"But it was made for us."

[Gromnir]

"As to Alan Moore and the most recent League volume, was simply stating dislike of it. Attribute that to a random thought."

 

then ​perhaps you wanna put in a different paragraph or something. brie, or any cheese that needs be eaten at room temperature, strikes Gromnir as peculiar. is seeming that you have many random thoughts that have little bearing on two or three sentences previous. is making your posts less coherent than you intended... and this is coming from a guy who posts as we do.

 

most of rest of your previous post is genuine not worth responding to as is well-tread at this point. we will note that you is making loads o' excuses for your favorite comic... not that anybody could defend sins past, one more day, animal totems, and the other. 

 

gonna disagree with fford on sandman. regardless o' your opinion o' our taste, we will note that sandman is the only comic that we can recollect that has won the world fantasy award for short fiction. puts gaiman in company with fritz leiber, joe haldeman, john ford and johnathan campbell and others. frank mcconnell, who were on the pulitzer prize fiction jury numerous times, were a big fan o' sandman... said that "the doll's house" were best published work o' fiction 89/90... didn't distinguish as a comic neither. is awards and opinions o' pundits definitive? 'course not, but sandman got approval from the larger literary community... which might actually be why some comic geeks hated it so. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Ffordesoon]

@Gromnir:

 

What? No! I love Sandman! I thought you didn't like it that much, is what meant.

[Gromnir]

@Gromnir:

 

What? No! I love Sandman! I thought you didn't like it that much, is what meant.

no, we said that sandman were excellent, but we did admit that making death a perky goth/punk girl were a cheese element in sandman. was a recognition that even good comics could has some cheese.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps with very few exceptions, good comic-book is an oxymoron

Edited May 8, 2014 by Gromnir

[Ffordesoon]

ps with very few exceptions, good comic-book is an oxymoron

Well, I vehemently disagree with that. Even within work-for-hire cape comics, there are plenty of terrific books and runs and single issues, and that's hardly the totality of the medium.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Was intoxicated for much of posts, so perhaps that is why they're haphazard. Not sure that saying I can deal with 3 godawful storylines in a 6 year run is makig loads of excuses, but find quantifying "loads" to be a difficult task. *shrug*

 

anyways, find that good entertainment is often scarce across all media. Find most television serials, movies, comics, novels, and poetry we've sampled to be refuse.

[Amentep]

I'll jump on the "good entertainment" and ask - can their be bad entertainment?

IE I can read, lets say, JUSTICE, INC. by "Kenneth Robeson", watch PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, play DIABLO 3 and be entertained.

I wouldn't say Justice, Inc is the great American novel of 1939 (but a fine pulp one); I wouldn't say PLAN 9 should have won the Oscar for best film of 1959 (nor Tor Johnson in the running for best actor).  Wouldn't argue that Diablo 3 is the best Diablo clone I've ever played.

 

Yet I was entertained by each.  Sometimes things can be non-optimal and still be entertaining; to which I'd say entertainment isn't good or bad, its entertainment.  Good or bad is a qualifier that really doesn't apply to whether someone was entertained.

 

So KP likes JMS run on Spidey - I'm okay with that.  Won't defend the storylines, but if it worked for him - great.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I suppose we get into that whole beauty in the eye of the beholder thing. For instance, never really understood why people like romantic comedies, but don't really care.

 

Perhaps I'll have to reread the JMS run. I remember liking it less near the end, and disliking the three storylines mentioned by grom quite a bit, but was ultimately able to greatly enjoy it in spite of that. *shrug*

Edited May 8, 2014 by KaineParker

[Fatback]

You do balance the pH levels of coffee by adding milk tho

[Gromnir]

I'll jump on the "good entertainment" and ask - can their be bad entertainment?

 

IE I can read, lets say, JUSTICE, INC. by "Kenneth Robeson", watch PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, play DIABLO 3 and be entertained.

 

I wouldn't say Justice, Inc is the great American novel of 1939 (but a fine pulp one); I wouldn't say PLAN 9 should have won the Oscar for best film of 1959 (nor Tor Johnson in the running for best actor).  Wouldn't argue that Diablo 3 is the best Diablo clone I've ever played.

 

Yet I was entertained by each.  Sometimes things can be non-optimal and still be entertaining; to which I'd say entertainment isn't good or bad, its entertainment.  Good or bad is a qualifier that really doesn't apply to whether someone was entertained.

 

So KP likes JMS run on Spidey - I'm okay with that.  Won't defend the storylines, but if it worked for him - great.

that's how this all started btw-- somebody told us that that it were objective more fun to play a bard in bg2 than it were to play a fighter. we pointed out that there simply is no way to tell us what is and ain't fun for us... then we added bit about pizza.

 

*shrug*

 

we thought it were kinda funny how things evolved considering our point on the issue.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Since we're already off-topoc, can someone explain foot fetishes to me? Never really understood the appeal of that.

[Stun]

that's how this all started btw-- somebody told us that that it were objective more fun to play a bard in bg2 than it were to play a fighter.

That's not what anyone on this thread claimed. Obviously fun is not an objective measurement of anything. (who would ever argue otherwise?) The point, which you missed, is that when we discuss balance, we don't take into consideration all the intangibles that can make a game.... fun. Intangibles that Balance is at ODDS with.

 

For example: Lots of people see power-gaming as fun. But Balance by definition seeks to minimize (or flat out eliminate) the ability to power-game. On the other hand, Many people love to challenge themselves by trying to beat a game with gimped builds. But again, Balance seeks to do away with the notion of gimped builds.

 

If Balance is 'more important than we realize', then I'd like someone direct me to the reasons why. Because I'm simply not seeing its purpose. Specifically, I'd like some examples of what Balance (especially class balance) brings to the table in a single player game. And while we're at it, I'd like to know *why* its so important that a Bard be just as "powerful" as any other class.... in a Role Playing game.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Stun

[Gromnir]

"They're more fun to play than fighters, and more versatile than thieves."

 

is a direct quote from you. you specific rejected Gromnir's argument that it were impossible for you to define our fun. not what you meant? that ain't Gromnir's fault.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 8, 2014 by Gromnir

[Stun]

"They're more fun to play than fighters, and more versatile than thieves."

 

is a direct quote from you. you specific rejected Gromnir's argument that it were impossible for you to define our fun. not what you meant? that ain't Gromnir's fault.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Do your Chicago-style eyes see the word "objective" anywhere in that sentence?

 

I wasn't speaking objectively. I was countering your rigid, mathematical-like approach to game design by reminding you of the whole point of playing a game in the first place: To have FUN.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Stun

[PrimeJunta]

Since we're already off-topoc, can someone explain foot fetishes to me? Never really understood the appeal of that.

 

If people without the fetish would see the appeal, it wouldn't be a fetish anymore. That's the defining characteristic of a fetish.

[Gromnir]

 

Do your Chicago-style eyes see the word "objective" anywhere in that sentence?

 

I wasn't speaking objectively. I was countering your rigid, mathematical-like approach to game design by reminding you of the whole point of playing a game in the first place: To have FUN.

 

objective is not there. so what? you disagreed when we stated that you cannot define our definition/perception of fun. sooo...

 

if you reject our claim that fun is subjective, whether or not we used word "subjective, " then...

 

is an if/then statement... can you fill in the "then" part?

 

*insert chicago-style eye-roll*

 

sheesh.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Stun]

 

 

you disagreed when we stated that you cannot define our definition/perception of fun. sooo...

I did no such thing.

[Gromnir]

sure you did... 'course as we clear stated, "as for fun, we complete agree. sacrifice fun on the altar o' balance is stupid. the thing is, Gromnir don't have any idea how to be defining fun. your fun is likely different than ours, " well then, we can easily see how you would mistake our pov as being a "rigid, mathematical-like approach to game design."  or not. am starting to see a systemic problem. 

 

*add another eye-roll."

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

side-note: we will concede that Gromnir is rational. no doubt this strikes some folks as rigid and mathematical.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Gromnir

[Stun]

^can you show me where I disputed, quoted, or in any way disagreed with that passage of yours? Ever?

 

You can't, because I didn't.

 

Edit: Rigid and mathematical is THIS:

after we finished stronghold, we stopped our playthrough as a bard.why would we play a bard? can't do thief stuff as good as a thief, or fight as good as a fighter, and we gots a paltry spell list that makes us kinda a waste as a spell caster.

^deciding that it's pointless to play a bard simply because we did the calculations and determined that warriors do more damage in combat, and thieves are more effective at picking locks and disarming traps.

 

If you wish to counter that your definition of fun is Power-gaming (or whatever you're arguing above), then fine. Say that. And then be prepared to defend the very irrational claim you made that a bard's spell list is paltry, when it is, in fact, something that very easily makes them more powerful than Thieves on the battlefield (for example)

Edited May 8, 2014 by Stun

[Gromnir]

the post You quoted and rejected included the portion Gromnir self-quotes immediate above. is not our fault if you like to read selective.   just as is not our fault if you can somehow mistake our pov as "rigid, mathematical-like," which you don't bother to support neither btw.

 

HA! Good Fun! 

[MReed]

This article might be relevant to the balance discussion:  http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b

 

Yes, a MTG is a totally different genre than CRPGs, but the distinction between the player types is universal.  "Johnny" type players are strongly opposed to the concept of balance, because part of the point of this personality type is to make something that everyone else thinks is "bad" into something that is useful.  I fall into that camp myself.

[Stun]

is not our fault if you like to read selective.

You mean respond selective. Yes, I'll often do that at times when someone makes a giant post filled with many different points. I'll then select the points I disagree with and form a response to them.

 

Does we have a problem with that?

Edited May 8, 2014 by Stun

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

This thread is getting me mathematically rigid.

[Gromnir]

 

You mean respond selective. Yes, I'll often do that at times when someone makes a giant post filled with many different points. I'll then select the points I disagree with and form a response to them.

 

Does we have a problem with that?

 

yes, we do have a problem with that. selective quote and response without context is kinda silly, don't you think? “oh, ’tis love, ’tis love that makes the world go round.”-- lewis carroll. isn't he romantic? well, no, actually, he weren't. had the DUCHESS utter that line. take lewis carroll's work as a whole, and is clear that the line were mocking. nevertheless, thanks to folks such as stun, it is the most famous line by carroll, and is used exact opposite o' the author's intentions.

 

quote something, make a claim, and ignore what were said one paragraph earlier? 

 

*snort*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[ManifestedISO]

Does we have a problem.

 

Reminds me of the time I tried emulating Gertrude Stein, briefly mid-sentence, in a paper describing my personal reaction to her work. It sucked, and I regretted it, but the lesson was never appropriate a hallmark. Not that that's happening here, I'm just telling a story because I am hungry and there is no there there in the microwave. Yet. 

[Endrosz]

This article might be relevant to the balance discussion:  http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b

 

Yes, a MTG is a totally different genre than CRPGs, but the distinction between the player types is universal.  "Johnny" type players are strongly opposed to the concept of balance, because part of the point of this personality type is to make something that everyone else thinks is "bad" into something that is useful.  I fall into that camp myself.

 

Thanks for the read. Although I've read similar ones in the past, it was still educational.

 

But I don't follow your logic. The article you linked never mentions Johnnies being opposed to the concept of balance. I consider myself belonging to that category too, and I love balancing (did it for years on an RTS mod). You can always self-gimp yourself, no matter how balanced or unbalanced the game is. In a cRPG, play without mages (Keyrock's all might MM X party does this right now). Don't use multi-class or dual class characters. Only use melee weapons. The list is endless, you're not limited by game balance. -- Now that I'm writing about this, I recall that I played DA:O on Nightmare with the self-imposed challenge of never allowing characters to be downed. I had to win all battles with all party members standing. That was a fun one.