I've been thinking about how a game can make an argument, and how it can be a starting point for a design. For some reason I always struggled with the advice to "start with experience". Is there a difference? Same goal, different words? Maybe one for @LudologyPod and @colewehrle
-
-
I don't think it's the same. The game that made me realise this was Modern Art. In that game the paintings themselves don't matter, the important thing is how popular the artist is. The rules don't spell it out but they made us all think like that.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
So I think the argument of Modern Art is clear - arts value is inherently driven by the value we assign to it. But what would the experience be? Do you think Knizia intended to make that statement, or is it just an outcome of an interesting math equation?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I do think Knizia intended to make that statement. The experience in this case is the control over that popularity, which is placed on the player's hands.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Do you think that designing for experience, and designing to make a statement, are separate, but intrinsically linked?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
No, it's easy to picture a scenario where I'd design to evoke a specific emotion. At that point statements would be optional.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Please ignore me if I'm getting annoying! I'm just fascinated, and glad to have your insights. So, you think you can design for experience without making a statement. But can you make a game with a statement without designing for experience?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Yes, you can see that in many rethemed and promotional games. You don't have to, but the most effective games come from a harmony between the two.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.