Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Editor of Australias biggest PC gaming rag talks AoD

Gragt

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
1,864,860
Location
Dans Ton Cul
Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin
Some intelligent people with a knowledge of old games play Oblivion and find it fun for what it is. There is nothing wrong with that. RC seems aware of the strenghts and flaws of the game and I don't recall him calling it the "best game EVAR".

Playing Oblivion (or any other mediocre game for that matter) does not make you stupid. But I saw some stupid reactions about it like one reviewer who compared it to a spiritual successor to the Ultima serie (he did not say if he was thinking of 9 or another episode though). Damn French.
 

Gnidrologist

CONDUCTOR
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
20,856
Location
is cold
NN said:
That's my point. You guys seem to want to debate the person rather than the arguments the person puts forth. You're attempting to create a situation where the only people who have valid opinions are the people whose opinions align with your own. If they don't, well they are deficient in some way. Stupid, lacking knowledge, mainstream pandering weasels, something which allows you to disqualify their opinion.
So. Where are examples? From what you say i gather there are dozens of them here. Any link to posts, where those good balanced reviews in which all the pros and cons are thoroughly weighted, are bashed by Hivemind?
 

Naked Ninja

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
1,664
Location
South Africa
Loaded question, any review I point at you will shoot down because it doesn't talk about feature X which you consider the end of the world. But if you want some good examples of what I am talking about, this thread is full of "if the person doesn't hold my opinion, they are just wrong headed" type statements.

For example, S8 couldn't even let ElPresident have this statement :

The fact is that while most hardcore RPGers don't like Oblivion other gamers generally do.

response :

Don't fall into that trap. Could you see David and Margaret dishing out the stars for popular trash like Independence Day? Even if they did, they'd be very clear to acknowledge it as a "popcorn" film.

Of course nobody can deny that Oblivion is a popular title, but let me put the argument
to you that it's not popular for what it actually is, but rather popular conceptually.

Translation : ignorant noobs don't even know what they like.
...

I never found it, so that time felt like time wasted to me, but for a player who wants their games to be time wasters, it's perfect.

Edward :

None of the side you are arguing against are claiming anything (at least to the best of my knowledge) other than the fact that people who find Oblivion to be a great RPG are ignorant when it comes to the idea of the RPG genre.

Simple, he's ignorant of good RPGs.

Gragt :

There is nothing wrong in enjoying trash, the point is to not think that trash is excellent because you enjoy it

BN (while this is a fairly legitimate question, it still subtly implies that reviews which disagree are doing so because of ignorance, especially in light of the berating ElPresidente was receiving. Some may be, fair enough, but dismissing any such disagreement as being based in ignorance is not valid. I may be reading more into this statement than is actually there, I admit, if I am, sorry BN) :

what is the function of reviews if they only serve to affirm a decision based on ignorance?

Do you need more examples Gnid? Use the search function. ;)
 

Gnidrologist

CONDUCTOR
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
20,856
Location
is cold
No. I wasn't thinking of this thread for a source of examples, as we are only exchanging general opinions on the game journalism issue here. You're jabbing at the criticism of the general gaming media, that has been a prominent part of agenda here and on NMA. And mostly justified.

Bear in mind. I used to read commercial gaming magazines and reviews on sites like gamespot thinking those were at least moderately useful, if not a bit shallow. That was some 6-7 years ago. Maybe i lacked the knowledge and critical thinking then, but i doubt that's the case.

From what i see now, 9 commercial gaming media outlets out of 10 are serving merely as marketing vehicle without intention to actually make critical review of the product.
Notion that this is purely do to the fact that it happens to be reviewers opinion is bullshit, because even reviews that give bad scores mostly fail to acknowledge coherent reasoning why it did.

BN was talking about the lack of substance in those articles. The substance that actually is required to consider the article a critical review.

Also. Journalist if he expects to be considered as one, *should* be knowledgable of the field. No other way around. You don't read some young shmucks scribble on the latest pop/rock album in which he lauds it as the best of the century, if you know that author's knowledge confines mostly around 80's trashmetal and hiphop. He may have an opinion, but it's bullshit opinion regardless.
 

Castanova

Prophet
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
2,949
Location
The White Visitation
Naked Ninja said:
As the medium becomes more and more mature, the basic attribute of "entertainment" value becomes less and less important to the professional critic. How the game fits into the medium historically now and how the game will fit in the coming years becomes really the leading measure of how good the game is.

Why? This is why the snoobish critics are really irrelevant to most media consumers. When I pay for a review that is exactly what I DON'T want. You are mistaking the purpose of critics. They aren't there to be snobby intellectuals. They are paid to perform a service for me, the consumer, to help me make informed decisions when I purchase entertainment. So the basic attribute of "entertainment" is NOT irrelevant.

But you're contradicting yourself. You're very fond of saying that everything is relative - one person might find Oblivion completely awful while another might find it the very pinnacle of video game entertainment. So what exactly is the value in a stranger telling you that game X is entertaining?

No, as was said before by dagorkan, a professional review should be heavily weighted toward objective analysis. It should clearly describe and critique the fundamental game mechanics and then it should analyze the game in the context of similar games that have come before it and games that will most likely be released in the future.

Some reviewers even fail to mention the fundamental game mechanics! Assuming they manage to include that, though, typically the only useful information I can gather from a "professional" review is when they outline the game's flaws. Telling me the game is "fun" and a true example of "next-gen gaming" is worthless. Rather, there should be a strong attempt at analyzing and presenting exactly WHY the game is fun or not fun, unique or not unique, important or irrelevant.

I'd love to see an analysis of why the core gameplay of Oblivion is fun (achievement points do not count as core gameplay). In every gushing review I read, I was treated to a host of superlatives but without any supporting arguments.
 

Naked Ninja

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
1,664
Location
South Africa
But you're contradicting yourself.

No, I'm not.

So what exactly is the value in a stranger telling you that game X is entertaining?

Generally, they tell you why. Your problem is you don't find their why satisfactory.

It should clearly describe and critique the fundamental game mechanics and then it should analyze the game in the context of similar games that have come before it and games that will most likely be released in the future.

And every sci-fi movie review should breakdown and analyze every core element and scene in a movie and compare them to every other sci fi movie in the past and future, yes? No. Commercial review not academic essay.

I'd love to see an analysis of why the core gameplay of Oblivion is fun (achievement points do not count as core gameplay). In every gushing review I read, I was treated to a host of superlatives but without any supporting arguments.

Oh please. Analysis of why it is fun? That is like saying someone should be able to prove why one woman is more beautiful than another. There is no mathematical proof for this. It is simple opinion, reviewers can describe what they like or don't like and you can disagree or agree. The value comes from learning which critics opinion matches your own the closest and then using them as a litmus test before you buy.

I'm sorry, you're trying to argue your way out of the reality, which is that many, many gamers found it fun. You didn't, but that doesn't invalidate any reviewers opinion that the game is fun, nor can you use it as proof that they are ignorant, nor can you claim they only liked it conceptually.
 

Gragt

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
1,864,860
Location
Dans Ton Cul
Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin
Naked Ninja said:
For example, S8 couldn't even let ElPresident have this statement :

The fact is that while most hardcore RPGers don't like Oblivion other gamers generally do.

response :

Don't fall into that trap. Could you see David and Margaret dishing out the stars for popular trash like Independence Day? Even if they did, they'd be very clear to acknowledge it as a "popcorn" film.

Of course nobody can deny that Oblivion is a popular title, but let me put the argument
to you that it's not popular for what it actually is, but rather popular conceptually.

Translation : ignorant noobs don't even know what they like.
...

I see it as people see the concepts of Oblivion repeated so often that they believe them to be true. The gaming press was unanimous that it was the greatest game ever made, gave you the freedom to do whatever you wanted to do and every npc felt unique with its own schedule every day, etc. It works like that for many people.

The irony now is that the same press is starting to point the flaws of the game, mostly in preparation to Fallout 3 to say that it does things better than Oblivion and most hardcore Oblivion fans even agree that the game is very flawed and did not held all its promises (but you can solve this with a hundred of mods).

It's very easy to convince yourself that a flaw isn't there because the whole gaming world is talking of how perfect this game is. It's a bit like the Emperor's New Clothes. And if you compare it to what was done before, you can see it isn't very original or well-implemented and it's starting to show.
 

Naked Ninja

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
1,664
Location
South Africa
The irony now is that the same press is starting to point the flaws of the game

Or maybe they don't think those flaws as game ruining as you do? In the fallout flaws thread, people have pointed out that throwing sucks. And some skills are barely used. This is a flaw. Unfinished quests, a flaw. Wacky AI at times, also a flaw. But what made the game great for you totally outweighs those things, again, for you. Reviewers saying Oblivion has flaws isn't proof enough, sorry.

You're using these statements as proof they didn't really like Oblivion as much as they thought they did, but what if I did the same, took a list of Fallout's flaws from that thread and went "Aha! See, you don't really like Fallout as much as you think you do, you just like the concept! Otherwise why are you posting this list of flaws?"

You see how lame that statement would be, if I frame it in the context of a game you think great? It's not proof at all.
 

J1M

Arcane
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,606
Naked Ninja said:
Oh please. Analysis of why it is fun? That is like saying someone should be able to prove why one woman is more beautiful than another. There is no mathematical proof for this. It is simple opinion, reviewers can describe what they like or don't like and you can disagree or agree.
Sorry, I have to call bullshit on this. Many studies have been done on the mathematics behind beauty. Here is an example of a principle that most people are familiar with, the golden ratio: http://www.intmath.com/Numbers/mathOfBeauty.php Would you also claim that magnetism is a mystical force beyond our understanding?

Furthermore, research can and has been done on things like how responsive controls should feel for games, what field of vision is best, etc. Compare Mario 64 to anything similar of the time period or the jumping in Metroid Prime to other first person games. Valve is famous for charting a huge number of statistics during play testing in order to tune the flow of their levels. The mathematics of fun, if you will.

Sadly, most of this research is assumed to be game specific and obviously not shared with competitors. Also, many companies will just buy the latest and greatest game from the genre they are shooting for and tell their QA testers they want to copy a mechanic without really understanding it. Real world example: Radical Entertainment tried to exactly copy the e-brake from GTA3 for Simpsons: Road Rage.

Any review that does not give the WHY as to whether something is fun or not would be well suited to be replaced by a single word "Buy/Rent/Avoid". You seem to think that fun is so esoteric that intelligent reviewers cannot easily pick out that pokemon is fun because it combines the progression of levelling inside a collection construct with a lite puzzle mechanic represented by battles. Or that nobody could see that the cute veneer makes it more accessible.
 

Naked Ninja

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
1,664
Location
South Africa
Sorry, I have to call bullshit on this. Many studies have been done on the mathematics behind beauty. Here is an example of a principle that most people are familiar with, the golden ratio: http://www.intmath.com/Numbers/mathOfBeauty.php

This must be why we all have the same taste in members of the opposite gender. I call reverse bullshit.

The mathematics of fun, if you will.

No, this maps average play experience (like how often they die on average, how long a level takes, etc etc) of people who already enjoy shooters. It doesn't map shit for people who don't like shooters.

You seem to think that fun is so esoteric that intelligent reviewers cannot easily pick out that pokemon is fun because it combines the progression of levelling inside a collection construct with a lite puzzle mechanic represented by battles

That is not what makes it fun. You could have 3 games all with the same principle gameplay concept of pokemon yet 2 suck and 1 doesn't. You don't need to pick apart the mechanics to me, just say "it's a collect and battle creatures game, with light puzzle elements". Then tell me which specific elements make it great or crap. Not a 5 page essay examining each feature and it's context within the history of every other game in the genre. In a similar manner you don't need to explain the mechanics of RTS to your reader every time, or go much further than saying Oblivion plays as a free roaming FPS RPG. All you need to do is discuss significant features/problems, unless the game deviates wildly from all the other games of a similar type which gamers have experienced.
 

Gnidrologist

CONDUCTOR
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
20,856
Location
is cold
This is useless. By NN's logic it's perfectly valid to accept that throwing poo at each other, while sitting in the thorn bush can be fun if one consider it so. All depends on actuator and there's no way to even make common assumptions about anything.

Now people usually accuse me of being too relativistic, but this is just plane stupid. That makes review as a possible tool it originally was meant to be, completely loose it's relevance.

ZOMG TIS ONLY UR OPINION attitude is retarded. It brings back the memories of endless threads about what is and what is not Turn Based combat popping almost every month back in the day.
 

Naked Ninja

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
1,664
Location
South Africa
No, I have explained this (and it's not like it's rocket science). It is not useless because you find a reviewer whose opinions align with your own (you learn this through experience) and then you use them as a litmus test before making purchases.

This is why I tried Space Rangers 2, Mask of the Betrayer and Gothic 3. Because the opinions of people whose likes and dislikes match my own to a fair extent, the codex, said they were worth trying. Not because I believe you're all just so much more knowledgeable than everyone else on the planet, lol, that's arrogance. Because you like elements in RPGs I like. Similar likes, that's all it boils down to. Doesn't matter if someone comes with a 20 page essay on why some western movie is the greatest western movie in the history of western movies, I don't like westerns.
 

sqeecoo

Arcane
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
2,615
Yes fine NN, but for you to be able to just find a reviewer that matches your taste and go with his opinion (as opposed to reading and analytic, objective review and deciding on whether you agree with the reviewers evaluation) then you would need (option A) a variety of opinions from professional journalists, each declaring their taste so you know which one to trust. This way you have to have declared dumbing-down lovers, complexity lovers etc. This is not the current situation; currently, the media unanimously gush over every high-budget game. End of story. So how are you supposed to find a professional reviewer who matches your taste when they all actually have the same taste?
This approach would also be complex and dangerous - because every reviewer would have to declare his allegiance, and because a reviewer might declare himself an oblivion lover but be a codexer in disguise - it's much simpler when reviewers actually explain why the like the game in the review, which is option


Th other option (option B) is what people here are saying - for reviewers to enumerate and analyze the strengths and faults of the game, pass judgement, and explain it. That way you can read a review, see what the reviewer praises and criticizes, and see if the game will suit your taste. This is less complicated than a). But selecting this option means that you can't, as a professional reviewer, praise oblivion to the high heavens. You have to enumerate it's faults, but you are free to argue that they are not very significant.
 

Naked Ninja

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
1,664
Location
South Africa
a ) Such broad categorizations aren't really enough. Most reviewers do mention if they are action nuts or RPG fans in their reviews of such games. The guy who reviewed NWN2, I think it was, explicitly stated he didn't like RPGs in his RPG review. They often do declare their colours. But even within RPG lovers there are a thousand different stripes. You learn through experience and comparing your opinion to the reviewers stated opinion. It's like life, lol.

b) You do have to enumerate it's faults. But again, what is and isn't a fault is a matter of opinion unless you are talking broken quests. The fact that NPCs change voices mid-speech is a fault. The positive or negative value of the quest compass is a matter of opinion, all they need to do is mention how it works, which I think many did. You see the difference?
 

sqeecoo

Arcane
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
2,615
Naked Ninja said:
b) You do have to enumerate it's faults. But again, what is and isn't a fault is a matter of opinion unless you are talking broken quests. The fact that NPCs change voices mid-speech is a fault. The positive or negative value of the quest compass is a matter of opinion, all they need to do is mention how it works, which I think many did. You see the difference?

Yes, but none of them said it might be bad, and none of them said why they thought it was good. None of them analyzed the pros and cons, none of them disagreed, they all universally praised the game with no arguments (except "it's GREAT!!!!!").

So while a reviewer is free to argue that the quest compass is a great feature, he has to mention the potential drawbacks (although he can argue that they are not significant). Some reviewers might downplay it, some might complain a lot about it, some might even like it (while acknowledging that some do not). But they must discuss the feature, so that readers can make up their own mind, whether they finally agree with the reviewer or not. A situation where NONE of the reviewers seriously consider even the possibility that someone might not like something about oblivion is just silly, and makes all those reviews useless.
 

J1M

Arcane
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,606
Naked Ninja said:
Sorry, I have to call bullshit on this. Many studies have been done on the mathematics behind beauty. Here is an example of a principle that most people are familiar with, the golden ratio: http://www.intmath.com/Numbers/mathOfBeauty.php

This must be why we all have the same taste in members of the opposite gender. I call reverse bullshit.

Wrong. Whether you like big butts or not, there are certain universals such as preferring women who are closer to symmetrical than not, those with clear skin, and a waist to hip ratio close to 0.7 that people find attractive. Why? They are indicators of genetic fitness and overall health. These facts are well established. The information is there if you care to look.

Nobody claimed that everyone thinks one person is the most attractive. Your exception is pointless because you misunderstood the premise. Outliers exist in practically every sample you could draw randomly. They prove nothing.

I get the impression that math is foreign to you because the logic you are using is just plain bad here. Next you are going to claim that because almost everyone is married almost everyone who is unattractive is married and that must mean at least one person thinks they are really attractive... completely ignoring that with a limited number of attractive people some are going to be forced to settle.

Naked Ninja said:
The mathematics of fun, if you will.

No, this maps average play experience (like how often they die on average, how long a level takes, etc etc) of people who already enjoy shooters. It doesn't map shit for people who don't like shooters.
Wrong again. First off, their system is far more sophisticated than you claim. They map health, ammo, and time spent in a location over time as well as where people die over time. This allows them to adjust the flow and pace of a level and add some lighting to a door people are missing or put in a cache of weapons etc. While average play statistics are part of this analysis, it's hardly what they are really interested in.

One of the things they are most interested in is bringing in someone like Gabe Newell's father who doesn't play video games and seeing how he does (I assume on the easiest setting). The testing is specifically to make the whole experience more fun, not to have a mean death rate of 3 per level on normal for people who play 2 new shooters a year.

Naked Ninja said:
You seem to think that fun is so esoteric that intelligent reviewers cannot easily pick out that pokemon is fun because it combines the progression of levelling inside a collection construct with a lite puzzle mechanic represented by battles

That is not what makes it fun. You could have 3 games all with the same principle gameplay concept of pokemon yet 2 suck and 1 doesn't. You don't need to pick apart the mechanics to me, just say "it's a collect and battle creatures game, with light puzzle elements". Then tell me which specific elements make it great or crap. Not a 5 page essay examining each feature and it's context within the history of every other game in the genre. In a similar manner you don't need to explain the mechanics of RTS to your reader every time, or go much further than saying Oblivion plays as a free roaming FPS RPG. All you need to do is discuss significant features/problems, unless the game deviates wildly from all the other games of a similar type which gamers have experienced.
Wrong yet again. There have been attempts to deconstruct fun into several distinct activities so as to better understand how to achieve it in games. I believe that 11 different types were identified.

A few off the top of my head that I remember are:
-Challenge
-Collection
-Exploration
-Building
-Destruction
-Learning in a safe environment
-Completion
-Something to do with resource management

Personally, I find collection and exploration mechanics to be less enjoyable than the others, so if I read in a game review that a game relies heavily on both of these I would suspect that the game is not for me. It doesn't take 5 pages (why do 5 pages scare you but not 4? lol) to do this, and it doesn't require a comparison to every other game out there.

It DOES, however, require the person writing the review to have relevant background knowledge. Without it you have the rediculous situation of a reviewer giving game X a 10/10 "because it is super fun" when game Y came out two weeks prior in the same genre with similar features and is not only more polished but more fun. The only reason game X gets a 10 is because the reviewer had no idea game Y existed. What is he then supposed to give game Y when he plays it after game X if he enjoys it far more... 12/10?

Reading that a game was "immersive" for the guy who played through the game in 2 days on-site of the developer after volunteering for it at the magazine he works for tells me jack-shit.
 

Gragt

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
1,864,860
Location
Dans Ton Cul
Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin
Naked Ninja said:
You're using these statements as proof they didn't really like Oblivion as much as they thought they did [...]

Not what I said. Those who enjoyed the game enjoyed it for what it is, same logic for those who disliked it. I do not deny that at all. If a game has a flaw, let's say a skill being useless, AI not working properly or whatever else, it's objective, you simply can't pretend it isn't there (unless it is fixed later). Now the subjective part is that someome may be able to ignore it but for someone else it might completely ruin the whole experience. And that's fine, everyone is different and has his/her own tastes. But you can't deny that something broken or absent is working properly, at most you can say you do not care about it.

So maybe I wasn't clear enough but what I said is that at release the gaming press was praising the game with one voice as basically flawless yet a couple of years later the same people criticized the game and pointed out its flaws. I know some very ardent defenders of Oblivion who also finally acknowledge that. Now how come some aspects that were reported as working perfectly now are being pointed at for not delivering what was promised?

As I said, repeat a lie many times and people will start to believe it and convince themselves it's true.
 

DefJam101

Arcane
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
8,047
Location
Cybernegro HQ
Naked Ninja, what are you talking about?

People have already had these same arguments over and over again, why would we waste or time replying to this thread to say anything other than "he is a dumbfuck".

WHY AGE OF DECADENCE FREAKS ME OUT

- Uses a tweaked version of the Tribes 2 engine

Why does this freak him out, exactly? It is an indie game, indie games are not expected to have advanced graphics or technical innovation. Suppose it actually was a (proven) shitty engine, some of the best games ever have been made on shitty engines.. and they weren't even indy games.

Also, it should be quite clear that this is *not* an "action-y" game (from what he himself said), and that the choice of engine should not mean much gameplay-wise, anyways. Bad FPS won't be a problem, because it is not a fast-paced game. Bad quality should also not be a problem, since this is an indie game; low graphical detail is almost expected. This is a very stupid thing to be freaked out about at this stage in the game's life.

- Turn-based combat with action points (to match graphics)

This isn't "opinion" or personal preference, he's outright insulting the action-point system without any justification for it. He's also directly relating the graphics engine to the gameplay, as if a game with bad graphics *must* have (in his mind) bad gameplay.

- Developer too lazy to research real Ancient Rome

This, as has been said, is also bullshit. If you didn't notice the people attacking this statement then you need to go back and read the thread.

Also, just in case he was RIGHT-.... it is a fictional game, it does not claim to be historically accurate. (As far as I know)




As for you constantly talking about how people don't give respect to Bioware and such; just for an example.... I remember when Mass Effect was in it's beta stages; there were several news articles on it about how it looked intriguing and had deep elements despite being a console game. People didn't just fucking dismiss it, they GAVE IT A CHANCE. They reviewed it; it sucked.


Just because people don't like games doesn't mean they didn't play the damn game and give it a chance, and just because they don't post why they think this EVERY SINGLE post doesn't mean they aren't supporting their arguments.

Stop looking for loopholes; no one cares that you like KOTOR and such, I liked them too.. It's not the end of the world if other people don't like it and it doesn't somehow make you cool if you say otherwise.
 

Naked Ninja

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
1,664
Location
South Africa
Wrong. Whether you like big butts or not, there are certain universals such as preferring women

Yes, and there are certain universals in gaming, like clean, friendly interfaces. But these generalities are far from the complete story.

Your exception is pointless because you misunderstood the premise.

I understand it fine.

Wrong again. First off, their system is far more sophisticated than you claim. They map health, ammo, and time spent in a location over time as well as where people die over time. This allows them to adjust the flow and pace of a level and add some lighting to a door people are missing or put in a cache of weapons etc.

Yes, this is what I said. They are mapping the average gameplay of the people who already find that kind of thing fun. This is not enough to map why certain people like chess and don't like shooters. It isn't enough to discover what is and isn't fun for each individual, because it varies so greatly.

The testing is specifically to make the whole experience more fun

Thats like applying makieup to a brunette to make her prettier. Still doesn't explain why guy A likes blondes and guy B likes brunettes.


There have been attempts to deconstruct fun into several distinct activities so as to better understand how to achieve it in games.

Thats nice. There have been attempts to deconstruct the allure of the Mona Lisa as well. They should put all 11 aspects in a western setting, I'll still hate it. Simply having element X doesn't make a game fun or not, sorry.


Your arguments aren't very strong mate.
 

J1M

Arcane
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,606
Naked Ninja said:
Wrong. Whether you like big butts or not, there are certain universals such as preferring women

Yes, and there are certain universals in gaming, like clean, friendly interfaces. But these generalities are far from the complete story.

Your exception is pointless because you misunderstood the premise.

I understand it fine.

Wrong again. First off, their system is far more sophisticated than you claim. They map health, ammo, and time spent in a location over time as well as where people die over time. This allows them to adjust the flow and pace of a level and add some lighting to a door people are missing or put in a cache of weapons etc.

Yes, this is what I said. They are mapping the average gameplay of the people who already find that kind of thing fun. This is not enough to map why certain people like chess and don't like shooters. It isn't enough to discover what is and isn't fun for each individual, because it varies so greatly.

The testing is specifically to make the whole experience more fun

Thats like applying makieup to a brunette to make her prettier. Still doesn't explain why guy A likes blondes and guy B likes brunettes.


There have been attempts to deconstruct fun into several distinct activities so as to better understand how to achieve it in games.

Thats nice. There have been attempts to deconstruct the allure of the Mona Lisa as well. They should put all 11 aspects in a western setting, I'll still hate it. Simply having element X doesn't make a game fun or not, sorry.


Your arguments aren't very strong mate.
Even sniping sections of my post, your reply is wanting.

You are lacking knowledge and experience with the subjects at hand to enable a proper criticism of them.

QED this whole thread.
 

Gnidrologist

CONDUCTOR
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
20,856
Location
is cold
So, do you prefere that the same publicist would write articles on the latest George Michael lp and at the same time evaluate recent interpertation of Mahler's 5th and try to weedle out the ''fun factor'' using the same criteria?
Oh gosh, the rhytm section is non existant in that addazhieeto piece. I mean, come on.
 

Elwro

Arcane
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
11,746
Location
Krakow, Poland
Divinity: Original Sin Wasteland 2
Fun Fact: Bernstein once made the addazhieetto from Mahler's 5th last 16 minutes, iirc. (It was used as a sort of a "requiem" for Mahler.)
 

Castanova

Prophet
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
2,949
Location
The White Visitation
That's only a fun fact in your opinion. Other people might just as well not find that fact to be fun at all.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom