tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2482451413021840738.post1695728491943858439..comments2024-03-29T20:01:34.283+11:00Comments on Observations of the Fox: A New Gaming Theory and LexiconVulpinoidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04511600075328621953noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2482451413021840738.post-64900183759182062702009-12-25T11:29:31.911+11:002009-12-25T11:29:31.911+11:00hmmm..."The Big Model" and it's subt...hmmm..."The Big Model" and it's subtheories tend...<br /><br />Where was I heading with that?<br /><br />Based on the context of the paragraph leading up to that sentence fragment, and some of the other thoughts I've had on the topic, I'd probably finish that train of thought like this.<br /><br /><i>"The Big Model" and it's subtheories tend to cause more division than unification with their categorisations in the instances I've seen. Especially when people are too busy arguing the definitions of "Narrativism" or "Step On Up" rather than actually applying them to specific circumstances and situations. But lack of concrete definitions and intrusion of varying human perspectives has long been a bugbear of anthropological study. </i><br /><br />As for that earlier comment<br /><br /><i>If there were a shorthand way to describe a game based on what the game chooses to focus on, and how fine that focus is, that might be a new and useful way to talk about games, maybe how many rolls it takes to do different things in the game, or how many stats detail those things.</i><br /><br />That's exactly the kind of thing that I'm aiming towards. A more quantitative analysis of games from a mathematical perspective of vectors and analogy of light particles/waves.Vulpinoidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04511600075328621953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2482451413021840738.post-89659853303590056852009-12-23T04:43:11.857+11:002009-12-23T04:43:11.857+11:00Not to be a pain, but "The Big Model and it&#...Not to be a pain, but "The Big Model and it's subcategories tend ..." to what? :)<br /><br />I would like to hear the rest of that thought. I downloaded Kirk's "Design Patterns..." to check it out, and I'm intrigued, but please, my friend, tell us more about the Big Model and its tendencies! ^_^Zac in VAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09041672961685368893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2482451413021840738.post-84243095103463325612009-12-21T13:30:02.262+11:002009-12-21T13:30:02.262+11:00One thing that always fascinated me about RPGs is ...One thing that always fascinated me about RPGs is the degree of focus.<br /><br />For example, in Mega Traveller, one could spend all day designing one starship, tinkering with the kilowatt hour power output of its fusion drives, the power needs of sensors and weapons, etc. But the game did not reward or penalize players at all for developing a detailed and consistent personality for their characters.<br /><br />No judgement there. One could argue that is consistent with the genre, since sci-fi literature is riddled with cardboard characters and can dwell on the particulars of one's technology.<br /><br />Aeon/Trinity is also a sci-fi game but you have to choose a nature and a demeanor for your character and you do benefit from using them in play, but a starship in that game has a very small stat block, and the players can never get their characters into a position to make their own custom starship.<br /><br />If there were a shorthand way to describe a game based on what the game chooses to focus on, and how fine that focus is, that might be a new and useful way to talk about games, maybe how many rolls it takes to do different things in the game, or how many stats detail those things.<br /><br />A player that always plays the most beautiful character in the game, would of course like a game that has a stat for physical beauty that comes up in a decent amount of rolls, or at least an advantage that provides some significant bonus.<br /><br />Just a thought. Feel free to ignore it if you were already off in another direction.Sheikh Jahbootyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08353865881591884445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2482451413021840738.post-39611524642009244052009-12-19T16:43:26.241+11:002009-12-19T16:43:26.241+11:00That's a valid point. And certainly a reason w...That's a valid point. And certainly a reason why a software designer should look to Mac OS, Linux or Unix when trying to determine a good OS for a particular operational platform...rather than just going with Microsoft.<br /><br />I'm a huge fan of looking at the little things and trying to see what they do well in comparison to the mainstream players.<br /><br />In this light, I'm not viewing success as "commercial success", but rather what forms of mechanism and what combinations of mechanisms produce good/successful results to emulate specific styles of play.<br /><br />I know in advance that the group playing a game will heavily taint the outcome of a game, but that's usually through the application or ignorance of the mechanisms involved. Like most theorists, I'm going to develop some theorems for optimal play, then expand out into how game play is modified for a system through the modification of game systems (through omission or addition).<br /><br />I'm glad to see that discussion has already begun.Vulpinoidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04511600075328621953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2482451413021840738.post-84919522402932526892009-12-19T14:37:38.888+11:002009-12-19T14:37:38.888+11:00One thing that occurs to me about following "...One thing that occurs to me about following "successful" patterns is that "successful" does not always equal "good". So it is important when analyzing "successful" things that one asks why that happens to be in that position.<br /><br />As an example from the tech industry, just because Windows has the largest install/usage base doesn't mean it is the best OS, or that doing things the Windows way is the optimal way to do things. It just means that's what people are used to, for whatever reason.<br /><br />This is why following "successful patterns" in design often ends up creating a lot of what I'll call "Hollywood": endlessly reheated crap that we've all seen before that pushes actual innovation, vastly more interesting, downright BETTER material to the edge of our collective consciousness and fails to allow it to thrive, to become successful, and overtake the previously "successful" patterns.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com