Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8489696" data-attributes="member: 6790260">By expecting that change must make the game &quot;better,&quot; you are necessarily committing to the idea that game systems can be compared on some scale or scales, with certain systems being better than others, and thus inherently preferable. After all, who wouldn't prefer better gaming over worse gaming?But when you say you do not pursue any kind of One True Way, you are asserting a plurality of equally valid approaches. That there cannot be a well-ordering of game systems because there isn't any metric by which one could judge one game to be better than another.How can you say both, &quot;there simply is no common standard for judging game systems&quot; and &quot;things should only be added to the game system if they truly do make the system better&quot;?Edit: More or less, you seem to be in a place where you have to walk back the second statement: You cannot request that things &quot;make the game better&quot; in any sense. You could instead say, &quot;No 'advancement' can exist without a context, and for my context those things are not useful or productive.&quot; But that, as I'm sure you can tell, is both a rather weaker argument and rather a discursive dead end, since it runs aground on &quot;you game your way and I'll game my way&quot; without further potential.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8489696, member: 6790260"] By expecting that change must make the game "better," you are necessarily committing to the idea that game systems can be compared on some scale or scales, with certain systems being better than others, and thus inherently preferable. After all, who wouldn't prefer better gaming over worse gaming? But when you say you do not pursue any kind of One True Way, you are asserting a plurality of equally valid approaches. That there cannot be a well-ordering of game systems because there isn't any metric by which one could judge one game to be better than another. How can you say both, "there simply is no common standard for judging game systems" [B]and[/B] "things should [I]only[/I] be added to the game system if they [I]truly do[/I] make the system better"? Edit: More or less, you seem to be in a place where you have to walk back the second statement: You cannot request that things "make the game better" in any sense. You could instead say, "No 'advancement' can exist without a context, and for my context those things are not useful or productive." But that, as I'm sure you can tell, is both a rather weaker argument and rather a discursive dead end, since it runs aground on "you game your way and I'll game my way" without further potential. [/QUOTE]

Verification