Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9030246" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Point of order: &quot;action movie cinematics&quot; would not be considered something you can &quot;simulate&quot; to most fans of simulation. You're adhering to, in some sense, in-universe artificial rules. All game rules are artificial to us, as players, but the idea for most &quot;simulation&quot; fans is that those rules, which are artificial to us, are in fact genuinely natural, real, and observable to the characters within the imagined space. &quot;Action movie cinematics&quot; are no such thing, because those are about choreography and dramatic timing and telling a thrilling story.For folks who like GNS, these two things are often lumped together and then only separated by calling them &quot;process sim&quot; for the &quot;all rules are natural within the imagined space&quot; type, and &quot;genre sim&quot; for the &quot;some rules can be genre conventions that don't physically exist, that's okay.&quot;For my part, I separate them, because there is a HUGE gulf between people who are gung-ho supporters of &quot;detailed realism&quot; and gung-ho supporters of &quot;action movie cinematics.&quot; My term for design intended to support &quot;detailed realism&quot; simulation is Groundedness &amp; Simulation. My term for design intended to support things like &quot;action movie cinematics&quot; (or any other genre-convention-based gameplay experience) is &quot;Conceit &amp; Emulation.&quot;To simulate, as I use the term, is to try to model the fictional world as accurately as possible, so that you can find out what its future state will be. To emulate, as I use the term, is to play out a particular thematic premise or genre concept, exploring the values, meanings, and impact of that premise/concept. The two usually don't play nicely together, though you can still have a dash of one of them while being heavily focused on the other. It will just get overridden if it conflicts with the primary focus.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9030246, member: 6790260"] Point of order: "action movie cinematics" would not be considered something you can "simulate" to most fans of simulation. You're adhering to, in some sense, [I]in-universe[/I] artificial rules. All game rules are artificial to us, as players, but the idea for most "simulation" fans is that those rules, which are artificial to [I]us[/I], are in fact genuinely natural, real, and observable to the characters within the imagined space. "Action movie cinematics" are no such thing, because those are about choreography and dramatic timing and telling a thrilling story. For folks who like GNS, these two things are often lumped together and then only separated by calling them "process sim" for the "all rules are natural within the imagined space" type, and "genre sim" for the "some rules can be genre conventions that don't physically exist, that's okay." For my part, I separate them, because there is a HUGE gulf between people who are gung-ho supporters of "detailed realism" and gung-ho supporters of "action movie cinematics." My term for design intended to support "detailed realism" simulation is Groundedness & Simulation. My term for design intended to support things like "action movie cinematics" (or any other genre-convention-based gameplay experience) is "Conceit & Emulation." To simulate, as I use the term, is to try to model the fictional world as accurately as possible, so that you can find out what its future state will be. To emulate, as I use the term, is to play out a particular thematic premise or genre concept, exploring the values, meanings, and impact of that premise/concept. The two usually don't play nicely together, though you can still have a dash of one of them while being heavily focused on the other. It will just get overridden if it conflicts with the primary focus. [/QUOTE]

Verification