next »

[gimymblert]

in mario you crush your enemy to death that's violence

However the point is that it doesn't mater how cartoony it is, it's an act of creative reflexion to try go and remove it. You kill nothing in harvest moon or animal crossing or journey, there is value in going beyond cultural limit imposed to the mind.

[gimymblert]

Also I make no more distinction between mechanics, theme and presentation, while we can look at configuration of theme and pick them appart, in fact they are all piece of the same things, presentation prescribe meaning and therefore prescribe structure of events and actions, because structure of action and meaning do have meaning or support them.

For example if you make an fps about photographing bandit, new set of mechanics are implied just by the theme (ie shooting them don't destroy them, shooting itself has new implicit like framing, direction and coverage), no matter how abstract you permute them. Abstraction being its own set of presentation and theme.

Theme and mechanics is like grammar and words. Colorless games sleeps furiously.

[J-Snake]

in mario you crush your enemy to death that's violence

In Tetris you ram and kill blocks, how much more life does a primitive nameless enemy in Mario represent than a block?

[gimymblert]

You don't kill you destroy, but it's a matter of perspective, I was waiting for the witty comment like that. The tetris block is close of the horizon of the violence perspective.

But you are doing reductio ad absurdum, if you replace the goomba with block the game still work, but it is obfuscated in comprehension, but then you just ignored the total package. The goal here is to understand "game" as gestalt.

[J-Snake]

You don't kill you destroy

When you jump on an enemy in Mario, does it make you feel his pain?

[s0]

And then that's my point, "violence" is a convenient mechanic and also I hid the fact that I think that theme is a mechanic (information, direction and feedback). And that's the point that retheming is NOT the way to go, it's just that I found it's so much ingrain and it's so synonymous of game, we have trouble to consider different but as efficient mechanics.

Also conflict don't necessarily translate to violence, there is an overgeneralization that run deep in western culture about that and it kind of misdirect creativity.

ok i was really just asking for clarification of what counts as violent, so thanks for providing it.

i agree with you btw

[J-Snake]

But you are doing reductio ad absurdum, if you replace the goomba with block the game still work, but it is obfuscated in comprehension, but then you just ignored the total package. The goal here is to understand "game" as gestalt.

The total package of Mario is a non violent game for children, despite of the possibility to crush enemies. "Killing" and "death" develop their meaning with the context of presentation.

Your definition of violent mechanics seems to include some similarities in the theme: Whether it is Mario or Resident Evil, you go out and kill some dudes. But it is a vague, intuitive form of understanding. You need to develop a categoric form of understanding which is clear-cut whenever possible. I personally can think about mechanics without a theme, then I have to present it in a format that feels more intuitive to the player.

What you might not quite understand is the following: A theme more or less implies a mechanic. But a mechanic doesn't imply a theme.

[gimymblert]

mechanic implies theme too, the same way than an interrogative grammar structure suggest a question.

[gimymblert]

However the point is not about strictness of definition we are battling about boundaries of a semantic batle, we are talking about pushing away from a cluster of ideas, that's way I use the term PERSPECTIVE, not definition.

Along a perspective view, things are define by distance of a given main concept, a Big chair can became a table, but a chair is a small clunky table, a needle is totally irrelevant as it so impracticable (ie on the horizon of that concept) UNLESS you use it in a imaginary context were needle planted into some material  a serve as a table for small people (as seen in some cartoon). Object have a fluidity of definition within context in relation to other objects, that's how analogy work, and in a creative field, analogical operation is as importance as logical in any creative field, and this problem specifically isn't a problem of coherence but a creative one, it mean there need to be mediation and reflection on the context and history.

[SirNiko]

I think it might be worth noting that modern Mario games seem to use enemies far more sparingly than the classic games. Mario 64 features a lot of stars in environments with no enemies at all to fight (including the very popular Secret Slide level), and Mario Sunshine features maps with large segments that are devoid of enemies (portrayed instead as idyllic island resorts).

...I think that theme is a mechanic (information, direction and feedback). And that's the point that retheming is NOT the way to go, ...

If theme is a mechanic (which I think is a good point), why is retheming not the way to go? Theme as a mechanic means that exploring new themes with old mechanics should get you new experiences overall and be worth exploring. Or did I misunderstand?

[gimymblert]

I prefer new theme with new mechanics (or at least variant big enough it's not shallow like make angry people like you because you lobbed a love grenade)

[J-Snake]

mechanic implies theme too

How? And what is your understanding of theme?

[gimymblert]

Also I make no more distinction between mechanics, theme and presentation, while we can look at configuration of theme and pick them appart, in fact they are all piece of the same things, presentation prescribe meaning and therefore prescribe structure of events and actions, because structure of action and meaning do have meaning or support them.

For example if you make an fps about photographing bandit, new set of mechanics are implied just by the theme (ie shooting them don't destroy them, shooting itself has new implicit like framing, direction and coverage), no matter how abstract you permute them. Abstraction being its own set of presentation and theme.

Theme and mechanics is like grammar and words. Colorless games sleeps furiously.

[s0]

mechanic implies theme too

How? And what is your understanding of theme?

how do you you come up with a theme for an abstract mechanic? how do you decide which theme will give players an intuitive grasp on your mechanic?

or to ask a more concrete question, why are there falling blocks in trapthem rather than tiny balloons flying backwards?

btw i think it's more accurate to say a mechanic implies multiple themes. the semantic relationship between mechanic and theme is not THAT stable.

[J-Snake]

Also I make no more distinction between mechanics, theme and presentation, while we can look at configuration of theme and pick them appart, in fact they are all piece of the same things, presentation prescribe meaning and therefore prescribe structure of events and actions, because structure of action and meaning do have meaning or support them.

For example if you make an fps about photographing bandit, new set of mechanics are implied just by the theme (ie shooting them don't destroy them, shooting itself has new implicit like framing, direction and coverage), no matter how abstract you permute them. Abstraction being its own set of presentation and theme.

Theme and mechanics is like grammar and words. Colorless games sleeps furiously.

You are only giving an example how the theme implies mechanics, not the other direction. You are not saying how the mechanics imply the theme. And I doubt you can. For example "framing, direction and coverage" is not exclusive to photography. This mechanic doesn't imply a certain theme, it can mean something completely different from photography in a different game.

On a related note:

we are talking about pushing away from a cluster of ideas

I am not sure why you don't realize that you are limiting yourself by doing so. Almost nothing is new on its own. Inventive games are achieved by a unique interplay of known mechanics and their representation.

[gimymblert]

How I'm limiting myself? even Leonard da vinci says constrain breed creativity!

Anyway, walking simulator, dating sims, management game, life simulator, all are genre born of theme not mechanics, in fact they evolve new mechanics that didn't make sense in an old formalism, sim city didn't have win/loss state at all which was mandatory then and now is normal. It didn't limit it open new door.

On mechanic (grammar) see it like poesy

[J-Snake]

mechanic implies theme too

How? And what is your understanding of theme?

how do you you come up with a theme for an abstract mechanic? how do you decide which theme will give players an intuitive grasp on your mechanic?

or to ask a more concrete question, why are there falling blocks in trapthem rather than tiny balloons flying backwards?

I wanted new mechanics which are still somewhat intuitive (no time manipulation...). People are used to gravity so that is why it falls down instead of up. And sticky soil seemed to be an appropriate representation to make it appear somewhat plausible to the player. Now the small artistic production value could make a better job of displaying why some things can fly and others don't etc. but the plausible representation of everything is fully planned out and has not much to do with the abstract rules of the game. I could also justify another representation for everything.

btw i think it's more accurate to say a mechanic implies multiple themes.

It is not more accurate. What you mean is exactly the same;)

[gimymblert]

You are not saying how the mechanics imply the theme.

I wanted new mechanics which are still somewhat intuitive (no time manipulation...). People are used to gravity so that is why it falls down instead of up. And sticky soil seemed to be an appropriate representation to make it appear somewhat plausible to the player. Now the small artistic production value could make a better job of displaying why some things can fly and others don't etc. but the plausible representation of everything is fully planned out and has not much to do with the abstract rules of the game. I could also justify another representation for everything.

I didn't have ready at hand example, thanks for providing it ... by the way, I do that all the time because I mostly come from absract mechanics first philosophy until recently (when I realized I was only doing permutation)

[s0]

I could also justify another representation for everything.

you could, but if you actually went with my hypothetical suggestion, your game would be much harder to understand and you would have to do a lot more unnecessary explaining, ergo certain mechanics DO imply certain themes.

or to get back to my chess example, chess makes intuitive sense as a war themed game and is therefore easy to grasp ("ok, this is a battlefield, both me and my opponent control an army and the person who kills the other player's king wins"). chess is by no means a game with "perfect" thematic/mechanical coherence (the movement patterns of the individual pieces are kind of "random"), but if it was rethemed as a game about e.g. climbing a mountain a lot of its mechanics wouldn't make any sense thematically.

[J-Snake]

You are not saying how the mechanics imply the theme.

I wanted new mechanics which are still somewhat intuitive (no time manipulation...). People are used to gravity so that is why it falls down instead of up. And sticky soil seemed to be an appropriate representation to make it appear somewhat plausible to the player. Now the small artistic production value could make a better job of displaying why some things can fly and others don't etc. but the plausible representation of everything is fully planned out and has not much to do with the abstract rules of the game. I could also justify another representation for everything.

I didn't have ready at hand example, thanks for providing it ... by the way, I do that all the time because I mostly come from absract mechanics first philosophy until recently (when I realized I was only doing permutation)

The idea here borrows the concept of gravity and glue(sticky soil) of the physical world in an abstract form. This has nothing to do with the theme. It is a pure abstracted mechanic from the real world, making it somewhat intuitive. I didn't have any theme in mind when I came up with this idea, a theme had to be found after I explored the potential of this idea. These mechanics don't imply that you are a flying agent inside a mountain digging soil, outsmarting robots, on a mission to search for data chips. The game is not bound to this representation at all. That is how I wanted to represent it to the player.

or to get back to my chess example, chess makes intuitive sense as a war themed game and is therefore easy to grasp ("ok, this is a battlefield, both me and my opponent control an army and the person who kills the other player's king wins"). chess is by no means a game with "perfect" thematic/mechanical coherence (the movement patterns of the individual pieces are kind of "random"), but if it was rethemed as a game about e.g. climbing a mountain a lot of its mechanics wouldn't make any sense thematically.

I never thought of chess as a war themed game back then when I played it until I read up its history. It was really just an abstract game to me without any theme attached to it, which brings up the following conclusion: a game can exist without a theme.