Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Do you think if you dislike something in a game, it's a mistake?

Once again my 'What the firetruck?' responce to someone elses blog becomes a post here...I'll paraphrase my responce here

If something is an unintended side effect and the developers did not intend it to happen, fair enough to argue against it.

But if they did intend it to be part of the difficulty of the game, even if only tanks have to face it...well, what? Do you think difficulty in any particular game has to revolve around what you personally dislike?

Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's a bug.

I mean, where does it end? If you think your in a position to argue away intended challenges, where do you stop? Which ones are acceptable to your sensitive palette?

And what of the thousands of others - what if they think they can argue this way, and what challenge you think is okay, they think is a big bad spoils their fun bug? Someone, somewhere might have their fun spoiled by what you think is okay - and as much as you think you get to determine what is a bug rather than an intended challenge, so do they. So it must be removed!

Eventually all challenge gets removed as there's always someone who's fun is spoilt by practically any challenge and you end up with...a themepark.

Oh yeah. Right.


  1. Perhaps this is a good call for devs to step up and declare their intentions, then, and either implicitly or explicitly tell the whiners "too bad".

  2. It'd be nice, but the whiners earn them so much money, even if they are threatening to cancel all the time. Even if a whiner quits after three months, hey, that's $45 more than if you stood for some principals and say what the game is really supposed to do.

    The industry humours whiners...it's so lucrative!