Interesting! The wikipedia article on it is pretty good. I haven't read anything in detail but my impression is that RRT is generally right, although I'd probably side with the strand of it that locates meaning within the "conversation" between work/game, author/dev and reader/player. I quite like the strand of RRT that talks about how the meaning sometimes comes about from a work being discussed until there's some societal or group consensuses.
...certainly people fixated on the existence of objectively good or bad design could stand from thinking about RRT in games . I feel like so many games basically get condemned from players *wanting* the experience to suck..
This seems related to reader response theory!
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780190221911/obo-9780190221911-0107.xml
Interesting! The wikipedia article on it is pretty good. I haven't read anything in detail but my impression is that RRT is generally right, although I'd probably side with the strand of it that locates meaning within the "conversation" between work/game, author/dev and reader/player. I quite like the strand of RRT that talks about how the meaning sometimes comes about from a work being discussed until there's some societal or group consensuses.
...certainly people fixated on the existence of objectively good or bad design could stand from thinking about RRT in games . I feel like so many games basically get condemned from players *wanting* the experience to suck..