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="Alexander Kalinowski" data-source="post: 7559366" data-attributes="member: 6931283">My knee-jerk reaction was "This is a fallacy." However, on further reflection I would rather frame it more cautiously: "This is quite dangerous."Spending a lot of time to make the game more fun from a meta-level is very dangerous. Why? (Warning: Rant!)It's the difference between Game of Thrones season 1 and the shoddy Game of Thrones season 7.GoT S07 is full of lazy story-telling, convenient plot developments, making people appear in places (apparently because they're needed for a "fun" scene) and all sorts of transparent shenanigans. If you're doing things to make the game "more fun" (or more connected to the players interests), you're running the risk of your gaming world appearing to be transparently manipulated. It runs the risk of no longer feeling real, as Westeros did in season 7, unless you're quite skillful about it.Now, if we look at season 1 instead, why did it work? It was full of interesting people and situations and clever dialogue. Obviously meta-considerations ("shock value") did go into GRRM's writing but it did so in a skillful way. Everything was set-up so that it felt more or less a natural and logical development of things. And it did go against expectations of what up to then was considered fun. Had you asked anyone before about letting the supposed protagonist die in such a manner, readers/viewers most likely would have reacted negatively in surveys.But he didn't ask if readers would want shocking stuff like the supposed protagionist dying. Did FASA back then ask gamers extensively if they wanted a cyberpunk-fantasy crossover? Most likely not. People don't know what they want. They only know what they like when they see it.</blockquote>

Verification