alanschu

I'm pretty sure some threads on TB combat did pop up even though the game was stated to be using RTWP. Check out the Numenera forums too!

You are giving the implication that the Canadian won because they had the support of Canadian referees, rather than a better capability to ice the best roster that they had, and that the two times they lost was because they didn't have Canadian refs. I'm saying that until Canada was able to ice its best players, Canada wasn't winning any gold medals. Being able to ice better rosters may have more of an impact on the team's success than the referees. Unless you're suggesting that every Swede that was capable of playing in the NHL was playing in the NHL in 1994 (a position I don't agree with, since I think at that time Europe was still unfairly overlooked by North American sports leagues - and as such, I disagree with the notion that all the top teams were affected the same way at that time). Now, you could make an argument that the Olympics would have been more fairly matched up (which is fine and I wouldn't disagree... despite not winning gold Canada still did very well in overall medal count), but we're discussing Canada's success in gold medal games and the influence the referees may or may not have had. Though since you seem to be hinting at it, how many players were playing professionally (in any league) on each of the 1994 finalists? (We could include this to players that had NHL experience, but were not playing in the NHL in 1993-94 too, if you'd like - I know there is at least one on Canada that fits this designation too, actually)

I guess I more mean to ask for clarification. The idea being whether or not what you enjoy about other people trolling is or is not in line with the particular conclusions of the study listed in the OP. So in that sense, how does it enliven discussion, prick pomposity and those who parrot buzzards, while making a valid point? I'm more examining as to whether or not we tolerate some trolls simply because we find them funny, and that even if they are doing something hurtful, it's in alignment with our worldview (or at least, against someone who is not in our alignment with our world view), and we can sit back and laugh because we can agree with it. Is it really that we think it elevates a conversation, or simply that we agree with the position presented, or the position undermined, and we have some easy laughs at the expense of the person that was the target? I think I'd be lying if I said I never felt this way. I think context is important. Hypothetical: gay man dies, and a person comes along onto their facebook memorial wall to talk about how the guy was a ****ing **** ass muncher and deserved to die because no man should love the **** because it's God's Will. That said, how many other people who believe the same way as him would laugh at the outrage this would cause because it's "good trolling" because those people deserve it. And someone posting like this could just as well be utilizing Poe's Law, since it could be someone intended to just stir up trouble for laughs, or someone that genuinely feels that way because of the type of person that they are. If it's the former, is that person contributing anything? Is there a circumstance that a "good troll" can bother talking? I don't think it's that hard to get a rise out of a lot of people, especially once you get an opportunity to know little bit about them. Some people may not, and certainly not all in the same ways or through the same means, but is it that hard? Some topics and circumstances are pretty easy to get a rise out of people. Is it a surprise that people suggesting that Anita Sarkeesian needs to get raped in response to the mere idea of suggesting that there are problematic elements in video game narratives is going to cause anger and frustration among those that agree with Anita? Could you make a reasonable prediction how people would respond if I were to go onto a religious themed message board and talk about how religion is horse**** and the bane of humanity's existence? Tying things back to the study in the OP, we'd have to examine their perspective on what trolling is. Do you think that the studies the article makes reference to consider things like parody, satire, or devil's advocacy as equivalent types of trolling? In the event of self-reporting, do you think that those that employ those types of tactics consistently would consider their primary reason for being on the internet to troll other people? There are people that explicitly state that they RIP troll in response to "grief tourism" because they find the sympathies put forth as hollow and self-serving. That is, they are intentionally posting hurtful messages in response to an action that they don't like. Is it reasonable to predict that these comments may hurt the family? I understand that you probably don't consider this "good trolling" so it comes down to "Is the stuff that Kaine Parker does in any way comparable to these types of actions?" Is it appropriate to consider devil's advocacy, satire, and parody in any way associated with this type of activity? When the OP article talks about trolling, are they talking more about RIP trolls or Kaine Parkers?

I think this comes back to what is a troll, because if it is someone that seeks to undermine and disrupt discussion and seek only to anger and frustrate discussion participants, couldn't I conclude that you and I both agree that trolls are not productive nor conducive to free speech? Trolls on internet message boards is simply as subset of the discussion here. Within the context of the study, I'd argue that most trolls perform their actions on places that would be considered private property. In this case, my assumption is that Nonek refers to the use of free speech in ALL applications (including internet message-boards and other places that are private property), not specifically the places where a right to free speech is more explicitly protected. What is it, specifically, that you enjoy about watching a masterful troll at work? It's interesting, because Kaine Parker is not someone I would consider a troll. So it boils back: "is something that posts parody and satire a troll?" Because I'd argue that Kaine Parker is a poor troll because he doesn't do a good job of intentionally disrupting discussion and doesn't seem to be very good at intentionally causing anger and frustration in his marks. But I also don't think he seeks to be a troll.

I'd probably put the cutoff at 1998, given that's when NHLers were now allowed to compete. I mean, before 2002, Canada hadn't won an Olympic gold medal since 1952. The fact that they've been able to do better lately could be affected by that as much as by reffing.

There is no singular definition of what it means to be an RPG nor what it means to truly roleplay.

Demo's are actually not trivial things to make, unfortunately. (And there's even the idea that demos are bad for business altogether, though that is a controversial topic)

I was looking at the application to the *right* to free speech. See the brief discussion with Zoraptor about the point. That said, is any type of free speech acceptable against any type of group? The onus is just on the target to take the high road?

Fair enough regarding free speech. You're correct that I was looking at it more from the *right* to free speech, as opposed to simply executing free speech.

I think I may be taking the definition of free speech a bit too literally (i.e. from something like the first amendment), since I don't typically see silencing or ignoring a troll to be a violation of free speech. Are there any groups that the ability to say whatever one wants should see caution exercised? It may also be a contributing factor that your life experiences lead you to assume all people are as equally capable of dealing with particular stimulus in identical ways? Is this a fair assessment (both of me of you, and you of the rest of humanity)? Is it possible that life has simply left others less equipped to deal with some situations as capably as you are, and as such less able to shrug some stuff off. I'd also challenge the notion that your generation is different. The principle difference between "today's generation" is that we can more easily see what people from all over are saying. It mostly just comes across as the "I'm better than kids these days" which I'm sure the generation before you thought of your delicate, whiny generation.

I never said the writing would not be of quality. I did question whether this could be a sign of a game less focused in dialogue and story, since the same reasons used to ditch romances can be used to ditch other dialogue-related optional paths. Apologies. I guess I considered a game with less focus on dialogue and story to be one with less quality in the writing. You're right that the same reasons used to ditch romances can be used to ditch other dialogue options. The same reasons used to ditch romances can also be cause for having alternative dialogue options. In other words, they've decided to focus their dialogue on other things than romance arcs. I'm not actually a fan of romances myself (the only ones I think I definitively enjoyed were the ones in BG2) because I think they are difficult to execute for a variety of reasons. The other ones I appreciate are Planescape: Torment's, which some don't even consider romances, because of how low key they were. I do expect the game to still be pretty combat heavy though, mostly because the IE games typically were (even Torment had a good chunk of combat, though it was to the game's detriment in my opinion).

I think that this is your imagination getting a bit carried away with potential slippery slopes. I disagree that this would be an indicator that the writing may not be of quality, the same way that I disagree that I game cannot be mature unless it contains the usual uncomfortable topics.

Couldn't it be construed, then, that you're taking things too seriously if you've decided to be an arbiter of who deserves and does not deserve to be deliberately provoked? Doesn't the mere acknowledgement of "that person is taking things too seriously" mean that you also are?

Dealing with my tightest, most annoying orthodontics wire yet!!!

This existed before the dialogue wheel as well. Though I believe there's been more effort in making sure at least the immediate response to any of those lines is still unique, compared to the first occurrence in Mass Effect. It may not be the case throughout the entire game, but I remember doing a quick playthrough of the ME2 prologue just to see, after someone had once suggested that the practice was continued and widely used and it wasn't the case there.

Though it loses the optional aspect if, once the player learns about it, some sort of consequence happens.

Yeah strange. I had one crash after an 8 or so hour session, and probably played over 20 hours of the beta. None of my friends had issues either. The only other issue I had was when the servers were down on Friday. Where are you located? I heard Europe was having more issues. I'm not sure how the matchmaking is done. Depending on the purpose of the beta, however, there may have been more value in simply making sure games were going first and foremost.

That's why they play the full game and don't just go "Oh, you're up 2-0. I guess we'll just call the game now."

The thread in general has been pretty quiet, with the exception of someone pointing out... James hitting a game winner in Iguodala's face....

That's why I like the round length. I find they tend to be 6-10 minutes which isn't long, with like a 90s break between matches to adjust loadouts and stuff like that. It's an adrenaline rush for sure. And ripping pilots out of their titans never gets old. I love the context sensitive titan entrances too. I have seen some pilots have fun staying outside of their titan, let it draw the attention and then sniping people for hiding spots. Suppressors are great too because they stop the pilot from showing up on the radar/minimap when they shoot.

The more freedom the player has to choose, either in non-linear gameplay or simply character customization, makes it a lot more difficult to know what sort of resources a player has available. Some solutions have been attempted, such as scaling/modifying encounters based on character level, which has mixed results in my experience.

I made a 30 min video here: I play three rounds in that video and am still learning the game at that point. Though in my own experience, just watching the game didn't do it justice. I was completely indifferent until I had a chance to play it at PAX, and I was like "wow this was pretty fun." With the beta and playing with my friends, I'm likely going to pick it up at release now. Titanfall is a fast paced game to be sure, although I think it has some well designed elements that can help ease people in. I find the parkour elements very easy and intuitive, and the game is generous for things like rodeoing other titans. But the big thing I liked was that the smart pistol was a good segue into the game for me. It's a pistol that can lock onto people in its targeting bracket, and once locked on it'll hit its target. Once I got good at the game I used it less, but it was handy for helping me through the game, and it's great for large groups of grunts. As for the grunts, I love them. If I'm struggling in a game, I can still contribute via killing grunts and help me get some mojo back. In the standard attrition mode, killing a grunt gives you 1 point, while killing a pilot gives you 4 points. Grunts often work in small squads of 3-4 though, and they die much faster. As I got experienced I also just learned various hot points and other things. For instance, it's typically only pilots that take the game vertical. So if you ever see someone jumping or on difficult to reach platforms, that's a pilot. I have two moments that I loved in the game. My friend and I were locked in a fight against an enemy titan. My titan went critical and I had to bail out, and while flying through the air I locked on with the missile launcher, doomed the enemy titan, while my friend then melee'd and ripped the enemy out of his titan for the kill. Second was when I was rodeoing my friend's titan (grabbed onto the back) and an enemy titan stormed us. I jumped from the back of my friend's titan onto the other titan, ripping off some plating so I could attack its core. Unfortunately for the enemy, he was mired in the titan battle with my friend and couldn't get out to get me off, and eventually I "doomed" the titan (when destruction is inevitable), at which point my friend dashed in and melee'd the titan, ripping the dude out and crushing him (this can only happen on a "doomed" titan). I then jumped back onto my friend's titan and waited as I now called in my own titan. I only played a little bit by myself (I was when I made that video). My friend made some videos too, and you can see me do some running around in it. In fact, the rodeo scene can be found here: http://youtu.be/V4BXF5V0eoU?t=3m4s When he gets in, I'm already rodeoing his titan (helping protect it), and a few moments later you can see me jump onto the back of an enemy titan, doom it (while he's focused on Kouzui), then jump away. A minute or so before that, you can see him call down his titan onto an enemy titan, destroying it in the process. In summary I like the fast paced gameplay because I'm not an FPS guru and it's a bunch of quick 6-10 minute maps where I get to stomp on people with a giant robot. I just find it a well designed game that works for short bursts of entertainment (although that doesn't mean I didn't have some 8 hour sessions playing it last weekend...)

Not necessarily. It just depends on whether or not the advantages of aiming for a market subset are considered worth it. I liken it to some places requiring a credit card for purchase, for instance. Those that will only pay cash won't go there, but if the business finds it benefits from the decision then it works. (You could probably also make arguments for things like computer hardware and how it inevitable goes obsolete, whether console or PC)

It seems you might have been too <.< Well played sir.

I suspect he was trying to apply satire.