Comments on: Game Elements & Layers http://grandtextauto.org/2007/04/01/game-elements-layers/ A group blog about computer narrative, games, poetry, and art. Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:43:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: breslin http://grandtextauto.org/2007/04/01/game-elements-layers/comment-page-1/#comment-114509 breslin Tue, 03 Apr 2007 02:40:55 +0000 http://grandtextauto.org/?p=1481#comment-114509 If we were in the movie "Dead Poets Society," this would be the part we'd be tearing out of the book. :) Perhaps the saving grace of naive structuralist aesthetics is that it can provide a plan for teaching games how to write themselves. Not exactly this article, of course, but the primitive and simplistic level of thought it manifests. Of course it's a terrible way of describing art for other humans, but it's a fine level of thinking if you're trying to communicate art to a machine. For instance, no literary critic in possession of either cranial hemisphere would evaluate the 20th-Century novel in terms of naive Aristotelian categories. But by contrast, automatic production of Aristotelian narrative is the very cutting edge of automated drama management. -- Which is great. After all, who wants the job of teaching the machine *true* postmodern sensibility? (Although granted some postmodern forms of linguistic art are easier to fake than their modern and classical counterparts, specifically (and not by accident) the self-generating and self-justifying ex nihil ones which don't really have modern and classical counterparts. Which is fair enough: there is indeed an art to putting the cart before the horse. But I digress....) If we were in the movie “Dead Poets Society,” this would be the part we’d be tearing out of the book. :)

Perhaps the saving grace of naive structuralist aesthetics is that it can provide a plan for teaching games how to write themselves. Not exactly this article, of course, but the primitive and simplistic level of thought it manifests. Of course it’s a terrible way of describing art for other humans, but it’s a fine level of thinking if you’re trying to communicate art to a machine.

For instance, no literary critic in possession of either cranial hemisphere would evaluate the 20th-Century novel in terms of naive Aristotelian categories. But by contrast, automatic production of Aristotelian narrative is the very cutting edge of automated drama management. — Which is great. After all, who wants the job of teaching the machine *true* postmodern sensibility?

(Although granted some postmodern forms of linguistic art are easier to fake than their modern and classical counterparts, specifically (and not by accident) the self-generating and self-justifying ex nihil ones which don’t really have modern and classical counterparts. Which is fair enough: there is indeed an art to putting the cart before the horse. But I digress….)

]]> By: josh g. http://grandtextauto.org/2007/04/01/game-elements-layers/comment-page-1/#comment-114496 josh g. Mon, 02 Apr 2007 19:06:15 +0000 http://grandtextauto.org/?p=1481#comment-114496 I had trouble seeing what these diagrams could reveal as an analysis tool, as the layers model doesn't seem to map directly to how these elements interact. However, it does seem like a good method of creating a concise summary of a game design's elements on multiple levels; ie. it's a good "design inventory". In this use, the layers can serve as a clear visual categorization rather than being about strictly diagramming interactions. Also, I've got to say that the abbreviations were a bit of a headache to read. The diagram would have been self-explanatory if it simply had the full words on the left. I had trouble seeing what these diagrams could reveal as an analysis tool, as the layers model doesn’t seem to map directly to how these elements interact. However, it does seem like a good method of creating a concise summary of a game design’s elements on multiple levels; ie. it’s a good “design inventory”. In this use, the layers can serve as a clear visual categorization rather than being about strictly diagramming interactions.

Also, I’ve got to say that the abbreviations were a bit of a headache to read. The diagram would have been self-explanatory if it simply had the full words on the left.

]]>