Slashdot Mirror
Online Game Design Theory Questioned
hergin writes "In his recent column, Engines of Creation, Dave Rickey reviews Richard Bartle's new book on online game design and questions many of the basic precepts: 'I believe that if [a theory relating to a game mechanic] isn't testable and disprovable, it's not a theory, it's simply an argument.'" The article goes on: "It is possible to create meaningful social theories and test them, through online games... Handwaving in the direction of 'game experience as Hero's Journey' (as Dr. Bartle does extensively) may be an intellectually satisfying exercise, but how can it be tested?"
How is his idea on theories breakthough? Karl Popper defined a theory as such about 100 years ago. Are computer programmers just catching up to modern scientific philosophy? I doubt it. Sounds like typical book publisher hype.
NJ Local Music Scene
What the hell is this claptrap and what does it actually have to do with the real art of putting together good, successful games that people actually want to play?
I have a very difficult time with the idea that game designers sit down and plan a game around the modification of social dynamics and provable theory. Maybe a few niche games are like that, but I can't imagine that is part of the ingredients for an entertaining game.
Maybe, in the future, it will be like the movie industry, and we'll have Art Games (that no one will actually play) and Experimental Games, and then the things that people actually enjoy.
Beyond that, I wouldn't be surprised if we get enjoyable, artistic masterpieces, but those are a long way off. At this point we have a new technology, a new sector in the game industry, and we're having fun with it.
Because they're games. Really. Just games.