I guess you are not as adept as I thought. Consider it a small challenge you might choose to undertake.
No. If you've got an answer, turn it over. I am not going to play this childish game of "Nyah, nyah, if you don't know, I'm certainly not going to tell you." Put forward your argument or stop using it as some kind of phantom crutch. I have better things to do with my time than sit here and emulate your mind to try and deduce what you think. You can either state it or you can't.
And just why should I be impressed that others, including an economist, have taken your side in this matter?
You have not actually said anything other than "It doesn't work." I have several people looking at my logic and saying it does. So which is superior, several people looking at something and having people say it works, or one man who can't show his work yet says it works?
What was most interesting about your post Sym is that all of the following statements you made are just wrong. Either you have failed to read what I wrote or failed to understand it or twisted it to provide yourself a response. I have no idea which.
Your argument is that fun will inherently lead to long games. Those games will be long because they are fun. Fun must inherently lead to long games, and thus any game which is long
must be fun and
must be the best possible. In doing that, you have again failed to account for the fact that people will play things because they are there, not because they truly enjoy them, as I, das, and Masada have argued.
Your argument can be restated that "Fun" is A, and that length is "B". Your conjecture is that "A yields B." You then reverse that statement and argument "B implies A absolutely." That is patently fallacious logic, especially when neither statement is true. All squares are quadrilaterals but not all quadrilaterals are squares! Not everything fun lasts 10-15 turns either, which is sort of like how if you have four sides and don't connect them, you don't wind up with a quadrilateral at all.
I don't have to say your logic is an "oversimplification" to "win" because your logic isn't right, it isn't even
wrong. It's nonsense.
I have never defined fun; that is up to the players. I have never said a game must be either simple or complicated to be fun, just that players had to enjoy it. I never called any NES a failure or a waste of time. I have never said a game should or shouldn’t be complex. I like complex games. I never said anything about content as criteria.
You said, and I quote, "I've said the best NESes are those that people like to play and that last a long time." Calling something "best" inherently deems anything that does not meet those "best" criteria
inferior. That is the entire purpose of
rating something. When you say something is "best" you are saying everything else is "worse." What you have defined as best requires a particular execution of effort. Anything other than that is not "best" and is hence "worse." You
have made value judgments whether you like it or not by building your argument that long=fun and fun=long on a logical house of cards.
In declaring something
superior you have deemed everything else
inferior whether or not you want to admit it, and most things don't meet your stated criteria and
must, by those criteria, be inferior. You can revise your criteria, or you can call them inferior. You can't do both.
The content is part of what makes a game fun. Or don’t you understand that?
You have subverted that argument by stating that fun
must automatically yield length in an absolute relation? "Or don't you understand that?" Subjective quantities don't obey rigid physical relations, which is what you have slaved "fun" to. This is not a physics problem or an accounting exercise.
I have not applied any standards other than fun and duration.
In an absurd and indefensible relation.
