User talk:Captain P

I think level flow should be confined to a discussion of player movement only - we should keep item placement out of this, because they're two seperate concepts. When you combine the two, you're basically talking about gameplay instead. --Campaignjunkie ^(talk) 14:14, 22 Dec 2006 (PST)

Since item placement and vantage points affect player movement, I think it shouldn't be left out. They act as flow generators. Depends on how you define flow or level flow of course, and just as with the term gameplay, they remain relatively vague and/or debated. For me, gameplay is a much broader term, referring to the overall player experience rather than the movement and decision-making behind it only. I guess that's where our definitions differ: you see flow as movement, I see it as movement together with the decision process behind it. --Captain P 16:36, 22 Dec 2006 (PST)

It's neither possible nor desirable to speculate on so much player psychology when really we're just looking at how players move through a space - movement, in other words. Might I add that you're already making a distinction between movement / item placement / vantage points? That's three seperate articles right there.

When the definition is disputed, the solution shouldn't be just to "include everything" because then you won't know where to stop. By that same logic, we should discuss everything else that affects movement: architecture, ambient sounds, color schemes, the entire discipline of level design! Instead, it should be restricted to a single, easily understood concept: ease of movement in a space.

Consider your definition: "Flow' indicates how a level invites players to flow through it." What does that mean? It's too vague. The goal of theory is to try to explain and define these concepts, and I think including these related concepts is too confusing on a single page. Let the readers make the connection for themselves. --Campaignjunkie ^(talk) 13:29, 23 Dec 2006 (PST)