Oh boy. Look at this thing. LOOK AT IT!
So, I didn't skim your first post (though you seem to be fine accusing me of such), but I certainly skimmed this one once I got halfway through. I have two possibilities rolling around in my head:
When you miss key points, ignore key points, or divorce things from their proper context... There's no other explanation than you skimmed it.
Well, other than:
1. You require clarification. Which you should be polite and ask for.
2. You aren't any good with reading comprehension. I don't tend to accuse people of this unless they make it glaringly obvious because it's frankly a bit rude to make this assumption without proof.
1. You are playing 4D chess and presenting the advice you disagree with as your own position to highlight how bad it is, as that is what this thread is about.
2. There is a fundamental disconnect in language, here. And the initial mistake is how you read "Make the game you want to play".
It's the assumption of "make the game you want to play".
Here's the problem you're going to have. We have several posts in here with "The audience doesn't know what they want" and "the audience doesn't know how to make a game". Arguments which CONVENIENTLY leave out the fact that the Dev making the game... is also part of that audience.
It is arrogance to even think the thoughts of "The Audience doesn't know what they want" in any regard. Why? It implies that you're the sole exception to the rule.
The argument (if you had read it) was you need to design the game for your audience. Nothing more, nothing less. If your intent is to "create a game you want to play", your audience is you. At which point, if you are the audience you're designing for... then you don't really need to be on here asking people what they find fun or what works in terms of a system or not, because your only concern is yourself. Whether YOU are having fun.
If you are, instead, designing a game for others to play and enjoy (and most of us are), then you need to make concessions. You need to compromise your vision. You need to understand that the fun of your audience is going to be paramount. You need to understand that your audience doesn't care about what your vision is. They don't care if you had fun making your game. They don't care if you made the game you wanted to play. An audience other than yourself is only going to care that THEY have fun with it.
It's very simple.
Put simply, your vision is going to change (AND SHOULD!) based on player feedback. What you started out making isn't going to be what you end up making if you're doing your job correctly as a dev.
The advice of "Make the game you want to play" is silly. It's stupid. It's incomplete. It tells people that they don't have to remove things that their audience doesn't like. It tells people they don't have to concede to criticism. It tells them that it's okay to say, "I don't care if you don't like it, I like it, so it's done my way!"
Game design doesn't work well when your devs turn into those sorts of people. People who can't handle criticism. That's what "Design the game you want to play!" is inherently all about.
Don't design the game you want to play. Design the game your audience wants to play. Design a fun game. Design a game about thinking. Design an artsy game. Design ANYTHING other than "the game you want to play".
Your post is full of false dichotomies while also making concessions with regards to the very false dichotomies you presented. As part of the audience of your posts, I have to ask you: Did you "make the post you wanted to read"? Or did you make the post the audience wanted?
That's the second time you've used that word... and I'm beginning to think you don't know how to use it.
If you think it's a "false dichotomy", then you need to present a third option. You've yet to do so. Or, you need to provide proof that they are false. You've yet to do that either. But, you've managed to hurl an accusation as a means of "arguing the point" rather than... you know... arguing the point.
Also, I made the post the audience wanted. Or did you not notice how many people are suddenly quoting me, debating what I said, and having an actual discussion over it? The posts generated feedback to propel the topic into more discussion. Whether that discussion would've happened without my post... who can say? But, the topic changed from a lot of "me too!" and "I agree!" into "Hey, wait now... I disagree with your advice because..."
If I delivered the post I wanted to make it would've just said, "Yeah, me too, I agree to all of the above" and been done. One and done.
Instead, here we are with an actual discussion about advice
All because you were eager to disagree with me.
But, that's honestly rather meta and not intentional. Fun little happy accident. I was more hoping that what I disagreed with would spark an actual discussion on the topic and an exchange of ideas. People tend to learn more from combating ideas. Whether they agree with me or not is often irrelevant. I only care that I can get a spirited and intellectual discussion out of it.
I tend to get disappointed when people dismiss things I've said "out of hand" in an effort to not have to prove their side of the argument... or when people have to resort to personal insults to shut me up rather than argue facts and logic. Tends to make me lose a bit of faith in humanity when that happens. But, that's just me.
