Twitter platforms, in their optimization for engagement, are well suited for people to talk past each other. In that vein this is a break from this blogs normal irregular posting. While none of the contents of this blog should be read; this one is especially skippable.
That being said, if you are so yearning for my Tom-sense (my unique brand of non-sense) you can continue reading. I don't think it will be a good use of your time; but who am I to judge.
I (regrettably) was making some posts on a Twitter for people not to read (on brand). However, I also mentioned that this I felt I wasn't expressing my position due to the nature of the platform and I threatened writing a blog post. This is me making good on that threat.
With that in mind I'm going to summarize my original position better than what I did on the Twitter, respond to a few posts that were made (being generous to the fact that my initial posts did not explain my position well), and finally end with some responses to additional posts.
My Initial Position
This all started with a tweet about software taking over for humans and how scary that could be. Is a pilot really piloting (in this case a fictional giant robot, but it could be anything) when there is a system that can take over control? Videogames already have varying degrees of control assistance, and it is theorized that inputs could be predicted without the players knowledge.
"humans only hesitate when making decisions; the software takesover and the machine does everything: he's a passenger [...] alex thinks he's doing what our computers are doing" feels very mechsplo that you accept what's happening is the EULAized consent of accountability are you even piloting?
— Osaka, esoteric 6dof libidinal axis haver (@osaka.zone) Nov 29, 2025 at 5:02 AM
[image or embed]
that would go scary hard from a game design standpoint. a game with a lot of assistance, and a model monitoring how you execute on tactics, and then it starts performing actions ahead of you without telling you.
— Osaka, esoteric 6dof libidinal axis haver (@osaka.zone) Nov 29, 2025 at 5:07 AM
My position was likening this to how AAA games are increasingly automating the playing of the game away from raw input. I mentioned some of the aim assistance and sticky crosshairs used in console first person shooters, also how some games will auto-crouch or context hint for certain obstacles. I also connected this to how dotted lines showing the player where to go* or cinematic moments take away control (movement and narrative) from the character or how followers will tell players how to complete puzzles. I posited that it wouldn't be hard to make shooting automatic and basically make a game that plays itself. I called this 'final usability' and the 'AAAAA experience' in reference to how bigger and bigger budget titles are obsessed with all players having the same experience and not missing anything.
I also think it would be cool to take away all this automation to let players have full choices and consequences. This is where a game concept takes shape in my head. Basically it would be a game that lets you 'automate everything' and essentially have the game play itself. The player moves through the same areas, shoots the same enemies, talks to the same people saying the same things. This would be a system of upgrades that the player could turn off (or would get damaged and eventually repaired automatically through the regenerating health, another upgrade) to take more fine control of the game. As they do so they get increased agency and can do more exploration. Perhaps there is the obvious twist that 'the system is controlling you' and the 'good guys are actually the bad guys' etc. There are a lot of ways this could go.
I still think this is an interesting idea; some games (like Nier Automata, Tachyon: the Fringe) allow in game/in fiction item selection to change the HUD or controls (Plug-in Chips, Systems upgrades). I think this creates some interesting avenues to explore. In Tachyon there are certain regions that require specialized system components and my require the player to remove systems they have been relying on in order to operate in certain regions. I think there is a lot more that could be done with this and perhaps add verisimilitude to some design considerations. But this idea needs an actual game around it to explore this without this discussion getting lost in the weeds.
*Ironically, the first game I remember literally drawing a line in the world telling me where to go was Bioshock Infinite; which was a feature I never used because of how many other ways they can direct the player where they need to go. However the little top arrow pointing toward the Objective has been around much longer. I don't mind the arrow as long as it is 'dumb' and just literally points at the place I'm trying to go; since the player still has to navigate their way to the location. Although standard 'every game is different' caveats apply.
Like Ships Passing in the Night
This is when I think the misunderstanding occurred. I didn't mean to be making a value judgement on these mechanics. Honestly, I think making a value judgement on a mechanic is generally foolish (unless its literally an exploitative mechanics) because they are all tools used to craft an experience. But on the other hand my posts were not explicitly saying that and Twitter posts force you to be concise so it was an easy conclusion to come to. It's this problem that is causing this blog post to happen and hopefully this prevents further misunderstanding.
Lockon cameras are good provided the actor has a turn-rate. Auto-aim is fine, provided the aim has a rate. Automating these features means positioning and movement become the player focus. Good usability moves players towards the emergent properties of rules, applied via rate and limits.
— Osaka, esoteric 6dof libidinal axis haver (@osaka.zone) Nov 29, 2025 at 4:30 PM
I do try to clarify that this is about individuals design sensibilities and that there is not a good or bad in this context (and I also make the threat of this blog post; which let it be known I have made good on, to my chagrin). But now I have an excuse to opine about videogames and creators expressing themselves and touchy-feely stuff that I tease about but actually hold to great importance.
I feel like videogames are a medium of expression and creators and trying to realize an intent. Basically people put things in videogames because it's important to them. It becomes an interactive collage of what they think is important. Videogames, and all games, are about making a feeling; and games made by people are about trying to share a feeling to players. In this way, it doesn't really make any sense to say certain mechanics are good or bad*; maybe it can be critiqued as to if it is serving the intended feeling of the game (but it could just as easily be the criticizer wishing the game was a different game entirely).
So in this post, I see someone articulating what is important to them in the experience that they want to have in video game. And when I tweet "I disagree, but also agree, but also disagree" what I mean is that the experience I am trying to talk about a different feeling then what they are getting at (but their ideas are not bad ideas either and that there are other ideas out there).
I use skill expression as an example but what I wanted to get at without going on a tangent was the difference that is commonly seen in high level play against old vs new players. At most levels of play this doesn't matter; but human reaction speed peaks pretty young in people (about 24 years old) and most professional gamers of relevant games tend to peak around (or a little later) than that in their careers. So at high level play there is this dynamic of older players being better at things like game sense and positioning (ie having more experience) and younger players just having better 'twitch skills' being able to react faster.
*I think addiction mechanics, coercive mechanics, and dark patterns are almost always bad. The only time I can think of when they would be acceptable is if the game is trying to highlight these mechanics as being unethical or for some sort or narrative purpose. This is why I qualify a lot of my statements, especially because bad actors will try to use freedom of expression as a means to let them manipulate people. Freedom of speech doesn't make fraud legal, so it similarly should not be allowed for unethical designs to be made to exploit people.
The Good Old Days
I'm going to reminisce to provide context about a few things, hopefully it will help people see where I'm coming from. My parents rarely bought me videogames as a child and I would need to do chores to make (generous) money to purchase them myself. I don't think my parents realized they were instilling a contractors mindset within me but I digress. The first two games I bought with my own money and played were Tachyon: the Fringe and Mechwarrior 4: Vengeance (because I had demos that I got from a cd in a videogame magazine). I think these first games really informed a lot of my values in what videogames should be. What's also important is that I did not use a mouse to play these games; only a keyboard. I don't consciously think this is important to me now but seeing how much of what I value as important comes from these games, it might mean something.
I also played a lot of first person shooters; HL2, Doom 3, Unreal Tournament 2k4, Battlefield 1942, eventually Bioshock and other games. But for a good while I was playing CounterStrike: Source and I do (shamefully) still play CounterStrike occasionally today.* I also played several mods that were released and I would say that this is kind of what got me into first person shooters. I remember playing a lot of these games and comparing them to what Bioware was releasing (Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Dragon Age, Mass Effect) and sort of wanting an fps-rpg. I remember Fallout 3 being somewhat close to that but it didn't quite get what I was wanting. And then later that year I played Deus Ex for the first time and finally felt there was a game that was doing what I wanted.
So while it's quickest for me to just say something like "I like first person immersive sims" it doesn't fully explain the way I'm conceiving of games. Avowed is not an immersive sim, but I still really liked the game and I think understanding the games I played in my past helps explain this.
*I played a lot of CS_Office (if you know you know) and actually the current Counter Strike level design tools are pretty great. I've gone full Unreal Engine as of late but I would say Source2 has better level design tools out of the box. Make games and express yourself.
What I Was Saying
armored core for answer is not possible with a free camera and free aiming. the game either must be slower, or the rounds must be hitscan which results in a game where all the skill expression is aiming and none of it is in weapon selction, movement or positioning.
— Osaka, esoteric 6dof libidinal axis haver (@osaka.zone) Nov 30, 2025 at 1:58 AM
The Armored Core control scheme is purpose built for what it wants to do and the kind of game it's trying to be. If this is the type of game that you know and love; go for it. That should be a part of how you make games. From Software (and others) have had a whole series of games around this so it clearly works. And if it didn't clearly work, it would still be worthy of exploring because you thought it was interesting.
The games I make probably wont have those controls because I don't have the same connection to those games or mechanics. And I think this is why I'm getting such a strong reaction; I can see how what I said could be seen as an attack on these sorts of games but I think it's clear from this blog post it was not my intent to do so. I blame the issue on the Twitter format.
Other things I want to respond to
making a game entirely about skill execution results in a game where skill expression has a high floor and if you don't measure up you can't play at all.
— Osaka, esoteric 6dof libidinal axis haver (@osaka.zone) Nov 30, 2025 at 1:58 AM
A little known fact is that I happen to really enjoy games with first person melee combat. I fondly remember playing Chivalry when it was a mod back in the day. I have also more recently played Mordhau, a game that I do not recommend unless you are an enthusiast for precisely the reason that it has a rather high skill floor. Also the community is kind of terrible so most people would probably enjoy playing something like Avowed instead.
Automation moves complexity away from areas while keeping it free in others and the entire value. With all due respect, and I say this as a game designer, don't be stupid son.
— Osaka, esoteric 6dof libidinal axis haver (@osaka.zone) Nov 30, 2025 at 1:58 AM
While this isn't a very nice thing to say; I understand where they are coming from especially when I had to try to mangle my thoughts through a bunch of Twitter posts. What they are thinking I am saying is not what I would consider the best position to take. I don't mind saying this but I actually like the option in first person shooters to be unable to fall off ledges while crouching. It comes out of the box in the UE5 character controller and is I think a great feature for most games. I wont say all automation is bad.
Further reading & viewing which has informed some of my views: Man Play & Games by Roger Caliope Theory of Fun by Raph Koster death of a game: SC2, by nerdslayer studios SC2 is dying but broodwar lives forever by Sayian KCM Obeying the rule of cool by Tlee BogHog & The Electric Underground
— Osaka, esoteric 6dof libidinal axis haver (@osaka.zone) Nov 30, 2025 at 1:58 AM
I'm not looking to start a book club here, but I am somewhat familiar with Theory of Fun by Raph Koster from a degree I got in game design from like 10 years ago. I wouldn't really consider Raph Koster to be the most relevant since he's mostly worked on multiplayer and MMO types of games and I think they are rather different from any of the games that have been brought up thus far. Generally I have found that even reputable game design advice has only about a 50% chance of being useful to the current project you are working on.
The material that I have read and I think is most relevant are:
Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (for creating the most engrossing experience)
MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research by Robin Hunicke, Marc LeBlanc, Robert Zubek (mostly for the idea that mechanics come together and inform a feeling in a game)
The Videogame Industry Does Not Exist by Brendan Keogh (really gets into the touchy-feely stuff about games and who they are for and why they exist)
addendum: the four subcomponents - skill expression (consistency), skill execution (inputs), game-comprehension (game rules) and yomi (opponent comprehension)... these all mean stuff. please don't use "skill expression" the same way tiktok says dopamine. don't therapy-words-ify game-design terms.
— Osaka, esoteric 6dof libidinal axis haver (@osaka.zone) Nov 30, 2025 at 2:50 AM
From my experience, definitions in game design are already incredibly fluid and imprecise. If I'm having a serious game design discussion with someone I will be asking them to define terms even if I think I know what they mean. It's far too common for people to have a specific meaning or nuance that I do not know about.
This whole post is really just about the difficulties of communication and the struggles around it. So I think this is a fitting spot to end things. I hope everyone else's posts on the internet are better than mine. And remember to never threaten to write a blog post, it will not end well.
