?

Log in

No account? Create an account

A GNS Question

« previous entry | next entry »
Apr. 25th, 2007 | 10:26 pm

John Kim's blog had a post about GNS and his interest or lack thereof these days. I have, as you know, been somewhat absent from this whole little mad field, myself, and I found myself thinking, "So what do I think about it these days?"

As I turn that over in my head, possibly profitably but possibly not, I have some questions for you. Please insert "and the Big Model" after GNS if that is helpful to you; I don't really care.

1. Do you find GNS useful in your current play?

2. Did you find it so in the past?

3. If you design games, do you think about this while you design (including general mulling over)?

4. Did you do so in the past?

5. Do you think that GNS should change and develop significantly?

6. Practically speaking, do you think it will change noticeably in the next year or so?

7. When you see someone make a GNS-based remark somewhere on the web, do you react with interest, annoyance, or what?

8. What is your overall assessment of what GNS has achieved in the past?

9. What is your assessment of its future?

You don't have to answer all that, obviously, but I am genuinely interested to know, as I see very, very different things about this.

Oh, one more thing: is it worth creating a poll like this? I've never done one.

Link | Leave a comment |

Comments {12}

Kenneth Hite

(no subject)

from: princeofcairo
date: Apr. 27th, 2007 10:40 pm (UTC)
Link

1-2. Not particularly.
3. To an extent, at least in the realm of trying on the concept and asking "what sort of fun do I intend this game to produce"?
4. Not for the CODA system, my last game design before the current project.
5. Define "significantly." (See #8.)
6. If by "noticeably," you mean "will I notice if it changes," the answer is "probably not."
7. Mild interest. (See #8.)
8. It has provided a useful taxonomic framework for discussing game designs. I think it's relatively complete in broad structure, so I don't expect it to suddenly become the GNSX model. Obviously, as a praxis for game design, it has limited utility once you've figured out what you're generally trying to accomplish (not least because it biffs Sim so badly) but as a framework for critical discussion, I find it rather more helpful than not.
9. Upside: it will continue to provide such context for critical discussion, and initial framing mechanism for design, as it has already. Downside: Its more extreme promulgators will manage to blot out its actual accomplishments while convincing the unpersuaded that the whole notion of game design theory is bollocks. See also: Postmodernism.

Reply | Thread