Keith Burgun · @keithburgun
12th Jan 2015 from TwitLonger
The meaning of "game formalist"
Despite the fact that I often get labeled such, I'm having difficulty understanding what "formalist" means with regards to games. Had a recent conversation with @flantz. He pointed me to some Yaoi writing stuff as an example of non-formalist works. I said something like, "couldn't you be a yaoi formalist if you care about the structure of Yaoi?" He replied "you could be a yaoi structuralist but a structuralist in games isn't especially interested in fantasizing about fictional chars".
@flantz' original description of formalism he gave was: "[one] who may admire and appreciate the content that doesn't hook into that deep structure but ultimately isn't that interested in it".
Isn't the question then, "well, what *is it* exactly that hooks into the deep structure?" By labeling me a formalist, you're automatically assuming some stuff. I think many people writing interactive fiction would say that stuff like "fictional chars" *are* a core component of interactive systems. I obviously don't think that's the case, but if that's the line we're drawing, it seems like our definition for formalist is actually something like:
"A person who doesn't think characters or [I'm guessing here] visual art or cultural ideas are a core part of interactive systems".
What bothers me about this is that we've sort of baked-in an assumption about what really is a core pat of interactive systems, and what isn't. If you think ideas like mine are true, you're a formalist. If you think other ideas are true, maybe you're not a formalist (do we have a similar label for people who think characters are a core part of interactive systems?)
In other words: if I was exactly the same, and I had all these charts and theories about how interactive systems worked, but my theories just so happened to say that characters and cultural ideas are a CORE part of interactive systems, then am I suddenly *not* a formalist? Seems strange to me.
Maybe "formalist" just means "people who do not think characters/cultural stuff is a core part of interactive systems". I suppose I can accept that, if that's the case, but to me the word "formalist" should probably point to something having to do with the "form" of the thing we're concerned with. To have it point to a specific set of ideas seems strange and maybe a little bit propaganda-ey. I think we're *all* looking for truth in interactive systems design, though. We *all* develop and hear out each others' guidelines for better system design all the time.
So if formalist means "one concerned with the form of the thing they're making", I kind of think that just about everyone is a formalist. Anyone who writes down their rules or codes them is necessarily a formalist.
I am concerned that the way we use the term now, its primary function might just be to dismiss a particular set of views in a kind of sneaky way. Let me know if I'm wrong. Either way, I think the term's meaning should be clarified.