Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8659262" data-attributes="member: 7026617">As an observation on this, GDS had to deal with the fact it was originally a conversation between dramatists and simulationists (in its usage); this had two consequences.&nbsp; First, it probably over-weighted the preference for simulationism, that, while likely more common in that period, was never as significant an interest as its position in GDS would have suggested.&nbsp; Secondly, since gamism came in late, and was never as well represented as dramatism and simulationism, it tended to get defined by people who weren't much interested in it.&nbsp; As such it was kind of the red-headed stepchild of the model.I see some of the same things with GNS: N became defined by a very specific style preference, taking up a big piece of mindspace.&nbsp; G at least showed some sign of people involved understanding what it was about, but with assumptions that don't seem to entirely to match up with reality.&nbsp; And the rest of GDS dramatism gets swept into S, which puts it together with GDS sim, which essentially says the whole set of distinctions most of the people who put together GDS were making are, well, trivial.This shows a fundamental problem with jargon outside of physical description (and perhaps even there); its going to be heavily colored by those who develop the terminology with their own biases and interests.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 8659262, member: 7026617"] As an observation on this, GDS had to deal with the fact it was originally a conversation between dramatists and simulationists (in its usage); this had two consequences. First, it probably over-weighted the preference for simulationism, that, while likely more common in that period, was never as significant an interest as its position in GDS would have suggested. Secondly, since gamism came in late, and was never as well represented as dramatism and simulationism, it tended to get defined by people who weren't much interested in it. As such it was kind of the red-headed stepchild of the model. I see some of the same things with GNS: N became defined by a very specific style preference, taking up a big piece of mindspace. G at least showed some sign of people involved understanding what it was about, but with assumptions that don't seem to entirely to match up with reality. And the rest of GDS dramatism gets swept into S, which puts it together with GDS sim, which essentially says the whole set of distinctions most of the people who put together GDS were making are, well, trivial. This shows a fundamental problem with jargon outside of physical description (and perhaps even there); its going to be heavily colored by those who develop the terminology with their own biases and interests. [/QUOTE]

Verification