I feel like a lot of this is sorta down to marketing, sorta the issue is that it's hard for the discourse to get too far from the same topics because the way games describe themselves doesn't do a good job of putting a stake in the sand for what the game is well-suited for.
In some ways it's similar to D&D discourse, where D&D despite not being a generic system tries to sell itself as being universal in a slightly different way.
And I think the other part of this is there isn't much in the way of a canon of game analysis other than how the games market themselves, so except in very specific bubbles there isn't an assumed consensus as to what a game's goals are or what it's aiming to work well for, unless the game itself tries to make that clear.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mmmag
no subject
Date: 2025-05-23 12:47 pm (UTC)In some ways it's similar to D&D discourse, where D&D despite not being a generic system tries to sell itself as being universal in a slightly different way.
And I think the other part of this is there isn't much in the way of a canon of game analysis other than how the games market themselves, so except in very specific bubbles there isn't an assumed consensus as to what a game's goals are or what it's aiming to work well for, unless the game itself tries to make that clear.