Except that he and many others have gone to great lengths to explain why they think it's flawed and explain the maths and statistics behind their rationale rather than simply saying it sucks.
First off, when you start with that premise, you already admit you are biased and that your argument is heavily subjective. In fact, it becomes less of an argument and more about proving your subjective perspective to be the correct one to have - which is EXACTLY what has gone on in this thread. In fact, he is going around the internet telling people this - hence why I came to this thread, based upon a comment where he literally said the same thing.
The counter argument boils down to 'but me and friends enjoy it, so it can't suck' and it is of course fine if you enjoy it but game design is a science as much as it is an art. It isn't that Topsy just doesn't like non linear growth, he is saying that non linear growth is bad game design for the reasons people have gone over in the rest of the thread, particularly that it fundamentally limits the amount of time a campaign can last.
Again, this is subjective. The very fact that he called Monopoly bad game design, proves the point. It's one of the most popular, most played board games ever. Apparently though, people wanting to have fun, finding fun and enjoying a game can still be idiots because some guy has drawn a chart based on the model they want to present, but isn't actually reflective of the system they want to criticise, makes it "fact" that it's bad game design.
Sorry, but this is exactly where toxicity hits wargaming. People don't like a game, and for whatever reason, want that their personal preference reaffirmed. They'll go to any lengths including hand waiving aspects (only half the territories being rewarded with credits), base models only on gangs repeatedly winning, completely fail to address greater chances of fighters missing games due to being in recovery, costs of a medical escort or having to replace a critically injured fighter (1 in 6)... I could go on.
Only one person has said it limits the amount of time a campaign has last, and again, that isn't bad game design, it's just some people want campaigns to be longer. One person has even shared their rather brilliant, if I may say so, solution of mashing up the NCE/N95 campaign with the new system - awesome!
Others have simply done as you do - uh, look, maffs, charts, Topsy's got this. And completely ignored the many other voices disagreeing. Even better, the number of people playing New Vs Old. I would back the vast popularity for a game over silly maths that is trying to define what a bad game is anytime. Because it means people are having fun and enjoying the system whether someone and their maths book say so or not.
These are objective arguments about the science of game design not subjective arguments about his ability to enjoy the game. At no point has anyone arguing against him ever come close to actually spelling out the science behind the idea of non linear growth being superior. There are arguments to be made like 'it is easier to get players to commit to a short campaign' or 'it gives you the opportunity switch gangs a lot'. Is it just that he said 'suck' rather than 'did not meet my high expectations? Because a lot of the criticism seems very focused on his choice of word more than they argument he was making.
Again, unfortunately, every time a valid counter point has been raised, he has failed to come up with a mathematical answer and someone else simply jumps in and says "well I don't like the idea of..."
Topsy just keeps going on about his maths, and models, that haven't factored any of the issues raised by people (again, quite the opposite, just simply dismissed or handwaved).
Game Design is a subjective matter. You only need to be a part of a large boardgame facebook group to recognise this. The UKBG&C group is a great example. And again, if there was any "correct" design, all boardgames would be following the same philosophy, they don't. Not all games are "linnear" - there are a lot of games that are based around establishing resource production and adding to it. Some also have mechanisms for other players to steal that resource to make themselves wealthier and their opponents poorer. Some of these games are incredibly popular.
On a very basic overview of it, that is exactly what N17 is (and yes, the hardback rulebook is a fair bit different to N17, they revised the rules but meh). The first phase of a dominion campaign will last around 3-4 battles as usually the territories are claimed by then. At which point you have a downtime and you move to a new phase where players can try to take other players resources with the idea of using them to increase their pool of resources.
The only real difference is that in N17 instead of being just one winner, the person with the most territories or biggest gang rating, there are several and there is no guarantee you will get all of them.
In our last campaign, we had a player who had played fewer games have the highest number of OOA's inflicted. He just happened to do a lot better at shooting.
So in summery. Linear does not mean "good game design", non-linear does not mean "bad game design". Anyone holding any such stances is doing so purely subjectively even if trying to use maths to prove themselves right.
Please refrain from telling people that "player experience" is part of this when not only are people happy with the system and "experiencing" it happily, but even those who think some things could be tweaked to improve it are still saying they have run 12 campaigns of over ten players... that seems to suggest the exact opposite. Again, globally too, take a look across social media... see how many people are sharing their hobbying in N17, or should I say, their experiences, which are positive. They aren't "wrong". They are just enjoying something, finding fun in something you don't.
I watched all of a minute of Pepper Pig, really not my thing, I prefer the kids shows of when I was a kid, but you know what? Who am I to tell my mates nearly 2yr old whether what he is watching is rubbish? I hate soaps and reality TV, but they are some of the most lucrative shows. My wife watches them. Does it mean I'm right? No. If we were all the same the world would be a boring place. Instead, you have a choice between N95, NCE and N17(with multiple campaigns and so far two settings). It's just that, a choice. You don't have to choose to decide that your choice is better - because you know what? That sucks.
