the oubliettes linger with me most.
[oubliette] felt truly gameplay-free.
firstly, because it lacks an ideal state (the end door present in most levels), which is at least to me, like we discussed, strongly tied to the notion of game(play). [i guess to be precise, as there is a single state, whether it is ideal or not is irrelevant, because the notion of ideal is relative to the less-ideal. this is an implementation detail though, for the purposes of this train of thought]
secondly, because, as an essential counterpoint to the first, it gives you control over when to end the experience. which is perhaps thematically contrary to the idea of an oubliette, perhaps a constraint of form here (having to let you go back to the menu and experience more levels), but nevertheless unequivocally necessary if one takes away the ideal state. yet games can give you that freedom as well --it is not an anti-gameplay trait per se--, and i often wonder why they don't. one of my favorite examples is Sable, where you could decide to pick a tribe and hit credits after having met only one or few of the many options, without nearly experiencing even the majority of the content of the game. (that alone makes it one of my favorite games. i did end it early; i identified as a cartographer, so strongly that i felt no need to explore other tribes, and chose their mask as mine, ending the game only a few hours in, knowing there were dozens more i could experience, but with zero regrets -- i had been given a voluntary conclusion; closure; just like [oubliette], because it acknowledges the escape mechanism)
but what i keep thinking about, and my personal favorite level, is [another oubliette]. having a platform, 2 gaps and 2 doors marks such a stark contrast with the first. i did not even need the "try to enjoy yourself when you are trapped" prompt to start playing within it.
[another oubliette] is, to me, a playground. it also lacks an authored, game-ending ideal state, but it contains an affordance for player-defined ideal states (e.g. reaching the platform). this overlap is core to the dynamic that unfolds: it wouldn't have occured to me to define ideal states, or play undirectedly (in the caillois paidia sense) unless i was trapped. the lack of authored goals nor a (diegetic) way to leave is what enabled the birth of play in my mind (as in play with, or play within, not play it).
it reminded me of the experience of going to actual playgrounds as a child. structurally, they are similar -- a fenced perimeter (sometimes only unlockable by an adult), and undirected "platforms" within. and they had the same effect: forcibly confined within that space, kids create games/goals/stories/ideals using the toys at their disposal.
the crucial part to me is that, had i been allowed to leave the playground -- which i wasn't, as a young child, for a period of time -- then i might have left it early, never considering to imbue meaning or play in those modules, never elevating them (subliming them?). (ironically, if the comedy is not lost on you, i would definitely have left it early to go play... video games).
to be clear, the physical nature of the fencing around the playground is somewhat irrelevant. parents exiling their kids to "go play outside" for a set period of time has the exact same effect on them. and, in that case, parents often literally do this to 'forget' about their children, making this practice a literal oubliette.
more abstractly, these are the thoughts i keep coming back to:
- not all prisons are playgrounds (e.g. [oubliette])
- but maybe all playgrounds must be prisons (e.g. [another oubliette])
- because freedom to escape creates the goal to escape, and implodes the playground (e.g. [final oubliette])
surely there is a Foucauldian quip to be made here, but I haven't read him, so I'll abstain!