"CAPTAIN_NXR7;c-17802380" wrote:
... If a lot is shared with the community, play testing that lot is just as important as actually building it and making it look great. It’s part of the building process. It has to function well. Whether the builder intends to move in a household and play with it has nothing to do with it. I don’t care what people do in their game. But when sharing something, make it work.
An architect can design a beautiful house but if it’s got no door to get inside then there’s not point in calling it a house. It’s just a pretty looking structure and most likely a complete waste of space. ...
I’m aware that I’m probably taking this way seriously. ?
Early architects took function very seriously too. ;) Your comments reminded me of the directive "form follows function" coined by Louis Sullivan, 19th century architect and mentor to Frank Lloyd Wright. Sullivan developed his creed from ancient guidelines written by the Roman architect Vitruvius: "a structure must exhibit the three qualities of firmitas, utilitas, venustas – that is, it must be solid, useful, beautiful."
The idea of form following function has also been adapted by several areas of design and engineering. Can you imagine a video game created only to look pretty, but never tested for playability? Programmers spend a lot of time testing their creations, and even then bugs escape. Maybe player buildings should be tested just as rigorously as whole games are. Form follows function.
