258 réponses à ce sujet

[Ortaya Alevli]

75% of people prefer to make up statistics because they think others will not care to do the research and prove otherwise.

[Dave of Canada]

TheMufflon wrote...

I didn't say they were made up by you.

EDIT: Also, it says Fable, not Fable 2.

If you listened to the presentation, they were trying to explain why they were changing much of Fable 2's features for Fable 3. The presentation itself was saying how Fable 2 sold 3.5 million and how they were aiming for 5 million.

[upsettingshorts]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

75% of people prefer to make up statistics because they think others will not care to do the research and prove otherwise.

Hah!  Yep.

Then the really clever ones realize they don't have to stop at statistics and can make up all kinds of evidence to support their arguments.

Then they run for office.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 octobre 2010 - 01:26 .

[ShrinkingFish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...
Were you/Are you a philosophy major? Or
did you just study how to construct solid arguments in a philosophy
class or from a philosopher at some point?

Former political science student and current history buff - one of my favorite historical figures is Cicero, FWIW.  My take on poli sci - and part of the reason I didn't pursue it - was at the time of my choosing it I viewed it as "applied philosophy."

Otherwise, to answer your question - it's simpler than that. I tend to view arguments the same way one might view sports. I play to win, and I practice at it. Granted, I'm very much an amateur and have no professional rhetorical training or anything of the sort. I throw out fallacies all the time, often without realizing it until later.

Alright cool. So you argue by practice and not by training. Just that I noticed you applied many of the basic laws of philosophical argument throughout your discussions. The various types of fallacies and what not, false appeals to authority, false appeals to majority rule and the like.

Good stuff. I like reading your arguments.

[TheMufflon]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

And that leaves us with some kind of number that... that is just... tiny.

We, the few. The Proud.

[ShrinkingFish]

TheMufflon wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

And that leaves us with some kind of number that... that is just... tiny.

We, the few. The Proud.

So by my count that's two. Between the two of us we could form the most exclusive gentlemen's club in the world.

[svendigo]

I've read somewhere that when a game enters a cutscene that does not involve any interactivity with the player, the player disengages automatically from the 'role-playing' mode and goes into the 'listen-to-the-story' mode. When done well, the player would not object to the experience, and many times would feel a greater sense of completion about the game because the cutscene has added depth to characters and/or objects that otherwise he/she would not be able to appreciate.

Many novels use this technique to build side characters, and even main characters who isn't the protagonist.

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...
To be fair, that's a good thing. The majority of people are, by definition, average, and average isn't good. Average is low tier, low caliber. Average are the people who find Family Guy funny and think Avatar was the greatest movie of all time, as opposed to Citizen Kane, China Town, or even Goodfellas. 

Disliking what the majority like is pretentious, but pretentious isn't bad.

Must... resist... urge... to get into rhetorical debate.

I failed.

Whoa there.  While I'm certainly not going to argue that popularity is indicative of quality - that would be a fallacy known as argumentum ad populum - the inverse is also not necessarily true either.  An appeal to authority is equally falacious because neither is strictly relevant. 

Just because Sylvius subscribes to a particular set of principles regarding CRPGs and his evaluation of many modern conventions of the genre are in contrast to popular opinion does not - in of itself - make him correct.

Nor does the fact that the "masses" disagree with him and buy up DA:O and Mass Effect 1-2 in bunches make them correct either.  

First off, they're all subjective opinions and matters of taste.  We can argue objectively over things like semantics - the difference between plot and story for example - but ultimately the point of these discussions is about personal preference.  We therefore end up debating each other over whose explanation of what they prefer is the best and most worthy.  Sylvius, despite the fact I disagree with him entirely, articulates his opinions forcefully and convincingly, and I have no issues figuring out what he's trying to say and why.  This makes him a good poster and as such I find his opinions - again though I disagree with them - worthy of discussion.

There are dozens and dozens of posters on here - people I may or may not agree with - who couldn't form an argument or construct a coherent explanation to save their lives.  And those threads I either respond to with sarcasm or don't respond at all.  I like to think that the fact I put effort into my responses in threads like these is a gesture of respect.

I don't actually think I'm going to change his mind.

The point I would make is that the best will always be unpopular, as is the nature of our society. To be successful you must appeal to the masses, whether it is consciously downgrading your product to a standard that will be met graciously by the average, or whether it is creating a product that is average because you are incapable of a quality that is above average.

Things that are above average will be met with disinterest and hostility by the average, who are incapable of appreciating it's value. If we accept that success in production of goods is sales, than something above average will not be as successful as something that is average. 

The trend of main stream acceptance of gaming is correlated to the industry's move towards the average. The question arises was it moving from below average upwards or above average downwards? Someone below average is incapable of being average, however someone average is capable of being below average. Things that are below average can't become average, but things that are above average can.

In summary, gaming has been dumbed down to fit the needs of the many, as opposed to the needs of the superior.

[ShrinkingFish]

svendigo wrote...

I've read somewhere that when a game enters a cutscene that does not involve any interactivity with the player, the player disengages automatically from the 'role-playing' mode and goes into the 'listen-to-the-story' mode. When done well, the player would not object to the experience, and many times would feel a greater sense of completion about the game because the cutscene has added depth to characters and/or objects that otherwise he/she would not be able to appreciate.
Many novels use this technique to build side characters, and even main characters who isn't the protagonist.

I only quoted it because it bears repeating...

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Actually his sentence was so all over the place that it almost defies correction. He's talking about Sylvius being contrarian, and then uses the fact that his opinions are in the minority as evidence that it is superior because popular opinions are by their nature less than worthy. Which he then justifies by saying that majority opinions are of average quality by their nature, which - as it has been pointed out - is not only not how averages work but also not indicative of quality in any way.

Your first post lead me to believe you were intelligent, after reading this I'm not so sure. You took my original post and twisted it. I merely stated a fact, I never applied it to the OP, who I don't even know, nor to his arguments, because I haven't read the thread.

[upsettingshorts]

I don't want to get into it much further, if just to say that the reason companies dumb down things to appeal to broad audiences is that it is safer and easier. Quality can be popular, that's how movies to this day manage to make lots of money and be critically acclaimed. There are lots of bad popcorn flicks, and plenty of really good movies no-one sees, but the point that popular things are always going to be mediocre because people can't appreciate it is the very same mindset that leads creative people to dumb down their work in the first place.

That's without getting into some of my issues with your word choice - namely "superior."

Quality does get recognized. Quality is appreciated. Even by the so called average. Not always, but often enough to completely dismiss popular media and popular opinion.

Personally I blame peoples' preconceptions of what they will and won't like when something great doesn't end up being popular, and not the "masses" incapability to understand or appreciate the material.  People are stubborn and cling to the familiar by nature.  It is not indicative of their relative worth or intelligence.

Edit: You responded to someone who was making a statement about Sylvius' views being opposite of what everyone else said, then used your statement to say why that was a good thing.  If I drew the wrong conclusion, the fault is in your wording.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 octobre 2010 - 01:43 .

[ShrinkingFish]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Actually his sentence was so all over the place that it almost defies correction. He's talking about Sylvius being contrarian, and then uses the fact that his opinions are in the minority as evidence that it is superior because popular opinions are by their nature less than worthy. Which he then justifies by saying that majority opinions are of average quality by their nature, which - as it has been pointed out - is not only not how averages work but also not indicative of quality in any way.

Your first post lead me to believe you were intelligent, after reading this I'm not so sure. You took my original post and twisted it. I merely stated a fact, I never applied it to the OP, who I don't even know, nor to his arguments, because I haven't read the thread.

Pretentiousness. It's a bad thing. And a mark of inferiority or of the fear of being inferior.

A false claim to greater knowledge than is actually possessed in an attempt to make one seem impressive.

You supplied the rope and even tied the noose. Can't blame me for being the hangman. I just can't help myself. It's my nature.

Modifié par ShrinkingFish, 02 octobre 2010 - 01:44 .

[TheMufflon]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

The point I would make is that the best will always be unpopular, as is the nature of our society. To be successful you must appeal to the masses, whether it is consciously downgrading your product to a standard that will be met graciously by the average, or whether it is creating a product that is average because you are incapable of a quality that is above average.

Things that are above average will be met with disinterest and hostility by the average, who are incapable of appreciating it's value. If we accept that success in production of goods is sales, than something above average will not be as successful as something that is average. 

The trend of main stream acceptance of gaming is correlated to the industry's move towards the average. The question arises was it moving from below average upwards or above average downwards? Someone below average is incapable of being average, however someone average is capable of being below average. Things that are below average can't become average, but things that are above average can.

In summary, gaming has been dumbed down to fit the needs of the many, as opposed to the needs of the superior.

Begging the question.

See, I can call people out on their fallacies, too! Can I join the cool kids' club now?

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I don't want to get into it much further, if just to say that the reason companies dumb down things to appeal to broad audiences is that it is safer and easier. Quality can be popular, that's how movies to this day manage to make lots of money and be critically acclaimed. There are lots of bad popcorn flicks, and plenty of really good movies no-one sees, but the point that popular things are always going to be mediocre because people can't appreciate it is the very same mindset that leads creative people to dumb down their work in the first place.

That's without getting into some of my issues with your word choice - namely "superior."

Quality does get recognized. Quality is appreciated. Even by the so called average. Not always, but often enough to completely dismiss popular media and popular opinion.

Edit: You responded to someone who was making a statement about Sylvius' views being opposite of what everyone else said, then used your statement to say why that was a good thing.  If I drew the wrong conclusion, the fault is in your wording.

The fault is in your interpretation. If he was of the popular opinion, that would be bad. Good and bad have varying levels.

But you pointed out the problem. "Safer and easier". The easiest road is not the best.

[ShrinkingFish]

TheMufflon wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

The point I would make is that the best will always be unpopular, as is the nature of our society. To be successful you must appeal to the masses, whether it is consciously downgrading your product to a standard that will be met graciously by the average, or whether it is creating a product that is average because you are incapable of a quality that is above average.

Things that are above average will be met with disinterest and hostility by the average, who are incapable of appreciating it's value. If we accept that success in production of goods is sales, than something above average will not be as successful as something that is average. 

The trend of main stream acceptance of gaming is correlated to the industry's move towards the average. The question arises was it moving from below average upwards or above average downwards? Someone below average is incapable of being average, however someone average is capable of being below average. Things that are below average can't become average, but things that are above average can.

In summary, gaming has been dumbed down to fit the needs of the many, as opposed to the needs of the superior.

Begging the question.

See, I can call people out on their fallacies, too! Can I join the cool kids' club now?

No. Absolutely not. Only kids who are cool enough to assume that the cool kids club is not cool enough for them can be in the club.

Your admittance that the cool kids club is cool makes you uncool. Be gone!

Modifié par ShrinkingFish, 02 octobre 2010 - 01:47 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

If he was of the popular opinion, that would be bad.

Mind if I ask why?

[upsettingshorts]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...
The fault is in your interpretation. If he was of the popular opinion, that would be bad. Good and bad have varying levels.

But you pointed out the problem. "Safer and easier". The easiest road is not the best.

1) And I endeavoured to prove that being of the popular opinion is neither bad nor good.  Popularity of an opinion has nothing to do with its worth, accuracy, or correctness.   

2) I never made the claim that the so-called dumbing down of creative works because it was easy and safe was better, just that it was easy and safe.

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

If he was of the popular opinion, that would be bad.

Mind if I ask why?

He said so already.  He claims that popular opinions are by definition average - a point several of us dispute - and that average is by definition mediocre - a point several of us dispute.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 octobre 2010 - 01:50 .

[ShrinkingFish]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

The fault is in your interpretation. If he was of the popular opinion, that would be bad. Good and bad have varying levels.

But you pointed out the problem. "Safer and easier". The easiest road is not the best.

As a matter of fact , it is your fault for getting involved in a discussion when you were not aware of the subject matter.

Also, as long as we're pointing fingers and spouting personal opinion as truth instead of trying to host an intelligent discussion, you're a poopyhead!

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Actually his sentence was so all over the place that it almost defies correction. He's talking about Sylvius being contrarian, and then uses the fact that his opinions are in the minority as evidence that it is superior because popular opinions are by their nature less than worthy. Which he then justifies by saying that majority opinions are of average quality by their nature, which - as it has been pointed out - is not only not how averages work but also not indicative of quality in any way.

Your first post lead me to believe you were intelligent, after reading this I'm not so sure. You took my original post and twisted it. I merely stated a fact, I never applied it to the OP, who I don't even know, nor to his arguments, because I haven't read the thread.

Pretentiousness. It's a bad thing. And a mark of inferiority or of the fear of being inferior.

A false claim to greater knowledge than is actually possessed in an attempt to make one seem impressive.

You supplied the rope and even tied the noose. Can't blame me for being the hangman. I just can't help myself. It's my nature.

The concept of pretentious is merely invented by the inferior to justify their inferiority. Feeling superior isn't a bad thing if you are, in fact, superior. Believe it or not, we are not all born equal, we are not all equal. Some of us, humans, are superior to other humans.

Society has tricked itself into accepting the concept that we are all the same, because the masses can't handle the fact that they aren't special snowflakes. They need to be reassured by the media, by religion, and by the government that they have the same chances at success than their brethren. 

It's not fair, it's not fair that some of us are born with lower IQ's, that some of us are born with genetic defects, that some of us our born into parents who do drugs or are poor, that some of us are born with genes that favor X over Y. However that's just a fact of life, and denying it doesn't change it. Believing something is true does not make it true, it just makes you a fool.

[TheMufflon]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

No. Absolutely not. Only kids who are cool enough to assume that the cool kids club is not cool enough for them can be in the club.

Your admittance that the cool kids club is cool makes you uncool. Be gone!

Yeah, well I was only asking ironically. I am already a member of a much better club that, but you've probably never heard of it.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

If he was of the popular opinion, that would be bad.

Mind if I ask why?

He said so already.  He claims that popular opinions are by definition average - a point several of us dispute - and that average is by definition mediocre - a point several of us dispute.

I know. I also presume he'll provide a different answer this time, if he cares to, or at least word it differently.

[upsettingshorts]

ShrinkingFish wrote...
As a matter of fact , it is your fault for getting involved in a discussion when you were not aware of the subject matter.

Also,
as long as we're pointing fingers and spouting personal opinion as
truth instead of trying to host an intelligent discussion, you're a
poopyhead!

But see, fingerpointing and spouting personal opinions about stuff as trivial as videogames on the internet - with strangers nonetheless- is a great way to practice arguing.

Otherwise you'd have to argue for the sake of it with people you know about stuff that matters, either as practice - which would likely annoy everyone you know - or without practice, in which case you'll get destroyed and never win a single argument.

Hence in real life I pick my battles. And on the internet I charge in guns blazing. It's like sparring!

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 octobre 2010 - 01:58 .

[TheMufflon]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Society has tricked itself into accepting the concept that we are all the same, because the masses can't handle the fact that they aren't special snowflakes.

That doesn't even make sense!

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...
The fault is in your interpretation. If he was of the popular opinion, that would be bad. Good and bad have varying levels.

But you pointed out the problem. "Safer and easier". The easiest road is not the best.

1) And I endeavoured to prove that being of the popular opinion is neither bad nor good.  Popularity of an opinion has nothing to do with its worth, accuracy, or correctness.   

2) I never made the claim that the so-called dumbing down of creative works because it was easy and safe was better, just that it was easy and safe.

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

If he was of the popular opinion, that would be bad.

Mind if I ask why?

He said so already.  He claims that popular opinions are by definition average - a point several of us dispute - and that average is by definition mediocre - a point several of us dispute.

If you add up the people who are below average and the people who are average, they outnumber the people who are above average. Thus the majority, the popular opinion, is inferior to the minority.

[Anarya]

@TonythebossDanza: If something is unpopular it does not follow that it is by definition better than average. Conversely if something is popular it does not follow that it is inferior. You are stating a causative relationship between a thing's popularity and its quality and saying it's objective fact when it really, really isn't.