That's the obvious part. The non obvious part is ruining game design.

More than that evidently is non-obvious here. I am mainly concerned about the ruination of people. The fate of some niche and subparadigmatic school of ludic theory moves me little by comparison. (Of course I agree we need the humanities, but these are complex times when difficult choices may have to be made.)

But I appreciate this is more an article for the - what did they call it, for five minutes on Reddit a couple years back? "Shapecels?" That crowd, anyway, the ones who excel at abstract symbol manipulation yet reliably struggle to signify.

These days, with machines automating away the entire market for oldschool, artisanally human "shape rotation," faster than most members of any prior generation would even dare imagine - well, if this were the only thing I thought I could do well, I think I would be very worried.

▲

nottorp a day ago | parent [-]

> The fate of some niche and subparadigmatic school of ludic theory moves me little by comparison.

Just because you're not interested in video games it doesn't mean they're all bad for your health.

Have you seen that study that says "consuming" "video content" passively no matter the source leads to cognitive impairment, while video games - which are active - don't?

	▲	throwanem a day ago \| parent [-]
		I haven't said that I'm not interested in video games! I admit these days I go deep rather than broad, but that's not the same at all as saying I don't play them. That said, while I can't tell with whom you mean to find yourself arguing, I can see by now that's not me. I'll leave you to find an interlocutor better poised to provide the kind of discussion for which you're looking; enjoy your day!