Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9085305" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Okay. I'm still not entirely clear on what makes Tourism different from Simulationism, other than that it is....for lack of a better term, "casual" in a very specific, narrow sense? That is, it sounds like the distinction you're drawing between Simulation and Tourism is that Simulation delights in the nitty-gritty, nuts-and-bolts process, while Tourism delights in a low-resolution, "how does it feel" process--but both ultimately want the same thing. To use a video game comparison, I'm seeing a similarity to the spectrum that computer real-time strategy games lie on. At one end, you have incredibly deep and complex "grand strategy" games with a zillion moving parts meant to really catch all the nitty-gritty about something, like the recent Victoria 3. At the other far end, you have relatively "basic" strategy games that gloss most details and focus almost totally on the simple build base, exploit resources, get units, defeat enemies process, e.g. Command & Conquer or StarCraft. In the middle, you get things like Age of Empires on the moderately "low detail" end since you still have eras and techs and such but it's much closer to C&C, Stellaris on the moderately high-detail end, etc. But, ultimately, they're all in there for the same core value, engaging strategic thinking in the careful use of resources, infrastructure, units, and territory. I, personally, think that treating "grand strategy" as a totally separate thing from, for lack of a better term, "operation strategy" (your strategy is focused on winning each conflict), is putting too fine a point on things. The two mix and blend because there's not really a distinction here, just a question of intricacy and focus within the same fundamental core value. Not to overextend a metaphor, but I think this is useful for looking at your quotes from Mr. Tuovinen too. There, I think he may be risking a conflation between "these are actually just the same" and "these things have shown convergent evolution." Back to the video-game analogy, it would be like saying that because tactics games (like modern X-COM, Fire Emblem, and many many others) that do any kind of resource management e.g. money/home base structures can start to resemble the "operational strategy" end of the strategy-game spectrum, then REALLY tactics and strategy are just slightly different lenses for doing precisely the same things. I consider that almost completely incorrect when it comes to tactical games vs strategy games, other than to note that in specific contexts meeting the needs of one end can resemble meeting needs of the other and thus possibly satisfy fans of either thing. Likewise, I consider his argument that because Narrative and Simulation may end up at the same place, they must be the same thing, to be almost wholly incorrect--not useless, since it's good to remember that the same game might thus satisfy distinct user interests, but very wrongheaded if it's meant to be a reason to ignore or downplay a distinction. To use a crude cuisine metaphor, a really good charcuterie board is going to welcome something palate-cleansing like fruit (sweet, acidic, moist) to cut through the fat and richness of meat and cheese, and a fruit platter welcomes something solid and grounded to contrast the fruit (such as meat and cheese!), but that doesn't mean that "fruit platter" and "charcuterie board" are really exactly the same thing. The two can complement one another, and advanced, nuanced applications of either can show similarities, but they aren't the same.So, because that got a bit long: (1) I still don't see how Tourism actually differs from Simulation, other than being more relaxed about how nitty-gritty specific you get, and (2) I don't consider "how nitty-gritty specific you get" as a meaningful differentiator of game-design-purposes. Conversely, (3) Narrative and Simulation can certainly have some convergent evolution going on--note how Tuovinen makes specific mention that this really only holds when you have the same topic or theme--but (4) their fundamental core values remain different, they just (semi-)coincidentally happen to lead to similar ends some of the time.I'm also really not clear on Zilchplay, neither what it means, nor (especially) how it relates to what you've said here. Finally, because it's been a hot minute, could you explain your Construction and Perfection again? Purely from the words themselves, that sounds like a (for lack of a better term) meta-category. It's not a goal in itself, but a goal about how you achieve the goals. Maybe?</blockquote>

Verification