Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9629480">We have a fundamentally different way of viewing game design. I don't see it as technology that is always moving forwardAgain, I think there is just a fundamentally different approach. It falls short, but I also think it is not really possible to thoroughly analyzing something like this. It is about human interaction and I think when you try breaking that down into parts in this way, you can certainly do it, but you end up missing elements that are intuitive and possibly taken for granted. It is like trying to hold a successful conversation with someone following a set of guidelines rather than your instinct. There is a human element that is very hard to pin down and when people do I think there is a pronounced tendency to be reductiveYou don't have to use it if you think it doesn't work. The reason I use it is this is exactly how I would talk to people playing, and 90 percent of the time, they would understand what I mean almost exactly. I think the way most gamers would arrive at the distinction in your post is using language like "actually solve the mystery". Also I have taken great pains I think to clarify the full meaning of what I am trying to say over the course of my posts</blockquote>