I really enjoyed AP as well and the choice system was top notch, but look at the developers, it's not a surprise (Planescape alumni). I played it on the PC though and it wasn't really more buggy than most other games released these days. If you don't mod patch Dragon Age, it has quite a few bugs that may break the experience you are looking to have.
Bioware does choice fairly well, in DA they use the epilogue to demonstrate the consequences for the most part, but there are harsh choices in game. You can leave Leliana behind, you can leave Sten behind, you can kill Wynne if you arrive at the Tower with Morrigan (I did this the first time and didn't even know Wynne was a potential party member) and you can defile some ashes and kill both of them there. Those are just some examples but they do as well as Fallout for "consequences", just not as thoroughly, and no, I don't mean Fallout 3.
I don't like having a fixed character name but that's not so unusual, but I prefer the Mass Effect system where just the last name is fixed, having said that, it's the same way in DA, so I wonder why they have to change it.
The fail of the inventory system in ME2 is that it is hard to alter your appearance outside of official downloads for new gear you are kind of stuck. I suppose that's more the none existence of a toolset issue, but the vanilla game options are pretty meager and appearance is a big part of what modern RPG players like to play around with. I am really surprised Fox News didn't bash the Natural Bodies mod as being part of the DA game, they did it with Hot Coffee and the like.
Alpha Protocol and DA2
Débuté par
MAD WHITE HAM
, déc. 02 2010 08:17
Retour en haut
#127
Posté 04 décembre 2010 - 12:40
Wishpig
-
- Members
- 2 173 messages
Choice wise, I can't really think of any game that lived up to expectations. Never played Alpha Protocol.
I wanna say Arcanum did... but I can't recall enough about it.
I hope DA:2 does it right. If not The Witcher 2 seems to be taking such things to another level.
I wanna say Arcanum did... but I can't recall enough about it.
I hope DA:2 does it right. If not The Witcher 2 seems to be taking such things to another level.
#128
Posté 04 décembre 2010 - 02:07
Shady314
-
- Members
- 694 messages
[quote]In Exile wrote...
And if most people with most hardware configurations experience a problem, then the game has a problem.
[/quote]
And DA:O had numerous 100% repeatable bugs on all hardware platforms. It had a serious problem and continues to have serious bugs Bioware will never fix because they stopped making patches. Yet Bioware according to you releases less buggy games than Obsidian. You continue to state this as fact because public perception agrees with you and you personally have had better experiences with them. Continually you prove my point.
[quote]If people did this, sure. This is just some vacuous point you're bringing up. There is an objective difference in bugs between games. You can argue that people might be terrible at determining this, but there is absolutely no way to deny that bugs exists and that they can be measured. [/quote]
They CANNOT be measured. Go find me the official system by which bugs are measured and I'll agree with you. This isn't the metric system here. Every reviewer/player judges it solely by their level of annoyance. How many and how severe are the bugs they run into and how much did it bother them. The problem is everybody hitting different bugs.
[quote]The only question is whether or not most people are unreliable in getting a feeling for the relative frequency of bugs, and I see no reason to question whether or not they are. [/quote]
Then by that criteria DA:O is as buggy as any Obsidian game. 100% of all users will experience certain bugs. If you don't believe me play a human noble, harden Leliana, marry anora and then try to make her your mistress while still talking to her before the epilogue.
[quote]Right, but I'm not denying this. What I am saying is that you or I using our personal standard can't possibly be a good measure of whether or not the game is bugged. We need some objective standard. I submit that, given that sales of a game are usually at least 500,000 + we can look to the perception of the game as our measure.
[/quote]
Very scientific. LOL. I suppose that's also a good way to judge the quality of a game as well.
[quote]I would be outraged if I played any game an encountered these issues. But I didn't encounter these problems in a Bioware game, and a general review of the public perception of DA:O is not a bugged game. [/quote]
By what method did you review this "public perception." Because in my publics perception people do know it's a bugged game and downloaded a lot of mods to fix it.
[quote]There is a threshold. [/quote]
I know. I said this. But the threshold is a personal one.
[quote]
Whereas if Obsidian started to release stable releases, there would be a shift in how their products were received.
[/quote]
There hasn't so far even though AP was quite stable for many people. For Obsidians reception to change they would have to start putting out flawless products with no bugs which is a feat no other developer has achieved or is expected to live up to.
[quote]
[statistician hat] There is nothing wrong with using population standards so long as you properly account for bias.
[/quote]
Which you are NOT doing.
[quote]Technical problems, like technical flaws in any product, affect its quality. I might design the best car in terms of gas milleage or conform in principle, but if it explodes 1/10 it is not as good of a car as one that never explodes. [/quote]
A car exploding is a terrible analogy unless the game has a bug that could kill you. A better analogy is the frequency with which your car breaks down. An important statistic to be sure but one not easily measured. What about a beautiful vintage car that requires constant maintenance but the owner happily puts up with?
[quote]
On the 360. And with DA:O, that's my point. We can't appeal to anything that happen to any one person. We need to know, objectively, what the # and frequency of bugs were across all releases to start talking about whether or not the game was buggy.[/quote]
That's what I've been saying. The problem is you seem to think the fact that you believe AP was buggy makes it buggy even though you constantly point out we need to look at hard data.
[quote]Why do you insist on twisting what I said? I told you explicitly, several times we cannot use a personal standard. As for anectodal evidence, you're mistaken. My evidence or yours is not definitive, but the experience of 6,000 of us would be. This is what I mean by the popular opinion - if the preponderance of evidence suggests one releases was buggier than the other, we need to take notice.[/quote]
LOL Popular opinion! I agree to even begin considering anecdotal evidence we need many people's input but we also need control groups and a lot more data on theirhardware, level of technical ability, etc. But I'll tell you what. Go get me 6,000 people's experiences. Then I'll bring you 6,000 people's experiences from DA:O. Would that make DA:O a buggy game? By extension does that make Bioware a creator of buggy games combined with Awakening? Also Mass Effect 2's bugs? And Mass Effect 1's.
[quote]Yes; the allusion to confirmation bias is just a rude dismissal. It amounts to a claim that the only reason I am complaining about Obsidian games as oppposed to Bioware games is belief. [/quote]
1. It's an insult only in your own mind. Every one does it. 2. That is pretty much what I am saying. You're just like the reviewer that says "sometimes in ME2 I got stuck in walls but it didn't happen too often and I enjoyed the game and didn't mind reloading" who then reviews AP and rants about how buggy the game is because he got stuck in walls a few times.
[quote]Confirmation bias is a complicated psychological phenomenon. People misuse it all the time as "seeing what you want to see" and that's not an accurate description of what it is. It's a general bias in hypothesis testing and the relationship with belief is complicated.
I didn't speak to reviewers at all, but I agree with you. [/quote]
Yes it is complicated. That's not how I am using it. Doesn't change the fact that you are clearly doing it. You repeatedly claim we need hard data and then say we have hard date because you THINK it is so and you are pretty sure others agree with you.
[quote]No; it's a matter of practical, objective reality. [/quote]
Insisting your subjective opinion of what is better is a matter of practical objective reality means I am done wasting my time with you. How exactly do you have a conversation with someone convinced their opinion of a subjective matter like the quality of a story are statistical facts? Especially while arguing perception. The irony is delicious though.
And if most people with most hardware configurations experience a problem, then the game has a problem.
[/quote]
And DA:O had numerous 100% repeatable bugs on all hardware platforms. It had a serious problem and continues to have serious bugs Bioware will never fix because they stopped making patches. Yet Bioware according to you releases less buggy games than Obsidian. You continue to state this as fact because public perception agrees with you and you personally have had better experiences with them. Continually you prove my point.
[quote]If people did this, sure. This is just some vacuous point you're bringing up. There is an objective difference in bugs between games. You can argue that people might be terrible at determining this, but there is absolutely no way to deny that bugs exists and that they can be measured. [/quote]
They CANNOT be measured. Go find me the official system by which bugs are measured and I'll agree with you. This isn't the metric system here. Every reviewer/player judges it solely by their level of annoyance. How many and how severe are the bugs they run into and how much did it bother them. The problem is everybody hitting different bugs.
[quote]The only question is whether or not most people are unreliable in getting a feeling for the relative frequency of bugs, and I see no reason to question whether or not they are. [/quote]
Then by that criteria DA:O is as buggy as any Obsidian game. 100% of all users will experience certain bugs. If you don't believe me play a human noble, harden Leliana, marry anora and then try to make her your mistress while still talking to her before the epilogue.
[quote]Right, but I'm not denying this. What I am saying is that you or I using our personal standard can't possibly be a good measure of whether or not the game is bugged. We need some objective standard. I submit that, given that sales of a game are usually at least 500,000 + we can look to the perception of the game as our measure.
[/quote]
Very scientific. LOL. I suppose that's also a good way to judge the quality of a game as well.
[quote]I would be outraged if I played any game an encountered these issues. But I didn't encounter these problems in a Bioware game, and a general review of the public perception of DA:O is not a bugged game. [/quote]
By what method did you review this "public perception." Because in my publics perception people do know it's a bugged game and downloaded a lot of mods to fix it.
[quote]There is a threshold. [/quote]
I know. I said this. But the threshold is a personal one.
[quote]
Whereas if Obsidian started to release stable releases, there would be a shift in how their products were received.
[/quote]
There hasn't so far even though AP was quite stable for many people. For Obsidians reception to change they would have to start putting out flawless products with no bugs which is a feat no other developer has achieved or is expected to live up to.
[quote]
[statistician hat] There is nothing wrong with using population standards so long as you properly account for bias.
[/quote]
Which you are NOT doing.
[quote]Technical problems, like technical flaws in any product, affect its quality. I might design the best car in terms of gas milleage or conform in principle, but if it explodes 1/10 it is not as good of a car as one that never explodes. [/quote]
A car exploding is a terrible analogy unless the game has a bug that could kill you. A better analogy is the frequency with which your car breaks down. An important statistic to be sure but one not easily measured. What about a beautiful vintage car that requires constant maintenance but the owner happily puts up with?
[quote]
On the 360. And with DA:O, that's my point. We can't appeal to anything that happen to any one person. We need to know, objectively, what the # and frequency of bugs were across all releases to start talking about whether or not the game was buggy.[/quote]
That's what I've been saying. The problem is you seem to think the fact that you believe AP was buggy makes it buggy even though you constantly point out we need to look at hard data.
[quote]Why do you insist on twisting what I said? I told you explicitly, several times we cannot use a personal standard. As for anectodal evidence, you're mistaken. My evidence or yours is not definitive, but the experience of 6,000 of us would be. This is what I mean by the popular opinion - if the preponderance of evidence suggests one releases was buggier than the other, we need to take notice.[/quote]
LOL Popular opinion! I agree to even begin considering anecdotal evidence we need many people's input but we also need control groups and a lot more data on theirhardware, level of technical ability, etc. But I'll tell you what. Go get me 6,000 people's experiences. Then I'll bring you 6,000 people's experiences from DA:O. Would that make DA:O a buggy game? By extension does that make Bioware a creator of buggy games combined with Awakening? Also Mass Effect 2's bugs? And Mass Effect 1's.
[quote]Yes; the allusion to confirmation bias is just a rude dismissal. It amounts to a claim that the only reason I am complaining about Obsidian games as oppposed to Bioware games is belief. [/quote]
1. It's an insult only in your own mind. Every one does it. 2. That is pretty much what I am saying. You're just like the reviewer that says "sometimes in ME2 I got stuck in walls but it didn't happen too often and I enjoyed the game and didn't mind reloading" who then reviews AP and rants about how buggy the game is because he got stuck in walls a few times.
[quote]Confirmation bias is a complicated psychological phenomenon. People misuse it all the time as "seeing what you want to see" and that's not an accurate description of what it is. It's a general bias in hypothesis testing and the relationship with belief is complicated.
I didn't speak to reviewers at all, but I agree with you. [/quote]
Yes it is complicated. That's not how I am using it. Doesn't change the fact that you are clearly doing it. You repeatedly claim we need hard data and then say we have hard date because you THINK it is so and you are pretty sure others agree with you.
[quote]No; it's a matter of practical, objective reality. [/quote]
Insisting your subjective opinion of what is better is a matter of practical objective reality means I am done wasting my time with you. How exactly do you have a conversation with someone convinced their opinion of a subjective matter like the quality of a story are statistical facts? Especially while arguing perception. The irony is delicious though.
Modifié par Shady314, 04 décembre 2010 - 02:08 .
#129
Posté 04 décembre 2010 - 02:38
In Exile
-
- Members
- 28 738 messages
[quote]Shady314 wrote...
And DA:O had numerous 100% repeatable bugs on all hardware platforms. It had a serious problem and continues to have serious bugs Bioware will never fix because they stopped making patches. Yet Bioware according to you releases less buggy games than Obsidian. You continue to state this as fact because public perception agrees with you and you personally have had better experiences with them. Continually you prove my point. [/quote]
It does not matter whether or not DA:O had bugs. It only matters whether DA:O was perceived to have an inordinate amount of bugs.
It does not matter if Bioware fixes the bugs. It does not matter if thousands downloaded bug fixes, or if there are hundreds of unsatisfied customers. If each of this is ten times worse for an Obsidian game, then we can argue that Obsidian has crossed the nebulous threshold of a "buggy" versus "not buggy" game.
My experience with Obsidian is that they release poor quality games filled with bugs. The general perception of Obsidian seems to square with this experience, which leads me to believe I am not an outlier. There is no bias.
[quote]They CANNOT be measured. Go find me the official system by which bugs are measured and I'll agree with you. This isn't the metric system here. Every reviewer/player judges it solely by their level of annoyance. How many and how severe are the bugs they run into and how much did it bother them. The problem is everybody hitting different bugs. [/quote]
All an 'official' system would be is some agreed upon standard. We can say broadly that the general sort of annoyance that bugs cause is a sufficient standard, because any kind of variance can be smoothed out in the population data. One person, or ten people might have idisyncracies, but at 10,000 you are just looking at random error.
[quote]Then by that criteria DA:O is as buggy as any Obsidian game. 100% of all users will experience certain bugs. If you don't believe me play a human noble, harden Leliana, marry anora and then try to make her your mistress while still talking to her before the epilogue. [/quote]
Why are you introducing an arbitrary standard? 100% of people that take this particular path might experience this bug, but if only 0.00005% of people take this path, then almost no people experience the bug.
So your example proves absolutely nothing, other than the fact that you seem to be confused by generalizations.
[quote]Very scientific. LOL. I suppose that's also a good way to judge the quality of a game as well. [/quote]
Who is saying anything about coming up with a scientific standard? We're talking about technical problems with a hobby for Christsakes.
Technical performance makes a dramatic difference in experience. You want to argue that it is some idiosyncratic variance in annoyance. Fine. Let's say the threshold is absolutely arbitrary and some people will cave at one graphic bug and other people will tolerate ten thousand gamebreakers.
Each game will have some combination of minor and major (i.e. gamebreaking) bugs. Each person will have some treshold that we cannot predict or measure. If the general response to the game was that the game was buggy, we can very easily infer that most thresholds were crossed without ever knowing what each threshold was.
And since each threshold is just a tolerance level, we can infer that the more the general response indicates that the game is buggy, the more bugs that game has to some unknown degree and combination, because it will take some more annoying combination of bugs to cross the threshold.
All that matters in this is whether or not we have reason to believe what people say about a game is reliable. And we do. This is why your talk about confirmation bias is meaningless. If I spend all my time hunting for bugs (because I expect them to be there or whatever), it just means I have a low threshold. If I spent no time hunting for bugs (because like you I don't evaluate them, or like you accuse me I value the company too much), then I have a high threshold and will never speak ill of the game.
If a significant number, larger for one game than another, complain about the number of bugs then we can easily compare across games.
[quote]By what method did you review this "public perception." Because in my publics perception people do know it's a bugged game and downloaded a lot of mods to fix it. [/quote]
General reception and complains. Is a common criticism of DA:O that it was "buggy"? What are the labels attached to the game? Those indicate the paintbrush it is being painted with, like DA2 is with "dumbed down" or whatever the pejorative of the day is.
[quote]I know. I said this. But the threshold is a personal one.[/quote]
And as I explained above, it's irrelevant.
[quote]There hasn't so far even though AP was quite stable for many people. For Obsidians reception to change they would have to start putting out flawless products with no bugs which is a feat no other developer has achieved or is expected to live up to.[/quote]
That's absurd. What Obsidian would have to do is release better products. NWN2 wasn't criticized for being buggy. It was poorly optimized and so, for critics like myself, falls into a broader pattern of technical failures for their company (i.e. we are less likely to excuse a failure since it is a repeat failure in a similar context) but it was still well-received compared to KoTOR 2 or New Vegas.
[quote]Which you are NOT doing. [/quote]
I am, but you seem to fundamentally misunderstand how bias (and given the above) evaluative standards ought to work.
[quote]A car exploding is a terrible analogy unless the game has a bug that could kill you. A better analogy is the frequency with which your car breaks down. An important statistic to be sure but one not easily measured. What about a beautiful vintage car that requires constant maintenance but the owner happily puts up with? [/quote]
A car exploding captures the annoyance of a bug; your standard implicitly takes a bug to be a minor thing as opposed to a major thing.
But let's say I grant your standard. It goes right back to the general threshold effect I described above. Some people will tolerate that and some won't. We can come up with a relative measure of how much maintenance is required by looking at the number of people that complain about the maintenance.
[quote]That's what I've been saying. The problem is you seem to think the fact that you believe AP was buggy makes it buggy even though you constantly point out we need to look at hard data. [/quote]
No, I don't. Only you seem to believe this, and no matter how many times I deny it it seems impossible for you to consider otherwise.
[quote]LOL Popular opinion! I agree to even begin considering anecdotal evidence we need many people's input but we also need control groups and a lot more data on theirhardware, level of technical ability, etc. But I'll tell you what. Go get me 6,000 people's experiences. Then I'll bring you 6,000 people's experiences from DA:O. Would that make DA:O a buggy game? By extension does that make Bioware a creator of buggy games combined with Awakening? Also Mass Effect 2's bugs? And Mass Effect 1's. [/quote]
I'm going to quote myself:
I speak only in hyperbole. I just appreciate that you actually got
that I was being facetious instead of trying to prove why the game was
less bugged than the arbitrary line I used for it.
I'm going to take this back, since it seems like this is exactly what you're doing.
[quote]1. It's an insult only in your own mind. Every one does it. 2. That is pretty much what I am saying. You're just like the reviewer that says "sometimes in ME2 I got stuck in walls but it didn't happen too often and I enjoyed the game and didn't mind reloading" who then reviews AP and rants about how buggy the game is because he got stuck in walls a few times. [/quote]
No; this is not what I'm saying. That you continue to think this is, hilariously enough, a confirmation bias.
[quote]Yes it is complicated. That's not how I am using it. [/quote]
Then you're using it wrong. If I used tree to refer to an animal that "meows" I'm doing it wrong, and I need to change.
[quote]Doesn't change the fact that you are clearly doing it. You repeatedly claim we need hard data and then say we have hard date because you THINK it is so and you are pretty sure others agree with you. [/quote]
No. I said we need hard data, and the hard data is explicit in validating my experience, because the general criticism of games like AP and New Vegas is the fact that they are buggy, wheras the general criticsm of DA:O is not that it is buggy. But you seem to refuse to read what I am writing.
[quote]Insisting your subjective opinion of what is better is a matter of practical objective reality means I am done wasting my time with you. [/quote]
Yup, not reading what I write at all. Whether or not AP had more bugs than DA:O is an objective question. We can sit down and quantify each bug. But go on debating with imaginary me versus real me.
[quote]How exactly do you have a conversation with someone convinced their opinion of a subjective matter like the quality of a story are statistical facts? Especially while arguing perception. The irony is delicious though.
[/quote]
You misunderstand what a statistical generalization is. You've also constantly misunderstood the standard I've used throughout.
And DA:O had numerous 100% repeatable bugs on all hardware platforms. It had a serious problem and continues to have serious bugs Bioware will never fix because they stopped making patches. Yet Bioware according to you releases less buggy games than Obsidian. You continue to state this as fact because public perception agrees with you and you personally have had better experiences with them. Continually you prove my point. [/quote]
It does not matter whether or not DA:O had bugs. It only matters whether DA:O was perceived to have an inordinate amount of bugs.
It does not matter if Bioware fixes the bugs. It does not matter if thousands downloaded bug fixes, or if there are hundreds of unsatisfied customers. If each of this is ten times worse for an Obsidian game, then we can argue that Obsidian has crossed the nebulous threshold of a "buggy" versus "not buggy" game.
My experience with Obsidian is that they release poor quality games filled with bugs. The general perception of Obsidian seems to square with this experience, which leads me to believe I am not an outlier. There is no bias.
[quote]They CANNOT be measured. Go find me the official system by which bugs are measured and I'll agree with you. This isn't the metric system here. Every reviewer/player judges it solely by their level of annoyance. How many and how severe are the bugs they run into and how much did it bother them. The problem is everybody hitting different bugs. [/quote]
All an 'official' system would be is some agreed upon standard. We can say broadly that the general sort of annoyance that bugs cause is a sufficient standard, because any kind of variance can be smoothed out in the population data. One person, or ten people might have idisyncracies, but at 10,000 you are just looking at random error.
[quote]Then by that criteria DA:O is as buggy as any Obsidian game. 100% of all users will experience certain bugs. If you don't believe me play a human noble, harden Leliana, marry anora and then try to make her your mistress while still talking to her before the epilogue. [/quote]
Why are you introducing an arbitrary standard? 100% of people that take this particular path might experience this bug, but if only 0.00005% of people take this path, then almost no people experience the bug.
So your example proves absolutely nothing, other than the fact that you seem to be confused by generalizations.
[quote]Very scientific. LOL. I suppose that's also a good way to judge the quality of a game as well. [/quote]
Who is saying anything about coming up with a scientific standard? We're talking about technical problems with a hobby for Christsakes.
Technical performance makes a dramatic difference in experience. You want to argue that it is some idiosyncratic variance in annoyance. Fine. Let's say the threshold is absolutely arbitrary and some people will cave at one graphic bug and other people will tolerate ten thousand gamebreakers.
Each game will have some combination of minor and major (i.e. gamebreaking) bugs. Each person will have some treshold that we cannot predict or measure. If the general response to the game was that the game was buggy, we can very easily infer that most thresholds were crossed without ever knowing what each threshold was.
And since each threshold is just a tolerance level, we can infer that the more the general response indicates that the game is buggy, the more bugs that game has to some unknown degree and combination, because it will take some more annoying combination of bugs to cross the threshold.
All that matters in this is whether or not we have reason to believe what people say about a game is reliable. And we do. This is why your talk about confirmation bias is meaningless. If I spend all my time hunting for bugs (because I expect them to be there or whatever), it just means I have a low threshold. If I spent no time hunting for bugs (because like you I don't evaluate them, or like you accuse me I value the company too much), then I have a high threshold and will never speak ill of the game.
If a significant number, larger for one game than another, complain about the number of bugs then we can easily compare across games.
[quote]By what method did you review this "public perception." Because in my publics perception people do know it's a bugged game and downloaded a lot of mods to fix it. [/quote]
General reception and complains. Is a common criticism of DA:O that it was "buggy"? What are the labels attached to the game? Those indicate the paintbrush it is being painted with, like DA2 is with "dumbed down" or whatever the pejorative of the day is.
[quote]I know. I said this. But the threshold is a personal one.[/quote]
And as I explained above, it's irrelevant.
[quote]There hasn't so far even though AP was quite stable for many people. For Obsidians reception to change they would have to start putting out flawless products with no bugs which is a feat no other developer has achieved or is expected to live up to.[/quote]
That's absurd. What Obsidian would have to do is release better products. NWN2 wasn't criticized for being buggy. It was poorly optimized and so, for critics like myself, falls into a broader pattern of technical failures for their company (i.e. we are less likely to excuse a failure since it is a repeat failure in a similar context) but it was still well-received compared to KoTOR 2 or New Vegas.
[quote]Which you are NOT doing. [/quote]
I am, but you seem to fundamentally misunderstand how bias (and given the above) evaluative standards ought to work.
[quote]A car exploding is a terrible analogy unless the game has a bug that could kill you. A better analogy is the frequency with which your car breaks down. An important statistic to be sure but one not easily measured. What about a beautiful vintage car that requires constant maintenance but the owner happily puts up with? [/quote]
A car exploding captures the annoyance of a bug; your standard implicitly takes a bug to be a minor thing as opposed to a major thing.
But let's say I grant your standard. It goes right back to the general threshold effect I described above. Some people will tolerate that and some won't. We can come up with a relative measure of how much maintenance is required by looking at the number of people that complain about the maintenance.
[quote]That's what I've been saying. The problem is you seem to think the fact that you believe AP was buggy makes it buggy even though you constantly point out we need to look at hard data. [/quote]
No, I don't. Only you seem to believe this, and no matter how many times I deny it it seems impossible for you to consider otherwise.
[quote]LOL Popular opinion! I agree to even begin considering anecdotal evidence we need many people's input but we also need control groups and a lot more data on theirhardware, level of technical ability, etc. But I'll tell you what. Go get me 6,000 people's experiences. Then I'll bring you 6,000 people's experiences from DA:O. Would that make DA:O a buggy game? By extension does that make Bioware a creator of buggy games combined with Awakening? Also Mass Effect 2's bugs? And Mass Effect 1's. [/quote]
I'm going to quote myself:
I speak only in hyperbole. I just appreciate that you actually got
that I was being facetious instead of trying to prove why the game was
less bugged than the arbitrary line I used for it.
I'm going to take this back, since it seems like this is exactly what you're doing.
[quote]1. It's an insult only in your own mind. Every one does it. 2. That is pretty much what I am saying. You're just like the reviewer that says "sometimes in ME2 I got stuck in walls but it didn't happen too often and I enjoyed the game and didn't mind reloading" who then reviews AP and rants about how buggy the game is because he got stuck in walls a few times. [/quote]
No; this is not what I'm saying. That you continue to think this is, hilariously enough, a confirmation bias.
[quote]Yes it is complicated. That's not how I am using it. [/quote]
Then you're using it wrong. If I used tree to refer to an animal that "meows" I'm doing it wrong, and I need to change.
[quote]Doesn't change the fact that you are clearly doing it. You repeatedly claim we need hard data and then say we have hard date because you THINK it is so and you are pretty sure others agree with you. [/quote]
No. I said we need hard data, and the hard data is explicit in validating my experience, because the general criticism of games like AP and New Vegas is the fact that they are buggy, wheras the general criticsm of DA:O is not that it is buggy. But you seem to refuse to read what I am writing.
[quote]Insisting your subjective opinion of what is better is a matter of practical objective reality means I am done wasting my time with you. [/quote]
Yup, not reading what I write at all. Whether or not AP had more bugs than DA:O is an objective question. We can sit down and quantify each bug. But go on debating with imaginary me versus real me.
[quote]How exactly do you have a conversation with someone convinced their opinion of a subjective matter like the quality of a story are statistical facts? Especially while arguing perception. The irony is delicious though.
[/quote]
You misunderstand what a statistical generalization is. You've also constantly misunderstood the standard I've used throughout.
Modifié par In Exile, 04 décembre 2010 - 02:40 .
