Does it matter? What qualifies one to be a gamer as opposed to a "gamer", anyway?
Are those who have played BioWare game since the beginning who loved Inquisition gamers or "gamers"?
The way I look at it is that if you are knowledgeable about the industry/a wide variety of games, you are gamer. If you don't meet my criterion you are a "gamer". And nobody likes airquotes, the stigma.
Does it matter? What qualifies one to be a gamer as opposed to a "gamer", anyway?
Are those who have played BioWare game since the beginning who loved Inquisition gamers or "gamers"?
There is no agreed upon definition for "gamer," and this is precisely the point I'm trying to get you to recognize with regard to your first reply; we don't know who was voting in these polls or why (see my above post for other valid motivations). Since we don't know the demographics of those sampled, there's absolutely nothing that can be inferred from the poll other than Inquisition got more votes than the other games nominated.
So it's factually true that Inquisition won a popular vote for Game of the Year, but there's no meaning in that without more information.
That's precious.
You think that because some people who like the game undoubtedly voted for it, that it somehow suggests other motives do not exist. Motives such as: the other nominated titles did not interest the voter; the other nominated titles were not played by the voter; the voters represent a vocal minority of happy people who would otherwise remain silent in the absence of popularity polls; the voting demographic was modified by external media and advertising.
You're adorable.
Proof, if it were required - you will continually look for excuses to not have to admit that actually people might think it's quite good. And I did also point out that people who like something tend not to be overtly vocal about it and in general don't really vote for stuff. It's the people who don't like a thing who are more vocal and more likely to vote. That being the case, I wonder how the game got the peoples' choice.
Oh and being patronising doesn't really help your case dude, just saying 
Anyway, it's been fun but that's it from me for the evening. I'm going to go and play the game rather than talk about it.
The Hinterland isn't going to clear itself, you know.
Does it matter? What qualifies one to be a gamer as opposed to a "gamer", anyway?
Are those who have played BioWare game since the beginning who loved Inquisition gamers or "gamers"?
Ehm, i'm a statistician and if you by "valid" mean a random unbiased sample of a population or representative of the population i agree. If not, then i disagree.
You have the lead on me in expertise, yes I would want the sample to be representative.
My principal point is that dismissing a survey because only a small proportion of the population completed it misses the point of how surveys work.
Proof, if it were required - you will continually look for excuses to not have to admit that actually people might think it's quite good. And I did also point out that people who like something tend not to be overtly vocal about it and in general don't really vote for stuff. It's the people who don't like a thing who are more vocal and more likely to vote. That being the case, I wonder how the game got the peoples' choice.
Oh and being patronising doesn't really help your case dude, just saying
I don't have to admit that some people who voted for the game think it's quite good. It's undeniable and no one is actually arguing that. This is a debate about degree and what popularity polling actually tells us, as opposed to people like you assuming it has tangible meaning as to the game's quality (perceived and real).
Citation needed for these claims: "And I did also point out that people who like something tend not to be overtly vocal about it and in general don't really vote for stuff. It's the people who don't like a thing who are more vocal and more likely to vote."
Sounds anecdotal to me...
"I don't know why that is, but in keeping with the nay-sayers on here I am unwilling and/or unable to give any credence to the idea that people might just actually genuinely like the game, and have no issues with its perceived quality."
And you were doing so well...
You mean patronizing like this?
We can't apply anything to the samples because no one was sampled--and this is the key difference between popularity and scientific polling data.
What if popularity is all one wishes to argue? Are these voluntary samples still unapplicable?
There is no agreed upon definition for "gamer," and this is precisely the point I'm trying to get you to recognize with regard to your first reply; we don't know who was voting in these polls or why (see my above post for other valid motivations). Since we don't know the demographics of those sampled, there's absolutely nothing that can be inferred from the poll other than Inquisition got more votes than the other games nominated.
So it's factually true that Inquisition won a popular vote for Game of the Year, but there's no meaning in that without more information.
There are some inferences that can be made. Now, they're merely that, but they can be made. Most likely the majority of people who voted were persons who visit the site, a site dedicated to gaming, which means that there's a relatively high chance that the voters had at least some interest in gaming. People who visit gaming forums generally skew towards those who have an interest in gaming,
As I said, we'll never have concrete numbers, but one shouldn't dismiss it out of hand.
I will stay classy. Thank you.
What if popularity is all one wishes to argue? Are these voluntary samples still unapplicable?
It depends on how you define "popular," which I suppose is really the crux of the argument. It's my belief that these polls only represent enthusiasm--which is not to be confused with recognition of quality or approval.
There are some inferences that can be made. Now, they're merely that, but they can be made. Most likely the majority of people who voted were persons who visit the site, a site dedicated to gaming, which means that there's a relatively high chance that the voters had at least some interest in gaming. People who visit gaming forums generally skew towards those who have an interest in gaming,
As I said, we'll never have concrete numbers, but one shouldn't dismiss it out of hand.
You're correct: inferences can be made. I should have qualified my point by emphasizing "reasonable inferences." No inference can be reasonable here since there's absolutely no information available. Which is unfortunate, but I suppose it's helpful to marketing types to not get bogged down in the details. Wink wink.
I dismiss the conclusion that it represents a meaningful evaluation of the game as "good," which has been suggested in this thread.
It depends on how you define "popular," which I suppose is really the crux of the argument. It's my belief that these polls only represent enthusiasm--which is not to be confused with recognition of quality or approval.
You couldn't stop being classy if you tried.
Aren't popularity and approval kinda synonymous when it comes to this kind of thing?
Why would something be popular from many majorities if it didn't have their approval?
It might seem that way, but remember that there are a statistically significant number of people who vote for something as a vote against another. It's quite possible that people voting for Inquisition were spending their vote in opposition to a game they disliked. The "lesser of two evils" vote, as it were; they don't approve of the thing they're voting for, they just don't want something else to win.
It might seem that way, but remember that there are a statistically significant number of people who vote for something as a vote against another. It's quite possible that people voting for Inquisition were spending their vote in opposition to a game they disliked. The "lesser of two evils" vote, as it were; they don't approve of the thing they're voting for, they just don't want something else to win.
Dreamer, that is a fair assessment. Those that adore the game will argue with your enthusiasm point, whereas those that abhor the game will likely agree with it. We do not have any way to know which of these groups, or any others, were represented with the poll.
The issue for some, it should be pointed out, is that some people will dismiss critic polling as meaningless, because critics can be bought, buy into media hype etc. At the same time, some of these people will then dismiss fan voting, by placing some criteria on the participants. These leaves us in an area where, if we followed all of said people's critera, we'd have no opinion to take seriously, except of course their own.
This is many people's issues when someone attempts to dismiss poll results. I'm sure you're aware of this, but I have to point it out anyway.
I dismiss the conclusion that it represents a meaningful evaluation of the game as "good," which has been suggested in this thread.
I can't speak for others, but I only bring up GOTY polls as a rebuttal. Unless someone tries to argue the "majority" hate DA: I or some such nonsense, I am perfectly content to discuss the game without reference to anyone but myself.
Then why didn't the majority of votes go to the Lord of the Rings game, something far more universally loved than Dragon Age?
There are so many reasons why that could be and we can't be sure of any of them. My inkling is the enthusiasm gap: Inquisition is a more recent launch and therefore more current in the minds of people voting. The game your playing might seem more exciting than the one you put down months ago. But I honestly don't know, and my suggestion is that none of us know, so despite Inquisition winning a poll, it really doesn't mean anything.
We don't know why Inquisition won--including: "because it's good."
There are so many reasons why that could be and we can't be sure of any of them. My inkling is the enthusiasm gap: Inquisition is a more recent launch and therefore more current in the minds of people voting. The game your playing might seem more exciting than the one you put down months ago. But I honestly don't know, and my suggestion is that none of us know, so despite Inquisition winning a poll, it really doesn't mean anything.
The Last of Us dominated last year, and it was a June release. Historically, the "this game is relevant right now" point hasn't panned out despite it making sense.
The Last of Us dominated last year, and it was a June release. Historically, the "this game is relevant right now" point hasn't panned out despite it making sense.
Sure.
But The Last of Us was a critically acclaimed success (for many reasons including its socially progressive message), and it's still written about at length. That's a staying power and level of enthusiasm that carries its popularity to this day. Put another way: it's still relevant.
Shadow of Mordor, however, does not have the same draw despite its own critical acclaim. Having not played it myself, I can honestly say that I was reminded of its existence through the whole Game of the Year process.
We don't know why Inquisition won--including: "because it's good."
It's a good game, but I doubt it would win much of anything if it released 2 months later than it did.
Sure, we do. Because people, at over a hundred sources that include twenty-something reader polls, preferred it to the other releases in that given year. Why would that many general gaming sources prefer something that wasn't good?
I disagree that because it won awards that it means the game is "good." And I again point you to the "lesser of two evils" phenomena which could suggest Inquisition was just better than what was on offer (in a year that many of the same outlets would agree was not great for gaming--especially in AAA), but that doesn't necessarily make Inquisition a good game.
Retour en haut