Originally Posted by Tuco
No, it's not a better analogy because it's completely unrelated.
And incidentally the point is not "liking to walk, teleport, fly or swim" either.
The point is that restrictions and eventual inconveniences need to be put in places to prevent a system balanced around these restrictions to break down entirely at every little push.

A game should be designed to work properly with the systems it uses in mind.
If people want a convenient way around them, cheating (or a "for teh story" difficulty setting that will undoubtedly be there) is always an option for them.

Asking for a game to be purposefully designed as broken because having a proper balance would be too inconvenient for some is ridiculous.

It's entirely related.

Time restrictions are needed in chess because it keeps the player from having the luxury of thinking too long about the next move, which would break the game.

But, says someone, I don't want that time restriction.

Well, the proper thinker says, the game would be broken without that restriction.

Hmm. Why don't you restrict your game, and I'll play my game without your restriction.

What? No, impossible. How can my game be restricted when yours is not?

Um, by using this clock?


Exact. Same. Thing.

You can restrict your game by walking. So your game isn't broken.

Meanwhile, other people will teleport. You are free to think they are playing a broken game. I doubt they care overly much about your subjective opinion on the matter.

Originally Posted by GM4Him
You're ignoring that the game becomes boring and all pieces unimportant simply because of the absence of 1 restriction

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm not bored. Thus "the game" does not become boring. *You* may be bored, but that's a personal issue.