Winter - Why can't you just agree that an option would be best so this discussion can finally end. :sleep.gif:
Because you guys are jumping to the popular, seemingly obvious, and simple conclusion of the topic.
But this question runs so much more deep than that.
It, like most design questions, begin to change dramatically when you think very deeply about all the potential implications of things and start digging down to the roots and start factoring in human nature against these things, take into account what sort of psychological conditions must typically be met to produce a certain type of experience, and then take into account what people often do that sabotages themselves (yes, people do that, I don't see what that is so hard to believe). Self-sabotage is more common on lesser orders of triviality. The less serious (a game) someone takes something, the more likely they are to do things impulsively, and thus, through lack of understanding or deep thought, sabotage their long term experience. This is where designers come in, and often decide what features do and do not create this self-sabotaging mindset, and do their best to maximize short term enjoyment and long term fun, it's all about an efficiency curve. This is ultimately an economic decision of cultural and psychological predictions of primal urges in other people and how to properly balance and sustain a maximized efficiency through-out the course of the experience. Tis is the job of artists and designers, tis is what they do, they don't just make things and HOPE they will be appreciated (some do, but that is a very dangerous gamble). You study what does and doesn't effect human beings in certain ways, and then you APPLY that knowledge.
Simply put, I don't think many of you are thinking deep enough about this at all.
(some of you clearly are, though, and those are the people I'm enjoying talking to. The rest of you are just background chatter)