Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 6309611" data-attributes="member: 3192">Again, I think he left right away, but he was there at the beginning. Edwards himself talked about it. And it's well over ten years now since this has been relevant so I admit I'm having trouble finding my previous references. Now only Nixon and Edwards are easily found as co-founders. But I assume you are discounting all the 1990s dialogue that led up to the creation of the Forge so it might profligate the One True Theory? If so, the circles of people were largely the same prior to its founding. Whoever originally determined "Mother May I" isn't as important as where almost everyone learned it from, as a piece of Edwards' promotion for his conclusions on gaming.No it's not. For year after year it was the exact opposite of a benign study simply noting what people said they actually did when playing games and what they liked about them. It was a dogma dictating "the way things really are" and endless amounts of invectives thrown at gamers who wouldn't get on board with it resulted. People went to the site asking about their games and the guru told them "the real meaning" of their gaming problems all the time selling "the real good way to play" which meant good storytelling (conflated with "fun"). Gamers had problems and they were manipulated into switching over to what they "really" wanted: storytelling. It was one person's power trip and a case study in groupthink and cult behavior. Megalomania is the best term I can think to describe it. I have no problem with philosophy asking why people like to play games (keeping score, winning and succeeding during play, avoiding losing when playing and ultimate failure, self-improvement at the game, gaining influence, team improvement and team camaraderie, friendly competition, good sportsmanship, etc. etc.)I say they were never really interested in talking about play as it relates to games. They were talking about play when making up stories. It's a 180 degrees opposite. Ignore the "game" label when reading that philosophy, listen to the concepts and the terminology instead. They are almost 100% narrative theory, almost never about game theory or game play. They have no desire to create games as games. Games are always conflated as group story making - an aspect totally unnecessary to playing a game.It is a pathetic shame our hobby has been ruined into story making and few even know it. Other gaming communities have done well to shield themselves to this. They hide from designing games along the One True Theory, but even they are unlikely to survive the march of these bearers of self-righteous certainty. And the community at large accepting a "fait accompli" attitude and ignoring or giving endless rebuttal to any outsider viewpoint only serves to reinforce the close-mindedness overtaking us.</blockquote>

Verification