On 2008-04-12, David Berg wrote:
I think I get what you're saying. I guess I'm just hung up on "unwelcome"—I mean, if a rules-dictated outcome was thoroughly and in all ways unwelcome, no one would use the rule, right? What you've described as "unwelcome" just seems to me to be, uh, "welcome on a higher level", which is where I was trying to go with "large-scale, long-term play priorities". Like Brand's game:
Whole thing was damn unwelcome. None of us wanted that ending, or anything really much like it. Of course, now when we talk about the game we mostly talk about how fucking awesome it was.
I'm taking this to mean that, on the scale of "how do we feel about having played Dogs" and "do we want to play Dogs again", the ambivalent bloodbath was extremely welcome! There's something Brand wanted to get out of the game that "playing by the rules" absolutely did deliver. Whatever that "something" is—that's the "large-scale, long-term play priority" I had in mind.
I hope this isn't useless semantics-wrestling. I have a hunch there's something useful to be said about how the "unwelcome" rules applications contribute to the "higher-level get-something-out-of-play", but maybe it's already been said elsewhere...
Brand, please stop me if I'm misreading you!