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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9608210" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Okay...but that causes your argument a serious problem.Because now there's a line you can cross, where too many changes make it a completely different game. Meaning, your clean "if X, then good, if not X, then bad" dichotomy cannot apply. You yourself have now accepted that there are degrees of change.So that's now three problems, none of which you have actually addressed in any meaningful fashion:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">You insist that this one axis is the only possible way that a game can be badly designed. I have given you a counter-example: a game that claims to be about combat, but which has no rules whatsoever for actually doing combat. You have not actually responded to this counter-example, except to blow it off.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Your standard has been that the game must explicitly say that you can change it--that it must have "Rule Zero"--and yet you then cite a number of games (chess, football, poker) which do not have "Rule Zero" or anything analogous to it. Which means you have now taken both sides of the issue: a game is good if and only if it explicitly includes "Rule Zero", but it is also good so long as it does not explicitly reject "Rule Zero", but then you cite other games that don't explicitly reject it but merely allude to it or imply it or whatever else. So what is it? Unless you actually settle on an actual position here, your argument looks like whatever you feel like pointing to at any given moment.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">And now, as noted above, you admit that there are such things as degrees of change, and some of those degrees can be too much, so in fact you admit that there are games that are bad because you have to transform them into some other game entirely in order to actually play them. Which means that merely having explicit, official permission isn't even enough now, because the base game needs to be fitting enough as-is so that you don't have to completely rewrite it, thus producing a totally new game.</li> </ol>Far from being a clean, neat, simple standard, your standard has taken every possible position, including those that are directly self-contradictory; you have dismissed counter-examples with nothing more than "nuh-uh!" in slightly more words; and you have openly admitted that the simplicity of the standard evaporates even by your own analysis!What, exactly, am I supposed to make of an argument that does such a thing? There's a reason I called it risible--other than repeatedly pointing out the problems, the only response I have left is to laugh!</blockquote>

Verification