Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9253748" data-attributes="member: 8461">I'm not going to speak to the "not viable" part of it, as I've already explained repeatedly that was never a statement of objective fact, and that anyone who reads it that way was mistaken from the get-go; I'll refer you to those earlier posts in the thread.As for my experiences, I've already relayed them to you. Repeatedly. I've said over and over that they've led to problems with players wanting to be the most special, wanting the game to revolve around them, that the benefits of overturning convention can be achieved without overturning convention, etc. What you seem to want are specifics regarding who did what with what system, even though I've explained at length that none of those details matter; that way lies pointless "you were doing it wrong" or "here's what you should have done" arguments, which establish nothing.Far better for you to offer your own experiences than to critique that of others.Because you've already said that you think the experiences of others can be valid points of criticism, and I strongly disagree. You can't tell someone that their experience was somehow less valid than your own, which is what criticism in that regard functions as. By that same token, I can point out that your own experiences can be criticized, and so aren't really worth anything, even though you put forward that they give you standing to criticize others.Again, I've spoken to my experiences. You've elected not to validate them, for reasons that you haven't elucidated, and seem to think that it's okay for you to criticize others. It's not. If you believe that it is, then you should put forward your own experiences (much like I've done) and invite others to criticize them. Maybe you'll learn something about why so many people seem to dislike collaborative design, and that their reasons have nothing to do with fear or being uninformed (perhaps being uninformed of its problems is why you actually prefer collaborative design)?By what metric do you consider that "wide"? By what criteria have you engaged with these games "enough" to say that you have a competent understanding of how their collaborative designs work? You need to put forward these details in greater amount so that they can be opened to criticism in case your opinions are based on fear or being underinformed. After all, we know you have experiences with them, but how do we know if you have "enough" experience? Maybe there are others with more experience who can teach you something.So you've offered a couple of paragraphs, very light on personal experiences, and which seem to be more like blurbs from the sales pages. You need to give us more so that we can properly determine if you have sufficient experience with these systems, and then we can criticize them properly to make sure you aren't just saying those things because of fear.No, you really don't.Leaving aside that the entire reason I keep speaking to my own experience is that I'm not saying what's true for me is "universally true" (how do you not understand that yet?), I can't "make" you revise your opinion. That's up to you, though quite frankly having an opinion about whether or not someone else's experiences deserve to be treated as something valid rather than something to be criticized is extremely lacking in consideration.And yet you think you can criticize other people if what they've decided for themselves doesn't have sufficient experience for you.</blockquote>

Verification