I hope I’m not being pedantic here, reading too much into something in an unfounded way, but contributing to the discussion. I mean I’m not sure but I hope so.
My views are mainfly formed of this game by Waypoint.Vice’s positive rapture.
But there seems to be some fruity (possibly fruitful dialectical) disagreement!
If I may take a giant quote from you.
“ This is a game without gates.”
“It might sound as if a game with fewer items and less narrative hand-holding would be easier to program, but the opposite is true: Nintendo had to bake a dish that would last players for days with a recipe that called for few ingredients. Imagine keeping puzzles fresh with only four core components, or designing a sandbox whose every nook and cranny could be equally engaging after five hours or 50, no matter how experienced or powerful the player. That alchemy…”
Alchemy’s the impossible practice of turning excrement into gold, right?
Its a get rich quick scheme. Not actual chemistry. Through it can’t be said that Nintendo has nothing to do with the former.
But does it triumph that way or in another way. Is it a game without gates, and all the unforeseeable unplotted time dragging out meaning and spreading it well but spreading it thin necessarily, over that large space? I think its not. I think its that there are myths and meaning in so much of the world, only told through that architecture, neccessarily… Like in DisneyWorld, Waypoint will tell you, where wherever you are you can see an interesting other area in the distance. There’s a lot of storytelling packed in this, by having scenes and means and these meaning-minded systems interaction so well, it means the emergent play can take on more meaning. Be this puzzle a tomb, a shrine, an abandoned factory you are rediscovering like an archaeologists who also needs to understand what happened there like a crime scene, and learn the technology of the elders. Its not gating, but its forgerounding… And its nonlinear so that all those foregrounds can be travelled as you like, but designed co-operatively so they compliment each other.
I feel like I’m going over the same ground you do in the second half of the article. But do you know what I mean?… Its not alchemy. Its not false ‘progress’ of inelegant piling on of capacities and elite places that require that specific stuff. I’d hazard to presume its more about being and adventurer and, you know, the cliche, the journey, and that meant a world of places in conjunction...
I know I’m more into Hannah Arendt and Socrates then Plato becayse he was all about reaching enlightenment alone, in an existentialist almost nihilist kind of way that doesn’t trust in pluralist, open forum discussion where everyone’s candid insights are worthwhile, since, well, they killed his tutor and he was given to cynicism. I think this led him barking up the wrong purist idealist tree. Whose purist idealist tree precisely, I’m not so sure, but it sounds phallic to me.
WOOT and all,
Here comes the spring sunshine.