(kinopio lost some of joey's responses so you can follow the conversation better here)
https://kinopio.club/dead-systems-living-paint---with-joeys-responses-wEj2KIzp5z5UkIgNbkGZ8
imo **you should not read a pattern language first**... it explicitly requests this of you, actually. it follows The Timeless Way of Building, which _is_ a good read.
i use the word "gameplay" a lot, and i extend it to fairly far reaching things to capture a larger space than it normally encompasses...
A Pattern Language is like a fun glossary, but The Timeless Way is the grammar and glue that actually lends context to all these pieces. it is extremely good and the instructions on how to read the book literally unlocked in me the capacity to read nonfiction books (no joke) which i now value highly
there are plenty of systems that, though they were created to resolve problems, feel today like they take up too much space -- one example of this that comes up for me is.. uh.. democracy as i know it.
likewise when i say "systems are inherently incapable of offering human feedback" i have recognized that i am referring, in a no-true-scotsman-like way, to the subset of systems to which the statement applies
specifically, a plurality vote to unilaterally determine a shared outcome is a solution which does not resolve all the forces at play: it solves one problem, "how do we make a decision NOW?", but it does not resolve _all_ of the problems, and these unresolved problems _fester._
but when systems become dominant over human judgement & intuition, and such systems are entrusted to pass judgement, the judgement is incapable of being human:
i will check it out! i haven't been finding as much time for reading lately but i really want to chew on a book recommended so specifically to me & in this context. thanks for the rec.
a corporate structure or hunt for "marketability" has stamped it out
i don't actually!
when you said this, you are naming two non-human-judgement-centering value structures
both games and paintings can be equally egotistical or non-egotistical.
a plurality vote which unilaterally determines a shared outcome, too, _discards human judgement according to a systemic decision._
therefore here we have gameplay.
i guess the only difference is that games are more popular and probably profitable, so if someone is _going to be_ egotistical and attention-seeking they would probably choose games or paintings, given the choice.
however, gameplay definitely does more 'conflicting forces' than do works following the rules of, i guess, visual composition.
yes i'm very interested in this kind of game, _but_ even a goalless structure does impose some restrictions. e.g. in the case of a flatgame, you might still get lost and wonder if there is a secret out there and not have the capacity to discover if you're right or not
or, there might be a 'correct' way to read the flatgame -- i don't mean interpretation-wise, but physically it might be laid out in a way that the player misunderstands
none of this might be relevant. but "kill gameplay" is VERY distinct from, for instance, "kill games"; it admits the possibility of games without gameplay... and likewise, gameplay without something we would recognize as a game (see above where i rant a little about democracy!)
dead systems, living paint
(kinopio lost some of joey's responses so you can follow the conversation better here)
https://kinopio.club/dead-systems-living-paint---with-joeys-responses-wEj2KIzp5z5UkIgNbkGZ8
imo **you should not read a pattern language first**... it explicitly requests this of you, actually. it follows The Timeless Way of Building, which _is_ a good read.
i use the word "gameplay" a lot, and i extend it to fairly far reaching things to capture a larger space than it normally encompasses...
A Pattern Language is like a fun glossary, but The Timeless Way is the grammar and glue that actually lends context to all these pieces. it is extremely good and the instructions on how to read the book literally unlocked in me the capacity to read nonfiction books (no joke) which i now value highly
there are plenty of systems that, though they were created to resolve problems, feel today like they take up too much space -- one example of this that comes up for me is.. uh.. democracy as i know it.
likewise when i say "systems are inherently incapable of offering human feedback" i have recognized that i am referring, in a no-true-scotsman-like way, to the subset of systems to which the statement applies
specifically, a plurality vote to unilaterally determine a shared outcome is a solution which does not resolve all the forces at play: it solves one problem, "how do we make a decision NOW?", but it does not resolve _all_ of the problems, and these unresolved problems _fester._
but when systems become dominant over human judgement & intuition, and such systems are entrusted to pass judgement, the judgement is incapable of being human:
i will check it out! i haven't been finding as much time for reading lately but i really want to chew on a book recommended so specifically to me & in this context. thanks for the rec.
a corporate structure or hunt for "marketability" has stamped it out
i don't actually!
when you said this, you are naming two non-human-judgement-centering value structures
both games and paintings can be equally egotistical or non-egotistical.
a plurality vote which unilaterally determines a shared outcome, too, _discards human judgement according to a systemic decision._
therefore here we have gameplay.
i guess the only difference is that games are more popular and probably profitable, so if someone is _going to be_ egotistical and attention-seeking they would probably choose games or paintings, given the choice.
however, gameplay definitely does more 'conflicting forces' than do works following the rules of, i guess, visual composition.
yes i'm very interested in this kind of game, _but_ even a goalless structure does impose some restrictions. e.g. in the case of a flatgame, you might still get lost and wonder if there is a secret out there and not have the capacity to discover if you're right or not
or, there might be a 'correct' way to read the flatgame -- i don't mean interpretation-wise, but physically it might be laid out in a way that the player misunderstands
none of this might be relevant. but "kill gameplay" is VERY distinct from, for instance, "kill games"; it admits the possibility of games without gameplay... and likewise, gameplay without something we would recognize as a game (see above where i rant a little about democracy!)