Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8442784" data-attributes="member: 16814">The answers to your questions are:what exactly is play experience analysis supposed to tell us? What is happening in this example of play.  Where authorities exist and how they are deployed and what effect that has in the game example. Is it so we can say how a typical instance of a game should play (in descriptive terms)?No.  It's so we can say what happened in the play of the game.  Then individual people can decide if they like it or not.This is imagining that there's some special kind of game, presumably the game you favor, that requires special handling in analysis because reasons.  These reasons seems to just be an assertion that there's such a thing as a flexible game compared to, I guess, inflexible games, and that whatever game you prefer must therefore be flexible?  It's an odd argument.  Especially since the analyses presented to you throughout this thread do a good job of providing insight into what's happening in a given play example for the things being analyzed.  This is a muddled mess.  You're creating a category of games you call flexible without explaining why they are flexible outside of that they could be drifted to meet multiple play agendas.  Okay, this isn't new, or special, or unique, and is not a block to the types of analyses being deployed by others in this thread.  You then go on to claim that new categories need to be created to define the play agendas that these flexible games can create.  To sum this up, some analyses are pointing out clear differences in approach and methods of play, but you're dismissing these because games can be flexible and so cannot be analyzed this way because they defy such categorizations.  Then you propose that new categorization be created -- I'm going out on a limb here and saying that you think "living world" sandboxes need to be such a category -- so that analysis can be properly done.  And you do this without once actually refuting or rebutting the analyses that have been presented, at least successfully.  I must admit you've killed many digital trees with various gish gallops, false equivalencies, and strawmen (not to mention the occasional ad hominin).</blockquote>

Verification