Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9085675" data-attributes="member: 71699">So the key insight of Edwards was to grasp the ludic-duality that had been noted by some writers on computer and game studies. Which is that player is at once audience and author. He basically said that ludic-protagonism - for which there would be a distinct point in playing a game rather than say reading a good book or taking in a great film - required players to be the ones to resolve dramatic premises. This established a difference between players being told a story (the traditional railroad with all its many forms and benefits) and creating one. That led to story now (creating the story now: in the act of play.)I am drawing the same distinction between sim investigation and setting tourism. If the words were not already so burdened, I would instead label that something like &quot;ludic-exploration&quot; and &quot;immersionism&quot;. Anyway, in order for there to be a played investigation - again, for which there would be a distinct point in playing a game - it ought to leverage the ludic-duality. Just as narrativism did not dispel receiving story in the form of game, which remains an effective and widely played mode, sim will not dispel receptive exploration/immersion.What it does however, is put sim on an equal footing with nar and gam. As Tuovinen puts it &quot;The theoretical implications are, of course, vast: a Simulationistic game necessarily has substance, which implies heft and effort.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9085675, member: 71699"] So the key insight of Edwards was to grasp the ludic-duality that had been noted by some writers on computer and game studies. Which is that player is at once audience and author. He basically said that ludic-protagonism - for which there would be a distinct point in playing a game rather than say reading a good book or taking in a great film - [I]required [/I]players to be the ones to resolve dramatic premises. This established a difference between players being [I]told[/I] a story (the traditional railroad with all its many forms and benefits) and [I]creating [/I]one. That led to story now (creating the story [I]now[/I]: in the act of play.) I am drawing the same distinction between sim investigation and setting tourism. If the words were not already so burdened, I would instead label that something like "ludic-exploration" and "immersionism". Anyway, in order for there to be a [I]played [/I]investigation - again, for which there would be a distinct point in playing a game - it ought to leverage the ludic-duality. Just as narrativism did not dispel receiving story in the form of game, which remains an effective and widely played mode, sim will not dispel receptive exploration/immersion. What it does however, is put sim on an equal footing with nar and gam. As Tuovinen puts it "The theoretical implications are, of course, vast: a Simulationistic game necessarily has substance, which implies heft and effort." [/QUOTE]

Verification