I wasn’t trying to counter the overall point of the essay. I agree with a lot of it, though this isn’t quite how I usually look at things.
I think of goals and agency as being critical ingredients in games (without agency you have a movie; without goals you have a toy; sandbox-y games like Minecraft are pretty close to the game/toy boundary and reasonable people might disagree about which side they fall on).
The “power fantasy” stuff seems like it’s basically pointing towards the fact that using your agency to accomplish a goal tends to provide a feeling of power, but I have an intuition that goals & agency are more central/fundamental to games. I think that an activity with goals and agency would seem like a game to me even if I didn’t get feelings of power from it, whereas an activity that gives me feelings of power without using goals or agency would not seem like a game.
Yeah I definitely agree that goals/agency are more central to what it means to be a game. The article is more claiming “games will be more successful if they are make you feel a sense of power.”
But yeah the Bartle Taxonomy is useful/relevant. In particular I agree “games as social experience” is particularly orthogonal to power-fantasy.
I am reflecting a bit on “okay, how much work is the ‘power fantasy’ frame actually doing here?”, and whether other ways of making the same point would be as-helpful or more.
I wasn’t trying to counter the overall point of the essay. I agree with a lot of it, though this isn’t quite how I usually look at things.
I think of goals and agency as being critical ingredients in games (without agency you have a movie; without goals you have a toy; sandbox-y games like Minecraft are pretty close to the game/toy boundary and reasonable people might disagree about which side they fall on).
The “power fantasy” stuff seems like it’s basically pointing towards the fact that using your agency to accomplish a goal tends to provide a feeling of power, but I have an intuition that goals & agency are more central/fundamental to games. I think that an activity with goals and agency would seem like a game to me even if I didn’t get feelings of power from it, whereas an activity that gives me feelings of power without using goals or agency would not seem like a game.
“Power fantasy” also feels like it is somewhat getting at player motivations, but...well. I’ve seen several proposed models for player motivations—for example Bartle’s Taxonomy or the “player types” used by the designers of Magic: the Gathering—and mostly I feel like they’re situationally useful as fake frameworks but haven’t managed to reach the “ground truth” of what’s really going on. (Not that I have a better model to give you.)
Yeah I definitely agree that goals/agency are more central to what it means to be a game. The article is more claiming “games will be more successful if they are make you feel a sense of power.”
But yeah the Bartle Taxonomy is useful/relevant. In particular I agree “games as social experience” is particularly orthogonal to power-fantasy.
I am reflecting a bit on “okay, how much work is the ‘power fantasy’ frame actually doing here?”, and whether other ways of making the same point would be as-helpful or more.