Theoretical Disclaimer

The most valuable thing I learned during my time in Music Theory was that theory comes after the fact.  The entirety of the subject comes from observation of music that has already been written.  This little rule became a bit of a mantra of mine that I would repeat often when doing analysis for class and trying to figure out whether I was looking at secondary functions, borrowed chords, or some elaborate combination of the two when the truth is it could be all of the above depending on how you want to look at it.  

Mine (and other more legitimate discussers of the subject) analyses and theorizing on games is no different than the work of music theorists:  Theory (in this sense at least) is just an attempt to understand what makes something good. However, music and games are much a matter of personal preference, and so the interpretation of the elements of a game can also be a matter of perspective.

Music Theory can be taken with a grain of salt, because the ultimate rule with music is Do What Sounds Good.  If the musical experience is ultimately improved by disregarding a rule of theory (which are really more aptly called guidelines) then it is the right choice.  20th century music threw out all pre existing rules more often than not, and being the last thing in our course curriculum left many of us to wonder what was the point of the rest of the 4 semesters worth of study if at the end all we did was throw it all away.  The truth is that we probably would not even be able to properly describe what was being thrown away without studying all of that other stuff in the first place. 

In this way Theory provides a common language for describing things.  If I wrote I bVI IV VI on the board of a music theory class, people would understand it.  They could probably even go over to the piano and play it in some form.  They could probably even write out full 4 part harmony from it.  Without theory, that would require something restrictively specific like writing out the frequencies each pitch sounds at.  Game Design is generally described in terms that are common to games themselves, as well as borrowing from related fields like Human Computer Interaction.  I feel that there needs to be terminology created that can describe games with the same range of granularity that music theory has. 

The point isn't to codify some set of standard for engineers to follow to make an excellent game, but to look inside and see what all the pieces are and how they fit together, and with that new knowledge be able to more solidly build our own work, and maybe put together those elements in a way that we would not have considered otherwise.

And thus is my disclaimer:  While at times influenced by the work of many insightful theorists, this is ultimately me coming up with terms, and applying them to games as makes sense to me.  Within this little sphere of influence I will treat them as fact.  To everyone else, consider it to be advice that if not good, is at least well thought out.