Brian Sutton-Smith, who is maybe the greatest scholar of play in the 20th Century, has written a book called The Ambiguity of Play where he talks about different discourses or rhetorics as he calls them that kind of circulate around play. And he looks at very ancient ones like the idea that play is about fate and the cast of dye of the gods, you know, that determines your destiny, to more contemporary ones. And the one that he says dominates today in today’s sort of western industrialized democracy culture is, um, play as progress. That play is for children and the purpose of pay is to turn children into better adults. And for a very long time, and probably still, that’s still our kind of gut instinct that we use when we think about play. That, right, if I’m actually playing for fun it’s sort of an indulgence. It’s junk food. It’s not nutritious food. It’s something that I’m doing as a kind of dirty little secret. So, as long as these overall cultural value is that, well, play is for children and it’s good for them, but once you’re a responsible adult there’s no reason to do it anymore because you’re already a - a responsible adult. So, you must not be a responsible adult if you’re playing. So, there’s that kind of general cultural, um, sort of aura around play and games. Now, that can also be good. I also think that’s why play can be transgressive and naughty and bad and - and indulgent, right? And we don’t - that’s okay that - that we’re working in a - in a field where what we’re doing is, um, is something that - that lets us get in touch with our sense of pleasure, which I think is a really healthy thing. Bu the, the negative result of that is that people that do love games, and especially those that have loved them for a long time, have often felt defensive because they have to kind of defend what they do as something which is sophisticated, as something which is, um, worthy of serious attention, whether you’re a game player, uh, a critic, or a scholar, or - or game creator. And I think that, um, that - that - it makes sense from a certain point of view that game creators can get defensive about what they do. Um, you know, especially when you think about things like the, you know, the violence debate, are games violent, are games not violent. There’s a whole other topic we could - we could talk about. But I think that, um, um, I would say that perhaps we’re turning a corner. And I think that it’s time now that games are really starting to penetrate culture in a very pervasive way, that we can, um, maybe start to become snobs about what we’re doing. And that we don’t have to defend games. We don’t have to apologize for games. If you love books, really love literature, it doesn’t make you want to defend every book ever written. It does the opposite. It actually makes you hate books more. It makes you want better books. It makes you want to, uh, you know, uh, uh, yell about how horrible books are and why aren’t there better books. And I think that games should get into this kind of space where we are really, uh, snobs and we are demanding better games and more sophisticated games, and we’re critical of games. So, I would love to see a shift where people that - that play games and make games and love games feel licensed to be as critical about them. And - and I certainly encourage my students to do that about their own work. And I - and I - and I often say that the highest form of respect that a designer can pay to another designer can pay to another designer is thoughtful criticism. And so for me being critical doesn’t mean being negative. It actually is a way that we elevate the cultural form as a whole. So - so I would say it’s important to be snobs and to hate games more in order to - to express our love for them and to make them better.