[Silencer]

Aptorius, on 20 May 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

You'd think a giant like Blizzard that is so obsessed with perfection would put more pride in their stories.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Blizzard is only concerned with churning out their next money-making episode in one of their super-franchises, after having made the graphics more closely resemble WoW's. 'Perfection'-obsessed devs would not release something that doesn't work on the first day, Apt.

[Sparrohawk]

I think my cynicism meter just overloaded

[Silencer]

'Tis true, I'm a particularly cynical individual.


Wait, did I say cynical? I meant realistic. XD

[Sparrohawk]

Silencer, on 21 May 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

'Tis true, I'm a particularly cynical individual.


Wait, did I say cynical? I meant realistic. XD

I'm not really sure that's realism. Every company has to worry about making money, otherwise they wouldn't be a company. If you wanted to be realistic, you would be sceptical of every game company talking about anything except making fat wad of cash, especially the game companies you liked, because realistically you're more biased to accept their stated point of view. Cynicism is just another form of self-deception that masquerades as realism. I suppose I have to ask what games do you usually play/why do you play them?

And besides which, the game *does* work. And it worked at launch. What didn't work was the servers, which is not a problem with the game as such; I'm aware that one affects the other, but that does not make them one and the same, and they should not be equated.

[Illuyankas]

Consider his statement amended to " 'Perfection'-obsessed devs would not release a functional game running off infrastructure that doesn't work on the first day, Apt." then I guess!

[Silencer]

Sparrohawk, on 21 May 2012 - 12:48 AM, said:

Silencer, on 21 May 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

'Tis true, I'm a particularly cynical individual.


Wait, did I say cynical? I meant realistic. XD

I'm not really sure that's realism. Every company has to worry about making money, otherwise they wouldn't be a company. If you wanted to be realistic, you would be sceptical of every game company talking about anything except making fat wad of cash, especially the game companies you liked, because realistically you're more biased to accept their stated point of view. Cynicism is just another form of self-deception that masquerades as realism. I suppose I have to ask what games do you usually play/why do you play them?

And besides which, the game *does* work. And it worked at launch. What didn't work was the servers, which is not a problem with the game as such; I'm aware that one affects the other, but that does not make them one and the same, and they should not be equated.

If you look closely, I said they wouldn't release *something* which does not work on the first day - which their product (hereby defined as the service they are selling to the consumer, thus including any supporting infrastructure, despite that being irrelevant to the point that you could not play the game on day one) most certainly was. If one claims they are 'perfection-obsessed', I think you can see my objection, no? For example, if your telco sells you an internet connection with a free router, and the router does not work, then you can safely say that you had no internet connection, can you not?

As for your statement that I'm being cynical, not realistic (and accepting for the moment your definition of being 'realistic'), based on the fact that I'm (and you're inferring in a MAJOR way, here) not sceptical of any company that claims to want to do other than make wads of cash, I do have to ask...how did you come to this conclusion based on my post:

Quote

Blizzard is only concerned with churning out their next money-making episode in one of their super-franchises, after having made the graphics more closely resemble WoW's

Which was in objection to the claim that Blizzard are 'perfection-obsessed'; something OTHER than just after money?
Is that not - by your very own definition - a 'realistic' perspective? Colour me confused as to how you find anything there that is not firmly grounded in the "companies want to make money" camp. As for how game companies that I like come into it, again, I'm at a loss as to how that is relevant to your claim that my perspective is cynical rather than realistic - given you have, as I mentioned before, made a huge assumption that I'm not sceptical of companies that claim to want other than making money off their product. Does liking or not liking a company have anything to do with whether I have a 'realistic' perspective on their motives? I *like* Blizzard - or did, until they went off the deep end with their online-only Diablo3, and their "pay three times for one game" Starcraft II. They are certainly taking a very hardline 'realistic' stance on their profit-making, compared to other companies. But still, while liking a company may affect the amount of leniency I give them, it doesn't change my perspective from 'realistic' to anything else.

As for what games I normally play/like, and why I play them...RPGs and FPSs are my standards, though I'll also play games in other genres if they're good. I play them to get entertainment - whether that comes from mowing down hordes of opponents, shooting my friends in the virtual head, or a great story is, of course, dependent on the game. If you want names of specific games...that list is waaaay too long. My favourites though are pretty easy to list; Morrowind. Planescape: Torment. Arcanum. Vampire; The Masquerade - Bloodlines. There are others, though in all honesty I probably haven't played most of my favourites in a couple of years. *shrug*

[Sparrohawk]

Which is still a statement that only applies if the devs who work on game design decide on server infrastructure. Which, in a company the size of Blizzard, would be very odd.

[Silencer]

Sparrohawk, on 21 May 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

Which is still a statement that only applies if the devs who work on game design decide on server infrastructure. Which, in a company the size of Blizzard, would be very odd.

I think you're being a little pedantic here, given Apt's first quote referred to 'Blizzard', as did my post barring a shift to the word 'devs' in the second sentence. And Blizzard ARE the developers, AND run the server infrastructure. They even released a public apology saying they underestimated the demand - from the devs.

[Sparrohawk]

Quote

Does liking or not liking a company have anything to do with whether I have a 'realistic' perspective on their motives?

Quote

But still, while liking a company may affect the amount of leniency I give them, it doesn't change my perspective from 'realistic' to anything else.

Liking something has a massive impact on how you view their motives. Like you said, you give more leniency to companies you like. I'm not guessing here; it is as close to fact as one can get in psychology that the emotional view (liking/disliking) you have on any concept can and does impact every thought you have about it and things associated with it, and it is close to impossible to alter that bias unless you actively and fully alter your emotional perspective. The fact is that you may not be aware of this process (which is the norm, and why advertising works so well).

Quote

Which was in objection to the claim that Blizzard are 'perfection-obsessed'; something OTHER than just after money?

Yes, I did make the inference that you're not sceptical of other companies. Tell me I'm wrong? I'm actually serious, if I'm wrong, tell me.

Quote

They even released a public apology saying they underestimated the demand - from the devs.

That was not a quote from the developers, that was from Bashiok, who is a CM. I doubt the game developers have anything to do with it. Yes, this is pedantic.

In any case, I see your point; I shouldn't have inferred that you aren't cynical of game companies in general when they make statements that aren't to do with moneymaking.

Back to the original point, though; the game did, in fact work. It just didn't work very well. Again, it sounds like I'm splitting hairs, but I think this is important. Saying it doesn't work is a binary statement, and it's wrong. It did, but not for everyone due to the massive login numbers. On an individual level, you could say that 'it didn't work', but you can't say that because you aren't playing it, and nobody I've spoken to was totally unable to log in and play *at all* on day one. This in no way excuses the crappy nature of their login issues, and I'm not trying to defend them, but it's not possible to say 'it doesn't work'.

On a related note, you mentioned you play these games for entertainment; does the fact that D3 is online-only compromise the entertainment value so much that you don't want to play it? In addition, have you played either a) Dead Island or b ) Call of Juarez: The Cartel? I ask because depending on the responses I get it makes for an interesting view on gaming practices. You don't have to answer

This post has been edited by Sparrohawk: 21 May 2012 - 02:09 AM

[Lucifer's Heaven]

Sparrohawk, on 21 May 2012 - 12:48 AM, said:

Silencer, on 21 May 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

I'm not really sure that's realism. Every company has to worry about making money, otherwise they wouldn't be a company. If you wanted to be realistic, you would be sceptical of every game company talking about anything except making fat wad of cash, especially the game companies you liked, because realistically you're more biased to accept their stated point of view. Cynicism is just another form of self-deception that masquerades as realism. I suppose I have to ask what games do you usually play/why do you play them?

And besides which, the game *does* work. And it worked at launch. What didn't work was the servers, which is not a problem with the game as such; I'm aware that one affects the other, but that does not make them one and the same, and they should not be equated.

Saying "Every company has to worry about making money, otherwise they wouldn't be a company" is just a big strawman argument. There is a difference between a company that provides a service/product and makes money off it and a company that wants to make money, so provides services/products designed to do so.
And I'm pretty sure you know that, and you know the difference (though you may have never articulated it), you're just pretending otherwise to avoid weakening your argument.
For argument's sake, if you don't know...

The difference comes in priorities. Are you out to make as much money as you can, or are you out to provide a service/product that benefits your customers or is something you are proud of/want to create. And don't pull the "every company is out to make money" line, there is a difference here, and especially in an industry of creativity and (officially or not) art, there are plenty of companies/people who fit into the latter category. Yes they want to make money, but that is the benefit/a necessary part of making something great. We'll call those who are after a great product side 1 and those after money 2.

A lot of those companies in the world that people generally distrust/don't like/consider greedy are side 2s. Big banks, oil conglomerates and other companies that have money making as first priority and in worst cases will do extremely shady and questionable things for said priority. I'm not trying to say Actizzard is sending thugs to people's places at night to threaten them, I am simply mentioning the extreme so I can more easily highlight the difference.

CD Projekt are a good example of side 1 in the industry in question. Yes they sell their product, yes they made lots of money off it. That's good and great and fine. They made a product they're proud of and people want to pay for it. They even released a free update to the game, adding hours of content to it for everyone who owned the game or bought it in future. They didn't need to do this. They could have charged for it and it would have been worth it. But good product and happy customers came first (and there is a lot to be said about customer satisfaction/loyalty being an investment) and they didn't need the extra.
Valve is another example. They make butloads of money off steam, but they give a lot back with it. They try and make it convenient for convenience's sake. All their games are really high quality and many are sold cheaper than they could get away with. They all allow modding. When someone in the community has a great game idea, they don't just steal it, they hire the people who came up with it (eg - L4D and Portal). And none of that is even mentioning a lot of the indy developers (don't want any, "they're a small company they can afford to do stuff like that" arguments ) and the approach of many of the successful crowdfunding games (successful in getting funding I mean).

The companies who make the Modern Warfare games are a good example of the other side (whithout being comically "evil" like the big oil and such I mentioned ). They aren't after making an interesting or new product. They don't care for making good quality new games. They've found a market that will pay, and they're milking it for everything it's worth. They don't allow community modding or map making, as then they couldn't justify selling you three maps for $10-$15 every few months, they release a full price carbon copy game every year, when some of them should really just be expansions. Even use the same engine.

And over the years, Blizzard has been turning more from side 1 to side 2. Many of those changes happened over the years they were just focussing on WoW, and kinda coincide with Activision's takeover (I didn't pay a lot of attention to exact timings or anything). And I hear a lot of people say Activision was one of the big side 2s (I honestly can't think of enough of their stuff to say). All that stuff I said in the previous post about the online only being a detriment to players at best and only a benefit to Actizzard's money milking, that's a perfect example of about as side 2 a choice as you can make in this industry.
And yes, many/most of the programmers and such within companies like that will be swinging a lot to side 1, but when the people in charge really don't, it greatly effects the end product.

On the note of the biased point of view, Blizzard was one of the companies I really liked...

So like optimism and pessimism, cynicism (when not ridiculously over the top) is just an exaggeration, not an outright falsehood.

I will admit that was a great one line description of cynicism (yours I mean)

PS - Extra Credits are well and truly on the side 1 side of thinking. Make quality products, advertise responsibly and all that.

This post has been edited by Lucifer's Heaven: 21 May 2012 - 02:16 AM

[Sparrohawk]

Quote

Saying "Every company has to worry about making money, otherwise they wouldn't be a company" is just a big strawman argument. There is a difference between a company that provides a service/product and makes money off it and a company that wants to make money, so provides services/products designed to do so.

What I said doesn't exclude either of those types. Like you said, the difference comes in priority, not in the existence or non-existence of those motives. To use your example, I doubt CD Projeckt would have released the Witcher games unless they were pretty sure they could make money with it. But, like you said, it probably wasn't their main focus once they knew they had a viable product.

Besides which, I agree that the difference in priorities does alter how a game company works (or at least, appears to work). I don't think that invalidates my point, though.

Quote

On the note of the biased point of view, Blizzard was one of the companies I really liked...

Yes, I know. I remember you saying that you were sure D3 was going to be an awesome game (prior to Beta), because it was a Blizzard game, and they tend to be well made, but that the online-only thing was stopping you. The fact that you were sure it would be a good game is bias talking. As much as I hate telling other people what they were likely thinking, I think that's a pretty good guess.

This post has been edited by Sparrohawk: 21 May 2012 - 02:36 AM

[Silencer]

Sparrohawk, on 21 May 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

Liking something has a massive impact on how you view their motives. Like you said, you give more leniency to companies you like. I'm not guessing here; it is as close to fact as one can get in psychology that the emotional view (liking/disliking) you have on any concept can and does impact every thought you have about it and things associated with it, and it is close to impossible to alter that bias unless you actively and fully alter your emotional perspective. The fact is that you may not be aware of this process (which is the norm, and why advertising works so well).

I'm well aware of the machinations of the brain and how emotional predispositions influence decision making. What I'm contending is that liking a company and therefore being more lenient in whether I call them on it or not has anything to do with my perspective being either cynical or realistic. One could argue that a cynic would more readily call a company on it regardless of emotional perspective, though.

Quote

Quote

Which was in objection to the claim that Blizzard are 'perfection-obsessed'; something OTHER than just after money?

Yes, I did make the inference that you're not sceptical of other companies. Tell me I'm wrong? I'm actually serious, if I'm wrong, tell me.

You're wrong. As much as I love, for example, Bethesda, because they gave me Morrowind, I'm fully aware that they are motivated by selling to the largest audience possible - and it shows, given how much they've mainstreamed their games since. For the most part, I don't make active judgements of any company either way - I assume simply that they operate for their own sake. And even if a company did start with different primary motives, the vast majority of people won't do something as a job simply because they enjoy it, remuneration is always a driving force - but if I actually sit down and think about it, I tend to think companies are less concerned about their customers for their customer's sake and more for their own, for obvious reasons. Is that not normal?

Quote

Quote

They even released a public apology saying they underestimated the demand - from the devs.

That was not a quote from the developers, that was from Bashiok, who is a CM. I doubt the game developers have anything to do with it. Yes, this is pedantic.

I also thoroughly contend this point. Bashiok posted it yes, but if you will carefully note the sign-off and continuous use of impersonal 'we':

Quote

Diablo Players:

We’d like to extend a very sincere thank you to everyone who joined the global Diablo III launch celebrations this week, as well as to everyone who was ready to jump into Sanctuary the moment the game went live.

To that end, we’d also like to say that we’ve been humbled by your enthusiasm -- and we sincerely regret that your crusade to bring down the Lord of Terror was thwarted not by mobs of demons, but by mortal infrastructure. As many of you are aware, technical issues occurring within hours after the game's launch led to players experiencing error messages and difficulty logging in. These issues cropped up again last night for the Americas and Europe servers. Despite very aggressive projections, our preparations for the launch of the game did not go far enough.

We’ve been monitoring the game 24/7 and have applied several optimizations to help our systems better weather the global rush. As of late last night, specifically 11:50 PM PDT on May 15, all systems have been online and running relatively smoothly. We’re continuing to monitor performance globally and will be taking further measures as needed to ensure a positive experience for everyone. This includes some maintenance to implement additional improvements for each region.

In order to make sure everything is continuing to run as it should, we’ve decided to move out our target launch for the real-money auction house beyond our original estimated date of May 22. We’ll post further updates on that in the near future.

Aside from the tremendous number of players simultaneously logging in to the game, one of the launch-day service issues was linked to the achievement system. Some players began to notice early on that achievements were either not being earned properly, or not being saved between multiple logins. We’re investigating this issue and will provide a specific update as soon as possible.

We greatly appreciate everyone’s support, and we want to sincerely apologize for the difficulties many of you encountered on day one. Please visit the Battle.net Support site or Support forums for the latest service-related updates or for help in troubleshooting any technical issues you may be having downloading, installing, or while playing the game.

Thank you again for your patience while we reinforce the gates of Sanctuary and further strengthen it for your onslaught.

Respectfully,
Blizzard Entertainment

Source link.

If you're going to contest that as a CM he is entitled to speak as "Blizzard Entertainment" but is not, in fact, speaking on behalf of the entire dev team, company, &ct, then I think you need to consider very carefully how you're going to word your argument, given it's probably a violation of several contracts and, indeed, laws, to speak as if you are a company not an individual without consent.

Quote

In any case, I see your point; I shouldn't have inferred that you aren't cynical of game companies in general when they make statements that aren't to do with moneymaking.

I think you meant sceptical here. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Quote

Back to the original point, though; the game did, in fact work. It just didn't work very well. Again, it sounds like I'm splitting hairs, but I think this is important. Saying it doesn't work is a binary statement, and it's wrong. It did, but not for everyone due to the massive login numbers. On an individual level, you could say that 'it didn't work', but you can't say that because you aren't playing it, and nobody I've spoken to was totally unable to log in and play *at all* on day one. This in no way excuses the crappy nature of their login issues, and I'm not trying to defend them, but it's not possible to say 'it doesn't work'.

On a related note, you mentioned you play these games for entertainment; does the fact that D3 is online-only compromise the entertainment value so much that you don't want to play it? In addition, have you played either a) Dead Island or Call of Juarez: The Cartel? I ask because depending on the responses I get it makes for an interesting view on gaming practices. You don't have to answer

OK, so what you're saying, is that I made a generalization. Yes, I concur, I did. I do that a lot. HOWEVER. I was contending that Blizzard are NOT "perfection-obsessed" and that, honestly, is why your splitting of hairs is pointless - as far as I'm concerned, the game didn't work. It's not technically true - as you say, that's a binary statement and it's not 'true'. Then again, neither is it true to say that the game 'worked as intended', which I think we can all agree on is what we mean when say whether it 'worked' or 'didn't work'. The fact that I'm dropping a qualifying portion of the statement is hardly cause for concern from anyone who can extrapolate a bit, is it? (Though considering I have complained about you inferring things before, this may sound contradictory.)

So I shall concede that my statement needs to be amended to "did not work as expected or intended due to lack of planning on behalf of Blizzard (be that the devs, or anyone else responsible)", in order to avoid confusion or over-generalization. In the meantime, we're back around to how exactly this relates to my perspective either being cynical or realistic. >.>


Right, so, Diablo 3 and online only. Does it compromise the entertainment value? Not necessarily. It could do, however, and it is that to which I am objecting. I have been without internet before - I have in fact been without internet often. I regularly go away on the boat for Christmas holidays (up to 3 weeks). Am I to be debarred from playing D3 for this time simply due to lack of internet connection? Or any other games which follow in its footsteps? It's a singleplayer game, ffs. And you're saying that I am not allowed to play it merely because I am on a boat with only 512Mb of mobile data, which is dedicated to weather maps, work emails, and suchlike? Or moreover, that I should somehow pay MORE to be ALLOWED to play a game I have PURCHASED that does not in any way REQUIRE an internet connection to experience the content when I like? Is this a reasonable stance for the company to take (I won't contend their right to do so - it's their product, after all)?
Or indeed, should I go over my data cap - which I will grant is FINALLY becoming somewhat substantial with the end of the month, going to 120Gb (doubled from 60Gb...until recently the best plan you could get from our major telco was 40Gb a month, and it cost HUNDREDS of dollars) - then I could be cut off. Or if the power goes out in a storm. It can take them days to get the 'net back online, and I'm in a major city! Even my Xbox 360 does not REQUIRE me to be online to play single player games. It might not let me retain achievements I gained, but it doesn't prevent me from playing entirely, and nor should it.
So while I could indeed get entertainment from Diablo 3 - in fact, I want to play it - I'm not going to, because there is a potentially seriously-detrimental-to-my-future-entertainment issue inherent in the way Diablo 3 has been set up. It's not like I'm going to be thinking about that when I play, of course, but that's why I said earlier this thread; it's the principle of the thing. It's the fact that this is a direction I earnestly do not want to see any more games go, simply because it would literally lock me out from playing games I FRAKKING OWN on the occasions where I do not have the internet. I'm not going to endorse that with my wallet.


As for Dead Island or Call of Juarez, no, I've played neither, despite much pressuring from one Loki of the forums to play Dead Island. () Why do you ask?

[Lucifer's Heaven]

Lol, lots of other posts since I had started writing my previous one.
I hadn't seen any from Sparrowhawk's post that I quoted onwards

Silencer, on 21 May 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

and their "pay three times for one game" Starcraft II.

I will say this, I actually don't mind this part of Starcraft 2. Provided they stick to their earlier promise of releasing the second two parts as expansions. Especially given that there were almost the same number of mission in S2 part one as there were in all of the original Starcraft (so minus the expansion). I didn't like the lack of lan.

Also, technically Sparrowhawk, the people who work on the server infrastructure are also developers. So even splitting hairs, if they said perfection obsessed devs, it would still apply.

To be fair, as our primetime is in what is essentially worldwide off-peak time for online games, Australians would have had far more luck than most getting on to play.
(actually in second thought, if we were only on Australian servers, and depending how the servers are set up, we may not have had more luck because of time. But other factors could easily have made it more favourable for various region depending on how it was all set up)
I can guarantee 1000s of people didn't get to play on that first day in the time they had spare to play. Sure if they spent all day there they would have been able to get on at some point, but not everyone can do that. My brother for example has two kids and other stuff to do. Plenty of people in his situation may not have gotten on the the few hours they'd set aside to play.

Quote

Yes, I know. I remember you saying that you were sure D3 was going to be an awesome game (prior to Beta), because it was a Blizzard game, and they tend to be well made, but that the online-only thing was stopping you. The fact that you were sure it would be a good game is bias talking. As much as I hate telling other people what they were likely thinking, I think that's a pretty good guess.

I'm not so sure it's bias as it is an estimate based on previous experience (my own and critical reception). It was an evidence based guess, not an emotional faith in the company. Although Mists of Pandaria could prove to be an exception

Also, it's not a matter of invalidating, so much as it is making it moot (which I guess could be considered a kind of invalidating).
Yes, every company wants to make money. That implies nothing beyond that. Every person wants to make money too. But that doesn't mean some people aren't greedier than others.
Your argument seems to be trying to say that all companies want to make money. Therefore they're all on the same boat when it comes to how they're willing to make it. That you can't call some money grubbing or anything like that because they all are.
I was showing that wasn't the case. They all need to make money to support themselves, but that doesn't make them all similar when it comes to what they will do to get it, especially when they are making a profit without resorting to extra measures.
More than anything though it's a matter of there being a difference in how they treat us, their customer.
You can argue whether Actizzard falls into the description Silencer made of just being after the next cash machine if you want, but there are companies who do that. And there are companies who don't.

Edit: The edits I've been doing on this and the last post are mostly just fixing some typos and rephrasing one or two bits I thought weren't clear. As both times I forgot to proof it before posting it

This post has been edited by Lucifer's Heaven: 21 May 2012 - 03:22 AM

[Sparrohawk]

Quote

What I'm contending is that liking a company and therefore being more lenient in whether I call them on it or not has anything to do with my perspective being either cynical or realistic. One could argue that a cynic would more readily call a company on it regardless of emotional perspective, though.

Nope. It absolutely affects it. A human being who makes a decision on something regardless of emotional perspective is either brain-damaged or psychopathic.

Quote

Is that not normal?

Perfectly normal. I wasn't going to make that for an argument, that's just personal curiousity.

Quote

I also thoroughly contend this point. Bashiok posted it yes, but if you will carefully note the sign-off and continuous use of impersonal 'we'

Fair enough. I didn't read it closely enough.

Quote

as far as I'm concerned, the game didn't work

Certainly it didn't work as intended; I'd agree there. Skyrim didn't work either.

Personally though, it worked for me. The splitting of hairs is pointless to you; fair enough. Similarly, you saying that the game didn't work is pointless to me, because you didn't play it. To put it another way, you're not in a position to make the comment with any level of validity.

Quote

I'm not going to endorse that with my wallet

Fair enough. I find myself in the same position from time to time, and if it were more regular I would be just as annoyed.

Quote

As for Dead Island or Call of Juarez, no, I've played neither, despite much pressuring from one Loki of the forums to play Dead Island. () Why do you ask?

I ask because on occasion the answers I've gotten are fairly odd. Both games feature some pretty morally horrifying shit; in the case of Dead Island, there is the rape of one of the accompanying characters that is, to be mild, not very well handled. Call of Juarez has so many morally screwy bits and pieces in it that it's just fucked up (there's an Extra Credits episode on it, if you want more info). Some people that I've spoken to won't play D3 on principle, and yet will happily play games that feature rape, victim shaming and so on and so forth without a bat of the eyelid. By comparison, I have issues with online-only (not big enough to stop me playing, but they're there), and I have HUGE issues with games like Dead Island, and it does stop me playing them, because I believe the developers of THOSE games are bile-spewing geysers of liquid shit that aren't worth the sperm used to make them. It's just a matter of interest for me; in the cases I mentioned before, people's principles seem rather. . . disproportionate.

To make the point in a different sense, when the female character in Dead Island was raped, the forums of that company exploded, not with indignation or rage about how the game handled it, but with victim shaming, e.g. 'wtf she's a stupid woman, she asked to get raped by doing what she did, etc etc.' So I ask the question to get a better sense of the priorities of the person I'm talking to about game issues, mostly.

Quote

I can guarantee 1000s of people didn't get to play on that first day in the time they had spare to play.

Oh, definitely. But the comment I made is bound to my own perspective, so I can't argue beyond that.

Quote

I'm not so sure it's bias as it is an estimate based on previous experience

In that case we have a difference of definitions. To me, those two things are one and the same.

Quote

I was showing that wasn't the case. They all need to make money to support themselves, but that doesn't make them all similar when it comes to what they will do to get it, especially when they are making a profit anyway.

I was trying to say that making money and making a good product aren't exclusive of one another, and that a 'moneygrubber' company (for want of a better term) can be the same company as one that provides excellent service. To say that they are one without the other doesn't make much sense. That said, you're right in that the point is a little moot unless you can mindread everyone in the company in question.

This post has been edited by Sparrohawk: 21 May 2012 - 03:30 AM

[Silencer]

Sparrohawk, on 21 May 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

Quote

What I'm contending is that liking a company and therefore being more lenient in whether I call them on it or not has anything to do with my perspective being either cynical or realistic. One could argue that a cynic would more readily call a company on it regardless of emotional perspective, though.

Nope. It absolutely affects it. A human being who makes a decision on something regardless of emotional perspective is either brain-damaged or psychopathic.

I'm sorry, but what? That has nothing to do with my point - I'm not talking about decision making, I'm arguing that one can be cognizant of a company's motivations and still like or dislike them. My POINT is that liking Blizzard doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether I'm being realistic or cynical about their motivations. I can choose whether or not to call them on it based on whether I like them or not, but that doesn't change one from a realist to a cynic or vice versa. How can it? It's not about any decisions being made, it's whether you are cognizant of their motivations; the choice to like them or not is a different matter entirely (though being aware of their motivations MAY change THAT, but not the other way around, for most people).

Now, I'm not one to quibble over such things, but I should also point out; hasn't psychopathy been generally discredited in the profession? I know sociopathy is no longer considered a viable diagnosis, I thought the same was true of psychopathy?

Quote

Quote

as far as I'm concerned, the game didn't work

Certainly it didn't work as intended; I'd agree there. Skyrim didn't work either.

Personally though, it worked for me. The splitting of hairs is pointless to you; fair enough. Similarly, you saying that the game didn't work is pointless to me, because you didn't play it. To put it another way, you're not in a position to make the comment with any level of validity.

Skyrim on the PS3, didn't, no. On other platforms, however, it functioned perfectly fine, as far as I'm aware?

Ohohoho, really? You're claiming that someone cannot take copious amounts of evidence and then make a claim based on it? Blizzard admitted they fucked up and that the game didn't work as intended. If you're honestly to the point where you are going to arbitrarily dismiss my claim's validity because I personally did not experience the problems, we might as well stop talking. My claim that your splitting of hairs is pointless is relative to the fact that we're talking about the developers being "perfection-obsessed" and so therefore the difference between "didn't work at all" and "didn't work as intended and prevent people from playing the game" is meaningless. Your distinction is relative to what? It's arbitrary and verging on some form of ad hominem.

Quote

I ask because on occasion the answers I've gotten are fairly odd. Both games feature some pretty morally horrifying shit; in the case of Dead Island, there is the rape of one of the accompanying characters that is, to be mild, not very well handled. Call of Juarez has so many morally screwy bits and pieces in it that it's just fucked up (there's an Extra Credits episode on it, if you want more info). Some people that I've spoken to won't play D3 on principle, and yet will happily play games that feature rape, victim shaming and so on and so forth without a bat of the eyelid. By comparison, I have issues with online-only (not big enough to stop me playing, but they're there), and I have HUGE issues with games like Dead Island, and it does stop me playing them, because I believe the developers of THOSE games are bile-spewing geysers of liquid shit that aren't worth the sperm used to make them. It's just a matter of interest for me; in the cases I mentioned before, people's principles seem rather. . . disproportionate.

Well, morals are hardly an absolute from where I'm sitting - I assume you're talking 'morally horrifying relative to a certain set of morals that qualify X as horrifying", but I'll take your word for it that said rape is 'not very well handled'. To get around to an actual point, though, I think there's a flaw somewhere in there between "willing to watch/play/whatever in an entertainment medium" principles and "think this is morally wrong because it has real life consequences on peoples lives" principles. Basically, arguments for portrayal of certain things in responsible and/or sensitive ways aside, there's a difference between video game principles and RL principles. I.e. I play games where I get to shoot people in the face. That really has no bearing on my real-life moral compass, as the virtual is not 'real' - it has no tangible consequences. I'd like to say, here, "I'm sure those people would thoroughly object to rape/etc in real life" - but this being the internet and the 21st century, I do appreciate that this is not necessarily the case. Nonetheless, my argument still stands; perspective about the issue is key.

Quote

To make the point in a different sense, when the female character in Dead Island was raped, the forums of that company exploded, not with indignation or rage about how the game handled it, but with victim shaming, e.g. 'wtf she's a stupid woman, she asked to get raped by doing what she did, etc etc.' So I ask the question to get a better sense of the priorities of the person I'm talking to about game issues, mostly.

Well, that's a horrible form of baiting that can only possibly lead to judging someone in an ad hominem attack in the middle of an argument, really. Still, this is really rather off-topic now, so I guess I'll just say; "It's the internet; give people even a layer of anonymity and they can and often will say anything, even if they would never dream of saying/doing it in real life because they know society would kick their ass whether they actually believed it or not." If you need further evidence, look to 4chan.

[Lucifer's Heaven]

Sparrohawk, on 21 May 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

Oh, definitely. But the comment I made is bound to my own perspective, so I can't argue beyond that.

That is a concerning mindset for a scientist...

Quote

In that case we have a difference of definitions. To me, those two things are one and the same.

You intentionally left off the part where I mentioned that it was based on personal experience and the experience of others (the reception by critics). And I implied the reception by the community. So it's evidence based.

"1.an oblique or diagonal line of direction, especially across a woven fabric.
2.a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
3.Statistics . a systematic as opposed to a random distortion of a statistic as a result of sampling procedure.
4.Lawn Bowling .
a.a slight bulge or greater weight on one side of the ball or bowl.
b.the curved course made by such a ball when rolled.
5.Electronics . the application of a steady voltage or current to an active device, as a diode or transistor, to produce a desired mode of operation. "

Which definition were you referring to? Because the one it sounds like you were getting at is number 2.
So here are a number of different wordings of that meaning from different sources: (I just took the top few, no cherry picking)

"b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment
"A cognitive bias is the human tendency to make systematic decisions in certain circumstances based on cognitive factors rather than evidence"
"inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair: there was evidence of bias against black applicants the bias towards younger people in recruitment
a concentration on or interest in one particular area or subject: his work showed a discernible bias towards philosophy
a systematic distortion of a statistical result due to a factor not allowed for in its derivation. "

None of those apply to what I said. I suppose with a bit of sophistry you could apply some of the third one to it, but only in so much as it could be applied to anything positive or negative said about, well, anything. In Which case, it's a moot point.
A few of them do get pretty close to your dismissal of the launch problems

Quote

I was trying to say that making money and making a good product aren't exclusive of one another, and that a 'moneygrubber' company (for want of a better term) can be the same company as one that provides excellent service. To say that they are one without the other doesn't make much sense. That said, you're right in that the point is a little moot unless you can mindread everyone in the company in question.

Absolutely true, they aren't mutually exclusive. But the derogatory term in this case was used because those "moneygrubber company" tactics were affecting the end service. So while not excluding other good aspects, they are certainly damaging the whole in this case.
And taking your example of Dead Island. I had not heard about that scene, and it's disgusting. But I thought it interesting that you decided from one scene in the game that "the developers of THOSE games are bile-spewing geysers of liquid shit that aren't worth the sperm used to make them" (i like the insult though ). When I could point out to you with hair splitting you'll be familiar with that that rape scene wasn't the devs. That would have been the writers and producers. The devs made the graphics and such, but the way it was handled in game would not have been their decision. And in a similar vein to the above quote, that doesn't preclude the rest of the game from being good.

It's worth stating outright, that I don't think the rest of Dead Island was good, and from what you've said I am also disgusted by the idea of rape being so mishandled in the game (though I maintain that if done right, no actual topic should be untouchable in any art medium, it has to be done right though). And I don't blame you for not supporting the game because of it (it's nice to know actually). And am glad I didn't.

I am quite enjoying the long discussion

EDIT: Oh, a new post in there. I will read it in a bit, for now, LUNCH!

This post has been edited by Lucifer's Heaven: 21 May 2012 - 04:37 AM

[Lucifer's Heaven]

Oh one thing I will say before I eat.

If we are going to continue this, which I am more than happy to do, perhaps you should move all the posts discussing it to a new thread Silencer?
It's still very loosely on the topic of Diablo 3, but more I think the people who come to this thread for general D3 discussion/updates probably aren't really interested in this side of it.
I'd keep the thread in the Games section still so it's easily spotted. It'd just be so people don't have to wear out their mousewheels looking for the parts they did come to this thread for

Will keep reading when I am done with food

[Silencer]

Indeed, I'm just having a bit of a lazy day. XD

I'll get around to separating the thread when I come home from work. And with that; away!

[Sparrohawk]

Quote

You're claiming that someone cannot take copious amounts of evidence and then make a claim based on it?

Not at all. I'm saying I personally don't put much weight in what you're saying regarding the game working or not because you said you aren't playing it, and I'm not sure weighing in on the impact of how well the game worked when you didn't play it is particularly meaningful.

Quote

Skyrim on the PS3, didn't, no. On other platforms, however, it functioned perfectly fine, as far as I'm aware?

It was buggy as hell to me; a lot of what I saw online had similar things to say. So, I decided that the game didn't work. The implication (which, this being a text-based discussion and not a conversation, didn't work like I wanted it to) is that that call of 'working or not' is down to personal interpretation, partly.

Quote

My claim that your splitting of hairs is pointless is relative to the fact that we're talking about the developers being "perfection-obsessed" and so therefore the difference between "didn't work at all" and "didn't work as intended and prevent people from playing the game" is meaningless.

I was trying to make the point that your calling my hair-splitting meaningless is a personal decision on your part. I was conceding that you are allowed to do that. I then said that, in a similar sense, I am dismissing your statement that the game didn't work. They are relative only in the sense that I am making a personal judgement, as you are.

Quote

Basically, arguments for portrayal of certain things in responsible and/or sensitive ways aside, there's a difference between video game principles and RL principles. I.e. I play games where I get to shoot people in the face.

Which is your personal moral boundary. Mine is different.

Quote

Well, that's a horrible form of baiting that can only possibly lead to judging someone in an ad hominem attack in the middle of an argument, really.

Only if you think I'd immediately and actively judge someone badly over it. Usually I'm just curious as to how they think about it, if at all. Why do you believe it can only lead to me attacking someone about it?

But yes, it has gone a bit off topic.

To Luc's post:

Quote

That is a concerning mindset for a scientist...

Only if I was being a scientist here. I'm not. This is far from a scientific discussion.

Quote

You intentionally left off the part where I mentioned that it was based on personal experience and the experience of others (the reception by critics). And I implied the reception by the community. So it's evidence based.

Not entirely. You still do go off your own experience as well, yes? That's the part I was attempting to emphasise. I wasn't trying to cherry pick.

I was referring to definition 2, or at least that's the closest. I sometimes jumble the meaning with the psychological jargon use of the term, which is more broad.

I'm not dismissing launch issues, I'm just saying that they're not that big of a deal to me. But yes, certainly I'm biased about Blizzard games: I like them. Generally I've enjoyed them. If I was to get into some scientific argument about Blizzard games, I'd do my best to avoid letting that bias affect me. Here, I see no reason to divide the two.

Quote

When I could point out to you with hair splitting you'll be familiar with that that rape scene wasn't the devs. That would have been the writers and producers. The devs made the graphics and such, but the way it was handled in game would not have been their decision. And in a similar vein to the above quote, that doesn't preclude the rest of the game from being good.

Off topic stuff:

Quote

Now, I'm not one to quibble over such things, but I should also point out; hasn't psychopathy been generally discredited in the profession? I know sociopathy is no longer considered a viable diagnosis, I thought the same was true of psychopathy?

It never was really a valid diagnosis. It's just got far more pop-culture meaning attached to it than the diagnosis one would give these days, which is Antisocial Personality Disorder, amongst a few others. You can substitute that, if you like.

Quote

That really has no bearing on my real-life moral compass, as the virtual is not 'real' - it has no tangible consequences.

This is an argument for a different thread, I think, but I seriously disagree. The fact that it's not real is not relevant. Whether you consciously know it or not, your moral compass can be very much affected by a 'virtual' experience. The evidence is still very much out as to whether games are as bad as some people say, but that doesn't make them entirely nice, either.

This post has been edited by Sparrohawk: 21 May 2012 - 05:26 AM

[Gothos]

oh gods guys. TL;DR. a lot of whining about something you could've predicted? blimey. Game worked for me day one. Game works for me still. I'm about an hour from finishing it on Hell as of yesterday evening. In several years looking back at D3 I'll remember it as a kickass game that's hellishly fun to play and trumps the competition, not some server bullshit in the first days. You're fixating on the issue way too much.
What shows is that when bnet was down for maintenance yesterday, sooooo many people whined about it on the official forums, and consequently kept trying to log in over the next couple of hours.... which only marks D3 as a tremendous success.