Myst and similar games throw the player into an unknown world with very little hand-holding. They are given very few direct appeals to what the purpose of the game is about and how you're even supposed to play it.

The purpose is to tease out the meaning of the world (The producer-product relationship) - to take the time grappling with the concepts presented by the environment, and to solve the puzzles (Clockwork game philosophy builds infinite fun) that are not necessarily always easy.

This is how we learn best (Struggle in learning solidifies knowledge). Conceptually conversing (Chris Crawford conversation model) with the world.

But it brings up the obvious problem that not a whole lot of people actually like to play this kind of game for fun. The idea and challenge is fun, but the work is hard.

The people that play it through to the end understand the world exceptionally well because it is a difficult process of grappling with the world. And the people that get bored move on to something else because the hard work involved is not worth the payout.

As a parallel to education, this is a disheartening problem. If the material is made easy (Chronic inflammation is the real problem), it teaches nothing to everyone. If the material is made hard, it teaches everything to no one.

• One potential solution to this is the concepts I explore in the zetels where I talk about putting your emphasis on the inefficiencies (Only focusing on inefficiencies can be discouraging) only. It feels similar.
• Also, it relates to // discovery vs performing

#toolong