Untitled

[quote="keithburgun"]My philosophical point of view is that we create good things by understanding our design goals and being efficient in pursuing them.[/quote]

 

I think you were rude to Link and Polari. They actually came in here giving you the benefit of the doubt with an added air of friendliness and asked real questions. They provided examples that were well put and contrasted your theory without being specifically contrarian. So you respond with extremely patronizing remarks that totally ignore what was actually said and personally belittle them. THEN you have the audacity to state, as is quoted above, exactly what Link was talking about right after you said to him "but it really seems like you wrote it without any regard for the context of this thread."

 

Every single time someone calls you out, you attack them, tell them their argument is 'missing the point' or rewrite history of what 'you actually said.' Further, you never provide examples. It's astounding that you write such huge bricks of text without proving any insight. And not even anything anyone has to agree with. Just something that actually clarifies what you're talking about. Not once do you do that. Every time you post, the theory's different, or we just don't understand, or you put words in our mouths or draw lines in the sand. You continually use language that implies heavy value statements and judgment then claim to make none yourself. That's total bull.

 

You keep speaking in these weird general terms. Like 'games would be better if they only did this.' You have to provide examples for that to mean anything. Honestly, I don't think you can. I think you could show us a 100 focused games and we'd show you a hundred times as many that are super blurry(which is an unfair term)--all good. I think you could propose and design a 100 good games and we could develop 100 times as many. I have yet to see any sort of parallel given either that might shed a bit of light. This is really a big issue with your theory. There's no evidence whatsoever. It's so flipping easy to make crazy statements like "If you want videogames to stay the same as they have been these past 20 years, then you should reject my system. My system is a new way forward." Because you CAN'T prove anything. Not only does that make your theory dubious but you can continue to make wild claims. So while we try and provide examples from reality you say we're holding on to the past or afraid of change.

 

[quote="keithburgun] The quality of decision-making is largely stepped on by execution.[/quote]

 

This shows a tremendous lack of understanding. You obviously don't understand fighting games despite saying you do. Events happening in real-time pull on emotions and physiology in a way turn-based cannot. Utilizing that with decision-making when designing creates experiences only reachable by those elements.

 

You seem to think you can have real-time gameplay without execution requirements. You're completely wrong. You could separate the decision-making from the execution so much that you have a nice ambiguous decision game with some sort of good-feeling analog interface or some way to push turns along faster. But then the 'real-time' is gone. As soon as those things are separate it's gone. As long as the real time aspect has no bearing on the decision mechanics, it's gone. I don't care how many times you claim your system doesn't do this. You cannot create a real-time game under it. There are more examples, but this simple fact makes your system useless. It is limiting something that we know and love. It has NOTHING to do with us wanting to hold on to old games for silly reasons. We routinely rip apart games on this forum. The real-time aspect of digital games is a fundamental element to be used by designers in whatever way they see fit. But your system inherently excludes it and that's why your system fails.