thread: 2006-05-25 : System and character sole-ownership
On 2006-05-30, Charles S wrote:
Ben and TonyLB,
Are you guys actually arguing that trivial simulationism doesn't exist as a technical agenda?
Since a character that is no longer believable is often neither enjoyable or useful, it is difficult to see how the fact that the character is no longer enjoyable or useful means that the problem isn't really that the character isn't believable, all three problems can be there.
Also, Tony,
If people say (or I predict they would say) "Uh ... that wouldn't mean anything, that's just stupid," then there's no value.
Which means that you don't see character's get completely broken all that often because when you suggest (or think) something that would break the character as a believably coherent entity, other people say, "No, that's just stupid, that doesn't make any sense," and you don't so it.
