Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by greyorm, July 26, 2003, 04:37:05 PM
Quote from: crkdfaceA major problem I have is that the theories purport to describe intent and then fail to consider all intents, trying to reduce all intents to but three.
QuoteAnother problem is that the theories attempt to posit intent as style.
Quote from: MarcoThe individual essays certainly do deal with intent on a personal level
Quote"Game" as used in GNS is weak. It leaves out issues related to enjoyment of game elements, which leaves the definition lacking. It limits all game preferences to two issues, neither of which is necessary to a strong affinity for game elements, thus making it useless as a definition. Indeed, one of the two game elements mentioned can be argued to be a social concern and not a game concern at all.
Quote"Simulation" as used in GNS is more in line with the dictionary definition of the word, which is good. However, because it reflects the dictionary definition (and underscores a lack of understanding of the Threefold definition), the term encompasses so much as to be useless in highlighting differences. Play that simulates three-act movie plot structure is far removed from the complete lack of story concern as shown by attempts to only simulate reality. That simulation can involve simulating story structures means any differentiation between wanting story and not wanting story is useless, thus removing any need for a dramatist intent.
QuoteGNS replaces "dramatist" with "narrativist." With simulation absorbing many plotting and story structure concerns, what is left appears to be essentially a definition of one basic stylistic approach to play, reducing its utility as a measure of general concern in play style.
Quote from: Mike HolmesQuote from: MarcoThe individual essays certainly do deal with intent on a personal level Where? Ron doesn't, as far as I'm aware, even believe in the idea of intent. In any case, he's said repeatedly, clearly, and in no uncertain terms, that the theory is based on behaviors, and not at all on motive or intent. So the repeated straw-man has to be burned. You can't critique the theory on it not addressing intent properly, when it does not speak to intent at all. You could possibly validly argue that in not addressing intent, that there was some problem; though I can't think of how that argument would go. The point is that the theory only states that, observably, people have preferences, and incoherence occurs. It does not say why they have their preferences. Only that by removing problems of Incoherence that you can improve play. Mike