Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9237920" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Certainly. For a game to exist, it must make some kind of decision (usually many such decisions) about the experiences it intends to seek. Unfortunately, &quot;not bothering to pick anything&quot; (or, worse, &quot;pretending to be everything to everyone&quot;) is also a choice.I'm really not sure that that actually follows from what is being discussed though. Having a game that is more defined does do that...if it is defined well. Which is sort of the whole point. That's why game design is not a purely artistic medium. It does contain art in it, as there are many purely creative choices which can vary in how skillfully they are executed but not in whether they are good or bad. But it also contains technology, because we can in fact develop better design techniques, learn from design mistakes, etc. Much like how brewing beer is both an art and a science (or technology), and a well-made beer requires both good aesthetic sense and the best methods and tools. Or baking, or any number of other fields which are inextricably bound to aesthetics while still also being technical skills.I guess what I'm saying is, yes, &quot;having more&quot; alone does not make things better. But nor is it the case that having less is inherently more player game experience focused or better. What matters is what is useful--and that means we cannot simply assert &quot;more is more&quot; any more than we can assert &quot;less is more.&quot; You have to actually demonstrate why more &lt;foo&gt; or less &lt;bar&gt; is more quality/efficacy/utility/etc.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9237920, member: 6790260"] Certainly. For a game to exist, it must make some kind of decision (usually many such decisions) about the experiences it intends to seek. Unfortunately, "not bothering to pick anything" (or, worse, "pretending to be everything to everyone") is also a choice. I'm really not sure that that actually follows from what is being discussed though. Having a game that is more defined [I]does[/I] do that...if it is defined [I]well[/I]. Which is sort of the whole point. That's why game design is not a purely artistic medium. It does contain art in it, as there are many purely creative choices which can vary in how skillfully they are executed but not in whether they are good or bad. But it also contains [I]technology[/I], because we can in fact develop better design techniques, learn from design mistakes, etc. Much like how brewing beer is both an art and a science (or technology), and a well-made beer requires both good aesthetic sense and the best methods and tools. Or baking, or any number of other fields which are inextricably bound to aesthetics while still also being technical skills. I guess what I'm saying is, yes, "having more" [I]alone[/I] does not make things better. But nor is it the case that having [I]less[/I] is inherently more player game experience focused or better. What matters is what is useful--and that means we cannot simply assert "more is more" any more than we can assert "less is more." You have to actually demonstrate [I]why[/I] more <foo> or less <bar> is more quality/efficacy/utility/etc. [/QUOTE]

Verification