In the year and a half between when I wrote "Evolving Game Design from Alchemy into Science" to when it was published in www.gamedev.net my opinions have changed drastically. While I still strongly agree that well defined theories are needed to help guide game design, I disagree with the premise that these theories should be borrowed from psychology, and strongly disagree with using base psychological principals to make a game addictive. While using psychological principles can be helpful (the psychological explanation of seeing three dimensions is still valid) it most definitely should not relied upon in order to make games compelling. Doing so lowers games to the level of slot machines and rats pushing levers. Rather games, if games must rely on existing theories, they rely artistic theories that explain why novels, movies, or even paintings are compelling. These theories deepen and expand games to art, rather lowering them to slot machines. We must also create our own design theories. No exsiting artistic theory can fully analyze games as no other artistic theory accounts for interactivity. In a nutshell, theories are important to help us truly understand game design. Unfortunately, borrowing these theories from psychology will only debase games, while borrowing from other arts will limit games. We need our own theories.

This should be under the Discuss this article thread (already has two dissident opinions at the time of this post). More people will find and read it there, sparking more debate.

Oops, I thought there was something like that. I''ll make a copy over there and request that all further submissions make their way there too.