Dragon Age 2

[Gorth]

Pretty sure there were no bisexual foursomes in Twilight.

 

I'm posting this too late for those who are interested. It's 1UPs live playthrough of DA II that starts where the demo ends. Link

 

It's recorded though if you want to watch it afterwards. I'm avoiding it because I'd rather be spoiler free.

I watched all of 7 minutes of Twilight on free tv. A curiosity thing, not a desire for self inflicted pain. Couldn't watch more of it though as it physically hurt my frontal lobes. Sort of like watching live acting anime

 

Will watch the some of the linked/recorded footage after work hours

[Maria Caliban]

I've never read or watched Twilight, but I've heard it described as abstinence porn. Both of the main characters are virgins and the only sex they have is to impregnate the female lead.

 

can't find the recorded video, could it be that it takes several hours to do it (days even?)

It's 9:41 pm PST so I expect they're home for the night. They'll probably post it tomorrow.

Edited March 1, 2011 by Maria Caliban

[213374U]

Yeah... you do know that Bio has used datamining techniques to gather info on their playerbase, right? And that said info has been used to make design decisions?

Yes. And?

 

I'm not sure how looking at actual player data is a bad thing.

And, how about you read the rest of my post and the post I made afterwards making my position clear -and why I don't like the result of their datamining- instead of trying to put me in my place?

 

 

It's not that bad. Having an approachable difficulty curve isn't some big offense. What's the real complaint?

The real complaint is that it's simpler to get rid of the curve altogether, than make an approachable game with scaling difficulty and progressive complexity.

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/vie...2454-Easy-Games

 

 

It's fine that you don't like those things. You can do so without suggesting that the people who look forward to DA II and like the changes are the 'lowest common denominator.'

 

The world is not divided into 'Things I like' and 'Things only stupid people like.'

No, but it's a rule of thumb that tends to work better than approaching anything and everything with wide-eyed innocence and high expectations. Do you accept that stupid(-er) people prefer simpler entertainment formulas? Do you accept that the distribution of intelligence in a given sample follows a gaussian distribution? DA2 is, by virtue of being defined by conclusions drawn from customer behavior analysis, a lowest common denominator game. This doesn't mean DA2 will be a thoroughly unenjoyable piece of **** with no redeeming qualities whatsoever - rather, it means that BioEA would rather serve Whoppers than filet mignons, because demand for the former is bigger and they understandably want to make more money in a business where filet mignons and Whoppers are priced equally.

[Orogun01]

It's fine that you don't like those things. You can do so without suggesting that the people who look forward to DA II and like the changes are the 'lowest common denominator.'

 

The world is not divided into 'Things I like' and 'Things only stupid people like.'

No, but it's a rule of thumb that tends to work better than approaching anything and everything with wide-eyed innocence and high expectations. Do you accept that stupid(-er) people prefer simpler entertainment formulas? Do you accept that the distribution of intelligence in a given sample follows a gaussian distribution? DA2 is, by virtue of being defined by conclusions drawn from customer behavior analysis, a lowest common denominator game. This doesn't mean DA2 will be a thoroughly unenjoyable piece of **** with no redeeming qualities whatsoever - rather, it means that BioEA would rather serve Whoppers than filet mignons, because demand for the former is bigger and they understandably want to make more money in a business where filet mignons and Whoppers are priced equally.

Would you believe that entertainment doesn't need to be a masterpiece in order to entertain, or that it's indifferent to the intellectual level of the viewer? Messages can be universal and appeal to a larger audience that has no insider knowledge of the themes. Unless games are now a substitute for a teaching experience, I don't see how an 120 IQ is required to enjoy them.

DA2 may be a Whopper but that doesn't say that a gourmet doesn't enjoy eating one once in a while. Maybe DA2 won't be up to the standards of many people and BW practices have left many disappointed (myself included) we should just take for what it is and stop crying for their lost glory.

[213374U]

Cool story bro.

 

Now, re-read my post and try to compose a response that isn't a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived insult (PROTIP: the meat* of the argument is in the proportions and how dumbing down is a deliberate effort supported by customer behavior studies, to expand their potential target segment, not that people who enjoy BW games are stupid).

 

Didn't I say I'd settle for their cinematic shooters? Yes, yes I did. I'm not crying over the spilled milk. I eat more Whoppers than filet mignons in a year, anyway.

 

*pun not intended

[Gromnir]

Do you accept that stupid(-er) people prefer simpler entertainment formulas?

 

no. complexity has no inherent value. there is, sadly, a level o' education and experience that blinds an individual to the appreciation o' simplicity. as we has grown older and more experienced, we has gained greater appreciation for the elegance that accompanies enlightened simplicity. chess and go, as examples, is not terribly complex games. mastery o' such simple games can takes a lifetime o' dedication. produce endless wonder and challenge. is perhaps ironic that the genuine educated man and the child may takes joy from simplicity that eludes the apprentice or journeyman scholar.

 

*shrug*

 

is a matter o' opinion and taste, but am gonna suggest that derision o' simplicity is the result o' hubris born o' ignorance... lack o' experience and education.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[213374U]

chess and go, as examples, is not terribly complex games. mastery o' such simple games can takes a lifetime o' dedication. produce endless wonder and challenge. is perhaps ironic that the genuine educated man and the child may takes joy from simplicity that eludes the apprentice or journeyman scholar.

Chess is a game where a small number of simple rules can produce a huge variety of situations - that's a degree of complexity that's absent from modern day games. At any rate, chess can take a lifetime to master because it's essentially a memory game, not one of skill. Masters memorize thousands of structures and how the game will develop depending on the move so they can play two or three turns ahead of the game, that's how they can play n games simultaneously against lower-ranked opponents and beat them relatively effortlessly. So, I'm going to say, not terribly relevant.

 

Complexity has no inherent value, you say. Once again, I'm underwhelmed by your not-so-insightful remarks, considering that I'm not arguing for greater complexity for complexity's sake. I know that no single element has inherent value, as they are simply tools at the game designer's disposal. A deliberate lack of complexity can be as bad as a deliberate excess, as is the case with salt. You have come to like simple things (false btw, what you are hinting at is your preference for emergent complexity, as your chess example shows) Good for you. I like fiddly stuff.

 

It's a sloppy rebuttal too because I didn't say smart(-er) people necessarily enjoy more complex games, either, which is what you disputed. Look at the *other* side of the curve.

 

 

is a matter o' opinion and taste, but am gonna suggest that derision o' simplicity is the result o' hubris born o' ignorance... lack o' experience and education.

Smooth Grom, real smooth. Edited March 1, 2011 by 213374U

[Oblarg]

Chess is a game where a small number of simple rules can produce a huge variety of situations - that's a degree of complexity that's absent from modern day games. At any rate, chess can take a lifetime to master because it's essentially a memory game, not one of skill. Masters memorize thousands of structures and how the game will develop depending on the move so they can play two or three turns ahead of the game, that's how they can play n games simultaneously against lower-ranked opponents and beat them relatively effortlessly. So, I'm going to say, not terribly relevant.

 

Sorry, that's a load of ****. While a large part of it is memorization (largely the openings), to say chess is "not a game of skill" is silly and ignorant.

[213374U]

Sorry, that's a load of ****. While a large part of it is memorization (largely the openings), to say chess is "not a game of skill" is silly and ignorant.

Chess is essentially pattern recognition. You can perhaps recognize a pattern if you haven't seen it before, but having played a gazillon games and being familiar with the most common patterns is what distinguishes top-ranked players from amateurs. In high-level games, reasoning and branch pruning heuristics may play a bigger role as players go out of their way to seek less analyzed scenarios, but other than that, yeah, it's memory. Edited March 1, 2011 by 213374U

[Oblarg]

Sorry, that's a load of ****. While a large part of it is memorization (largely the openings), to say chess is "not a game of skill" is silly and ignorant.

Chess is essentially pattern recognition. You can perhaps recognize a pattern if you haven't seen it before, but having played a gazillon games and being familiar with the most common patterns is what distinguishes top-ranked players from amateurs. In high-level games, reasoning and branch pruning heuristics may play a bigger role as players go out of their way to seek less analyzed scenarios, but other than that, yeah, it's memory.

 

My brother's a Fide Master. I'm sure he'd be willing to attest to the fact that it's not mostly memory.

 

You're wrong here - it's as simple as that. Admit it and move on.

[213374U]

"You are wrong because I say so. Also, my dad can beat up your dad."

 

Thanks man. Everything is clear now. Next.

[Oblarg]

"You are wrong because I say so. Also, my dad can beat up your dad."

 

Thanks man. Everything is clear now. Next.

 

Except it's quite relevant - I have a direct source of authority on the subject. You don't - you have speculation.

 

But good job on looking like a prick.

 

A good way to look at chess is that it's similar to poker - a level of memorization is needed to predict the outcomes of various moves in various situations, but that's more of a prerequisite which is required to play effectively. The real skill is not in the memorization, and what determines the winner when there are not vast skill gaps involved is not who has memorized more - in poker, you do not get better by memorizing more odds. It's the same in chess - you do not simply improve by memorizing more positions.

Edited March 1, 2011 by Oblarg

[Maria Caliban]

It's fine that you don't like those things. You can do so without suggesting that the people who look forward to DA II and like the changes are the 'lowest common denominator.'

 

The world is not divided into 'Things I like' and 'Things only stupid people like.'

 

Do you accept that stupid(-er) people prefer simpler entertainment formulas?

No.

 

1. Complexity is not sophistication.

2. Intelligence has nothing to do with taste.

3. Good entertainment, whether simple or complex, will tend to appeal to a wide range of people.

 

Do you accept that the distribution of intelligence in a given sample follows a gaussian distribution?

Sure.

 

DA2 is, by virtue of being defined by conclusions drawn from customer behavior analysis, a lowest common denominator game.

Except Dragon Age 2 is not 'defined' by DA:O's datamining. It's influenced by it along with a host of other things. Moreover, you can't claim that every statistical minority is governed by intelligence.

 

We know that 5% of people played dwarves. Am I to assume that only the really smart people did so? Maybe it's actually only the really stupid ones. Or, more likely, whether playing a dwarf appeals to you or not has nothing to do with your IQ.

 

We know that most people didn't finish the game and that the majority of those that did only played once. Why assume that it's the smart people who finished? Maybe it's the dumb ones that spend 80+ hours in a game with generic environments, simplistic plots and characters, and some painfully tedious combat.

 

Alternatively, it's possible that the answer to 'how enjoyable do I find this game?' is the product of a host of factors, of which intelligence is merely one.

 

This doesn't mean DA2 will be a thoroughly unenjoyable piece of **** with no redeeming qualities whatsoever - rather, it means that BioEA would rather serve Whoppers than filet mignons, because demand for the former is bigger and they understandably want to make more money in a business where filet mignons and Whoppers are priced equally.

BioWare has always attempted to get the video game equivalent of a summer blockbuster. They have never been interested in being a 'niche' publisher. They have always attempted to create good games.

 

Is a summer blockbuster always mindless garbage with no redeeming value? No. A summer blockbuster can be an excellent film.

 

As for your analogy, if a filet mignon was the same price as a Whopper (or visa versa), I'd argue that more people would go for the filet mignon. A Whopper (and all fast food) is not popular because the average person has poor taste; it's popular because it's cheap and easily accessible.

Edited March 1, 2011 by Maria Caliban

[Oblarg]

Do you accept that the distribution of intelligence in a given sample follows a gaussian distribution?

Sure.

 

 

Actually, there's no reason to believe this. It certainly would look normal-ish, but it's not a sampling distribution and thus there's absolutely no reason to believe it actually is a normal distribution - while you can approximate many things fairly well as a normal distribution, there is no magical property of nature that causes all these natural systems to adhere to it - there are simply a lot of distributions which closely resemble a normal distribution.

Edited March 1, 2011 by Oblarg

[sorophx]

Intelligence has nothing to do with taste.

it hasn't? I was always under the impression that it had

Edited March 1, 2011 by sorophx

[Majek]

Which summer blockbuster in the last decade is also an excellent film?

[Tigranes]

Keep it family friendly people, arguments not persons.

[pmp10]

Intelligence has nothing to do with taste.

it hasn't? I was always under the impression that it had

I doubt any serious research was done on the subject.

Especially for active forms of entertainment.

The best I could find was this.

[Maria Caliban]

Which summer blockbuster in the last decade is also an excellent film?

It depends on how you want to define blockbuster.

 

Assuming the narrowest definition possible: Toy Story 3. One of the highest grossing movies of all time, one of only three animated movies to be nominated for Best Picture, and wildly praised by critics as an excellent film.

[Ice9]

no. complexity has no inherent value. there is, sadly, a level o' education and experience that blinds an individual to the appreciation o' simplicity. as we has grown older and more experienced, we has gained greater appreciation for the elegance that accompanies enlightened simplicity. chess and go, as examples, is not terribly complex games. mastery o' such simple games can takes a lifetime o' dedication. produce endless wonder and challenge. is perhaps ironic that the genuine educated man and the child may takes joy from simplicity that eludes the apprentice or journeyman scholar.

 

*shrug*

 

is a matter o' opinion and taste, but am gonna suggest that derision o' simplicity is the result o' hubris born o' ignorance... lack o' experience and education.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Gromnir, old pal, I'm kind of surprised to see this from you. At your worst (best?) you resemble a chapter of Ulysses.

 

Which summer blockbuster in the last decade is also an excellent film?

 

For starters, I'd go with The Dark Knight. It is an incredibly well made film.

 

Getting a bit off the subject matter here, but the scope of the intended audience has no bearing on whether something should be considered art or even good art; it is possible to appeal to the masses and still be great art. Look at religious iconography and other art in that vein. Renaissance religious art like the Sistine Chapel's ceiling has probably had just about as large as an effect on Western art as anything before it or after it.

 

As for whether or not DA2's attempt at widening its target audience is a good thing, seeing as none of us have played it yet, is still up in the air. My early impressions, however, are less than positive.

[213374U]

A good way to look at chess is that it's similar to poker - a level of memorization is needed to predict the outcomes of various moves in various situations, but that's more of a prerequisite which is required to play effectively. The real skill is not in the memorization, and what determines the winner when there are not vast skill gaps involved is not who has memorized more - in poker, you do not get better by memorizing more odds. It's the same in chess - you do not simply improve by memorizing more positions.

Hmm, no. Poker is a completely different game with a strong component of randomness and where body language reading can provide the edge. Also, previous hands don't directly define subsequent rounds and so patterns are much less important. I'm hard pressed to think of a worse game you could have chosen to compare with.

 

At any rate, I don't see how being a FIDE master (and I'm going to grant the benefit of doubt and assume you're not just pulling stuff out your ass) is interchangeable with being a cognitive scientist and therefore an authority on the matter. Would you let Lance Armstrong perform heart surgery on you? Perhaps you'd like to cite some actual authorities. You know, so you have something more solid to stand on than "bull**** moran" and "no U".

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguide...89TJCB47VF1HDQ9

 

^Not an academic piece by any means, but illustrates what I'm saying. See, I'm not just "speculating".

 

Is pattern recognition "memory" in the same sense as reciting a bunch of historical dates? Probably not. Is it "reasoning" in the sense of solving problems one has no familiarity with? Nope, it's not that either. I was wrong to say there's no skill involved in playing chess. Mostly because I can't very well define what constitutes "skill", without falling back to the notion of success and building on top of that. And since some players consistently win and others consistently lose, there is definitely a degree of "skill" involved. Whatever that may be.

 

 

1. Complexity is not sophistication.

Irrelevant. Apples aren't oranges. Grom already made this argument, btw. Read the chess discussion part and how sophistication isn't necessary for complexity. DA2, judging from the demo, is neither sophisticated nor complex.

 

 

2. Intelligence has nothing to do with taste.

[citation needed]

 

I'm inclined to believe otherwise, given that intelligence is an important factor in a person's character.

 

http://booksthatmakeyoudumb.virgil.gr/ (not to be taken too seriously!)

 

 

3. Good entertainment, whether simple or complex, will tend to appeal to a wide range of people.

"No true Scotsman..."

 

It's also circular logic. Good entertainment will attract many people. It attracts many people because it's good. That says very little about the quality of whatever it is you're talking about.

 

 

Except Dragon Age 2 is not 'defined' by DA:O's datamining. It's influenced by it along with a host of other things.

Semantics. "Defined" vs "influenced", "affected" and "reflected on". Pivotal design decisions affect the essence of a game. Traditional RPG conventions were getting in the way of the enjoyment of the game for many people, as revealed by datamining, so they had to go. Or so said Laidlaw.

 

 

We know that most people didn't finish the game and that the majority of those that did only played once. Why assume that it's the smart people who finished? Maybe it's the dumb ones that spend 80+ hours in a game with generic environments, simplistic plots and characters, and some painfully tedious combat.

Good point. Maybe indeed. So then we're left with Grom's point that Bio simply has drawn all the wrong conclusions, in light of their changes to the game. Heh.

[Nepenthe]

 

Happily, my enjoyment of things is not affected by what some arrogant **** on the internet thinks. I know it does matter to some people, one reason why some friends of mine avoid this place like the plague.

 

So, anyway, they're now apparently running some new promo (after apparently hitting the required 1 mil downloads), this time wanting facebook "shares" or something. Not gonna contribute.

Edited March 1, 2011 by Nepenthe

[sorophx]

The best I could find was this.

hah, very amusing, thanks

[Malcador]

Happily, my enjoyment of things is not affected by what some arrogant **** on the internet thinks. I know it does matter to some people, one reason why some friends of mine avoid this place like the plague.

 

Must suck being better than this place eh ?

 

 

Eh, in terms of DA2 being LCD-fare, it doesn't look that way as much as..say Bulletstorm or COD4. Doesn't look like passively rolling to victory, at least gameplay wise. The plot and characters, well, who expects much from games regarding these at this time. Didn't know that they datamined, kind of nice to spied on I suppose heh, but would be cool to see a list of the data they gathered.

[Nepenthe]

Eh, in terms of DA2 being LCD-fare, it doesn't look that way as much as..say Bulletstorm or COD4. Doesn't look like passively rolling to victory, at least gameplay wise. The plot and characters, well, who expects much from games regarding these at this time. Didn't know that they datamined, kind of nice to spied on I suppose heh, but would be cool to see a list of the data they gathered.

 

I'd say that the complete list probably qualifies as a trade secret (and I wouldn't be surprised if more than one competitor was interested in what exactly is being recorded), but here's what's been released: http://www.destructoid.com/mass-effect-2-p...ng-188362.phtml