week2: response to “game development history”

I feel like this article certainly captures the development of game design principles very well, but at the same time I feel like so many games do not follow the principles very strictly. (I’m not even gonna talk about Minecraft here because that’s an exception to a lot of set patterns of game designing norms.) For example, a lot of the puzzle games don’t fit in any of the design principles — really they are just games of very simple (or you could say very hard) but very unitary gameplay. If you think about it, it does not have the increasing difficulty, it only has one genre of gameplay, an argument could be made with it being a set-piece but it also lacks the reset of player health (or anything of that nature) every turn. 

upon further thinking: gameplay v.s. game elements

I realized the what the article wanted to convey is the principles in terms of the gameplay element of the game, while upon reflecting on what did like about the puzzle games was the art, the storyline, and the artistic design in those games, which is another element different from gameplay. That makes the argument in the article a little more verifiable.