thread: 2006-01-13 : Push and pull aside, co-ownership
On 2006-01-13, Vincent wrote:
Chris: Not what co-ownership is all about, no. But an example of co-ownership for certain.
All the people this "would" bug? Like before, there's no game. This is not an example made to appeal to gamers; this is an example made to illustrate a point to designers and theorists.
(Appreciate the enormous moral compromise I'm making by including "and theorists." I hope you're all happy and feeling welcome now. You.)
So yes, let's take it as given that this won't appeal to anybody as an actually playable thing unless we give it the context of a whole game.
This makes MT go "I think that there's a delineation that exists in your head that doesn't exist in mine."
I'm not sure how to get at the mode you're asking me to go in, and I'm suspecting I'm not alone. Perhaps you would have more luck hearing what you want to hear in the way you want to hear it if you asked a specific question?
This makes LBK go "There IS TOO a game."
If I don't examine your example in the context of actual gameplay, it has no value. None. So if there's an example, there's a game, despite the fact that most of this imaginary game is made up of "and stuff that works with this example piece". At least, that's how I see it.
This makes SLB go "There isn't A game."
There's the game that each of us is making up in our heads to surround the example. One game per reader. It's hard for you to judge whether you'd like to play the game I imagine, or vice versa.
This makes LBK go "Oh. Uh. Yeah. True."
