719 réponses à ce sujet

[Seival]

Cyonan wrote...

Seival wrote...
I'm not arguing, I'm just saying the fact. I'm working in the game development industry as senior tester for over 10 years, and I can judge games quality objectively. This is what I gain salary for, after all. Testers not only finding, posting, checking bugs, and completing countless test cases during a game's production. They record game's performance, check the game from a point of view of common users, test balance and give suggestions on how to improve it. They write reports regarding overall game's quality. Objectively. And also they can subjectively say if they like the game (or some particular feature in it) or not, and why of course.

What's objectively better between moving faster with low durability, or moving slower with high durability?

What's objectively better between running at 60FPS 3/4 of the time, or running at 30 FPS all the time?

Note that both of those questions don't actually have a correct answer, and they involve both balance and performance of a game. Personally, I prefer the second one in both questions. I know of plenty of people who would rather have the first, though.

It is also not an objective statement to say "This kind of gameplay is quite diverse and challenging". The objective statement about a QTE's difficulty would be "You must react within X seconds or Y will happen". Skill and reaction time is going to vary from person to person, so what one person finds difficult another will find easy.

As I said, it's extremely hard to make purely objective statements about the quality of a game. Especially considering the overall quality must include elements like gameplay, aesthetic, voice acting, and writing.

What's objectively better between moving faster with low durability, or moving slower with high durability? This objectively depends on how exactly this was balanced. And how exactly this was balanced is determined by testing. Objectively.

What's objectively better between running at 60FPS 3/4 of the time, or running at 30 FPS all the time? This depends on how good is the rest 1/4 in case of 60FPS. Objectively.

...Which means, that both questions can have objective answers. You just need to analyze balance and performance testing results.

My statement about QTE was a short summary. An objective conclusion based on what I've seen in different games, including Beyond. Why should I prove that with full-scale reports here?

Yes, some objective answers are really hard and time consuming to find. But this doesn't mean it's impossible.

Modifié par Seival, 22 janvier 2014 - 12:23 .

[spirosz]

Because QTE as a whole, is still very "rare" to be the main element of a game. I bet testers don't really get to say many "negative" points, especially depending on how late or early they do involve themselves in the development cycle - more or less, influencing decisions - doubtful.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Threat300 wrote...

Shame that everyone in this thread apart from the slightly crazy Seival seems to hate Beyond: Two Souls i enjoyed it

Hate's a strong word, I just don't find it all that impressive and down right silly at times. There are moments where the story works but just as many where it doesn't if you follow me.

Seival wrote...

Each video game has subjective flaws, yes. But quality is an objective entity.

The cognitive dissonance is strong here.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 22 janvier 2014 - 12:51 .

[Rusty Sandusky]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Threat300 wrote...

Shame that everyone in this thread apart from the slightly crazy Seival seems to hate Beyond: Two Souls i enjoyed it

Hates a strong word, I just don't find it all that impressive and down right silly at times. There are moments where the story works but just as many where it doesn't if you follow me.

I don't like it because it's a downgrade from Heavy Rain in nearly every way.

[spirosz]

^ (up one - lol)

Modifié par spirosz, 22 janvier 2014 - 12:52 .

[General TSAR]

Seival wrote...
Each video game has subjective flaws, yes. But quality is an objective entity. Beyond: Two Souls quality can be used as an example of how video games should be produced,

(BARF)

When a video game is really treated as master artwork by its developers, it will always have the best possible quality, and it will always attract enough fans.

(BARF)

[Cyonan]

Seival wrote...
What's objectively better between moving faster with low durability, or moving slower with high durability? This objectively depends on how exactly this was balanced. And how exactly this was balanced is determined by testing. Objectively.

What's objectively better between running at 60FPS 3/4 of the time, or running at 30 FPS all the time? This depends on how good is the rest 1/4 in case of 60FPS. Objectively.

...Which means, that both questions can have objective answers. You just need to analyze balance and performance testing results.

My statement about QTE was a short summary. An objective conclusion based on what I've seen in different games, including Beyond. Why should I prove that with full-scale reports here?

Yes, some objective answers are really hard and time consuming to find. But this doesn't mean it's impossible.

Actually neither of them have objective answers. In order to define what criteria is supposed to make it "better" you have to bring your own personal opinion into it. In the case of the FPS question, trying to answer your question would again be opinion. Some people might be okay with it if the framerate never dropped below 50, but other players might not be.

You can't objectively prove that 60 FPS 3/4 of the time while not dropping below 50 is "better" than 30 FPS all of the time.

You made a statement that QTEs which are "well designed" are challenging. Somebody with a different skill level than you is going to end up with a different opinion on how challenging QTEs are.

[General TSAR]

No one likes QTEs, anyway.

[AresKeith]

General TSAR wrote...

No one likes QTEs, anyway.

I do in certain situations and if they're done right

[General TSAR]

I lied me too, like the first fight with Krauser in RE4 or ripping apart dudes in God Of War.

But that's only because the QTEs are but a small scripted event wedged in the middle of non-stop player action.

Modifié par General TSAR, 22 janvier 2014 - 01:35 .

[General TSAR]

The greatness of what?

[wolfsite]

J. Reezy wrote...

General TSAR wrote...

No one likes QTEs, anyway.

Yo homie did you just insult the greatness that is Shenmue and its sexy QTE sound effects?

QTE are a product of there time, unfortunately games began relying on QTE's too much which soured them substantially.

[spirosz]

General TSAR wrote...

No one likes QTEs, anyway.

Wrong sis. 

[General TSAR]

spirosz wrote...

Wrong sis. 

I lied anyway. :innocent:

[Seival]

Cyonan wrote...

Seival wrote...
What's objectively better between moving faster with low durability, or moving slower with high durability? This objectively depends on how exactly this was balanced. And how exactly this was balanced is determined by testing. Objectively.

What's objectively better between running at 60FPS 3/4 of the time, or running at 30 FPS all the time? This depends on how good is the rest 1/4 in case of 60FPS. Objectively.

...Which means, that both questions can have objective answers. You just need to analyze balance and performance testing results.

My statement about QTE was a short summary. An objective conclusion based on what I've seen in different games, including Beyond. Why should I prove that with full-scale reports here?

Yes, some objective answers are really hard and time consuming to find. But this doesn't mean it's impossible.

Actually neither of them have objective answers. In order to define what criteria is supposed to make it "better" you have to bring your own personal opinion into it. In the case of the FPS question, trying to answer your question would again be opinion. Some people might be okay with it if the framerate never dropped below 50, but other players might not be.

You can't objectively prove that 60 FPS 3/4 of the time while not dropping below 50 is "better" than 30 FPS all of the time.

You made a statement that QTEs which are "well designed" are challenging. Somebody with a different skill level than you is going to end up with a different opinion on how challenging QTEs are.

Test results shouldn't be subjective. Subjective test results aren't trustworthy, and mean that testers didn't make their job well enough. Only play-test results are always mostly subjective, and only because the job is done by people who do not work in game development - testers only write-down everything play-testers comment while playing, plus everything they thought was important to notice even if this wasn't commented by play-testers. Most of the comments are subjective, but sometimes such tests provide developers with little amount of objective feedback, which is why such tests performed at first place. Everything regarding game balance and performance testing must have the objective results, otherwise the testing wasn't effective enough.

When it comes to game difficulty testing, it performed against avarage user skills, and provides objective results. Devs know that some users will be more skilled and some less skilled, but that doesn't matter for objective test results. This is why it always good if a tester has only avarage gaming skills, or can emulate them.

I suggest you to play B:TS and try its QTEs on hard difficulty. I'm sure you will find many of them very challenging, if you are not an imba cyber-sportsman.

Modifié par Seival, 22 janvier 2014 - 11:07 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Seival do your hamsters work in relays or do you just dispose of them as they burn out?

[Rusty Sandusky]

I think I may have asked this before but what do you think of the Crysis games, Seival? Specifically Crysis 2 and 3.

[wolfsite]

Seival wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

Seival wrote...
What's objectively better between moving faster with low durability, or moving slower with high durability? This objectively depends on how exactly this was balanced. And how exactly this was balanced is determined by testing. Objectively.

What's objectively better between running at 60FPS 3/4 of the time, or running at 30 FPS all the time? This depends on how good is the rest 1/4 in case of 60FPS. Objectively.

...Which means, that both questions can have objective answers. You just need to analyze balance and performance testing results.

My statement about QTE was a short summary. An objective conclusion based on what I've seen in different games, including Beyond. Why should I prove that with full-scale reports here?

Yes, some objective answers are really hard and time consuming to find. But this doesn't mean it's impossible.

Actually neither of them have objective answers. In order to define what criteria is supposed to make it "better" you have to bring your own personal opinion into it. In the case of the FPS question, trying to answer your question would again be opinion. Some people might be okay with it if the framerate never dropped below 50, but other players might not be.

You can't objectively prove that 60 FPS 3/4 of the time while not dropping below 50 is "better" than 30 FPS all of the time.

You made a statement that QTEs which are "well designed" are challenging. Somebody with a different skill level than you is going to end up with a different opinion on how challenging QTEs are.

Test results shouldn't be subjective. Subjective test results aren't trustworthy, and mean that testers didn't make their job well enough. Only play-test results are always mostly subjective, and only because the job is done by people who do not work in game development - testers only write-down everything play-testers comment while playing, plus everything they thought was important to notice even if this wasn't commented by play-testers. Most of the comments are subjective, but sometimes such tests provide developers with little amount of objective feedback, which is why such tests performed at first place. Everything regarding game balance and performance testing must have the objective results, otherwise the testing wasn't effective enough.

When it comes to game difficulty testing, it performed against avarage user skills, and provides objective results. Devs know that some users will be more skilled and some less skilled, but that doesn't matter for objective test results. This is why it always good if a tester has only avarage gaming skills, or can emulate them.

I suggest you to play B:TS and try its QTEs on hard difficulty. I'm sure you will find many of them very challenging, if you are not an imba cyber-sportsman.

Frankly I just love how whenever someone comes up stating there displeasure for a agame you just tell them "They are playing it wrong" or "the testers didn't do there job right".  Or when someone finds evidence that proves a statement you made is wrong you just state "You looked the information up wrong" or " That person doesn't count" yet you never, ever, ever, produce any evidence or editorials to support your claims..... seriously you should try out for politics you would fit in great.

[General TSAR]

Heavy Rain leaves the player a little room to shape their experience in a number of ways, but probably the biggest is the chance for failure. With four controllable characters available throughout the narrative, Quantic Dream wisely allowed the player to screw up so badly that the protagonists could die — and the game would continue on without them.

That meant that all your quick-time events, your careful explorations of the environments, even your menial showers and shoe-tying and whatever else, could actually be important at some point. Heavy Rain positioned itself in such a way that suggested that everything had significance, even if it was just a little extra time spent with the characters. Information revealed in your investigations might come up later, it might not. Preparations made at the right moment felt as thought they could pay off. There was a premium placed on paying attention, in getting immersed in Heavy Rain’s world — because that world included consequences.

There are no consequences, really, at work in Beyond: Two Souls, and it’s painfully obvious at every turn that how you enact each scene makes absolutely no difference to the flow of the story. If you don’t want to be a petulant child-ghost that tortures people, the game makes you into one, even if you don’t play along with it’s senseless fits of Aiden-rage during moments like The Experiment and The Party. You’re not that character, the game reminds you repeatedly. So why does it bother making you play as that character, if your being there adds nothing to the experience?

Similarly, even though Beyond is packed with heavy action moments, it makes no real difference whether you’re a well-trained ass-kicker or you get the snot beat out of you at every turn. There’s no incentive to complete the game’s interactive portions with any skill. So again, what’s the point of holding a controller if you’re just watching anyway? Heavy Rain had its flaws, but at least it effectively utilized interactivity to draw players into the drama. Beyond: Two Souls feels as if its grudgingly making use of interactivity just because it must.

http://www.gamefront.com/how-beyond-two-souls-fails-where-heavy-rain-succeeds/

During the "Mission" chapter, gunmen when they spot you, don't shoot you, instead they run up and try to hit you with the butt of their AK. Do you know what that does? Removes all tension and consequences. 

Modifié par General TSAR, 22 janvier 2014 - 03:09 .

[AresKeith]

General TSAR wrote...

Heavy Rain leaves the player a little room to shape their experience in a number of ways, but probably the biggest is the chance for failure. With four controllable characters available throughout the narrative, Quantic Dream wisely allowed the player to screw up so badly that the protagonists could die — and the game would continue on without them.

That meant that all your quick-time events, your careful explorations of the environments, even your menial showers and shoe-tying and whatever else, could actually be important at some point. Heavy Rain positioned itself in such a way that suggested that everything had significance, even if it was just a little extra time spent with the characters. Information revealed in your investigations might come up later, it might not. Preparations made at the right moment felt as thought they could pay off. There was a premium placed on paying attention, in getting immersed in Heavy Rain’s world — because that world included consequences.

There are no consequences, really, at work in Beyond: Two Souls, and it’s painfully obvious at every turn that how you enact each scene makes absolutely no difference to the flow of the story. If you don’t want to be a petulant child-ghost that tortures people, the game makes you into one, even if you don’t play along with it’s senseless fits of Aiden-rage during moments like The Experiment and The Party. You’re not that character, the game reminds you repeatedly. So why does it bother making you play as that character, if your being there adds nothing to the experience?

Similarly, even though Beyond is packed with heavy action moments, it makes no real difference whether you’re a well-trained ass-kicker or you get the snot beat out of you at every turn. There’s no incentive to complete the game’s interactive portions with any skill. So again, what’s the point of holding a controller if you’re just watching anyway? Heavy Rain had its flaws, but at least it effectively utilized interactivity to draw players into the drama. Beyond: Two Souls feels as if its grudgingly making use of interactivity just because it must.

http://www.gamefront.com/how-beyond-two-souls-fails-where-heavy-rain-succeeds/

During the "Mission" chapter, gunmen when they spot you, don't shoot you, instead they run up and try to hit you with the butt of their AK. Do you know what that does? Removes all tension and consequences. 

That's one of my biggest issues with the game is that it literally holds you hand through out the whole thing

[Cyonan]

Seival wrote...
Test results shouldn't be subjective. Subjective test results aren't trustworthy, and mean that testers didn't make their job well enough. Only play-test results are always mostly subjective, and only because the job is done by people who do not work in game development - testers only write-down everything play-testers comment while playing, plus everything they thought was important to notice even if this wasn't commented by play-testers. Most of the comments are subjective, but sometimes such tests provide developers with little amount of objective feedback, which is why such tests performed at first place. Everything regarding game balance and performance testing must have the objective results, otherwise the testing wasn't effective enough.

When it comes to game difficulty testing, it performed against avarage user skills, and provides objective results. Devs know that some users will be more skilled and some less skilled, but that doesn't matter for objective test results. This is why it always good if a tester has only avarage gaming skills, or can emulate them.

I suggest you to play B:TS and try its QTEs on hard difficulty. I'm sure you will find many of them very challenging, if you are not an imba cyber-sportsman.

Subjective tests are useful because video games are a subjective thing to begin with.

I'm not entirely sure you know what the word objective means. It can't have any personal influences on it, which means that if you're performing a test against the average user skills, you're performing a subjective test because even the average skill level is a personal influence. It's just the best you can do given the situation.

It would be objective to say "60% of users said this was difficult" but subjective to say "This is difficult because 60% of users said it was". Note that the objective statement doesn't try to claim that the thing in question is easy or hard, it just notes how many people found it hard.

It doesn't matter if I find B:TS challenging or not, the moment you said "if you are not an imba cyber-sportsman" you already proved that it's subjective and affected by personal bias.

Objective needs to be true for everybody, not "just enough" people.

[Seival]

Cyonan wrote...

Seival wrote...
Test results shouldn't be subjective. Subjective test results aren't trustworthy, and mean that testers didn't make their job well enough. Only play-test results are always mostly subjective, and only because the job is done by people who do not work in game development - testers only write-down everything play-testers comment while playing, plus everything they thought was important to notice even if this wasn't commented by play-testers. Most of the comments are subjective, but sometimes such tests provide developers with little amount of objective feedback, which is why such tests performed at first place. Everything regarding game balance and performance testing must have the objective results, otherwise the testing wasn't effective enough.

When it comes to game difficulty testing, it performed against avarage user skills, and provides objective results. Devs know that some users will be more skilled and some less skilled, but that doesn't matter for objective test results. This is why it always good if a tester has only avarage gaming skills, or can emulate them.

I suggest you to play B:TS and try its QTEs on hard difficulty. I'm sure you will find many of them very challenging, if you are not an imba cyber-sportsman.

Subjective tests are useful because video games are a subjective thing to begin with.

I'm not entirely sure you know what the word objective means. It can't have any personal influences on it, which means that if you're performing a test against the average user skills, you're performing a subjective test because even the average skill level is a personal influence. It's just the best you can do given the situation.

It would be objective to say "60% of users said this was difficult" but subjective to say "This is difficult because 60% of users said it was". Note that the objective statement doesn't try to claim that the thing in question is easy or hard, it just notes how many people found it hard.

It doesn't matter if I find B:TS challenging or not, the moment you said "if you are not an imba cyber-sportsman" you already proved that it's subjective and affected by personal bias.

Objective needs to be true for everybody, not "just enough" people.

There are no such things as "subjective tests" or "subjective video games". There are subjective or objective results of tests, and subjective or objective attitudes towards games' quality and attractiveness.

It wouldn't always be objective to say "60% of users said this was difficult", because users can overestimate or underestimate difficulty level after several play attempts and give biased feedback. And it wouldn't always be subjective to say "this is difficult because 60% of users said it was", because these 60% could be the users with avarage gaming skill, objectively determined by developers via series of play-tests.

I consider myself as an avarage-skilled player, and that attitude isn't formed only by myself. Every game development company I worked in confirmed that by its internal standards. So, when I see something difficult for me personally in a game, I can objectively say that all avarage skilled players will find that difficult enough too. And avarage skilled players are usually the bulk of a game's target auditory.

...So, believe me, if I say Beyond: Two Souls has difficult QTEs, it really has difficult QTEs. Objectively.

Modifié par Seival, 22 janvier 2014 - 09:04 .

[General TSAR]

Seival wrote...
So, when I see something difficult for me personally in a game, I can objectively say that all avarage skilled players will find that difficult enough too. 

That's complete and utter nonsense.

...So, believe me, 

Yes, beLIEve you.

if I say Beyond: Two Souls has difficult QTEs, it really has difficult QTEs. Objectively.

That's called a subjective opinion, dull stone. 

Modifié par General TSAR, 22 janvier 2014 - 09:17 .