Putting it all Together

So, if you noticed than in talking about Cognitive / Impassioned play and I / Other that I plotted one horizontally and one vertically and sussed that I might one day be working them together, it’s here that you get a cookie. πŸ™‚

Why would I put them together? Because I think that there’s a link between these two dynamics that might help us talk about the way we engage with games. Also, I think it might help to illustrate that when we were talking about immersion, that we were covering a lot of exploratory ground. All of the components of the grid are related because they deal with the emotional matrix of how we get the fun out of our fun, but they vary (unsurprisingly) widely in goal and execution. Perhaps immersion isn’t this one thing that you are or aren’t, that you do or don’t, but is instead this big body of investment, response and technique that we all are and do to varying degrees.

I think it’s revelatory that so many people who are so obviously doing radically different things from each other have a decided commitment to the word immersion, and an invested stake in maintaining claim on it. It speaks to an alignment with a personal core value of play. For, despite the fact that there is most often little agreement as to what immersion is or is not, there is one thing that everyone who says they are doing it seems to agree on: it’s necessary to my enjoyment of the game.

So when we can identify that our investment is comprised of several different components, and that those components vary in ratio and degree from one another but work towards each individual player’s personal enjoyment in the game, then we can come closer to understanding what we each mean when we assert what we do and what we need to get our groove on. Once we have a look of at the field the components provide we can start to identify play areas where patterns develop into genres of investment response and technique, and come to a deeper understanding of our play.

p.s. I do realize that I put that grid up there and didn’t actually delve into it. That’s because this post is just meant to explain why I am going where I am going. In the future, I’m going to be talking about how things besides our Purple Mo and Red Brand fit into the grid. For now, just understand me when I say: This is a heuristic model.

3 thoughts on “Putting it all Together”

  1. I want to occupy the same spot as Brand.

    Also, if I were like 14, I would totally snicker at what I just wrote and say something like, oh, I bet.

    But hey, I like your graph, and the terms. Seems like a useful way to talk about a whole lotta play that’s been lumped together as “sim.”

  2. Thanks Matt! Though I don’t think I’m trying to approach talking about “sim”… maybe I ‘m not getting your reference?

    Oh, and if I were 14 and in present day Canada, I might have said in a funny voice: “He totally *loves* him, He wants to *marry* him!”

    Good thing for everyone involved that we’re grown up, eh?

  3. Hey Mo. Apologies for being offtopic, but I can’t find your email address elsewhere, so I comment here.

    I have an AP report for C&P and I *will* get it to you – please feel free to threaten it out of me if I delay too much longer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *