5 ms·
And your argument starts off with some random assumption that "games have the best UI". You can't lead into the rest of your argument with some random tidbit yo
by jhdavids8 15y ago
And your argument starts off with some random assumption that "games have the best UI". You can't lead into the rest of your argument with some random tidbit you assume is true. Some games have great UIs, some have shitty ones. Largely, it's irrelevant to your point, whatever it may be.
- anigbrowl 15y agoMost people are perfectly capable of drawing the necessary inferences from a generalization. If I say that 'cows have four legs', this is not to deny the fact that some cows come up short in the leg department. Games with shitty UIs tend to fail rapidly in the marketplace, because few people want to play a game with a shitty UI. There's a reason that I included qualifiers like 'I wouldn't want to overthink it' and 'ideally...' and 'players in the middle of the normal distribution...'. The reason is that I'm sketching out a philosophy of UI design in only a few sentences, and want to signal this to people who are reading. You seem determined to interpret my remarks in the most literal and narrow sense possible, to the point of completely overlooking the contextual qualifiers that accompanied them.