Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9097914" data-attributes="member: 71699">Oops, thanks for pointing that out. I've removed the attribution.Hmm, well I was working with the definition you introduced, and I used Roulette as a conveniently simple example. If desired, we can just picture a videogame version of Roulette! More seriously, I've no objection if you feel that definition of agency for videogames shouldn't be applied to other forms, such as TTRPG.Agreed, and that's an interesting point about "barely alive". I have both said that ludic-agency isn't scalar, and suggested that it can be jeopardised.I don't say that games are constituted by allocations of agency, I say they are constituted by suspensions of agency. Seeing as what's essential to a game is to suspend agency (to lack agency in just the right way) and that to increase agency is to change the game (which is what the case you cited relies upon, that the wheel becomes deformed so that the intended game is no longer played.)A paradox that might be illustrative: according to your construct, the highest-agency game wouldn't be a game at all.</blockquote>