People laugh and mock me as I flee from the battlefield but.. hey, I thought I was running away with the loot I was interested in.

What was my whole point? That there is a relationship, a tie between “mechanics” and “metaphors”. Then the discussion evolved and I realized that not only that tie exists, but, in particular, that I advocate it and I believe that it will be where games in general are heading to. Two new elements, then.

Raph demonstrated that the tie isn’t an absolute rule and that each layer can revolve independently. I stepped back on my initial positions and agreed there, but I also wrote that from my point of view that’s the consequence of the immaturity of the genre: the interest in the medium and not in what the medium can be used for.

Then, the last reiteration that flows in a simple equation, in my mind:

mechanics + metaphors = immersion

The tie/dependence between the level of the “mechanics” and the level of the “metaphor” is the “immersion”. The immersion is that part that I really miss in these games. It’s a level that I would like to see recovered. I know it’s possible and worthwhile.

Mechanics not strictly tied with metaphors are not immersive. And not fun nor accessible.

That’s why I’m not all hyped up about penguins. And why I’m not squealing in delight if that’s where we are going.

The rest of the discussion about ludemes, game grammar and all the “what is what” is a discussion that, *right now*, I don’t feel useful and that I didn’t join. Nor is one where I would argue with Raph because I haven’t formed my own opinion yet and I have nothing that could contribute to it.

And always remember that disclaimer up there, on top of the page. That’s like the EULA you need to accept before reading stuff here.