The Pathology of Game Design

Weil’s so schön zur 9-11 Diskussion passt…

So sculpture is a study of three-dimensional form, film is a study of imagery over time, and videogames are a study of decision and consequence. The purpose to each of these disciplines is to explore how the human mind interprets its key concept. Then, once the language is down, a person can use that discipline to communicate.

Originally, movies were little more than recorded stage plays. The director would point the camera at a set, and the actors would act. As technique evolved, film became more subjective. Whole schools arose to study the psychological effect of film – framing, editing, timing – and how best to apply this knowledge. As its language evolved and grew more nuanced, film (in a skilled hand) became less about showing events in and of themselves, and more about conveying a unique perspective of events, that the observer might contrast with his own. It is at this point that film became a mature medium for expression. You can trace a similar progression in music, painting; whatever.

In each case, the transition is a shift from a science to a philosophy: from the simple observation and recording of verifiable information to a search for meaning. There are two phases to the shift – first to a search for absolute meaning, by means of the quantitative tools available; then toward a relative, qualified understanding, that takes into account the different context that each perspective brings to the table. This is where mature discussion occurs.

So where do videogames sit on the scale? If we accept that their focus is the notion of decision and consequence, and that the purpose of such a study is to explore how the participating audience – the player – might interpret this information, then we’re hovering a couple of notches past Fred Ott’s Sneeze.

— The Pathology of Game Design, Eric-Jon Rössel Waugh

David Jaffes Antwort und eine folgende Diskussion