Attack! - Thoughts on Player Interaction

Dschanni wrote: Great post

Hi Dschanni... seems strange, but I feel like I know you. Have we met?

mc wrote: I can easily imagine that, as Erik describes, for those players, a T&E or a whatever is going to be just as alien to them - and uncomfortable - as Cosmic.

I've never seen them play those games, either, so I can imagine they are too fond of them, either!

Some people just don't like a lot of interaction in games. They're not particularly interested in having more interaction in their gaming diet, and there isn't a game out there that will unlock their inner Diplomacy player.

I'll use myself as an example; I've come to the conclusion that I'm not a huge fan of hidden traitor games. I've played several and own a few, but given my druthers I'd rather play something else. I don't think it's just because I haven't played x yet, and I'm not particularly interested into digging into my psyche to figure out why.

Hi Dschanni... seems strange, but I feel like I know you. Have we met?

Maybe in a different life.

I have not met any of the persons on this site - Thank you for all the informative and helpful contributions.

Some people just don't like a lot of interaction in games. They're not particularly interested in having more interaction in their gaming diet, and there isn't a game out there that will unlock their inner Diplomacy player.

Investigating what we understand of interaction seems to be important for us, if I may point out.
When someone doesn't want to find out then further conversation ends here, of course.

The initial question was: "What interaction is best in games?"

The point is: "There is no best interaction. In all interaction, you can observe the nature of yourself".

I am not talking about specific game mechanics and how someone likes them. I am talking about a state of the mind.

Someone might refuse this, but I hope we are communicating somehow in spite the intellectual blah.

Interaction is very complicated, we all know that.
"You have hurt me. You have insulted me. Your toy soldier has attacked my toy soldier.
You lied to me. You betrayed me. You took my card. You ruined my plans."
It's conflict, right?

How do you observe all of this? Your anger, your fear, your anxieties, desires, your attachements, your identifications?
Do you see it as something outside of you or is it part of you?
If it is from outside then you can avoid it, run away from it, analyse it, explain it, suppress it etc.
Then you have divided this thing. It is not you. It is something else happening to you.

Now this is the very nature of conflict - separation, division, identification, opposition.
We say we must not be in conflict, but we are. It seems so natural that we don't question this.

There is also interaction between the inner and the outer - humans conditioned by certain ideas create a society that helps them maintaining these ideas.
Now enter the modern "MPS style" Eurogames to the whole picture.
The structure of these type games wants to create an extremely self-centered experience, based on achievement and separation, the me first and the you second.
It seems to me like symbols of our daily lives, where our own ambitions, the search for success, is considered a good thing with a purpose.
It has to do with the way of how games are received, appreciated and discussed (widely analytical, of course).

So is it all necessary? I am not going into this ideologically.

I am saying that the state of the mind is more important than the conflict itself.
It has nothing to do with being superhuman. Be simple. Perceive with a heart that is cleansed of the past.
Don't bring your emotional baggage to the gaming table.
Bring passion, intensity, a sensitive mind - not a mind crammed with knowledge about oneself and about how things are.

If we do this, perhaps we can go to the end of conflict.