Did you miss the part where we don't all agree on what it is that actually sucks?

When I say "most people think most things suck, but they don't agree on what sucks" - that applies to industry people too. And nothing about their being industry people means they magically all agree on what, in particular, sucks nor in what the non-sucky alternative would be.

No, I didn't miss it. It just is a meaningless statement and does nothing to further the conversation.

My pointing out Garriott's fallacy doesn't advance the conversation but your repeating it does?

One last time: Garriott's statement is uselessly vague. If we ask people "do most designers suck" we will be lumping together the affirmative answers of those who think (e.g.) Halo's designers suck alongside those who think they do not.

So both groups agreeing to the over-broad phrasing "most designers suck" gives us only the illusion of consensus.

So as long as Garriott avoids defining "what sucks" and "what does not suck", he is not saying anything true or worthwhile.

No, you don't need to define what sucks. Most people agree that most game designers suck. Most people agree that getting punched in the face sucks. This is not a difficult concept, and trying to pretend the point is "uselessly vague" simply because you don't like it is absolutely useless.

> "This is not a difficult concept"

I'd have thought not, but you seem impervious to it.

Your consensus includes people who disagree on what sucks. How in the world can you pretend their seeming agreement on a broad phrasing remotely matters?

8 out of 10 people might says shooters suck, but if 4 think health packs are the problem and 4 think auto-regen health is the problem and health packs are the solution, they do not agree. The 8 out of 10 number is useless in deciding not only which is the design that sucks and need to change, but in deciding how to change it to not suck.

Saying "most people think most design sucks" is at the level of abstraction of "most people think most human interaction sucks". "getting punched in the face" is a specific, defined human interaction. If you or Garriott wanted to specify an example design at that level of specificity, we could evaluate it.

You are inventing an imaginary problem so that you can complain about it. Your problem is imaginary, so make your complaints imaginary too.

Right, because no-one has ever disagreed on whether a game or game mechanic is good.