2025, dec 14 - no understanding

[droqen]

i have been engaged in a few conversations with Diego Cath and while i don't think our interests are aligned, in breaking down Cath's two medium posts i am beginning to understand something that is inaccessible to me: why others do things. and maybe why i do things. but before i get to that... the posts.

[droqen]

Diego Cath's Starting Point

[The] concept of a game that can be integrated in one's life and played every day is highly interesting to me. . . think about the characteristics such a game must have. . . . [Followed by: a detailed account of the act of game design.]

I am convinced that all game design follows a pattern similar to what I just described. The designer always has in mind, either consciously or unconsciously, a specific problem they would like to explore. . . .

So then, what problem are you currently exploring?

the actual examples given in Cath's article will become crucial quite soon, but i would like to frame them first as belonging to the species of thought that i first identified in "2025, dec 5 - a new year's resolution." i don't yet have a name for it, but the quick way to describe it is a particular interest in...

ah, but i don't even have a name for it. i could say, an interest in the way people act, or think, or behave, or the way people model the world, or the way that something tends to move through someone's mind, but the truth is that i haven't identified it except by the singular word "gameplay." it's frustrating, but i hope to, eventually, someday, some fucking day, arrive at a more concrete answer. i made The End of Gameplay because i hoped it would help me give the mindset some shape, but i feel, still, so impossibly far off. how are people compelled and driven? how do people solve problems? how do people settle things? there is an interest in the psychic haze which surrounds decision-making paired with a matching dis-interest in actual decisions.

liz ryerson once described game design as the closest thing to practical psychology (i forget if this was the exact term, 'practical psychology'? it doesn't sound right). yet, there's something else, something about the magic circle. what did she say, was it experimental psychology? liz, if you're reading this, help me out here

anyway, the reason i bring that up is because there's something particularly un-practical, and purely theoretical, about the whole affair to me. it seems so strange to realize that i have surrounded myself with an art form so interested in what people do, which is yet so distant from what people "really" do. when i see that distance i feel a familiar cutting urge.

i have digressed much too far. i will return to Cath's article in my next post.

[droqen]

what is Cath interested in?

We can start by exploring other rituals, like the ritual of making coffee in the morning. That ritual is typically short and easy to carry out once you have enough experience.

the ritual is easy, Cath speaks of experience
gaining a skill

Returning to game design, the question then is: how much strategic choice can we allow before we start damaging the sense of familiarity and flow we want to achieve?

Cath discusses "the sense of familiarity and flow" and ascribes such desire to "we"--i can only suppose that the 'we' is 'game designers', specifically those who remain fascinated by my enemy, who shall remain nameless (i remind myself)

The system is designed so that fighting is fun and frictionless, while shops provide an opportunity for strategic choice, novelty, and self expression.

fun, frictionless-ness, novelty.
strategic choice, self-expression.

The designer always has in mind, either consciously or unconsciously, a specific problem they would like to explore.

[droqen]

what so irks me about the state of game design is this persistent mental model--and i don't mean to single out Cath, but these two articles are so straightforward that it is easy for me to use them to get a handle on it (thank you Cath)--of human activity as essentially understandable and solvable. human psychology as a straightforward vessel. people as machines.

. . . the process of designing a game consists of a sort of back and forth where you try out new ideas and mechanics which will more often than not fail to satisfy your expectations, but which will also provide you with an opportunity to better understand the question you're trying to answer. I propose that what distinguishes good game design from bad is being conscious and intentional about the problem you are looking to solve. There is no infallible recipe for success, but if you ignore the problem that motivates your work, your game will almost assuredly end up feeling lacking or arbitrary.

[droqen]

i propose that so simplifying any human process is quite harmful to us.

[droqen]

gosh, i didn't even get into Cath's other post, but maybe that's okay. i replied on bluesky and Cath has yet to respond (it hasn't been very long and it's 3AM for me, so, i don't expect one). i'll take a beat and see if any more interesting stuff comes of that conversation.