Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Scribble" data-source="post: 5491492" data-attributes="member: 23977">You keep saying board game, and I think that's completely incorrect...For ME it's about a better experience overall. The idea of alternating squares to me calls up the fact that I'm playing a game more-so then just moving a number of squares. It makes me actively stop what I'm doing and think: Ok one square, two squares, one square, two squares... It's a little thing sure- but it does pull me out of the experience just a little bit and make me think about the rules.Moving to just whatever my movement allows is better for me. I just do it. (Really I think they should probably remove the grid entirely and just go by &quot;averages...&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; Like you can move about 6inches...)A lot of simulationists tend to argue that lack of simulationism makes them more apparent of the &quot;game&quot; behind the game... It's completely the opposite for me. Simulationism makes me think about rules, and that makes me more aware of the game. In the real world when something happens I know there is an explanation even if it looks down right impossible. If I did a bunch of experiments I could probably figure it out- but that's not going to happen. I just deal with whatever it is I'm presented with.Simulationist games tend to feel like my character has somehow stopped everything and done a ton of complicated science experiments, physics and quantum mechanics and somehow figured out everything there is to know about the world... And since I know that's not true, it brings to my mind the fact that the author of the game is attempting to portray through rules the way he thinks the world works... And that reminds me I'm playing a game.&quot;Gamism&quot; to me feels more like real life... Stuff happens, and I just deal with it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Scribble, post: 5491492, member: 23977"] You keep saying board game, and I think that's completely incorrect... For ME it's about a better experience overall. The idea of alternating squares to me calls up the fact that I'm playing a game more-so then just moving a number of squares. It makes me actively stop what I'm doing and think: Ok one square, two squares, one square, two squares... It's a little thing sure- but it does pull me out of the experience just a little bit and make me think about the rules. Moving to just whatever my movement allows is better for me. I just do it. (Really I think they should probably remove the grid entirely and just go by "averages..." Like you can move about 6inches...) A lot of simulationists tend to argue that lack of simulationism makes them more apparent of the "game" behind the game... It's completely the opposite for me. Simulationism makes me think about rules, and that makes me more aware of the game. In the real world when something happens I know there is an explanation even if it looks down right impossible. If I did a bunch of experiments I could probably figure it out- but that's not going to happen. I just deal with whatever it is I'm presented with. Simulationist games tend to feel like my character has somehow stopped everything and done a ton of complicated science experiments, physics and quantum mechanics and somehow figured out everything there is to know about the world... And since I know that's not true, it brings to my mind the fact that the author of the game is attempting to portray through rules the way he thinks the world works... And that reminds me I'm playing a game. "Gamism" to me feels more like real life... Stuff happens, and I just deal with it. [/QUOTE]

Verification