Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Korgoth" data-source="post: 4260360" data-attributes="member: 49613">Wait a minute.&nbsp; First of all, your point about the word &quot;forced&quot; is just plain false.&nbsp; Every game forces you to make choices.&nbsp; In Monopoly, you are forced either to buy a property or not buy it.&nbsp; That's a choice, and it's one you're forced to make when you land on a property that isn't already sold.&nbsp; Likewise, Settlers of Catan forces you to decide whether or not to build a road segment when you've got Wood and Brick.&nbsp; You can choose to do that, or something else.&nbsp; It's a choice that you have to make, because other people have turns too so you can't sit there and forestall it for an infinite amount of time.&nbsp; If you weren't forced to make a choice, you wouldn't be playing a game.Now on to &quot;interesting&quot;.&nbsp; Do you mean to say that it's not a principle of good game design for the choices to be interesting?&nbsp; &quot;Ah,&quot; you say, sounding like one of my students, &quot;but maybe what is interesting to you is not what is interesting to me.&quot;&nbsp; That's true... there are good games that I'm not interested in and there are probably good games that you're not interested in.&nbsp; It would be much more helpful to try to define &quot;interesting&quot; than to simply flush it down the toilet of relativism.This is where you're most wrong.&nbsp; If you're not discussing something that is ultimately objectively real, you're not doing theory.&nbsp; It's just jaw flappin' at that point.&nbsp; And the &quot;onetruewayism&quot; charge is merely Autonomic Groupthink Response Syndrome.&nbsp; I can't emphasize this enough: even if something contains a subjective component, that does not mean it is the opposite of objective or that it exists in some fuzzy realm beyond cognition, observation or analysis.That particular bit of groupthink was set up to establish a Theoretical Free Parking Zone so that anybody can say basically anything (well, anything except a reference to reality) and it is as equally valid as anything that anybody else says.&nbsp; At that point what people incorrectly call theory is just a soapbox where one gets up and says a whole bunch of high falutin' stuff that no one else is allowed to question (because if you do dare to question it, I'll just ding you with &quot;onetruewayism&quot; and you're now a pariah).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Korgoth, post: 4260360, member: 49613"] Wait a minute. First of all, your point about the word "forced" is just plain false. Every game forces you to make choices. In Monopoly, you are forced either to buy a property or not buy it. That's a choice, and it's one you're forced to make when you land on a property that isn't already sold. Likewise, Settlers of Catan forces you to decide whether or not to build a road segment when you've got Wood and Brick. You can choose to do that, or something else. It's a choice that you have to make, because other people have turns too so you can't sit there and forestall it for an infinite amount of time. If you weren't forced to make a choice, you wouldn't be playing a game. Now on to "interesting". Do you mean to say that it's not a principle of good game design for the choices to be interesting? "Ah," you say, sounding like one of my students, "but maybe what is interesting to you is not what is interesting to me." That's true... there are good games that I'm not interested in and there are probably good games that you're not interested in. It would be much more helpful to try to define "interesting" than to simply flush it down the toilet of relativism. This is where you're most wrong. If you're not discussing something that is ultimately objectively real, you're not doing theory. It's just jaw flappin' at that point. And the "onetruewayism" charge is merely Autonomic Groupthink Response Syndrome. I can't emphasize this enough: even if something contains a subjective component, that does not mean it is the opposite of objective or that it exists in some fuzzy realm beyond cognition, observation or analysis. That particular bit of groupthink was set up to establish a Theoretical Free Parking Zone so that anybody can say basically anything (well, anything [i]except[/i] a reference to reality) and it is as equally valid as anything that anybody else says. At that point what people incorrectly call theory is just a soapbox where one gets up and says a whole bunch of high falutin' stuff that no one else is allowed to question (because if you do dare to question it, I'll just ding you with "onetruewayism" and you're now a pariah). [/QUOTE]

Verification