Forum Logic is a philosophical approach to this forum which more or less consists of suspending disbelief and trying to integrate questionable and often mutually exclusive forum notions into a logical whole.
In the case above, there are many people who aggressively argue that the classic-bc game was a bad game. they sometimes use worse words than bad. yet we have to integrate this with the reality that classic became the most successful single video game ever (not counting early coin-ops) and bc only continued that. Often we are told they went up because they were new and they were still bad. Interestingly the time when the game begins to be a 'good' game is wotlk, when growth stopped then slowly started reversing.
All I have done is distill this priceless forum wisdom into a single coherent post. it presents a challenge because one has to simultaneously account for huge growth through 2.4.3, cessation of western growth a few months later, and make sure to note that the bad, bad classic/bc game somehow managed to saturate its potential western market.
Do you really want to argue against people who contend the above? If someone says 'classic was bad and only grew cuz was new' do you really think it is a productive use of time to try to debate this? I don't, but I do find
Forum Logic puts all this sort of stuff into its own absurd capsule which does more to illustrate my point than 100 posts back and forth on the topic, which is much of what this thread has been.
It can be fun too. I have had to integrate the forum notion that while publicly traded companies generally ride herd tightly on their wholly owned subsidiary, bobby kotick would never ever do that with blizzard, and any broad direction changes post-merger (such as 3.0.2 tuning and related blue comments) are coincidental.
2 posters have contributed basic principles - one noted that increasing a mob's dmg to you and decreasing yours did NOT increase difficulty, but rather only increased
Tedium. he disproved much of video game design theory from 1978 forward with one bold stroke. His
Tedium Rule is now a central part of
Forum Logic.
Another poster cleverly demanded proof of the outcome of a future event. His
Helpful Unprovability Quandry is a central debate tenet for Forum Logic. We are currently negotiating whether it can be named after him
Finally, and a central part of this, is the difference between
FUN and fun. anyone care to guess?