OSL begins on March 31st - Page 20

You're basically just repeating what you said before without addressing the main point of my post, which was that in the context of a game a limitation should be evaluated solely by how it affects gameplay. Aside from the scope of effect, there isn't a significant difference between "Valkyries bug out in large numbers" and "Rooks can only move horizontally and vertically". Both are just restrictions on the use of a piece. Or, for that matter, between "you can only move 12 pieces at a time" and "you can only move 1 piece a turn".

Your movie analogy doesn't make sense because the tools used to make something are separate from its design. Whether a director uses CGI or practical effects for a particular movie is usually incidental to the rest of its construction. If she's directing a classic western and uses CGI to create a nice sunset, she won't then put Jar Jar Binks in every scene. Games don't have to do that sort of thing, either. It's okay to have advanced graphics, and even physics and other innovations, without thoughtlessly shoehorning in design elements just because they're considered "modern". (I brought up Jaws to give a popular example of something being shaped in a positive way by its creators not being able to do everything they wanted. It wasn't intended to draw some parallel concerning the clash of old and new technology. I love technology, and wish developers were pushing the envelope far more than they are currently.)

First of all. The engine that the game runs in, the platform the game runs in, these are all part of the tools that are used to make something. The BW engine is limited in this respect, the projectile limitation is a part of the limitations set out by the engine, so is unit collision / pathing through solid objects. These are figured out post release and blizzard has infact had official statements and attempts to fix these issues but they were unable to due to the nature of the engine that they built BW on. A inherent limitation based on the technology present at the time is absolutely not an intentional design decision, as much as it's an intentional design decision for atari 2600 games to require cartridges and be unable to render vector graphics. The intention of the original King Kong was to tell a story that had a giant ape in it, the choice to use models, puppets, rear screen projects, etc, were choices made because it was the best possible choices that they had at the time, based on the limitations of filming technology. If the director had access to modern day special effects and computer editing they would have absolutely tried using those too. Blizzard did an amazing job on BW with the technology that they had at the time, and I'm critiquing the technical aspects as they are, and I'm appreciating the game for what it is.

Alot of limitations do certainly become features of the game but, like I said, unless it's officially sanctioned as a positive feature of the game and recognized by the community, is only detrimental to the game. No one is going to argue that muta stacking, mineral pathing, etc haven't become intricate parts of the game, but that's only because the community agreed on these facts rather than rejecting them for being horrendously buggy. Whether or not it's a positive or negative feature is irrelevant to the fact that they are flaws.

And like I said, gamers are NEVER going to ask for newer games that have similar bugs or glitches with in them, unless there was an intention and explanation and actual understanding of how these mechanics benefit the game and make it more interesting. To do that you have to:
1. Understand the limitations of the engine or platform your game is on.
2. Understand that flaws and features that may be incidental could benefit or completely ruin a game.
3. Implement as many positive features and learn from past mistakes as possible.
Perfect examples of this:
Blizzard removed mineral glitching and unit glitching through objects entirely in SC2. It was entirely possible for them to have left that as an INTENTIONAL DESIGN DECISION, but they decided it was a UNDESIRABLE bug with in the BW engine, and even though the new SC2 engine is more than capable of handling that process, they removed it. So that aspect of play is completely gone completely from official matches.
Blizzard fixed projectile limits which were limitations of the previous game, so now you can have 8 player max pop armies and not worry about any projectiles limits or what unit you are producing.
Whether or not these features contributed to the game is entirely of your own opinion, but the technical advancement in the engine is undisputed. In my opinion removing many of the glitches that have become staple of BW made SC2 alot less exciting and bland.

It just seems like you are upset over the word "flaw", would you preferred if I just called them incidental / unintentional features? There's a difference between saying a game has flaws and saying a game is flawed in that I'm passing judgement on it. Is Deus Ex flawed? Is the original mario brothers / pokemon flawed? Yes, all of these games have flaws, and alot of the flaws are based on the platform and technology they ran on; as do Brood War, as do SC2. There's no point pretending that we have a flawless game. Allied mines, buildings crushing interceptors, glitching workers to teleport, build anywhere, or making the command center float closer to the minerals, etc, these are all features that have been banned from official play because they would give the player an unfair advantage so much so that it breaks any competitive play.

Here's a thread to show what I mean, most of these have either been incorporated into official play, or banned. Alot of the more ridiculous ones are completely game breaking.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=66532

I used the movie example because physical assets / tools / environments to make a game / movie are completely independent of how the movie is directed, casted, acted, shot, how good the story is, how it's persented, and so on. Just as a game is. But the technology presented limits what tools the director has to work with and good directors always find ways to hide the limitations of the time and maximize on what the technology is able to present, a huge part of that is learning from past mistakes. Every essential feature we just take for granted in games now like save states for games only started with the invention of memory batteries in cartridges once games became too long for gamers to play through in 1 sitting, then people learning that "geez gamers like the ability to save and load games, and our console has no built in memory capacity what so ever so we need to incorporate it on the cartridge as a work around", and slow evolutions of save states and save files derived from that and the associated technology as it advanced.

You have to understand that games technology has advanced ridiculous margins with the development of technology since the 70s, and there's absolutely no shame in admitting that a game is flawed in technical aspects, hell there's a reason why so many people still play, collect, watch, and compete on the NES or Genesis. But all directors / game makers want more tools and better technology to present their master piece, whether or not that technology is misused depends entirely on if you learn from the past mistakes.