as a developer i enjoyed this article thoroughly, and were i passionate about making games i suspect i'd have enjoyed it even more. game makers know that engage

as a developer i enjoyed this article thoroughly, and were i passionate about making games i suspect i'd have enjoyed it even more. game makers know that engagement-above-all is a cancer on games, either because it leads to dark patterns that divorce "engagement" from actual fun playing the game, or because it leads to the game being watered down to appeal mildly to a lot of people. similarly, while algorithmic, procedural or more recently AI generated content is an efficient and cost-effective way to make games, having a human in the loop can optimise for fun in a way that a pure machine-driven process cannot. again, as a game maker i would be thrilled that the NYT is putting resources into supporting this sort of human involvement in a game.