Also, when I say bad design, I mean that you should always be able to play your cards, any mechanics that doesn't let you play your cards is simply bad.
So, play my creature, it dies to terror -> good
I never get to play the creature -> bad
So we should agree that this is what it boils down to, isn't it? The rest of the argument is making irrelevant noise.
Mechanically speaking you did play the creature (if you're looking for "cannot play" effects white should be your culprit, no talk about thouse being unfair though),
it simply didn't resolve and enter the battlefield. You can argue that it's splitting hairs, but Hydroid Krasis (another good play vs. counterspells, btw) is one example where it becomes relevant.
There are also other cards that trigger when stuff is cast and counterspells can't prevent that.
Still, if a thing gets countered, the end result is pretty much the same as with all other forms of removal - one card was traded for one card which is the most basic interaction happening in all card games,
and there really isn't anything outlandish about it. It's as fair as it gets - I play my Ace and it trumps your Queen. Perhaps I should hold them back for your Kings instead?
It's fair to say that in a deckbuilding game all cards can be Aces, but thankfully, in MtG Aces can be overrun by twos, threes, fours and fives.
But I digress, the point is, what you're being robbed of by blue is the comes into play effect on the countered spell. Not saying it's irrelevant, but in a typical case it pretty much is.
I already talked at length about how blue is paying extra for the "privilege", so no sense in repeating myself. It's a matter of balance, and we were not discussing balance.
What I would like to contest in particular is the sentiment that you are somehow not playing the game.
Of course you are.
(But it doesn't feel like I'm playing the game.)
Well, nobody cares for your belly-feels.
What it boils down is: it's your turn the opponent has three untapped mana, at least one blue. What do you think is going to happen?
You can decide - I will play my card and possibly trade one for one. A lot of people default to this each game, and what we get is wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Still it's not a bad play if the plan was to run them out of counterspells,
so let's say you do it anyway, but the card wasn't countered (a rare phenomenon, I know, but I was actually there to witness it).
This is where the information warfare starts:
Was the other guy bluffing? Did he let it slide? Why?
Was it not threatening enough? Perhaps he alt-tabbed to watch hentai and missed the reaction window.
See, you are still playing the game, but it's a different game now, with both players working with uncertain information (unrevealed cards in hand).
The control player is playing it as much as you do, because they don't have any idea about what other threats you have and what's your plan for the next turns.
Or, you can decide: I will not play the card this time. One could argue that it's playing the control player's game,
but this depends entirely on the boardstate you will achieve next turn. If an additional land drop allows you to play two cards in a sequence, not committing a card and waiting for a stronger board position
might put you at an advantageous position.
It's even better if you have alternative lines of play - are there any activated abilities you can commit the mana to? Perhaps you have an instant on hand
you can use if the other guy taps out at some point?
This is all "Playing Against Control 101". The idea that you're somehow prevented from playing by three untapped lands is inane.
You can still make decisions which can affect the outcome of the match. If it feels like you're not playing, you either do not understand what's going on,
or your pile od cards is crap because it doesn't allow you the flexibility to play around this problem. If both are the case, we have a recipe for disaster.
However, it's within your own capacity to solve both of these issues (that being a more convoluted way of saying "git gud").
However, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know how to play this game, so let's start wrapping this up.
Since the original argument is about good design/bad design, here's the other point of view: the important function of counterspells is that they break up the play pattern
of play land, tap lands, play something with all the mana. Since MtG is a game of resource management, it's a strong line of play and a very efficient way of working your way towards winning,
which means we should all be doing this and build our decks to facilitate this style of play. This is what the concepts of mana curve and curving out come from, and
they are obviously the game's fundamentals.
So, the existence of counterspells breaks up this pattern, you are no longer able to snowball into larger and larger threats, because after some point
(i.e. when counterspells become cheaper than shit you're playing) you will start being at a disadvantage.
So, instead of the default mode of play being - vomit all my shit onto the board asap, you suddenly need to make decisions about NOT playing shit
(it appears to be the problematic point for some folks out there for some reason).
This alone is enough to add another dimension to the game. Instead of just getting more lands out to play better stuff,
you need to consider another resource: cards in hand. If we keep trading card for card, who gets the most cards wins in the end.
Having a catch all answer (counterspell) at three mana also serves as an important threshold in the game.
Everything more expensive than three mana needs to be carefully considered or it might become a liability in your deck,
at the same time cheap cards at one and two mana keep being relevant.
Could the same thing be achieved with just removal? Yes and no. I say yes, because, basically speaking, counterspells are removal, so it's tautology. I say no because MtG allows many angles of attack
(design wise, it's one of the strongest points of this game), and for a healthy state of the game you need counterplays to match potential plays. The answers can't be too narrow,
because if you are always forced to find the right answer to a wide variety of threats, a much better line to play is simply to ignore the opponent and focus on your own game plan.
This degenerates the game into what you can already see in Bo1 (especially in historic), and the feeling that matches are decided by who goes first.
Therefore, the game also needs catch-all answers to stay healthy, which means counterspells also need to be a thing.
You might not particularly like them if you simply want to tap all your mana, play stuff and turn them sideways, but this is a very shallow way of playing the game.
But I still haven't made a good deck around it yet. I put it in as a finisher though.
