I get the feeling, but from a completely different perspective : I want infinite games, at least most of the time.

I'm usually not looking for a good mechanic or two to repeat over and over again. Either a game has to be a focused story that carries me through, or (and that's what I prefer) : a sandbox.

A world I can inhabit, where I can combine mechanics, set my own goals, exist within... The best game for this is of course Minecraft, but others do come close for me :

• Project Zomboid
• Zelda BoTW and ToTk
• No Man's Sky
• The Sims 3

So when a game focuses on developing one mechanic as far as possible... That's nice, I might play a few hours, but I'm very unlikely to finish the game.

I'm not a huge fan of the excessive use of exclamation points in the writing, and there is also something about the entire thing that strikes me as off. I don't think this author actually likes video games. Especially as the cited illustrious examples of video game excellence at the end are more art pieces than games, and while there is absolutely nothing wrong with that (I also like that genre) I think there is more to gaming than simply making slightly interactive movies.

A good example is the discussion of Celeste compared to Getting Over It. The author acknowledges that repeatedly performing the gameplay loop in Celeste feels good and is fun, but then immediately dismisses it out of hand as having "no meaning". Again I think this author is too firmly stuck in purely narrative and artistic media. The operative verb in gaming is "play". It is closer to dancing in that sense. Why do people dance? It has no meaning either. But it feels good. We enjoy exercising our hand-eye coordination, we enjoy moving to a rhythm, we enjoy learning and executing patterns. These are all elements of gaming too.

There is space in gaming for art, and I think there is something to the suggestion that a game that is purely narrative and/or artistic does not need a gameplay loop. But I think it's also important to not lose track of the fact that games can exist in a pure "medium is the message" state akin to sports or dancing or whatever else - playing an instrument. We don't play a pickup game of basketball with our buddies because it has a higher meaning, and we don't denigrate it for lacking that meaning either.

Gaming is just something we do with our free time. It can have a "higher meaning", or it can just be the pure dopamine of clicking heads and watching them explode in Doom. Both types of games are valid. Either way we'll die eventually and that time will have meant just as little whether we played another hour of Doom or spent it reading Dostoevsky.

So first off, you can't have a game without a gameloop, I don't think the author is using the term correctly. What the author means I think is that they don't like repetitive gameloops, particularly in narrative focused games.

I think there are lots of games that a lot of different game loops, "It Takes Two" and it's sister game "Split fiction" would be exactly what the author is asking for I think.

Most open world games fit to some extent too (do you spend your time fishing, or playing the board game in the game, or hunting, or fighting bad guys, or climbing things or racing etc etc etc) but usually fighting is tied to the main stories of the games. These days many games have a "story mode" difficulty to skip past this combat however. I don't think this is really want the author is looking for.

But there is a cost to this, it's either your budget blows up or your mechanics have to be very simple. It Takes Two has very basic mechanics because they have to support so many. Big open world games are only really possible for largest and most expensive of projects. I don't think this is really what the author wants.

I think there is a spectrum to gaming between games as Art and games as sport. Chess and esports are all the way on the sport section, it is about growing your brain or your reflexes, it isn't trying to tell a story or impart meaning. That's not to say there is not beauty in sport to be clear or that one is superior to the other. What the author calls repetition is rarely just that (in good games at least!), first they make you use a mechanic to beat an enemu, then they make you use a mechanic while doing another mechanic and now they make you do the mechanic to beat 10 enemies at once. This is a test of consistently and of whether you have mastered the mechanic.

Then there are games as Art, games who main goal is to tell an interactive story. And I do think that for a time games were afraid to go too narrative while other games keep the mechanics and mechanics too separate. I definitely think there are games that should just be a movie or where the story harms the experience more than helps. But I also think it's pretty silly to say we don't have games that are primarily narrative today or games that merge the mechanics and story well. Most games are somewhere in the middle.

The author using Celeste is interesting to me. The game has a story that deeply resonates with a lot of people but it is also considered one of the best designed platformers of all time as well. Each level is very intentionally designed to teach and then test a particular mechanic within the game. The end of the story is in a lot of ways just the end of the tutorial mechanically. To remove any level would be to completely destroy that. I think there is a conversation to be had about whether this could have been two games, one a purely mechanical test and the other a narrative game with minimal interaction but I think that that misses exposing the joy of the other to a new audience. I know of many people who resonated with the lore and story of Celeste but didn't really like platformers (or sometimes games at all!) who learnt how to play platformers and really got into the genre as a result of the game. On the flip side I have heard many stories about people going into this game for the platforming and coming out of the game realizing new things about themselves (in particular their gender) because of the story. I think that has a lot of value, and personally I think they are stronger packaged together than separate.

Another example not from the article is the fire emblem, the most recent 3 houses in particular, but I think most of the series has similar moments. I engaged with the this game primarily for it's mechanics, I personally didn't really care about the story of this particular game. I had a lot of fun going through all the optional battles and challenges. As I progressed through the story a character betrays you and becomes unavailable. This happened to also be my favorite unit for fighting, I was devastated, and the story I was only half paying attention to suddenly became incredibly interesting and personal to me. My choice to focus on that character made a really big impact on the story and it's only because I grinded so many missions. Had I only played the mandatory missions or focused on different characters I would have had a completely different experience of the story.

It seems like the author just doesn't like and cannot engage with games that aren't all the way on the art side of things and are extremely dismissive of the other side of things as a result. They also seem to just believe that this is a universal experience, in particular I was quite irked at the author's liberal use of "we" as someone who generally only DNFs games that I strongly dislike and enjoys games at both a mechanical and artistic level.

Interesting read.