Message in a bottle.

Even though I think of my work as design, I don’t have the well defined goals that commodity creators do. I design systems of which I don’t know the outcome. I design them because I am curious to see how people will respond. What will happen to them when they play my game? I hope they enjoy it, but I have no expectations of how they do.

I do not design with a specific goal in mind, like wanting the players to feel a particular emotion, or establish some kind of rapport or understanding. It’s more the other way around. Through my work I ask a question. And I am sincerely curious for the answer.

In part because I want to know who shares my interest in the themes I am exploring. I often have a feeling that I am attracted to things that not many people care about. So the games we release are like messages in a bottle thrown into the ocean, in the hopes of finding a kindred spirit.

This is probably why many people have trouble appreciating our work. I imagine them poking at the game, trying to extract some meaning from it. Or maybe they sit there waiting for the game to hit them emotionally. But the game was designed to extract meaning from them instead and as a sort of “lab test” to find out how they would respond emotionally.

What we create is open ended, not designed to provoke a specific reaction. But when other designers notice that certain aspects do provoke certain responses, our work can inspire them to design for this specifically. Personally however, I prefer making -and playing!- games that were not designed with a specific goal in mind. I find it much more empowering to come up with my own ideas and have personal reactions, than to nicely experience the emotions the designer intended me to experience.

You really need to pick up the bottle, pull out the cork and read the note. And then I want to see your response. Do you burn the note? Eat it? Throw it away and fill the bottle with sand? That’s when things get interesting. And interactive.