[PvK]

Well, I have great contempt for the game "rock/paper/scissors", for people who waste their time for it, and I am dumbfounded by people who see it as a principle of game design. The principle I see as worthwhile is that no one approach should dominate all others, and every technique should have weak points and counter-tactics. I would never call that "rock/paper/scissors" though, because what "rock/paper/scissors" stands for to me, is thoroughly pointless game design, where the elements are superficially labelled as something interesting, but in fact are all exactly the same. I guess it's just a semantic pet peeve of mine, rather than a real disagreement with the actual concepts involved.

At least, most of the time. I have however noticed that often (not necessarily in connection with SE4) that people who do talk use the expression "rock/paper/scissors" as if it were a fundamentally good concept, also tend to come up with some game design ideas that I really don't enjoy. Especially, games designed with really obvious artificial balance techniques that don't make any sense but make it clear to unsophisticated players what the strengths and weaknesses of each element are.

Ah well,

PvK

[ December 27, 2002, 04:52: Message edited by: PvK ]