First off, I apologize to all who were bothered by what I said in my previous post. I must say that I was by no means being viscious. I have to say though, it brings me to question the value of real debate on this forum. Again, I''m sorry that you took it the way you did.

Well, when you''re vocal with your opinions you need to be ready to back up what you''re saying to people who happen to strongly disagree with you. As for what I was saying being the antithesis of what Landfish has been saying, I really don''t think so. I read through a good number of his posts before saying what I did, and I think my point was valid. Perhaps I used the word "artistic" where I shouldn''t have, because the current tendency to try to elevate games to being some new form of artistic medium is only an aspect of what I am talking about. I am more addressing the need to make radical changes in the way we do things. At times it seems that people propose these changes just for the sake of proposing changes. And this topic is not even confined to the subject of game development. It seems to pervade every aspect of our society--doing certain things just for the sake of, well, doing them. Does anybody else notice this? Maybe I am alone.

Again, Landfish, if you don''t see yourself as doing this, then by all means DISAGREE with me. Call me wrong! Tell me how I''m wrong! It''s all part of a mature an intellectual debate which I very much enjoy. When I call someone on something for which I think they are wrong, that person has every right to call me wrong right back and back up their opinion.

First off, the original post was not off topic. Perhaps it was a bit abstract in terms of the process of game design, but it had its points. My point has been that although he has been trying to get everyone to think "outside the box", he is just as guilty as anyone. Afterall, thinking ENTIRELY outside the box is no better than thinking ENTIRELY inside it.

Come to think of it, how is this really off topic? After all, game design is in a good deal about the processes by which we think, and that''s what I''m going after here. Maybe it''s the Taoist in me, obfusicating things beyond comprehension.

PS Nazrix, have you ever listened to Tommy by The Who? I think you would agree with what it''s saying about organized religion

Is it possible to think outside the box too much?

If my hand were held in a fist, and I could never uncurl it, what would it be called?

Crippled

Now, if my hand were held open, and I could never close it into a fist, what would it be then?

The same, crippled.

From this, one may interpret that one derives one''s strength from versitility, not rigidness. Being anything but yourself is crippling yourself. It is a landfish says, "you must carefully consider everything before you do it. If in the end you find that the old way is best, you would be a fool not to use it." He said something like that, I remember it.

This piece of Zen might have been brought to you by a letter and a number. Those might be known as "fish", and "land". In reverse order.