A world made of removable parts turns a setting into a material

The argument

Proponents of this position start from a single rule the game applies everywhere. The world is built from units, and every one of them can be removed, carried and put down somewhere else. Stone, earth, wood, sand and water are all handled the same way, and nothing in the landscape is merely scenery. Proponents argue that this one decision changes what a world is for. In most games the environment is a place the player moves through, and the parts of it that can be altered are marked out in advance. Here the whole of it is stock. The argument is that this converts the player's relationship to the world from navigation into construction. The question a player asks stops being where they can get to and becomes what they can make, because the answer to the second question is almost anything that fits the grid. Proponents stress that the uniformity matters as much as the freedom: because every unit behaves by the same rules, a player does not have to learn which objects respond and which are decoration, and can see at a glance that a hillside is as removable as a wall. The possibilities are legible rather than hidden, which is what makes them usable. Holders of the view add that the constraint of the grid is part of the appeal rather than a limit on it. Working in units forces a builder to decide how to represent a curve, a roof or a face in blocks, which is a design problem with many answers and a recognisable style in each of them. Proponents argue that this is why what players make is identifiably theirs, and why the results are shown to other people at all, which would be a strange thing to do with a world that merely let them wander around in it.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics argue that building is a minority pursuit among those who play. Most players, they suggest, spend their time exploring, fighting, gathering and playing with friends, and elaborate construction is the visible activity because it is the one worth showing other people, which makes it unrepresentative of why the game is popular. They also note that games offering construction have existed for a long time without attracting anything like the same audience, so the mechanic cannot be sufficient on its own. Others object that the grid is as much a restriction as a prompt, and that attributing a style to it credits the game with what its players supply.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Most play is spent exploring, gathering, fighting and socialising rather than building, so treating the environment as material describes a minority of what players do with it. [Rejecting P3] Games offering comparable construction have existed for a long time without attracting a similar audience, so legible possibilities cannot be what accounts for the popularity. [Rejecting C] The recognisable style of what players make is supplied by the players rather than by the grid, so the conclusion credits the design with their contribution.