 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| I think it's important to avoid conflating agenda with execution. by Jerry Whorebach 01/04/2014, 4:13am PST | ||||
 |
 |
|||
| You could probably increase the complexity of Virtua Fighter tenfold (and over the past decade or so, they arguably have) without ever crossing paths with Lemonade Stand, since those games employ their complexity in service to different agendas. I tend to characterize gamism as emphasizing choices, and simulationism as emphasizing consequences; since one involves putting control in the hands of the player, and the other in the hands of the designer (or his mechanical proxy, his Virtual Reality), it's hard for me to imagine a single game perfectly servicing both agendas without literally tearing itself apart. It's pretty clear that most developers believe the path of least resistance to the holy grail of videogames - a great game (with a meaningful complexity in choices) that's also a great simulation (with a meaningful complexity in consequences) - is to create two entirely separate games (say, a set of grounded systems for generating challenges and a set of abstract systems for resolving them), then switch between them on the fly. It seems like a promising tack, but I can't think of too many (read: any) cases in which one half-game didn't end up massively compromising the other. | ||||
 |
 |
|||
|
Regional preferences in videogames by 01/03/2014, 7:28am PST  Good post. Question: Definition of gamist vs simulationist NT by 01/03/2014, 7:49am PST Simulationist games focus on lots of elements and authenticity, gamist ones are by 01/03/2014, 1:15pm PST How far can gamist go up the complexity curve before it wraps to simulationist? by 01/03/2014, 10:53am PST I think it's important to avoid conflating agenda with execution. by 01/04/2014, 4:13am PST I think there's a historical Roberta Williams factor at play by 01/03/2014, 6:46pm PST |
