Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9631081" data-attributes="member: 6790260">The problem is, it is the mechanics and the processes--in some contexts. In other contexts, the mechanics and processes are utterly irrelevant to what &quot;the game&quot; is.Hence why I say we should talk about the experience (including possible differences between intended and actual experience), or about the design (e.g. what goals it had, whether it met those goals, how those goals could be achieved, etc.), or the mechanics with all the attendant elements, or...etc.Trying to talk about &quot;the game&quot;, as a monolithic unit, is like trying to talk about &quot;chemistry&quot; or &quot;French cuisine&quot;. It's too broad. Even if it is somewhat specific (e.g. &quot;French cuisine&quot; singles out dishes with a common geographic origin), it is simply too easy to talk past one another. When I say &quot;The game is the mechanics and the processes&quot; and mean &quot;the tool that we use for manifesting experiences is the mechanics and the processes&quot; and you hear &quot;Your experiences and best practices are irrelevant, only the mechanistic elements matter&quot;, neither of us is wrong, but we are failing to communicate nonetheless.Hence, it's not productive. &quot;The game&quot; means too much. What about the game are you interested in talking about? Personally, unless it's a really focused discussion, I find the discussion focused on reflecting back on what personal experiences a specific person has had is...well, it doesn't really go anywhere. It ends up being what I referenced above, nothing can be challenged, nothing can be examined, we just do a much longer and more involved version of &quot;I saw yellow and felt happy&quot; &quot;I saw blue and felt sad&quot; &quot;Alright.&quot;, followed by silence. A discussion about the tools we use, however, is much more engaging--especially because, in many cases, it allows us to learn how to use those tools better.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9631081, member: 6790260"] The problem is, it [I]is[/I] the mechanics and the processes--in some contexts. In other contexts, the mechanics and processes are utterly irrelevant to what "the game" is. Hence why I say we should talk about the experience (including possible differences between intended and actual experience), or about the design (e.g. what goals it had, whether it met those goals, how those goals could be achieved, etc.), or the mechanics with all the attendant elements, or...etc. Trying to talk about "the game", as a monolithic unit, is like trying to talk about "chemistry" or "French cuisine". It's too broad. Even if it is somewhat specific (e.g. "French cuisine" singles out dishes with a common geographic origin), it is simply too easy to talk past one another. When I say "The game is the mechanics and the processes" and [I]mean[/I] "the tool that we use for manifesting experiences [I]is[/I] the mechanics and the processes" and you [I]hear[/I] "Your experiences and best practices are irrelevant, only the mechanistic elements matter", [I]neither of us is wrong[/I], but we are failing to communicate nonetheless. Hence, it's not productive. "The game" means too much. What [I]about[/I] the game are you interested in talking about? Personally, unless it's a really focused discussion, I find the discussion focused on reflecting back on what personal experiences a specific person has had is...well, it doesn't really go anywhere. It ends up being what I referenced above, nothing can be challenged, nothing can be examined, we just do a much longer and more involved version of "I saw yellow and felt happy" "I saw blue and felt sad" "Alright.", followed by silence. A discussion about the tools we use, however, is much more engaging--especially because, in many cases, it allows us to learn how to use those tools better. [/QUOTE]

Verification