Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RodneyThompson" data-source="post: 7674781" data-attributes="member: 3594">While I appreciate the kind words, I'm not sure I would even go that far. Look, I can be dead wrong as easily as the next person. I've had plenty of ideas about game design over the years that I no longer agree with; indeed, there are plenty of things I've designed that, looking back on them through the lens of 15 years of experience, I think were mistakes. In fact, when working on a new game design, I actively work to test ideas with the expectation that they will produce bad results, because bad ideas often open the door to good ideas. I think it's actually a sign of someone who doesn't want to continually hone their craft if their opinions and philosophies are unchanged after continued years of work. You try things out, you learn what works and what doesn't, you adjust your philosophies based on new data, and then you repeat the process.The only things I ask of people who disagree with me about game design is that they 1) show proper respect for and avoid value judgments about the person espousing a different philosophy, 2) avoid hyperbole, and 3) recognize that games are complex things with many factors contributing to what is enjoyable. So, while I do have a lot of experience under my belt, I think it's highly likely that anyone on these forums could make a salient point about a given topic and change my mind on it. Calling something lazy design because it makes some concessions to abstraction for the purposes of gameplay benefit pretty much violates all three of those tenets, which is the reason I decided to respond.</blockquote>

Verification