For most animals (and historically for humans as well) play is form of practice/training for adult life. Animals pretend to bite and scratch each other for fun, but it is direct training for survival in predatory world. Children used to go fishing – a skill set that has a pretty direct application in that it is a means of obtaining food. Likewise, children would play with dolls in part as preparation/familiarization for parenthood.
Sooo… what does that say about the games we play (or create)?
Either developers are either inadvertently training our audiences to solve problems with force, or (what I find to be more accurate and relevant) NOT training our audiences for anything they are more likely face in their lives.
The play that developers are currently offering isn’t relevant to our players’ lives.
Could we make interesting games with more general relevance? Perhaps there could be some form of economic content that would help folks understand money and debt better in real life. Maybe there could be something that helps people to better understand how to work up the social hierarchy of the corporate ladder.
Could we make a game that prepares people for life in a cubicle? Would we want to?
On the game that I am currently working on, the core mechanic is all about exploration, which seemed fine to me – as it does not have any particularly negative aspect to it.
But perhaps that is not good enough. The ‘message’ of the game as I intend it, would be the importance of exploration and experimentation. But then I wonder if it’s just an excuse and that I could be offering content that is more directly useful in people’s lives.