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

You mean 2 people attacking the 'celebrity' strawman that you built from zombiegorilla post? lol

 

Do kickstarters get funded because the authors are not ever known (Do they get successfully funded because no one visits their page?).
`
All you have to do, to understand the context of my use of the term "celebrity", is to attempt communication.

Communication requires you to not only read what I said, but to put yourself in my shoes, taking my perspective, attempting to perceive how it is correct. No human being is incapable of understanding such a clear use of the word.

You also need to realize that "having some measure of celebrity" and being considered a celebrity, can be two very different things.


You also need to realize that ZomboeGorilla's requirements indicate you need to have evidence to have value. If you make a game but do "not show anyone. ever." (your words) then you do not have value in his eyes. It is irrelevant if he included the term "make" because the text clearly shows that making but never showing something would not indicate to an outsider that you have value. Unless you think he implied that game devs can read your mind to see what you made without you ever showing them.

 

Kid, I am not attacking a strawman. I am attacking zombiegorilla's substance. My argument revolves around disagreeing that you must make/release/ship a game before having value in game design theory.

It is irrelevant if I say "having a measure of celebrity" or "having released/shipped a game before". I clearly communicated the meaning of my argument. Thus that is the exact opposite of a strawman. I am not attacking the term "celebrity" but directly saying "CELEBRITY = Make/Release/SHip a single game."

If I said the term "oooglaboo" = make/release/ship a game, then I am stil not attacking an oooglaboo strawman. I am attacking the substance. My argument is about how one does NOT have to release a game to have quality advice or study of game design theory. The terms I use to communicate his argument is irrelevant. Oooglaboo or not.

I think you need to understand what a strawman is before you accuse others of resorting to attacking one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument

 

Stopped reading there tbh.

My final thoughts on the subject:

I agree with this.

 

I don't wont to interefere between your weird conversation, but I'm with @CarterG81 on this one.
I don't think you have to make/ship a game in order to have some value or better let's call it opinion in game design.

I mean, I heard and read so often from different game-devs something like this:
"Start small and fail often and early!" This devs made/shipped games.
And this specific tip or opinion has a high value amongst game-devs.

Now imagine a carpenter (yes, a carpenter) would tell you: "Well, I don't know anything about games and game-development, but I think like with anything else, you should start small. Maybe you'll fail. But you'll gain experience!"

Is this now wrong, because it was said by a person who didn't make a game in his life?

This is of course just an example. But you don't have to make/ship games to have an opinion about them.
And that's the thing:
don't think about the value of the opinion at first, think about if it makes sense to you, if it's reasonable.

Being open-minded is key.

 

Better advice is here.

 

Careful. That is what I said. Watch out for their strawmen, armed to the teeth!

 

I only take advice from people with first hand experience in something. Seems daft otherwise, and merely guessing...

 

What's with the discussion about celebrity? Taking ZombieGorilla's argument at face value, I assumed it wasn't directed at anyone in particular. And I agree that one should have experience before offering game development wisdom. I've spent 11 years doing just that.

Gigi