stellarmind said:guess i've seen enough of tanix post to realize he's not pompous and it's just the way to translates his thoughts in a objective manner >.> like straight liquor. dry and on the rocks. errghhl. can be combustible only if you bring fire to it.
Yeah, I cut the emotion out, get to the point and am not afraid to challenge a persons logic. I also welcome others to do the same with me, but I won't tip toe over perceptions. If people don't understand me, they can ask, as it is obvious I am not senstive about over explaining my point. Those who make assumptions and then get upset, I am not too fond of and that is putting it... very delicately.
To me it seems you've taken a semantic approach to "what is a game?" which is pretty interesting to be reminded of now and again but for me "what is a game?" it's an art form; a vision. When someone comes up with a game idea; they think from the players perspective and form a mental image/projection on how that game will be to the player.. either when its just story, action, goals/objectives, sound, graphics etc. You do the same thing as an artist; you have a canvas and you paint, create and project on it. Hence "art form". Methods may differ but the end result comes from the developer(s) to the player.
With this, I find the problem isn't really a semantic one but more of a individual player one. Everyone sees things from a different angle; everyone has a different take (because everyones brought up different).. hence why fun and entertainment are subjective. If you really want to stop the arguments; you need to teach some of them that games are relative and subjective (like you pretty much just did); but also another problem is that developers in this era also "listen to the crowd"/growing trends for more sales; it's "normal" for big businesses todo this nowadays to see what's popular with there target audience and go with it. It's that listening which is the real cause of the arguments (generally). I understand why they do; for a few good reasons (mainly money) but I find it actually creates more problems than solves.. because not only does this cause player arguments but "too much listening" stagnates innovation and creativity: because it merges and copies other ideas/trends.. rather than push/try to innovate new ones.. it also creates game clones through the impact of the lowest common denominating ideas/trends (suprise suprise hi Apex/Fortnite/WoW clones). So what can we do about this?
Not much in reality.. Thing is I will say; in the olden days games were something you either accepted, rejected, remade or re-modded from your perspective. Point is: you as an invidual embraced the game for what it was. Nowadays it's flipped, the game tries to embrace everyone from it's perspective. Alot of people will see this post a negative; but it's not. It's really about tolerance for other peoples ideas and games. Sometimes in an argument there is no right or wrong side.
Nimryl said:To me it seems you've taken a semantic approach to "what is a game?" which is pretty interesting to be reminded of now and again but for me "what is a game?" it's an art form; a vision. When someone comes up with a game idea; they think from the players perspective and form a mental image/projection on how that game will be to the player.. either when its just story, action, goals/objectives, sound, graphics etc. You do the same thing as an artist; you have a canvas and you paint, create and project on it. Hence "art form". Methods may differ but the end result comes from the developer(s) to the player.
With this, I find the problem isn't really a semantic one but more of a individual player one. Everyone sees things from a different angle; everyone has a different take (because everyones brought up different).. hence why fun and entertainment are subjective. If you really want to stop the arguments; you need to teach some of them that games are relative and subjective (like you pretty much just did); but also another problem is that developers in this era also "listen to the crowd"/growing trends for more sales; it's "normal" for big businesses todo this nowadays to see what's popular with there target audience and go with it. It's that listening which is the real cause of the arguments. I understand why they do; for a few good reasons (mainly money) but I find it actually creates more problems than solves.. because not only does this cause player arguments but "too much listening" stagnates innovation and creativity: because it merges and copies other ideas/trends.. rather than push/try to innovate new ones.. it also creates game clones through the impact of the lowest common denominating ideas/trends (suprise suprise hi Apex/Fortnite/WoW clones). So what can we do about this?
Not much in reality.. Thing is I will say; in the olden days games were something you either accepted, rejected, remade or re-modded from your perspective. Point is: you as an invidual embraced the game for what it was. Nowadays it's flipped, the game tries to embrace everyone from it's perspective. Alot of people will see this post a negative; but it's not. It's really about tolerance for other peoples ideas and games. Sometimes in an argument there is no right or wrong side.
Actually, I took the literal approach, which is why I used definitions to EXACTLY specify the meaning of the words used.
Tanix said:Nope, that is not what I saying at all.
Really?
Tanix said:I am not talking down to you, I am merely pointing out we have differences and this is why there is constant conflict in the discussions about gaming. We have different goals and expectations and this can at times be at complete odds, where if you get what you want, I will not like the game, it will be no fun, and if I get what I want, you also will not like the game, it will not be fun.
Nephele said:Tanix said:Nope, that is not what I saying at all.
Really?
Tanix said:I am not talking down to you, I am merely pointing out we have differences and this is why there is constant conflict in the discussions about gaming. We have different goals and expectations and this can at times be at complete odds, where if you get what you want, I will not like the game, it will be no fun, and if I get what I want, you also will not like the game, it will not be fun.
Ok, now validate your point. Don't point to something and act like you have an argument. Use proper premise form and establish your claim. (ie don't use a "failure to state") How does this support your arument previously made?
Nimryl said:To me it seems you've taken a semantic approach to "what is a game?" which is pretty interesting to be reminded of now and again but for me "what is a game?" it's an art form; a vision. When someone comes up with a game idea; they think from the players perspective and form a mental image/projection on how that game will be to the player.. either when its just story, action, goals/objectives, sound, graphics etc. You do the same thing as an artist; you have a canvas and you paint, create and project on it. Hence "art form". Methods may differ but the end result comes from the developer(s) to the player.
With this, I find the problem isn't really a semantic one but more of a individual player one. Everyone sees things from a different angle; everyone has a different take (because everyones brought up different).. hence why fun and entertainment are subjective. If you really want to stop the arguments; you need to teach some of them that games are relative and subjective (like you pretty much just did); but also another problem is that developers in this era also "listen to the crowd"/growing trends for more sales; it's "normal" for big businesses todo this nowadays to see what's popular with there target audience and go with it. It's that listening which is the real cause of the arguments. I understand why they do; for a few good reasons (mainly money) but I find it actually creates more problems than solves.. because not only does this cause player arguments but "too much listening" stagnates innovation and creativity: because it merges and copies other ideas/trends.. rather than push/try to innovate new ones.. it also creates game clones through the impact of the lowest common denominating ideas/trends (suprise suprise hi Apex/Fortnite/WoW clones). So what can we do about this?
Not much in reality.. Thing is I will say; in the olden days games were something you either accepted, rejected, remade or re-modded from your perspective. Point is: you as an invidual embraced the game for what it was. Nowadays it's flipped, the game tries to embrace everyone from it's perspective. Alot of people will see this post a negative; but it's not. It's really about tolerance for other peoples ideas and games. Sometimes in an argument there is no right or wrong side.
rofl this reminds me of when sheldon is trying to teach penny what physics is in big bang theory XD
@Tanix :) -- I'm against you. I'm trying to say that yes it's litteral but it's not from my perspective. Just trying to say it's abit more than that.
stellarmind said:Nimryl said:To me it seems you've taken a semantic approach to "what is a game?" which is pretty interesting to be reminded of now and again but for me "what is a game?" it's an art form; a vision. When someone comes up with a game idea; they think from the players perspective and form a mental image/projection on how that game will be to the player.. either when its just story, action, goals/objectives, sound, graphics etc. You do the same thing as an artist; you have a canvas and you paint, create and project on it. Hence "art form". Methods may differ but the end result comes from the developer(s) to the player.
With this, I find the problem isn't really a semantic one but more of a individual player one. Everyone sees things from a different angle; everyone has a different take (because everyones brought up different).. hence why fun and entertainment are subjective. If you really want to stop the arguments; you need to teach some of them that games are relative and subjective (like you pretty much just did); but also another problem is that developers in this era also "listen to the crowd"/growing trends for more sales; it's "normal" for big businesses todo this nowadays to see what's popular with there target audience and go with it. It's that listening which is the real cause of the arguments. I understand why they do; for a few good reasons (mainly money) but I find it actually creates more problems than solves.. because not only does this cause player arguments but "too much listening" stagnates innovation and creativity: because it merges and copies other ideas/trends.. rather than push/try to innovate new ones.. it also creates game clones through the impact of the lowest common denominating ideas/trends (suprise suprise hi Apex/Fortnite/WoW clones). So what can we do about this?
Not much in reality.. Thing is I will say; in the olden days games were something you either accepted, rejected, remade or re-modded from your perspective. Point is: you as an invidual embraced the game for what it was. Nowadays it's flipped, the game tries to embrace everyone from it's perspective. Alot of people will see this post a negative; but it's not. It's really about tolerance for other peoples ideas and games. Sometimes in an argument there is no right or wrong side.
rofl this reminds me of when sheldon is trying to teach penny what physics is in big bang theory XD
You are making it worse Stellarmind. /smirk
Nimryl said:@Tanix :) -- I'm against you. I'm trying to say that yes it's litteral but it's not from my perspective.
Your perspective is irrelevant in the face of facts.
Sorry, but you don't get to feel your way through a position and ignore the reality of word definitions and basic understanding of concepts.
stellarmind said:Nimryl said:To me it seems you've taken a semantic approach to "what is a game?" which is pretty interesting to be reminded of now and again but for me "what is a game?" it's an art form; a vision. When someone comes up with a game idea; they think from the players perspective and form a mental image/projection on how that game will be to the player.. either when its just story, action, goals/objectives, sound, graphics etc. You do the same thing as an artist; you have a canvas and you paint, create and project on it. Hence "art form". Methods may differ but the end result comes from the developer(s) to the player.
With this, I find the problem isn't really a semantic one but more of a individual player one. Everyone sees things from a different angle; everyone has a different take (because everyones brought up different).. hence why fun and entertainment are subjective. If you really want to stop the arguments; you need to teach some of them that games are relative and subjective (like you pretty much just did); but also another problem is that developers in this era also "listen to the crowd"/growing trends for more sales; it's "normal" for big businesses todo this nowadays to see what's popular with there target audience and go with it. It's that listening which is the real cause of the arguments. I understand why they do; for a few good reasons (mainly money) but I find it actually creates more problems than solves.. because not only does this cause player arguments but "too much listening" stagnates innovation and creativity: because it merges and copies other ideas/trends.. rather than push/try to innovate new ones.. it also creates game clones through the impact of the lowest common denominating ideas/trends (suprise suprise hi Apex/Fortnite/WoW clones). So what can we do about this?
Not much in reality.. Thing is I will say; in the olden days games were something you either accepted, rejected, remade or re-modded from your perspective. Point is: you as an invidual embraced the game for what it was. Nowadays it's flipped, the game tries to embrace everyone from it's perspective. Alot of people will see this post a negative; but it's not. It's really about tolerance for other peoples ideas and games. Sometimes in an argument there is no right or wrong side.
rofl this reminds me of when sheldon is trying to teach penny what physics is in big bang theory XD
Tanix said:Ok, now validate your point. Don't point to something and act like you have an argument. Use proper premise form and establish your claim.
My point is that you have very specifically implied to Naunet and others that what they want is "wrong", and you are defending that by saying that if Pantheon were to do those things, it would end up making the game less fun (or "not fun") for you. When I mentioned in my own post that this sort of behavior was counterproductive, you responded with "Nope, that is not what I am saying at all'.
Communication is about how you are perceived. Perhaps you misunderstood my post above. I'll restate part of my original post (modified slightly for context) just to be sure.
The lesson we should be learning from these debates is not that one side or the other is wrong, but that the right answer is always, *always* in the middle somewhere. If we want our discussions to be productive we should focus on finding the middle ground, not on defending our positions or shouting down the other side.
Tanix said:Nimryl said:@Tanix :) -- I'm against you. I'm trying to say that yes it's litteral but it's not from my perspective.
Your perspective is irrelevant in the face of facts.
Sorry, but you don't get to feel your way through a position and ignore the reality of word definitions and basic understanding of concepts.
i'm just going leave this here XD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEIn3T6nDAo
stellarmind said:i'm just going leave this here XD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEIn3T6nDAo
Nimryl said:Tanix said:Nimryl said:@Tanix :) -- I'm against you. I'm trying to say that yes it's litteral but it's not from my perspective.
Your perspective is irrelevant in the face of facts.
Sorry, but you don't get to feel your way through a position and ignore the reality of word definitions and basic understanding of concepts.
Ahh your taking that approach. Then there is no reasoning with you... you've made a flat statement; there's not really much point to it that anyone can really contribute. You've stated the obvious.. I thought I'd chip-in with something abit more; which you've rejected it because it's non-literal. Fair enough; end of the discussion. Flat statement is flat statement. /nod.
Truth is truth. Anyway, the basic understanding of concepts were stated quite clearly. Tanix stated it well.
Syrif said:Nimryl said:Tanix said:Nimryl said:@Tanix :) -- I'm against you. I'm trying to say that yes it's litteral but it's not from my perspective.
Your perspective is irrelevant in the face of facts.
Sorry, but you don't get to feel your way through a position and ignore the reality of word definitions and basic understanding of concepts.
Ahh your taking that approach. Then there is no reasoning with you... you've made a flat statement; there's not really much point to it that anyone can really contribute. You've stated the obvious.. I thought I'd chip-in with something abit more; which you've rejected it because it's non-literal. Fair enough; end of the discussion. Flat statement is flat statement. /nod.Truth is truth. Anyway, I agree with Tanix.
Nephele said:Tanix said:Ok, now validate your point. Don't point to something and act like you have an argument. Use proper premise form and establish your claim.
My point is that you have very specifically implied to Naunet and others that what they want is "wrong", and you are defending that by saying that if Pantheon were to do those things, it would end up making the game less fun (or "not fun") for you. When I mentioned in my own post that this sort of behavior was counterproductive, you responded with "Nope, that is not what I am saying at all'.
Communication is about how you are perceived. Perhaps you misunderstood my post above. I'll restate part of my original post (modified slightly for context) just to be sure.
The lesson we should be learning from these debates is not that one side or the other is wrong, but that the right answer is always, *always* in the middle somewhere. If we want our discussions to be productive we should focus on finding the middle ground, not on defending our positions or shouting down the other side.
That isn't compromise, it is one side giving up to cater to the other. A compromise is when both sides gain and lose something. By adding convience, and mechanics that serve entertainment over game play, it isn't compromise, it is game play suffering. That was the point. Either we cater to entertainment, or we cater to game play. You can't logically appeal to both as the basic essence of a decision is to deminish game play when it is to attend to entertainment.
The goals are different between the two, that is the point. You can take a bunch of gamers who want game mechanics (ie consequence, failure, frustration in play, etc...to spur significance in achievement) and still come out with game play mechanics, but those seeking "entertainment" are concerned about their entertainment, not the mechanics. When they view a corpse run, they see it not as an obstacle that enriches the experience in succeeding over it, but as a hassle that is not "fun". For those who want a game, failures and consequence are extremely important, integral to the system, but for those who want to be entertained, it is just something that gets in their way. It is an issue of opposing idealogy and it doesn't mix, which is why compromise results with what we have in modern games today.
The more pantheon compromises,the more it becomes mainstream, the more it becomes less of a game and just an entertainment simulator.
There can be no compromise from the premise of someone who judges simply by the position of being "entertained" as it taints the process of having properly balanced game play. It is not compatible.
Sorry, I just didn't want to leave Nephele hanging.
Hope that helps Nephele, but I am not trying to "win for my own ideas", rather I want a game, period.., with consequence, and compromise weakens the very thing that makes a game a game.
Nimryl said:Syrif said:Nimryl said:Tanix said:Nimryl said:@Tanix :) -- I'm against you. I'm trying to say that yes it's litteral but it's not from my perspective.
Your perspective is irrelevant in the face of facts.
Sorry, but you don't get to feel your way through a position and ignore the reality of word definitions and basic understanding of concepts.
Ahh your taking that approach. Then there is no reasoning with you... you've made a flat statement; there's not really much point to it that anyone can really contribute. You've stated the obvious.. I thought I'd chip-in with something abit more; which you've rejected it because it's non-literal. Fair enough; end of the discussion. Flat statement is flat statement. /nod.Truth is truth. Anyway, I agree with Tanix.
Well if you wanna take the literal route then yes, you and Tanix are correct. As a flat statement there is nothing really to argue against in the first place. I was merely adding my own perspective into the mix. Which was rejected for being non-literal and I understand. So yeah, nothing more to say really.
That was the entire point of this discussion Nimryl . If you take a subjective position on a subjective topic, I will not take issue, I may disagree that pie is better than cake, but I will accept that this is an issue of personal taste.
When it comes to objective topics, subjective evaluation is not relevant as there is no place for it when it concerns a quantifiable topic. So while I respect that you may "feel" a certain way aboiut some things, those feelings can never have purchase in topics where we have quantifiable fact (ie literal definitions of words to establish clear meaning).
This isn't a slight on you, but if we start inserting subjective influence on objectively established topics, it is essentially insanity.
i can understand why consequences are frustrating for players with time constraints. if you have 1 hr of playtime, you don't want to spend 15 mins looking for a group, 15 for traveling, 15 looking at a grey screen and leaving yourself with a 15 min window to complete the content.
Tanix said:The " themselves, or according to a specific system " implies competing against a machine, a requirement, or standard (ie a solo player competes against the games mechanics to achieve a condition of victory).So I think your disagreement was based on a misunderstanding, am I correct?
Maybe. I didn't read the "according to a specific system" as meaning against a machine.
*backs away slowly*
Ghool said: We have enough entertainment in video games to last a lifetime. I also want a game, not a devoid amusement park ride that straps me in and I follow the rails. I want to be challenged. I want things to be difficult. I want some things to suck so bad I avoid it at all costs. Not everything has to revolve around pleasure when designing a game, and this is where modern design falls down, and why you hear so many nostalgic comments about 'The good Ole days'. There is no challenge in modern gaming. There is no feeling of accomplishment against the odds. Its no longer about the challenge. Its no longer about using your wits and skill to surmount the obstacles put in front of you. It's all boiled down to ' Did I get that thing or not?' There is no level of achievement anymore. It's become so blase that any hinges you accomplish is merely about data points and has nothing at all to how an obstacle feels when it's overcome. And that is what's missing from modern games. They're missing the game part. It's all about equal opportunity, when it shouldn't be about that at all if you want to actually feel a sense of accomplishment with a task. I haven't felt that way about a game in over 20 years. I really hope VR puts the 'game' back into gaming. I also hope Pantheon is a good gaming experience, and not just more empty entertainment for anyone not willing to understand that the key to feeling an accomplishment is the struggle and suffering that comes with wanting to achieve it. Games these days are too padded against any disappointment or frustration. Which incedentally spurs one to act and overcome those obstacles.
you can thank society for what we see in modern day gaming. self indulgence, materialism, instant gratification, everyone is a winner mentality.