6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Arkitekt wrote...

It's the exact ****ing same ****. What the hell do you even know about "combat situation"?

You do realsie there's quite a few poeple on BSN who are soldiers, right?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Phaelducan wrote...
Or you could just hire Lotion, because he would catch everything the first time through.

Most of it probably. But I'm smart enough that I'd hire a few more people and pay them for every thing I missed. Nothing motivates poeple to find errors like being paid per error.
More script/story writers should do this...We'd end up with a lot better games/movies/books.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Fhaileas wrote...
You clearly failed Statistics 101. Do you even know what a "representative sample" is. You non-probability based sample of 5000 has no "external validity" whatsoever. It's like saying that the choice of the individuals  living in  a certain neighborhood/city in voting for a certain state official
 is representatiive of the entire city/state itself.

Also "demographic of gamers"....seriously?!!! LOL!

Precisely. Any sample should be representative. When polls are made, extrqa care is taken to make that sample representative. There's none of that here.

Ironicly, it's one of the first things one learns in classes ons statistics. Literaly, it's mentioned in the very first hour of the class, and re-inforced/repeated multiple times.
Funny how plenty of people who try to use statistics as proof, don't know these basics.
They also fall alot into the correlation = causation trap.

[SpiffySquee]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

Would Garrus think about revenge while bullets are flying? Probably not. The problem is that a lot of you are assuming that the bullets are flying the whole time. That is not the case in a mission. The problem is, what is he thinking about when they are just walking down the collector hall, or when he is standing there waiting for Shep to decide what to do. Is he focused on his surroundings, or is his mind drifting? Is it possible he missed seeing that collector 20 ft away because he was thinking about other things? In the army, every one in a leadership position receives training on the mental preparedness of their men. Even the best trained soldiers in the world have trouble putting serious personal issues aside. There mind has to stay focused for the entire mission, not just when bullets are flying.

He's still in the danger zone. So a professional soldier would keep his s*** together.
For any normal, stable individual, the mind wouldn't drift at time time. Adrenaline would still be pumping. You'd still be scanning your sorroundings and excpecting a bullet.

In theory perhaps, but not in practice. The idea that a soldier has the ability to completely ignore serious personal issues and focus 100% on the mission 100% of the time is not realistic. And, if a leader just assumes that these personal problems will not affect he soldier's performance, he will never be a great leader. 

[SpiffySquee]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Fhaileas wrote...
You clearly failed Statistics 101. Do you even know what a "representative sample" is. You non-probability based sample of 5000 has no "external validity" whatsoever. It's like saying that the choice of the individuals  living in  a certain neighborhood/city in voting for a certain state official
 is representatiive of the entire city/state itself.

Also "demographic of gamers"....seriously?!!! LOL!

Precisely. Any sample should be representative. When polls are made, extrqa care is taken to make that sample representative. There's none of that here.

Ironicly, it's one of the first things one learns in classes ons statistics. Literaly, it's mentioned in the very first hour of the class, and re-inforced/repeated multiple times.
Funny how plenty of people who try to use statistics as proof, don't know these basics.
They also fall alot into the correlation = causation trap.

How is the sample NOT Representative? We are talking about what people who played the game thought of it. That is it. That is the only factor we care about. We don't care where they live, how old they are, or what their life views are. Did you play the game? Yes? then you fit the needed criteria. Unless you are trying to say that most of those people who reviewed the game, did not play the game, then the sample is representative of the whole.

[Lotion Soronarr]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I actually don't consider the GUARDIAN a big mistake. It's a visual thing.
Same how we shouldn't be able to see the shots fried from rifels and ship guns (as they are going at 1.3% of light speed!).
It's one of those "rule of cool" things...like sound in space. And ships fighting at visual ranges.
What I don't get is why the devs didn't think lasers are cool. Lasers need love too.
And turnign them into a knife-fight weapon in ME is the bigegst WTF ever...How does a weapon that travels at light speed have a shorter range than a bullet???

Laser Divergence. Beams of light, like lasers, spread out over distance until they no longer have the concentration needed to do damage. A bullet however can travel continuously in space.

This is a real concept and the codex even covers it, "Lasers are limited by diffraction. The beam 'spreads out', decreasing the energy density (watts per m2) the weapon can place on a target. Any high-powered laser is a short-ranged weapon."

I know about laser diffraction, divergence and all otehr problems. But in vacuum, lasers ias actually a very efficient weapon. It still has a range of thousand of kilometers.

And when you talk about range, think about effective range.
At 1LS, a mass driver fired at 1% of light speed, needs 100 seconds to cross that distance. In that time, the target is long gone. A laser crosses that distance in 1 second.
Now a MD is going to  have a massive whallop. More than a laser. But in reality, the MD is a knife-fight super-cannon, while the laser is the long range dinky-gun.
Frankly, given that mass effect barriers dont' stop lasers, a DN decked fully with high-powered lasers could kite the enemy from range, and ship at it from safety.

I LOVE mass drivers. And I like that ME uses them. But artificially turning other weapons into garbage?

But again...this is going off  on a tangent..so best get back to the topic.

[Nashiktal]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Would Garrus think about revenge while bullets are flying? Probably not. The problem is that a lot of you are assuming that the bullets are flying the whole time. That is not the case in a mission. The problem is, what is he thinking about when they are just walking down the collector hall, or when he is standing there waiting for Shep to decide what to do. Is he focused on his surroundings, or is his mind drifting? Is it possible he missed seeing that collector 20 ft away because he was thinking about other things? In the army, every one in a leadership position receives training on the mental preparedness of their men. Even the best trained soldiers in the world have trouble putting serious personal issues aside. There mind has to stay focused for the entire mission, not just when bullets are flying.

Let me give you an example. Lets say an experienced soldier just got a letter from home that his wife left him. Then, during a mission, he is told to scan the perimeter while officers decide what to do. This is a boring, quiet job. After ten or fifteen minutes his mind starts think about this horrible event that is tearing him up inside. Do you seriously think he is going to be 100% focused? Do you think he will not even spend one second worrying about what is going on at home?

The point of the missions is to ensure everyone's head is in the game the entire time.

The problem is, why doesn't this apply for the rest of the game? The squad certainly has face equally dangerous odds during the game. Why didn't garrus get distracted during the final conflict against saren? He was having some major problems with his dad. Why wasn't ashley distracted by her romance (if you had one) with shep?

Pertaining to ME2, why didn't Mording kick the bucket when I brought him with me on the collector vessle? He was certainly shot enough times.

If focus was what killed these characters why doesn't it get them in other dangerous times? Not to mention it doesn't actually kill them, Garrus somehow losing focus means tali gets rocketed in the face, or his shields fail and he dies. Yet when miranda does it, she is suddenly bulletproof?

Again the problem is consistancy. I am not sure what to believe, or even suspend my belief on since bioware keeps moving the goalposts around.

[SpiffySquee]

Nashiktal wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

Would Garrus think about revenge while bullets are flying? Probably not. The problem is that a lot of you are assuming that the bullets are flying the whole time. That is not the case in a mission. The problem is, what is he thinking about when they are just walking down the collector hall, or when he is standing there waiting for Shep to decide what to do. Is he focused on his surroundings, or is his mind drifting? Is it possible he missed seeing that collector 20 ft away because he was thinking about other things? In the army, every one in a leadership position receives training on the mental preparedness of their men. Even the best trained soldiers in the world have trouble putting serious personal issues aside. There mind has to stay focused for the entire mission, not just when bullets are flying.

Let me give you an example. Lets say an experienced soldier just got a letter from home that his wife left him. Then, during a mission, he is told to scan the perimeter while officers decide what to do. This is a boring, quiet job. After ten or fifteen minutes his mind starts think about this horrible event that is tearing him up inside. Do you seriously think he is going to be 100% focused? Do you think he will not even spend one second worrying about what is going on at home?

The point of the missions is to ensure everyone's head is in the game the entire time.

The problem is, why doesn't this apply for the rest of the game? The squad certainly has face equally dangerous odds during the game. Why didn't garrus get distracted during the final conflict against saren? He was having some major problems with his dad. Why wasn't ashley distracted by her romance (if you had one) with shep?

Pertaining to ME2, why didn't Mording kick the bucket when I brought him with me on the collector vessle? He was certainly shot enough times.

If focus was what killed these characters why doesn't it get them in other dangerous times? Not to mention it doesn't actually kill them, Garrus somehow losing focus means tali gets rocketed in the face, or his shields fail and he dies. Yet when miranda does it, she is suddenly bulletproof?

Again the problem is consistancy. I am not sure what to believe, or even suspend my belief on since bioware keeps moving the goalposts around.

Because it is a game. I'm not saying they did everything right. I am simply saying that the idea that Shep would want to solve these issues before the SM is believable. 

[AcidRelic]

... Wow, we are still going on about this... these people who agree with Smud must really have a hard time with any kind of entertainment - movies, games, books. It wouldn't surprise me if they found inconsistency and plot holes in their own life when going to the grocery store. I must be more laid back about my entertainment because for me, in the end, it's the whole of the story that I go by not the little flaws that I can overlook.

Not knocking anyone though because if you show this much passion for something, even if it's the flaws, you must care for it.

Modifié par AcidRelic, 22 septembre 2011 - 07:41 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Phaelducan wrote...

No, it should have been the end of the discussion pages ago, when your idiocy was debunked the last time. This should not have needed to be brought up again... as it's over and done with. Clearly you don't think effing VIDEO GAME REVIEWS are representative of the population of effing VIDEO GAME players who played the same effing VIDEO GAME that the review is for, so I have little hope that it will die... as it should have already.... this time.

Different ratings systems are fine, that's why there are aggregates available. 2500 people who played and reviewed Mass Effect 2 is more than enough to get an accurate and scientifically valid indication of the overall approval of Mass Effect 2, whether the sample is from a population of 600 or 6 million people who played Mass Effect 2.

Your refusal to accept that makes you foolish, and silly. You want to keep this up indefinitely, I can tell, and honestly that's ok. You are wrong, and will continue to be wrong, and it doesn't matter how hard you yell that you are right... you simply aren't. Go read a stats book. That would save me a lot of effort, since I'm tired of explaining basic statistical analysis to dummies over the internet. Hey, maybe there is a "Statistical Analysis for Dummies" that you could pick up. Maybe then you could let this die and stop trolling up the thread with nonsense.

You lack of understanding makes you look look retarded.
After al lthis pages yo ustil lhavne't grasped that approval of ME2 as a game and it's rating as a game mean SQUAT when talking ONLY about writing...which is only one element of the game.

And it's even more funny that YOU of all people are telling me to to look up statistics. Guess what dexter? I had classes on statistics. I have books. You aparently don't, sice you didn't even know what the terams "validity", "representative sample" and "correlation and causation" mean in the context.
If you really want to argue statistics, then do us the courtey of knowing at the last the basics on the subject you're talking about. This way you're just making an mockery of yourself - which while fun, does not add anything to the discussion.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Arkitekt wrote...

Point is, the story gives little justification as to why we're actually gathering half the people we do.

They are good. That's justification enough.

To you? Probably. But then again, your standards seem exceptionally low.

[SpiffySquee]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

No, it should have been the end of the discussion pages ago, when your idiocy was debunked the last time. This should not have needed to be brought up again... as it's over and done with. Clearly you don't think effing VIDEO GAME REVIEWS are representative of the population of effing VIDEO GAME players who played the same effing VIDEO GAME that the review is for, so I have little hope that it will die... as it should have already.... this time.

Different ratings systems are fine, that's why there are aggregates available. 2500 people who played and reviewed Mass Effect 2 is more than enough to get an accurate and scientifically valid indication of the overall approval of Mass Effect 2, whether the sample is from a population of 600 or 6 million people who played Mass Effect 2.

Your refusal to accept that makes you foolish, and silly. You want to keep this up indefinitely, I can tell, and honestly that's ok. You are wrong, and will continue to be wrong, and it doesn't matter how hard you yell that you are right... you simply aren't. Go read a stats book. That would save me a lot of effort, since I'm tired of explaining basic statistical analysis to dummies over the internet. Hey, maybe there is a "Statistical Analysis for Dummies" that you could pick up. Maybe then you could let this die and stop trolling up the thread with nonsense.

You lack of understanding makes you look look retarded.
After al lthis pages yo ustil lhavne't grasped that approval of ME2 as a game and it's rating as a game mean SQUAT when talking ONLY about writing...which is only one element of the game.

And it's even more funny that YOU of all people are telling me to to look up statistics. Guess what dexter? I had classes on statistics. I have books. You aparently don't, sice you didn't even know what the terams "validity", "representative sample" and "correlation and causation" mean in the context.
If you really want to argue statistics, then do us the courtey of knowing at the last the basics on the subject you're talking about. This way you're just making an mockery of yourself - which while fun, does not add anything to the discussion.

You keep saying it has no validity, but never back it up. We are talking about what people who played the game thought of it. Explain how the 5000 reviews of the people who played this game are not Representative of people who played the game. Are they not smart enough, old enough, the right gender? What? what makes them not valid?

And please, is anyone here capable of having a debate without throwing personal insults? "You look retarded, You are an idiot, you are a fanboy/hater. It is coming from both sides and it is absolutely childish.  Who cares if they started it. Be the better man.

Modifié par SpiffySquee, 22 septembre 2011 - 08:03 .

[Shepard the Leper]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Would Garrus think about revenge while bullets are flying? Probably not. The problem is that a lot of you are assuming that the bullets are flying the whole time. That is not the case in a mission. The problem is, what is he thinking about when they are just walking down the collector hall, or when he is standing there waiting for Shep to decide what to do. Is he focused on his surroundings, or is his mind drifting? Is it possible he missed seeing that collector 20 ft away because he was thinking about other things? In the army, every one in a leadership position receives training on the mental preparedness of their men. Even the best trained soldiers in the world have trouble putting serious personal issues aside. There mind has to stay focused for the entire mission, not just when bullets are flying.

Let me give you an example. Lets say an experienced soldier just got a letter from home that his wife left him. Then, during a mission, he is told to scan the perimeter while officers decide what to do. This is a boring, quiet job. After ten or fifteen minutes his mind starts think about this horrible event that is tearing him up inside. Do you seriously think he is going to be 100% focused? Do you think he will not even spend one second worrying about what is going on at home?

The point of the missions is to ensure everyone's head is in the game the entire time.

That's ridiculous. A commander isn't a social worker. Anyone who isn't capable on focusing on the mission at hand isn't fit to be a soldier (or a commander). In fact, one of the most important things is to blindly follow orders. Soldiers have to turn off their emotions in battle. I'm not saying this is easy, but without there isn't much to command in the first place.

Because it is a game. I'm not saying they did everything right. I am simply saying that the idea that Shep would want to solve these issues before the SM is believable.

Not really. The entire galaxy is at stake here, why should any commander care about family matters or other unimportant nonsense?

[Someone With Mass]

Shepard the Leper wrote...
That's ridiculous. A commander isn't a social worker. Anyone who isn't capable on focusing on the mission at hand isn't fit to be a soldier (or a commander). In fact, one of the most important things is to blindly follow orders. Soldiers have to turn off their emotions in battle. I'm not saying this is easy, but without there isn't much to command in the first place.

One problem. Most of these people aren't soldiers like Shepard.

Even if they were, that kind of mental training could take a long time to complete, since no-one is completely certain how the individual mind will react to a certain situation.

[SpiffySquee]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

Would Garrus think about revenge while bullets are flying? Probably not. The problem is that a lot of you are assuming that the bullets are flying the whole time. That is not the case in a mission. The problem is, what is he thinking about when they are just walking down the collector hall, or when he is standing there waiting for Shep to decide what to do. Is he focused on his surroundings, or is his mind drifting? Is it possible he missed seeing that collector 20 ft away because he was thinking about other things? In the army, every one in a leadership position receives training on the mental preparedness of their men. Even the best trained soldiers in the world have trouble putting serious personal issues aside. There mind has to stay focused for the entire mission, not just when bullets are flying.

Let me give you an example. Lets say an experienced soldier just got a letter from home that his wife left him. Then, during a mission, he is told to scan the perimeter while officers decide what to do. This is a boring, quiet job. After ten or fifteen minutes his mind starts think about this horrible event that is tearing him up inside. Do you seriously think he is going to be 100% focused? Do you think he will not even spend one second worrying about what is going on at home?

The point of the missions is to ensure everyone's head is in the game the entire time.

That's ridiculous. A commander isn't a social worker. Anyone who isn't capable on focusing on the mission at hand isn't fit to be a soldier (or a commander). In fact, one of the most important things is to blindly follow orders. Soldiers have to turn off their emotions in battle. I'm not saying this is easy, but without there isn't much to command in the first place.

Because it is a game. I'm not saying they did everything right. I am simply saying that the idea that Shep would want to solve these issues before the SM is believable.

Not really. The entire galaxy is at stake here, why should any commander care about family matters or other unimportant nonsense?

This is from a military training Manuel for NCO regarding combat stress. It list potential risk factors. This is from Chapter 2 Section 1  table 2.7:

"Worrying about what is happening back home distracts Soldiers from focusing their psychological defenses on combat and operational stressors.  It creates internal conflict over performing their combat duty and resolving the uncertainties and issues at home."

Link:https://rdl.train.ar...-22.5/intro.htm

I could tell you that when I was a solider personal problems always made high stress scenarios harder. I could relate how many countless hours I spent in classes, meeting, and leadership training designed to reduce and cope stress crated by personal problems back home. Of course, due to the fact this is the internet, you would have no real reason to trust me.

Luckily, you don't have to. Ask any soldier who has been deployed and they will tell you that personal problems (and I mean major, life changing events) are a constant enemy to combat readiness. A good leader tries to reduces these issues however possible prior to combat. You say a leader is not a social worker? Every NCO I ever had worth his salt was in everyone of his troops personal lives. He was a leader, a mentor, and an older brother. If you had personal issues, he would always be there for you to help however he could, because he understood that he welfare of his troops was just as important as their training. 

The point is, maybe these problems would not affect the mission... maybe. A good leader woulds not leave that to chance. If he/she is in a position to do something about it, they would. 

Modifié par SpiffySquee, 22 septembre 2011 - 10:21 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

It's not Sheps job to baby sit. The ship has a councilor (Kelly) for a reason.

Not to mention that some cases are excusable (like Miranda, Thane and Jacob), while others (like Jack) aren't.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 22 septembre 2011 - 10:55 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Shepard the Leper wrote...
That's ridiculous. A commander isn't a social worker. Anyone who isn't capable on focusing on the mission at hand isn't fit to be a soldier (or a commander). In fact, one of the most important things is to blindly follow orders. Soldiers have to turn off their emotions in battle. I'm not saying this is easy, but without there isn't much to command in the first place.

One problem. Most of these people aren't soldiers like Shepard.

Even if they were, that kind of mental training could take a long time to complete, since no-one is completely certain how the individual mind will react to a certain situation.

Yet they all survived countless battles so far, regardless of whatever personall issues they had.

[Lotion Soronarr]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

No, it should have been the end of the discussion pages ago, when your idiocy was debunked the last time. This should not have needed to be brought up again... as it's over and done with. Clearly you don't think effing VIDEO GAME REVIEWS are representative of the population of effing VIDEO GAME players who played the same effing VIDEO GAME that the review is for, so I have little hope that it will die... as it should have already.... this time.

Different ratings systems are fine, that's why there are aggregates available. 2500 people who played and reviewed Mass Effect 2 is more than enough to get an accurate and scientifically valid indication of the overall approval of Mass Effect 2, whether the sample is from a population of 600 or 6 million people who played Mass Effect 2.

Your refusal to accept that makes you foolish, and silly. You want to keep this up indefinitely, I can tell, and honestly that's ok. You are wrong, and will continue to be wrong, and it doesn't matter how hard you yell that you are right... you simply aren't. Go read a stats book. That would save me a lot of effort, since I'm tired of explaining basic statistical analysis to dummies over the internet. Hey, maybe there is a "Statistical Analysis for Dummies" that you could pick up. Maybe then you could let this die and stop trolling up the thread with nonsense.

You lack of understanding makes you look look retarded.
After al lthis pages yo ustil lhavne't grasped that approval of ME2 as a game and it's rating as a game mean SQUAT when talking ONLY about writing...which is only one element of the game.

And it's even more funny that YOU of all people are telling me to to look up statistics. Guess what dexter? I had classes on statistics. I have books. You aparently don't, sice you didn't even know what the terams "validity", "representative sample" and "correlation and causation" mean in the context.
If you really want to argue statistics, then do us the courtey of knowing at the last the basics on the subject you're talking about. This way you're just making an mockery of yourself - which while fun, does not add anything to the discussion.

You keep saying it has no validity, but never back it up. We are talking about what people who played the game thought of it. Explain how the 5000 reviews of the people who played this game are not Representative of people who played the game. Are they not smart enough, old enough, the right gender? What? what makes them not valid?

And please, is anyone here capable of having a debate without throwing personal insults? "You look retarded, You are an idiot, you are a fanboy/hater. It is coming from both sides and it is absolutely childish.  Who cares if they started it. Be the better man.

I have backed it up. With Statistics 101. Any smaple has to be representative. Samples should measure exactly what you're looking for.

You have 0 proof that the sample is representative in any way, shape or form. Agencies that make polls make a very big deal out of it.

Now, regarding hte second part. Correlation does not equal causation. Ergo, 5000 people saying "I love this game" does NOT mean that 5000 people love the story. I love the game and I don't particualy like the story.
The rating of a game as a whole doesn't tell you much about a specific part of the game. And this holds true for any object.

If 5000 pople rate BG1/2 highly, does that mean they rate it's graphics highly? If I say "Dwarf Fortress is a great game!" does that mean I consider it has great story?
Again, a general statement about a whole is not indicative of nay one part.

[SpiffySquee]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

No, it should have been the end of the discussion pages ago, when your idiocy was debunked the last time. This should not have needed to be brought up again... as it's over and done with. Clearly you don't think effing VIDEO GAME REVIEWS are representative of the population of effing VIDEO GAME players who played the same effing VIDEO GAME that the review is for, so I have little hope that it will die... as it should have already.... this time.

Different ratings systems are fine, that's why there are aggregates available. 2500 people who played and reviewed Mass Effect 2 is more than enough to get an accurate and scientifically valid indication of the overall approval of Mass Effect 2, whether the sample is from a population of 600 or 6 million people who played Mass Effect 2.

Your refusal to accept that makes you foolish, and silly. You want to keep this up indefinitely, I can tell, and honestly that's ok. You are wrong, and will continue to be wrong, and it doesn't matter how hard you yell that you are right... you simply aren't. Go read a stats book. That would save me a lot of effort, since I'm tired of explaining basic statistical analysis to dummies over the internet. Hey, maybe there is a "Statistical Analysis for Dummies" that you could pick up. Maybe then you could let this die and stop trolling up the thread with nonsense.

You lack of understanding makes you look look retarded.
After al lthis pages yo ustil lhavne't grasped that approval of ME2 as a game and it's rating as a game mean SQUAT when talking ONLY about writing...which is only one element of the game.

And it's even more funny that YOU of all people are telling me to to look up statistics. Guess what dexter? I had classes on statistics. I have books. You aparently don't, sice you didn't even know what the terams "validity", "representative sample" and "correlation and causation" mean in the context.
If you really want to argue statistics, then do us the courtey of knowing at the last the basics on the subject you're talking about. This way you're just making an mockery of yourself - which while fun, does not add anything to the discussion.

You keep saying it has no validity, but never back it up. We are talking about what people who played the game thought of it. Explain how the 5000 reviews of the people who played this game are not Representative of people who played the game. Are they not smart enough, old enough, the right gender? What? what makes them not valid?

And please, is anyone here capable of having a debate without throwing personal insults? "You look retarded, You are an idiot, you are a fanboy/hater. It is coming from both sides and it is absolutely childish.  Who cares if they started it. Be the better man.

I have backed it up. With Statistics 101. Any smaple has to be representative. Samples should measure exactly what you're looking for.

You have 0 proof that the sample is representative in any way, shape or form. Agencies that make polls make a very big deal out of it.

Now, regarding hte second part. Correlation does not equal causation. Ergo, 5000 people saying "I love this game" does NOT mean that 5000 people love the story. I love the game and I don't particualy like the story.
The rating of a game as a whole doesn't tell you much about a specific part of the game. And this holds true for any object.

If 5000 pople rate BG1/2 highly, does that mean they rate it's graphics highly? If I say "Dwarf Fortress is a great game!" does that mean I consider it has great story?
Again, a general statement about a whole is not indicative of nay one part.

Stating economics 101 does not count as backing up your case unless you show how it applies to your argument. You continuously ignore my question. The population in question is people who have played the game. Thus, the only thing needed for the sample to be Representative is for the people in the sample to have played the game. Period. So tell me, what makes this sample NOT representative? Are you seriously trying to suggest 5000 people who did not play the game reviewed it? Because that would be the only way the sample would not have validity. 
As for the second part, one of M's biggest selling point is the story. While I agree the review covers the game as a whole, I ask you to point out one person who gave the game a 9 out of 10, but said that the story sucked. Not that it had some problems here and there, but that he story was broken. Find even one reviewer like that and you may have a point.

[Notlikeyoucare]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

No, it should have been the end of the discussion pages ago, when your idiocy was debunked the last time. This should not have needed to be brought up again... as it's over and done with. Clearly you don't think effing VIDEO GAME REVIEWS are representative of the population of effing VIDEO GAME players who played the same effing VIDEO GAME that the review is for, so I have little hope that it will die... as it should have already.... this time.

Different ratings systems are fine, that's why there are aggregates available. 2500 people who played and reviewed Mass Effect 2 is more than enough to get an accurate and scientifically valid indication of the overall approval of Mass Effect 2, whether the sample is from a population of 600 or 6 million people who played Mass Effect 2.

Your refusal to accept that makes you foolish, and silly. You want to keep this up indefinitely, I can tell, and honestly that's ok. You are wrong, and will continue to be wrong, and it doesn't matter how hard you yell that you are right... you simply aren't. Go read a stats book. That would save me a lot of effort, since I'm tired of explaining basic statistical analysis to dummies over the internet. Hey, maybe there is a "Statistical Analysis for Dummies" that you could pick up. Maybe then you could let this die and stop trolling up the thread with nonsense.

You lack of understanding makes you look look retarded.
After al lthis pages yo ustil lhavne't grasped that approval of ME2 as a game and it's rating as a game mean SQUAT when talking ONLY about writing...which is only one element of the game.

And it's even more funny that YOU of all people are telling me to to look up statistics. Guess what dexter? I had classes on statistics. I have books. You aparently don't, sice you didn't even know what the terams "validity", "representative sample" and "correlation and causation" mean in the context.
If you really want to argue statistics, then do us the courtey of knowing at the last the basics on the subject you're talking about. This way you're just making an mockery of yourself - which while fun, does not add anything to the discussion.

You keep saying it has no validity, but never back it up. We are talking about what people who played the game thought of it. Explain how the 5000 reviews of the people who played this game are not Representative of people who played the game. Are they not smart enough, old enough, the right gender? What? what makes them not valid?

And please, is anyone here capable of having a debate without throwing personal insults? "You look retarded, You are an idiot, you are a fanboy/hater. It is coming from both sides and it is absolutely childish.  Who cares if they started it. Be the better man.

I have backed it up. With Statistics 101. Any smaple has to be representative. Samples should measure exactly what you're looking for.

You have 0 proof that the sample is representative in any way, shape or form. Agencies that make polls make a very big deal out of it.

Now, regarding hte second part. Correlation does not equal causation. Ergo, 5000 people saying "I love this game" does NOT mean that 5000 people love the story. I love the game and I don't particualy like the story.
The rating of a game as a whole doesn't tell you much about a specific part of the game. And this holds true for any object.

If 5000 pople rate BG1/2 highly, does that mean they rate it's graphics highly? If I say "Dwarf Fortress is a great game!" does that mean I consider it has great story?
Again, a general statement about a whole is not indicative of nay one part.

Stating economics 101 does not count as backing up your case unless you show how it applies to your argument. You continuously ignore my question. The population in question is people who have played the game. Thus, the only thing needed for the sample to be Representative is for the people in the sample to have played the game. Period. So tell me, what makes this sample NOT representative? Are you seriously trying to suggest 5000 people who did not play the game reviewed it? Because that would be the only way the sample would not have validity. 
As for the second part, one of M's biggest selling point is the story. While I agree the review covers the game as a whole, I ask you to point out one person who gave the game a 9 out of 10, but said that the story sucked. Not that it had some problems here and there, but that he story was broken. Find even one reviewer like that and you may have a point.

To be fair, none of the reviews I saw mentioned that the story was good or even why. They just said it was a "personal" story. Which is just a buzzword that I hear being tossed around alot to describe stories without a grand plot with small paramaters and small enclosed spaces.

[Lotion Soronarr]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I have backed it up. With Statistics 101. Any smaple has to be representative. Samples should measure exactly what you're looking for.

You have 0 proof that the sample is representative in any way, shape or form. Agencies that make polls make a very big deal out of it.

Now, regarding hte second part. Correlation does not equal causation. Ergo, 5000 people saying "I love this game" does NOT mean that 5000 people love the story. I love the game and I don't particualy like the story.
The rating of a game as a whole doesn't tell you much about a specific part of the game. And this holds true for any object.

If 5000 pople rate BG1/2 highly, does that mean they rate it's graphics highly? If I say "Dwarf Fortress is a great game!" does that mean I consider it has great story?
Again, a general statement about a whole is not indicative of nay one part.

Stating economics 101 does not count as backing up your case unless you show how it applies to your argument. You continuously ignore my question. The population in question is people who have played the game. Thus, the only thing needed for the sample to be Representative is for the people in the sample to have played the game. Period. So tell me, what makes this sample NOT representative? Are you seriously trying to suggest 5000 people who did not play the game reviewed it? Because that would be the only way the sample would not have validity. 
As for the second part, one of M's biggest selling point is the story. While I agree the review covers the game as a whole, I ask you to point out one person who gave the game a 9 out of 10, but said that the story sucked. Not that it had some problems here and there, but that he story was broken. Find even one reviewer like that and you may have a point.

I have explained how it applies. And you're wrong. Playing the game is not the only requirement. How do you make sure that these 5000 are representative of all players?
That's like saying like a poll of 5000 people is representative of a country, as long as those 5000 are citizens. Exactly who those 5000 are, does their cross-section match that of the country, etc...you wouldn't care right?
Now, if those 5000 interviewed jsut happen to all be memebrs of greenpeace...woudl it then be accurate to assume the entire country is a supporter of the green movement?
This is so self-evident, I don't belive I need to go further. "Has played the game" is NOT the onyl requirement for representabiltiy.


As for the reviews - most user reviews don't go into details or touch upon everything.
And I can find reviews of ME2 that didn't drool over the story as much as you.
And no, sorry, setting false requirement doesnt work on me. People mentioning the story having problems doesn't count, only if they claim it was compeltely broken? Haahahaahaaa:lol:

Yeah...No.

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Yet they all survived countless battles so far, regardless of whatever personall issues they had.

That doesn't mean the problem isn't there. It could be a matter of time before they slip.

For example: Grunt. He said that he had almost no control over his actions for reasons unknown at the time. That's worth correcting.

Legion: The heretics planned to use a virus against the normal geth. If Legion makes contact with that virus, he'd be turned into one of them.

Jack: She's obsessed with bombing the Teltin facility in an attempt to erase her memories about the experiments, because she's trapped in the past.

Tali: If she's exiled, she becomes severely depressed to the point where she thinks that she won't make it back from the mission.

Don't tell me things like that won't affect their performance.

[SpiffySquee]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I have backed it up. With Statistics 101. Any smaple has to be representative. Samples should measure exactly what you're looking for.

You have 0 proof that the sample is representative in any way, shape or form. Agencies that make polls make a very big deal out of it.

Now, regarding hte second part. Correlation does not equal causation. Ergo, 5000 people saying "I love this game" does NOT mean that 5000 people love the story. I love the game and I don't particualy like the story.
The rating of a game as a whole doesn't tell you much about a specific part of the game. And this holds true for any object.

If 5000 pople rate BG1/2 highly, does that mean they rate it's graphics highly? If I say "Dwarf Fortress is a great game!" does that mean I consider it has great story?
Again, a general statement about a whole is not indicative of nay one part.

Stating economics 101 does not count as backing up your case unless you show how it applies to your argument. You continuously ignore my question. The population in question is people who have played the game. Thus, the only thing needed for the sample to be Representative is for the people in the sample to have played the game. Period. So tell me, what makes this sample NOT representative? Are you seriously trying to suggest 5000 people who did not play the game reviewed it? Because that would be the only way the sample would not have validity. 
As for the second part, one of M's biggest selling point is the story. While I agree the review covers the game as a whole, I ask you to point out one person who gave the game a 9 out of 10, but said that the story sucked. Not that it had some problems here and there, but that he story was broken. Find even one reviewer like that and you may have a point.

I have explained how it applies. And you're wrong. Playing the game is not the only requirement. How do you make sure that these 5000 are representative of all players?
That's like saying like a poll of 5000 people is representative of a country, as long as those 5000 are citizens. Exactly who those 5000 are, does their cross-section match that of the country, etc...you wouldn't care right?
Now, if those 5000 interviewed jsut happen to all be memebrs of greenpeace...woudl it then be accurate to assume the entire country is a supporter of the green movement?
This is so self-evident, I don't belive I need to go further. "Has played the game" is NOT the onyl requirement for representabiltiy.


As for the reviews - most user reviews don't go into details or touch upon everything.
And I can find reviews of ME2 that didn't drool over the story as much as you.
And no, sorry, setting false requirement doesnt work on me. People mentioning the story having problems doesn't count, only if they claim it was compeltely broken? Haahahaahaaa:lol:

Yeah...No.

 I have always admitted that it had it's faults. I simply do not think it is any where near as bad as you say it is. I do not drool over the game, so save your insults for someone who enjoys trading them with you. 

It was never an argument of , "did everyone think the story was perfect" You and several others are saying that the story is broken. That it makes no sense and is horrible writing. The counter was, if the story was as bad as you claim, why are you in the small minority in your opinions? The vast majority of the people who played the game loved it. Mass Effect is a story based game. You might forgive some mistakes story wise and still give it a 9 out of 10. But who is going to give a 9 out of 10 to a game whose story is horrible, when the story is one of the main selling points of the game?

Since reviews cover the whole game (including story), you would have to prove those reviews were made despite the story. 

[Shepard the Leper]

SpiffySquee wrote...

This is from a military training Manuel for NCO regarding combat stress. It list potential risk factors. This is from Chapter 2 Section 1  table 2.7:

"Worrying about what is happening back home distracts Soldiers from focusing their psychological defenses on combat and operational stressors.  It creates internal conflict over performing their combat duty and resolving the uncertainties and issues at home."

Link:https://rdl.train.ar...-22.5/intro.htm

What does that have to do with anything? Grass is green, people worry about things - so what? The job of any commander or leader is to get the job done as best as possible. Everything else is of no concern whatsoever. A commander also has to evalute his/her troops and when there are some who are not able to follow commands or to do their duty, they should be removed b/c they will be a risk to the entire operation / team.

Discipline and line-of-command are critical in every military organization - this has been known since the dawn of war. Furthermore, the bonds forged when people face danger and hardship (together) can be(come) much stronger than blood.

You can be sure that anyone who gets into a dangerous situation will forget everything else except survival. One of the main goals of military training is to drill soldiers over and over again so they will act without thinking when things get nasty.   

I could tell you that when I was a solider personal problems always made high stress scenarios harder. I could relate how many countless hours I spent in classes, meeting, and leadership training designed to reduce and cope stress crated by personal problems back home. Of course, due to the fact this is the internet, you would have no real reason to trust me.

Luckily, you don't have to. Ask any soldier who has been deployed and they will tell you that personal problems (and I mean major, life changing events) are a constant enemy to combat readiness. A good leader tries to reduces these issues however possible prior to combat. You say a leader is not a social worker? Every NCO I ever had worth his salt was in everyone of his troops personal lives. He was a leader, a mentor, and an older brother. If you had personal issues, he would always be there for you to help however he could, because he understood that he welfare of his troops was just as important as their training. 

The point is, maybe these problems would not affect the mission... maybe. A good leader woulds not leave that to chance. If he/she is in a position to do something about it, they would. 

So a "good" commander would fly back to the US whenever a soldier has got issues with his girlfriend (who doesn't answer his calls), before engaging the Taliban - for example?

Of course any person (commander or not) should be interested in the people (s)he works with, especially in life and death situations. That, however, doesn't mean those issues have to be dealt with before proceeding. A couple words of comfort are the best one can do. The military or whatever other business one's working for are not responsible for personal issues.

To get back to your Garrus example. I would have told Garrus that I understand why he wants to go after Sidonis, but the fool will die anyway should the SM fail. I would have used Garrus' hate to increase his focus on the mission at hand. Vengeance is a very powerful stimuli - one could argue that not solving Garrus' problem makes him a better fighter simply because he wants to succeed and survive to get the opportunity to avenge his former squad (and kill Sidonis).

[Il Divo]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Since reviews cover the whole game (including story), you would have to prove those reviews were made despite the story. 

Except the burden is always going to be on you to demonstrate why/how reviewers thought the story was good. All the review tells us is that the players enjoyed the overall experience, which does not tell us which aspects in particular they liked or dislike. I think Mass Effect 2 had a fairly weak storyline, but I'd still give it a 9.5-9.7 out of ten. A good review tells us nothing about the storyline.