Borders vs. No Borders

[a327ex]

Many discussions in games, programming and life in general can be reduced to one of borders vs. no borders manifested through the differences in people's personalities.

People who like borders do so because ideas and concepts, when properly defined in their boxes, can be more easily manipulated and fit into existing processes. This diminishes the cognitive load of working in an otherwise chaotic environment. People who dislike borders do so because they want to mix and match ideas and concepts so that something new emerges out of it. They thrive in the chaos and can generally move faster because there are less barriers between units of their environment.

You can also think about it in terms of information flow. When borders are well defined there's less information flow between units of the environment. This is good when you don't want things to change significantly, when you need stability and control. When borders are not well defined there's more information flow, which is good if you want to mix and match parts of different units to create new ones. Change is good when things are too static, and the way it happens is by messing around with existing structures.

This difference in how people are at their most fundamental level can be used to explain a lot of different discussions. These differences are mostly biological. You can change them, but by and large you're instinctively looking at the world primarily through one of these lens.

Static Typing vs. Dynamic Typing

In programming, one of the most fundamental and perhaps religious discussions there is happens around static vs. dynamic typing. Static typing is order, structure, borders, linear processes. Dynamic typing is chaos, disorganization, borderlessness, non-linear processes.

Dynamic typing is seen as faster to work with at the start of a project, but as the project grows in complexity and its structures become more set in stone, static typing starts making more sense as both the units and the processes to navigate the environment become more defined. In these cases, once the structures are more set in stone, the chaotic potential offered by dynamic typing diminishes, and the reduction in cognitive load offered by static typing increases, up to a point where a switch becomes inevitable.

Dynamic typing is also seen as more attractive to younger developers because it allows them to move faster, but as they get older and see the problems that the chaotic environment generates they become more conservative and switch to static typing. Here the same dynamic applies, except more due to the fact that people are naturally more adventurous and risk-seeking when they are younger, and as they get older they naturally become more conservative in various ways.

Static typing is seen as better for writing engine code. This type of code falls into the more static and structured part of gamedev, as it's code that's supposed to be used across multiple projects without changing. Gameplay code is more fluid than engine code, so dynamic typing has an opening to make sense there. And so this ends up being the approach multiple engines take, where their engine code is written in a static language while their gameplay code can be written in Lua, JS, GML, etc.

Here, again, we see that the more structured elements naturally gravitate towards borders and well defined processes, while the less structured ones don't. This theme repeats itself everywhere in programming, not just in static vs. dynamic debates.

Engines vs. Frameworks

You can look at discussions people have about what kinds of frameworks to use. Should the framework do a lot itself and offer less customization or should it give the user basic units and let him combine those units himself? The former has borders more well defined, which decreases cognitive load for defined paths, but increases it for undefined ones. The latter has borders less well defined, which increases cognitive load for defined paths, but decreases it (comparatively) for undefined ones.

In gamedev this manifests itself as engines vs. frameworks debates. Engines like Unity, Unreal, GameMaker, Godot, RPG Maker, etc, have borders more well defined, and the decreases in cognitive load for known workloads makes it attractive to programmers and non-programmers alike.

Frameworks like MonoGame, LÖVE, libGDX, Phaser, Heaps, and so on, have borders less well defined, which increases the cognitive load for known workloads, making them less attractive, especially to non-programmers. But when compared to more bordered engines, a lot of workloads in these frameworks are easier to accomplish because the working units are smaller and less well defined, enabling more mix and matching of these basic elements into whatever is necessary at the time.

Roguelike vs. Roguelite

This distinction also applies to things other than programming. For instance, in media in general there are always debates about genre definitions. The most prominent one I can think of is roguelikes vs. roguelites.

Those who think roguelikes should have a strict definition, the definition that was there before, want to conserve what was and do away with all these new people who want to change the meaning of the word. Why? It's just a word, right? Well, given what I've said so far it should be clear that it isn't just a word. The word roguelike having a strict definition decreases the cognitive load necessary for navigating the environment.

When you're looking for a turn-based roguelike, you don't want to find an action game. And this is explicitly what strict roguelikers defend. Once the word opens up its meaning, it becomes useless as an identifier and thus increases the work you'll have to do find what you want.

On the other hand, the word having a flexible meaning means that it can be used in new and interesting ways and introduce new ideas into a rather stagnant genre (in terms of popularity at least), which is roughly what happened this last decade.

Progression vs. No Progression

This discussion also applies to game mechanics. Since we're already talking about roguelikes/roguelites, a debate often had in that sphere is if they should or shouldn't have progression between runs.

Those who don't want progression between runs say that the progression should happen as the player plays more runs and gets more experienced. This is a call for a higher state of cognitive load, but one that allows for potentially more creativity and problem-solving. If all the player gets is personal experience, then he is forced to use that experience in new and interesting ways to overcome the challenges of the game, to mix and match his knowledge to create something new. This gives him those Aha! moments that can be very satisfying.

On other hand, those who like progression between runs are calling for a lower amount of cognitive load. They want their playtime to be converted into some resource, which can then be used to buy well defined, bordered, concrete advantages that accrue over runs.

The more powerful you get with your permanent upgrades, the less you have to think while playing the game and the more you can just play it on auto, which can be very relaxing. And while you lose some mix and matching here, the genre has enough of it that it might not be so bad, as one aspect of roguelikes/lites that is really good is that they have tons of items/passives that can be combined in unexpected ways. Based on everything we know so far, this looks like a very pure and distilled manifestation of that mix and matching property of borderlessness.

Grinding

Another game mechanic this also applies to is grinding. Debates around grinding are partly about process orientation vs. chaos orientation. Those who like more process oriented environments will enjoy mindless grinding more, as it involves doing the same activity over and over without many new things happening.

While those who like more chaotic environments will dislike grinding precisely because nothing new is happening. Those people will instead prefer games that give them an ability to explore and find new things all the time.

Game developers will naturally have a distaste for grinding, because it is a process oriented and bordered activity. Game developers operate in a chaotic, borderless environment, where ideas have to be mix and matched all the time so that something new can be created, so they will not enjoy being in an environment where repetitive actions have to be done non-stop and nothing new is happening.

The way the distaste for such environments generally shows itself is the same way in which distaste for any personality that is diametrically opposed to yours shows itself: as "morally wrong". Any type of personality or environment that is opposed to yours will feel inherently wrong and sometimes even disgusting.

People who are wired to enjoy grinding also feel, for instance, that games that try too many new things at once are off-putting and wrong, and thus they don't play them. But you'll likely never see the "games trying too many new things are morally wrong" argument, because there aren't enough creative people wired to not enjoy trying new things making those arguments in the first place, otherwise they wouldn't be creatives.

Our society values intelligence above everything, and those who enjoy borderless ideas are fundamentally always asking for a state of higher cognitive load, as previously mentioned. It's hard to argue against something that inherently tests the most valued trait, while it is easy in comparison to argue against something that values another trait entirely (the ability to do repetitive tasks over and over).

The consequences of this is that you’ll often see game developers dominating the discussion on grinding vs. no grinding by casting the other side of the debate as morally corrupt.

Gacha Games

Gacha games are one example of games fundamentally built to appeal to a different kind of person than most game developers. They're games that are built for people to grind over a long time, especially with the use of stamina mechanics.

Most people who prefer borderless environments will not enjoy the kind of segmented gameplay that stamina mechanics offer, and because of the previously mentioned difference in cognitive load required by inherently grindy activities, it’s conceptually easy to argue that these kinds of mechanics are morally wrong.

However, I think the reason that most game developers feel really strongly that gacha games are morally wrong has more to do with the hijacking of the mix and matching mechanic. Why does it feel really nice when you find a cool new item or passive in a roguelite? Because you immediately think of all the possibilities of how this new thing matches with the other things you already have, and how that will help you to do something you couldn't do before.

This is the more pure manifestation of the mix and matching aspect of borderlessness, and it's one of the primary things that game developers and creatives in general like at the most fundamental level. So when a gacha game comes along and says: you can only access the new thing by grinding a lot OR by paying a lot, it feels like a very aggressive attack on the most fundamental thing that a gamedev enjoys, and it's no wonder so many of them think that gacha games are immoral.

But again, not everyone is wired like a gamedev, so not everyone will be as offended by this as gamedevs are. Most people are normal people who are not too extreme one way or another, so they'll be just fine with this setup, as evidenced by the extreme popularity of gacha games.

Professions

Gamedevs are not the only ones who are more tilted towards borderlessness. By the very nature of these differences between people it also follows that some professions are going to be more suited to bordered and process oriented environments, while others are going to be more suited to borderless and chaotic ones.

Lawyers, top executives, doctors, accountants, managers, politicians, government workers, military personnel, are all examples of professions that operate in highly bordered and process oriented environments. These are all professions where there are strict rules and laws that must be followed and where attention to detail tends to matter a lot. These are also highly hierarchical professions, especially the military, which is probably the most bordered and process oriented of the lot.

On the other hand, scholars, teachers, journalists, artists, musicians, game developers, entrepreneurs, are all examples of professions that operate in less bordered and more chaotic environments, where information flow and mix and matching of ideas is more important.

Many debates online around games often naturally coalesce into a subset of game developers and journalists vs. the rest of the gaming population. This border vs. no border biological substrate is primarily why.

Easy Modes

Some debates have an additional modifier in terms of personality, which is the compassion one. Just as some people are more suited to borders or no borders, some people are more or less compassionate than others. And so some discussions will both have a border element to them but also a compassion one.

Debates around difficulty and accessibility, for instance, are partly about where the borders on difficulty should be or if they should even exist. Those who naturally look at the world through a borderless lens argue that there should be no borders, while the others disagree.

But fundamentally, these debates are about inclusion. The primary argument that those who argue for easy modes make is that people shouldn’t be excluded from playing a game just because they can’t mechanically do something that the game is asking of them.

However, challenge is an exclusionary aspect of video games. It's somewhat like competition, except that for single player games it doesn't exclude people by making them lose when someone else wins, but by preventing them from progressing in the game. This can be seen as unfair so developers generally add easy modes so that people can keep playing without quitting and generally have a better experience. This is fine, desirable even.

The problem comes with the notion that every game should have an easy mode, which is often pushed by a subset of game developers and a great deal of journalists. This notion is simply not correct because challenge is exclusionary and if, as a developer, you want to target your game solely at people who really like challenge, adding an easy mode to it diminishes its appeal to those people.

The main reason why this happens is because it diminishes their achievements. If someone spends 10 hours beating a boss and someone beats it way faster by just decreasing the difficulty, the original feat becomes lessened in comparison. And while rationally you would just say: “what does the way other people play have to do with your achievement?”, this won’t convince anyone.

People interested in challenge are interested in high value activities, which are activities that very few people can do. The moment more people can do that activity, the lower its value. Beating a hard game that no one can beat is a high value activity, but if it has an easy mode then suddenly beating it isn’t as valuable anymore. This might sound irrational and in a way it is, but they are deep drives within people, and these deep drives are not amenable to reason or logic. Those who like challenge really feel strongly that the playing field should be fair and that everyone else should have access to the same tools and the same challenges. An easy mode is a direct attack on that.

One of the reasons FromSoft games (Dark Souls, Bloodborne, etc) were able to succeed so much was because they embraced the exclusionary aspect of challenge fully and understood their audience. Those games have a single difficulty that's pretty hard, and that attracts people who are interested in the challenge in a big way. Because challenge is exclusionary, most developers capable of creating games at that quality shy away from embracing that aspect because it means that less people will play their games. That created a natural vacuum in that market a decade or so ago which was promptly filled by FromSoft, and many other companies and games since then.

Personality

If anything is to be taken from this thread it should be this: people are biologically different from each other. They are wired to enjoy different environments and care about different things at the most fundamental level of their personalities.

Someone who enjoys an environment opposite to the one you enjoy is not morally wrong because they do so. Games, programming languages, libraries, etc should appeal to different kinds of people and there's generally nothing inherently wrong with the ones that appeal to your opposite.

It’s also important to note that these personality differences are not as extreme as I made them to be in normal society. The tools we currently have to assess personality show a normal distribution for most of these differences, which means that most people are average either on the border issue or on the compassion one, meaning, they are generally fine with both and don’t have a strong preference either way.

But most religious-like discussions that happen online are led by people who are extreme in one or multiple of these traits, and so it’s useful to look at the situation primarily through this more extreme lens.

In any case, this way of viewing these issues allows me to not get emotionally invested in these discussions, which also allows me to look at them more calmly and from a more detached perspective. This ability to detach yourself emotionally from discussions is good because it decreases your stress levels and also because acting like a cheerleader for one side or another is usually cringe.

But fundamentally, it's good because it increases your chances of seeing things for what they actually are, unclouded by the biases cursed upon us by our meat prisons.