Post by Kells in Manifesto Jam 2026 - In Defense of Cozy Games comments

Manifesto Jam 2026 - In Defense of Cozy Games » Comments

Viewing post in Manifesto Jam 2026 - In Defense of Cozy Games comments

Okay wanna thank you again for responding so thoroughly. I so desperately want to actually converse about this subject, and it really does require various essays back and forth to actually delve into in a meaningful way. I’m also gunna break it up bc I find that very helpful. My bullets are not following yours, since I’m gunna condense some stuff we already agree on. Note, I notice you mentioning a lot of the points as not seeing what I would be responding to in the other manifestos, I wanna clarify that this was my regular cozy games thoughts! If there had been zero manifestos about cozy games, I still would have written this same thing! It’s like, my main game dev manifesto at any given time haha. It was awkward that one of the highest up manifestos was also very the opposite and made it seem very pointed

What we agree on:

Games made for the purpose of being positive and hopeful should exist along with all other expressions of emotion First I wanna talk about the issue that we’re simultaneously having to respond to a lot of different discussions at once. As in, if there’s a timeline of discourse, my manifesto addresses both someone who doesn’t even think calming games should exist, all the way to our more nuanced discussions of what exact game features are both ethical and calming. We obviously seem to align much further on the line, so any of my points arguing for the concept of cozy itself to be allowed aren’t necessary for this discussion, and honestly I do regret focusing so much on that initial concept, or at least, I should have written two pieces. One addressing how we critique, and another specifically for the other segment completely shutting it down.
The concept that we shouldn’t blindly adapt past games/ tropes/ modern societal structures without examining the purpose or messaging it inflicts. We may disagree on specifics of implementation, or what concepts should always be subverted and how. 100% agree that a game that you feel is endorsing capitalism or fascism is not comforting or cozy

We both agree that these ideas have been implemented elsewhere, to various levels of success. This one is one we align on, but I feel like a lot of other good faith takes I see seem to be unaware of. I’ve seen cozy games takes where all their suggested better features are definitely included in other games, or in the game they are critiquing. Though you gave good examples of how that may not be because they didn’t play it, but because the interpretation was different. Also not any authors fault for not knowing a games exists or a feature, just that I would love to see more discussion that did know and focus on those.

Further discussion:

I don’t want to harp too much on my perception of cozy games discourse, because I think I get easily distracted from actually furthering the discussion. I’ll say that I do not perceive many anti cozy games posts as wanting to improve the genre, but being against it entirely. My perception reading yours was not like that, though I still perceived it as generally being against the group as a whole, or being associated with it (which you explained valid personal reasons for!). I think the reason I want to step away from that, is that in my experience with the community of cozy devs, every one of them that I’ve met agrees with all the critique and wants to improve it. We just may be better or worse at that implementation, or even more or less well read about the subjects. But I do subjectively perceive the discussion to usually sound like “These people aren’t trying to subvert this, and they don’t align with my ethics”, instead of “This game attempted, but did not successfully subvert this”. The purpose of that difference is that if we understand most cozy devs already have these ideas and are trying them, then we can argue about how to do that.

I think this is where the difference between something like cozy games, and something like FPSes are different. FPS games as a genre are the establishment. Cozy games are almost entirely indie right now, at most, third party, and then some smaller AAA. For perspective, actually top end AAA games tend to have teams of 500+ to 1000+ people. A bunch of them were legit funded by the US military. There are great examples too! But people generally separate it into AAA status quo, and indie subversions. The major examples of cozy games are almost all attempting to subvert something, probably due to the genre coming up itself as a response to the industry. So I think a harsh general statement instead should be “Cozy games want to be anti-capitalist (or other themes), but fail at it in execution”. I’m definitely aware that this specific argument is splitting hairs and getting way too specific in directing critique, just that I do think it’s a more productive place to start from if we acknowledge that most cozy devs I’ve met are already aligned in trying to subvert, but as a collective haven’t had enough actionable critique and discourse about specifics. Trying to convince devs to worry about this content isn’t I think a helpful topic, since pretty much all of them already thing this, but it’s more that our collective imagination or even just game design skills are lacking in execution. So instead we argue “The way you are trying to do this isn’t working”

“Show me the person who said that comforting games should not exist. “ It’s definitely possible that I misinterpreted various critiques, hard to say for sure. Also hard given the usual brevity of takes on shortform spaces like Bluesky. As for manifestos, it’s hard for me to be able to tell if a declarative statement is meant to be more extreme than their actual belief. With yours, the title was “kill cozy games”, but I was easily able to tell from the contents that you meant “Kill the type of cozy game I describe here”. Throughout my long time as a dev I’ve seen a lot of really directed anger at the concept of a cozy game altogether. I ignore the ones from people I’m not aligned with at all, but I’ve also seen a lot from people who are my peers in indie games, specifically calling them twee and devoid of substance as a genre. Sorry, I notice I’m talking in circles around this point, because I agree with you that you can make a general statement like “cozy games need to stop making me cut down forests”. I guess I’ll just say that has been my perception in game dev circles. It’s possible we’re also seeing different stuff! I’ve legit read basically every Cozy games take imaginable at this point, and the ones I’m picturing could have different context from the ones you are picturing.

"That said, I have not personally seen a single jam manifesto which has railed against safety railings and content warnings. Could you point me to them, if you have seen them? "

I haven’t either! I realize that my manifesto came across as reactionary to the jam, genuinely I was just writing about my longstanding thoughts and reactions from years in the space. There’s currently a lot of discourse over content warnings and triggers, not even just in games. One of my fav creators Princess Weekes had a vid about it just recently. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcb6GNvFB7Q&t=29s

Mainly in my own spaces, the discourse revolves around the need for sustainable emotional energy and safety, vs. trying to push against the type of people who ignore the news so that they don’t have to actually do anything, and people who are doing both for different topics.

Details:

At the point where we start talking about fascism, I think we start branching into different ethos’s and ideas of implementation! -Imagine a game about running a shop in a post-racial cleansing world where everyone is white and able-bodied. The creator could say, "I just wanted to make a make similar to my life, but with a lot of the traumas of racial cleansing removed."

I agree with this, I think it’s going to be specific to implementation and intent. Fantasy generally has an issue of what it chooses to ground and what it doesn’t, and how. I think, if certain bad things are kept, that they be used for commentary and subversion.

I completely agree with your thoughts on why you want to make a game wholly removed from the issues we live with right now. I think you’re accurate in how you would create a game that idealizes what could be! My disagreement is that all cozy games should go that direction. I think it’s important for hopeful content to have a diversity of range in what parts they imagine better. Like, sometimes I need art that shows me what a perfect system/dynamic/relationship is. Sometimes I need art that shows me how to survive in the life I’m living or this exact day and these exact decisions. There’s also absolutely times in my life when either of those would hit better or worse. To be fair, I don’t include diversity in this, and that may be contradictory. Maybe because even in the least realistically diverse places, there’s still waaaaay more diversity than the average game has, but also because in all the games I can think of with it, it is NOT being used to actually talk about that topic. Like, a painful subject of reality should have a purpose. Now implementation of that is definitely way trickier. For example, Pokopia’s ethos is that unfortunately, humans ruined the planet and left, it’s super clear that that part is objectively terrible and the narrative admonishes it. Your role (in the intended narrative), is to be someone who can fix the environment, work as a community, for all the “animals” left behind. The catharsis is in this world without humans, and being able to heal the earth. That being said, Pokopia has a LOT of issues with implementation, specifically in the housing feature, and the ability to whole ass terraform places back to cities. But I think the initial concept is a valid method of hope. But again, we’re not determining what the best most ideal single game vision would be, we’re considering the range of what is needed to have a real message of hope without contradicting itself. I think the worst part for me is where a character says in earnest “the humans will be so proud of us for building it back up”. Like bro NOOO I did not do anything for those guys, I wanted squirtle to have wetlands again! One point in it’s favor is that it has various pokemon saying they DON’T want the humans back, but I wish that was more common. Actually I think we align via “Showing a game where capitalism exists but does not cause trauma propagates fascist values. It propagates the fascist lie that capitalism can exist without violence and suffering. “

I think if we include these realities, that we should comment or subvert them. I agree that if I am playing a game, and these concepts come up unquestioned, it impacts my enjoyment of that game heavily.

I hugely agree with games being majorily white, skinny and able bodied. It’s a huge huge peeve of mine given I made a diverse game and it was NOT hard. Like, making fat bodies and even a whole character creator with fat bodies was really easy, and I am faaaar from well learned in game making. I do find a lot of character creators and npc casts are becoming more diverse, though somehow STILL leave out body size diversity. It’s honestly bizarre to me. –Cottagecore and the desire to escape into an imaginary "unspoiled wilderness", only to tame it, relies on presupposing both Indigenous genocide and invisible labour.

I’ve thought a lot about this one! I realized in a chat today with a friend, that I may be projecting my idea of cottage core on others. In my head, and in the niche of content I see, the idea is rewilding. Like, you’re absolutely right that the other side of it is going to a place they deem “new” and then building a life there are using the resources. I honestly forgot that dynamic, as in my real life I normally only encounter nature lovers seeking to rewild a parking lot or wherever.

The fantasy for me is meant to be subsisting on just what you and your community (community being unconditional to the rights of all humans, not chosen community) need, and leaving the rest to the beauty of nature. Having said that I TOTALLY agree that the actual implementation contradicts that massively a lot of the time. With the pokopia example, and with a LOT of sims that let you go out and chop down as many trees and pick as many flowers as you want. Like 100% agree that’s an issue. I also could be wrong assuming most people have the same “cottagecore” fantasy I have. I got very into native plant gardening recently, and the ethos of rewilding areas, which is pretty niche. I do think our art done correctly could direct someone’s love of nature in that direction as opposed to “take control of nature and do whatever you want with it” thing. -”I could see the value in a cozy game where, for example, the player unionises or begins in a union and thus contends with capitalism, but from the perspective of fantasizing about how one can improve or have a cozy scenario. But I want the wealth accumulation itself to not exist as a desirable mechanic in a game like that. “

Totally agree with this, I think too much anti capitalist fantasy is about being able to BE the billionaire, even if that involves being pushed to choose to do good things with that wealth. I want to see it as either “this is an example of the system we should have” or yeah like unionizing etc.

“I agree with those critiques of Stardew Valley. I also think that the entire concept of Stardew Valley is also a fascist propaganda, in the sense that it espouses the dream of a single individual saving an impoverished town through bootstrap labour and hard work, which explicitly includes combat and violence, and which demonstrates that NPCs will inevitably fall for you through sufficient wealth accumulation in the form of gifts.

I do not think that the critiques stem from assuming what a game was without playing it. I think that the issue stems from not understanding the critiques, perhaps.”

I think your critique is more grounded in what the game is and fails at. The critique I usually see forgets entirely that there was a community center mechanic at all. Which tbf is also a valid critique, because when playing I also find myself forgetting that I’m getting items for the community center, because my brain sees it as a general gamified checklist. But yeah either way I agree that the intended ethos is contradicted by this one single person with this huge land making a zillion bucks and saving the town. In that way they’re just benevolent big corp.

Kells22 hours ago

Further game theorizing:

I completely agree that I don’t want to make a game that encourages exponential wealth/economic value growth. I also don’t want it to be extractive. I do believe these themes can be present in good games if really commented on well and not used unquestionably, but that requires more focus than our game would have on economic structure. So my game is a cat/animal cafe sim. The fantasy is unfortunately really based in current reality set-up. There’s a lot of parts I’m unpacking. To me, the fantasy is that I live a life where I create a space that people and animals enjoy and coexist and eat cute food. But irl, there’s issues with the exploitation of animals (irl some few places work hard on this, acting more as an interactable cat shelter so I have some examples of that), and all the economic baggage of cafes and consumerism. I could definitely remove currency, but my main issue is on how to create gameplay that rewards engaging with the game mechanics with more game or creative options. The main issue is that for a decoration game, you need items, and generally you need a gradual increase of those item options. That means somehow acquiring those items, generally from shops. A barter system is possible, but unsure if that solves the issue.

So my challenge I think is at what stage of that concept I need in order to send the messages while fulfilling a healthy fantasy. Commerce and exchange do exist in non capitalist and pre colonial forms of economy, but very honestly, I NEED to and plan to do some more specific reading on what structures exist or have been theorized. I am a college dropout and woefully unread on the material details beyond the ethical and philosophical concepts. It definitely is possible to do what I intend without any form of currency, but a pro of making it more grounded in current reality, is that people have a more direct example of how to apply the concept in their own life. I think having many games about all stages of that are incredibly useful. A good activist needs to know what the ideal is we are striving for, and also what decision to make today in their material life. Your example/ idea is great, and I’d love to see an array of games exploring better ideal systems. I’m not committed to a specific economy structure, so I’ll have to read up on a way that makes sense for having a decorating game. I do wanna throw in sustainability and reusing/recycling etc. So yeah I need to really watch how we implement both acquiring and holding items. My main goal I think is to at least create a narrative that makes it super clear that the universe of my game is not intended as a utopia. The fantasy of the game is that a community of people all are aligned in kindness, but disagree or need growth and learning about how to build a better community. The core of the narrative art is about trying to fix a community that relied on one benevolent person holding it, and when that person burned out, they’re left floundering. So instead of the protag coming in and taking over that role, they have to help everyone through their own arcs of discovering working as a community. The conversations I feel comfortable in are the ones I have in real life, about how like for example, me and my friends are all levels of disabled and mentally ill, neurodivergent, so we can’t all be exchanging equal labor, sometimes we have to unconditionally lift people up (sometimes forever, and not just a limited time), and that also someone helping doesn’t have to be physical labor, it can even be just being kind, and this is built on trust that everyone is trying their best.

So yeah I think regardless of specifics, the ethos is always to ask myself why I’m putting a feature in, can it be done another way? Differentiate the things that I have in there to comment on, and the things in there as idealist examples. There’s a lot of discussion I love about allegorical consistency in art. Like a big example being those clunky racial allegories with animals, like okay we’re talking about race when the carnivores are discriminated against, but are we also talking about race when the… carnivores factually eat other people??? So yeah, in my game, if I have idealized systems elsewhere, how do I communicate what isn’t meant to be shown as ideal. Even if we don’t have money, there will be some method of exchange, items from the real world, developed towns, so it’ll all need that lens at some level. I’m certainly more comfortable figuring that out with things I have lived experience in, like how even in my pro ND spaces, we can accidentally oppress each other. Another part is that I think it’s okay for there to be things safe to do in games that aren’t good to do irl. Like I think if all of society agreed we don’t get to cut down all the trees, but there was like, a tree cutting simulator, that would actually be a really good way to get to experience that without the harm. It’s more about how the narrative frames it, and I agree that a huge issue is that cozy sim games have a narrative issue differentiating what is a thing we want to reflect about an ideal world, and what is something we are creating a space to do without harm, even though we all know it’s harmful. And the diff is probs relating to us knowing it’s harmful. No one cares much that in my first game you can take a bear cub and keep it in your cat cafe, because we all feel safe knowing most cozy games know that stealing exotic animal babies is bad. But I can really understand the feeling seeing a game feature encouraging a practice that we don’t actually feel safe assuming everyone knows is bad. I do think there’s different parts of this that differ between are usual ethical quandies for any game, and what is required consideration for a cozy game. I do think there’s added baggage that whatever you show will be assumed to be part of the cozy factor, I haven’t entirely solved this for the marketing side yet. Especially given we have an arc where the player discovers the initial concept of taking over the other person’s role taking care of everyone on their own is hugely flawed. So I think one of the biggest things is communicating that difference to the player. I don’t have a good solution yet for that, but is important for me to think over. Okay gunna try to find an endpoint bc I could discuss forever. Ultimately, I’d love the dev community to get further in the weeds like this. To me personally, I feel most of the cozy dev community are already aligned on wanting to do better about these things, but ultimately failing for one reason or another. Generally for all games, we run into issues getting stuck with the established grammar of games, and the immense challenge of matching narrative with gameplay. I haven’t played any cozy games in a long time that wasn’t trying to send a good message, though I’ve played plenty that tried and contradicted themselves further down the line of development. So yeah, I hugely agree there’s good crit, and I did see a lot of good crit in your writing!! I should probably start just ignoring what I deem more shallow dives into the topic, and focus my time on having these more nuanced discussions. Next manifesto jam I think I’ll try to make my own actual genre critique, instead of defense. I want to carve out time to actually do what I suggested in gathering some good specific examples and details. I genuinely love this convo, and it very literally spurned good conversation with my own team on the current decisions we have to make soon. I’m definitely going to have to get some books and really get a stronger foundation for the economic part. Sorry for talking in circles, and thank you soooo much for the discussion

GC11 hours ago

Thank you so much for responding so thoroughly yourself! It gives me so much hope and pleasure to talk seriously with someone about this topic so near and dear to my heart.

I want to begin by acknowledging that I mistook your post, and I apologise for that. I interpreted your post as a response to the I Hate Your Cozy Game and similar jam manifestos, instead of a post in its own right. Much of my framework stemmed from that incorrect interpretation, and I take back those parts of my post. I appreciate the clarification of how I had misinterpreted your post and taken it (unintentionally) in bad faith.

With the additional context, I say that I agree with a significant portion of your post. I, too, have seen the bad faith takes against the "cozy games" genre as a whole, and I disagree with those takes.

I do not think that the "cozy games" genre inherently has less substance or value, or inherently propagates more fascist themes, or inherently offers more escapism than any other genre. I find it mind-boggling that someone can even believe that "cozy games" offer more escapism than a milsim that permits the player to escape into a power fantasy of Shooting All The Evil Guys.

So, thank you so much for setting the record straight. And, thank you so much for responding to me in good faith despite my initial misinterpretation.

Yay for respectful communication! \o/

Also, I want to say that I really appreciate how you chose to format your post. Thank you for starting by establishing explicitly what we agree on and then going through the disagreements. I found your post very straightforward to read and understand, and very pleasing to navigate.

Regarding what we agree on:

1. Yes, we agree that games of all emotional expressions should exist, including positive and hopeful ones. Indeed, I am working on a positive and hopeful game myself, to a point where I explicitly do not want to have any permanent "failure states".

I also agree with you that we are simultaneously responding to a lot of different discussions at once, which can cause some unintentional misfiring on either side. One cannot really focus on thriving if one is focused on surviving. If one has to defend one's existence in the first place, one cannot really improve. To the rightwinger fascist on the internet who believes that marginalized people should not make wholesome games, I will defend to the death the right of every "cozy game" to exist, whether or not I personally like that game. But, when I am amongst like-minded developers trying to make better games, I will critique the genre conventions. I think we align on this!

>"The concept that we shouldn't blindly adapt past games/ tropes/ modern societal structures without examining the purpose or messaging it inflicts. We may disagree on specifics of implementation, or what concepts should always be subverted and how. 100% agree that a game that you feel is endorsing capitalism or fascism is not comforting or cozy"

Very well said. I agree with everything here, other than the use of the word blindly. (I am not trying to be pedantic! I just didn't want a third-party observer to misread my intentions here. I would not use the word blindly in a negative fashion here, as blindness is not inherently synonymous with ignorance. I would say that we should not ignorantly or without thinking adapt past games/tropes/modern societal structures.)

Where we disagree about specifics of implementation, or what concepts should always be subverted and how, fuels the very discussion that excites me most. I love to discuss specific mechanics and open my mind up to different possibilities, interpretations, and implementations than I had ever considered!

I definitely have seen games make serious efforts, to varying degrees of success, to subvert propagation of such values and implement better ones. I would also love to see more discussion of games that do try to change things and how. I love reading the comments on The Game Where You Let People Starve, because commentators have provided different recommendations for games which try to propagate different values to varying degrees of success.

As in my manifesto, ALIENS DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH, I tried to talk about where different games tried different specific mechanical implementations and briefly analyzed what worked and what didn't. If I have time, I would love to do the same for "cozy games" of a specific subsubgenre (such as the subsubgenre of "decorating game" or subsubgenre of "shop simulation"), to go over games and really dig into specific mechanics.

Now that you mention it, I do wish that I had brought up positive examples in KILL COZY GAMES, because I do have some positive examples. At the time, I was just trying to word-vomit my thoughts before the jam ended, and I didn't anticipate that I would have time to write another manifesto, much less refine the first.

But I would love to talk about specific positive examples and how they failed or succeeded in different ways!

Now onto the further discussions!

>"I don't want to harp too much on my perception of cozy games discourse, because I think I get easily distracted from actually furthering the discussion."

Very fair!

>"I'll say that I do not perceive many anti cozy games posts as wanting to improve the genre, but being against it entirely."

Yes, I think that I have seen the anti cozy games posts that you are referring to, now that I understand the scope. I have definitely seen takes which amount to saying that cozy games should not exist at all, with which I disagree.

>"My perception reading yours was not like that, though I still perceived it as generally being against the group as a whole, or being associated with it (which you explained valid personal reasons for!)."

I acknowledge that I went with a very clickbait title of KILL COZY GAMES. I did not intend to make a clickbait title. When I was writing that manifesto, I simply genuinely had that thought in my head and so wrote it that. I guess that I should work on my own tendency to summarise my thoughts in an exaggerated title, when that does not necessarily align with what I am trying to say.

The cozy game subsubgenre that I care most about comes in the form of the cooking game or food/beverage service sim. I had just recently played the demo for Burger Bois, an excellent game that I look forward to playing, which has some innovative mechanics about which I would love to gush. However, Burger Bois still contains wealth accumulation as a desirable metric, which made me seethe and inspired me to write that post.

I have to admit that my own experience with game development includes a lot of rejecting labels. I have found that, in general, I struggle to mesh with community who self-identify with specific labels, because I often end up chafing against the members of those groups. I recognise this as a "me-issue". But, for example, I used to belong to a lot of so-called "feminist" circles and then ended up stepping away from those due to the rampant transmisogyny/antiblackness/settler-colonialism. When I would bring up critiques, people would shut me down as failing to act as a feminist ally, and that I should shut up and stay in my lane.

I still very much fight for gender equity and the end of the violence of gender, but I do not self-identify as "feminist", because I do not want to signal that I endorse those ideas, which I have found even amongst people who call themselves "intersectional feminists".

Now, instead of seeking labels, I aim to think about specific frameworks, specific issues, specific praxes, rather than theoreticals. I still work alongside many people who self-identify as "feminist" or who work for/in "feminist organisations", especially in labour organisation or trying to enact local change.

But I digress. It makes me genuinely happy that you have had positive experiences with the community of cozy devs. I am not against "the community" or any community as a whole, insomuch that I have seen enough harrassment/bullying/protection of bullies that I do not personally really want to participate in "the community" at large.

I also find that, when I do raise critiques, I tend to have people tell me that I am being racist/misogynistic/transphobic/etc., like the other commentator on my post.

>"I think the reason I want to step away from that, is that in my experience with the community of cozy devs, every one of them that I've met agrees with all the critique and wants to improve it. We just may be better or worse at that implementation, or even more or less well read about the subjects."

I love that. It heartens me to hear that. I love that! And I hope to continue to discourse about implementations.

>"But I do subjectively perceive the discussion to usually sound like "These people aren't trying to subvert this, and they don't align with my ethics", instead of "This game attempted, but did not successfully subvert this". The purpose of that difference is that if we understand most cozy devs already have these ideas and are trying them, then we can argue about how to do that."

I agree with you, and I appreciate the specific example of wording. I will try to make sure that my wording aligns better with my internal beliefs, because I do think that many of these games at least attempt to subvert such beliefs.

>"I think this is where the difference between something like cozy games, and something like FPSes are different. FPS games as a genre are the establishment. Cozy games are almost entirely indie right now, at most, third party, and then some smaller AAA. For perspective, actually top end AAA games tend to have teams of 500+ to 1000+ people. A bunch of them were legit funded by the US military. There are great examples too! But people generally separate it into AAA status quo, and indie subversions. The major examples of cozy games are almost all attempting to subvert something, probably due to the genre coming up itself as a response to the industry."

True. You bring up very good points.

>"So I think a harsh general statement instead should be "Cozy games want to be anti-capitalist (or other themes), but fail at it in execution"."

I don't think that I agree with this point because I feel like it paints cozy games as a monolith. Games like Animal Crossing are not trying to be anti-capitalist. You yourself pointed out that we should not paint cozy games, an entire genre, as fascist. I also do not think that we should paint cozy games, an entire genre, as trying to be anti-capitalist, or anything.

Cozy games, like any other genre, arise from pluralities of peoples with pluralities of truths and pluralities of beliefs. There are cozy games made by people who are trying and variously failing/succeeding at anti-capitalism/anti-fascism/anti-colonialism, and there are cozy games made by unironic fascists, and everything in-between.

The same holds true for FPSes. There are explicitly anti-capitalist/anti-fascist/anti-colonialist FPSes, too.

I do not think that all "cozy games" try to subvert the mainstream, even. Again, we do have big popular titles such as The Sims or Animal Crossing in the mix, too. But I do think that we ought to acknowledge that very little of the AAA space devotes any time or energy to "cozy games".

>"I'm definitely aware that this specific argument is splitting hairs and getting way too specific in directing critique, just that I do think it's a more productive place to start from if we acknowledge that most cozy devs I've met are already aligned in trying to subvert, but as a collective haven't had enough actionable critique and discourse about specifics."

I at least agree that most cozy devs are trying to do better. It makes me happy to see that we can complain about not enough diversity or poorly implemented diversity, as opposed to trying to convince people that diversity matters at all.

However, I have also seen cozy game devs unironically making comments such as (paraphrased to avoid people copying into google and finding the dev in question), "I chose not to include any disabled people in my game because disability is not cozy to me," "I chose to have all of humanity deceased in my game because I think that human nature is inherently evil and that nature would be better off with humans gone," "A cozy game should be full of beautiful, attractive, fluffy images, so I did not want to include fat people," and so on. Obviously, I do not agree with these takes! But, I do think that many of the people working in the cozy game space carry harmful beliefs.

(I think that every single person on this planet, including myself, carries harmful beliefs, that we have rejected to various degrees and in various ways. I still carry misogynistic, racist, colonialist, etc. beliefs myself, but of course I am doing my utmost to acknowledge and reject those beliefs. Rejection takes endless work and will never end. But, I believe that, if we all work to reject such beliefs over our lifetimes, that future generations will have fewer such beliefs indoctrinated into them less strongly, which will make the work of rejection easier and easier over time.)

I think, partly, you and I are seeing and responding to what sounds like different parts of this very large and diverse group of developers.

>"Trying to convince devs to worry about this content isn't I think a helpful topic, since pretty much all of them already thing this, but it's more that our collective imagination or even just game design skills are lacking in execution. So instead we argue "The way you are trying to do this isn't working""

As you said earlier, I think that we are having many different discussions. One discussion is, "I want to convince cozy game developers that diversity is important and fascism is bad." I think that it would waste my time and yours to have that discussion, because you and I already agree on this. The other discussion, the one that you articulated so well there, is "The cozy game developers I am speaking to and about already think that fascism is bad, so let's think about how to improve our collective imagination and game design skills to align our mechanics with our values."

I am now going to stop talking about the "part of the cozy game development space that espouses fascist values", and focus on the discussion of the "part of the cozy game development space that wants to stop propagating fascist values in its work". I also think that both you and I (and everyone else talking about this) would benefit from not treating "cozy games" or "cozy game developers" as monoliths.

>""Show me the person who said that comforting games should not exist. " It's definitely possible that I misinterpreted various critiques, hard to say for sure. Also hard given the usual brevity of takes on shortform spaces like Bluesky."

No, I take this back. I definitely think that some people believe that comforting games should not exist. As I said, I had misinterpreted the framework/context of your original statement.

>"As for manifestos, it's hard for me to be able to tell if a declarative statement is meant to be more extreme than their actual belief. With yours, the title was "kill cozy games", but I was easily able to tell from the contents that you meant "Kill the type of cozy game I describe here"."

Thank you for taking my statement in good faith. It means a lot to me.

>"Throughout my long time as a dev I've seen a lot of really directed anger at the concept of a cozy game altogether. I ignore the ones from people I'm not aligned with at all, but I've also seen a lot from people who are my peers in indie games, specifically calling them twee and devoid of substance as a genre. Sorry, I notice I'm talking in circles around this point, because I agree with you that you can make a general statement like "cozy games need to stop making me cut down forests". I guess I'll just say that has been my perception in game dev circles. It's possible we're also seeing different stuff! I've legit read basically every Cozy games take imaginable at this point, and the ones I'm picturing could have different context from the ones you are picturing."

I agree with everything that you said here. It makes me glad that you and I, who have had such different experiences in the cozy game space, can have a discussion like this. Sincerely, thank you.

I will also say that I spend a lot of time in non-English cozy game spaces, and those tend to have very different vibes (in many different ways) than English ones. I stay away from social media such as bsky or discord entirely, so I am mostly seeing discussions stemming from textboards, forums, and developer interviews/curation groups/etc., which have different vibes as well.

>"I haven't either! I realize that my manifesto came across as reactionary to the jam, genuinely I was just writing about my longstanding thoughts and reactions from years in the space. There's currently a lot of discourse over content warnings and triggers, not even just in games. One of my fav creators Princess Weekes had a vid about it just recently."

Yeah, I agree completely! I appreciate the examples, and I have absolutely seen plenty of hatred for safety railings and content warnings over the years. I can see what you were responding to now, and I 100% concur with your defense of these practices! Thank you for articulating that defense.

>"Mainly in my own spaces, the discourse revolves around the need for sustainable emotional energy and safety, vs. trying to push against the type of people who ignore the news so that they don't have to actually do anything, and people who are doing both for different topics."

Agree.

Onto the details, which most excites me to discuss. I am rubbing my little hands together, especially when we get into the weeds of specific implementation. I hope that, now that we have cleared up from where we each are coming, we can focus more on those implementation discussions. ^^

>"At the point where we start talking about fascism, I think we start branching into different ethos's and ideas of implementation! -Imagine a game about running a shop in a post-racial cleansing world where everyone is white and able-bodied. The creator could say, "I just wanted to make a make similar to my life, but with a lot of the traumas of racial cleansing removed." / I agree with this, I think it's going to be specific to implementation and intent. Fantasy generally has an issue of what it chooses to ground and what it doesn't, and how. I think, if certain bad things are kept, that they be used for commentary and subversion."

I agree. I appreciate the articulation. I completely agree that bad things can exist in games for commentary and subversion.

For example, a game (even a cozy game) can include racism or queeprhobia, if it uses those for commentary and subversion. I would not want a cozy game to include queerphobia or racism unchallenged or viewed as a good thing. But, I have played many powerful games that include racism or queerphobia to demonstrate something about it, including the need to fight against internalised forms of it.

I do not think that cozy games need to close their eyes against the realities of capitalism, just that I do not want cozy games to glorify those realities or view those values as desirable.

The cozy game which rewards the player for chopping down infinite trees propagates those fascist values as desirable, just like a game that rewards the player for queerphobia, for example. That differs from the game which includes queerphobia in order to portray it as negative. I think we align on this.

GC11 hours ago

>"I completely agree with your thoughts on why you want to make a game wholly removed from the issues we live with right now. I think you're accurate in how you would create a game that idealizes what could be! My disagreement is that all cozy games should go that direction."

Yes, to clarify what I mean: as I said above, I do not think that a game has to exist completely outside of reality.

A game which includes racism does not necessarily portray racism as a desirable end goal. A game which includes money does not necessarily portray wealth accumulation as a desirable end goal. However, many games which include money do portray wealth accumulation as a desirable end goal. I view this as bad, in the same way that I would view a game that portrayed racism as a desirable end goal as bad.

>"I think it's important for hopeful content to have a diversity of range in what parts they imagine better. Like, sometimes I need art that shows me what a perfect system/dynamic/relationship is. Sometimes I need art that shows me how to survive in the life I'm living or this exact day and these exact decisions. There's also absolutely times in my life when either of those would hit better or worse."

I agree with this. I think that, to use the queerphobia example, I benefit from having games which do not include queerphobia whatsoever and instead show me a future where I can escape queerphobia. I also benefit from having games which confront the realities of queerphobia, while showing it as undesirable. I would not benefit from games which show queerphobia as desirable.

I want to both imagine futures and worlds where racism no longer haunts me, and also to imagine futures and worlds where racism exists (as it does now) but where the characters do not want it and fight against it. Both have meaning and value, and both hit at different times.

>"To be fair, I don't include diversity in this, and that may be contradictory. Maybe because even in the least realistically diverse places, there's still waaaaay more diversity than the average game has, but also because in all the games I can think of with it, it is NOT being used to actually talk about that topic."

I agree. I also just would not want to tell stories about non-diverse groups. I do not care. Enough other people are telling those stories that I do not need to be.

>"Like, a painful subject of reality should have a purpose."

I wholly agree.

>"Now implementation of that is definitely way trickier. For example, Pokopia's ethos is that unfortunately, humans ruined the planet and left, it's super clear that that part is objectively terrible and the narrative admonishes it. Your role (in the intended narrative), is to be someone who can fix the environment, work as a community, for all the "animals" left behind. The catharsis is in this world without humans, and being able to heal the earth. That being said, Pokopia has a LOT of issues with implementation, specifically in the housing feature, and the ability to whole ass terraform places back to cities. But I think the initial concept is a valid method of hope. But again, we're not determining what the best most ideal single game vision would be, we're considering the range of what is needed to have a real message of hope without contradicting itself. I think the worst part for me is where a character says in earnest "the humans will be so proud of us for building it back up". Like bro NOOO I did not do anything for those guys, I wanted squirtle to have wetlands again! One point in it's favor is that it has various pokemon saying they DON'T want the humans back, but I wish that was more common."

I agree with this. I would have loved to see more discourse on humans coming back vs. not. I also generally think that Pokopia had a problem with painting humans as a monolith. Much as in Shin Megami Tensei games, these games propagate the fascist belief that all of humanity collectively destroys the environment. This permits the relatively smaller group of people who actively choose to destroy the environment to not to feel the consequences of their decisions, because they can portray "all of humanity" as "guilty sinners".

In reality, most humans do not benefit from environmental destruction and/or actively try to fight against it, but cannot because a small group of humans sets the rules for how people can realistically interact with the world.

Humans are part of nature. A world without humans is no better than a world without bees or a world without shiitake or a world without antelopes or a world without ferns. Yes, the world can heal from the loss of any species or any ecosystem, but I do not think that humans have some uniquely evil nature. As a side note, if you like to read books, I highly recommend Pollution is Colonialism by Liboiron, a book which greatly impacted my philosophy for the better.

>"Actually I think we align via "Showing a game where capitalism exists but does not cause trauma propagates fascist values. It propagates the fascist lie that capitalism can exist without violence and suffering. "

Yes, I think that we align on this.

>"I think if we include these realities, that we should comment or subvert them. I agree that if I am playing a game, and these concepts come up unquestioned, it impacts my enjoyment of that game heavily."

Yes! We hugely align on this.

A cozy game can absolutely include capitalism, fascism, etc. and remain cozy and even comforting, as long as it does not reward the player for playing to those values.

>"I hugely agree with games being majorily white, skinny and able bodied. It's a huge huge peeve of mine given I made a diverse game and it was NOT hard. Like, making fat bodies and even a whole character creator with fat bodies was really easy, and I am faaaar from well learned in game making. I do find a lot of character creators and npc casts are becoming more diverse, though somehow STILL leave out body size diversity. It's honestly bizarre to me."

I agree with this. Thank you so much for taking the time to make a character creator which includes fat people. I, too, strive to include fat people in my games and to radically demonstrate love for the fat body. As I mentioned, in my cooking game, I plan to have a character whose happiness goes hand-inhand with their fatness. I have been prototyping how to do this without unintentionally coming across as "feeder" fetishism (fetishism/objectification dehumanises rather than humanises), but I am committed to portraying fatness not only as tolerable but even desirable and something to celebrate depending on the circumstance and the person.

"I've thought a lot about this one! I realized in a chat today with a friend, that I may be projecting my idea of cottage core on others. In my head, and in the niche of content I see, the idea is rewilding. Like, you're absolutely right that the other side of it is going to a place they deem "new" and then building a life there are using the resources. I honestly forgot that dynamic, as in my real life I normally only encounter nature lovers seeking to rewild a parking lot or wherever."

Rewilding as a concept has a lot of baggage to me, as the historical discourse surrounding rewilding has (again, historically) fetishized the concept of "making spaces uninhabited again", which also propagates the concept that some original "uninhabited space" even existed. I am going to quote from a review that I think summarises this tension quite well:

"In the 1990s, pioneers of rewilding described a bold vision of wilderness connected at the continental scale, with thriving populations of large, wild animals. Much of the resulting discourse has emphasized uninhabited places or has promoted a "hands-off" approach to environmental management. This clashes with many Indigenous (e.g., First Nations) perspectives and has made rewilding largely irrelevant to Indigenous communities, especially in colonized countries. Yet rewilding can support Indigenous community aspirations for sovereignty, health, and justice. Moreover, Indigenous communities and their traditional ecological knowledge are vital to conservation. We suggest two principles by which rewilding can align with, and support, Indigenous communities: shifting focus from wilderness to the creative agency of wild beings, and framing restoration as a collaborative endeavor between humans and wildlife. As an approach to conservation policy and practice, rewilding should seek opportunities to place Indigenous communities in leadership positions, in terms of both practical restoration and the conceptual reshaping of rewilding itself." (https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.13090 ← I recommend reading this whole review if you have interest in this subject, as I think that any robust praxis for environmentalism must consider, acknowledge, and centre the need for anticolonialist Indigenous-supportive beliefs and actions.)

As the abstract explains, rewilding discourse now is starting to backtrack on some of its anti-Indigenous historic beliefs. A lot of rewilding discourse, especially online, still trafficks in anti-Indigenous ideas, but I have seen the discourse starting to shift.

I view anti-Indigenous rewilding as still anti-Indigenous and pro-fascist. But, I have seen Indigenous-supportive anticolonialist rewilding efforts more recently, and I support those.

I think that the vast majority of "cottagecore" content on the internet, at least what I have experienced or seen, goes to the anti-Indigenous side. I do not think that I would use the word "cottagecore" because, while we can certainly "reclaim" words, I would not want to "reclaim" a word historically used for colonialist narratives, because I would not want third-party observing Indigenous people to misunderstand me in passing.

>"The fantasy for me is meant to be subsisting on just what you and your community (community being unconditional to the rights of all humans, not chosen community) need, and leaving the rest to the beauty of nature."

I think where you and I differ stems from our concept of "the beauty of nature". I view humans as inherently part of the beauty of nature. I, of course, think that we have to practice conservation and living within nature as good neighbours, which includes limiting harvest, taking only what we need, giving back, and so on.

But I do think that, theoretically, a game could focus on rewilding using the Indigenous-supportive frameworks outlined above (or other Indigenous-supportive frameworks). I just don't think that such a game could start with a "pristine wilderness" into which the protagonist shows up, as many of these do. It would, in my mind, probably have to start with a parking lot (or whatever) that the protagonist then rewilds, including with humans.

>"Having said that I TOTALLY agree that the actual implementation contradicts that massively a lot of the time. With the pokopia example, and with a LOT of sims that let you go out and chop down as many trees and pick as many flowers as you want. Like 100% agree that's an issue. I also could be wrong assuming most people have the same "cottagecore" fantasy I have. I got very into native plant gardening recently, and the ethos of rewilding areas, which is pretty niche. I do think our art done correctly could direct someone's love of nature in that direction as opposed to "take control of nature and do whatever you want with it" thing."

I agree that art done correctly could do a lot. Honestly, this discussion fired me up. I would love to think about and work on a game that focuses on helping nature and being part of nature, rather than "taming" and "controlling" nature, a game that focuses on living rather than "number going up".

-"Totally agree with this, I think too much anti capitalist fantasy is about being able to BE the billionaire, even if that involves being pushed to choose to do good things with that wealth. I want to see it as either "this is an example of the system we should have" or yeah like unionizing etc."

Yes! I do not want to be the billionaire, even if I get to do "good things" with that wealth. The only "good thing" a billionaire can do with wealth involves no longer being a billionaire, period.

As I said, I definitely think that anti capitalist fantasy can still include aspects of capitalism...as long as the fantasy is not asking me to directly propagate those themes. Do not ask me to commit wage-theft on employees! Do not ask me to rip off my patrons! Do not ask me to accumulate wealth!

>"I think your critique is more grounded in what the game is and fails at. The critique I usually see forgets entirely that there was a community center mechanic at all. Which tbf is also a valid critique, because when playing I also find myself forgetting that I'm getting items for the community center, because my brain sees it as a general gamified checklist. But yeah either way I agree that the intended ethos is contradicted by this one single person with this huge land making a zillion bucks and saving the town. In that way they're just benevolent big corp."

Right, I agree. The community centre mechanic intends to show the restoration of the small town, but really just plays to the fascist values of Great Man Theory. A town dependent on the benevolence of Wealth Accumulator 9000 has not freed itself from capitalism at all.

>"I completely agree that I don't want to make a game that encourages exponential wealth/economic value growth. I also don't want it to be extractive. I do believe these themes can be present in good games if really commented on well and not used unquestionably, but that requires more focus than our game would have on economic structure."

Yes, I believe that any theme can exist, if commented on well.

>"So my game is a cat/animal cafe sim. The fantasy is unfortunately really based in current reality set-up. There's a lot of parts I'm unpacking. To me, the fantasy is that I live a life where I create a space that people and animals enjoy and coexist and eat cute food. But irl, there's issues with the exploitation of animals (irl some few places work hard on this, acting more as an interactable cat shelter so I have some examples of that), and all the economic baggage of cafes and consumerism."

Interesting. I have not thought about the ethics of exploitation of animals. I appreciate you bringing this up, because I have actually used animal cafés in my own works before positively, such as snake cafés. I never stopped to think about animal exploitation. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. I love that you are working on this and on how to bring about the coziness of a "space where people and animals can exist and eat cute food", while thoughtfully considering the animals' welfare.

>"I could definitely remove currency, but my main issue is on how to create gameplay that rewards engaging with the game mechanics with more game or creative options. The main issue is that for a decoration game, you need items, and generally you need a gradual increase of those item options. That means somehow acquiring those items, generally from shops. A barter system is possible, but unsure if that solves the issue."

I have actually come across a similar issue in my game. As I mentioned, my game involves running a soup stall in a non-capitalist society where everyone works for a few hours a day. How do I go about increasing the options for ingredients? Or, if I want to include decorating the shop itself (which I have had requests for), how will I do so in a method that does not require wealth accumulation?

In this case, I have thought about a couple of different ways that I could include this, even without a barter system, which does not actually resolve the issue of wealth accumulation. A barter system can still endorse wealth accumulation. Fascist societies can exist without money. Communist societies could have money. The issue stems from wealth accumulation.

I will discuss my thoughts on resolving this momentarily.

>"So my challenge I think is at what stage of that concept I need in order to send the messages while fulfilling a healthy fantasy. Commerce and exchange do exist in non capitalist and pre colonial forms of economy,"

I agree. Commerce and exchange can form parts of healthy societies. At a very basic level, Community A trading goods with Community B means that both communities get to enjoy a wider variety of experiences. Indeed, this can occur without any need for wealth accumulation.

>"but very honestly, I NEED to and plan to do some more specific reading on what structures exist or have been theorized. I am a college dropout and woefully unread on the material details beyond the ethical and philosophical concepts."

Me too. I have done so much reading for my current project, and I am still iterating. Honestly, it makes me happy that my silly little game development (complimentary) has improved my understanding of capitalist theory and motivated me to learn about how we could realistically change systems, where before I could not get myself to read a page. That doesn't make research easy!

>"It definitely is possible to do what I intend without any form of currency, but a pro of making it more grounded in current reality, is that people have a more direct example of how to apply the concept in their own life."

You bring up a really good point, actually, that people can have more direct examples of how to apply concepts. I do not think that setting a game in the current capitalist world inherently undercuts its themes. I think that we undercut the themes when we reward the player for propagating those values.

>"I think having many games about all stages of that are incredibly useful. A good activist needs to know what the ideal is we are striving for, and also what decision to make today in their material life. Your example/ idea is great, and I'd love to see an array of games exploring better ideal systems."

I agree with that.

>"I'm not committed to a specific economy structure, so I'll have to read up on a way that makes sense for having a decorating game. I do wanna throw in sustainability and reusing/recycling etc. So yeah I need to really watch how we implement both acquiring and holding items. My main goal I think is to at least create a narrative that makes it super clear that the universe of my game is not intended as a utopia."

I agree. I do not think that the game acknowledging that money or wealth accumulation exist inherently undercuts the themes. Still, I want to figure out how to implement mechanics without rewarding the player for wealth accumulation. I don't mean to sound repetitive. Rather, I just agree with all of the individual points you have brought up.

GC11 hours ago

>"The fantasy of the game is that a community of people all are aligned in kindness, but disagree or need growth and learning about how to build a better community. The core of the narrative art is about trying to fix a community that relied on one benevolent person holding it, and when that person burned out, they're left floundering. So instead of the protag coming in and taking over that role, they have to help everyone through their own arcs of discovering working as a community. The conversations I feel comfortable in are the ones I have in real life, about how like for example, me and my friends are all levels of disabled and mentally ill, neurodivergent, so we can't all be exchanging equal labor, sometimes we have to unconditionally lift people up (sometimes forever, and not just a limited time), and that also someone helping doesn't have to be physical labor, it can even be just being kind, and this is built on trust that everyone is trying their best."

You know, I really love the ethos of this game. I love that you are subverting Great Man Theory and that you are focusing on building sustainable links in the community rather than a community relying on a single rock. I have seen that dynamic play out so many times myself. I think that such a theme could really resonate and help the players.

I also love the theme that we can't all be exchanging equal labour. I love that community includes unconditionally lifting people up, sometimes forever, and this being okay, rather than community relying on everyone pitching in equally. I love that help doesn't have to be physical. I love that the help is built on trust that everyone is trying their best. I love these themes, and it makes me so happy that you are making this game. Thank you for doing so.

>"So yeah I think regardless of specifics, the ethos is always to ask myself why I'm putting a feature in, can it be done another way?"

Yes! I am going to talk about some ways that I have thought about how I could implement expansion of items without invoking wealth accumulation. I would love feedback on these mechanics, because I am still working through them and have scrapped many iterations of these mechanics.

0. Even if the protagonist lives in a society where wealth exists, one does not actually have to implement a wealth counter with an amount of money which the player can then spend. We could block rewarding wealth accumulation in a game set within capitalism just by Not Including A Number That Goes Up, and instead finding alternative mechanics to gradually increase the decorating pool.

1. One system can involve the gradual expansion of available items through connections to characters. For example, as the protagonist grows closer to or helps out character A, character A provides the protagonist with decoration items (or ingredients, or whatever). This rewards the player for caring about the NPCs and ties directly into the gameplay loop. However, this also creates a transactional system, where the player could see the NPC emotional beats as fancy gates for more decorations/ingredients/etc. This threatens to commodify friendship, or to claim that friendship only matters if the friend can provide material benefit. One could combat this by including NPCs whose relationships do not provide any kind of material benefit and set them equally to NPC relationships which do provide material benefit, which could go hand-in-hand with the idea that not everyone can provide equal labour, but everyone can still have close and important relationships regardless of labour provided. Additionally, one can frame the decorations/ingredients/etc. as that the NPC would have provided these all along, but was unable to do so earlier due to depression/time constraints/etc. which the protagonist helps with, either physically or emotionally.

2. One system can involve replacing wealth accumulation with a Number Goes Up of some sort of more palatable value, such as an abstracted social capital or "favour" system, which one then "cashes in" to obtain goods. While this theoretically promotes a positive value (you are engaging in a mutual aid network by aiding others and then requesting aid in turn), it commodifies aid and relationships more directly. Crucially, it undercuts the concept of not having to provide equal labour, as one can only request aid by aiding others in the first place. The player could at least select a reward and gradually work towards it.

3. One system could involve a global "trust score". As the player progresses in the game, and characters/the community learn to trust in one another and in the protagonist more, the player could gain access to more ingredients/decorations/whatever without having to pursue or commodify specific relationships. The player could still have a say in which items to unlock next, perhaps by requesting specific items. For example, a merchant or trader character could occasionally go to stock on goods and ask the player which goods they would like, whereupon the player can make a limited number of requests based on their overall trust score. The selection of items can also expand over time. This way, just as in 2, the player can select a reward and gradually work towards it.

4. Suppose for a system that the system did not involve money whatsoever, and people can simply request things from other people. This scenario could play out similarly to 1, 2, or 3 above. Alternatively, the player character could just be able to request aid, but in a time-limited fashion. For example, perhaps a society without money would allow people to just ask for things, but to have a wait list so that the requested individual can complete tasks on their schedule. The player might request one item or set of items, then have to wait some in-game time to receive the item, whereupon they could request another item or set of items, perhaps with a time gap to showcase the labourer working on other projects. For example, in a café game, perhaps they can put in one request to a certain character each week, and then receive the item by the end of the week, then have to work the interim days. They might do this simultaneously with multiple labourers. This would most closely match the idea of not everyone having to contribute equally, because the player would simply have to request and then wait. However, this might make the gameplay less satisfying, because this occurs automatically without "rewarding" the player's efforts, and because the player cannot "save up" for their chosen purchase. On the other hand, this might actually positively rewire the player's brain, because the player could then focus on more holistic "rewards" of making NPCs happy without their happiness giving the player material gifts, and because the player could recognise that they are allowed to want things even if they do not "contribute". For example, the developer could add an arc where the protagonist stops running the café for several weeks, but the labourer still takes the protagonist's requests. The protagonist might even feel bad and ask the labourer why the labourer would perform labour for the protagonist even though the protagonist was not running the café, and the labourer might reply with the theme about unequal labour and about uplifting one another, temporarily or indefinitely, and that they would continue to fulfill requests (within their capacity to do so sustainably) even if the protagonist never worked again. Indeed, disconnecting the decoration rewards from the protagonist's efforts could actually directly support the game's themes in this way.

Although I gave the example of a weekly gift, the game could instead have different gifts/decorative items require different numbers of days to complete. A small gift could take a single day, while a large gift could take a week. Thus, players could still meaningfully choose between different types of items. However, this would necessarily include a delay between "selecting the item" and "receiving the item". Maybe that has merit, though?

→ I played Kemono Tea Time, which included both a money mechanic (purchasing ingredients from a pastry supplier) and a time-based gift mechanic (receiving 1 chosen ingredient each day from a tea supplier). I disliked the time-based gift mechanic, but, on reflection, I disliked the RNG mechanic of savescumming the gift rather than the (in-game) daily gift itself. If I could freely choose the gift from a list, or if the game did not punish me for picking the "wrong" gift, I would enjoy the opportunity to expand my tea selection by one each day, without any money involved.

In my game, I currently have some ingredients unlock or lock automatically as the story progresses and events outside of the player's control occur. I also have some ingredients or cooking methods unlock due to the player fulfilling subquests. Not all characters unlock anything. Some characters, when their requests or subquests fulfill, then supply the player with thematically appropriate ingredient(s) or cooking methods. Other times, the player gets to choose between a selection. Some of these subquests lead to one another. For instance, a subquest about cooking a food from another land leads the player down a series of subquests gradually learning about ingredients and cooking methods used in the other land. A subquest involving a vegan character leads the player down a series of subquests about ingredient substitutions and recreating flavours or textures, as well as simply valuing other flavours and textures instead of the ones valued by dominant society.

With respect to the decorations question, I like 4 most of all due to how it changes the player's thematic approach to the game. Players tend to walk into video games expecting to put in effort to receive rewards. Having the game outright decouple effort and rewards, but still incentivize effort through alternative reward such as "human interaction", may help players break the fascist ideals that they must work in order to be "deserving" of support.

Many other ideas surely exist, too. I would love to hear your thoughts.

>"Differentiate the things that I have in there to comment on, and the things in there as idealist examples. There's a lot of discussion I love about allegorical consistency in art. Like a big example being those clunky racial allegories with animals, like okay we're talking about race when the carnivores are discriminated against, but are we also talking about race when the… carnivores factually eat other people???"

Oh, I agree with this greatly. I think about this a lot. Alternatively: fantasy discrimination against magic, but then they show the magic as objectively unstable/violent in ways that real-life marginalised people are not!

>"So yeah, in my game, if I have idealized systems elsewhere, how do I communicate what isn't meant to be shown as ideal. Even if we don't have money, there will be some method of exchange, items from the real world, developed towns, so it'll all need that lens at some level."

I agree with this.

>"I'm certainly more comfortable figuring that out with things I have lived experience in, like how even in my pro ND spaces, we can accidentally oppress each other."

Yes. I think that, even in the most luxury automated space communism, people will accidentally hurt, exclude, and oppress one another. Even if everyone could have everything without any money, these themes would and will exist.

>"Another part is that I think it's okay for there to be things safe to do in games that aren't good to do irl. Like I think if all of society agreed we don't get to cut down all the trees, but there was like, a tree cutting simulator, that would actually be a really good way to get to experience that without the harm."

Yes, I agree. For example, a game where the player jumps into lava and dies does not actually endorse the person jumping into lava in real-life. Games can provide simulations of harmful experiences in safe ways, where the player can turn it off at any time. In a society where people agree that we don't cut down all the trees, I think that people would benefit from having video games in which one can cut down all the trees and see the impact. We can let people experience inflicting violence and having violence inflicted on them safely in fiction. I would just want that experience to make clear, in some way, the badness of the violence in question.

Satire should take care not to make the satired people believe that they are in good company. A game which provides a satire on or commentary against csa, for example, but which gains an audience amongst people who unironically want to commit csa, has failed.

On a more fundamental level, whimsy can exist. Growing a flower by pouring root beer into the pot would harm it, but growing a cartoon flower with glasses by pouring root beer into the pot wouldn't be propagating a harmful value.

>"It's more about how the narrative frames it, and I agree that a huge issue is that cozy sim games have a narrative issue differentiating what is a thing we want to reflect about an ideal world, and what is something we are creating a space to do without harm, even though we all know it's harmful."

I agree with that.

>"And the diff is probs relating to us knowing it's harmful."

Interesting. I can see that. In my earlier example about root beer, I did make the assumption that the player will know that we ought not to actually water a plant with root beer, but perhaps I am assuming there as well.

>"No one cares much that in my first game you can take a bear cub and keep it in your cat cafe, because we all feel safe knowing most cozy games know that stealing exotic animal babies is bad. But I can really understand the feeling seeing a game feature encouraging a practice that we don't actually feel safe assuming everyone knows is bad."

Right, I agree with that. So much anti-capitalist fiction just involves being the billionaire that I do not feel safe assuming that everyone knows being the billionaire is bad.

>"I do think there's different parts of this that differ between are usual ethical quandies for any game, and what is required consideration for a cozy game. I do think there's added baggage that whatever you show will be assumed to be part of the cozy factor, I haven't entirely solved this for the marketing side yet."

Interesting. Yes, I can see what you mean. I think that players can generally comprehend this, especially when the marketing makes clear that things will change. For instance, a lot of fiction has the protagonist start in the role of the evil empire, then understand the "truth" about what they have been taught, then defect. People do not generally accuse such narratives of fascism, in my experience, unless the narratives have other issues.

But, in a world of bad faith takes, I can understand the anxiety and how people might play the first hour of your game and then trash it forever.

>"Especially given we have an arc where the player discovers the initial concept of taking over the other person's role taking care of everyone on their own is hugely flawed. So I think one of the biggest things is communicating that difference to the player."

That makes a lot of sense. I think that even just showing any kind of initial hesitation or doubt can go a long way. For instance, in my game, the protagonist initially has ignorance of dietary restrictions and such and acts dismissively towards them, but I work to provide enough doubt in the dialogue to make sure to the player immediately that the protagonist will undergo development on the matter. As for marketing, even something like, [Revolutionary Girl Utena shadow puppet voice] "But is that really such a good idea?" in the trailer can communicate the difference without giving it all away.

>"I don't have a good solution yet for that, but is important for me to think over."

I am also always trying to think of solutions.

>"Okay gunna try to find an endpoint bc I could discuss forever. Ultimately, I'd love the dev community to get further in the weeds like this."

Me too! And I have loved the chance to really think about mechanics.

>"To me personally, I feel most of the cozy dev community are already aligned on wanting to do better about these things, but ultimately failing for one reason or another. Generally for all games, we run into issues getting stuck with the established grammar of games, and the immense challenge of matching narrative with gameplay."

I agree. Challenging conventions requires much more effort on the part of both the developer and the player. Shared, established grammar exists for a reason. But, those reasons don't always align with our values.

>"I haven't played any cozy games in a long time that wasn't trying to send a good message, though I've played plenty that tried and contradicted themselves further down the line of development."

I have played cozy games that tried to send some good messages but also some bad messages. I can give many examples where I genuinely think that the developers' intentions, although good from the developers' perspective, would not align with my/your values as espoused.

But I have also played many, many, many cozy games that clearly tried to send good messages and then contradicted themselves!

>"So yeah, I hugely agree there's good crit, and I did see a lot of good crit in your writing!!"

I see a lot of good crit in your writing too, and very good points!

>"I should probably start just ignoring what I deem more shallow dives into the topic, and focus my time on having these more nuanced discussions."

Honestly? A great idea. I just ignore people who think that humans are the masters of nature, because I am not going to readily convince them. But I can engage with the person who thinks that humanity should just die because all of humanity destroys nature, because I can find common ground and work to gently help that person free of their settler-colonialist mindset.

>"Next manifesto jam I think I'll try to make my own actual genre critique, instead of defense. I want to carve out time to actually do what I suggested in gathering some good specific examples and details."

Wow, I absolutely love that. I would love to read that! I really would. I think that it would enhance my experience and game development thinking so much. I would also love to see a defense of the genre which provides a variety of positive examples of mechanics which go against genre conventions to cease propagating these values, as a toolbox and springboard for future developers.

>"I genuinely love this convo, and it very literally spurned good conversation with my own team on the current decisions we have to make soon. I'm definitely going to have to get some books and really get a stronger foundation for the economic part. Sorry for talking in circles, and thank you soooo much for the discussion"

Thank you so much for the discussion too. It makes me so fucking happy, genuinely happy, to hear that it spurred good discussion! I am actually going to be following the development of your game because I love the themes that you have espoused and cannot wait to see how you choose to move forward with these mechanics. Even if/when you "fail" in some ways (just as I will fail in some ways with my own games!), the effort of trying to do better will yield wonder and love.

Nothing to apologise for! Thank you!

itch.io

Viewing post in Manifesto Jam 2026 - In Defense of Cozy Games comments