Another game notation system
(Visited 6839 times) Game talk
Apr 062007
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!).
6 Responses to “Another game notation system”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
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 … […]
Not bad, from a descriptive POV, from a DB construct POV, he’ll have challenges as you said related to the quantitative.
The Scots are of course much farther along in many areas, they’re solution is really robust as well, really nice guys also. I doubt you need my notes but I can send you the summary if you like as I wont be posting the detailed notes to my blog anytime soon.
I have been talking on and off to Andrew MacLennan for ages — he hangs out here upon occasion, actually. Their stuff is (I daresay) very directly based on the stuff I did, but they have definitely cleaned it up and taken it in some interesting directions. Although I didn’t get to the talk, I did help Andrew a bit on shaping the presentation, so I know all the content. 🙂 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. 😉
[…] Dave <[email protected]> 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 … […]
Andrew & team were actually nice enough to hang out post talk, we met for about an hour to talk quantitative data geek stuff. He did tell me you reviewed the stuff (thats why I figured you probably didnt want my scrub notes):)
I can send the notes along mid-week, I have to be in LA early Monday for financing related business so I cant type them up this weekend. I’ll send the notes as related to my observationson about thier talk, I cant get into the stuff from the meeting though as that was all proprietary stuff but I can say I recall thier systemic categorization overlap with GMM’s was about 90%. And of course the GMM structure was heavily influenced by ATOF, so the
“KN” system as it were maps well for us data geeks.
Unfortunately GMM is in a holding pattern (for about a month) We had something else come up that (not related to the game space) is getting funded and we have to fly in stealth mode for about 6-8 months on that.
So now I’m in the unique position of running two start-ups at the same time….phht. I never liked sleep all that much anyhow!! 🙂