Through a majority of the seventh chapter, I tried to figure out why it was called “Architects” instead of “Game Design.” Not until the last few paragraphs did I realize that Sicart did this on purpose as he feels game designers should instead be called architects of play. And that makes sense doesn’t it? The purpose of building a game is to have people play, so creating a context that allows for little to no appropriation or meaning kind of defeats the purpose. Architects design buildings so that there is a context for people to inhabit but so that they also have the ability to appropriate the space as they see fit. Most rooms in a home, save the bathroom and kitchen which have built-in appliances and fixtures, can be used for whatever the homeowner wishes. The same should be said about games. Games are a form of play, and therefore players should be able to appropriate that context how they see fit. I really enjoy this analogy because growing up two of the things I was most interested in, and still am, are game design and architecture. So I understand that spaces in architecture usually need to be multipurpose and how it relates to designing a game in such a way to allow for a lot of appropriation within in.
Aside from this I also found the discussion about design in general to be quite relatable and interesting. When he said the design of things, like games, requires not only a technical understanding, but also an understanding of people, their needs and desires, and how they interact with objects. Human psychology plays a significant role in how we approach games and play and how or why we appropriate a space to what we do. Considering these things when designing games in necessary for ensuring that people will want to play it. Facebook uses psychology to make people stay online longer and post more things; games can use psychology too to understand what makes people play games and how to make it more pleasurable for them.