But let's assume you're right and that questing (not instancing) is a good example of solo content. Questing has been brought to the forefront of MMOs to an insane degree in what would be considered the "modern" era of MMOs. Questing was never as important or widespread as it currently is, or was very recently.
Ok. So? This doesn't mean that the modern era has more or less solo content than older games, only that it has more quests. Older games may have had more mob grinding (actually they did), they may have had more crafting, they may have had other activities (swg entertainer).
Just having more of one feature that is solo, doesn't mean the overal game is more solo.
SWG entertainer required interaction from other players, if I'm remembering correctly. Also, crafting to put in your vendor or to actually sell to another play is not an example of solo content. In the case of UO, it was the opposite. Crafting was a very social aspect of the game.
The point about quests is if you say questing is an example of solo content, and questing is far more prevalent now, then that's an indiciation that games are more solo-oriented.
Interacting with lots of other players is the opposite of solo content. Having a lot of instances, streamlined auction houses, no unwarranted player interaction (ow pvp, clipping, stealing, etc) are all a shift away from the MM part of MMORPG and towards more solo-oriented play, or co-op play.
Vendoring/selling is seperate from crafting. I can craft by myself all day long. Selling requires interaction. Crafting can very much be a solo activity.
No just because questing is more prevalent and questing is a solo content does not mean that the game is more solo-orientied, you are making an assumption about all the other activities with that statement. It may or may not be true.
Instances are group oriented, the opposite of solo.
I said more quests is an indication that the game is more solo-oriented, not that it is definitely solo-oriented. You said quests are an example of solo player. I said modern mmos have more of an emphasis on quests. Problem?
In a lot of games crafting requires the funds to continue crafting. So in that case selling your crafted items helps you to craft more. How the game is set up is what matters.
Thats fine.
I said quests are not an indication the game is more solo oriented as it is only one feature in a whole package of features. It is the entirety of features that determine whether a game is is more or less solo-oriented.
yes how the game is set up matters, no one is arguing this. In fact it would go to the first point, one feature in a whole package of features does not necessarily determine whether a game is more or less solo-oriented.
So in a discussion about whether or not modern MMOs have more solo content than oldschool MMOs, do you think it's a valid point to bring up that quests (a solo-oriented game feature by your own admission) are far more prevalent in modern MMOs?
Just because you typically enter an instance with more than just yourself, doesn't mean the addition of instances isn't more solo-oriented, or at least less social/multiplayer oriented. If you have that same content except leave it exposed to the rest of the playerbase, I fail to see how that would make it anything except more multiplayer.
You're confused again. The preference debate started by me responding to one of Narius' many posts that hold up an individual's preference to godlike status. He loves to point out that the only thing that matters is the individual's preference. I'm saying that's bullshit. The individual may be misinformed, or biased. Not only preferences are created equal because they may turn out to be wrong. You may have preferred something over another thing because of a personal bias, bad information, etc. That doesn't mean you didn't prefer it. It means your preference wasn't very valid, which is my point.
Can I say I prefer UO over WoW? What if I've never played WoW? What if I only played it a little? What if I played it when I was drunk? What if I never played it, but somebody explained it to me?
Your requirements for what we consider an actual preference or not are either too strict, or arbitrary. It's not a strawman.
The preferences are all equal. The opinion is not. They are different.
The strawman was your assertion about it being impossible to have complete knowledge. You don't need complete knowledge - therefore it is a strawman argument.
Then what do you need? If you don't need complete knowledge of both things to have a valid preference for one over the other, then what do you need? You seem to think you're qualified to say what DOESN'T count as a preference; what DOES count as a preference? Like I said, the way you're using the word seems to paint you into a corner of the definition either being arbitrary or too strict to be used in practice.
Here's what it actually means: you choose something over another thing when given the opportunity to have either. And that's why I say that not all preferences are created equal You can prefer something on incomplete or inaccurate data.
All you need is an awareness of you what you like and what the game offers, thats it. It isn't complicated.
The way I'm using it is the way most of the links use and the way most of the people in the world use it.
Preference - prefering something over another
Prefer - liking something over another. Seeing something as more desireable than another.
You are the one using a strange and arbitrary definition that very few use.
Opinions can be wrong. What a person likes is not wrong, however it may change.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
But let's assume you're right and that questing (not instancing) is a good example of solo content. Questing has been brought to the forefront of MMOs to an insane degree in what would be considered the "modern" era of MMOs. Questing was never as important or widespread as it currently is, or was very recently.
Ok. So? This doesn't mean that the modern era has more or less solo content than older games, only that it has more quests. Older games may have had more mob grinding (actually they did), they may have had more crafting, they may have had other activities (swg entertainer).
Just having more of one feature that is solo, doesn't mean the overal game is more solo.
SWG entertainer required interaction from other players, if I'm remembering correctly. Also, crafting to put in your vendor or to actually sell to another play is not an example of solo content. In the case of UO, it was the opposite. Crafting was a very social aspect of the game.
The point about quests is if you say questing is an example of solo content, and questing is far more prevalent now, then that's an indiciation that games are more solo-oriented.
Interacting with lots of other players is the opposite of solo content. Having a lot of instances, streamlined auction houses, no unwarranted player interaction (ow pvp, clipping, stealing, etc) are all a shift away from the MM part of MMORPG and towards more solo-oriented play, or co-op play.
Vendoring/selling is seperate from crafting. I can craft by myself all day long. Selling requires interaction. Crafting can very much be a solo activity.
No just because questing is more prevalent and questing is a solo content does not mean that the game is more solo-orientied, you are making an assumption about all the other activities with that statement. It may or may not be true.
Instances are group oriented, the opposite of solo.
I said more quests is an indication that the game is more solo-oriented, not that it is definitely solo-oriented. You said quests are an example of solo player. I said modern mmos have more of an emphasis on quests. Problem?
In a lot of games crafting requires the funds to continue crafting. So in that case selling your crafted items helps you to craft more. How the game is set up is what matters.
Thats fine.
I said quests are not an indication the game is more solo oriented as it is only one feature in a whole package of features. It is the entirety of features that determine whether a game is is more or less solo-oriented.
yes how the game is set up matters, no one is arguing this. In fact it would go to the first point, one feature in a whole package of features does not necessarily determine whether a game is more or less solo-oriented.
So in a discussion about whether or not modern MMOs have more solo content than oldschool MMOs, do you think it's a valid point to bring up that quests (a solo-oriented game feature by your own admission) are far more prevalent in modern MMOs?
Just because you typically enter an instance with more than just yourself, doesn't mean the addition of instances isn't more solo-oriented, or at least less social/multiplayer oriented. If you have that same content except leave it exposed to the rest of the playerbase, I fail to see how that would make it anything except more multiplayer.
Absolutely quests are more prevalent in MMO's today, but to go from that to the conclusion that MMO's are more solo-oriented is making an assumption about all the other facets of an MMO.
Considering the instance is desinged for a group, and is not solo, yes it absolutely doe smean that instances are not more solo-oriented. Solo and groups are the opposite of each other. It may be less social, and there is definately an argument that there is less socialization in today's games, by limiting the ability for other people to interact with you, but thats it. It is not less multiplayer as you haven't changed the number that you group with.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
You're confused again. The preference debate started by me responding to one of Narius' many posts that hold up an individual's preference to godlike status. He loves to point out that the only thing that matters is the individual's preference. I'm saying that's bullshit. The individual may be misinformed, or biased. Not only preferences are created equal because they may turn out to be wrong. You may have preferred something over another thing because of a personal bias, bad information, etc. That doesn't mean you didn't prefer it. It means your preference wasn't very valid, which is my point.
Can I say I prefer UO over WoW? What if I've never played WoW? What if I only played it a little? What if I played it when I was drunk? What if I never played it, but somebody explained it to me?
Your requirements for what we consider an actual preference or not are either too strict, or arbitrary. It's not a strawman.
The preferences are all equal. The opinion is not. They are different.
The strawman was your assertion about it being impossible to have complete knowledge. You don't need complete knowledge - therefore it is a strawman argument.
Then what do you need? If you don't need complete knowledge of both things to have a valid preference for one over the other, then what do you need? You seem to think you're qualified to say what DOESN'T count as a preference; what DOES count as a preference? Like I said, the way you're using the word seems to paint you into a corner of the definition either being arbitrary or too strict to be used in practice.
Here's what it actually means: you choose something over another thing when given the opportunity to have either. And that's why I say that not all preferences are created equal You can prefer something on incomplete or inaccurate data.
All you need is an awareness of you what you like and what the game offers, thats it. It isn't complicated.
The way I'm using it is the way most of the links use and the way most of the people in the world use it.
Preference - prefering something over another
Prefer - liking something over another. Seeing something as more desireable than another.
You are the one using a strange and arbitrary definition that very few use.
Opinions can be wrong. What a person likes is not wrong, however it may change.
But what does over another mean? In my example about the gamer who prefers game A over game B, you said it's not a real preference if he hasn't played game B. What if he only played it a little? Or heard things about it? What does it take in order for you to accept that it's a preference?
I think you know what I'm getting at. Somebody who has more intimate knowledge of the things they claim to prefer/reject has a more valid preference than somebody who has less knowledge. It's more possible for the former's preference to turn out to be wrong than for the latter's. Somebody may think they prefer one thing, but actually prefer another. This makes the first person's preference weaker, less valid, whatever you want to call it.
But let's assume you're right and that questing (not instancing) is a good example of solo content. Questing has been brought to the forefront of MMOs to an insane degree in what would be considered the "modern" era of MMOs. Questing was never as important or widespread as it currently is, or was very recently.
Ok. So? This doesn't mean that the modern era has more or less solo content than older games, only that it has more quests. Older games may have had more mob grinding (actually they did), they may have had more crafting, they may have had other activities (swg entertainer).
Just having more of one feature that is solo, doesn't mean the overal game is more solo.
SWG entertainer required interaction from other players, if I'm remembering correctly. Also, crafting to put in your vendor or to actually sell to another play is not an example of solo content. In the case of UO, it was the opposite. Crafting was a very social aspect of the game.
The point about quests is if you say questing is an example of solo content, and questing is far more prevalent now, then that's an indiciation that games are more solo-oriented.
Interacting with lots of other players is the opposite of solo content. Having a lot of instances, streamlined auction houses, no unwarranted player interaction (ow pvp, clipping, stealing, etc) are all a shift away from the MM part of MMORPG and towards more solo-oriented play, or co-op play.
Vendoring/selling is seperate from crafting. I can craft by myself all day long. Selling requires interaction. Crafting can very much be a solo activity.
No just because questing is more prevalent and questing is a solo content does not mean that the game is more solo-orientied, you are making an assumption about all the other activities with that statement. It may or may not be true.
Instances are group oriented, the opposite of solo.
I said more quests is an indication that the game is more solo-oriented, not that it is definitely solo-oriented. You said quests are an example of solo player. I said modern mmos have more of an emphasis on quests. Problem?
In a lot of games crafting requires the funds to continue crafting. So in that case selling your crafted items helps you to craft more. How the game is set up is what matters.
Thats fine.
I said quests are not an indication the game is more solo oriented as it is only one feature in a whole package of features. It is the entirety of features that determine whether a game is is more or less solo-oriented.
yes how the game is set up matters, no one is arguing this. In fact it would go to the first point, one feature in a whole package of features does not necessarily determine whether a game is more or less solo-oriented.
So in a discussion about whether or not modern MMOs have more solo content than oldschool MMOs, do you think it's a valid point to bring up that quests (a solo-oriented game feature by your own admission) are far more prevalent in modern MMOs?
Just because you typically enter an instance with more than just yourself, doesn't mean the addition of instances isn't more solo-oriented, or at least less social/multiplayer oriented. If you have that same content except leave it exposed to the rest of the playerbase, I fail to see how that would make it anything except more multiplayer.
Absolutely quests are more prevalent in MMO's today, but to go from that to the conclusion that MMO's are more solo-oriented is making an assumption about all the other facets of an MMO.
Considering the instance is desinged for a group, and is not solo, yes it absolutely doe smean that instances are not more solo-oriented. Solo and groups are the opposite of each other. It may be less social, and there is definately an argument that there is less socialization in today's games, by limiting the ability for other people to interact with you, but thats it. It is not less multiplayer as you haven't changed the number that you group with.
You're smarter than this. I've said a couple of times now that it's an INDICATION. It's an argument that modern MMOs are more solo oriented. You can retort by saying something like "yes there is more questing [which is a solo-oriented game feature] but there is also less ____!"
Saying that solo and groups are the opposite of each other is deliberately leaving out the possibility for outside interaction. If groups are the opposite of solo, then what would you call groups + other outside interaction? More opposite? When people complain about the solo aspects of modern MMOs, they often talk about sterile environments and being able to cut yourself off from the rest of the playerbase.
OP you are right that as you age people are more resistant to changes.
I would like to see real scientific research articles supporting this random claim.
Honestly, I am sick and tired of the laymen spouting off random statements as if they're automatic facts just because they fit a popular stereotype.
How about a few links? If this is true, it should be easy enough to find some supporting evidence.
I mean, come on... with a single moment in google and a few clicks of the mouse, you can actually grab the specific article or research theorist and paste their name or a quote into the OP along with a hyperlink. That way people can actually believe it if it's true, as opposed to mindlessly agreeing because it sounds "true enough" because they're preconditioned to believe in stereotypes.
If you actually do real research on the matter, you will find most of the commonly held stereotypes on old people are wrong.
Try this out, it has a lot of facts in it, that are confirmed by actual research and common knowledge in the field of gerontology. A field in which I hold a degree in, so I think I'd know whether or not old people are "more resistant to change".
It is a powerpoint, which holds a lot of facts in it, along with common myths.
Most older adults become set in their ways and are resistant to change.
"The majority of older people are not "set in their ways and unable to change." There is some evidence that older people tend to become more stable in their attitudes, but it is clear that most older people do change. To survive, they must adapt to many events of later life such as retirement, children leaving home, widowhood, moving to new homes, and serious illness. Their political and social attitudes also tend to shift with those of the rest of society, although at a somewhat slower rate than for younger people.
Older individuals have had extensive experience adapting to change! "
Well there are SOME aspects of quality that are objectively measurable.....does the game crash?.....does it meet it's hardware requirements..... does it meet it's design specifications.....how many bugs exist, etc? For the rest it's pretty much subjective.
While that is certainly true, the objective part is usually only relevant in the extreme case.
For example, just take graphics ... frame rate is pretty much objective and measurable .. but few games have frame rate so low that it becomes a problem (notably Marvel Heroes have a frame-rate issue in some zones). When it is not a problem, graphics boils down to art design and what is pleasing to the eye, and that is highly subjective. Some loves WoW cartoony type design, some hates it.
You're smarter than this. I've said a couple of times now that it's an INDICATION. It's an argument that modern MMOs are more solo oriented. You can retort by saying something like "yes there is more questing [which is a solo-oriented game feature] but there is also less ____!"
Saying that solo and groups are the opposite of each other is deliberately leaving out the possibility for outside interaction. If groups are the opposite of solo, then what would you call groups + other outside interaction? More opposite? When people complain about the solo aspects of modern MMOs, they often talk about sterile environments and being able to cut yourself off from the rest of the playerbase.
It is not an indication of anything other than quests. If someone says this game is more solo-oriented that is a statement about the entire game.
Saying questing is more solo-oriented does not mean the MMO is more solo-oriented, therefore the statement that because a game has a lot of quests that indicates that the game is more solo-oriented is false becuase it makes an assumption about the rest of the game. It is not an indication of the overall game, it is just a comment on one part of it.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
But what does over another mean? In my example about the gamer who prefers game A over game B, you said it's not a real preference if he hasn't played game B. What if he only played it a little? Or heard things about it? What does it take in order for you to accept that it's a preference?
I think you know what I'm getting at. Somebody who has more intimate knowledge of the things they claim to prefer/reject has a more valid preference than somebody who has less knowledge. It's more possible for the former's preference to turn out to be wrong than for the latter's. Somebody may think they prefer one thing, but actually prefer another. This makes the first person's preference weaker, less valid, whatever you want to call it.
What does over another mean? It means they would rather have A, not B. Self-explanatory. Not that they actually choose A.
In your example they have no awareness or knowledge of what B has therefore they cannot have a preference over A to B in regards to whatever aspect you are talking about. They can't comment have a preference over gameplay because they do not know what B has, or graphics, or quests or anything. The best argument person can make is they may prefer not to leave game A because they like it, but that is not a statement of them disliking game B.
No someone with more intimate knowledge does not have a more valid preference. They have a more valid opinion. There opinion on Game A or Game B can now be backed up with experience. Their preference, that thing they desire, is still just as relevant, or as irrelevant if you prefer.
Preferences have no real objective validity and so one can never be more valid than another.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
You're smarter than this. I've said a couple of times now that it's an INDICATION. It's an argument that modern MMOs are more solo oriented. You can retort by saying something like "yes there is more questing [which is a solo-oriented game feature] but there is also less ____!"
Saying that solo and groups are the opposite of each other is deliberately leaving out the possibility for outside interaction. If groups are the opposite of solo, then what would you call groups + other outside interaction? More opposite? When people complain about the solo aspects of modern MMOs, they often talk about sterile environments and being able to cut yourself off from the rest of the playerbase.
It is not an indication of anything other than quests. If someone says this game is more solo-oriented that is a statement about the entire game.
Saying questing is more solo-oriented does not mean the MMO is more solo-oriented, therefore the statement that because a game has a lot of quests that indicates that the game is more solo-oriented is false becuase it makes an assumption about the rest of the game. It is not an indication of the overall game, it is just a comment on one part of it.
Wrong. It's not making an assumption about the rest of the game. It's the opposite. It's saying this aspect of the game has become more solo oriented. So unless other aspects of the game have become less solo oriented to balance it out, then it's more solo oriented. That's why is an indication.
You're smarter than this. I've said a couple of times now that it's an INDICATION. It's an argument that modern MMOs are more solo oriented. You can retort by saying something like "yes there is more questing [which is a solo-oriented game feature] but there is also less ____!"
Saying that solo and groups are the opposite of each other is deliberately leaving out the possibility for outside interaction. If groups are the opposite of solo, then what would you call groups + other outside interaction? More opposite? When people complain about the solo aspects of modern MMOs, they often talk about sterile environments and being able to cut yourself off from the rest of the playerbase.
It is not an indication of anything other than quests. If someone says this game is more solo-oriented that is a statement about the entire game.
Saying questing is more solo-oriented does not mean the MMO is more solo-oriented, therefore the statement that because a game has a lot of quests that indicates that the game is more solo-oriented is false becuase it makes an assumption about the rest of the game. It is not an indication of the overall game, it is just a comment on one part of it.
Wrong. It's not making an assumption about the rest of the game. It's the opposite. It's saying this aspect of the game has become more solo oriented. So unless other aspects of the game have become less solo oriented to balance it out, then it's more solo oriented. That's why is an indication.
I guess we just disagree. I say making the statement, "this is an indication that a game is solo-oriented" is making an unsupported assumption about the overall game.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
But what does over another mean? In my example about the gamer who prefers game A over game B, you said it's not a real preference if he hasn't played game B. What if he only played it a little? Or heard things about it? What does it take in order for you to accept that it's a preference?
I think you know what I'm getting at. Somebody who has more intimate knowledge of the things they claim to prefer/reject has a more valid preference than somebody who has less knowledge. It's more possible for the former's preference to turn out to be wrong than for the latter's. Somebody may think they prefer one thing, but actually prefer another. This makes the first person's preference weaker, less valid, whatever you want to call it.
What does over another mean? It means they would rather have A, not B. Self-explanatory. Not that they actually choose A.
In your example they have no awareness or knowledge of what B has therefore they cannot have a preference over A to B in regards to whatever aspect you are talking about. They can't comment have a preference over gameplay because they do not know what B has, or graphics, or quests or anything. The best argument person can make is they may prefer not to leave game A because they like it, but that is not a statement of them disliking game B.
No someone with more intimate knowledge does not have a more valid preference. They have a more valid opinion. There opinion on Game A or Game B can now be backed up with experience. Their preference, that thing they desire, is still just as relevant, or as irrelevant if you prefer.
Preferences have no real objective validity and so one can never be more valid than another.
I'm on my phone so I'm not super positive but I think my question said they haven't played game B, not that they had 0 knowledge of it. The point is their preference is weaker or less valid than somebody with more knowledge of both games. Their preference for game A is less meaningful. I think it's time you walk back your condescension towards me upon entering the conversation.
And I'm saying there preference is not less valid.
Their opinion is less valid. Their belief may be less valid.
A preference does not have any objective measure or meaning, so one preference cannot be more or less valid than another.
edit - ok have to run for a couple hours. Be back later to tell you how wrong you are
Can we revisit the whole "you're being pedantic" thing?
Somebody's preference being used as an argument for anything or even to convey any information is less valid if that preference is based in a lack of information. That preference is less useful to any kind of conversation. You don't like the word "valid" in this case, I guess? Then what would you have me say? The point is the piece of information that we're receiving (in this case, somebody's preference) is less important, less reliable, less whatever than the piece of information you can get from the preference of somebody who knows what they're talking about.
I'm not sure how else you want me to say this other than "not all preferences are created equal." What does equality mean in this case? It seems to me that if one preference gives you less reliable information than another preference, those 2 pieces of data (the 2 preferences) are NOT equal. Am I missing something here?
The other side of it is that the developers were also different then.
You had "game guys", ones that were comp game players and programmers long before it was mainstream, making games primarily for similar people. It was both a labor of love, and economic necessity that everything be done well, as there were no second chances. So alot of innovation and clever solutions came about then.
Now you have game developers run by MBAs and corporate types that think a "good game" is one that makes money (ala Smed). It is all just product to these people, pushing out one similar product after another, without care or passion. And if a particular product is crappy? Who cares... market it the hell out of it to sell boxes and then dump it on the F2P market until it breaks even, and then move on. Slap a famous IP on a crap product? Why not...
It is not just that the games produced now are markedly different, the people and attitudes of those making the games are different as well.
And I'm saying there preference is not less valid.
Their opinion is less valid. Their belief may be less valid.
A preference does not have any objective measure or meaning, so one preference cannot be more or less valid than another.
edit - ok have to run for a couple hours. Be back later to tell you how wrong you are
Can we revisit the whole "you're being pedantic" thing?
Somebody's preference being used as an argument for anything or even to convey any information is less valid if that preference is based in a lack of information. That preference is less useful to any kind of conversation. You don't like the word "valid" in this case, I guess? Then what would you have me say? The point is the piece of information that we're receiving (in this case, somebody's preference) is less important, less reliable, less whatever than the piece of information you can get from the preference of somebody who knows what they're talking about.
I'm not sure how else you want me to say this other than "not all preferences are created equal." What does equality mean in this case? It seems to me that if one preference gives you less reliable information than another preference, those 2 pieces of data (the 2 preferences) are NOT equal. Am I missing something here?
No. No one's preference is ever less valid than anothers. Ever. One person's desire for something (their preference) is not less valid than someone else's desire for something (their preference). It can often be stupid, morally wrong (depending on your code) or illegal, but it is not less valid.
It can, and usually is less usefull.
Usefullness and validity are two completely different concepts that are not interchangeable, although one can cause the other.
Usefull - to be of use...
Valid - well grounded, having a sound basis in logic or fact...
Two very very different terms
So yes all preferences are equal.
Someone's preference will never tell you anything about the reliability of anything. A preference has nothing to do with reliability. It only tells you someone desires something over another. And these are all equal.
I like this - preference - never wrong
I want this - possibly preference - if a preference it is not incorrect. It may not be smart or in the best interest but it is not incorrect.
This is crap - opinion, which can often be wrong
I like this because that is crap - preference with opinion. The preference is not incorrect however the opinion might be.
I like this better than that but know nothing about that - cannot be a preference. You cannot prefer something over another without knowing at least something of what the other is. This is merely an ignorant assumption usually done to troll/intimidate/antagonize...
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by Magiknight Even if I do have more trouble adapting to change as I get older that doesn't change the fact that the games have changed. Now they are shallower, emptier, shorter, easier, quicker....
I agree with above, I am old and shittier, but I know fun, just as I did back when I first started playing MMOs. However, your first MMO is like your first fuck, in my opinion. It is something you never forget and I am delusional so I probably think it was the best eventhough it was probably terrible.
I agree, definately shollower etc. In a different post I mentioned the complexity and depth of SWG resource and crafting system was, and the AI in Ryzom. SWG and Ryzom, at least at launch, had no endpoint to speak of, other than getting to max level...unless my memory fails me...it wasnt until the NGE that SWG became really shitty in terms of becomeing a theme park.
That seems like pretty pedantic argument to make Venge, yes.
Great example you made there of an argument about a definition that really didn't need to be made.
And as stated before, an opinion can be weighed based on the reasons for it. If it's predicated on false information or ill logic, then it's not a reasonable opinion to consider as compared to one where the information founding it is technically accurate.
And as far as quibbling over definitions goes, if you'll bee semantic enough to define each term, then an opinion not being valid makes perfectly fine sense as one stated is definition of valid as having a sound basis in logic or fact, which an opinion does not necessarily possess.
Or as I've said before.
"Like every argument that tries to defend 'opinion'. When you present something you have to realize that what you are saying is not always simply a subject of opinion. Your view of the matter might be an opinion, but the points and topics upon which it's built may very well not be."
Your opinion is weighted by the information that supports it, whether you like it or not. If that information is specious at best, then your opinion has no real value beyond determining where your own mind is.
Hence the presence of the term informed opinion. An 'informed opinion' is exactly that, an opinion that's grounded in a basis of logic and supporting data.
An informed opinion is is general considered to have more value than an opinion for that very word that you seem to consider wrong to use. It's validity.
Because the ground upon which that opinion is formed is considerably more cohesive and based assumedly off of correct data and a rational train of thought rather than an emotionally driven one painted predominantly by perception instead of information.
As far as why older games seem better. Nostalgia, 'newness' to the genre or concepts, the feeling of retreadone gets from playing similar games, the quirks of the games that you latched onto or particulars about the setting or mechanics that you found preferential, the community you were with, etc.
What made older games seem better was that in many cases they helped define our understanding of the genre, and any subsequent experience was weighed against it.
It's like if you talked about weighing a new boyfriend or girlfriend against an ex you were fond of, or perhaps against the first person you had a crush on.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I don't disagree with anything you said Deivos, except about it being pedantic.
Opinions can be wrong, never stated or pretended otherwise. In fact I stated several times they can be wrong, depending on what is being discussed of course.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The disucssion between Holophonist and me was that if prefernces cannot be wrong. My position was that a preference is just someone's desire for something over another, that cannot be wrong. My position is that there is a fundamental difference between a preference and an opinion.
Your post was about opinions. I don't disagree with that.
In short a preference is not wrong, one preference is not less valid than another.
An opinion can and often is wrong and/or less valid.
As such, there is a significant difference between prefernce and opinion, therefore the argument is not pedantic.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Given the same veins of reasoning underlie both, even if they are somewhat different ideas, I would defer to the same argument made regarding preferences.
People can prefer things that functionally suck.
For example, I actually like and prefer to play APB occasionally, even though I acknowledge that the game mechanically is terrible.
I can explain why I prefer it though, and those preferences extend beyond simply the notion of considering the game fun ans actually pokes at why I think it's fun, I can list off the exact game mechanics and reasons.
Similarly there are less valid preferences. Ones that would enjoy a system and fail to provide any rational reason beyond the basic explanation of 'fun'.
For example, did you ever read Nariu's thread about why he plays MMOs? Functionally the argument made was very simple and didn't touch on MMOs as a system or platform in any way, rather only pointing at some game mechanics that are generally tropes of the genre rather than the matter of it being single, multi, or mmo.
They explain something as their preference, but they have not the supporting logic as to why it's a preference. Consequently there's a very finite amount of information one might be able to glean from such a comment. Hence turning to a less valid preference, as it lacks supporting information or reason.
EDIT: The only ground where you can't argue of the equality a preference bears is if it remains a wholly personal aspect, as in it's not a preference used to reinforce the notions of something external.
In which case preferences are meaningless, as no matter how much you quibble about them, they weigh as a null value when talking about the merits of, well, anything (unless people look to you as an individual from which they'd construct their own preferences).
All of this, when it starts externalizing it's value, treads onto the matter of opinions. That's why I'd argue opinion over preference. And consequently I'd still turn to calling the argument pedantic as a whole, because either it's a matter of opinions and words to describe an opinion, or a matter of preferences, which shouldn't play in any way into a subject of technical, factual, or public perception.
EDIT: Other point that it looks like Holophonist actually made already is that a preference that's built on missing information also bears that issue of validity. If you prefer something based solely on that experience without having any others, then your point of view extends from only the most narrow window of information. Unless you try alternate options, you won't know if that's a preference you simply settled on because it's all you've seen, or because that's actually what you enjoy most.
Hence it bearing less validity even as a purely internal factor. As you're pulling from such an incomplete set of information that the actual preference would remain inconclusive.
Which almost means it's not even really a preference, it's something else. Like a mental shrug or something.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I think discussing opinion is a far better way to go.
Telling someone their preference sucks is an exercise in futility.
But I disagree there are less valid preferences. Someone's desire for something is never less valid than anothers. Preferences do not need supporting logic, it is just a preference.
Preferences are generally useless really anywhere unless you are a marketer. But they are not invalid.
edit - to your edit. As I stated with holo. A preference is desiring (prefering) something over another. Because a preference requires you to prefer one thing over another, if you dont' have knowledge of the other you cannot prefer it or the other. Therefore this is not a case of a less valid preference because it isn't a preference at all.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
You always have a reason for thinking what you do.
Hence, I will not divorce preferences from reason as I will not divorce reason from anything else.
If the reason for a preference fails to be substantiated, then it bears less ground, like anything else.
EDIT: And yeah, this is still a pendantic argument, something less wordy about how meaningful someone liking something is and more to do with the something in question might be welcome.
And I believe that's what I meant by saying "Which almost means it's not even really a preference, it's something else. Like a mental shrug or something."
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Comments
So in a discussion about whether or not modern MMOs have more solo content than oldschool MMOs, do you think it's a valid point to bring up that quests (a solo-oriented game feature by your own admission) are far more prevalent in modern MMOs?
Just because you typically enter an instance with more than just yourself, doesn't mean the addition of instances isn't more solo-oriented, or at least less social/multiplayer oriented. If you have that same content except leave it exposed to the rest of the playerbase, I fail to see how that would make it anything except more multiplayer.
All you need is an awareness of you what you like and what the game offers, thats it. It isn't complicated.
The way I'm using it is the way most of the links use and the way most of the people in the world use it.
Preference - prefering something over another
Prefer - liking something over another. Seeing something as more desireable than another.
You are the one using a strange and arbitrary definition that very few use.
Opinions can be wrong. What a person likes is not wrong, however it may change.
Absolutely quests are more prevalent in MMO's today, but to go from that to the conclusion that MMO's are more solo-oriented is making an assumption about all the other facets of an MMO.
Considering the instance is desinged for a group, and is not solo, yes it absolutely doe smean that instances are not more solo-oriented. Solo and groups are the opposite of each other. It may be less social, and there is definately an argument that there is less socialization in today's games, by limiting the ability for other people to interact with you, but thats it. It is not less multiplayer as you haven't changed the number that you group with.
But what does over another mean? In my example about the gamer who prefers game A over game B, you said it's not a real preference if he hasn't played game B. What if he only played it a little? Or heard things about it? What does it take in order for you to accept that it's a preference?
I think you know what I'm getting at. Somebody who has more intimate knowledge of the things they claim to prefer/reject has a more valid preference than somebody who has less knowledge. It's more possible for the former's preference to turn out to be wrong than for the latter's. Somebody may think they prefer one thing, but actually prefer another. This makes the first person's preference weaker, less valid, whatever you want to call it.
You're smarter than this. I've said a couple of times now that it's an INDICATION. It's an argument that modern MMOs are more solo oriented. You can retort by saying something like "yes there is more questing [which is a solo-oriented game feature] but there is also less ____!"
Saying that solo and groups are the opposite of each other is deliberately leaving out the possibility for outside interaction. If groups are the opposite of solo, then what would you call groups + other outside interaction? More opposite? When people complain about the solo aspects of modern MMOs, they often talk about sterile environments and being able to cut yourself off from the rest of the playerbase.
I would like to see real scientific research articles supporting this random claim.
Honestly, I am sick and tired of the laymen spouting off random statements as if they're automatic facts just because they fit a popular stereotype.
How about a few links? If this is true, it should be easy enough to find some supporting evidence.
I mean, come on... with a single moment in google and a few clicks of the mouse, you can actually grab the specific article or research theorist and paste their name or a quote into the OP along with a hyperlink. That way people can actually believe it if it's true, as opposed to mindlessly agreeing because it sounds "true enough" because they're preconditioned to believe in stereotypes.
If you actually do real research on the matter, you will find most of the commonly held stereotypes on old people are wrong.
Try this out, it has a lot of facts in it, that are confirmed by actual research and common knowledge in the field of gerontology. A field in which I hold a degree in, so I think I'd know whether or not old people are "more resistant to change".
It is a powerpoint, which holds a lot of facts in it, along with common myths.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lsuagcenter.com%2FNR%2Frdonlyres%2F5131510B-1610-478B-889E-F5F83554B881%2F79567%2FAgingMythsandFactsPowerPoint.ppt&ei=oaFpUpPqJYOqyAHR04G4Cw&usg=AFQjCNGLlIE-U9iVITEnImMKunCqFS9tkw&sig2=S7xFj5EuBF5KymPdhfKbgg&bvm=bv.55123115,d.aWc&cad=rja
Myth (Slide 39)
Most older adults become set in their ways and are resistant to change.
"The majority of older people are not "set in their ways and unable to change." There is some evidence that older people tend to become more stable in their attitudes, but it is clear that most older people do change. To survive, they must adapt to many events of later life such as retirement, children leaving home, widowhood, moving to new homes, and serious illness. Their political and social attitudes also tend to shift with those of the rest of society, although at a somewhat slower rate than for younger people.
Older individuals have had extensive experience adapting to change! "
While that is certainly true, the objective part is usually only relevant in the extreme case.
For example, just take graphics ... frame rate is pretty much objective and measurable .. but few games have frame rate so low that it becomes a problem (notably Marvel Heroes have a frame-rate issue in some zones). When it is not a problem, graphics boils down to art design and what is pleasing to the eye, and that is highly subjective. Some loves WoW cartoony type design, some hates it.
Very succinct.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
It is not an indication of anything other than quests. If someone says this game is more solo-oriented that is a statement about the entire game.
Saying questing is more solo-oriented does not mean the MMO is more solo-oriented, therefore the statement that because a game has a lot of quests that indicates that the game is more solo-oriented is false becuase it makes an assumption about the rest of the game. It is not an indication of the overall game, it is just a comment on one part of it.
What does over another mean? It means they would rather have A, not B. Self-explanatory. Not that they actually choose A.
In your example they have no awareness or knowledge of what B has therefore they cannot have a preference over A to B in regards to whatever aspect you are talking about. They can't comment have a preference over gameplay because they do not know what B has, or graphics, or quests or anything. The best argument person can make is they may prefer not to leave game A because they like it, but that is not a statement of them disliking game B.
No someone with more intimate knowledge does not have a more valid preference. They have a more valid opinion. There opinion on Game A or Game B can now be backed up with experience. Their preference, that thing they desire, is still just as relevant, or as irrelevant if you prefer.
Preferences have no real objective validity and so one can never be more valid than another.
You're smarter than this. I've said a couple of times now that it's an INDICATION. It's an argument that modern MMOs are more solo oriented. You can retort by saying something like "yes there is more questing [which is a solo-oriented game feature] but there is also less ____!"
Saying that solo and groups are the opposite of each other is deliberately leaving out the possibility for outside interaction. If groups are the opposite of solo, then what would you call groups + other outside interaction? More opposite? When people complain about the solo aspects of modern MMOs, they often talk about sterile environments and being able to cut yourself off from the rest of the playerbase.
It is not an indication of anything other than quests. If someone says this game is more solo-oriented that is a statement about the entire game.
Saying questing is more solo-oriented does not mean the MMO is more solo-oriented, therefore the statement that because a game has a lot of quests that indicates that the game is more solo-oriented is false becuase it makes an assumption about the rest of the game. It is not an indication of the overall game, it is just a comment on one part of it.
Wrong. It's not making an assumption about the rest of the game. It's the opposite. It's saying this aspect of the game has become more solo oriented. So unless other aspects of the game have become less solo oriented to balance it out, then it's more solo oriented. That's why is an indication.I guess we just disagree. I say making the statement, "this is an indication that a game is solo-oriented" is making an unsupported assumption about the overall game.
But what does over another mean? In my example about the gamer who prefers game A over game B, you said it's not a real preference if he hasn't played game B. What if he only played it a little? Or heard things about it? What does it take in order for you to accept that it's a preference?
I think you know what I'm getting at. Somebody who has more intimate knowledge of the things they claim to prefer/reject has a more valid preference than somebody who has less knowledge. It's more possible for the former's preference to turn out to be wrong than for the latter's. Somebody may think they prefer one thing, but actually prefer another. This makes the first person's preference weaker, less valid, whatever you want to call it.
What does over another mean? It means they would rather have A, not B. Self-explanatory. Not that they actually choose A.
In your example they have no awareness or knowledge of what B has therefore they cannot have a preference over A to B in regards to whatever aspect you are talking about. They can't comment have a preference over gameplay because they do not know what B has, or graphics, or quests or anything. The best argument person can make is they may prefer not to leave game A because they like it, but that is not a statement of them disliking game B.
No someone with more intimate knowledge does not have a more valid preference. They have a more valid opinion. There opinion on Game A or Game B can now be backed up with experience. Their preference, that thing they desire, is still just as relevant, or as irrelevant if you prefer.
Preferences have no real objective validity and so one can never be more valid than another.
I'm on my phone so I'm not super positive but I think my question said they haven't played game B, not that they had 0 knowledge of it. The point is their preference is weaker or less valid than somebody with more knowledge of both games. Their preference for game A is less meaningful. I think it's time you walk back your condescension towards me upon entering the conversation.And I'm saying there preference is not less valid.
Their opinion is less valid. Their belief may be less valid.
A preference does not have any objective measure or meaning, so one preference cannot be more or less valid than another.
edit - ok have to run for a couple hours. Be back later to tell you how wrong you are
Can we revisit the whole "you're being pedantic" thing?
Somebody's preference being used as an argument for anything or even to convey any information is less valid if that preference is based in a lack of information. That preference is less useful to any kind of conversation. You don't like the word "valid" in this case, I guess? Then what would you have me say? The point is the piece of information that we're receiving (in this case, somebody's preference) is less important, less reliable, less whatever than the piece of information you can get from the preference of somebody who knows what they're talking about.
I'm not sure how else you want me to say this other than "not all preferences are created equal." What does equality mean in this case? It seems to me that if one preference gives you less reliable information than another preference, those 2 pieces of data (the 2 preferences) are NOT equal. Am I missing something here?
The other side of it is that the developers were also different then.
You had "game guys", ones that were comp game players and programmers long before it was mainstream, making games primarily for similar people. It was both a labor of love, and economic necessity that everything be done well, as there were no second chances. So alot of innovation and clever solutions came about then.
Now you have game developers run by MBAs and corporate types that think a "good game" is one that makes money (ala Smed). It is all just product to these people, pushing out one similar product after another, without care or passion. And if a particular product is crappy? Who cares... market it the hell out of it to sell boxes and then dump it on the F2P market until it breaks even, and then move on. Slap a famous IP on a crap product? Why not...
It is not just that the games produced now are markedly different, the people and attitudes of those making the games are different as well.
No. No one's preference is ever less valid than anothers. Ever. One person's desire for something (their preference) is not less valid than someone else's desire for something (their preference). It can often be stupid, morally wrong (depending on your code) or illegal, but it is not less valid.
It can, and usually is less usefull.
Usefullness and validity are two completely different concepts that are not interchangeable, although one can cause the other.
Usefull - to be of use...
Valid - well grounded, having a sound basis in logic or fact...
Two very very different terms
So yes all preferences are equal.
Someone's preference will never tell you anything about the reliability of anything. A preference has nothing to do with reliability. It only tells you someone desires something over another. And these are all equal.
I like this - preference - never wrong
I want this - possibly preference - if a preference it is not incorrect. It may not be smart or in the best interest but it is not incorrect.
This is crap - opinion, which can often be wrong
I like this because that is crap - preference with opinion. The preference is not incorrect however the opinion might be.
I like this better than that but know nothing about that - cannot be a preference. You cannot prefer something over another without knowing at least something of what the other is. This is merely an ignorant assumption usually done to troll/intimidate/antagonize...
I agree with above, I am old and shittier, but I know fun, just as I did back when I first started playing MMOs. However, your first MMO is like your first fuck, in my opinion. It is something you never forget and I am delusional so I probably think it was the best eventhough it was probably terrible.
I agree, definately shollower etc. In a different post I mentioned the complexity and depth of SWG resource and crafting system was, and the AI in Ryzom. SWG and Ryzom, at least at launch, had no endpoint to speak of, other than getting to max level...unless my memory fails me...it wasnt until the NGE that SWG became really shitty in terms of becomeing a theme park.
but again I am old and forget shit,
cheers,
Rintintin
That seems like pretty pedantic argument to make Venge, yes.
Great example you made there of an argument about a definition that really didn't need to be made.
And as stated before, an opinion can be weighed based on the reasons for it. If it's predicated on false information or ill logic, then it's not a reasonable opinion to consider as compared to one where the information founding it is technically accurate.
And as far as quibbling over definitions goes, if you'll bee semantic enough to define each term, then an opinion not being valid makes perfectly fine sense as one stated is definition of valid as having a sound basis in logic or fact, which an opinion does not necessarily possess.
Or as I've said before.
"Like every argument that tries to defend 'opinion'. When you present something you have to realize that what you are saying is not always simply a subject of opinion. Your view of the matter might be an opinion, but the points and topics upon which it's built may very well not be."
Your opinion is weighted by the information that supports it, whether you like it or not. If that information is specious at best, then your opinion has no real value beyond determining where your own mind is.
Hence the presence of the term informed opinion. An 'informed opinion' is exactly that, an opinion that's grounded in a basis of logic and supporting data.
An informed opinion is is general considered to have more value than an opinion for that very word that you seem to consider wrong to use. It's validity.
Because the ground upon which that opinion is formed is considerably more cohesive and based assumedly off of correct data and a rational train of thought rather than an emotionally driven one painted predominantly by perception instead of information.
As far as why older games seem better. Nostalgia, 'newness' to the genre or concepts, the feeling of retreadone gets from playing similar games, the quirks of the games that you latched onto or particulars about the setting or mechanics that you found preferential, the community you were with, etc.
What made older games seem better was that in many cases they helped define our understanding of the genre, and any subsequent experience was weighed against it.
It's like if you talked about weighing a new boyfriend or girlfriend against an ex you were fond of, or perhaps against the first person you had a crush on.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I don't disagree with anything you said Deivos, except about it being pedantic.
Opinions can be wrong, never stated or pretended otherwise. In fact I stated several times they can be wrong, depending on what is being discussed of course.
Then your argument of an opinion not being more or less valid wasn't actually made? Your entire last post is just make believe?
Your whole argument against a term just to come to a conclusion that technically affirms it's accuracy didn't just happen?
That would make it more pedantic...
Seriously, it's nothing but that as all you did was run a circle over a word.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
The disucssion between Holophonist and me was that if prefernces cannot be wrong. My position was that a preference is just someone's desire for something over another, that cannot be wrong. My position is that there is a fundamental difference between a preference and an opinion.
Your post was about opinions. I don't disagree with that.
In short a preference is not wrong, one preference is not less valid than another.
An opinion can and often is wrong and/or less valid.
As such, there is a significant difference between prefernce and opinion, therefore the argument is not pedantic.
Given the same veins of reasoning underlie both, even if they are somewhat different ideas, I would defer to the same argument made regarding preferences.
People can prefer things that functionally suck.
For example, I actually like and prefer to play APB occasionally, even though I acknowledge that the game mechanically is terrible.
I can explain why I prefer it though, and those preferences extend beyond simply the notion of considering the game fun ans actually pokes at why I think it's fun, I can list off the exact game mechanics and reasons.
Similarly there are less valid preferences. Ones that would enjoy a system and fail to provide any rational reason beyond the basic explanation of 'fun'.
For example, did you ever read Nariu's thread about why he plays MMOs? Functionally the argument made was very simple and didn't touch on MMOs as a system or platform in any way, rather only pointing at some game mechanics that are generally tropes of the genre rather than the matter of it being single, multi, or mmo.
They explain something as their preference, but they have not the supporting logic as to why it's a preference. Consequently there's a very finite amount of information one might be able to glean from such a comment. Hence turning to a less valid preference, as it lacks supporting information or reason.
EDIT: The only ground where you can't argue of the equality a preference bears is if it remains a wholly personal aspect, as in it's not a preference used to reinforce the notions of something external.
In which case preferences are meaningless, as no matter how much you quibble about them, they weigh as a null value when talking about the merits of, well, anything (unless people look to you as an individual from which they'd construct their own preferences).
All of this, when it starts externalizing it's value, treads onto the matter of opinions. That's why I'd argue opinion over preference. And consequently I'd still turn to calling the argument pedantic as a whole, because either it's a matter of opinions and words to describe an opinion, or a matter of preferences, which shouldn't play in any way into a subject of technical, factual, or public perception.
EDIT: Other point that it looks like Holophonist actually made already is that a preference that's built on missing information also bears that issue of validity. If you prefer something based solely on that experience without having any others, then your point of view extends from only the most narrow window of information. Unless you try alternate options, you won't know if that's a preference you simply settled on because it's all you've seen, or because that's actually what you enjoy most.
Hence it bearing less validity even as a purely internal factor. As you're pulling from such an incomplete set of information that the actual preference would remain inconclusive.
Which almost means it's not even really a preference, it's something else. Like a mental shrug or something.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I think discussing opinion is a far better way to go.
Telling someone their preference sucks is an exercise in futility.
But I disagree there are less valid preferences. Someone's desire for something is never less valid than anothers. Preferences do not need supporting logic, it is just a preference.
Preferences are generally useless really anywhere unless you are a marketer. But they are not invalid.
edit - to your edit. As I stated with holo. A preference is desiring (prefering) something over another. Because a preference requires you to prefer one thing over another, if you dont' have knowledge of the other you cannot prefer it or the other. Therefore this is not a case of a less valid preference because it isn't a preference at all.
You always have a reason for thinking what you do.
Hence, I will not divorce preferences from reason as I will not divorce reason from anything else.
If the reason for a preference fails to be substantiated, then it bears less ground, like anything else.
EDIT: And yeah, this is still a pendantic argument, something less wordy about how meaningful someone liking something is and more to do with the something in question might be welcome.
And I believe that's what I meant by saying "Which almost means it's not even really a preference, it's something else. Like a mental shrug or something."
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin