NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 5123643" data-attributes="member: 40177">It's become kind of an instant fight or argument to mention the whole gaming "GNS" deal, and a lot of people look at it as a stupid way to describe an RPG... but I've always thought there was a bit of truth in the whole definition.  It is, at the very least, a good shorthand for analyzing how games (particularly RPGs, but also video games and even many board games) play out.For those that don't know, it stands for Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist, and describes how a game plays out and its end goals.  A Gamist game is one where the mechanics themselves are a central point of the game, a primary area of focus (Tetris, for example, is heavily Gamist);  A Narrativist game is one that is heavy on story-telling, and uses the rules to tell a story of one sort or another (the Final Fantasy series have become more and more Narrativist as time goes on); Simulationist is a game that tries to "realistically" or intelligently portray a specific situation (for example, any sports video game).What I am wondering is this:  are these terms exclusive?  Sure, a game can be heavily Gamist, but can it also be Heavily narrativist as well?  Or can it rank highly in all three?  Does a game that is, say, heavily narratist preclude a game that is also very "gamist" in nature as well as being a damn fine simulation?  (the example here would be something like "Can you build a sandbox using 4e that also has a strong plot?").  Also, are there any good examples of narrativist/simulationist games out there?  I can't think of many that would be both (they seem sort of antagonistic).</blockquote>

Verification