interactive art under kill gameplay

[droqen]

i think the premise should be really simple. you make something with its interactiveness in mind, without using coins or walls, with an eye on enshrining the player's natural capacity to act upon the world as sacred.

[droqen]

sometimes walls are structurally necessary. i think Christopher Alexander's work on patterns makes the most sense as an immediate touchstone for this for me.

but ok, i started this because i wanted to answer 𝖈𝖑𝖆𝖎𝖗𝖊 on bsky.
i said, "the greatest trick games ever pulled was convincing gamers and game devs that their medium has some kind of monopoly on interaction."
and 𝖈𝖑𝖆𝖎𝖗𝖊 replied, "I think accessibility is why. 70% of all humans on earth have a device that games can be played on. I think the ease of access and ease of use is the factor in games interactive domination. Not saying it's good, it's status quo. What do you want the state of interaction to look like?"

and ive been trying to answer this question but it is not coming easily... what do i want? i think i want a 'games' that doesn't center/prize 'interaction'. but how much do definitions of and approaches to games do that? i'm skimming Agency as Art now...

[droqen]

from Agency As Art, retrieved here

p. 23

"The designer creates, not only the world in which the player will act, but the skeleton of their practical agency within that world. . . . The designer's control over the form of the player's agency is part of how the game designer sculpts the game's activity. Games can offer us more finely tuned practical harmonies because the designers have control over both world and agent."

--- grammar

part of why AAA rubs me the wrong way is its use of language, its written style. this sentence is badly constructed in an ugly way (whereas, poetry may be badly constructed in a beautiful way, but so can prose): "The designer creates, not only the world in which the player will act, but the skeleton of their practical agency within that world."

why the intervening clause? let's remove it and see what we get: "The designer creates but the skeleton of their practical agency within that world."

the 'but' should have been inside. "The designer creates the skeleton of [the player's] practical agency within that world."

ok, is that the extent of my complaint? "The designer creates, not only the world in which the player will act but, the skeleton of their practical agency within that world."

no, still weird. actually, maybe it's not supposed to be an intervening clause? "The designer creates, not only" --> this sounds like 'not only' is an exception to 'the designer creating' in general. hmm

"The designer creates not only the world in which the player will act, but the skeleton of their practical agency within that world." oh i like it much better without that comma. with the comma it reads like "The designer creates." as a standalone statement, then "They create not only the world..."

i can imagine this working in some cases. but not in this case, yuck. ok, it's that first comma. good interruption, let's get out of here.

--- /grammar

Basically what Nguyen is saying here is

- The designer creates the world the houses the player's action
- The designer defines the player's agency within the world
- The designer sculpts the game's activity.
- The designer can achieve something with all this control. ("finely tuned harmonies," writes Nguyen.)

[droqen]

in Geller's A Video About Digging A Hole he suggests that "the reason so many of us get wrapped up in games is a simpler, more instinctual satisfaction. You do an action and get immediate, positive, feedback." (7:04) and later describes the feeling of digging a hole in real life as having "An undeniable effect on an otherwise inscrutable world."

but here's the problem: we aren't having an undeniable effect on an otherwise inscrutable world; the source of the feedback isn't connected to the world at all; we're being tricked (and perhaps agreeing to be tricked).