Again, I feel like you're stretching to make an analogy that doesn't actually reflect reality. You can't admit that people enjoy boring effectiveness as the premise of half the worlds' games, while also insisting that it's mutually exclusive to having fun in the other half.
I'll give you an example. Inarguably one of the most successful games of all time, World of Warcraft has multiple different paths and styles of leveling, gold farming, and most other tasks. The least effective paths are absolutely the most boring and involve hundreds of hours of grinding for very little gain, and yet, that's the consciously chosen path for a majority of players. Not because they can't figure out more proficient methods, but because they enjoy the grind (for any numbers of reasons).
The lesson learned from game designs like WoW, is that the implemented paths shouldn't be either-or propositions, because singular or linear paths alienate far more gamers than optional paths. Whereas what you're insisting, is that that the developer has done something "wrong" simply by presenting multiple paths, and they need to "improve" upon it by removing the ones which don't produce some arbitrary amount of dopamine and adrenaline per button press.
I don't think the argument here was to provide a single path with maximal dopamine-per-action.
The original statement was to make sure repetitive and boring paths weren't highly effective.
Your own characterization of grinding in WoW fits that description. It may be repetitive and boring, but it's not highly rewarding so those who engage with it do so because they are enjoying it for it's own sake. This is fine, the players can do it if they enjoy it and won't make themselves suffer through it if they don't.
(My own experience with WoW and the term 'grinding' in general does not make me inclined to use it as an example of an unrewarding activity that players don't force themselves to engage in entirely for the sake of the in-game results, but maybe things have changed... it has been awhile.)
No, the original commenter repeatedly used absolutes to make a baseless claim that a game is automatically bad if it includes any functionality that they, personally, perceive as a "boring and repetitive, but effective strategy." Using absolutes to describe human behavior is absurd, and they were clearly trying to assert their view as universal fact, but offers no foundation for that assertion -- because there really isn't one.
So, as I've established several times now, if many (possibly even most) gamers find repetitive and boring enjoyable, then it's rather silly to insist that the developer "must" do something to "fix" it, otherwise the user "will definitely not have fun" and the game "can't be good."
You seem to think that game design is a purely subjective field in which no expertize can be learned, and as such, all games are equally fun and also game analysis and review are futile professions.
Of course people exist who know what makes games better. For whatever reason, you can't entertain the possibility that it's me specifically?
I literally said none of those things, or even suggested them, so now you're just making up arguments for the purpose of repeating the exact same flawed claim -- and yet, somehow I'm the one who can't entertain a possibility? You're honestly starting to sound like a troll now.
I never said a game couldn't be made better. All I did was point out that there is no singular "best" set of game mechanics, as you have repeatedly suggested. You're obsessed with using absolutes to describe behaviors the vary wildly, and insisting that's "how it has to be" and any other approach is somehow lesser than yours. But the only actual argument you've made so far is that you, personally, have discovered the absolute truths of the gaming universe, and anyone who doesn't agree with you simply doesn't understand game design.
So, it has nothing to do with your expertise, and everything to do with your insistence that you are THE expert of EVERYTHING gaming, and there is no room for any other opinion or development path.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're not the only person with experience in the gaming industry, and I don't actually know ANY developers who share your mentality toward game design.
> I literally said none of those things, or even suggested them
Every single one of your comments explicitly discredits a game designer's opinion from having any merit on what makes games good. That's your entire argument against my statements.
> I never said a game couldn't be made better. All I did was point out that there is no singular "best" set of game mechanics, as you have repeatedly suggested.
I would love to read this argument of yours, presumably from years of research into the subject, for why it's literally impossible for a set of mechanics to be better than all others. If you haven't found it, that's fine; but others are looking for it.
> the only actual argument you've made so far is that you, personally, have discovered the absolute truths of the gaming universe, and anyone who doesn't agree with you simply doesn't understand game design.
Yeah that's how expertise works. I could record a series of lectures explaining everything, or maybe try write a book on the subject, but that'd take years I'd rather spend applying what I know and making better games. You can ask me specific questions to challenge my self declared expertise, if you want. That's discussion.
> I don't actually know ANY developers who share your mentality toward game design.
You literally know lots of game developers, all of whom think that Bejeweled and Candy Crush are good games? And you think I'm living in a bubble??
> what you're insisting, is that that the developer has done something "wrong" simply by presenting multiple paths, and they need to "improve" upon it by removing the ones which don't produce some arbitrary amount of dopamine and adrenaline per button press.
Nowhere in any of my comments will you find any mention dopamine nor adrenaline. I said "good", which is a point along the dimension of quality. You know, that thing we all strive for because it's literally better?
I'm exactly arguing *AGAINST* exploiting brain chemistry for profit in the video game industry. You are defending that practice as a valid form of art and entertainment.
I'll give you an example. Inarguably one of the most successful games of all time, World of Warcraft has multiple different paths and styles of leveling, gold farming, and most other tasks. The least effective paths are absolutely the most boring and involve hundreds of hours of grinding for very little gain, and yet, that's the consciously chosen path for a majority of players. Not because they can't figure out more proficient methods, but because they enjoy the grind (for any numbers of reasons).
The lesson learned from game designs like WoW, is that the implemented paths shouldn't be either-or propositions, because singular or linear paths alienate far more gamers than optional paths. Whereas what you're insisting, is that that the developer has done something "wrong" simply by presenting multiple paths, and they need to "improve" upon it by removing the ones which don't produce some arbitrary amount of dopamine and adrenaline per button press.