay ("gameplay (forever)") seemed, to me, to be a particularly interesting site for making a counter-claim.

dot summarizes his observations about a series of levels, including "gameplay (forever)", as follows:

Quote from: i am a dot.[23:06-]The End of Gameplay gives the audience lackluster parodies of better games and asks why anyone would bother with them.[-23:12]

i started to play gameplay (forever) to get a high score.
sometimes when i play an arcade game, i think, i could get a high score.
this happened some months ago with adamatomic's KOLYDR
where i scored 90900 points and satisfied myself with "dethroning adam".
he had said (see above linked bleet) "100K was in reach"
and to me that felt like an impossibility made possible.
having previously played KOLYDR i thought, there's some upper bound, and i don't feel like getting there.
but suddenly when that upper bound was brought into focus i felt drawn to get there. it was within reach.

there are now significantly higher scores. even at the time that i posted my 90900 score (though i did not know it at the time of posting), derek yu had already scored 100200, and now the high score sits at an impossible 236800, by none other than my good friend pancelor (link to itch page, with many various games to play including make ten deluxe).

at some point with a game like this i start to feel an internal sense that either, or both, the peak is unreachable, or i'm not willing to put in the effort to reach it. in the case of adam's prophecied 100K, i felt that it was possible for me to achieve. in the case of pancelor's 200K+, i felt, and feel now, that it is unreachable, at least given the techniques that i have and know now.

sometimes i don't like these sensations. other times i like them. sometimes i am inspired to knock over one or the other or both. in that last bleet pancelor writes, "learned a couple bizarre new techniques for this one, it's wild how much depth this game has :)" -- if i was so motivated, i am sure i could ask pancelor to teach me of these techniques, seek to master them, and then submit myself to the process necessary to extract a high score from skillful application of these techniques.

another game to remind me of imagining movement but also real movement. proprioception but also body. touching

second game:

"hold infinity gently one two
 cradled in your mortal hands three four
 smile five six smile seven eight
 select anything at all smiling nine
 make it real like ten
 you are certain eleven
 you are correct twelve
 because you are thirteen fourteen fifteen sixteen seventeen eighteen nineteen twenty."

a game to remind me of imagining movement, my movement, in the gymnasium, on a day when i recovered despite being poorly rested and making undirected decisions, and surreal proprioception in the real world, touching

"player's doing and being
     everything and everywhere
 placing hand on stovetop
 leaping and standing still and running
 screaming and not screaming
 crawling while screaming and not screaming
 wearing own clothes and another player's clothes
 touching wall
 touching ceiling
 touching sky"

"player's
 infinite
 hands

this morning late at night i imagined being with you nobody in the dark room, wondering

could i be nobody with you without you or with anyone?

tomorrow after a sleep insufficient through noon and after i walk under a burning sun and before i reach out for my lost pride

i thought i don't want to write anything except in the dark room with you but what or who are you? only darkness? like sleep and dream your shadows

in the bright room my dark room anywhere, even here where the suns glow creeps, even tomorrow where the suns fledged and scorches cartops

my dark room even at night when everything is already dark and already room, my dark room on purpose, my dark room with everybody.