This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

I hope the item switch is removed from this game

#81ViewtifulGene(Topic Creator)Posted 3/26/2013 7:49:13 PM
KSUkid55 posted...
From: ViewtifulGene | #076
And the system isn't the only thing that makes the casual vs competitive dilemma false. 64 and Melee pleased both sides equally. Why can't the next game do it too?

That's not even the argument, since those games used default settings that were EXACTLY AS I'M DESCRIBING. What are you trying to say?

I'm saying that there is absolutely no reason to give either side priority when both sides can be pleased equally.

If I had to pick an example I'd say smartphones. They're pretty intuitive if you just want to call people but there's also plenty of flexibility for people who want to change the settings.

Yes, but you're trying to hide the option to make a call for the option to add application icons to the screen. Those are designed, by default, to show features casual users use most often. The options for advanced users are hidden within the menus.


The option to add and remove apps or widgets isn't hidden. Anyone sees it just by holding down on the screen.
---
"Once again, ViewtifulGene's logic blows minds and crushes dreams." -TheGamingGolfer
"Supez teh king" -dedekong
#82ViewtifulGene(Topic Creator)Posted 3/26/2013 7:50:44 PM
KSUkid55 posted...
From: ViewtifulGene | #078
There's no evidence that it can't. Until it is proven impossible I have no reason to oppose it.

Are you intentionally breaking logic? You can't prove something can't happen.

If you can't prove it impossible then I have no reason to oppose it.

I'm not a menu designer. Not my job to figure it out.

Then why are you trying to use the solution that nobody knows as proof for changing a core feature?


I'm the customer. It's not my job to figure this out. It's the producer's job if he wants my money.
---
"Once again, ViewtifulGene's logic blows minds and crushes dreams." -TheGamingGolfer
"Supez teh king" -dedekong
#83KSUkid55Posted 3/26/2013 7:55:14 PM
From: ViewtifulGene | #081
I'm saying that there is absolutely no reason to give either side priority when both sides can be pleased equally.

One side is pleased by the mere existence of options, and the other is pleased by the options of least resistance. Why wouldn't you give priority to the options of least resistance when making the defaults? There is greater total pleasure by designing defaults with casuals in mind.

The option to add and remove apps or widgets isn't hidden. Anyone sees it just by holding down on the screen.

How is that not hidden? That is not an instinctive cause-effect. Buttons are labelled to tell users what they do. If there is no button labelled "add widget", then the "add widget" function is hidden.

Besides, I said this is like hiding the "make call" function to make the "add widget" function easier to find.
---
Take a stapler, some spare fur that might be lying around, and your threshold for pain, and turn your face into a woodland creature.
#84KSUkid55Posted 3/26/2013 7:56:05 PM
From: ViewtifulGene | #082
If you can't prove it impossible then I have no reason to oppose it.

Jesus ****.

I'm the customer. It's not my job to figure this out. It's the producer's job if he wants my money.

Then why are you telling the producer how to make his product?
---
Take a stapler, some spare fur that might be lying around, and your threshold for pain, and turn your face into a woodland creature.
#85ViewtifulGene(Topic Creator)Posted 3/26/2013 7:58:17 PM
KSUkid55 posted...
From: ViewtifulGene | #081
I'm saying that there is absolutely no reason to give either side priority when both sides can be pleased equally.

One side is pleased by the mere existence of options, and the other is pleased by the options of least resistance. Why wouldn't you give priority to the options of least resistance when making the defaults? There is greater total pleasure by designing defaults with casuals in mind.

There is greater total pleasure for pleasing all casuals and competitives than there is in pleasing casuals at competitives' expense. If the options are merely present with least resistance then you can give both what they want at the same time.

The option to add and remove apps or widgets isn't hidden. Anyone sees it just by holding down on the screen.

How is that not hidden? That is not an instinctive cause-effect. Buttons are labelled to tell users what they do. If there is no button labelled "add widget", then the "add widget" function is hidden.

Besides, I said this is like hiding the "make call" function to make the "add widget" function easier to find.


Either way, it's not my job to figure this out. I'm not a menu designer.
---
"Once again, ViewtifulGene's logic blows minds and crushes dreams." -TheGamingGolfer
"Supez teh king" -dedekong
#86ViewtifulGene(Topic Creator)Posted 3/26/2013 8:00:26 PM
KSUkid55 posted...
From: ViewtifulGene | #082
If you can't prove it impossible then I have no reason to oppose it.

Jesus ****.

I'm the customer. It's not my job to figure this out. It's the producer's job if he wants my money.

Then why are you telling the producer how to make his product?


That's how the market works. People say they want something whether or not they know how it'll get done. Somebody else makes money figuring it out.
---
"Once again, ViewtifulGene's logic blows minds and crushes dreams." -TheGamingGolfer
"Supez teh king" -dedekong
#87KSUkid55Posted 3/26/2013 8:03:17 PM
From: ViewtifulGene | #085
There is greater total pleasure for pleasing all casuals and competitives than there is in pleasing casuals at competitives' expense.

Are you even reading my posts? I'm saying exactly that. The default settings do not affect competitive players' enjoyment of the game, therefore they should be made to appeal to the casual players. The competitive players will have equal enjoyment provided the options they want exist. That's it. If you have a disagreement, don't change my argument.

Either way, it's not my job to figure this out. I'm not a menu designer.

See other post.
---
Take a stapler, some spare fur that might be lying around, and your threshold for pain, and turn your face into a woodland creature.
#88KSUkid55Posted 3/26/2013 8:04:16 PM
From: ViewtifulGene | #086
That's how the market works. People say they want something whether or not they know how it'll get done. Somebody else makes money figuring it out.

Then they can simply ignore your suggestion, because it's irrelevant.
---
Take a stapler, some spare fur that might be lying around, and your threshold for pain, and turn your face into a woodland creature.
#89ViewtifulGene(Topic Creator)Posted 3/26/2013 8:08:21 PM
KSUkid55 posted...
From: ViewtifulGene | #085
There is greater total pleasure for pleasing all casuals and competitives than there is in pleasing casuals at competitives' expense.

Are you even reading my posts? I'm saying exactly that. The default settings do not affect competitive players' enjoyment of the game, therefore they should be made to appeal to the casual players. The competitive players will have equal enjoyment provided the options they want exist. That's it. If you have a disagreement, don't change my argument.

Either way, it's not my job to figure this out. I'm not a menu designer.

See other post.


If the default settings are easily changeable for everyone then it wouldn't have to favor casuals.
---
"Once again, ViewtifulGene's logic blows minds and crushes dreams." -TheGamingGolfer
"Supez teh king" -dedekong
#90KSUkid55Posted 3/26/2013 8:10:33 PM
From: ViewtifulGene | #089
If the default settings are easily changeable for everyone then it wouldn't have to favor casuals.

Define easily. And it'd better be some twisted definition that actually means effortless.

In other words, to save time on making the menus into something that doesn't exist, they should design the defaults for casuals.
---
Take a stapler, some spare fur that might be lying around, and your threshold for pain, and turn your face into a woodland creature.