I really like this idea, of trying to better understand this feeling of aliveness, of trying to find it in games, which are, on their surface, animated and interactive and so obviously alive, but sometimes missing that special feeling.

What exactly is the feeling? What does it mean to feel this feeling?

droqen – LIVING Games

A Common Feeling

I am intrigued by this idea of a common feeling. I think I am skeptical of it the same way that Zeigfreid is (was?). But I still like the idea, even if it is only a kind of platonic ideal. But you seem to claim it is not – it is something we are all capable of feeling. If I think too hard about it, I get lost in the weeds of consciousness (particularly with the mirror test), but I think there is something valuable about it even if I refuse to get lost in those weeds. Actually, it seems that the mirror test, too, is asking you to consider ‘the whole’ beyond consciousness. The ‘common feeling’ makes it seem so simple, this mysterious feeling of aliveness. It makes it seem within reach. And that is helpful.

When we consider a whole object, we are simultaneously considering everything that we know and can intuit about the process of its creation and ongoing existence.

This feeling allows us to determine whether we are looking at a cricket or a rock, a whale or a cloud, a rainforest or a cave, not only individually but in general.

Structure Preserving Transformations

It is defined by the way it progresses: the degree to which it preserves, adapts to, and strengthens existing structure.

I like this. Though I take it to mean in an ‘organic’ way, rather than an ‘authoritarian’ way. It is strengthened by its ecosystem, though it may be in conflict with it. It is not asserting itself where it doesn’t belong. It simply belongs.

Living things preserve themselves, but alive things preserve any particular structure. Can this make sense?

Imagine a game which feels alive: Can you?

The first time I read this, my mind leapt to Super Mario. The way that all the components and mechanics exist in a way to encourage and facilitate the core play. I think about Zach Gage’s talk about games that help you get better at the game through idle play or whatever he called it – Designing Games for Problem Solvers.

And then I thought, ‘why mario?’. It really could be any game, I suppose, any game that you play well. Perhaps playing well is playing at an elevated aliveness.

But you think about MMORPGs. A game that people imbue with life, that evidences that life in its persistent evolving state.

I chose mario. You chose mmorpg. We were also just talking about single player games and whether they could be a third place, a place where life happens.

What games are alive? Is that the wrong question? What play is alive? Is play, perhaps necessarily, a living process?

I think this is a good first question to answer. I think it will give us good focus. As it is now, aliveness is too abstract. We can warp it to fit any games, or any play. “Aliveness is when you can see humans playing the game!” “Aliveness is design that reinforces itself! Design that is hard to change because every part depends on every other part!” Is aliveness a thing that exists when a player plays a game? Or is it something inherent to a game’s design? Or a game’s visible history of being played?

My instinct is to want it to be something inherent to the design, rather than something created by any number of human players. Though maybe that is just asking for the designer to give the game some of their aliveness. I wonder if we can escape this, or if we even want to.

One of my favorite take-aways from ‘The Rules of Play’ was the reminder that we use the word ‘play’ to refer to the action of a button on a remote. to put something into ‘play’. Push over the first domino. Watching a domino chain fall is a single player game that is alive. The dominoes are alive while they are falling.

But, I suppose there is an extra weight that comes not from simply being in action, like a tape player, or a chain reaction, but instead actively reinforcing itself within a larger ecosystem of change.

Or consider: the ball is ‘in play’ vs. the ball is ‘out of bounds’. When it is ‘in play’, the game, the simulation, is evolving, transforming. To me, this aliveness is simultaneously enough and not enough to satisfy our understanding of this feeling. It is a transforming process, but what is it preserving? Is it up to the player to identify what is preserved? Or is it up to the game? I am hearing echos of ‘What (or who) is responsible?‘ here.

Something that respects the player’s living process, as opposed to a game which boils play down to a number (e.g. a high score)

Isn’t chasing a high score a very alive activity? Or is it not enough to simply be an instrument of life? Is aliveness something more?

A World

There are so many questions when we consider aliveness in games! I said one of my big current questions was: “what makes a space something we connect with, something inviting, and rewarding, and staying?” Aliveness certainly seems like a promising lens to search for an answer through. Though I want to get past this question of responsibility – is the game’s design going to reveal life to any player? Or is the player going to create life from any game? Or should we hope for something in the middle?

Perhaps it is just a matter of preference. There are times and places for games that take responsibility, and times and places for players to take responsibility. Then the question becomes: which are we primarily interested in, at this moment, in this quest to understand aliveness? Aliveness in play, or aliveness in games ______ ?