Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9140020" data-attributes="member: 71699">I agree. Reporting a conversation with Paul Czege, Edwards wrote thatTo say something is not a &quot;real&quot; goal of play and possibly a &quot;regrettable artifact of bad design&quot; is certainly not to show it much love. Further on Edwards elaborated thatAs Baker would later comment (not intentionally in response to this) it is rather the point of &quot;game&quot; for players to be able to blame undesirable outcomes on it. That aside, if one looks at Edwards' &quot;hard questions&quot; conceit (that at the outset he suggests will tie his three essays together) it goes like thisSimulationists - when will you realise what you are doing is boring?Gamists - do you choose roleplaying to compete in because you're too weak for other sports?Narrativists - are you talented and courageous enough?Being biased in these ways doesn't mean he had nothing worthwhile to say. His piece on simulationism contributes nothing particularly worthwhile and to my reading diverts attention from creative agenda to techniques for achieving it. Conversely, his piece on narrativism is inspirational reading and acutely draws out the consequences of the ludic-dichotomy (player is simultaneously audience and author) that others in game studies had noticed at the time but not yet appreciated. It has consequences that to my mind provide a strong justification for &quot;postclassical&quot; stances on narratology versus ludology (i.e. reconciles them.) Additionally, I think he made arguments that needed to be made forecefully at the time. Existing norms needed to be challenged head-on, so indefensibly hostile stances were perhaps required to shake up assumptions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9140020, member: 71699"] I agree. Reporting a conversation with Paul Czege, Edwards wrote that To say something is not a "real" goal of play and possibly a "regrettable artifact of bad design" is certainly not to show it much love. Further on Edwards elaborated that As Baker would later comment (not intentionally in response to this) it is rather the point of "game" for players to be able to blame undesirable outcomes on it. That aside, if one looks at Edwards' "hard questions" conceit (that at the outset he suggests will tie his three essays together) it goes like this Simulationists - when will you realise what you are doing is boring? Gamists - do you choose roleplaying to compete in because you're too weak for other sports? Narrativists - are you talented and courageous enough? Being biased in these ways doesn't mean he had nothing worthwhile to say. His piece on simulationism contributes nothing particularly worthwhile and to my reading diverts attention from creative agenda to techniques for achieving it. Conversely, his piece on narrativism is inspirational reading and acutely draws out the consequences of the ludic-dichotomy (player is simultaneously audience and author) that others in game studies had noticed at the time but not yet appreciated. It has consequences that to my mind provide a strong justification for "postclassical" stances on narratology versus ludology (i.e. reconciles them.) Additionally, I think he made arguments that needed to be made forecefully at the time. Existing norms needed to be challenged head-on, so indefensibly hostile stances were perhaps required to shake up assumptions. [/QUOTE]

Verification