Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 5609275" data-attributes="member: 15538">I'll tell you what. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Let's assume the narrative is consistent. The Gamist would like the world to &quot;make sense&quot; in order for actions to be meanginful. If this is achieved, Gamism converges with Simulationism, as the world perfectly represents the sort of world in which Gamist agendas are worthwhile. Similarly, Narrativism, if successful, ends up simulating the exploration of a theme, as the theme would be explored in fiction or in real life. If Simulation is about &quot;the right to dream,&quot; all successful Gamist and Narrativist approaches become Simulationist.The alternative is to assume the narrative is inconsistent, that the Gamist or Narrativist does not consider it important that they experience a &quot;dream&quot; wherein their gamist or dramatic urges are satisfied.I said everything is Sim, nor nothing is Sim. i didn't simply say &quot;everything is Sim.&quot; To use your analogy, a Java programmer might want to create a multimedia splash page for a website, or they might want to do forms processing. Either way, they use Java. And in fact it doesn't matter which they are doing in terms of how they approach using Java. Good Java is good Java. Gamist and Narrativist agendas cannot exist without Sim. Pure Sim... cannot exist at all. It is a tautology to say that what someone would like to imagine is something imaginary, and that to be engaged with it, they would prefer to be engaged. But that's what Simulation says. The reason I am trodding all over Sim is not that I don't understand it, but because I don't believe it works. Trying to use GNS to understand &quot;Sim&quot; play is like trying to make gunpowder using Aristotle's chemistry.EDIT: Plus Edwards conception of Narration is muddled in Modernism, that is, literary criticism of the early part of the last century.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pawsplay, post: 5609275, member: 15538"] I'll tell you what. :) Let's assume the narrative is consistent. The Gamist would like the world to "make sense" in order for actions to be meanginful. If this is achieved, Gamism converges with Simulationism, as the world perfectly represents the sort of world in which Gamist agendas are worthwhile. Similarly, Narrativism, if successful, ends up simulating the exploration of a theme, as the theme would be explored in fiction or in real life. If Simulation is about "the right to dream," all successful Gamist and Narrativist approaches become Simulationist. The alternative is to assume the narrative is inconsistent, that the Gamist or Narrativist does not consider it important that they experience a "dream" wherein their gamist or dramatic urges are satisfied. I said everything is Sim, nor nothing is Sim. i didn't simply say "everything is Sim." To use your analogy, a Java programmer might want to create a multimedia splash page for a website, or they might want to do forms processing. Either way, they use Java. And in fact it doesn't matter which they are doing in terms of how they approach using Java. Good Java is good Java. Gamist and Narrativist agendas cannot exist without Sim. Pure Sim... cannot exist at all. It is a tautology to say that what someone would like to imagine is something imaginary, and that to be engaged with it, they would prefer to be engaged. But that's what Simulation says. The reason I am trodding all over Sim is not that I don't understand it, but because I don't believe it works. Trying to use GNS to understand "Sim" play is like trying to make gunpowder using Aristotle's chemistry. EDIT: Plus Edwards conception of Narration is muddled in Modernism, that is, literary criticism of the early part of the last century. [/QUOTE]

Verification