638 réponses à ce sujet

[goishen]

And plus, I think that the OP is also forgetting about attorneys.  Attorneys can hammer out a deal without even having to step a foot into a courtroom.  Only when they finally come to blows to decide what's fair and right do the judges and juries get involved. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

To be honest I've never replayed either Kotor, nor have I replayed Jade Empire, so speaking to the problems or potential problems in these games would be difficult for me. All I can remember is the innovation I felt they provided over previous gaming experiences (having gamed since my Commodore 64 and 286, and playing my first PC game around '87 as Dig Dug, at the age of 5). I dont think its particularly fair to consider them only on the basis of 2016. In reality, they largely have to be considered for their given time period as thats what they were competing with at the time, and the industry has since developed and matured. IMHO my high opinions of Kotor are not purely nostalgia, at the time these were significant narrative experiences that were VERY different and innovative. Especially the companion systems and relationships created through narrative in gaming. To me this was quite significant.
 
In summary, saying that I "Started at Kotor", wasnt really meant to imply any significance about playing Kotor in 2016, I'm talking about the game bioware released at any given time and how important it was from a narrative perspective at that given time. I conclude that being almost every time Bioware releases a game its praised as innovative in terms of narrative, this is why its fair to call Bioware a leader in terms of game narrative.
 
There is certainly no right or wrong answer I can think of on whether Bioware games should focus more, or have more time allocated to narrative. This is something that fans should vote on and I'm simply saying for me, I come to bioware games for narrative, I have throughout each game in their history (actually I've since remembered that although I skipped Neverwinter I actually played BG1-2 so I technically started there).
 
I tried to be diplomatic when I stated my preference that ultimately the main body of fans should vote/decide. However, I disagree somewhat with what you call the 'old model'. I would call the older model exactly what I was talking about in my previous reply, 30-40 hours of narrative heavy focus like DA:O, DA2, ME1-3. Certainly I think this has been the main body of Bioware's work. When i was talking about a shorter game with heavier narrative, I was largely talking about these 5 games. Where I think due to having less narrative, the narrative that existed was overall a higher quality. I hesitantly put DA2 in that mix because I think this was the most rushed game Bioware have made in its history, and I rate it much lower than all the others, but if that game had dragged on for 80 hours my god it would have been worse.

Right, and I'm saying I preferred the earlier games, which had a less heavy focus on narrative.  DAI is a return to that earliest of BioWare's RPG designs.
 
KotOR was, I think, a step in the wrong direction, and that path continued largely unabated until DAI.
 
ME3 is, I think, the ultimate expression of the design that first appeared in KotOR, and I hate ME3.  It's a terrible RPG.

I was never arguing that they COULDNT accommodate them, I simply stated that DA:I was demonstrably optimized for consoles, and that this optimisation is either incidental (as the developer claims), or was purposeful and by design.

I don't dispute that.
 
I also don't agree, because I don't think you've adequately demonstrated what you call demonstrably true, but I'm not going to bother disagreeing because I have no basis to do so.

You continually perpetuate this narrative about why DA:I has 4 active skills on false grounds, which keeps forcing me to reply. Id prefer for us to just butt heads on opinions and leave it at that, but I'm compelled to redress false facts you claim. I was never categorically claiming why the 4 skills happened. I was just claiming that your statements about it being for SP/MP or because of DAO/DA2 was entirely erroneous. Also, I was proposing that you should think critically about it... because all the evidence is to the contrary.
 
I think its intellectually dishonest to dismiss all the evidence that I've provided: PC ability = press 1 key, Console ability = press 2-3 combinations of keys. This happens whether its real time or tactical. This is demonstrably less optimized. Certainly you have to concede its less optimised, you can only speculate that perhaps this optimisation was as the developers claimed "a happy coincidence of meaningful ability design by having less choice".

I don't consider the optimization particularly relevant.  Developers' unwillingness to use controllers more effectively (by mapping controls to combinations of buttons rather than just to single buttons) suggests that they don't either.

Again, I'm not saying it wasnt possible, I'm just saying its less optimised. I think unfortunately the debate on Bioware's motives will ultimately be fruitless because we can never ascertain their real motives, only infer them, but we should at least clarify for the public record that there was no actual logical decision outside of what the developer claimed was "aesthetic game design". Your claims about SP/MP, about previous Console versions.... all meritless.

Which is why I wasn't discussing motives.  I was pointing out a lack of necessary connection.

Also, on the SP/MP.... consider the MP in ME3. They just modified the combat so it was differnet to the core game, with certain classes having certain combinations.  (IE, ME3 game has 6 classes each with up to 10 active abilities slots, ME3 MP has just 4 ability slots but 60 subclasses, due to wanting real-time optimisation). So is literally evidence in the opposite direction of what you are claiming. So being this is the case, why all of a sudden does DA:I need parity when ME3 did not have parity? Your argument doesnt make sense, in fact, on contrast, it flies in the face to the facts about ME3.

I have no idea how the combat in ME3 MP works, because I have never played it (nor will I ever - I abhor MP).
 
But during DAI's development the devs repeatedly mentioned how helpful MP had been when balancing the SP abilities, since the game played the same.  Either accidental or intentional, that's a relationship that exists.  The two do play largely the same, except for pausing.  If we can trust the devs, that suggests the SP gameplay was balanced for real-time play.

For me, ultimately the most damning thing in your retort on the active skill controversy in DA:I is you did not address a single paraphrase I addressed from people like Mike Laidlaw on why they claimed they actually DID have 4 active abilities. Surely if you were going to enter the arena of public debate on this issue, the actual claims from the actual developer would be the first thing you would redress. I tried to bring these things to the table, but you just ignored them. The fact you were content to speculate about SP/MP etc rather than address the facts does not make a strong case for your contention.

They were defending themselves against complaints.  That's just PR.  Ignoring PR statements is exactly the right thing to do.  Since we can't ascertain motives (as you concede), we have no basis to judge the truth of the ideas presented in these statements.

This is straight up crisis communications.  The purpose of crisis communication is not to convey truth; it is to defuse tension.

Absolutely agree here. When i said spike, i was literally thinking of the deep roads on my first playthrough, with one fight taking me an hour+ to get through. DA2 was actually quite hard right out of the gate for the first several hours on the hardest setting, but got easier quite quickly and only spiked during a couple of bosses.
 
When I'm talking about difficulty, I dont remember hard, I'm only talking about Nightmare, which I know is abnormal. But then again, if you find hard easy, why not just up the difficulty?

I don't value difficulty.  I value a coherent ruleset, which is something Nightmare almost never provides.  Ideally, I want symmetrical rules that are applied consistently across all characters, friend or foe alike.

So again, if you are complaining about difficulty, unless you up to the highest setting then you have no real reason to complain, so I assume you are talking about Nightmare here.

Given that I just said I play on Hard, that's an indefensible assumption.

So, in order to recreate the real version of Nightmare, you need to actually turn FF on. Did you do this?

Of course not.  Unlike in DAO (where the friendly fire is terrific), the enemies in DAI are not subject to friendly fire.  They cannot hit each other, except across factions.  If they're not subject to friendly fire, it makes no sense for me to be subject to friendly fire.
 
I remember in NWN how, at release, enemies were subject to friendly fire.  That was wonderful.  But then, in Patch 3, that was disabled, and from them on it was a worse RPG (because it was a worse simulation).

I found this made the game much harder and required a lot of tactical positioning to not just instagib your own team like the original games. I remember posting some threads during the first few weeks of DA:I and a surprising amount of veterans seemed to be playing the game on Nightmare, but with FF off, because it 'killed the fun'. But then these same people complained about the game being too easy over the originals.
 
To me, this isnt fair, because FF was pretty much the only thing that made the originals hard.

I used a mod to enable friendly fire in DA2, even on lower difficulties (because the enemies in DA2 were always subject to friendly fire).  This had some weird effects.  Friendly fire in DA2 was always a glancing blow (DA2's version of a miss).  But in DA2, glancing blows do less damage the higher the difficulty setting.  So that made friendly fire more deadly at lower difficulty levels.
 
I did really enjoy the melee friendly fire in DA2.  I wish they'd kept that for DAI, and made friendly fire symmetrical.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Perhaps the problem is your own in the end?

I don't find it to be a problem.  Yes, people constantly disappoint me.  But that just allows me to value them less, freeing up my concern for other things.

[spinachdiaper]

The exodus is way to similar to what happened at Bungie with Destiny.

[Sanunes]

The exodus is way to similar to what happened at Bungie with Destiny.

 

Except with Destiny there were a lot more reports of troubles behind the scenes and developers leaving instead of just developers leaving.

[AutumnWitch]

Between all the recent losses of key employees (that we know about, cuz there might be a lot more we are unaware of) and the massive complaints BW received for releasing DAI in a VERY buggy state, I am sure EA just wants to make sure they have crossed all their t's and dotted all their i's.

 

I suspect this is better for ME-A than not. Now if the release gets pushed into late 2017 I think it might be time to wonder what is going on, but this is nothing to worry about...yet.

[Pasquale1234]

So for me, this is something that has [increasingly] become more of a problem over time with modern open world games. Not sure if we are tiring of the genre, the novelty is wearing off, I just preferred the old DA style to the new one.

The "old" DA style didn't have much in the way of exploration.
 

Now, I've written this argument on a different forum once and the basic reply is along the lines "well just dont play the whole game if you are bored, just focus on the main story". I get this argument, but I WANT to experience the side content.

I'm afraid I can't help you there.

I can tell you that, in huge games like FO3 and Skyrim, I don't do all of the side content in a single playthrough. I role-play my character - put her in the world and see how she reacts and what she does.
 

However, I do see the pendulum shifting a bit and consumers either bucking the trend or seemingly edging towards doing so, in that game length =/= game quality.

I don't really care about market trends - I care only that there are games available that provide what I want from gaming.

That quantity =/= quality is a given, though many people do seem to conflate them. Some people also associate value with low price.
 

This is my basic claim. Now, on the flip side. I have NFI how they did it, but for me, TW3 had a tonne of exploration (what you seem to enjoy MOST about a game), but also captivated my interest almost entirely with very little downtime.

The freedom and agency to role-play is what I enjoy most about an RPG. I like exploration because it gives me a lot of that, in contrast with games that try to enforce pacing and present a linear storyboard.
 

So, when I'm giving a reason to not have too much complicated and arbitrary 'decisions', that are shallow decisions and dont have real meaning...

How do you determine which 'decisions' have real meaning?

When I set a character loose in Skyrim or the Capital Wasteland, where she goes, what she does first, what she loots, what she keeps versus sells, etc., tells me a lot about her and her values and priorities.

Every gameplay activity provided in an RPG is an opportunity for role-play.
 

Lets talk specifically about the Backstory for Shepard, a great example. Personally, just didnt do it for me. I know its a popular concept I just never really liked it that much. I get it, its KIND of novel that lets say 20 times per game you get this reference to the decision you made, but for me, thats entirely shallow and I was WAY more interested in WTF the reapers were doing than any of this.

Based on this discussion, I'm not sure that you do actually 'get it'. Game reactivity is not the point. Who the character I'm playing is, is the point.

I started to do this in my response to you yesterday, but gave it up - because I'm not sure it's worth the effort. I'm still not sure, and I suck as a writer, but I'm going to try to give you a couple of different vignettes to point out differences in characterization, and how that can impact a playthrough.

DAO, Human Noble
Catherine Cousland quickly assessed the situation at Ostagar, and found it generally satisfactory. There was much activity, but fairly well focused and organized, just as it would be at Highever. Preparations for the upcoming battle were well underway. Clenching her fists at the memory of Howe's betrayal of her family, she vowed revenge - but that payback must wait, for there are other matters demanding immediate attention.

She caught a whiff of Mabari on the breeze, and hurried over to the Mabari pens. Though most looked to be in generally good condition and well-trained, none could compare to her own Bruno, the finest War Hound she had ever seen. She caught a glimpse of some culprit in a hanging cage, knowing that someone would need to deal with him and determine his fate, as she and other members of her family had done for generations.

 
DAO, Dwarf Commoner
Saffra Brosca studied the grounds at Ostagar, rarely meeting the gazes of the many humans milling about, while nausea washed over her. She tried to avoid looking at the sky and struggled to keep her breathing shallow and even to avoid the dizziness that overwhelmed her on her first foray to the surface. She felt exposed, vulnerable, naked with so much empty space surrounding her, without the impenetrable stone of Orzammar defining the space she would inhabit. Her eyes landed on a row of stalls built to confine some large beasts as she overheard conversations about mabari war hounds. Still somewhat confused about the polite deference shown toward her by most of the people she'd encountered, her gaze unconsciously picked out a hanging cage housing what looked to be a human who had fallen on hard times.

She found herself feeling empathy and compassion for the human inside the cage and wondering how he got there. Just as a well-dressed human walked by her, she instinctively reached out to deftly relieve him of his purse. Recognizing that others in the crowd may have witnessed the theft, she quickly dropped it, and then picked it up to return it to him. Old habits are hard to break, and she wanted to make a go of this Warden thing, and leave behind the way of life that she had developed during her years in Dust Town.

Note that these 2 characters both ignored the prisoner in the cage (a quest-giver) - essentially making the same decision - but did so for very different reasons. Catherine Cousland was all about politics and command, where Saffra Brosca was never comfortable with either, and hated being the spokesperson for the group.

BTW, Saffra Brosca never made it to the Landsmeet. Once she'd put Bhelen on the throne of Orzammar, thus securing a future for her sister and mother, she bailed on the Warden gig and ran off to join the Legion of the Dead. It was a very satisfying playthrough.

These characters are exposed to the same in-game content, but feel very different to play.
 

I'm actually not sure what consumer/critic consensus is on this. Perhaps I'm way out of line and people love these shallow pieces of gameplay feedback, But personally, if they could take these 20 instances where your spacer background as shepard made them say something different...
 
And instead hire a comedian to write 20 ZINGER lines that made me laugh really hard, I would get more value out of the latter.

And that's fine, if that's the sort of entertainment you want from gaming. I understand that a lot of people get great value from interactive branching narrative, and cinematic storytelling. When I want that sort of entertainment, I'll read a book or watch video.
 

Let me play devils advocate and take it right to the extreme. Imagine a game where you have one choice, human or elf, male or female... etc. And the entire game is centered around this decision with some deep feedback on this choice.... real MEANING to that choice, then I'm all for that customisation. Just not shallow ****.

I don't know that it would make much difference to me. I don't really need game designers to validate who my character is - I just need them to avoid invalidating her.
 

In ME3, on PC, you have a 10 skill hotbar. But in MP, they develop all these interesting 'subclasses' out of combinations of the 10 active skills, so you have variety both in choice of weapon and a rich amount of subclasses. (IE, instead of having 6 classes you have 60 subclasses).

I don't remember any ME vocations having that many unique active skills. I don't know that I'd count ammo skills, because they generally don't need to be used more than once per mission outing.
 

Ultimately, if you want to look why the decision was made, read what the developers said. More info on my previous post.

I don't really care what the developers said about it. DAI controls were no more 'optimized for console' than DAO or DA2. Plus, BTDT, and I know there is a lot behind design decisions that is never shared with the public at large. But I'm happy to agree to disagree.

[prosthetic soul]

Inferences are always the inferer's fault.

This isn't about fair business practices; this is just sound reasoning.

Holy crap this is not sound reasoning in the slightest. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Holy crap this is not sound reasoning in the slightest. 

I hold that implication isn't real, therefore the inference comes 100% from the inferer.

 

If your conclusion does not follow deductively, then you should not be confident in it.

[Steelcan]

I hold that implication isn't real, therefore the inference comes 100% from the inferer.

and this assumption is just simply wrong, no two ways about it

[lucky5hot]

...I don't really care about market trends - I care only that there are games available that provide what I want from gaming...

I can tell you that, in huge games like FO3 and Skyrim, I don't do all of the side content in a single playthrough. I role-play my character - put her in the world and see how she reacts and what she does. I don't really care about market trends - I care only that there are games available that provide what I want from gaming. The freedom and agency to role-play is what I enjoy most about an RPG. I like exploration because it gives me a lot of that, in contrast with games that try to enforce pacing and present a linear storyboard.
 

 

Obviously we reach a juncture of opinion here. When i pull on the threads of exploration in games, id prefer they were all interesting. I want a single playthrough to be enjoyable. I infer you want more options/customisation/exploration and dont care if the occasional one is quite boring.

 

You want quantity over quantity, so long as this facilitates what you called "customisation & role playing".

 

Ultimately though, consumer and critic consensus will shape future games. You have what you like, and I have what I like. I thought I read correctly that consumer and critic consensus was shifting. Maybe I'm wrong, we'll see with ME:A i guess.

 

I don't remember any ME vocations having that many unique active skills. I don't know that I'd count ammo skills, because they generally don't need to be used more than once per mission outing.

I don't really care what the developers said about it. DAI controls were no more 'optimized for console' than DAO or DA2. Plus, BTDT, and I know there is a lot behind design decisions that is never shared with the public at large. But I'm happy to agree to disagree.

 

 

Okay, the only reason I've engaged both of you is you have both made erroneous claims about DA:I having only 4 skill slots for false reasons. (EG, there being 4 active skills due to parity with MP). Even after I put ALL the facts on the table, that any reasonable person will not be able to refute, you still insist on spreading lies about this.  I'm honestly confused.

 

Unlike the other instance where I'm trying to be as diplomatic as possible... here I will just tell it how it is:

 

> I don't remember any ME vocations having that many unique active skills. I don't know that I'd count ammo skills...

 

Okay, but you are implicitly agreeing that there were 6 classes in the SP game with more than 4 active skills, and 60 classes in the MP game with only 4 active skills, but you "dont count some of the actives". Common man, this is BS. There ARE 10 skill bar slots, and different classes will use some or most of these 10 binds, and they will ALWAYS use more than 4. At the very least you would have to concede the extra skill you can always add on the end from any class.

 

When you chose one of the 60 subclasses in ME3 MP, assuming there is an ammo type at all for a soldier class, you only get to have one ammo type out of 4 possible ammo types assuming there is an ammo type at all, and it becomes 1/4 of the skills you are allocated. Everything about what you are saying is agreeing with what I said but weaseling you way out of admitting you were wrong.

 

The situation you have in ME3 is that you have 4 actives in MP, but many more in SP. There is literally no way you can argue against these facts. You cant use SP/MP parity as a reason, you can only use the developers quote "design decision to have less choices and place more meaning on those choices".

 

Everything you are saying about the MP argument for ME3 indicates you've never actually played ME3 on PC, only on console, (therefore, you've always been stuck with gimped active abilities anyway).

 

Conclusion: there is absolutely no way you can claim that it HAD to be parity with MP, because they could have just done exactly what they did with their previous game, ME3. Conversely, you could claim they CHOSE to have parity as a design decision (which is what I was saying originally).

 

> I don't really care what the developers said about it. DAI controls were no more 'optimized for console' than DAO or DA2.... and I know there is a lot behind design decisions that is never shared with the public at large

 

Okay, here you are literally just talking our your arse. "You dont care what the developers said"... "I know a lot about the design decisions but i would never share"... I mean common man. All your comment history shows you are a typical user like us and based on how many facts you get wrong, I wouldnt believe you have access to this information in a million years.

 

Lets ignore your claims of inside information and just address the point about skill design. 

 

So, ultimately, when we talk about the game being "optimized for console". We are only talking about one thing. PC features being removed, for parity with console. I would be generous and call this word 'optimisation' rather than a downgrade.

 

So, lets consider the previous versions of dragon age over DA:I

 

PC DA:O

Active skills = 10+

 

PC DA:I 

Active skills = 4.

 

When we are talking about it being "optimized for console", we are not talking about DA:I on console being more optimized for console over the previous games. We are talking about DA:I on PC being more optimized for console games.

 

You arnt seeing people complaining about DA:I on console right? Because is 100% irrelevant. In fact, its the 100% opposite. People who used to play DA on console had frustrations in the past, and they are thankful the game was finally designed with them in mind, the UI was simplified.

 

The people you see complaining are those on PC, that preferred to be able to explore combat active skills and now have less variety (which is ironic, because before you were defending exploration/role playing, now you are saying its fine to cut exploration down to 1/3 of its original). People playing DA:I on PC now have a 'downgraded/limited/optimized' game, and this was optimized for console.

 

Its like you dont even understand the context of the argument because you keep making points that are 100% irrelevant.

 

Seriously man, the next time you are having a debate online about video games... dont pretend like you have secret friends at the game studio because it makes you look ridiculous.

[byne]

I hold that implication isn't real, therefore the inference comes 100% from the inferer.

 

If your conclusion does not follow deductively, then you should not be confident in it.

 

[straykat]

This whole discussion about inference is clouding what the hell was even being inferred in the first place.

 

What are you guys talking about?

[In Exile]

If your conclusion does not follow deductively, then you should not be confident in it.

 

That doesn't follow. Because for my conclusion to follow deductively, I have to assume its premises to be true. But I have no reason or basis to do that - I'm in a state of epistemic paralysis. I can test whether conclusions follow from premises, but I have no capacity to decide whether any one premise is worthwhile, and no process of reasoning by which to make decisions. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

That doesn't follow. Because for my conclusion to follow deductively, I have to assume its premises to be true. But I have no reason or basis to do that - I'm in a state of epistemic paralysis. I can test whether conclusions follow from premises, but I have no capacity to decide whether any one premise is worthwhile, and no process of reasoning by which to make decisions. 

The argument can still be valid without the premises being true.  The premises would need to be true, though, for that validity to prove the conclusion true, yes.

 

Regarding the epistemic paralysis, we've discussed this before.  You can act as if something is true without assuming it to be true.  Sure, if you want to assume your worldview is true, go right ahead; it won't make any material difference (aside from possibly encouraging confirmation bias).  But once you've determined what your starting point is, why add error through inference?  Inference will, over time, make more mistakes that the lack of inference will.

 

But more importantly for this discussion, the inference is always the work of the inferer.  No one else is ever to blame for one's own inferences.

[straykat]

Epistemology and eggheads are that way ------>

 

 

*points to Solas thread.. I think*

[Sylvius the Mad]

and this assumption is just simply wrong, no two ways about it

Would you care to show your reasoning?

[LinksOcarina]

The argument can still be valid without the premises being true.  The premises would need to be true, though, for that validity to prove the conclusion true, yes.

 

Regarding the epistemic paralysis, we've discussed this before.  You can act as if something is true without assuming it to be true.  Sure, if you want to assume your worldview is true, go right ahead; it won't make any material difference (aside from possibly encouraging confirmation bias).  But once you've determined what your starting point is, why add error through inference?  Inference will, over time, make more mistakes that the lack of inference will.

 

But more importantly for this discussion, the inference is always the work of the inferer.  No one else is ever to blame for one's own inferences.

 

But aren't you also dealing with confirmation bias in the end by saying inference is all in the hands of the inferer? Doesn't that make you hypocritical when you yourself can be incorrect on that deduction?

 

Not to mention the fact that people should learn from mistakes they make, what what you propose is that no one should make mistakes by inferring or reasoning, that everyone's argument is perfect for them from the start regardless of position. That is just simply impossible from a philosophical and psychological stance, people inherently make mistakes regardless of what we say and do.

 

In that way, both parties make "mistakes" here, because realistically speaking, arguments and perceptions have to change as we mature. Learning from others is a part of that, and is partially due do personal deduction or logic and interaction with others. 

[Pasquale1234]

Obviously we reach a juncture of opinion here. When i pull on the threads of exploration in games, id prefer they were all interesting. I want a single playthrough to be enjoyable. I infer you want more options/customisation/exploration and dont care if the occasional one is quite boring.
 
You want quantity over quantity, so long as this facilitates what you called "customisation & role playing".

You do, I hope, understand that concepts like quality and what is boring are entirely subjective, right?

And I don't recall ever mentioning customization - just role-play - because role-play is what I want to do with role-playing games.
 

Okay, the only reason I've engaged both of you is you have both made erroneous claims about DA:I having only 4 skill slots for false reasons. (EG, there being 4 active skills due to parity with MP). Even after I put ALL the facts on the table, that any reasonable person will not be able to refute, you still insist on spreading lies about this.  I'm honestly confused.

Instead of simply making such accusations, perhaps you could point out these alleged lies.

On second thought, never mind. I don't really care.
 

<snip - a bunch more rationalizations and accusations>

Um, yeah, whatever.
 

Okay, here you are literally just talking our your arse. "You dont care what the developers said"... "I know a lot about the design decisions but i would never share"... I mean common man. All your comment history shows you are a typical user like us and based on how many facts you get wrong, I wouldnt believe you have access to this information in a million years.
 
Lets ignore your claims of inside information and just address the point about skill design.

I never claimed to have any inside information about Bioware's design choices.

I have, however, worked as a software engineer, design lead, and product manager and have been asked to justify design decisions on many occasions - by colleagues, customers, potential customers, etc. I know that different audiences get different answers - partly because the true reasons for design decisions are complex, partly because different audiences have different informational needs, and partly because PR.

But just for the sake of clarity, what I actually said was this:

I don't really care what the developers said about it. DAI controls were no more 'optimized for console' than DAO or DA2. Plus, BTDT, and I know there is a lot behind design decisions that is never shared with the public at large. But I'm happy to agree to disagree.

... not the BS you made up there.
 

Its like you dont even understand the context of the argument because you keep making points that are 100% irrelevant.

Or it could be because I've little interest in other people's passionate rationalizations.
 

Seriously man, the next time you are having a debate online about video games... dont pretend like you have secret friends at the game studio because it makes you look ridiculous.

Seriously man, the next time you are having a debate online about video games... you might actually try employing your very best reading comprehension skills instead of attacking people for things they never said.

But I'm still happy to agree to disagree.

[countofhell]

Content feed delay hopefully. I hope not "Duke Nukem Forever" long publish delay. 

[Cyonan]

I hold that implication isn't real, therefore the inference comes 100% from the inferer.

 

If your conclusion does not follow deductively, then you should not be confident in it.

 

You can also hold that gravity isn't real for all I care, you're still stuck on this planet because of it.

 

Not to mention that this whole debate started over the A:CM controversy and there was no implying there anyway. They straight up lied about their game.

[Steelcan]

Would you care to show your reasoning?

not particularly

 

I'll just continue to infer things in my speech and people should be able to draw out what I'm implying because most people are capable of understanding such subtleties of language

[Sylvius the Mad]

not particularly

 

I'll just continue to infer things in my speech and people should be able to draw out what I'm implying because most people are capable of understanding such subtleties of language

Because their minds work in relevantly similar ways.

 

If two people guess the same answer, that doesn't mean they weren't guessing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But aren't you also dealing with confirmation bias in the end by saying inference is all in the hands of the inferer? Doesn't that make you hypocritical when you yourself can be incorrect on that deduction?

Either the information is conveyed by the speaker (implication), or invented by the listener (inference).

 

The evidence for implication does not withstand scrutiny, therefore it is unreasonable to assume that extra level of complexity.  Moreover, we don't need to infer that the information isn't there.  We need only observe that the information (the supposed implication) isn't discernible.  Since it isn't discernible, it cannot affect the listener's perception of what was said (since the listener can't perceive it).  Regardless of whether the implication is there, it cannot make a difference without being detectable.  Therefore, the inference must be entirely the work of the listener.

Not to mention the fact that people should learn from mistakes they make, what what you propose is that no one should make mistakes by inferring or reasoning, that everyone's argument is perfect for them from the start regardless of position. That is just simply impossible from a philosophical and psychological stance, people inherently make mistakes regardless of what we say and do.

We can't learn from those mistakes unless there's some identifiable process to the act of inferring.  And there isn't.

 

If you'd disagree, and would like to show me that process, go right ahead.

In that way, both parties make "mistakes" here, because realistically speaking, arguments and perceptions have to change as we mature. Learning from others is a part of that, and is partially due do personal deduction or logic and interaction with others.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

[FlyingSquirrel]

They can delay all they want as long as it isn't to create gigantic environments with nothing to do but shoot at enemies and find people's lost thingamajiggies in the name of "more and bigger."