Bianca, I was thinking about that same article, because as with so many moments of Ian Bogost and his beard, I find myself nodding in agreement until a moment when I’m suddenly not. It always happens the same way, and I’m not sure why. I love how he talks about visualizing the simulating in that Atlantic article when talking about Sim City; we are seeing exactly what’s happening, but it’s rendered in a different visual mode, not only in terms of the computing simulation, but all the weird baggage that comes with it, that Bogost tags as uniquely American. But then he begins to veer off, into problems with games — that I agree with; games are wonderful, games are terrible — and comes to the conclusion that games are at their best when there are only systems and not characters. Too many issues, he says. Makes games like books. Give us just the systems. Break away from identity.

Except there’s plenty of research that shows we crave story. We want narrative and understanding, yes, even of those systems — and those systems include people. People who aren’t always predictable. Who don’t follow rules, who are often more interesting when they don’t. Why remove character from all games, Bogost? What do we lose as people when we think only in if-then statements?