>
As an aside, I don't despite narrativism, and I like a good mix of it with simulationism in my games; this is why I think HQ1 is such a triumph of game design - albeit not perfect in every respect.
As I see it, the ideology comes in when people start arguing that a good game must, necessarily, be either purely narrativist or purely simulationist (or purely gamist, in case of things like D&D). The idea seems to be that there are specific pigeon-holes into which things must fit, and that if they don't fit neatly into one of those holes, then they are "incoherent" or somehow ideologically impure. Thus, HQ1 cannot possibly be a good game, because it's beautiful balance of narr and sim elements does not fit neatly within the pure ideological framework. It's those sort of ideas that, quite frankly, piss me off.
-- Trotsky Gamer and Skeptic ------------------------------------------------------ Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ Not a Dead Communist: http://jrevell.blogspot.com/
Powered by hypermail