Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lonely Tylenol" data-source="post: 3698799" data-attributes="member: 18549">It seems pretty clear that if you create a map that lacks any of the elements listed, it becomes more difficult to use as a map.&nbsp; If there are elements of map-making, the absence of which always decreases the user's ability to use the map, those elements are objectively related to the quality of the map.&nbsp; If a map is not clearly labeled, for example, the chances that a user will make a mistake regarding the correct placement of objects increases.&nbsp; If increasing the clarity of labeling decreases the incidence of user errors, it is objectively an improvement.That's a bit of a straw man.&nbsp; I don't suppose anyone here would suggest that there is an objective standard to humour.&nbsp; However, there are often objective standards of utility.&nbsp; If we're considering the module to be a content delivery system that also facilitates gameplay, it's not hard to imagine that there are ways to make a better or worse module, just as there are better and worse ways to teach someone French.&nbsp; The objective measure is, there has been a gain in the sort of results we're looking for.&nbsp; For a method of teaching French, the results are, the subject speaks French in a shorter period of time than other methods would obtain.&nbsp; For a module, the results are &quot;the gaming group had an easy time playing an enjoyable game thanks to the module.&quot;While a particular group's enjoyment of the module may come down to subjective factors, and there may be groups that, unaccountably, are better able to use unclear maps, if a change in module design makes it easier in general for users to get good results from the module, it's an objective improvement that can be measured just like strength of language acquisition can be measured.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lonely Tylenol, post: 3698799, member: 18549"] It seems pretty clear that if you create a map that lacks any of the elements listed, it becomes more difficult to use as a map. If there are elements of map-making, the absence of which always decreases the user's ability to use the map, those elements are objectively related to the quality of the map. If a map is not clearly labeled, for example, the chances that a user will make a mistake regarding the correct placement of objects increases. If increasing the clarity of labeling decreases the incidence of user errors, it is objectively an improvement. That's a bit of a straw man. I don't suppose anyone here would suggest that there is an objective standard to humour. However, there are often objective standards of utility. If we're considering the module to be a content delivery system that also facilitates gameplay, it's not hard to imagine that there are ways to make a better or worse module, just as there are better and worse ways to teach someone French. The objective measure is, there has been a gain in the sort of results we're looking for. For a method of teaching French, the results are, the subject speaks French in a shorter period of time than other methods would obtain. For a module, the results are "the gaming group had an easy time playing an enjoyable game thanks to the module." While a particular group's enjoyment of the module may come down to subjective factors, and there may be groups that, unaccountably, are better able to use unclear maps, if a change in module design makes it easier in general for users to get good results from the module, it's an objective improvement that can be measured just like strength of language acquisition can be measured. [/QUOTE]

Verification