jalapeno_dude
AKA Panda Judo Eel
I'd say that's completely fallacious actually. Stats and map together just tell you the final result, not what actually happened to get there. Given the method of arrival is non-mechanical, even in the most mathematically assisted examples, you cannot realistically understand the game without the write-up. Similarly, with just a write-up and no stats or map, visualizing relative capabilities or positions becomes virtually impossible and murky. Both components are necessary to understand a situation in full.
Ah, but that is (or at least is related to) my point:
-In a pure game, then (1)the method of arrival is mechanical and (2)only the current situation should be important--the history shouldn't matter.
-In a story, the writer should just come up with their own assessment of the situation.
I'm discussing the extremes, and thus my point in the first paragraph is not particularly useful.
So why are you uneasy with it? Because that's the paragraph I think actually answers the question:The second one I'm also uneasy with but less willing to bother with now. At any rate, in saying both these "obvious" things, you have totally avoided the questions being asked.![]()
Question said:If the Story-Game experience is seen as co-existent in NESing, as stated in the above, then what are methods for optimizing both aspects (factual content and emotional context) in an update? If the player's processing of information is relative, how do you cater to different types of audience effectively at the same time?
Answer said:[...]you can dissociate the game and the story within the update.
My goal in an update is generally twofold--(1) to tell a good, or at least a dramatic story, based on player input and (2) to evolve the game in such a manner that interesting choices are presented to the players. I submit that while (1) can be of assistance in (2), there's no reason that (1) and (2) have to be related.