 |
Another game notation systemApril 6th, 2007 |
This one aims at really looking at core elements: Gameplay Deconstruction: Elements and Layers. It’s interesting, IMHO, mostly for asessing what core verbs, tokens and actions you have, and how tweaking them could result in major differences.
Towards the top of the diagrams it gets a bit fuzzy, in that it isn’t quantitative — one of the nice things about the way game grammar is starting to evolve is how quantitative it is getting — the Scottish effort in particular (something I should write about from GDC!).
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
But if you send along the detailed notes, I’ll post ‘em for you! I still have hopes they will name it “Kosterian notation” or something, so I want to pimp their stuff. 
the way that the OSI layers of the networking model are. Are the “psycho” responses really based directly on what is in the “meta” layer right beneath it, or are all of these aspects of game experience more interrelated? Good critics also on Raph Koster’s website. This one aims at really looking at core elements: Gameplay Deconstruction: Elements and Layers. It’s interesting, IMHO, mostly for asessing what core verbs, tokens and actions you have, and how tweaking them could result in major differences.
[...] jane wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptTowards the top of the diagrams it gets a bit fuzzy, in that it isn’t quantitative — one of the nice things about the way game grammar is starting to evolve is how quantitative it is getting — the Scottish effort in particular … [...]
[...] Dave <info@blazersedge.com> wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptTowards the top of the diagrams it gets a bit fuzzy, in that it isn’t quantitative — one of the nice things about the way game grammar is starting to evolve is how quantitative it is getting — the Scottish effort in particular … [...]