From the readings from Tuesday’s class and then again during the class itself I was reminded of what an old lecturer of mine used to describe as the “player shaped hole”. His argument was that the design choices made, whether through game mechanics, aesthetics, or method of interaction, eliminates and shades off design choices to leave a player shaped hole in negative space.

Where this tied to the readings for me was in the addresser, sender, addressee, receiver definitions from Thwaites, Davis & Mules. For me the addresser would be the designer when interviewed and discussing who the game is for (when doing interviews and the like, essentially flogging the game), the sender would be the designer when in the act of designing, the addressee is the ideal player from the perspective of that player shaped hole, and the receiver is Joe Bloggs, the average consumer who has elements of that ideal player (why else would they pick it up unless there was some overlap/fusion of the respective horizons) an but isn’t quite a full fit.

I was just wondering how all of you would interpret this and whether you think that this is a fair interpretation.