PS3 pulling a Saturn?

[shmokes]

Do I make you cry yourself to sleep at night Chad?  I was responding to a mean spirited post.  After displaying a complete lack of understanding of formal logic it ends with, "Take a logic class, for goodness sake."

Maybe you just didn't read the post before mine.  In that case, don't be an ass.  Or maybe you did read the post before mine.  In that case, again, go ---fudgesicle--- yourself.

[elvis]

I've taken a logic class.  As such, I can understand the difference between inductive and deductive logic - something that seems to be lost on you.  I think maybe you need to take a statistics class and, possibly, a sedative.

Logic 101:

You said that Miles Davis (a producer of musial product) was "a good musician", but you didn't necessarily like is music (the product).

And from this, you somehow inferred that GTA (the product) was a "good game".  When, if you were true to your analogy, you should have inferred that Rockstar (a producer of a gaming product) was a "good games manufacturer" reguardless of whether you liked GTA (the product) or not.  If that's what you had indeed said in the first place, I wouldn't (and couldn't) disagree with you.  Fairly basic stuff.

Reguardless of how you argue the point, any appreciation of an item of entertainment is based on subjective criticism.  I don't like GTA.  You can stand on your head and hold your breath until you turn blue - it won't convince me that GTA is "great" or even close to greatness in any way.  I completely concede that many people do consider as such.  But that does not make it such from an objective, measurable, or global standpoint.  Just like no colour, gormet food, movie or any other such thing is "great" in any way other than what an indiviual decides for themselves.

As for being sedate about it, you seem awful fired up over a menial forum argument from the many posts above where you resort to petty insults.  Perhaps some you should try some of your own advice?

[shmokes]

My analogy about Miles Davis wasn't referring merely to his technical ability.  It was referring to him being a "good" musician.  People . . . A LOT of people enjoy listening to his music and appreciate him for a lot more than the his finger dexterity.  They listen to him for entertainment and are, presumably, actually entertained by him -- even if I'm not.

GTA shares a similar purpose in life -- to entertain.  A LOT of people enjoy playing GTA.  They appreciate it for more than it's ability to reproduce graphics and sound (both of which are pretty rudimentary, frankly).  They play it for entertainment and are, presumably, actually entertained by it -- even if you're not.

In either case a subjective analysis would produce a bad review, the first one from me, the second one from you.  However, by aggregating the subjective analyses of many different people you can use statistics to determine the likelihood of a game being enjoyed.  You can determine it with pinpoint accuracy, that a person is, for example, 70% likely to enjoy a given title.  A game with a 95% likelihood of entertaining any given person who plays it can legitimately be referred to as great compared to, say, a game that has a 5% likelihood of entertaining.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with claiming that E.T. sucked, while Yars Revenge was fantastic.

Logic 101:

An inductive argument is one in which it is improbable (vs. impossible for deductive) that the conclusion be false given that the premises are true.  Thus, a strong inductive argument is an inductive argument in which it is improbable that the conclusion be false given that the premises are true.  In such arguments, the conclusion does in fact follow probably from the premises. 

My argument in a nutshell:

Most people do not enjoy bad* games and enjoy good* games.  Every iteration of Grand Theft Auto soars to the top of sales charts and remains there for a very long time.  They go on to get near-unanimous excellent reviews (that you and I both know Rockstar doesn't pay for), while other games, including games that attempt to duplicate the gameplay format and violent themes, get extremely poor reviews.  This suggests that Grand Theft Auto is, in fact, an entertaining, or high-quality game. 

My argument is logically strong because given the truth of my premises, there is a high probability that my conclusion is true as well.  It's also logically cogent because all of my premises are true.  My own personal enjoyment of the game also did not enter into the argument, but rather it relied solely on statistics (this is where the objectivity comes in).
 



*The words "good" and "bad" are used here as they are most commonly used -- to refer to high and low quality.  It is generally understood that a videogame's primary purpose is to entertain.  The degree to which a game is successful at entertaining, then, corresponds to the games "goodness" or "badness".

[elvis]

My analogy about Miles Davis wasn't referring merely to his technical ability.  It was referring to him being a "good" musician. 

I don't see the difference, as per my argument above.  But we are going in circles here based on an analogy that has little to do with the argument at hand, so I'm not going to waste more of my day on it.

rather it relied solely on statistics (this is where the objectivity comes in).

This made me laugh out loud.   There's a rather well deserved saying about lies and statistics... 

And besides, modern gaming applies to the "lowest common denominator".  Gaming was once apon a time a very niche market typically limited to "nerds" (who frequently were a touch more intelligent than your average Joe Sixpack).

As the mass populace at large continues to join the market segment that is the "casual gamer", the average game produced caters less and less for the intelligent, and more and more for the mindless masses.  It's pure economics.

At the risk of sounding elitist (too late?) I would hesitantly suggest that sales figures are no indication of the "good"ness of a game, but rather merely that the game in question is simple enough for the average Joe Sixpack to comprehend and waste their 20-something minutes a day on without too much mental strain.

"Them thar thinky games makes mah head hurt, Bessy.  Bring me some of that thar gun totin' cop shootin' goodness, will ya?".

[shmokes]

This made me laugh out loud.   There's a rather well deserved saying about lies and statistics... 

Objectivity doesn't mean correct.  An objective analysis can come to an incorrect conclusion (though mine didn't).  Objectivity simply means that the analysis wasn't influenced by personal opinions and biases.  My analysis relied on statistics (sales figures, aggregated reviews, etc.).

And the analogy is perfectly relevant to the argument.  I can objectively conclude that Miles Davis is an excellent musuician on the exact same grounds that I can objectively conclude that GTA is an excellent game.

I know that this is kind of an unrelated argument, but I disagree, at least partially, about the lowest common denominator.  Games are better today than they've ever been, and no more accessible.  Prince of Persia: Sands of Time is far less accessible than the original.  It's also a better game, frankly.  Same goes for Mario 64 vs. the originl Mario Bros. or Super Mario Bros.  There are probably more casual gamers than there used to be, but there are more hardcore gamers now too.  Tony Hawk is a far less accessible, and better IMO, game than 720 or Skate or Die.  There's still plenty of depth in videogames today.

[elvis]

An objective analysis can come to an incorrect conclusion (though mine didn't). 

Goodness, this smacks of arrogance.

And the analogy is perfectly relevant to the argument.  I can objectively conclude that Miles Davis is an excellent musuician on the exact same grounds that I can objectively conclude that GTA is an excellent game.

Once again, you are comparing a person that produces something to an end product.  You may as well compare Michaelangelo to the Mona Lisa (ie: one is a person, one is an object created by a person).  Apples and oranges.  Honestly, you're either having serious troubles grokking the argument (dare I use the phrase "Joe Sixpack" once again?), or trolling...

Games are better today than they've ever been

...and now I know you're trolling.  There's no point me continuing this conversation any further after you've made that statement, as it's all quite clear now.

[shmokes]

Semantics . . . whatever.  You know that I'm comparing the music of Miles Davis with GTA.  When I say I don't find him entertaining, I don't mean that he personally comes to my house and dances a jig for me.  I'm talking about his music and you know it. 

I wrote a big long bit about games today vs. games back in the day, but you're right.  It's a digression.  It has little to do with what we were arguing about and I'm sure people are tired of reading pages and pages from me.

[SNAAKE]

go ---fudgesicle--- yourself.

 

[markrvp]

If Shmokes spent as much time studying French as he does arguing subjective gaming tastes on the internet, he probably wouldn't need to beg for money to go to France.

[shmokes]

Too late for that . . . eh?

[ChadTower]

I speak fluent French and have never been to France.  Same with my wife but she was there for 3 days once.

[shmokes]

You grew up in French-speaking Canada.   

[ChadTower]

And studied it at multiple schools in the US...  while my wife is not Canadian.  She's Irish.

[shmokes]

So . . . maybe you're right.  Maybe I don't need to go to France.  You didn't, afterall.  Maybe I can just grow up in French-speaking Canada.  Why didn't I think of that before?

Ass.

[elvis]

So . . . maybe you're right.  Maybe I don't need to go to France.  You didn't, afterall.  Maybe I can just grow up in French-speaking Canada.  Why didn't I think of that before?

Ass.

When you run out of people to argue on the internet with, do you argue with yourself?

No I don't!  Yes I do!  No I don't!

[shmokes]

When you run out of people to argue on the internet . . .

This can happen?

[elvis]

This can happen?

I dunno, but you're sure as hell giving it your best shot!

[shmokes]

I'm not keeping track here . . . but if I'm not mistaken the PS2/PS3 library argument had run its course by the time you got here and resurrected it.  Maybe you should keep a lower profile on the arguing-for-arguing's-sake front.

[elvis]

I'm not keeping track here . . . but if I'm not mistaken the PS2/PS3 library argument had run its course by the time you got here and resurrected it.  Maybe you should keep a lower profile on the arguing-for-arguing's-sake front.

For the second time this thread, you make me laugh out loud.

And for the second time, I suggest you take your own advice.

[shmokes]

But . . . I'm . . . not the one . . . who . . . accused someone of being . . . unable to stop arguing with people.  Why should I take my own advice? 

[elvis]

But . . . I'm . . . not the one . . . who . . . accused someone of being . . . unable to stop arguing with people.  Why should I take my own advice? 

Hrm so far my "shmokes must always have the last word" experiment is working nicely.

Timing to see how long the next reply takes... 

[shmokes]

WTF?  Read your last four posts.  You seem to have some pot-calling-the-kettle-black issues.


And, seriously, look at the substance of all these "last words" I'm getting in.  You take a pot-shot at me, I respond with a self-deprecating joke ("this can happen?"), to which you respond with another shot at me.  If you think it's strange or inappropriate that I would either laugh off or defend myself from a personal attack you're an idiot. 

And if you think it's somehow special that you're able to predict that such an attack will generate some kind of response out of me, that's fine.  I don't mind if I make you feel special.

[elvis]

WTF?  Read your last four posts.  You seem to have some pot-calling-the-kettle-black issues.


And, seriously, look at the substance of all these "last words" I'm getting in.  You take a pot-shot at me, I respond with a self-deprecating joke ("this can happen?"), to which you respond with another shot at me.  If you think it's strange or inappropriate that I would either laugh off or defend myself from a personal attack you're an idiot. 

And if you think it's somehow special that you're able to predict that such an attack will generate some kind of response out of me, that's fine.  I don't mind if I make you feel special.

The fish are biting today!

[shmokes]

Indeed.  You're playing me like a harp.  I just can't help myself.

[elvis]

last word

[AtomSmasher]

last word

Actually thats two words

[elvis]

last word

Actually thats two words

I like cheese