overall, i think 'content' choices really are the bloody juicy material of videogames... when a player plays a game they are trapped in its grasp. not my grasp, but the grasp of the rules and constraints, in the way that death of the author describes the text as speaking in its own voice, then the game too constraints with its own body. it snakes around the player, the player submits to this, and in exchange the player receives some bright direction, inspiration, ignition. i think the location of the major arcana in this reading indicate some serious focus being sent in the direction of 'content' choices. gameplay.

on the other hand, what about metagaming choices? i think they speak about the player (the queen of cups being a queen of mirror-like self-reflection), and my responsibility to these choices is to recognize them -- i can do this systemically, but in general i think my reading admits a large proportion of non-systemic recognition. maybe this is where 'patching' a game comes in, idk. changing the rules.

i enjoyed making cruel world.

i don't understand the queen of wands.

6. [queen of wands] my queen of wands in particular is in motion. climbing, ascending, towards the other throne. my immediate read is that the idea of integrating the two kinds of play is aspirational, maybe there is someone like this who can help integrate, i don't know. i think my interpretation is going in a different direction than i had designed the questions for...

5. [six of wands] "ask... how will i react to this acknowledgement of my success?" "your achievements are being seen and recognized."
i think that this suggests two things to me about acknowledging metagaming-like play
a) i should do it and be recognized? but no, this is more like THE SUN
then the only reading that makes sense to me is b) this is the position the player is in, their actions are being 'seen' and 'recognized'. this makes a lot of sense to me... if someone plays a game of mine and does something unexpected, my responsibility is to recognize and acknowledge this. at least, this aligns with how i've historically done this. but it still frames the metagaming-like play in terms of 'achievement', this is bothering me

torcado is so good at doing impossible things in games omg. i notice this and it is meaningful to me, this is the six of wands in action

4. [XII THE HANGED MAN] hmm. another major, a weird one. i stumbled into pre-answering 4 myself in 3, can this card complicate things for me?
"YOU ARE STILL, AND NOT STRUGGLING. YOUR SUSPENSION IS A WILLING SACRIFICE."
there are birds, one is in flight. there are gliders.
i can't say whether this means i want to kill gameplay because of me being the hanged man, or because players are experiencing it...
". . . a particular need to suspend certain action. As a result, this might indicate a certain period of indecision." -laby

1. [eight of wands] the goal of 'content' choices are simple, they are choices towards efficiency. makes sense with what i know (and kill gameplay), they are an exercise in trying to turn the pages as fast as possible or comfortable.
there's something nice about playing a game vs watching a movie, which is that i get to turn the page when i am ready. i like this about books too.

2. [queen of cups] the non-content metagaming choices are mirrors... ok this makes sense... i won't explain inline yet

3. [XIX THE SUN] aagh a major. the sun is the joy of inspiring direction, the sun is the joy of gameplay. 'content' choices feel more real, they are a bright external body that one can worship. my sun depicts three figures, the sun is an inspiration and also inspires. i don't think that much about the icarus-like implications here but it might be applicable to 'kill gameplay' thoughts. but yes, these kinds of choices for efficiency feel real. they are real

writing about study 359C, i came upon the idea of two different types of choices: when the player chooses new content, and when the player chooses something other than that (i.e. metagaming).

i struggled a little with finding a convenient handle for the difference, although the difference was very clear, and lately i've been using tarot for giving clarity to muddy concepts.

the first part of clarifying a muddy concept is thinking hard about what questions to ask. this may or may not make sense at this stage, because i'm trying to explain something that seems concrete in my mind but can't explain, thus i can't explain why the questions are or might be relevant. (i might also be fooling myself, thinking that the thing is concrete.)

1. what are the 'content' choices making choices about?
2. what are the 'non-content' (metagaming?) choices making choices about?
3. why do 'content' choices feel more real?
4. why do i want to kill gameplay, which largely involves 'content' choices?
5. what responsibility do i have over 'non-content' (metagaming?) choices?
6. can the two be integrated or are they irreconcilable?

10? 10 needle's paths?

the summary of my thought is that i had been thinking about freedom to move between points, but i'd like to think instead of the beauty of the material, which includes those paths. compositional rules must apply, in making and receiving.

obviously 'all things must be equal' cannot be possibly be right.

there are a countable number of interpretations, a player walks the needle, they want one path, then another, not a million undifferentiated paths. one interpretation, then another. ten interpretations but seen clearly -- CA's pattern of exits... that's how i experience it, too. can each needle's path be bright and clear? how many such paths does it take for someone to realize one that i never saw?

QuoteI want to pursue beauty and freedom. I want to explore the thrill of the best parts of what videogames are and deliver nothing but smooth, perfect movement through imagined proprioceptive space.

QuoteIt will, must, take some material form. Bits on the machine and pixels on the screen, bright.

wow there's something so thrilling about what i wrote for my artist statement here (may be changed.. unsure..)

a little more re-re-interpretation
looking up kings, they tend to have the connotation of activity, acting, 'wielding', and queens are more 'receiving' (this has generally been my reading too, the triangles are shaped the way they are in my deck for this reason)
also the coins, in context of the complete graph, 'earth', 'ground', 'material'... if i've been thinking about the material of games as the states and their interconnection, it's obvious that the complete (flat) graph is insufficient, limiting

1. four of swords : like the page of swords, an oversimplification, but in this case in service of a rest.
makes sense. i have been focusing my active mind (ah, swords!!!) on the elements rather than the paths.
2. king of coins : i'm now thinking about applying energy to the ground, the whole ground.
not just the elements but the paths.
3. queen of coins : and in order to do so, i'm thinking about how to receive the whole thing...
how does one experience and receive the entire material? the paths, the elements, the differentiations between the two types of thing.