So, your thoughts? Wankery, or high art?
Can't it be both?
Me and my mate JP have been talking about/working with this approach to mechanic design for aaaaages. We called it "Naked Design", and it's all about the idea that while a core system can be represented by a number of different metaphors, without any metaphor, there's still a Logos Ex Machina - a message in the machine.
Studio Denki (i think?) used the idea of prototyping with super simplified graphics before going into the art stage a long time ago, too, but that was more the nascant idea of prototyping than being particularly artistically minded, I think. Can't be sure about that.
The abstract shooter I did was all about representation of depth and space, but also took on an abstract look in an attempt to disassociate the gameplay with reality, so that presumptions weren't made on the player's side, and thus, were never contradicted by the whacky physics (which let you crash into hill sides for speed boosts etc... or tried to). More and more it started to just look like funny shaped space ships, so I failed there.
The game I'm working on now can have its core mechanic represented by a number of different metaphors ("Skins" if you will) but the central mechanic stays the same. I think there's a strong message in the game's mechanics for the people willing to read into it that deeply. I use a
range of metaphors (including very abstract ones) to highlight the idea that the game portrays a system which
reoccurs all over the place in real life. So I'm trying to (stealthily) make the point that there's a transient nature to mechanic and metaphor - they seem to slide over each other like layers. A metaphor cannot systemically affect a mechanic, but to say they're completely separate things is also wrong, I think:
Metaphor does imply and guide an interpretation of the underlying systemic message - change your Terrorists into Little girls, and you're going to start playing with people's pre-concieved notions of what to do to each, even though they may act systemically identical. It may not change the game, but it changes how the player reacts to it, and thus changes the feedback loop of human interaction. So, a metaphor is a lot like a filtered lense. A totally abstract metaphor like the one above is a bit like "white light" - untainted and undistorted by the lense. It has (or aims to have) no preconceptions brought to the table.
As I found out, though, nothing is truely abstract. Everything you can think of brings cognative association. The squares, for instance. I see that they're squares, which makes me think of straight lines and axes (axises :p ), so I assume that the squares might only be able to move vertically and horizontally. I could be wrong. I could be right. Either way, I'm making assumptions about the mechanics based purely on how it loos. Likewise, the circles represent for me something that I'd expect to move freely in 360 degrees.
Cognative association is unavoidable, so it's pretty hard to reach anything like pure abstraction outside of your own head.
There's more to it that that... sorry. I'm just skimming the subject. Erm. I think I might sound a bit wankey myself.
Not to take anything away from this guy - just saying, he's not alone in this idea. It has always Interested me.