Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9228358" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Just an observation, but it seems to me most of the discussion is now hinging on some fundamental definitions which are being used to define the higher level concepts we are discussing - which is impacting our ability to communicate in the rest of the discourse.ActionSceneResolutionNo-MythEtc.There’s also a discussion framework where one side talks a lot more in the abstract and the other wants concrete examples - which would normally be fine, except the abstract things we are discussing are presumably about possibilities for games that don’t currently exist.&nbsp; Somethings going to have to give there or discussion is going to grind to a standstill.What I would love to see is a set of complete definitions given so that the ground doesn’t constantly shift beneath my feat as I analyze the relationships between all the concepts. Probably a pipe dream, but that to me would be ideal.Part of why I’m stuck arguing intuitions (ex: this doesn’t seem or sound right) is because these definitions are not given, such that we quickly get into disagreement about what constitutes something as simple sounding as an action - which a larger point hinges upon - leaving us unable to resolve the larger point.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 9228358, member: 6795602"] Just an observation, but it seems to me most of the discussion is now hinging on some fundamental definitions which are being used to define the higher level concepts we are discussing - which is impacting our ability to communicate in the rest of the discourse. Action Scene Resolution No-Myth Etc. There’s also a discussion framework where one side talks a lot more in the abstract and the other wants concrete examples - which would normally be fine, except the abstract things we are discussing are presumably about possibilities for games that don’t currently exist. Somethings going to have to give there or discussion is going to grind to a standstill. What I would love to see is a set of complete definitions given so that the ground doesn’t constantly shift beneath my feat as I analyze the relationships between all the concepts. Probably a pipe dream, but that to me would be ideal. Part of why I’m stuck arguing intuitions (ex: this doesn’t seem or sound right) is because these definitions are not given, such that we quickly get into disagreement about what constitutes something as simple sounding as an action - which a larger point hinges upon - leaving us unable to resolve the larger point. [/QUOTE]

Verification