sure, i think that of those supposed "primary things" that games have, story is probably the closest to visuals, but that doesn't mean that it still isn't a very different thing to enjoy a game's visuals and to enjoy its characters, or its dialogue
and again, i'm not saying that you can't somehow interpret or mentally organize every aspect of a game so that it fits under those specific four categories, because obviously you can (though some are more of a stretch than others), i just mean that he was claiming that he's "solved it!" and identified the four primary colors of games, said it was backed up by research (which he didn't provide), etc., but anyone could just as easily come up with some other categorization scheme which seems to organize everything about games into a few categories
I'm not entirely sure it is a stretch unless you really want it to be, man. You're pretty much confusing bare bones fundamentals with higher concept stuff and the two don't mix without causing major brain asplode.
The references I made to your examples weren't based on wot I/you/peoplefolk/moocows like games for, but more on stripping out the layers of bullshit that get added on during the game design process. Whichever way you look at things, you -can- boil every single game down to fit into one of those categories and they're perfectly sensible and usable categories at that, especially for beginners. Regardless, it's wise not to forget the simple things no matter how experienced one is.
You might prefer to play Another World or Ico for the visuals, the atmosphere, or whatever - but at the heart of their design -as games- they're story based, with an element of game and a certain simulation of an imaginary virtual world. The fact that they look purdy is neither here nor there. That's stuff on stuff on stuff that's part of the process.
That's not to understate the importance of visuals, of course. I likes me some pretties.
and sure, it was written for kids, but overmars flatly denied that anything besides those four things is important to a game, which is not a good lesson to impart on kids
But he didn't do that! He said that the fundamentals were a solved issue. They are. Unless you've got some points you can add to the shape that make some coherent sense as absolute bare bones basic running around in the nuddy first day on Earth stuff, in which case I'm sure lots of teachers and designers would seriously love to hear about it.
Random aside. The most valuable game design advice I've ever been given? In a rando chat with Jeff Minter. "Power downs are cunt". He's right y'know. Don't do it, kids!
Still, more power to anyone teaching kids how the computer actually does what it does, rather than just that you click on things on facebook and magic happens.
Wait are you trying to tell me that it isn't magic inside my magic box that causes all this internet magic?
A bit on topic and I can't remember seeing this mentioned but does anyone who's already using GM7 or below plan to make the switch? If so what would be your main reason for or for those who don't want to, why not?
Personally I probably won't be upgrading mainly because I'm focusing on Java stuff more these days and very sehr slightly because the beta crashed when I tried to run a room with an object and i'm too lazy to go see if it's a repeating occruance.
Yup! I will be. The less I have to faff with code, the happier bunny I am.
Proper .png support is worth the upgrade for me on its tod and I'm already squirreling resources like nobodies business in anticipation. The world is doomed, I tells thee. Doomed!
Also, Joe! Whut? No magic? You tell me this now