Off Topic

[Jewish Candy]

Yet there seems to be a huge fanbase... I guess I'll never know why anyone ever liked it.

I was not aware RTAS had a 'huge' fanbase. In fact, I've never heard anyone express any great liking for it - only defenses of why it wasn't actually that bad. See above

I wonder if perhaps Ambi has more of an issue with the ubiquity or percieved overemphasis of videogame realism rather than the concept itself. I don't think it's as default an approach as it was a few years ago, and if I'm honest I'm not sure it ever truly managed to become 'default' in the first place. Though it's an interesting thought: did AAA focus on realism because they wanted shooters, or shooters because they wanted realism? Okay we all know it's cos CoD got popular but YANNO THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

(I'm not a fan of shooters because I cannot get the controls down. Ever. I'm shamefully incapable.)

[Shrooblord]

That reminds me of when Marklar's sister picked up the controller to Halo Reach, went "What's this button do?" and promptly no-scope headshot sniped an Elite General standing two kilometres away. His jaw literally dropped open with awe. It was beautiful.

[Adsolution]

I wonder if perhaps Ambi has more of an issue with the ubiquity or percieved overemphasis of videogame realism rather than the concept itself.

That's what I'm guessing, given how I thought he wasn't articulating himself properly. I was mainly addressing the remark itself (which was put very literally as a statement against the concept) in order to, in the future, avoid further inadvertent expression of cognitive dissonance. o3o

[Jewish Candy]

o3o

You know shit's real when Ad uses emoji
But yeah, I guessed that was the reason for your correction.

[MrBadGuy]

Man, I just built Benny's Spaceship and then watched the LEGO movie again. What a great film!

[Ambidextroid]

That's a very encompassing opinion. I hope you don't wander into the field of game development with this mindset, not because I don't see what you're trying to get at, but because I don't think you're correctly articulating your thoughts, and you're misleading yourself as a result of it; your fellow developers will pick up on that. One experience is all that's needed, and I'll share mine to explain why your belief, in the way you've described it here, is not in the slightest bit objective:

For me, a lot of the fun that comes out of more 'realistically-styled' games is literally the realism factor. In response to what validity your not very strong argument regarding clarity does hold (not very strong because in either case, you're trying to identify a moving target in a static world and... walls, not exactly the hardest thing ever), being able to identify what you need to in a realistic setting is part of the accomplishment, it adds to the raw notion of a 'game', it's a challenge to overcome, and an entirely fair one at that that relies solely on your skill of perception - I'd even go as far as to say it's somewhat de facto in the shooter genre. Why do you think the army wears camo in the first place?

Why believe in something like what you've said if it doesn't apply outside the realms of personal preference, especially if you're developing a product that will be seen by the public? The key thing to always remember is that in almost every case it isn't the idea [of, for instance, realism] that counts, it's the execution, and to blanket the 'idea' stage is horribly juvenile.

I never said this was the attitude I'd pour into a game I made. This is just my personal opinion. I play games because they let you have fun outside of the bounds of real life. War isn't fun. Realism isn't fun. These are my opinions. I like games like TF2 because they focus on making the game more entertaining, rather than realistic. When the people who make CoD do so, they put most of their budget into making it realistic, making humans look more human, making guns look more like real guns etc. when the actual gameplay itself is almost the same, save the story.

What I was trying to say is I enjoy the gameplay more than the realism in games, and I enjoy non-realistic games more than realistic ones because it's something that could only be done on a computer, in a videogame. Take Rayman, for instance. If everyone was human and the environment was realistic, instead of quirky and cartoony, it would (in my opinion) take a huge amount away from the experience. I enjoy games like The Stanley Parable, Portal, Rayman etc. because they're only playable in a world of imagination, a world where realism and physics and everything we're used to are thrown out the window and the creators imagination is poured into the game. That's what I want in my game, my imagination, my ability to shape the world in whatever way I feel and break the walls of reality. Not to make a game centred around only my beliefs and opinions.

Your argument seems to be based on your opinion, and my original point was based on mine.

For me, a lot of the fun that comes out of more 'realistically-styled' games is literally the realism factor.

Mine is not.

I already explained to you why myself (and some others who feel the same way I do) are able to enjoy it: The CGI was incredible for what it was, and I'm a graphics nut. Did you intentionally disregard my reasoning the first time?

In defense of the others, the show was pretty standard if you compare it to a lot of other kid's shows of a similar caliber. Sure, the writing wasn't very Raymanny, but not everyone has a problem with seeing their favourite character a bit out of place, they're able to see the show's merits, and if you couple that with the beautiful CGI, there are certainly things to like about it. Come on, you're smart enough to know that a merit, if it lines up with someone's taste buds, can enable them to enjoy the thing in question.

The very same can be said for Nuts & Bolts.


Cynicism can provide intelligent people with some of the poisonous bias known to man.

I wasn't trying to disregard your previous post at all, I have the highest respect for you and your opinions. You're creating something that I've been looking forward to for years. What I said in a previous post was that it seemed like an unnecessary spin off addition to the plethora of wonderful Rayman creations. As I said, if they had a different character instead of Rayman, I wouldn't have minded.

My opinion of the animated series is essentially the same as JonTron's on Banjo Kazooie N&B, hence why I used that example. His opinion was that N&B was a let down, from after waiting for a new BK game and finally getting a speck of hope, it was ruined by the complete change of formula that he happened to not like. Either if you liked the game or not, the addition of BK characters was completely unnecessary because the format was completely changed, and is no longer a BK game any more.

This is the same as my opinion for the animated TV show, and also Raving Rabbids. They where changed SO much from the original idea of Rayman, the hero who saves the world, to a guy helping some detective get a date. I think it would have been fine had it not been for the inclusion of Rayman. Just change the character, and keep everything else (The environment, the other new characters, the CGI etc).

[Shrooblord]

The funny thing with Saturday morning cartoons like RTAS is that they have a lot of filler content, but sooner or later, the plot will be going somewhere. Too bad we got all of the filler and none of the plot. I'm pretty sure there would've been a big Rigatoni shindig and Razorbeard may have made a few more appearances here and there. But it looks like Inspector Grub was going to be the main 'clashing force' for the gang - would've been interested to see how that could develop.

[Ambidextroid]

I'd have just thought it'd be cool if they made the cartoon a new adventure, like the games. Rayman lives peacefully, enemy comes and messes everything up, Rayman and co. must go on an awesome adventure like those in 2 and 3 (the art style reminds me of these games particularly).

Edit:

Something I realised some people may have taken the wrong way:

I don't really have a problem with shooters in general. Just games like Call of Duty where everyone looks the same and is wearing camo, and the environment is all dusty and "realistic" which just takes away from the fun and makes it harder to play.

I didn't mean I flat out dislike the realism part because it's realistic and no other reason, what I meant was it's harder to play the game because:

Everyone looks the same
Everyone is wearing camo
The environment is "dusty and realistic"

It's harder to see who's who, it's harder to see who's on your team or not without having to look at the right thing, it's harder to see your targets in the realistic environment with all the smoke and that going around etc.
What I meant was these realistic things make the game less fun and more confusing, like real war is, hence why it is more realistic.

A game like TF2 scraps these elements and has a clear environment, a full colour uniform, more arena-like maps rather than realistic battlefields, very varied unrealistic stats (etc. double jump, extra health, invisibility etc.) that have the one and only goal of making the game more fun, rather than realistic.

Realism can definitely be good, especially graphics wise, when it comes to certain games. If the realism is conducive to the entertainment you get from an experience playing a game, then of course it's a good thing. A game like Stanley Parable has to be unrealistic most of the time, but the graphics and environment must be realistic or it would defeat the point of/ruin the whole experience (you expect it to be realistic, so the unrealistic parts such as teleporting and things moving come as a surprise and a shock. In a game with non-realistic environments and graphics, this sort of thing is expected, so it's not as good).

When I said I didn't like realism in games, I was mainly focusing on when elements of a game are made realistic and because of this, are made less fun (Like my CoD example).

[Adsolution]

Your argument seems to be based on your opinion, and my original point was based on mine.

My argument was not based on my own opinion, because I didn't have one to share. I provided one direct counter-example to your arguments, explaining why this:

It's harder to see who's who, it's harder to see who's on your team or not without having to look at the right thing, it's harder to see your targets in the realistic environment with all the smoke and that going around etc.

Is/can be fun. These things are, in most cases, actual design choices, not simply a side-effect of trying to look 'realistic'. Team Fortress 2 is not objectively more fun than Call of Duty. I myself don't enjoy playing Team Fortress 2, I'd much rather play a game of Call of Duty, even though I don't play it very much to begin with. Unless you think that anyone who has more fun with CoD than TF2 is lying to themselves, this quite literally makes your opinion incorrect, thus there's absolutely no point in having it. You personally prefer to play games like TF2, that is all.

I wasn't trying to disregard your previous post at all

What you said in the post I was quoting was that you don't understand why anyone likes it. Not only did I already explain to you why I get enjoyment out of the Animated Series (meaning you either didn't read my post, or did in fact disregard it), there's no reason, if you weren't purposefully letting cynicism cloud your mind, that you shouldn't have been able to understand why someone is able to enjoy something that clearly has something to like about it.

[Ambidextroid]

I don't really understand why my opinion is "incorrect".

These are just my opinions, i wasn't saying it was fact. In my opinion this, in my opinion that, I'm tired of writing that. Yes, in my opinion

It's harder to see who's who, it's harder to see who's on your team or not without having to look at the right thing, it's harder to see your targets in the realistic environment with all the smoke and that going around etc

and that's that. That's my opinion. I personally can't see the appeal in these things, but there must be some very valid reasons why people do, I just haven't heard any.

Maybe that's what made me think it was a side-effect of being realistic, but I was clearly wrong. This doesn't make my opinion incorrect.

Also, I didn't disregard your previous post, I just missed it, sorry. I've read it now, but it doesn't change the fact that it didn't deliver the quality expected. Sure, it was entertaining, but not to the degree that I'd hoped in the first place, not at all. You have to admit it wasn't anywhere near as grand as it could have been, and it was a let down for me.

[OCG]

I really don't think Ambidextroid's opinon can be "incorrect". Why should his opinion be any more right or wrong than yours?
Regarding TF2 vs CoD, I think TF2 is way more superior game in terms of Gameplay, characters, weapons, maps, action items, ect...

[Ambidextroid]

Yay someone agrees with me

[Jewish Candy]

Daww, poor Ambi

So, Star Wars. That's a thing. It has all the grephix and lots of sand and a bouncy cartoon ball. I sure hope that's not a lightsaber because it looks like a weaponised gas hob. Does anyone else wish to opine?

[Adsolution]

Yay someone agrees with me

Sure, but take into account the fact that OCG hasn't explained or defined anything, and has also incorrectly attributed my statement as being an opinion, despite the fact that I never stated an opinion, and proved that I didn't.

You'll take his word over mine in light of that, simply because it's less effort to agree with him than to understand the logic of what I'm saying?

I don't really understand why my opinion is "incorrect".

These are just my opinions, i wasn't saying it was fact.

Okay, I think see the problem. People often heavily misuse the word 'opinion' and contort it to mean whatever they want to mean, and I think that's what's happening here...

An opinion is essentially a statement on what you believe to be the absolute truth, despite not having conclusive evidence - in order for an opinion to be valid, there must be no evidence whatsoever coming from the other direction to directly/factually contradict it. You've said that many aspects of realistic games, such as the camo, colouring and amount of clarity make it, objectively, less fun. Me not finding those features to be impeding the fun-factor, rather improving it for reasons very similar to the ones you think are ruining it, unless you think my experiences are worthless (I don't think that you think that, I'm just highlighting that as another valid counter-argument), is a piece of evidence directly/factually contradicting your opinion, thus rendering the opinion invalid. The fact that you find them impeding and I find them quite the opposite makes it more than evident it is indeed personal preference. Preference, something that activates your endorphins, is very different from an opinion.

A good example of a valid opinion is your view on war and politics - and I'm referring to how we handle it. There are so many factors in place and so many different ways things can turn out when action is taken that it's nigh impossible to predict the outcome - you have two teams of dedicated social researches that have each come to very different conclusions, both having used what appear to be fairly logical methods. These two teams have different opinions. The amount of supporting evidence from each is significant and undeniable, even though you cannot confirm that either of them have discovered the undeniable truth.

[Dart]

Hey guys, it's been awhile, I think I stopped by for a week in October, but school seems to have a good hold on me now. How has everyone been? I'm sure I missed a lot, especially about raymans being in SSB4!

[beebo44]

Hey dart! I noticed you seemed to disappear for a little while! I didn't follow it too closely but I'm fairly sure Rayman was confirmed to be just a trophy in the game.

Also, you have the same avatar as mine! xD Just when I thought I'd escaped being mixed up with people.

[Bradandez]

This is why I don't argue with Ad. He writes a wall of text and my brain dies halfway through reading the damn thing!

Anywho, hey dart! Haven't seen you in a while!

[Shrooblord]

He only writes a wall of text if people don't understand what he's saying. Otherwise he's quite concise.

Unlike me, I always right walls of text regardless.

[rolesfamily]

My computer is being a real pain in the ass, does anyone think they can help?

I turn it on and it just goes to the DELL logo and then the screen goes black and nothing happens. I've tried pressing F2, F8 & F12 and nothing happens. Although when I have pressed F8 I see a blue bar which half loads and then the screen goes black.

It's as if the computer cuts out at this point. Does anybody know what's wrong or what I could try?

Thanks very much

[Ambidextroid]

Sure, but take into account the fact that OCG hasn't explained or defined anything, and has also incorrectly attributed my statement as being an opinion, despite the fact that I never stated an opinion, and proved that I didn't.

You'll take his word over mine in light of that, simply because it's less effort to agree with him than to understand the logic of what I'm saying?

That's not true at all. You seem to be contorting my quotes to fit your preference, as this was clearly not what I was saying. I was actually saying I was happy that someone agreed tha TF2 was better than CoD, and that he was "on my side", nothing more.

Okay, I think see the problem. People often heavily misuse the word 'opinion' and contort it to mean whatever they want to mean, and I think that's what's happening here...

An opinion is essentially a statement on what you believe to be the absolute truth, despite not having conclusive evidence - in order for an opinion to be valid, there must be no evidence whatsoever coming from the other direction to directly/factually contradict it. You've said that many aspects of realistic games, such as the camo, colouring and amount of clarity make it, objectively, less fun. Me not finding those features to be impeding the fun-factor, rather improving it for reasons very similar to the ones you think are ruining it, unless you think my experiences are worthless (I don't think that you think that, I'm just highlighting that as another valid counter-argument), is a piece of evidence directly/factually contradicting your opinion, thus rendering the opinion invalid. The fact that you find them impeding and I find them quite the opposite makes it more than evident it is indeed personal preference. Preference, something that activates your endorphins, is very different from an opinion.

I think you are the one misusing the word, what you said is literally the definition of a fact, save the part about not having evidence. If there is proof against a fact, it is automatically incorrect, though this does not apply to opinions.
This is the dictionary definition of opinion: "a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."
There is noting about evidence against an opinion making it invalid, as that would defeat the purpose of the word.
In my opinion, the realitic effects in CoD ruin the experience, and TF2's more minimal approach to the atmosphere enhance the fun. This is my view/judgement formed about TF2/CoD, and in this case is based on fact. The fact that I believe it ruins the experience. That's a fact, and it will never chage. There is evidence to prove some think the atmosphere enhances the experience, but there is no evidence to disprove that I dislike the atmosphere, so my opinion cannot be invalid.

If someone said "in my opinion I don't exist" then that is invalid, because it's saying "I believe this fact is false". If someone said "I believe TF2 is better than CoD" then that cannot be invalid, as "better" is fully based on opinion, nothing can factually be better than someting else.

So an opinion like mine cannot be disproven with evidence, as that is impossible. You are either trying to disprove that I don't like the atmosphere of CoD, which is impossible, or you have the word opinion mixed up with someting else.

In my opinion the atmosphere in CoD ruins the experience (i.e. I dislike the atmosphere), and in your opinion it enhances the experience (i.e. You like the atmosphere). I did not say this was fact, I said it was my opinion. We both have reasons why the other persons opinion may not apply to ourselves, but this is not evidence.

Edit:
Forgot to mention something:

For me, a lot of the fun that comes out of more 'realistically-styled' games is literally the realism factor.

There's the opinion you've been saying you didn't have.

And this:

Why believe in something like what you've said if it doesn't apply outside the realms of personal preference, especially if you're developing a product that will be seen by the public?

Is quite absurd. It seems almost bigoted, in fact. My beliefs do apply outside of personal preference, because many, many people would agree with me. I know may people do, notably a large percentage of people who play TF2, and almost all of my friends. From what I understand, you're basically saying "my opinion is wrong because nobody agrees with me" when that does not make an opinion wrong, and isn't even true.
If everyobody made games based on the opinion of the majority, there would be no variation in games. If I created a game solely based on my opinion of fun, there would still be many people who would enjoy it (not that I ever would do that).