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.

In the comment thread of the ongoing discussion with Raph, he started to quote me and asking me (indirectly) many questions.

I don’t want to answer those questions. It’s not my level, nor something I feel like contributing to. I refuse those provocations because my mind doesn’t work that way and I’m not going to accept any of those rules.

I won’t join his “play”.

Psychochild:
My original point remains, though: it can be hard to tell where the line is drawn, exactly. Likewise, I think the line between metaphor and narrative can be a bit tricky to nail down. Precision in these terms will help us talk about things more intelligently.

Or more blindly.

This is about the “Laws of Form” of Spencer Brown. As you point something you create two parts, the part you point and the part that is excluded. An “observation” implies two blind spots. You cannot see anymore the “whole”, since as you point something you lose it and you cannot see the subject of the observation.

We know the world through the culture. But the culture is made of distinctions, so it is “digital”, granular. The world instead is contiguous, so “analogic”. The distinctions come “handy”, but they are a limitation, there’s always an “error” included. A bias. The same happens in Linguistics. There is no real difference or “border” between the table and the pavement. Everything is contiguous in nature but we “know” through observations. Pointing things and setting them apart.

We know that the language is arbitrary. We draw the distinctions wherever we like (them to be). So are the definitions.

From my point of view that thread collapsed on itself as people started to try to nail down exactly the four layers Raph described. Like going to observe each with a magnifying lens and start arguing where one finishes and the other starts. Transforming each into a discreet unit. Guess what? There is no answer. This is why these types of discussions can be so involving. Everyone is right and you can continue to argue endlessly. Because there’s nothing set. It’s just an exercize to demonstrate who can be smarter or more convincing. There is no truth to discover if not how you can influence yourslef to the point of not being able to observe anything in not through the conventions you imposed on yourself.

If I have to design something I start from the suggestions. I portrait things visually, like closing the eyes. It’s a DENIAL of the logic. I create rifts in it to approach things on a different level. Emotional first, then I find and explore ways to formalize the result. I dread the mechanical level if it isn’t finalized to something else. I don’t feel the need to explain or justify anything else. That’s enough for me.

I despise registers, codes, conventions. I’ve always naturally resisted them and I’ll continue to do so because I feel I can “absorb” a lot more. If I start to use strict definitions I know that I won’t able to see the world if not through those conventions. They are like traps.

Abstract system can work and be useful on different levels, but they are never perfect because this desire of perfection is utopian. If you surrender to it, you’ll be caged in the system and will never able to see anymore outside it. Names and conventions are the same: ways to structure the way you think. Then the way you see.

They limit your perception, they don’t enhance it. It seems you see better, but only because you see less.

The more you formalize and the more you are enslaved by the system and your thoughts encoded. Yes, it is “reassuring”. It gives you predictable structures that you find familiar and can build things upon. But they are essentially lies that you assimilate to the point you aren’t anymore aware of their true nature.

This is why I criticized the industry and how people get hired and promoted. The structure defines your mindset and it’s not surprising that always the same games are being made when the education continues to move through the same schemes. The great majority of game designers are programmers. Then don’t complain if these games don’t communicate anything if not complicated and convoluted mechanics that lead nowhere. It’s a direct consequence. “Game design” is a “wish” on the world.

The more you formalize the more you are imprisoned in the model you built. You create your own cage.

This is why I’m a runaway. I dabble in with the academics to then step out when things go dry and the discussions turn in nothing but an exercise. I read the theory, elaborate ideas, and then go back to write about the last patch in World of Warcraft. I speak with everyone without distinctions of merit of prejudices.

“Jack of all trades, masters of none” is the ability to communicate on all levels, without being trapped into one.

That thread is now an exercize in futility, because those four layers worked and were useful exactly because they were blurred and subject to the interpretation. The more you try to define them, the more you render them useless.

Michael Chui:
Here, I kinda stole something from you, so feel free to steal it back or whatever. Public domain and fun-ness.

Oh yes, I will:

(ref link)
“All things can be automated except creative output.”

This could work as a good principle (here we are discussing again the idea to use NPCs to automate some parts of the game).

I believe it’s wrong to codify everything in all the smallest details because again I feel that you lose more than what you understand. But I could say here that the “boring” activities are felt so exactly because the “creative output” is pretty much null.

The repetition, the grind. These signify a lack of interest of the player. The game is boring because it isn’t offering or suggesting me anything that I value. So the need to have to go through a part of the game just because of an external reason that motivates it. I’m going to harvest resources for hours because I need to and I’m interest in the outcome. But the activity itself doesn’t require any “creative output”, it’s just a timesink that I have to suffer.

It’s like reverting that quote: an activity without a “creative output” is probably going to feel rather boring, so it makes sense to automate it.

From this point of view my idea of the PvP sandbox is a way to offer the players an accessible “toolset” that they can use as “designers” themselves. Not “game designers”, but players immersed in a consistent virtual world where they have a role and purpose. The conquest system and the emergent strategic level are “means” to allow the players to add their creativity to the game. Their desires, their *presence* in the game world. The game becomes less codified and enforced, and more subject to the interpretation. The players aren’t anymore trapped in a labyrinth with just one exit, but they are free to creatively move within the game world, live within it, create their own stories. A degree of freedom.

From an interview with David Braben:

Story-telling in games in most cases is little different to the stories of those Harold Lloyd films of the 1920s.

The player is stuck on pre-defined railway lines, forced to follow their character’s pre-determined adventures, much as in a book or a film.

In story-telling terms at least, games have not yet broken free of their non-interactive roots.

The Holy Grail we are looking for in fifth generation gaming is the ability to have freedom, and to have truly open ended stories.

Our golden age has not yet started but the door is open, and somewhere are the Welles and Hitchcocks of the future. They may even be reading this piece right now.

I’m sure the great majority of us could agree with these claims, it would be more than enough to set a goal and chase it. But what if we are Raph Koster and we aren’t satisfied with a superficial claim that isn’t backed up with facts?

Here comes the theory, that level that I always find pretty much useless because it leads to the exact same conclusions I arrived before. So I use Raph to answer to himself (or that version of himself I evoked here):

(ref link)
– We talk so much about emergent gameplay, non-linear storytelling, or about player-centered content. They’re all ways of increasing the possibility space, making self-refreshing puzzles.

– We also often discuss the desire for games to be art – for them to be puzzles with more than one right answer, puzzles that lend themselves to interpretation.

– That may be the best definition of when something ceases to be craft and when it turns into art – the point at which it becomes subject to interpretation.

– Games will never be mature as long as the designers create them with complete answers to their own puzzles in mind.

That’s pretty much it. “Fun” in games implies a degree of freedom.

The possibility to experience. Here the immersion becomes a mean to creatively manipulate an object, observe it without filters. Interact with it directly. This is why open-ended games are much more fun and satisfying. They allow you to have different points of view and become the subject of the experience instead of just an object.

From my point of view this is what ties all the elements together:
– the sandbox as a way to put the players at the center and give them a degree of freedom
– the immersion in the game world and “myth” as the true “interface” with the experience (also the obligatory tie between “mechanics” and “metaphors”)
– the need to make all these parts easily accessible to everyone, including without excluding – remove the prejudices

I see the first two levels as closely tied together. Freedom and immersivity are two faces of the same medal. They are the hook to bring the player on another level and make him the protagonist of the story, instead of a passive executor.

A stab at Raph, part 2 :)

This time less flaming but still strong and provoking (I hope). And again a direct reply.

By the way, I throw in another heresy: I believe that in a company everyone should be paid equally. From the president to the tools programmer there shouldn’t be distinctions of merit. “Game designer” shouldn’t be a promotion from another level, it’s just a different duty, equally important and fundamental. Hierarchies within a company are a big mistake from my point of view and the first reason that brings to my accusation in the title. People should strive to do in their life what they do better, not what is defined and then perceived as more qualifying of the personal value.

Problems start from there and bleed all over the place.

Actually go and reward more those duties that are always disqualified and noone wants to do.

Invert the ladder.

—
Hmm.. Hmm..

I’ll have to think more later about this. I read it as if those four steps work in a hierarchy, where you are free to choose one and put it at the top, dominating the others.

I’m not convinced by the last two because you bring the example of your “healing game” for the metaphoric level which instead I consider JUST mechanical. And I also think the narrative level blends with it. I find hard to separate the two.

The point is that I see those levels much more dependent one from the other. Your “healing game” instead was a metaphor completely independent from the mechanical layer (spurious). So, that example started from the metaphor or from the mechanic?

I see the whole discussion like this: if it started as a pure mechanic it would hardly translate in that type of metaphor. I mean, If I have that mechanic I’m probably going to present it in a different flavor when I go to choose which metaphor is more appropriate. If instead it started from the metaphor, well, again I would design the mechanic to be MUCH different and more appropriate to the metaphor. To achieve better the communication of that metaphor.

Which also means: despite I recognize the hierarchy, sometimes the result is the same whether you start from the end or the beginning (as things are connected).

So, from my point of view, you can take it either way and that example is still something that doesn’t make sense.

– Were I to do a game “about healing” I would be starting with the metaphor.

If this is true, it means that the mechanical level would STRONGLY depend on the metaphor. Again following the model as a hierarchy where you decide to start from the metaphor and, from there, figure out the other parts. Tabula rasa. You start from a blank paper, set a point wherever you want, and then start to draw the first lines. The rest will be progressively derived accordingly to what is on top of the hierarchy. So everything is connected.

If you see them as hierarchies, I agree that those level exist and they are always ALL present in every game. I also agree that you can freely reorder the hierarchy as you want. We have concrete examples for every possibility.

That said, I believe there’s a “bias” and we are definitely, unavoidably going in a precise direction that is the one of the metaphor (the one I’d say should be higher on the hierarchy). Even the cinema started with the technical experiments to then move to bring up the emotions. I see a definite progression where the mechanical level will be progressively overshadowed and enslaved by the other levels. For example there are “narrative techniques” to obtain certain effects, but these techniques are bent to be functional to the narrative.

Games in general have always been more tightly connected to the mechanical level, also because they started from the *interaction*. But I think that, whether we like it or not, we are going toward the emotional, symbolic level where the mechanics will become progressively hidden. As with the use of computer graphic in a movie, the best case is the one where you don’t see it, where this technical level becomes completely functional to the narrative needs. As I wrote in the post you linked, we are made of symbols.

Let me rephrase: games in general has always been more tightly connected to the mechanical levels, because there’s a definite predominance of programmers and because “game design” has always been considered superfluous.

I believe that many if not the majority of the woes in this industry are imputable to people sitting on the wrong chairs.

The more we’ll see genuine game designers and not programmers-recycled-designers (through the social treadmill called “promotion”), the more the games will start to shapeshift into something else. And the technical constraints will loosen up.

When this will happen games will finally truly become a “medium”. Hopefully shying away from becoming completely autoreferential as 99% of the garbage that arrives on TV and instead telling us something valuable about ourselves and the world outside.

This breakdown is, perhaps, why game designers must be multidisciplinary.

I continue to disagree on this point. Game designers “may” be multidisciplinary. It’s surely useful and helpful. But not “obligatory”. That’s just blindness from my point of view.

Knowledge can help but it isn’t everything, nor what is truly important. As you don’t need to go to a writing school if you want to become a writer. I just refuse to codify this, there are many different approaches and the game designer with the most knowledge isn’t going to be the one univocally making the best games.

He’ll have an advantage, but I wouldn’t give that advantage a fundamental role.

Actually I’d say that designers should know the less possible about programming, if not the general ropes to be able to comminicate with the actual programmers and share the same language. But they should retain a very high-level approach to it. Another person should have the duty to connect the two and define the systems more suitable to reach the goals set.

Not because knowing the programming would be useless, of course, but because it becomes also a danger. It strictly codifies the way you approach a problem. It becomes a cage that isn’t always easy to escape. Having different points of view is important, but you risk to get trapped into one.