Notgames Forum

I deeply dislike this:

It's quote from this article (http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JimmyBaird/20100427/5020/Esoterics_IVThe_Yoga_of_Player_Rhythm_Part_1.php) and illustrates how wrong the engineer's attitude is when it comes to creating art.

The article is about how a game has rhythms and how a player also has rhythms that are different every time and advocates that the game should somehow make the player adapt to the game's rhythms. I like thinking of rhythms when designing games a lot. But I want the player to have a lot more control over his experience. That's one of the strengths of interactivity. Let the player decide whether they want a calm and quiet experience or a quick and active one. And let them figure out what is the best way for them to enjoy a game.

Of course there's a risk that the player won't find the optimal mood. But that's a risk I think we should take, and a side effect of the medium becoming more mature on the one hand, and of the realization of the potential of interactivity on the other. The player needs to share in the responsibility for their experience. That's what software is all about.

Skinnerian game design.  There it is expressed explicitly.

They want to create a drug, and you can't state it much more directly than that.

If you guys keep this up, I'm going to have to start using the phrase badwrongdesign in my discussions. Or maybe badwrongcraft.