[MUD-Dev] DGN: Reasons for play

[cruise]

After this wonderfully long discussion of the motivations behind
game-playing and the such, I've yet to see any firm
conclusions. Different people have their own pet theories, but we
seems to be lacking a general consensus for the fundemental reasons
our entire industry exists.

Anyone else find that faintly disturbing?

Here we are, merrily coding or designing away, with scarce more
rationale behind our decisions than "I think it's cool." And
sometimes people agree with us, sometimes they don't.

Surely a good understanding of what is actually wanted is the first
step of any design process? Or is that perhaps what seperates
business from art? An artist creates something, then other people
like it. In a business, people like something, and so you provide
it.

The list seems to be divided pretty equally between the two (if
we're going to apply another of those artificial dichotomies that
are so very useful) - some want to make games that appeal to the
people, others want to show the people what is so appealing about
games.

Either way, grokking what is fun to play and what isn't must be of
use to anyone. But we're a long way off a Standard Model of Gaming
Mechanics.

Is such a thing even possible?

--
[ cruise / casual-tempest.net / transference.org ]
   "quantam sufficit"
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev