Who Could Want Gameplay? with [me] -- Everybody's Talking At Once

[droqen]

Re: Drew Messinger-Michael's
"Who Could Want Gameplay? with Alexander Clair Tseu Martin (a.k.a. droqen) -- Everybody's Talking At Once"

[droqen]

Drew introduces the episode by saying the game is out!! And here we are at the height of the Flower Moon, yes we are. I think this is interesting, I just want to see... where this goes. What do I say about this? What does Drew?

"the kind of gameplay droqen doesn't want to make anymore" -1:20

[droqen]

" our working definition . . gameplay is 'the player actions that instantly shape the outcomes that are measured by the games system to determine wins, losses, and score' . . is that gameplay? does it have to be? as The End of Gameplay puts it, 'Who Could Want Gameplay?' "

[droqen]

droqen
- Terrell is very interested in the process of learning and how people learn things
- so my struggle with gameplay: it is this sort of hollow, empty, aesthetic of learning without all the other parts of learning
- what if we made an object that gave us the aesthetic pleasure of feeling as though we were learning or doing something with purpose
- is it right to create an artifact that produces that sensation in the absence of anything that actually justifies that we're doing anything purposeful

yeah yeah yeah i mean i'm literally the one who said it lol but i'm surprised this coheres, fuck yeah, good job me

[droqen]

Drew-
" an order of monks . . punished by having to learn a huge amount of purposeless information . . zach barth . . achieving mastery, but about what? "
talking about language, i remember we get stuck on this topic a little bit and i try to defuse it some what?? listening...

[droqen]

Drew-
"poetry lies pretty precisely in the intersections of those different [meanings . .] that's beauty and that's meaning"

yeah <3
aw he wants to put a pin in it though

Drew (#1) "you've got to exert effort to get better at something . . why gameplay must die[?] a hollow version of learning[.. something not] useful [..] nutritious"

Drew (#2) "when you get into this kind of conversation, this is what gameplay is and what it's good, you're pretending to be talking about definitions when actually what you're talking about is taste"

Yes absolutely, I agree with that :)

[droqen]

me - "it's fun linguistically to say as a person . . . i'm going to say . . ."
oh fuck lol yeah i go off on this baby blanket thing
"you create this sort of illusion of omnipotence for the child"
ah right i remember where i'm going
the baby gets this twin idea of the world
1. i'm omnipotent (the child's internal reality)
2. no, the world is real, there are boundaries (the child's external reality)

if we can hold both of them in mind,
not complete omnipotence, not complete reality
both mindsets:
- YOU KNOW YOU ARE THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE, YOU ARE AND ALWAYS WILL BE
and also
- YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE AND THERE'S LOTS OF STUFF OUTSIDE OF YOUR CONTROL

[..]

me: SO, when someone writes or says, "This is the definition of this thing, and I'm right," . . he's writing from this 'I am at the center of the universe' position, not in a bad way. . . I love slipping back into that space. . When I talk to people about kill gameplay, there's people who disagree with me . . I say something to the tune of "I understand where you're coming from, but you're wrong."

Drew: YOU SAY IT RESPECTFULLY, BUT YOU DON'T PULL THE PUNCH.

me: Saying "You're wrong" and saying "I disagree with you" are essentially the same statement. - on some level I want to give other people permission to access that part of themselves, so when I say "I'm definitely right about this and you're definitely wrong," I want them to say "well I'm definitely right about this and you're definitely wrong," but we're both very respectful of it and . . we just know that we're right about these mutually opposing things.