next »

[Paul Eres]

i still remain unconvinced of that, so i'd like to see this study. i think there are a lot of people who are both egoistic and intelligent. this depends to a degree on how you measure intelligence, but i don't think anyone would deny that, for example, there are people who are narcisistic and/or egoistic who get extremely good grades in school, or who have accomplished things many people want to accomplish, but can't.

i'm willing to believe that less humble people are more susceptible to error, and less amenable to change, but i don't believe that there's no such thing as an egoistic genius. as an example, richard feynman was very egoistic (just read some of his biographies).

[substance]

There is actually a direct correlation between intelligence/modesty. ... There was actually a scientific study on it that ...

"Scientific". Can't wait to tear it apart, if it indeed exists.

Intelligent people ... are usually the people sitting quietly in the background, living their life outside of your notice until they say/do something profound.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

[bento_smile]

There is actually a direct correlation between intelligence/modesty. The more intelligent and/or skilled you are at a task, the more modest and/or self-conscious you tend to be about it. The less skilled or intelligent, the more confident you are. There was actually a scientific study on it that I'm looking for the link to.

Posting to back you up because I read that paper also. (But I cannot find it currently either.)

[C.A. Sinner]

After the recent influx of Icycalm lapdogs, even Icycalm haters from outside TIGS are joining the fray.

I normally hate the word "epic" used in the context I'm using it in now, but it's the only adjective that adequately describes this thread.  

[Paul Eres]

those two .txt files on rydia.net that someone linked to are kind of funny. the commentary by whoever wrote them sucks though. but they're funny in that they provide a lot of icycalm quotes that i hadn't read before. i particularly like this one by icycalm:

"Note that my definition of subhuman has nothing to do with gender, race, social position or any other such conceptual category: a subhuman for me is merely someone who, for whatever reason, is incapable of understanding philosophy -- if I came across a dog tomorrow who understood philosophy I would have no qualms of calling it (him) human and placing him above women, gooks, niggers, fagots, cockroaches, bacteria and other democrats."

[genericuser]

There is actually a direct correlation between intelligence/modesty. The more intelligent and/or skilled you are at a task, the more modest and/or self-conscious you tend to be about it. The less skilled or intelligent, the more confident you are. There was actually a scientific study on it that I'm looking for the link to.

Posting to back you up because I read that paper also. (But I cannot find it currently either.)

You mean the Dunning-Kruger effect?

[John Sandoval]

those two .txt files on rydia.net that someone linked to are kind of funny. the commentary by whoever wrote them sucks though. but they're funny in that they provide a lot of icycalm quotes that i hadn't read before. i particularly like this one by icycalm:

"Note that my definition of subhuman has nothing to do with gender, race, social position or any other such conceptual category: a subhuman for me is merely someone who, for whatever reason, is incapable of understanding philosophy -- if I came across a dog tomorrow who understood philosophy I would have no qualms of calling it (him) human and placing him above women, gooks, niggers, fagots, cockroaches, bacteria and other democrats."

That's pretty funny, actually.

[Dragonmaw]

There is actually a direct correlation between intelligence/modesty. ... There was actually a scientific study on it that ...

"Scientific". Can't wait to tear it apart, if it indeed exists.

The fact that you said this means you can't. If you don't understand why, it'll be obvious that you don't understand the scientific process. Merely a statement of fact on how scientific method works.

The Wikipedia page for Illusory Superiority Effect has a list of studies in the references, so if you want to get to "tearing them apart," go ahead. I detest linking Wikipedia, but that will be a good starting point for your research, I suppose.

(Note that this isn't how I found it, although it's convenient that there is a page on Wikipedia for it, harr.)

Intelligent people ... are usually the people sitting quietly in the background, living their life outside of your notice until they say/do something profound.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

Nah, not you. Probably Paul or Derek, though.

i still remain unconvinced of that, so i'd like to see this study. i think there are a lot of people who are both egoistic and intelligent. this depends to a degree on how you measure intelligence, but i don't think anyone would deny that, for example, there are people who are narcisistic and/or egoistic who get extremely good grades in school, or who have accomplished things many people want to accomplish, but can't.

i'm willing to believe that less humble people are more susceptible to error, and less amenable to change, but i don't believe that there's no such thing as an egoistic genius. as an example, richard feynman was very egoistic (just read some of his biographies).

The thing about Richard Feynman is that he was never going around saying that he was this revolutionary genius whose work was so profound that it would be read for generations and outstrips the work of all before him. He was egotistical, but not to the point of narcissism. That is a very special kind of egotism. There are people who are smart and egotistical (Aristotle is another example), but as far as I know I can't think of anybody who is intelligent and narcissistic.

There is actually a direct correlation between intelligence/modesty. The more intelligent and/or skilled you are at a task, the more modest and/or self-conscious you tend to be about it. The less skilled or intelligent, the more confident you are. There was actually a scientific study on it that I'm looking for the link to.

Posting to back you up because I read that paper also. (But I cannot find it currently either.)

You mean the Dunning-Kruger effect?

Yes, that!

[Jasper Byrne]

Intelligent people ... are usually the people sitting quietly in the background, living their life outside of your notice until they say/do something profound.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

Sorry, could link to the profound statement or act?  I must have missed it! 

[substance]

You mean the Dunning-Kruger effect?

The hypothesis you linked has nothing to do with either modesty or intelligence. It's amusing that they'd go to all that effort to "prove" something that anyone who'd take a moment's thought would already assume.

[Absurdist]

"Here you are all equally worthless!!"

[Netsu]

I see a ton of crap being said by Icycalm but I must say that I am most impressed by his attitude towards discussion in general.

In the modern world we have pretty much killed all objectivism, each have his own taste, morality, philosophy. There is no longer any discussion between atheists and religious people, there is no way to prove that there is a God, and there is no way to prove that there isn't. This applies to everything. And this makes all discussion pointless.
To prove anything you need an axiom, or a set of axioms. But there is no longer anything universal, no axiom agreed upon by everyone that cannot by defied. Even the fact that I think and therefore I am can be denied. We live in the era of absolute subjectivism.

And yet there are people who will not stand it. Who will not agree to disagree and don't want you to just accept their opinions. They know THE TRUTH, they just KNOW they are RIGHT. No faggot will tell them that 'it's just your opinion'. They will bludgeon you to death, but they will stand by the truth. For they do not 'think' or 'believe', they just fucking KNOW.

[Paul Eres]

i agree with substance in that regard. the wikipedia article on the dunning-kruger effect even says this:

Dunning et al. cite a study saying that 94% of college professors rank their work as "above average" (relative to their peers), to underscore that the highly intelligent and informed are hardly exempt.

and

Although the Dunning–Kruger effect addresses erroneous perceptions of skill in general, not intelligence (and the lack thereof) in particular, casual commentary on it tends to dwell on that particular axis.

the study wasn't about narcissism, just overconfidence, nor intelligence, just competence or skill. saying that confidence and competence can work against each other is different than saying that narcissism (or egoism) and intelligence can work against each other.

i think we'd need further study. there are tests for narcissism. a psychologist could correlate it and iq pretty easily in a study if they so chose and see if there was any positive or negative correlation.

[Breadcultist]

More like they're using the basic tools of a particular genre (or multiple genres) to do something else. For instance the developer of  an exploration platformer might not aim to make a "good" platformer (in the mechanical sense), but create an interesting world for the player to explore via the basic gameplay of a platformer.

I suggested that the point might be to sneakily move the game outside of the perceived realm of judgement as a [game of x-genre].

You're saying that that moving-outside-of-genre-judgement is an actually possible and legitimate move.

I posted the pre-emptive defense mechanism idea as psychological speculation, in line with what Icy's been saying, in a half-joking manner. I'm not sure the extent of its accuracy, that's why I didn't say it definitely.

But in reading your rebuttal I think we can clarify a more basic disagreement here. And it's related to this thread, lucky me! You post the issue from the designer's perspective. Example: The designer takes the platformer genre, uses it for some purpose other than making a good platformer. Now, here's what I'm NOT gonna do: ask whether that's right or wrong. He can do what he likes. He's free to merrily ignore critics and carry on making his games (or notgames?).

The question could be whether the critic is right or wrong for judging the game from the genre standards.

Take the claim that the product sits outside the scope of criticism proper to platformers.

How will we evaluate that claim? I don't think we can just accept it without question. It's saying to critics: hey, don't judge me that way (maybe judge me this way instead). Well, why should the critic listen to them? Maybe he should, maybe not, depending on what he's trying to do with his critique. If your purpose to big up your friend, it may be unkind and improper to judge his arty sidescroller by standards of professional games and cutting edge complexity. I'd wager that kindness to developers is not Icy's concern.

[Will try to respond to every new question... oh boy...]

[Derek]

Regarding genres, I'm curious: in icycalm's Spelunky review he said that a roguelike is defined as a dungeon crawler that lacks a save feature, but I think most roguelike developers, including Glenn Wichman himself, would argue that the randomized layouts are the defining feature of a roguelike:

http://www.roguetemple.com/interviews/glenn_wichman_interview/

IMHO, The quintessential feature of a Roguelike is that the computer creates a world for you to explore. The adventure has to be different every time, and the game has to be capable of surprising even its creators.

The next most important feature would be permadeath/no-saving, to make you replay the game over and over again and keep being "surprised".

Here's the definition that roguelike developers came up with at the 2008 Roguelike Convention, in which randomized dungeons are listed first: http://roguebasin.roguelikedevelopment.org/index.php?title=Berlin_Interpretation

This list can be used to determine how roguelike a game is. Missing some points does not mean the game is not a roguelike. Likewise, possessing some points does not mean the game is a roguelike.

As for whether it makes sense to say "how roguelike a game is", I point to icycalm's definition of a dungeon crawler as "a small-scale tactics game with a heavy exploration aspect". "Small-scale" and "Heavy" implies a gradient... how "heavy" does the exploration need to be in order for the game to be a dungeon crawler? How small the scale?

Similarly, his definition of "Metroidvania" as "a platformer involving lots of saving and backtracking". Let's forget for a moment that Metroidvania was originally coined to describe Castlevania games only (seriously, why would "vania" be in there at all otherwise - a better term would be Metroidlike)... how much saving and backtracking is required to make the game a Metroidvania? Wouldn't Super Mario World be considered a Metroidvania under that definition?

I don't know, his definitions feel made-up, vague, and untrue to the history of how the terms came about. Forget the fact that I advertised (and still advertise) Spelunky as a platformer that was "inspired by roguelikes"... is it really untrue to say Spelunky "has roguelike elements"? The game satisfies all but a handful of the high and low value factors defined by people who work within the genre.