I remember reading an essay (probably from here?) about how a great way to build a game is to build it around a "toy" -- something that is pleasurable to simply interact with, even without objectives. I can't find it anymore -- the closest I can find is https://medium.com/@keerthiko/toys-to-games-25d35b40425d but I don't think it was that, although it's based on the book "The Art Of Game Design" which may have been a common inspiration.

Anyways, I've often thought about Super Smash Bros. (particularly, Melee) as a prime example of that idea.

Yes, movement in SSBM is so satisfying. Nothing else comes close for me. All other games just feel boring in comparison. A classic example for those who haven't seen it: https://youtube.com/watch?v=JpOaQxrsaqI

This article from 2005 has the toy idea. It has stuck with me.

https://www.gamedeveloper.com/game-platforms/how-to-prototyp...

This is interesting to me because I separately came up with the "toy" idea in trying to figure out for myself exactly what a "game" is, anyway. Many popular things marketed as "games" really are toys by this standard, in the sense that you have to build your own win conditions around them. I'm thinking here of pretty much the entire simulation genre, as well as even very niche and complex things like Dwarf Fortress.

I'm sure many others have separately come up with this idea, too.

It's promotional material, but I enjoyed what the Get To Work devs put together to show how they built the game up from kind of the same approach (all on youtube)

Sounds like Tynan Sylvester’s game design book (Tynan Sylvester created Rimworld)