Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8244015" data-attributes="member: 85555">I don't think it is as simple as putting it to bed by using different words. I think my problem is the fold here: the language, the level of zoom and the issue of the world versus what occurs in it. We are zooming in so much, that the process is being reduced to a binary and it isn't one. I suppose you could talk about content generators for almost anything, and it would mean something. But then you are moving beyond the idea of an author. A content generator doesn't have to be one individual, it doesn't need to be human. Everything in this world is generated by something, correct? But I think the reason I am really pushing this point is the fundamental disagreement really seems to be centered on whether you can draw a distinction between the stuff going on in the game and the world in which that game is set. Pemerton's language, to me at least, seems to steer us towards the conclusion that there is only the stuff (what he calls the fiction). That the world is just part of that fiction. I think what we are saying is no, the world is a separate concept and the stuff is occurring in that world or being overlaid on it (at least in something like a living sandbox----there are certainly approaches where the world and the fiction become one). This is why I fight so much over the language, because so much of the language is already loading the conclusion IMO.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 8244015, member: 85555"] I don't think it is as simple as putting it to bed by using different words. I think my problem is the fold here: the language, the level of zoom and the issue of the world versus what occurs in it. We are zooming in so much, that the process is being reduced to a binary and it isn't one. I suppose you could talk about content generators for almost anything, and it would mean something. But then you are moving beyond the idea of an author. A content generator doesn't have to be one individual, it doesn't need to be human. Everything in this world is generated by something, correct? But I think the reason I am really pushing this point is the fundamental disagreement really seems to be centered on whether you can draw a distinction between the stuff going on in the game and the world in which that game is set. Pemerton's language, to me at least, seems to steer us towards the conclusion that there is only the stuff (what he calls the fiction). That the world is just part of that fiction. I think what we are saying is no, the world is a separate concept and the stuff is occurring in that world or being overlaid on it (at least in something like a living sandbox----there are certainly approaches where the world and the fiction become one). This is why I fight so much over the language, because so much of the language is already loading the conclusion IMO. [/QUOTE]

Verification