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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8625643" data-attributes="member: 71699">I was sensing some hard/soft sciences head butting <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I'd like to check something before putting this to rest, about the consequences of GNS theory for game designers and players. Consider this example, Suppose some designers and players know the theory well enough to understand what is being said here and see how they can associate some of their priorities with agendas. Given GNS theory does not predict that what it observed will manifest again,<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The game designers cannot draw any conclusions from it to helpfully inform the game design work they are in the process of doing. The theory has nothing to say on the outcome of their work when they design for incompatible combinations of creative agendas. Their game might equally turn out  to be functional or dysfunctional.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The players cannot draw any conclusions from it to helfully guide their play. The theory has nothing to say about the enjoyment, delight, success etc of their play when they include incompatible combinations of creative agendas. Their play might equally turn out to be functional or dysfunctional.</li> </ul>The theory isn't predicting anything, it is explaining the set of designed games and real play reports that existed at the time the interpretation and analysis was performed. There's no reason to suppose that its interpretations and analyses will explain any future phenomena, no matter how apparently related they might be to the original objects of study.I'm not here trying to say that the theory should or shouldn't be anything: as always my principle interest is to understand what something is. Is what I say about the consequences correct (which to my reading seems to be implied by your comments) or can you dispel misapprehensions?</blockquote>

Verification