Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="darkbard" data-source="post: 7769105" data-attributes="member: 1282"><p>I think there is a loaded tone to both (all three) articles. But while that's what is mostly being reacted to in this thread, the initial installment has seen most of its strong reaction against the terms employed by Lew: they seem confused about actual trends in game design over the last decade or more and attempts by some theoretically-inclined gamers to create terminology that can be used with precision in discussions and analysis of such. In these articles, Lew's terms seem to ignore (be unaware of?) the ongoing discussion of how certain game elements or design philosophies have shaped how a general audience thinks of the terms he employs. And that makes it very hard to engage his ideas on a practical, functional level, tone aside.</p></blockquote><p></p>