quote: Original post by Kylotan
There is no clear dividing line, which is why I understand that it continues to go on, but sometimes I think it can get a bit pointless.

Example of what I mean:
Philosophical question: "Should there be mindless killing in my game?"
Design question: "How can I make mindless killing more fun?" or "How can I make my game fun without any mindless killing?"

I''ve always considered that there is no line, and that''s it''s good design practive to ask all questions. You should also ask "Is mindless killing fun?", "Is how I package mindless killing fun?", amongst many others. If you''ve been thinking that any questions are irrelevant to design, or even just the question Kylotan labeled philosophical, then I must warn you that i think you are bordering on ignorance.

It''s like the sig says people. Question everything! You might end up in exactly the same place, but at least you know for a fact then that it''s the right one...

I don''t think differing between design and philosophy or whinging about the difference is a very intelligent thing myself. Where''s it going to get people? I think its more important to differ between design and concept. Concept has absolutely nothing to do with designing a game really. Any stupid idiotic moron can come up with a concept for a game. But designing a game is a completely different issue. The last thing we''ve got to worry about here (i think) is game philosophy. Listen and you just might learn something. Probably fall on deaf ears though.

A designer doesnt need to know everything about code, they just have to have an appreciation for its limitations and how those limitations affect features they may wish to include in their design. - Drew

I must say I''m with Paul on this one.

This forum is not really about implementation of ideas, it''s about generating them and bouncing them off other people. Sometimes this takes the form of an open question - specially where you yourself are unsure of the answer. Sometimes these questions may be more direct.
The original poster of a question may want to discuss it to a point of actually having mechanics or a system to support these ideas, or perhaps she just wants to hear other people''s opinions on a broad subject.

Now, I think most of the problems mentioned center around the "End Goblin Genocide" thread, and the way some people ended up defending goblins in there. I do think THAT is more of a subject for the lounge, since that no longer had a connection to game design. However, I wasn''t moderator around that time, so there wasn''t much I could do about it. It tends to become a semi-religious argument, which is entirely unproductive.

It''s okay to be talking about design and ideas, as long as it is in the context of actually wanting to implement these later, or have someone else implement them.


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.

In self defense I must state that the only time I ever got to that point myself was in an attept to illuminate the role of suspension of disbelief in good design. Fact of the matter is, for many reasons, Goblin Genocide is an unbelievable prospect, spawning points are just silly design to start with. You all know that I believe games should hold themselves to the same standards of suspension of disbelief as film.

Things like the moral issues of goblin slaying fall under that department. So I have, and will continue to make arguements for how silly the mass-slaughter gameplay concept is (when used in an ignorant fashion), and I believe that it is most certainly a design issue. Why? Because it has a very major effect on the resulting quality of what is put before the player. And that IS design, philosophy or not.

There''s nothing wrong with discussing those things from a design perspective, but I think a lot of people didn''t "get" it, and started forming camps. I.e.: the goblin preservationists and the Royal Goblin Hunting Society.

Solving the problems that have caused G.G. would lead to ecologies, and the possibilities of extinction. This would be a lot more interesting than "spawning points" as you''ve stated, and would make great sense in the context of an RPG. That''s the way things should be (and are being!)discussed in these forums. Not the merits and flaws of that particular Goblin society


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.

I take back the "falling on deaf ears" remark, you bastards I''d just like to add in my rehash of EGG and hopefully come up with something good too. As with many topics people start whether they may seem philosophical, design or concept from the start doesn''t necessarily mean thats how they will end up. Now taking EGG into this it seems to me that it started out as a rant but what kind of rant was it? It definitly was philosophical to start with but the posters made it into a cocktail of all of the above. We all knew once it hit a certain number of pages that it was never going to be a resolvable issue as MKV hinted on here. Also it wasn''t ment to be a resolvable issue which means it can not be considered a concept at heart. So as a wrap up i think as Landfish has pointed out indirectly that it does lie somewhere between philosophy and design - on the line or there is no line, and thats that as i see it. *scratches head* that feels better.

A designer doesnt need to know everything about code, they just have to have an appreciation for its limitations and how those limitations affect features they may wish to include in their design. - Drew

quote: Original post by Landfish

I''ve always considered that there is no line, and that''s it''s good design practive to ask all questions. You should also ask "Is mindless killing fun?", "Is how I package mindless killing fun?", amongst many others. If you''ve been thinking that any questions are irrelevant to design, or even just the question Kylotan labeled philosophical, then I must warn you that i think you are bordering on ignorance.

Nah, nothing is irrelevant, but everything has a different degree of relevance. Asking all questions is a worthy goal, and one that I tend to live by, but we don''t live forever, and some of us would like to actually implement something someday So you have to have some kind of focus, because sometimes we stray quiite far from anything that is of any applicable use. Open questions are great. ''Philosophical'' questions that are asked that will have a knock-on effect on more concrete concepts are useful. It''s just that sometimes, it goes the other way, and becomes more and more abstract with little reference to actually producing a game. I mean, I can debate philosophical issues with anyone, and have done in the past on this forum, but there comes a point where, as MadKeithV said, things become religious arguments and don''t contribute to anything. When it comes down to a belief in how games Should Be Made, or just voicing a desire to Change Things Because I Don''t Like The Industry As It Stands, then it starts to become less useful. There are a lot of intelligent people reading this forum and it would be a shame to have this resource wasted by discussing things we cannot and will not implement or that cannot teach us anything.