eden

gamer girl incarnate

𝄆 composer & percussionist 𝄐 excitable lesbian 𝄐 i play a lot of hardcore Destiny 𝄐 a sweet face, and funny little horns! 𝄇

twitter 𝄪 letterboxd 𝄪 backloggd

♭♮♯


counterpoint: who cares about the authorial intent behind game design decisions unless they help elucidate a new lens on what the decision does in the work
authorial intent helps you understand the person that made the thing, not the thing itself, it can be helpful and it can be pointless
even if you think something is "wrong", is it wrong in a way that needs to change? or is it just simply not to your taste? or is it bad in a way that enhances the work?
in music, elements simply exist abstractly and together they create your experience and impression; try treating games the same way: how does it speak, how does it move, how does it respond to your touch, what does it ask of you, what does it want to be
as a certain anime says, "the result itself is the only truth"


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @eden's post:

a lot of times when im talking about works, i guess usually about a show with a morally questionable character, i refer to “what the work thinks about it”.

which i see (i’m speculating) come out in an unconscious expression of authorial intent a lot of the time. i feel like i see how a creator feels about abolition every time i see their episode mention justice, for example.

thats not to say that authorial intent is tied to a work’s “beliefs” all of the time. also i guess in the realm of games there’s a lot more concrete ideas of Function. software can “work” or “not work” or things in between. more difficult to grasp how a book could “not work” in the same immediate way