Is This The Best We've Got? A Critique Of Tech Crunch's Game Design

Useful? The full article is on Gamasutra.
Gigi

 

You're missing the point. Not only did the title of the original article compel you to click on the link, it actually compelled you to write a whole article about it on a prominent website that links back to the original. You swallowed the linkbait hook, line and sinker, which was the whole point of the original article.

 

I haven't read the article yet, I just feel compelled to comment on the fact that this is a thread about an article about an article... very meta.

OK, finally read it. I don't disagree with either one of these articles, except the part of the second article that said the first was useless. They're both lists of good things - the first article is very high level and the second is slightly more down-to-earth.

 

at this point, if you have to study game design, you dont know what youre doing lol
(but yeah... pretty much all ive done with my life is play video games all day lool)

i tend to believe any articles about game design are totally off...

simplicity is LAME! ... im trying to add as much complexity as I can...
... but yeah i guess like simulators are TOO complex... I wouldnt go that complex..
(lol like some black shark chopper simulator i could never get the chopper off the ground have to do soo much button flipping and stuff just to get rotor to turn on haha)

its because games are too simplistic, that i want to be a game dev...

like for a sword fight, i want to have like... at least 4-6 buttons , hi attack 1 , hi attack 2, hi block, low attack 1 , low attack 2, low block... ... at the absolute least...

i HATE that 1 button crap... it just makes me think the devs were lazy.. and incompetent

Quick Time Events are the WORST idea EVER in a game, EVERYONE complains that they are LAME
they were very prevalent in those "full motion video" games of the Beginning of the CD era (worst crap "games" ever made) (interactive crappy video)

"Squares, Circles, and Triangles"
is good though...

 

I don't know if you opened this thread to criticize the first or the second article (maybe neither), but the author of the Gamasutra one feels incredibly flat-minded. He's criticizing an article that he clearly didn't even barely understand and completely misses the point. Also, his list of game design "constants" might be a fun read but are super-banal and very narrow-minded (and yes, I know that banality often equals truth, but not in this case imho).

I find the TechCrunch article very fascinating instead. Sure it starts from game design, but it's just an excuse for a philosophical chat about game constants, which have nothing to do with "game design fundamentals". The article is original in its own way and sparks some debate and thoughts. I bow to that: thought are great

 

@Gigiwoo Did you post this because you got a link link in it?

Given the ten tabs that I've since opened, I'm preferring the second.

I would hate to be too mean to it, but the tech crunch article reads like lofty, pie in the sky wank that I could have won a game of buzzword bingo from.

 

How long is a peace of string? I believe that game design is a variable, the only thing that can be certain is that a game must be entertaining... other then that it depends on the type of game your making and the target audience.

 

How can you sum up all games in a few bite sized points. You dont need story (tetris), you dont need graphics (minecraft), and hell now you dont even need any gameplay (gone home).

 

Ah, now I feel I might've been too mean to the Gamasutra one Still, the TechCrunch article is indeed a wank but written for fun and with good concepts, which makes it an interesting wank for me and not pretentious at all (contrary to the Gamasutra one). After all, all philosophy is a wank, but sometimes it's a good read.

 

I just find it appropriate that one is on tech crunch and the other is on gamasutra. One is casual and intended for a general audience who have probably never grappled with these notions already, and the other is intended for developers who can and should use the ideas.

 

I was hoping to generate conversation about the Gama article because ... I wrote it! Try, fail, improve only works with feedback, which is what this thread is about. Apologies for the confusion.

@CaoMengde777 - "simplicity is LAME! ... im trying to add as much complexity as I can..." is bad game design. My experiences across dozens of shipped projects, hundreds of hours observing users, and tens of thousands of hours in development are aligned with the cautionary tales seen in many game-dev postmortems.

From the player's perspective, the system should appear as simple as is possible, which means for buttons, interactions, and interface, the old adage is true: Less is more. Or as Einstein advises, "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler." Or as Will Wright summed up, "Your garden is not complete, until there's nothing else you can remove."

The quicker you grok this, the quicker will may achieve excellence.

Gigi

 

Wooops! xD Sorry Gigi, I wouldn't have bashed it so badly if I knew the author was present. Yours is an ok article as game design articles go, it just annoyed me that it was written as an answer to something it didn't, uh, really understand. Ok I'll stop I'm making this worse.

 

I see you've hit bedrock. I could trade you a pickax for your shovel and you can keep digging your hole deeper.

Easy to learn, difficult to master. That's how complexity should be handled. Personally, I wouldn't use the term complex as a positive. The ideal is something nuanced and intricate. The general concept should be easy, but it should be multi-faceted enough that aspects of it should keep the player surprised and on their toes.

Well, that made me feel like I need to be indulging in a bottle of wine.

 

Only if it's a diamond pickaxe, otherwise it will break with the depths I've reached

 

Jesse Schell and Raph Koster called this Emergent Gameplay - aka the creation of simple systems that interact in complex and subtle ways. And Jonathan Blow took this to further by defining a good game as one that explores a single concept to it's fullest, before ending in release.

Gigi

 

I definitely disagree with this. SOME players like simplicity. Some like complexity. Quite a lot of them like complexity, in fact, and I would even go so far as to say that anyone who identifies as a "hardcore gamer" generally prefers complexity simply for complexity's sake. You more or less telling CaoMengde "No, you're wrong. You don't like multiple buttons. You like just one button." right after he directly said that he prefers the exact opposite is the kind of rigid "designer knows best" mentality that drives me crazy. Especially having worked at companies that have user research labs, where the designers refuse to listen to any of the users' complaints and insist that they know best.

If you take a look at games like EvE Online, one of its biggest draws is simply being very complex, and the way you get "good" is by scouring spreadsheets and reading innumerable articles and spending hours and hours figuring out how each system works. SOME players hate it because it's too complex. But its fans love it for that reason; they take pride in its ridiculous learning curve and enjoy figuring out how to master a set of rules that most people find completely incomprehensible.

 

There are games with simple mechanics and ones with complex mechanics, don't understand why this is an either/or scenario...Personally I prefer the Eve Online's of the gaming world far more than the Mario Bros.

 

I get the feeling they are defining emergent gameplay outside the norm, but oh well.

Which is both it's strength and weakness. I would love to try eve one of these days, but the month of studying I would need beforehand is what will probably keep me from ever getting around to it.

 

You are confusing game design with usability.

I am skeptical about your article because how can someone claim to know about game design when they dont seem to know the difference between gameplay and interfacing; Between Gameplay Design & Usability.

You immediately jump on this guy and say complexity is bad game design, despite the being an obvious lie proven incorrect vy quality games with complex systems.

How simple or complex the game's design is, is irrelevant to making the players experience simple, usable, with understandability and flow in the interface.

A good interface can make a complex system simple without detractig from gameplay depth or freedom of choice.

Once more, I scratch my head at the article when it mentions stories being a requirement (with no rationale to explain the tetris example, which makes the "story" requirement point more whimsical opinion than rational argument).

Limiting choices as a requirement also sounds like a great invite to dull uninspiring game design.

Honestly, it sounds like your requirements hone in on marketable games for mass consumption, tipping on the opposite side of innovation. I can only assume based on your article that none of your games shipped are innovative, but are certainly successful enough financially because they are "safe" game designs.

No offense intended. I am just sharing my limited perspective on an article I had a hard time understanding.


Edit: I am still not entirely sure who is saying what and what they mean by it, so I wont delete this post. However...
Note that as stated in the next post, I interpreted CaoMengde777's statement differently than you. I take back what I said about you being confused, as interpretting it in another way makes you sound totally correct. I apologize for any offense, although that was never my intention anyway.

 

I must mention that nearly always (but not always) complex systems result in horrid usability. This is especially true with indies, who very often make these types of games (more often than AAA companies) while also very often having horrid interfaces and usability even in simple systems. Indie is almost synonymous with a bad user interface.

With that said, it is easy to confuse complexity with a lack of usability. It is a much simpler task to design an interface for a simple game than to design a simple interface for a complex system.

Still... they are not mutually exclusive even of they appear so. Even if high usability is rare PERIOD for games or any other form of software, that doesnt mean we shouldnt strive for it.

How often can someone pick up a piece of software and understand it without any tutorial or assistance? Even more, how often does someone pick up a complex software like a 3D art application with limited documentation/assistance?

Even in the asset store, you make a purchase and end up scratching your head wondering why anyone would choose to do things this way or forget to include that obvious feature. Then there are the assets that flow like a dream where you barely even need to consult the documentation. "It just makes sense."

 

I take it back after rereading that quote "Im trying to add as much complexity as I can." That does indeed sound like horrible, god-awful game design.

Adding complexity for the sake of complexity is just idiocy. A surefire way to make a trash piece of software.

Just make a game. If the design needs complexity, allow it freely. However, always remember to ask yourself if that complexity is required, or if it can be simplified WITHOUT LOSING QUALITY/DEPTH. You do indeed want it to be as simple as possible, as long as you maintain the design feature's goal and adhere to a cohesive design in relation to your desired player experience. "Does it fit with the overall player experience? Is it consistent with the major features? Will this feature detract from or enhance the desired experience?" Never sacrifice quality/depth for simplicity unless it is worth it and you think it's for the best.

I will give the benefit of the doubt to the quoted- that he is trying to make a great game with depth (complexity) and doesnt mean he is tryjng to add complexity for the sake of complexity. I assumed he meant he is adding features (which happen to be complex) amd doesnt care if they are complex. However I fully understand how someone can see that statement as awful design.

 

My advice is simple: just carve your own path, learn from mistakes, and generally aim for fun. If it's not fun, it's not a good game.

 

OP will definitely like whay I'm about to say:

I just read the original article ( the one you replied to ).

Even though your article was not easy to understand on my phone, and I didnt think much of it (I couldnt click any of the links, so I mised alot of it), this is certainly true: it is SIGNIFICANTLY better than the original article. Next to that article, you sound like a genius when compared to the author who claimed chess was a perfect system while instantly contradicting himself in the next line by saying computerized chess is an imperfect system. So which is it? LoL.

Holy. Crap. What a pile of tripe. It is as if the author completely ignores TellTale's games. Telltales the walking dead was one of the best games ive ever played, and it contradicts nearly every point that author made. Holy crap. What a horible article. No wonder you wrote your article in rebuttal. I didnt realize how bad the original article was, lol.

 

I would also add, that if you are going look to other's advice, make sure to put that advice in context. How valuable is game design advice from one who has never had a successful game, let alone ever shipped a game?

 

To be honest, I think even the term "game" is a bit restrictive. I've heard narrative/film people say that they're not interested in working with games because adding game mechanics (challenge, scoring, choice, whatever) detracts from the experience they want to create. I've always thought of that as a cop-out, because there's no reason you need any of those things in particular.

If I talk to the same people about "interactive media" rather than "games" I get really different responses, oddly enough. As soon as you break away from their pre-concieved notions of what a "game" should be the conversation can really open up.

 

According to that logic, we could only take advice seriously from big names. Yet who is to say many one hit wonders like notch/minecraft know any better/worse than someone like the OP or random commentator #12 named 'gokutwentythree'.

If there is anything I have learned with age (and disappointment) it is that very often it doesn't matter WHO but the rationale behind the advice. I often wonder why people put so much importance on celebrity over substance. For example, a thread earlier in this forum discussed a tweet from notch about mobile games. People commented that they could care less when he tweets. Others take vague sentences as gospel. While it makes sense to trust those with evidence, it is far more common that even famous devs release hit or miss titles. Only sometimes do we see consistency in quality (ex. Uncharted series + last of us + game engine architecture book).

So does that mean that the moment a famous Dev releases a flop, we should immediately disregard all their thoughts and relieve ourselves of their past statements?

Game Design is hard to quantify, making most advice (even from experienced devs) theoretical. In theory, even the layman can take precedence to the celebrity. That is why I listen to everyone's thoughts with fair consideration, giving no special treatment to celebrity devs. Except Richard Garriott. I hearts him <3

 

What logic? There's no proposition in what you've quoted. Only the suggestion that advice be taken in context - which doesn't mean that any of it should necessarily be discarded or ignored, and should certainly take the hit-and-miss nature of "big names" into account as you mention in your next paragraph.

 

Exactly, I didn't say what should or should not be ignored or anything of that nature. And indeed, one-hit wonders, or even designers that are successful in area completely different than yours may not have advice that is useful. And depending on the nature of the advice, even those who have shipped nothing but failures may have value, at least in the context of what should be avoided. Success in no way needs to be defined as chart-topping revenue. I would say, having actually made/finished/shipped a game would be a bare-minimum for considering an opinion on game design valuable.

 

Adding context to theory which can't be quantified is silly in some cases. This is especially true when no one has the answers (otherwise they'd have the golden ticket in game dev) to a new, somewhat unexplored territory. What benefit does context give you when discussing game design? The factors which go into a game being hit or miss are so numerous and unknown that it begs to question whether credentials even matter. Reality on the other hand; Truth has no context. It is true or not. It is how it is, or it is not. Reality does not bend to the whim of context. So why should we allow our perspective of reality to do so? Game Design is hard to quantify, so it is not an exact science which allows us to apply credentials or context to evidence. The hit or miss releases of famous designers just goes to show how little value context has. The rise of an unknown young man called notch or tarn shows how valuable it can be to consider nameless newbie's words over a game dev with decades of experience if you wish to argue they have talent in design. Context is what causes idiots to chastize Tarn before dwarf fortress, then to kiss his ass worshiping his advice after. Sorry, but IMO context, in this case, lends only to cloud judgment, not to strengthen it. Hence my exaggerated use of a single celebrity Dev failure resulting in disregard of all future advice. As if a games success or failure even has to deal with design in an industry plagued by publishers, lawsuits, and rushed deadlines

 

Furthermore, most people seem unable to even agree on game design constants, let alone what makes a game a success. Not even what it means for a game to have ''success''. Does that mean its fun? What if it is a financial failure?

This entire thread has people from every angle discussing game design constants. agree. disagree. Facepalms and applauses.

Applying context to ones credentials is not acceptable for most people in relation to game design advice. That is why no matter who is the author, the comments will flood with different opinions, even attacks claiming a celebrity has long since past their prime. Otherwise unknown bloggers applauded or even recognized by big editors, lots of fans, or even famous names. Comment sections on gamasutra alone indicate that credentials are not important to most people in this topic. That inexperienced gamers can write up something put in the spotlight.

Context is for people who have no idea about the topic. This is a forum for game devs. People who know enough to listen to the substance, not the celebrity.

 

Sure, you can cite outliers like notch as a case for the fact that a random can make successful games, but what are the chances of that? And, given the choice, would you pick someone who might do cool stuff in the future, or someone who's already had a career doing cool stuff to draw upon?

In short, I don't think that zombiegorrilla's suggestion is silly in any cases. It's always valid to weigh up information you've given in it's appropriate context. You just seem to be assuming that this necessarily entails either treating stuff as gospel or discarding it, where in reality there's plenty of ground in between those two things. Just 'cause Will Wright says something doesn't mean I'll treat it as gospel, and just because an Internet random says it doesn't mean I'll throw it out.

 

Oh dear god...

I forgot how reality bends to the whim of celebrity.

Two people who say the same thing. One is not valuable because they do not wear a crown. So rational. So logical.
Celebrity > Reality.
Celebrity > Substance.
Truth = Not Valuable unless spoken by specific people.

.....I'm out of this convo. Enjoy your alternate reality to the rest of us.

 

It has nothing to do with treating it as gospel or throwing it out with no middle ground. It is about the simple fact there is little to prove one devs success (or lack of) includes them in (or excludes them from) theories with substance.

I will give you this: Context is great to use for people who have released games. Not for those who have not, Not because of a measure of success or failure. Instead, only as a measure of quality. Low quality to be exact. I will concede only that context is appropriate to apply so we can ignore people whose released works are total ****. When their own efforts show how little they understand basic concepts of design, like usability. Then, and I concede only then, is context appropriate to determine the value of game design advice. Otherwise we should consider the substance of the advice fairly, without bias, and judge based on the rationale behind their statements (as opposed to their worthless credentials).


It is a small concession, but I am at least considering your side and listening.

Of course we should consider the context within the context, so as to not exclude someone simply because their game failed for reasons outside of design (ex. Famous Dev #3 rushed by publisher who limits design or destroys the game before release).

 

It will probably depend on what type of game your trying to make. I was watching a game called "Lifeless planet" which is a narratively driven exploration game with some platforming elements, it seemed to be really compelling. There is no complex gameplay or anything like that. But then take a look at resogun which has no story and for a while was one of the best games on the PS4 (better then all the AAA games). You cant really say a game needs all these elements, no you probably have to break it.

So some games will need a story, other games dont need it.

 

LOL wut?

You are the only one fixating on celebrity. I am suggesting nothing of the sort. Shipping a game is easy and can be done by anyone. What I am saying is that talking!=making a game. Someone writing articles and making claims about game design without making a game bears little weight. Celebrity is not relevant at all, as there are tons of very successful game designers who are unknown outside their field. And context is valuable because game dev is a huge field. The input of the key designers of GTA may have no value to a designer building a casual game, and vice versa.

 

Agreed, particularly with the bolded bit. How can one have any meaningful authority in a craft they're not even practicing?

I could go on and on about underwater basket weaving, but without having a basket to show off what are my thoughts worth?

Note that this is different from player feedback, of course.

 

Uh, he didn't forget what he was writing and thus contradicted himself. He contradicted himself to make a point and explained that same point within the next 2 rows of the article. Are you one of those superfast readers that skip 90% of what they're reading? *_*

 

In this context, "celebrity" is defined as a minimum of having shipped the game. It does not imply egregious amounts of fame or success. The latter end of the "celebrity" spectrum would be those who have shipped MANY games or uber-succesfful games. The "great" devs have both. However, someone who ships a single game still has some measure of "celebrity" over someone who has shipped nothing, or made nothing.

Celebrity is entirely relevant, seeing as how you stated that someone's advice is only valuable if they have shipped a game.

edit: It seems here that zombiegorilla and others do not understand that the term "celebrity" is not exclusive to Kim Kardashian or Barrack Obama. I wonder if they have ever heard the term "Local Celebrity" or understand the definition.

 

I read it, and so did the commentator at the end of said article.

The author did not defend himself with what you are claiming. Instead, he admitted it wasn't the best argument but asked the commentator to focus less at the example and more at what he was trying to communicate.

Seeing as how the author replied to the exact same statement I just made, entirely different than the way you think he would, well...
It seems as though not only am I not what you claim (a superfast reader), but that you are the one who did not read enough. Next time, be more thorough like me and read even the author's statements in the comments.

 

Except that game design, just like basket weaving, can be studied and theorized without having to release video games. Underwater basket weaving, if studied enough, the first basket will be significantly better than many people's first or even second or third attempt at weaving. (ex. Those users here at Unity who show off their first game prototype which looks significantly better than some people's tenth.
Not to mention that zombmieogrilla stated that for someone's advice to be valuable, they must release a game first. Having some experience in game development isn't enough, as he requires them to complete the project.

Dwarf Fortress, if you consider it unreleased, means that Tarn Adams has no valuable advice according to zombiegorilla. Yet he is interviewed by game enthusiasts and hailed by many an indie dev as being a hero in game dev.
Sure, if you consider his perpetual alpha as a "released" classification because it is playable, he could be considered valuable. However, zombieogrilla was quite specific.

Dwarf Fortress is not finished or shipped. It lacks the qualification for Tarn Adam's opinion on game design to be valuable. Thus according to his logic, which I disagree with but you apparently agree with, Tarn Adams has no value as a game designer. That is something that would get you laughed out of a convention, as many people cling to DF and Tarn Adams like they want to have his babies - all because of his game design philosophy.


You are saying that we shouldn't listen to someone who has no skill in underwater basket weaving. Yet that isn't the reality. The reality is hundreds of people who have used baskets underwater. Who have messed around with baskets. Who have studied weaving. Who have studied weaving in relation to underwater physics. Who have simply never sold their baskets that they have weaved. Who have never shown others their baskets. Who have never shipped their baskets to a distributor.


Since the arguments and logic behind both of you seems inadequate, and my points so strong in contradicting what you are claiming, I consider this conversation over. Anyone reading it can make up their mind, given the substance of both of our arguments.

TLDR: I am satisfied with the substance of my argument and rebuttals. #TooStrong

 

I think if you have to redefine the meaning of a word so much for it to make sense in the context, it probably wasn't the right word in the first place. To most people 'celebrity' and 'shipping a game' have nothing in common, as shipping isn't defined and in this topic can be as simple as placing a game on Kongregate.

That isn't hard and doesn't make someone a 'celebrity' by any definition.

 

Celebrity, in the terms of game developers, in relation to quality of success and quantity of released titles, is certainly the proper term here.

How do you become WELL KNOWN in Game Dev?

You ship quality and quantity of titles.

Seeing as how that is exactly what is being discussed... I'd say that using the term "celebrity" (how well known they are) is perfect to quantify who is and isn't considered "valuable" according to zombiegorilla's criteria. You know... since zombiegorilla's critera is that celebrity is a requirement for value.

In words "most people" (your words) can understand: "Being known is a requirement for value."


Compare the following three statements, and tell me they are not understandably identical:

1. "Having actually shipped a game... would be a bare-minimum for considering an opinion on game design valuable."
2. "Being known in the game industry... would be a bare-minimum for considering an opinion on game design valuable."
3. "Having some measure of celebrity in the game industry... would be a bare-minimum for considering an opinion on game design valuable."

You can try to cherry pick any part of what I've said in the past, or try to declare my choice of terminology as "inadequate" for communication. However, none of that type of conversation is all that productive to the topic as a whole. I don't think you can convince anyone that my use of the term "Celebrity" detracts from the substance in my argument (even if you think that substance is lacking).

It is not my fault if, when I use a correct term, that others fail to grasp it in the provided context because they are not attempting communication (which requires listening and considering the alternate side, as opposed to ignoring their arguments and simply saying "LOL nooo....").

 

Except that everything that makes "celebrity" the relevant term for you is stuff that you injected. zombiegorilla never said anything about celebrity. All he said is that you should finish projects.

On a similar note, trying to use Dwarf Fortress as an example of an unreleased game doesn't do much to strengthen the position either.

 

That's not at all right, as from what you quote it states celebrity is 'the state of being well known' for something. Does making 1 game make you well know? Nope, and that alone qualifies your opinion as valid according to zombiegorilla.

You even quote him saying so in your own post.

 

Gotta love those late edits after further posts...

 

No, carter, those three statements are not at all the same.

And, alas, your argument really doesn't have any substance. The fact that you have to change the meaning of the thing you're arguing against for the argument to hold water is quite telling.

 

No, they're not the same at all.

 

Wow, this is ridiculous. Obviously you are not even attempting communication if you cannot understand simple concepts of communication.

If you have a lot of celebrity, what does that mean? It means you are very well known.
If you have celebrity, according to the definition, it means you are well known.
If you have a little celebrity, what does that mean? If you're consistent in the understanding of the term so far, then it means you are little well known. In other words: you are simply known, but not very well. Not even well. Just known.

So to say that those with "a little celebrity" are "known" is not this huge mental leap you are perceiving me to be taking.

So if having a little celebrity makes you known, but not well known, then would someone who released 3 games have some level of celebrity? Yes, they would. They are known. 30 games? Very well known. 10 games? Well known. 3 games? Known. What about one game? They have the evidence to show. People have bought their game. I'd say they are known.

The measure of that celebrity is irrelevant. I am stating that any measure of celebrity would be adequate to communicate they are known. Yes, zombiegorilla doesn't state that a requirement is to be well known, just to simply be known.

To be known, is to have a tiny bit of celebrity, according to the consistent logic people use in communication relating to terms and words.


The simple fact I have to explain this, is asinine. I do so only to prove how little you are attempting discourse. Please though, by all means rant on a soapbox while ignoring everything that is being said here. You sound like the type that would argue ridiculous stances just to protect your ego from realizing you backed the wrong side of the argument.

Have you never heard someone talk about the term "local celebrity"? In relation to those conversations people have, they consider people who have no reputation outside a tiny area, full celebrities. To say someone who releases 1 game has "an extremely small measure of celebrity" is not a crazy concept.

 

LOL...wow... I am sorry but I have to leave this conversation before I begin to view you two as stupid individuals.

I also have a hard time understanding how this thread devolved from an actual conversation, to two people attacking a strawman, claiming that an incorrect usage of the term "Celebrity" automatically destroys all substance in my argument.

This has become irrational. Although I've tried to leave a few times already, this time I believe I will.

Enjoy alienating those who try to participate in discussions. Seems to be working well for you.
While you're at it, why not continue to pat each other on the back giving one another more likes? Nothing's better than two irrational people stroking each others' ego, telling themselves they are in the right by attacking strawmen in a topic revolving around attempts to give legitimacy to ad hominem

 

One simple question:

Does making a game make me a celebrity? Making. Not shipping. Not releasing. Not selling. Not showing anyone. Ever.

Cause according to zombiegorilla, that is the requirement for me to have an opinion on game design, which I would agree with. The entire premis and argument about celebrity is something you introduced from not reading his post properly.