Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 7174385" data-attributes="member: 57112">I'm sorry, but any choice you make when designing your game is a choice you make for a reason. Presumably the reason is that you believe that that choice will make your game better. That your game would be worse without it. And when that choice is bound to be deeply unpopular (as sex-based stat adjustments have been for a very, very long time) you are going to be asked to justify why you feel your game is better with them and worse without them. Otherwise you wouldn't even bother to invite the controversy, right?So why would sex-based stat adjustments make a game better? Why would not even bothering with it make the game worse? There's going to be a lot of people shouting &quot;boo&quot; (and I'll make no bones that that is exactly what I'm doing), so what justifies inviting the controversy and the objections? Again, I don't buy simulationism as a true justification. There's so many things you can choose to simulate instead of or alongside stat adjustments that aren't being done. Yes, many (though not all!) of those things are harder to simulate than simple stat adjustments, but if simulation is really the goal isn't that hard work going to be worth it? Laziness isn't a trait I normally associate with simulationism. Also, there are a lot of things you can choose to model in a simulationist game that isn't going to tick a bunch of people off (justifiably so, I would argue). I mean, I don't want to believe ticking a bunch of people off (a specific group of people, no less) is the end-goal itself, which is why I'm asking for the reason why this particular choice was made. If that answer is really &quot;I want to model the real world as much as possible, but everything else is just too hard to do&quot; then I guess that says everything we need to know about how much thought and care is actually being put into the end product. And right now that seems to be the best case scenario.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gradine, post: 7174385, member: 57112"] I'm sorry, but any choice you make when designing your game is a choice you make for a reason. Presumably the reason is that you believe that that choice will make your game [I]better.[/I] That your game would be [I]worse without it.[/I] And when that choice is bound to be deeply unpopular (as sex-based stat adjustments have been for a very, very long time) you are going to be asked to justify why you feel your game is better with them and worse without them. Otherwise you wouldn't even bother to invite the controversy, right? So why would sex-based stat adjustments make a game better? Why would not even bothering with it make the game worse? There's going to be a lot of people shouting "boo" (and I'll make no bones that that is exactly what I'm doing), so what justifies inviting the controversy and the objections? Again, I don't buy simulationism as a true justification. There's so many things you can choose to simulate instead of or alongside stat adjustments that aren't being done. Yes, many (though not all!) of those things are harder to simulate than simple stat adjustments, but if simulation is really the goal isn't that hard work going to be worth it? Laziness isn't a trait I normally associate with simulationism. Also, there are a lot of things you can choose to model in a simulationist game that isn't going to tick a bunch of people off (justifiably so, I would argue). I mean, I don't want to believe ticking a bunch of people off (a specific group of people, no less) is the end-goal itself, which is why I'm asking for the reason why this particular choice was made. If that answer is really "I want to model the real world as much as possible, but everything else is just too hard to do" then I guess that says everything we need to know about how much thought and care is actually being put into the end product. And right now that seems to be the best case scenario. [/QUOTE]

Verification