Everything kind of started with Raph’s letter to Leigh, but it’s a debate that’s been on for a while. What games are. Robert Yang answered some stuff and then Tadhg Kelly wrote some stuff and by stuff I mean high intellectual shit with strong arguments in favor of “both parties”. And then it blew up on Twitter, I can’t find the storify, whatever.
My first feeling is that it’s funny how we can’t be satisfy with loose notions. It’s OK if we just have a vague definition of what games are, let’s just make them. Or like Ian Bogost said ask ourselves what they can do, what they’re good at, what hasn’t been done with them.
But I’m avoiding the debate this way though.
I don’t care about labels but I certainly enjoyed Raph’s work dissecting in a very accessible way “some” of the things that matter with games. Eye-opening, like having a microscope and see atoms of fun.
I personally love systems and simulations and feel that people need more of that, that is what I kind of want to bring to the table, and it’s totally connected to the kind of life I had. It’s pretty simple, at the end.
Little story: I played Anna’s Triad game. The theme is fresh. The sound is great, it’s original whimsical and cute. I’m playing, failing over and over. But it’s a game, it’s a system with rules.
To win, I stripped the game off its graphics and mentally brute force positions while in the shower. Somehow the story I could imagine about these three characters when I was moving them around was blocking me from pure puzzle solving. Anyway, I had already enjoyed the game before winning.
What does it say? I don’t know that was my take on it, some people will hate it some will find it challenging. Sometimes the challenge itself will not matter.
Players will always enjoy any kind of (nicely done) games, don’t worry.