thread: 2012-06-11 : Ask a Frequent Question
On 2012-07-15, Vincent wrote:
C Luke: Like I say, I don't think it's still useful to categorize games that way. Those categories are from a time of scarcity, even desperation, that no longer exists.
Murderous Ghosts is a Step-On-Up game. Orphone's Seclusium will be a Step-On-Up addition to a Step-On-Up game. Of the unnamed potential games I fill my notebooks with, half or more are Step-On-Up. But so what? We're surrounded by fun, functional Step-On-Up games. Nobody's heaving a giant sigh of long-denied satisfaction because finally somebody made one.
These days you can choose your games by whether their content and rules, like, speak to you - whether it sounds fun to be murdered by ghosts - not just because at last they offer the hope of basic creative success.
So: yes! Positively yes. But don't expect me to point out which are which, and I don't expect anyone else to notice.
This makes GcL go "It was never useful to categorize games that way"
It was (is?) useful to notice games that supported or got in the way of those goals. Some called (call?) that a meaningless distinction, but it always semmed real important to me.
This makes VB go "Either way."
I used to think it was a meaningful distinction, but now I think that coherent game design has demonstrated otherwise. But whatever - I don't think it's still useful to categorize our goals that way either!
This makes GcL go "Hmm - still seems useful in play . . ."
... useful (though certainly not sufficient) to my play, anyway. Design, maybe that's a different question.
