I’m really drawn in by Bogost’s section on rebuttal or raising objections to the arguments made in the design of a game. He responds to players’ seeming lack of ability to raise procedural objections in two parts: 1.) user alteration of a game’s procedures is usually not allowed but one can try to poke at inconsistencies in the design to play it how you will, and 2) since most texts are not dialectic, one can simply create their own game in response (easier said than done, Ian). Response 2 is a bit disingenuous, considering the considerable obstacles that stop the average player from creating and distributing a game that responds in a meaningful way. But I wish Bogost would have expanded a bit more on subversive forms of play; the ability to resist the procedural arguments that a game designer makes is one of the more rewarding aspects of playing and responding to games.

In Mario Maker, there is a sadistic, evil level creator that likes to make levels that are tediously difficult and tricky, but one level in particular stood out as being truly sadistic: a level with a series of puzzles that each necessitated killing Yoshi to proceed. One player was so offended by the design of this level that he found a way to exploit each puzzle so that Yoshi would survive every encounter, while still allowing the player to advance to the next puzzle. The player was able to subvert the will of the designer and completed the level in a way that ran completely contrary to its intended experience.