You mix lots of things that it is difficult to understand your backing points...

First, you say that a player will play the first FPS they buy, but after playing many, they'll throw them away and not want to play anything similar. Then you admit that lots of players like FPS's, CoD and Battlefield, etc.. that don't have much challenge in learning (though they still have lots of challenge that is expressed through situations that happen because of the game mechanics (Unique stand-offs between players in some random location)). Rather than seeing that as a problem, I simply see that as defeating your argument.

Second, you get into the tangly world of "real games". How can you define a real game? Why isn't a real game the infinity runners, the physics shooters, the physics construction? Even while I don't agree with your definition of a game, Angry Birds still qualifies. The player learns the mechanics of the game, and what to do, and later on, the many levels are all tests on how much he has learned the mechanics. Your definition is extremely non-exclusive, but in my opinion at the same time limiting, since it enforces the common view that all games are meant to be built around being FUN, ENERGETIC, and CHALLENGING! (some are, some aren't at all)

P.

I'm going to disagree with a few of the points you stated too. The most obvious point is that apparently because I've played a lot of shooters, I'll find any other shooters boring because they're the same. Even if we exclude the fact that Halo is a very different kind of shooter to Sniper Elite, I have played Modern Warfare 1, 2 and 3, and enjoyed them all, and I'm looking forward to the next iteration.

I'm going to say that I don't think games have to be challenging. I like some games to be, but it's not a prerequisite as you seem to state. A game has to be fun. Challenging and fun can be as good as simple and fun. I like spending hours of time building houses in the Sims (on empty plots so there's no money worries). I could do anything I want, there's no way to 'fail,' it's not challenging, but it's engaging and that's the important part.

I dunno, in short I disagreed with most of what you said, although I think I agree with the sentiment. If a game is supposed to be challenging it should be challenging. Not dumbed down to cater to those that don't want a challenge. I just think you should realise that not every game needs to be challenging to be fun. Sometimes it's nice to just play.

As PSVils said, you have some points that I agree with, but your overall argument is self-contradictory. You attribute opinions to others that can't be justified. For example "down to the refusal of their brain to play anything close to a shooter for more than 5 minutes or so because it’s boring". The AAA market for FPSes and it's "non risky profits" resoundingly disagrees with you there. If you were correct, there would be no market for such games. I'm sure there are people who feel that way, but you can't speak for everybody (or even close). I would also argue that it is almost impossible to "master" a multiplayer FPS because there will always be opponents upping the ante.

Your definition of gamer is fuzzy and exclusionary. You need to keep two things in mind: some gamers are casual due to time limitations (you can't get too hardcore in a 15 minute session), and some casual gamers have little experience with hardcore games so are sufficiently challenged by the controller itself before hitting the complexity of your game itself. I grew up playing games with joystick or cursor keys, then took a few years off gaming, so mastering two thumbsticks, two triggers plus at least 6 other buttons simultaneously was huge.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, though I'm going to say that I didn't get that it was a personal opinion on your blog. This is more of a critique of your writing than about your opinions on the game design. You started with a personal opinion and view about what game design is, that is clear. But after the third paragraph you outline everything else as fact:

Most modern games suffer from lack of originality,
Players will refuse to play shooters after playing a few because they're all the same,
Most indie games are clones,
etc

That's how it reads to me anyway. Essentially you give your opinion at the start, then state your view thereafter as being concrete. In particular when you talk about during the beta test of your game:

The non-gamer testers would continuously complaining about the difficulty of the game and the fact that they are forced to learn and perform certain actions within the game. Accumulated, these actions ARE the game, if you take those out there is no game to be played at all. By complaining, they only prove why they aren’t gamers in the first place, because they have no satisfaction from playing games at all and every artificial challenge imposed by the game is immediately rejected.[/quote]

It doesn't read as an opinion here, it just requires more careful phrasing and layout to show that the post is based off of your thoughts and opinions. Trying to find the balance between saying that "Everyone who plays shooters for a while will get bored" and "I've played a lot of shooters, and I'm bored because they're all the same - this will happen to other players."

You are right, I presumed that if I start by stating personal opinions people would understand that everything else is based on those opinions.

This wouldn't be a problem if the correlation was more obvious between the two.

"My opinion is RTS games are too hard" therefore "they should make RTS games more intuitive" would come across more clearly.

in your blog you've said:

"My opinion is games must be challenging" therefore "modern games lack originality."

There isn't a proper flow of thought between these two statements. The fact that modern games lack originality is something you've introduced as a fact from elsewhere. Essentially; Because modern games lack originality they're less challenging, and that's a bad thing based on my opinion.

To be clear I actually do think that originality in games is a problem, I'm just trying to help you see where things have gone awry in your writing.

i already made a topic about this before you did and its still active.... lol

There are some very nice games which are not challenging at all.

For example, Journey [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journey_(2012_video_game) ] is widely acknowledged to be well made, but it is extremely easy to finish in a short amount of time. It is also considered quite innovative.

Portal was also very easy. Although it gives players an option to face harder challenges, one can choose to breeze through the basic game and enjoy the nice "script".