next »

[Radix]

remember that if you don't have 100% respect for the other party in a discussion, you've lost the argument already.

I'm sorry bro but that's utter bullshit.

Edit: ironically it's probably even actually ad hominem.

[P Diddy]

i think both sides of this kinect debate are being needlessly disrespectful; remember that if you don't have 100% respect for the other party in a discussion, you've lost the argument already. you don't need to apply your hormones and emotions to a question about steering in a kinect game or whatever it is, it's ridiculous.

that said something interesting was just brought up: if you can win automatically in a game without effort, is that really bad game design? yes, if you feel, with icycalm, that the purpose of a game is challenge and complexity. no, if you feel that games can have other roles. one thing that's interesting is that icycalm says the basic value of games is escapism, and yet challenge and complexity aren't escapist as such. when you escape into a fantasy world, don't you want that world to be pleasant? don't you want it to be supportive of you, rather than antagonistic towards you? who wants to have an escapist fantasy into a world where they have to fight for survival, die repeatedly, and lose more often than win? true escapist fantasies are to a place that is perfect, where you always win. so in that sense a game where you win without even trying is far more escapist than a game like mega man 9/10.

man, no offense, but I lost all respect in you. Don't you see how cynical that is? It's not just Icycalm who thinks like this, get out of your indie bubble. Every gamer who saw that reacted the same way. But this community is different. And all this time you were showing yourselves to be normal in your attitudes towards gaming, saying things like Icycalm is preaching to the converted and that you're not the cliche.

Man, I regret insulting Icycalm. He was right about you guys.

You do indeed live in a non-gamer bubble.

[P Diddy]

hahah i finally respond without insulting you and get called an idiot while watching you completely miss my point

 


LAST ATTEMPT: How does that extrapolate to EVERY AAA GAME EVER MADE?

Read my posts and see how patient I tried to be, he was still an insulting bastard. So don't turn things around.

I never said it represents all AAA games. Don't put words in my mouth.

RobF said there's not one single shred of evidence. And I showed him that video.

End of story.

But you guys like to argue for the sake of arguing.

[mirosurabu]

As I see it, Rob was merely responding to Breadcultist for saying that worse is "the worst" today. Then Diddy jumped in with understanding of "the worst" which is basically being so powerful yet not making as powerful games.

So, Cars example is spot on, that game is worse than Gel ride, regardless of the developer, so new games are definitively not the worst games ever, it's misleading to say so.

[P Diddy]

As I see it, Rob was merely responding to Breadcultist for saying that worse is "the worst" today. Then Diddy jumped in with understanding of "the worst" which is basically being so powerful yet not making as powerful games.

So, Cars example is spot on, that game is worse than Gel ride, regardless of the developer, so new games are definitively not the worst games ever, it's misleading to say so.

Cars was made by one person, it's not comparable.

edit: and you didn't understand what Breadcultist was talking about, not at all.

[RobF]

An interactive experience which can have you win 1st and 2nd place by having the player not even play is the most cynical form of game design I've ever seen.

It's not cynical. It's a perfectly valid thing to implement for what the game is aiming to achieve. I know you don't understand why, and that's fine, but it's far from cynical.*

Whether it's poorly implemented as a feature is another matter entirely.

Microsoft really wanted to prove that Kinect worked for everyone (of all ages) when sitting down, but the devs admitted that it had problems recognizing someone's gestures when sitting down.

Just fill in the blanks yourself and stop arguing for the sake of arguing. That theory is the only one that makes sense

(For the record, I'm fully aware of the considerations around what did/did not work with Kinect prior to launch and you're linking two entirely unrelated things)

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. Well, ok, I'm arguing for the sake of a giggle at you losing it over a casual game, but yeah. I don't think that's the same thing is it?

And stop bringing up that stupid old game, that game is not a good representation of what was going on in 1983.

It's a perfect representation of a truly rubbish game from 1983. If anything, Star Wars was more exceptional than Alley Driver.

Funny old world, isn't it?

And the whole point of this debate was to show that when things become more advanced, they open the doors to more problems. Why is that so hard to understand? And how can anyone in their right mind say that the Kinect bug is not a good example?

If the point is that there's still going to be rubbish, then I can't argue that point.

If the point is that the worst is going to be worse than we've seen before, then I can and will argue that point.

Which is it?

You do indeed live in a non-gamer bubble.

What does that even mean?

*although you could argue that MS move into a more casual space is cynical, admittedly. I'd call it business though.

[mirosurabu]

Let's see he what he said:

The best we have is better. But at the same time, the worst games are worse than we've ever seen before. Progress -> lowering the barrier to entry -> effects on both ends of the quality scale.

He said that the worst games we have today are worse than we've ever seen before. Are you telling me that he was meaning something else? If he means something else, then this statement doesn't communicate it.

[Blademasterbobo]

Ok people, let's go out and find a game that had the exact same number of people working on it and the exact same budget (accounting for inflation, of course); only then are any two games comparable.

Of course, this brings up the question: how can anyone compare indie games with mainstream games at all?

[mirosurabu]

I think his point is that when you have enough resources to do very complex stuff you should do very complex stuff i.e. is you shouldn't do less complex stuff. But at no point was that communicated via Breadcultist's post.

Back to Rob's topic, I agree - games are no worse than they ever were. Gel ride doesn't prove it, Gel ride may only support the idea that resources tend to be wasted today and that corporations spend more on marketing, reaching new audiences and such. Still I have no idea what was the budget for Gel ride and all that jazz so I can't tell how valid his point is, but I can say that I don't see games degrading, I only see nerds complaining about nerdy shit.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

I'm sorry bro but that's utter bullshit.

Edit: ironically it's probably even actually ad hominem.

it can't be ad hominem because i wans't taking part in that argument, it was just an observation about the argument. ad hominem is when you are inside an argument and use insults to win it, not when you insult people who are arguing using insults (by saying they are using insults).

man, no offense, but I lost all respect in you. Don't you see how cynical that is? It's not just Icycalm who thinks like this, get out of your indie bubble. Every gamer who saw that reacted the same way. But this community is different. And all this time you were showing yourselves to be normal in your attitudes towards gaming, saying things like Icycalm is preaching to the converted and that you're not the cliche.

Man, I regret insulting Icycalm. He was right about you guys.

You do indeed live in a non-gamer bubble.

well obviously, i haven't been a 'gamer' since the playstation 1 era. i don't really play games much. game developers don't have to be gamers. so i am indeed out of touch with gamers and current tastes and such, and take a more outside view of how games work.

however i do think the entire casual industry shows that there is an audience and a deep desire for games that are not challenging. look at the game 'peggle' for instance, it's a mega-hit, even though winning it is trivial, largely due to luck, and requires very little (if any) skill: it's basically a pachinko machine (but easier than real pachinko). a lot of the new casual genres, such as match-3, 'critter' or pet games, and so on, are very easy and nearly impossible to lose.

that said, i didn't say that *i* personally prefer games where you can't lose. i like hardcore games personally. i'm just saying that i'm not against people who find value in games where they win automatically; if it's what they value, let them value it.

[P Diddy]

If the point is that the worst is going to be worse than we've seen before, then I can and will argue that point.

I would never say that.

Let's see he what he said:

The best we have is better. But at the same time, the worst games are worse than we've ever seen before. Progress -> lowering the barrier to entry -> effects on both ends of the quality scale.

He said that the worst games we have today are worse than we've ever seen before. Are you telling me that he was meaning something else? If he means something else, then this statement doesn't communicate it.

That kinect thing worries me more then any game I ever saw.

[Radix]

It's ad hominem reasoning to claim that any argument is automatically lost by virtue of a particular attitude held by one party. I am not claiming you are participating in the argument or presenting an actual instance of ad hominem argument.

And regardless of the ad hom jazz, it's still plain old bullshit.

I'm not trying to get on your back or anything but it was a dumb thing to say.


edit:
i am so happy to finally be participating in the internet fight thread

[RobF]

If the point is that the worst is going to be worse than we've seen before, then I can and will argue that point.

I would never say that.

Then why did you post a video of a game as evidence to back that claim up?

[P Diddy]

Paul, you're not a gamer?

Remember that discussion we had about Aquaria and whether I actually played those games. You were talking like someone who actually played games. You even said that some XLIG game is better then MM9/10.

That's just not honest.

Don't talk about games with authority if you don't play games anymore.

[P Diddy]

If the point is that the worst is going to be worse than we've seen before, then I can and will argue that point.

I would never say that.

Then why did you post a video of a game as evidence to back that claim up?

Why can't you read what I wrote?

You said that there was no shred of evidence. I showed you that there was.

I never said "it's the end times".

It's just a video that worries me.

[RobF]

What have you posted evidence of?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

It's ad hominem reasoning to claim that any argument is automatically lost by virtue of a particular attitude held by one party. I am not claiming you are participating in the argument or presenting an actual instance of ad hominem argument.

And regardless of the ad hom jazz, it's still plain old bullshit.

I'm not trying to get on your back or anything but it was a dumb thing to say.

i said the person has lost the argument, not that they are wrong. you can be right and still lose an argument.

@pdiddy - i meant that i don't play *mainstream* games much anymore. i still play indie games, obviously. i do a lot of playtesting for other indies, and provide feedback to their games. for instance, i'm mentioned in the 'special thanks' for spelunky due to playtesting it early on. but i don't consider myself a 'gamer' at all, and would be insulted if someone called me a gamer.

i agree that i shouldn't be judging mainstream games if i haven't played them, which is why i specifically try to restrict my criticisms for the games i have played, and the consoles i own (regarding the genre variety argument a ways back). i stopped playing mainstream games around the ps1 era because that's when they no longer held my interest; just like aquaria and other indie games didn't hold your interest, i would play new games and they wouldn't hold my interest, so i stopped playing them. i still play them occasionally though, i do have an xbox, but i own far more xblig and xbla games on it than i do xbox dvd/retail games.

[P Diddy]

What have you posted evidence of?

That certain games released today can represent something way more negative in terms of regression then your example.

[P Diddy]

and would be insulted if someone called me a gamer.

Why?

[Radix]

i said the person has lost the argument, not that they are wrong. you can be right and still lose an argument.

Alright man but I think you'll find nobody's aware of these arbitrary Marquess of Eresberry rules but you.