[jungler]

Game design allows for a rich exploration of design from a philosophical standpoint.

That is, while most games are utilitarian products first(just as most architecture is made to be inhabited and most software is made to be used) the premise of a "game world" or "magic circle" shares something in common with any fiction - that the contents can be decided in a pragmatic fashion, with arbitrary rules.

Most game designs use this power timidly, just reproducing an existing rule set with a new scenario and more product features, but the most engaging stuff aligns all elements towards a coherent concept[0].

And the real tension of game design comes from the negotiation of what the player thinks the game is about(e.g. "what do I do in this game") and what the resulting product actually enables or encourages. Where we recognize "progress" in games it's generally along the lines of shifts from completely symbolic ideas(e.g. lives, score, turn taking) towards fine-grained representations with fast feedback that corresponds to our expectation of reality(texture mapped 3D, immersive VR, physics sims, etc.), but there's a toolbox of symbolic ideas that tends to stick around regardless.

[0] http://ludamix.com/dive/coherency/