Maybe it was flimsy because it doesn't need justifying? Honest question.

I dunno. I find that irrelevant as to whether it's a worthwhile argument though.

I think the author means "play-tested" in sense that AAA games are play-tested - so that they can appeal to a broad variety of people and sell well.

Maybe.

Besides, I'm not sure one would play-test a game like this and be validated by the results. You'd probably get a lot of people saying they just didn't like/get it, and be unable to explain why or how.

That's true. Although, it's also somewhat true that people suck at articulating what works about things they like. When dealing with playtesters, you're often going to get wildly mixed (and somewhat incoherent) responses about things even if everyone had fun.

If you don't even get a pile of vague complaints that you might kinda/sorta be able to sort through? Well... at that point it's basically impossible to validate anything about your product's effect on those who experience it (aside from yourself, glorious sample size of 1 person, whose relationship to the game is very different from everyone elses). I guess that's one way to go about your business, but it puts you in a really crappy position in a lot of ways.

I think the author means "play-tested" in sense that AAA games are play-tested - so that they can appeal to a broad variety of people and sell well.

I don't think that's what he's saying. Well, actually, that might be what he's saying but I don't think he's working at the level you're on.

He's not saying incorporating feedback from playtesting is bad because you get a diluted, design-by-committee, stale product (although that may be true). He's saying playtesting is bad because it judges the game from the perspective of the player ("player-centric"), and games should not be judged by how they allow the player to impose his will on the game -- they should be one-way expressions of the game designer's "voice."

Gamers are trained to expect certain things from games, like explicit rules, goals, visual quality, and of course, agency. To put it frankly, gamers are set up to be colonial forces. It’s about individuality, conquering, and solving. Feeling empowered and free at the expense of the world.

In a nutshell, the author is arguing that we need to free ourselves from this repressive paradigm where games aren't just public masturbation on the part of the game designer.

Haha, but should they?

You have to be literate to read books. No real debate on the merits of this, yeah?

Do video games have a kind of barrier, a literacy, before you can play them?

Should they?

Books have varied barriers: sentence style, length, complexity. Whether they have visual or audio aids/ques. What range of vocabulary these use.

Similar with games.

It's up to the designer what kind of access barriers they put in place. There are no shortage of varied input devices and methods these days. No end to the variety of in-game and out-game training you can implement to overcome said barriers.

Not sure how this relates to the article though.

It doesn't really relate, it was just a thought that was inspired from the article and folks responses to it and few other things I've been thinking lately.

I think the answer is pretty obvious (yes, there are, and yes, they are fine) but asking the question let's me step back and consider possibilities.

Books have varied barriers: sentence style, length, complexity. Whether they have visual or audio aids/ques. What range of vocabulary these use.

Similar with games.

It's up to the designer what kind of access barriers they put in place. There are no shortage of varied input devices and methods these days. No end to the variety of in-game and out-game training you can implement to overcome said barriers.

Not only that, but different genres have different 'access barriers'. For example, the same kind of fluidity and ease of play you achieve in Halo over the course of a week would take several weeks - maybe even a month - to achieve in Age of Empires II. This is fairly obvious: a real-time strategy game is inherently just more taxing, complicated, and hard to pick up than a first-person shooter game. Then, within each genre, there is some amount of variation. Pathways into Darkness takes a lot longer to pick up than Halo, because it's got so much more complexity and even the basic combat is harder. Starcraft II is easier to pick up than Age of Empires II.

Now, before you say 'yes, that's true, but you're talking about difficulty, not barriers', I have to ask, what's the difference? Returning to the book example, picking up a book and picking up a game are similar things. You need to have a little literacy to read a book, but you likewise need a very basic understanding of how to operate a game in order to actually play one. Once you have that basic requirement, you can start reading or playing. As you're reading or playing, your literacy or skill increases, and you get better and better. The thing is, some books and some games have different basic requirements than others. If you're in kindergarten, you can't be expected to right off the bat pick up George Orwell, and likewise if you have no experience in gaming whatsoever, you can't be expected to immediately pick up Starcraft. Difficulty often sets these basic requirements higher or lower, and so it plays a part in setting the barriers. That's why it's best to have some experience in playing FPS games before you jump into Pathways into Darkness.

Things get trickier still when you think about how being able to play a game is different than being able to master it. You can pick up Age of Empires II, but you probably won't be able to figure out the complex strategies detailed on the University of Age of Kings Heaven until you've played a lot and gotten a real feel for the game. It takes longer to do that, though, than it does to get a feel for Halo, where within a few months, you can be off and setting up your own Cavern Megabattle. This is mainly because in RTS games, there's inherently a much bigger difference between noob-dom and mastery than in FPS games. There is still some variation in this disparity even within a given genre, but even so, the variation from genre to genre is the most important part in this respect.

Sorry I went on for a long time there, but once you got me thinking, I just kept running with it. Maybe you guys have something more to add?

Vale,
Perseus

The bar must be set really low if a simple Puzzle game is an 'interesting metaphor' for the challenges of polyamorous relationships.

You know, I've never found "simple" to be a bad thing. In fact, I often love simple. I find the average kid's book more honest and insightful than the average grown-up novel.

I'm not actually sure what we're talking about though... The first link was a choose your own adventure novel for adults, the second was broken, and the third was a stressful calendar of the kind I see everyday.

The point is "simple" does not necessarily equal bad. Sometimes it can quickly jump to the heart of the issue. As for iterative and non-iterative, I think there's a place for both. I think non-iterative pieces are great for artists to create on their own. It can be cathartic, as well as helpful in forming and understanding your own unique artistic language, which can then be better applied to iterative pieces. Sometimes it can be interesting to be an outside observer of this process and jump into someone else's unaltered mind.

But these non-iterative works, like high-concept fine art installations, will likely be regarded with vastly varying opinions and misunderstood by most because that's the nature of it. If you're telling a story without concern of using a language to reach your audience, odds are most of them won't get it. I think/hope a lot of practiced authors/creators know this. It's less about communication and more about exhibition. It's record-keeping; it's a documentary of yourself. The goals and the approaches are different than iterative works. If somebody learns or feels something from that video projected on a bundle of sticks in the corner of my elderly 3D design teacher rolling around in the mud naked (even if its just her getting something out of it), great!

... I'll probably be over there, though.

I really like Triad, which serves as an interesting metaphor on the challenges of poly amorous relationships.

The bar must be set really low if a simple Puzzle game is an 'interesting metaphor' for the challenges of polyamorous relationships. This is why I think games academics are horrible thinkers. What is insightful about trying to fit three people onto a bed?

This thread reminds me of why I got out of academia. I don't have the patience to unpack everything, and experience tells that if I did, I would be disappointed by the contents.

Regarding simple creations, I do have some thoughts that are very similar to Levi's. I'll just add this. Simple creations that do provide interesting metaphors of complex issues can be done, but the simpler they are, the harder they are to pull off.

...

I didn't think thematic praise could get and more mistaken than Bioshock Infinite, but you just proved me wrong!

Eh, we disagree on that score. Although I find some of the praise of BI to be off the mark, I find much of the criticism to be further off the mark. The irony in this discussion is that I think with BioShock Infinite the praisers and critics both often want the game to have a simpler theme than it does. They go wrong by insisting the game does or doesn't support the simplistic theme they want it to have.

I really like Triad, which serves as an interesting metaphor on the challenges of poly amorous relationships.

The bar must be set really low if a simple Puzzle game is an 'interesting metaphor' for the challenges of polyamorous relationships. This is why I think games academics are horrible thinkers. What is insightful about trying to fit three people onto a bed?

You'd understand the real challenges if you talk to someone in such a relationship for THREE MINUTES over playing that game. Then go play Lup Salad. You'd have a better understanding of human sexuality, AND you'd play a better puzzle game.

2 points. One, is the direct systemic representation of three people sharing spaces designed for two. There's a really simple lesson about the compromises, and frustration that goes along with that buried in that system.

Which is the point, games are really good at defining and explaining systems, as it's what they are. Explaining the nuance of a system through words, or diagrams is hard, but a games do it really well.

The second part is the metaphor for an entire relationship, which is something that I take, more than is explicitly in the game.

Gamers are trained to expect certain things from games, like explicit rules, goals, visual quality, and of course, agency. To put it frankly, gamers are set up to be colonial forces.

No more drugs for you.

Maybe somebody had a bad experience with Aliens: Colonial Marines? :p