Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8626392" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I mostly just think it's a major mistake to:(1) put &quot;genre&quot; Sim (what I have called Conceit-and-Emulation) into a single bucket with &quot;process&quot; Sim (what I have called Groundedness-and-Simulation), as while they have similarities they also have differences and those differences seem just as strong as those between (say) &quot;process&quot; Sim and Gamism (both care about rules and information and choice, but have radically different goals for those things and will choose rules and structures that do not resemble each other as a consequence),(2) assert that any game which can, or does, serve multiple goals is necessarily &quot;incoherent,&quot; a pretty loaded term,(3) use terms in very idiosyncratic ways without, IMNSHO, putting much effort into helping others understand that (frex) &quot;Story&quot; doesn't mean what it sounds like and &quot;Simulation&quot; diverges heavily from what is often expected etc., and perhaps worst of all,(4) have ever, even once, used the term &quot;brain damage&quot; regarding literally anything whatsoever in a space like this, because far from just loaded, that's outright inflammatory and counterproductive.I consider each of these at least noteworthy. Collectively, I would say they represent serious flaws. That doesn't mean the theory is worthless. But in both content and presentation, I consider it to have Issues I would rather not be present. Hence my earlier stab at an alternative that attempts to use different terms and recognizes that a game may validly combine motives (or even that motives may exist in spaces or modes that in some sense lie &quot;on top of&quot; the fundamental rules, e.g. Eberron as a setting examines a Conceit and pursues Emulation in a way 3e generally does not do.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8626392, member: 6790260"] I mostly just think it's a major mistake to: (1) put "genre" Sim (what I have called Conceit-and-Emulation) into a single bucket with "process" Sim (what I have called Groundedness-and-Simulation), as while they have similarities they also have differences and those differences seem just as strong as those between (say) "process" Sim and Gamism (both care about rules and information and choice, but have radically different goals for those things and will choose rules and structures that do not resemble each other as a consequence), (2) assert that any game which can, or does, serve multiple goals is necessarily "incoherent," a pretty loaded term, (3) use terms in very idiosyncratic ways without, IMNSHO, putting much effort into helping others understand that (frex) "Story" doesn't mean what it sounds like and "Simulation" diverges heavily from what is often expected etc., and perhaps worst of all, (4) have ever, even once, used the term "brain damage" regarding literally anything whatsoever in a space like this, because far from just loaded, that's outright inflammatory and counterproductive. I consider each of these at least noteworthy. Collectively, I would say they represent serious flaws. That doesn't mean the theory is worthless. But in both content and presentation, I consider it to have Issues I would rather not be present. Hence my earlier stab at an alternative that attempts to use different terms and recognizes that a game may validly combine motives (or even that motives may exist in spaces or modes that in some sense lie "on top of" the fundamental rules, e.g. Eberron as a setting examines a Conceit and pursues Emulation in a way 3e generally does not do.) [/QUOTE]

Verification