I don't believe that this is intrinsically correct. Part of what makes I feel makes a game good or not is if the rules are consistent and can be extrapolated.
If every action is a special case, the game is frustrating to any player trying to build a mental model of the cause and effect relationships within the world.
Now on the other hand, the premise of a game and it's basic interactions may be enjoyable, or at least conceptually enjoyable, by themselves. There need not be the call for the player to accept the gestalt as it is.
Personally, I'd like to see an Angry Birds clone that made it a little easier to understand what's going to happen when you launch a game object in a particular way.
Inconsistency can certainly break a game, but where's the inconsistency in Angry Birds?
I've got three stars on every level through the first ten worlds, and only a couple of levels seemed to require lucky breaks for maximum points. 3-1 was the one time I gave up and found the three-star solution on youtube.
If every action is a special case, the game is frustrating to any player trying to build a mental model of the cause and effect relationships within the world.
Now on the other hand, the premise of a game and it's basic interactions may be enjoyable, or at least conceptually enjoyable, by themselves. There need not be the call for the player to accept the gestalt as it is.
Personally, I'd like to see an Angry Birds clone that made it a little easier to understand what's going to happen when you launch a game object in a particular way.