Now now, children. You mustn't be rude.
So, I grok what you are saying. I'm a fan of Jung, a fan of the hero's journey, etc.
I also feel that quoting your own article verbatim is something of a no-no, but I digress.
As it also turns out, I was a fan of semiology, I just didn't know that there was a term for it.
The Game takes place wholly within the mind, so why should it matter if the Player is considering the Game Objects as the objects that they iconify or simply as abstract entities? Iconification doesn't necessarily make the game any more fun. If it did, then Reversi and Go wouldn't be any fun. In fact, I often have more fun once I come to realize what the game "really is".
For example, Fashion Cents. When I first played this game, I was instantly hooked. For a while I felt a little strange for liking a game where you dress up dollies. But that was never the aspect I was into, as I realized. It is "really" an abstract game of collecting sets of color coordinated pieces. Even the color wasn't necessary.
You could take a square, divide it along both of the diagonals into four equal triangles, place numbers, letters, or glyphs into them, and you have the same game.
Just like if you strip down Diablo, you get NetHack.
All the glitz and glamor and nifty graphics and dolby surround sound and event driven musical scores, after they have lost their luster, count for nothing. Sure, they'll get you to try the game out, but if the game mechanic beneath isn't any fun, then the game is just... empty.
So apparently Tolkien was right... not all that is gold glitters.
|
Posted - 10/26/2004 3:16:52 PM
Posted - 10/27/2004 3:02:30 PM
Posted - 10/27/2004 11:19:23 PM
