Quote:

Original post by Warsong wav No ego but the facts, you should know this already. The name warsong gets more attention. The people you stated have points but people should keep putting them in better order and we both know that better design will come out sooner or later and people should look at other sources for inspiration. I agree with some of the things you say but up to a point. It does depend on the culture to a point and hostile people like hostile game. Here is a site that might help you see about how different cultures see games different. http://www.the-magicbox.com/charts.htm Iron I like what you say sometimes and you have a better grasp of design than most but you are not perfect. You come to game dev to read opinions of game design and I am giving you another opinion which you can think about it or not think about it. Others like what I have to say and they think about it and I do not expect people to take everything I say as gold but take some ideas of what I say. Just like my signature how once I had a post about it and then I found a saying that reflects my post which many did not get it. Do you remember that one about opposites? Just becasue can not see it does not mean it does not exist. I do not have all the answers since I am not in the mood to present it well. People learn better whenthey discover it with the help of others more than being told of it. Here is another one read my post about addiction and try to list the main points about it and put it in an orderly fashion. I think you will find it beneficial.

You'll get a better response to your posts if you write with more humility.

Its unfortunate, but a lot of styles of game design are in direct conflict with each other. If you try to break it down to it's "essense", you'll probably just be left with the words "game design" and won't have anything else on the subject thats ubiquitous.

2d versus 3d?
Hardcore versus Casual?
FPS versus RPG?

About the only thing we can do is discuss the fine details, because we probably wont ever get a Grand Unified Theory of Game Design.

This thread is off-track and on a collision course with that little red padlock, but I'll just throw in that I like all Grand Unified Theories, because their acronyms always start with "GUT". Sweet.

Quote:

Original post by Warsong No ego but the facts, you should know this already. The name warsong gets more attention.

Ummm.... I'm not sure it's quite the type of attention you want. As far as I can tell, most people who have been here long enough to remember you associate the name "Warsong" with rambling, incoherent posts which, when they can be deciphered into English at all, turn out to be unoriginal, uninspired, and incomplete rants. Of course, I can't speak for the community--there may well be a Warsong fan club of which I am unaware--but I know I would have spent more time trying to understand what you were trying to say if the post didn't have "warsong" written on it.

Design without thought leads to a process of endless mediocrity.
To speak without context, is to build unstructured content into a verbal void.
Stop.

This post is as thought-provoking as the OP. Don't ya think? [grin]

Design, and game design, has no silver bullet. So why does everyone seem to search for it like the Holy Grail?? There are ground-breakers, pioneers, and us. "Us" learn from the ground-breakers and the pioneers. Then temper and polish that knowledge through our user base.

Is that not the case? Or am I way way off?

And like every Warsong thread this gets hopelessly derailed because people are expressing nothing but comments about Warsong's inability to communicate. I see no reason to leave this open.