Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

BOOK CLUB: Games: Agency As Art - Part 1 (Patreon)

Published:
2023-01-19 18:59:03
Edited:
2024-02-16 16:39:48
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Content

This is a discussion thread for the first part of Games: Agency as Art.

I’m in the comments, Ellen’s in the comments, C. Thi Nguyen is not in the comments, unless? No he's not.

---------------

Achievement/Striving, Intrinsic/Extrinsic, Goal/Purpose

I have an appointment next week to play tennis with a guy who fucked my wife.

My pre-lusory goal is to annihilate him as measured by the rules of tennis and my lusory goal is to prove I am MORE OF A MAN THAN HIM.

Tennis victory is a disposable end, a pre-lusory goals that gets me to my lusory goal of reclaiming my lost manhood. An alternative lusory goal might be something like "having fun".

---------------

Layers of Agency

“We have the capacity to submerge ourselves in a temporary agency. We conduct that submersion via a complex motivational structure, whereby we set up a temporary inner layer that will dominate our practical activity, and our awareness of that activity. But that inner layer is held within an enduring outer layer, that must be held at phenomenal arm’s length, but which also must have the capacity to step in and cancel our absorption in the inner layer.” (73)

THERE ARE TWO WOLVES INSIDE YOU. 

One wolf wants to have fun playing a game, and the other wolf wants to win the game. Strangely, you have to believe the winning wolf to have fun, even though that's actually not what is REALLY most important to you.

---------------

Games and Autonomy

Nguyen explains:

1) The wholeness of being a person means at any given second you have two hundred thousand competing agencies, with their own agendas/pathways/logical matrixes/decision sets, so games are a necessary tool to selectively tap into different agencies in semi-controlled settings with minimal life ruining consequences. Kids learn this in the schoolyard.

2) “An agential mode is a focused way of being an agent. To enter an agential mode is to focus on a particular set of goals and on a particular set of abilities as the method for achieving those goals.” (79)

3) Structured games are the art of agential fluidity, as they motivate players to take on and discard different motivational sets of being &worldviews &ways of moving one’s body in service of aesthetic values.

---------------

cj anecdote: I noticed as a camp counsellor that kids are playing games even when the rules are very very abstract. it's truly the way they kind of practice the thrill of Being Alive. I recall when they slowly sneak up on you until you turn around and they yell and run away like I'm going to "get" them. The desire to do a stealth mission that turns into a chase. What are the rules here? The limitations? It's really like lion cubs wrestling or something. What agency is being practiced here? Why? What's the fun? I dunno.

ellen anecdote: the first time I played the card game ‘spoons’ was on an airplane with two random kids my age I was stuck in the middle seat between. the INSTANT my fingers first closed around the spoon for the first time, after losing about 5 rounds in a row, our plane hit awful turbulence and it felt like the lord jesus was striking me out of the sky specifically for winning spoons.

---------------

Sorry this thread is a day late! I got busy!!! I am so busy!!! Videos coming though.

What do you think of the things and stuff?

Files

Comments

Natthew Lee

The idea of setting a goal different from your actual goal in order to achieve your enduring ends (“real goal”) makes so much sense to me. It’s very Mr. Miyagi. It seems so simple and intuitive but having it explained like this makes so much sense. Those that enjoy practicing of course progress faster than those that begrudgingly grit their teeth through practice so they can build up skill to make “real” art. “The paradox of hedonism - one cannot achieve pleasure by pursuing it directly, but only by devoting oneself to some other end.” “we should to some extent put [our goal] out of sight and not aim directly at it” (54) Ties back to the example of people who aspire to be a YouTuber. If you want subscriber, you make interesting videos and have something to say and subscriber may follow: don’t MrBeast it. If you chase the signifier rather than what the signifier follows from, then you will find pain. The dissociative layering of the inner self and outer self in game play. Kinda freaky. Reminds me of the CGP Grey video You are Two, which talks about when they split someone’s brain in half the left and right brains act as basically different people. Reminds me of Ben 10’s tenth alien, Alien X, that is all powerful except it’s also two people arguing with each other and it can only unleash it’s godlike power if they can agree. Reminds me of our gut microbiome being made up of millions of little guys that decide what we like to eat and if we’re sad or not. We contain multitudes literally. One person is like those diagrams in physics of all the different arrows representing forces pushing on the same object to result in one motion. It’s freaky to think about, but also kind of cool that we can do this agential subdivisional layering (sub)voluntarily. There’s a connection between agential fluidity and empathy. Nguyen strikes down the idea that video games *only* foment empathy, in favor of his more specific agential practice theory (which makes sense). But agential fluidity and empathy both necessitate one to “pretend as if”. I suppose the difference is games need you to “act as if” you’re doing something, and empathy needs you to “imagine as if” you’re someone. One is an agential exercise, one is an imaginative exercise. I understand why he made the distinction now that I’ve written this paragraph and thought about it a bit more! finally: I think it’s cool that play has such an agential utility, but also it kind of sucks some of the excitement out of it? Like, part of what makes some play cool is that it lacks a utility, it’s just fun. Giving it a purpose for giving you agency XP points kind of makes it utilitarian in a way that sucks a bit :/ Also: What is the agential utility to stupid games? He didn’t get into that at all iirc. Would it just be an agential mode of cooperation? Overall really cool ideas! The way he writes is clear but also a bit dry some times because he goes so in depth into every edge case but i guess thats academic writing for you! Ok peace out til next week xoxoxoxo natthew

Amor Sciendi and Shakespeare Play by Play

First: Your anecdote about being a camp councilor reminded of an art piece I saw at the Venice Bienalle this year: Francis Alys "The Nature of the Game". It is a series of videos featuring children from all over the world just playing games and pursuing joy, either by themselves or with a group. I've to see it again after reading this book.

Amor Sciendi and Shakespeare Play by Play

Second: This section had me thinking on Meghan Rapino's statements about trans-inclusion in sports. She said, "so much of this trans inclusion argument has been put through the extremely tiny lens of elite sports. Like, that is not the way that we need to be framing this question. We’re talking about kids. ... Show me the evidence that trans women are taking everyone’s scholarships, are dominating in every sport, are winning every title. I’m sorry, it’s just not happening. So we need to start from inclusion, period. And as things arise, I have confidence that we can figure it out. But we can’t start at the opposite. That is cruel. And frankly, it’s just disgusting." I think we can apply Nguyen’s distinction between striving games and achieving games to her description of elite sports and high school sports. These are two different conversations. In professional or elite sports, the purpose is winning because careers depend on winning. But at every level outside of those elite levels, the purpose is inclusion…. To participate in striving activities together. Third: the descriptions of agential fluidity made me think of David Graeber’s final book The Dawn of Everything, which had a strong focus on maintaining fluidity in human communities and the importance of agential fluidity… which seems to be where Nguyen is going with this.

Adison

hi again! overall, i’m quite struck by the world view that is beginning to develop around the theory. i find the way the nguyen understands and analyzes human actions and motivations deeply interesting and emotionally compelling. in nguyen’s eyes, humans are deeply fluid creatures capable of both great silliness and seriousness, and creatures who can learn from one another and the world around us. his view of humanity is deeply optimistic and i find it not only compelling, but also quite beautiful. i am enjoying the seriousness is which “silly” pursuits like play are being analyzed, and the profound beauty that comes from engaging with these often marginalized parts of ourselves. “In Homo Ludens—a foundational text in the academic study of games—Johan Huizinga says that play is irrational. But, says Huizinga, the fact that we play games shows, not that we are defective, but that we are capable of transcending rationality. Play, not rationality, is the characteristic activity of humans. We are homo lumens, not homo sapiens.” (chapter 2) “Academics—especially philosophers—tend to devote their theoretical energies to the serious side of human, and tend to ignore the humorous, the playful, and the ridiculous. There is, for example, a great inequity between the rather great amount of philosophy that has been written on tragedy, and the paltry bit of work on comedy. This suggests an explanation for the philosophy of sports’ focus on elite sports. Elite sports are valuable in the way that many other serious activities are valuable, and so are more amenable to theorizing with pre-established conceptual tools. The discussion in the philosophy of sports has, for this reason, largely been couched in terms of such familiar values as difficulty, achievement, winning, skill development, and the production and display of personal excellence. The philosophical work on games has largely ignored stupid games, silly games, and funny games. This is, I suggest, because such games are exemplars of the motivationally unfamiliar category of striving games, and do not fit well with our standard accounts of justification and value.” (chapter 2)

Adison

I also enjoyed the discussion of limitations and freedom in chapter 4. I also agree that often limitations create new possibilities and enhance the creative thinking and options of any given activity. I came to this conclusion in my own life while studying improvisational dance. when you’re given complete control over your movement, it can often be really hard to figure out where to begin and how to narrow your focus. but take away the use of your right arm for example, and suddenly your legs become this crazy new body part and you create movement you never would've considered in the first place. i also think that a view of freedom that includes restrictions can be incredibly powerful outside of games and creative thinking. too often freedom is held up as a deeply individualistic pursuit, and in my opinion that can cause a lot of problems. by understanding freedom through restriction and limitation, it allows us to imagine a world in which freedom exists in a healthy way, one in which autonomy is shaped towards the greater good. “Some of that strangeness may arise from some the view that we all must develop our autonomy on our own. Such individualism has held sway over theories of autonomy in the past, but I think that it isn’t actually tenable. Any genuinely plausible view of autonomy and freedom must make room for the fact that we learn from others and that we learn from others using a wide variety of techniques” (chapter 4)

halley

I'm a bit late, but I finally finished chapter four so I can join in! I've been digesting and contemplating these chapters for a while now so my apologies if this seems a bit all over the place... The discussions on game types in Ch2 reminded me of a frustrating genre of games we would sometimes play at camps which we called 'mind games', and I'm thinking of them in this context as stupid-aesthetic-striving games. Games like psychologist, draw the moon, going on a picnic, etc. where the in-game goal is to figure out how to play the game. Once you learn the hidden rules you achieve a different mode of gameplay where you can take part and access the coded secrets/jokes/language being shared between the people in the know, but you can only continue to play as long as there are still some who don't know how to play. I was thinking of the Sims as being similar to some theatre games because the goal isn't clearly defined but rather to have fun/be funny. I think social games with the goal of being funny on purpose for its own sake is a weird goal inversion that can hinder the goal itself- maybe this is why I find improv games and cards against humanity to be so stressful and often humiliating. I've tried making sense of how I can like games that go against my usual value system, and the concept of a disjointed internal agency made a lot of sense to me. For example, I really love playing Risk but the idea of global domination as a goal seems to go against integral values of my enduring self. The idea presented in Ch4 that "familiarity with destructive agencies... can be useful to a good-hearted agent for understanding the bad actors that they’ll have to contend with" made me rethink this a bit- maybe I am drawn to this type of game because I want to understand the motivations and workings of geopolitics that can make such incomprehensibly awful things as war possible and even seem reasonable. "Our fluidity is how we can step outside our enduring selves, and not just see the world from a different perspective... but to act for ourselves, from a different agential perspective" --- I think this might explain why the activity of watching people play games is so weird to me, and why I could never connect to professional sports- I really don't give a shit about who does what on TV, and I have no desire to train and get good at those sports. But if some friends or kids are kicking around a ball for fun I'd join in a heartbeat to play and run around with no hope of winning but trying my best anyways. "It is much easier to point out a perfectly elegant chess move than a perfectly elegant political solution. Harmonies between agent and world are easier to achieve when the agent is thinner, simpler, and clearer, and when the world has been temporarily cleared of various ambiguities and complexities." --- This had me thinking about my partner telling me how chess used to be played between kings in ancient Persia, how they would send messengers to deliver news of the next move and the kings would be judged by how skillful they were at this strategic game- because who would want to fight in an army under a king who lost to their rival in chess? But then, is this a sound way to judge a ruler? How much can we infer about one's skills by their abilities in gameplay? So, how much can we extrapolate from certain degrees of success or failure in these targeted agential modes? If I am particularly good at the card game bullshit, regardless of my cards, and my husband is utterly unable to make himself lie even for the sake of the game- this seems to reflect our characters, our upbringings, our values and abilities to manipulate and disregard the truth. The one time we played I felt outed, and he felt exposed- but is this fair, in the context of 'just a game'? Can't gameplay be relationally dangerous, or at least possibly too revealing? Also, just wanted to add that I quite appreciated how he provided technical definitions for 'bullshit' and 'asshole' in the footnotes.

valentin

This books has been great so far. I've been breezing though it. Nguyens writing style works really well for me. The way he breaks down everything to its very core and repeats it from different viewpoints makes everything he's saying really understandable even when he's talking about concepts that are quite complicated in nature. I'm reading this on my kindle and it keeps giving me weird stats like how long it'll take for me to read the chapter or how many percent of the book I've already read. I tried turning them off but bezoz really wants me to know that stuff apparently. Just wanted to mention that bc I thought it was funny that the kindle kind of gamifies the process of reading. Anyways here are some of my thoughts in no particular order: 1: CJ Keeps making us read books with a mountain and a guy and a helicopter in it. If I had a nickel for every book club book that had the mountain climber analogy in it I'd have too nickels, which isn't a lot but it's weird that it happened twice. 2: "We cognitively limited beings need to become something like a swiss army knife of agencies." Good analogy Sir Nguyen, I like thinking I am a swiss army knife. If you were a swiss army knife, what would be your special tool? Mine would be a Laser Pointer. 3: I've been thinking about animals. They play too right? The whole "homo ludens" thing kind of falls apart for me because we aren't the only species capable of play. I did some research on the matter and here are some examples: - Wolves and Dogs play, they do it a lot in fact. Some dogs will actually restrain themselves in order to keep their weaker opponents engaged. Sound similar? It seems like even dogs are able to switch agential modes. And the game fetch apparently wasn't even invented by humans but by wolves. (In an experiment wolf puppies who had never been taught the game fetch retrieved a tennis ball when it was thrown for them) - Some wolves bond to ravens by playing some kind of version of catch with them. Ravens will even fly over them with sticks and tease the wolves. Ravens are actually sometimes observed sliding down hills in winter and latching onto branches and bouncing around. https://youtu.be/GIuOGli_Kik - Otters do a simar thing, they slide down hills together and "juggle" stones (they're just doing weird hand movements and stuff, their technique is flawed by they get a few points for trying) https://youtu.be/U7bvq0VEnYA So I don't know what my conclusion is. I think in some cases these animals mainly play for fun, but I do think some of the games might serve another purpose, like socialising (wolves & ravens) or becoming more proficient with a certain tool (otters). As we've seen with the dogs handicapping themselves they seem to be somewhat capable of striving play. Idk I'm interested what yall think.

halley

I've been thinking about this, and my first reaction was that animals do play, but there is a distinction to be made between free play and structured games. I think that to play is human, but not what makes us human, as other species also play. But I think the difference here is that animals don't play games- games are distinct as a kind of structured, prescriptive play. Kind of like how animals communicate with each other but the structures of language and grammar is something unique to humans. As I kept reading I found that Chapter 6 seems to answer this question and give some more context for what games are: "Games are “works”; an intentionally authored, stable object, made for some specified form of appreciation and consumption... constituted by prescriptions about what its users must do in order to encounter that work."

annie liz

I have taken to the habit of adding little notes and drawings in the margins of my denser books to help assign locational markers to each page in front of me. For this book specifically, I have taken to adding little hammers to the sections where Nguyen has beaten and drilled and generally forced his words into the metaphorical anvil. He loves to circle back once, twice, eighteen times to recall statements and points from the beginning to make sure you’re receiving the connections he’s making, and for a reader with faster comprehension, it might start to feel annoyingly repetitive. Luckily for us, I am not a reader with faster comprehension. i need the hammers, i need the callbacks, my brain is a silly little anvil and Nguyen is a very patient smith. This book is so fun! So much of these chapters feel simultaneously complex but also deeply intuitive? The whole section on temporary means and the ways we float between agencies was weird to visualize but also just made sense, like yeah! I do have a variety of wants needs and goals! I do tend to put on different hats to complete different and complex tasks! I just didn’t have the vocabulary to explain that before but now I do and its useful! It reminded me of some aspects of Pirsig when we were first going over Quality, like yeah, sometimes things are Good. No yeah that makes sense it’s just like that. I feel that. Checks out. What really got to me was the multi-dimensional aspects of game playing mindsets, specifically in submersion and agential layers. The layers of agency chapter was the hardest for me (took me like 2 days to reread the same maieutic ends section over and over again, which was frankly pretty embarrassing), BUT the overall point was very dope in its wobbliness. Our full submersion in a temporary agency with in-game ends is like choosing to adhere your ends to a two-dimensional flat disc, while our broader ends are a three-dimensional sphere encompassing it. Circles in circles, little fucked up venn diagrams where we are fully invested for the sake of the game and yet simultaneously not completely, for the sake of the reason we started the game in the first place. Put a small speaker in front of a big speaker and walk away with the small speaker to your ear so that’s all you can temporarily hear (even though the big speaker is still playing). Eclipsing ends on ends (like the moooon) I also found the time aspects of it wonderful. At this point we know I’m a slut for time shenanigans, and this section fed me well. Throughout the chapters I found myself underlining “short-term” and “long-term” often, and saw so many connections of focusing intently on one FOR THE SAKE of the other, making it very relational with your own self. Inverted motivations, inverted goals, sometimes putting the cart before the horse on purpose. Nguyen paints humans with a very optimistic and loving brush; all the treatises on us being capable of transcending rationality, temporary transformation, SIMULTANEOUS transformation, and our capacity to change within ourselves was weirdly quite moving to me. Chapter 4 on autonomy feels like bungee jumping but gravity switches directions every time you reach one end. I loved it. Narrowing your field broadens your horizons. Rigidity invites flexibility. Single focuses allow multifocus. Static in a relationship with the Dynamic. Importantly, though, it does NOT call to mind a dialectic of opposing forces, but rather harmonious wholes being whole at the same time in one space. The agency inventory/plurality of values metaphor made it really easy to grasp. Very much looking forward to learning more about the aesthetics of agency, and how that is uniquely translated in the MEDIUM of agency. Cool beans cool stuff cool games cool club

Chandler Sterling

Time to step into my Book Club agential mode and play the game called Do I Actually Remember Anything I Just Read? If my goal is to recall some structured version of my thoughts while reading, then I guess my obstacle would be my earbuds sitting in my pocket that are begging me to listen to music instead of buckling down and sorting through 3 dense chapters. I'm going to exert my will for as long as possible, but if I cut off randomly, just know the tunes won this round. I was very pleased with how well ideas seem to naturally build on each other in this section. The idea of features changing to an obstacle based on our stated goal is a very nice starter course for the idea of agential modes. We're already conceptualizing the idea 2 chapters earlier in order to understand an entirely different idea. Whenever an idea seems to run back into itself like an ouroboros, it feels like there's something innately true in it. Cycles tend to indicate Truth because their complexity is pretty much impossible to manufacture. I look forward to seeing how these ideas continue to run into each other in future chapters. The fact that Chapter 9 has already been referenced multiple times gives me high hopes that we will continue to see these things pop up like meerkats. Not a ton to say about Chapter 2 honestly. I appreciate the necessity of defending the basis on which everything else will naturally flow, but as someone who was sold by the first page, it does feel redundant. At least Nguyen is a good writer, it makes for interesting reading even when I'm going, "Yeah, yeah, the hypothetical skeptic is wrong, obviously!" I will say that I like the emphasis on the familial aspect of playing games. It seems pretty important to understand what games are for 90% of the players instead of focusing so hard on what only the experts do. I was not surprised to see immersion rearing its head so soon either. I don't think about it as much with every type of game, but any discussion of video games online seems to come back to immersion. It's that intangible thing that everyone wants out of games even though most of them could never tell you why. Nguyen is not most people, and I am grateful to him for that. I laughed out loud when I read that CJ also landed on the "Inside you are 2 wolves" parallels. I have written in the margins of chapter 3, "Inside you are 2 wolves. 1 is a sore loser. The other is so chill." Good to know that there have always been, and there always will be, 2 wolves inside the gamer. Maieutic ends!! What an idea. I love the timing too. Just when I was getting curious about if there would be any applications in this book for these ideas outside of the world of games, here comes the best description of how people fall in love I've ever had the pleasure of reading. The idea from Juul that we live in a paradox of plausible deniability of failure instantly made me think of how I've heard so many people play Uno. Uno is a game of chance until you play your last card. Then it is a game of strategy and skill. Nguyen goes on to disprove this mentality to some extent, but even he admits that there is some very funny truth to the idea. Chapter 4 was my favorite so far, but I'm biased because it said a lot of things I've been known to say! Albeit in a much smarter and better organized way. In writing, I have often heard the rule that you should embrace your constraints, and I have forced many a friend to sit and listen to me gush about how good of a rule it is. The blank page is not your friend! Write first, think later, that's what a second draft is for! A blank page can be anything, but if you never start, it'll always be nothing. Nguyen puts it much kinder and more elegantly when he says that restriction is a path toward greater freedom. "True" freedom is the blank page, but games are a writing prompt. They're pointing us in a direction we might never have gone if we only ever had a page. I think my last thought for today will be this. With all these agential modes of being, and the idea of how gamified social media can be, I'm curious to think about if influencer mode is a thing. I think it sort of explains a lot about how people discuss their "brand" and how that's not really them even if the lines get very blurry. On camera, you are in influencer mode, and off of it, you're practicing one of many other modes of agency, but the key is that you don't identify with that influencer mode. You put on the temporary agency of the creator in order to play the game of social media, but an audience can only interact with you in that mode. When they see you outside of it, there's a disconnect because they're trying interact with that mode of you, and you shed it. I guess that sort of explains to me why parasociality has become so much more prevalent on the Internet. It's easier to see the game a "traditional" celebrity was playing, so we aren't shocked to see that they are in another mode in person. I don't know if any of that made sense, this is my first pass at an idea someone's probably already had and refined way better, but I'm getting there! Anyway, go play D&D. It's a good game, and every point Nguyen makes seems to tie in one way or the other.

mouse

still really loving this book! it's giving me lots of thoughts and I really appreciate it 1) "and we can do so for the sake of aesthetic experiences of striving - of our own gracefulness, of the delicious perfection is an intellectual epiphany, of the intensity of the struggle, or of the dramatic arc of the whole thing." - agency gives us freedom, but only within the game's limits? 2) I like that Intrinsic achievement play, Extrinsic achievement play, Intrinsic striving play, and Extrinsic striving play kind of make a spectrum of a graph with 4 lines! it might be fun to sort games/playing strategies into them. 3) I'm curious if obstacles are a form of aesthetic beauty in themselves especially since a goal doesn't necessarily exist without them, and the in between area is the beautiful aesthetic experience. it reminds me of the intersection between romantic and classical from ZMM, if that's an accurate way to think about it? 4) I had to look up what sinecure meant, new favorite word lol 5) "if, for instance, players only played cor the sake of winning, when a Chess grandmaster showed up at the local Chess club, all the local Chess players should flee. but, as a matter of fact, they do not; often, the line up for the experience of trying their damned best and losing beautifully." 6) there is professional Tag games now!! something stupid has become professional! and it's very entertaining to watch! 7) I want to look more into the differences and similarities between performance and games cited on page 45. I'm curious about how if games aren't performance, how would livestreamed games for income be considered? 8) I love that the word "submerge" is used to describe our entry into striving play 9) something i was thinking: true absorption into a game experience takes a lot of vulnerability I think, especially depending on the game, especially ones like Signs that Nguyen talks about. experiencing meditativeness is kind of inherently vulnerable. 10) when i was a kid my family and I had game (I can't even remember what game it was) that had this phrase in the instructions: "it's just a game, after all!" and it's stuck with me my whole life lol. 11) because I am a trans I found the quote from Stocker on page 59 really interesting, about having a private personality. I'm gonna try to read that so I can understand more about what he's talking about 12) the section about gamifying love reminded me of the gamification of dating apps and how that damages how we see ourselves and each other to an extreme degree. 13) "but that is a danger that arises from exporting unrealistic expectations of clarity out of the game, and not from the experience of value clarity in the game itself." Kill The Internet indeed. 14) the quote from Juul on page 70 reminded me of folklore about gods and fae and creatures who pressure people into silly, seemingly inconsequential games and riddles for incredibly high stakes. I think that's a common folklore across so many cultures because subconsciously, humans know that games shouldn't be high stakes like that. just a theory.

Ember

I am constantly reminded of an idea from physics that "a cow is a sphere". It isn't really, but for many equations the shape can be treated as such to make the problem not require a supercomputer to solve. In order to have any real use to investigate a specific idea, there has to be a removal of unnecessary information. The most acurate map of a location is the terrain itself, but in becoming so accurate, it has lost its utility as a map. When reading this chapter, it feels a lot like these concepts. Changing the way agency is limited inherently changes the way interaction happens. The medium changes, so the message changes likewise. psychology gaming, play Soma