Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8659861" data-attributes="member: 82106">But you CANNOT split out different INTERNAL sources of this logic! Because a game world is PRETEND there is no ACTUAL physics for example. So if a game is trying to impose physics as a realistic constraint, it is really imposing ITSELF, or the conception of the participants, just like if you impose genre logic as a constraint, which is also going to be how it is conceived by the participants. So there is no CORE fundamental difference, they are all &quot;imposition of a conception of how play should proceed&quot; with the details of what that is determining the sub-type of the agenda. Meanwhile GDS, IMHO doesn't really relate to the activity of play at all, as a framework it simply categorizes features of system, game artifacts, and to a degree the associated behaviors/conceptions of the players. Thus GDS's 'S' splits away genre emulation based on what I would consider to be less substantive attributes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8659861, member: 82106"] But you CANNOT split out different INTERNAL sources of this logic! Because a game world is PRETEND there is no ACTUAL physics for example. So if a game is trying to impose physics as a realistic constraint, it is really imposing ITSELF, or the conception of the participants, just like if you impose genre logic as a constraint, which is also going to be how it is conceived by the participants. So there is no CORE fundamental difference, they are all "imposition of a conception of how play should proceed" with the details of what that is determining the sub-type of the agenda. Meanwhile GDS, IMHO doesn't really relate to the activity of play at all, as a framework it simply categorizes features of system, game artifacts, and to a degree the associated behaviors/conceptions of the players. Thus GDS's 'S' splits away genre emulation based on what I would consider to be less substantive attributes. [/QUOTE]

Verification