Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9332297" data-attributes="member: 71699">Reading posts in this thread, I'm observing two competing descriptions of observed play.The first that I'll call a &quot;modalities&quot; description, describes combinations of playstyle and game design as distinct modes such that one is playing in one mode or another mode. To my reading, [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] has presented with clarity such a description. In this case, when there are modes of play A and B, one is either playing in mode A or one is playing in mode B.The second that I'll call a &quot;hybrids&quot; description, deconstructs playstyle and game design granularly for reassembly in a vast number of ways. To my reading, [USER=7025508]@Crimson Longinus[/USER] has been working from such a picture.Hybridists are naturally puzzled about the apparent protectiveness over and exclusivity reserved for what appear to them to be redeployable principles and structures (including mechanics) that can be used together or apart and in more or less degree. Modalists don't see how the play they cherish could possibly arise except in the presence of all the parts working together.Stepping back a bit, over the arc of modern game development I have seen in the early stages a rapid process of branching hybridisation that eventually settles on what comes to be known as a game genre. The process is still continuing and surprising hybrids turn up all the time, receive some focused attention and development, and either whither or flourish as a new genre. The autochess genre is a recent example in videogames. Player culture has expanded and evolved in parallel.So I believe it is right to formally call out and label a mode and say that it has a distinct nature when all the parts are present. And equally, that it is right to feel able to deconstruct and say that those parts can be found in and serve other play even if that play doesn't amount to the mode.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9332297, member: 71699"] Reading posts in this thread, I'm observing two competing descriptions of observed play. The first that I'll call a "[B]modalities[/B]" description, describes combinations of playstyle and game design as distinct modes such that one is playing in one mode or another mode. To my reading, [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] has presented with clarity such a description. In this case, when there are modes of play A and B, one is either playing in mode A or one is playing in mode B. The second that I'll call a "[B]hybrids[/B]" description, deconstructs playstyle and game design granularly for reassembly in a vast number of ways. To my reading, [USER=7025508]@Crimson Longinus[/USER] has been working from such a picture. Hybridists are naturally puzzled about the apparent protectiveness over and exclusivity reserved for what appear to them to be redeployable principles and structures (including mechanics) that can be used together or apart and in more or less degree. Modalists don't see how the play they cherish could possibly arise except in the presence of all the parts working together. Stepping back a bit, over the arc of modern game development I have seen in the early stages a rapid process of branching hybridisation that eventually settles on what comes to be known as a game genre. The process is still continuing and surprising hybrids turn up all the time, receive some focused attention and development, and either whither or flourish as a new genre. The autochess genre is a recent example in videogames. Player culture has expanded and evolved in parallel. So I believe it is right to formally call out and label a mode and say that it has a distinct nature when all the parts are present. And equally, that it is right to feel able to deconstruct and say that those parts can be found in and serve other play even if that play doesn't amount to the mode. [/QUOTE]

Verification