thread: 2009-12-08 : Your 3 Insights
On 2011-07-19, David Berg wrote:
Hey Gerald!
If conceptualizing your game in that way was useful to you, then mission achieved, man. If you're testing the concept to see if you get it, then my only criticism might be that your answers are a bit broad.
One of my takeaways from recent chats here is that thinking about these 3 insights is less a tool for building or examining an entire game as a unit, and more a tool to bring to bear on every individual piece of your game. Basically, for every part of your game that players interact with, what are the insights you're delivering to them right then? (I don't mean "deliver" as in "they know what your insight was", I just mean your rationale for shaping their behavior and experience in one way as opposed to another.)
Vincent said something recently about 3 insights per subsystem, which might be the same thing. Check out the "Just 3 Insights?" thread.
As for your pitch, your insights sound like fertile gaming to me! However, absent some specifics, there's nothing for me to latch onto and remember. If I saw a play example that actually delivered those insights, I might be sold, but the details would matter a lot to me.
Example of something more specific that'd grab me more:
1 - Intent and accountability is an interesting lens through which to examine Western outlaws.
2 - Transparent resolution of known risks and rewards helps players choose and communicate their true priorities.
3 - Good guys and bad guys act the same way when there's something to be gained or lost.
7 Deadly Sins is cool, maybe you could work that in somewhere... subject matter, perhaps?
