Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Emberashh" data-source="post: 9510953" data-attributes="member: 7040941">I think if you want to define this idea better, I'd go with the term ludomechanical dissonance, as defined by <a href="https://game-wisdom.com/critical/ludomechanical-dissonance" target="_blank">In this blog. </a>A lot of whats discussed in the OP though is also just your standard ludonarrative discourse.I think the whole thing about ludomechanical design choices, different from ludonarrative ones, is that they aren't intrinsically disconnected. A design choice could be satisfactory to both simultaneously, and that that I think tends to be a very desirable design to achieve.That I'd argue is the purer definition of what I've described in the past as mechanics that make metagaming and roleplaying indistinguishable from each other. The optimal way to play follows from the ludic as much as it does the narrative and vice versa.In video game land, Doom Eternal is exemplary of that kind of marriage, achieving it largely because it wasn't afraid to be a game to do it. You're the Doom Guy, and the best way forward is to rip and tear, and thats the case in the function of play as it is in the function of the narrative the game provides for, and it works despite the fact that much of the solutions are so blatantly gamey as opposed to diegetic.But even then, that doesn't mean Doom Eternal couldn't be done in a way that makes that gameyness invisible. Plenty of ways to, say, give an authentic reason for any random demon being a loot pinata.</blockquote>

Verification