More from Producer Tanaka (JP Button)

[LD]

You don't need to explain AV's massive failure as a mob, the results speak for themselves. Tomb Raider proved that bad interactivity with any sort of difficulty curve doesn't make it the dexterity-testing equivalent of Citizen Kane. While, technically, anything remotely difficult is defined as a challenge, in practical terms there is a difference between challenge and bullshit. For example, "It would be a challenge to argue with this person, but there is no benefit or edification to be had."


Also, good job fucking up Elmer's thread. No, really.

[Teorem]

Also, good job fucking up Elmer's thread. No, really.

Thank you Corinth for the translation.

I did mean to include that I found it difficult to believe Absolute Virtue was supposed to essentially be the booby prize. Weren't the sin items included with the same update that added Lumoria?

And to the people who are writing off MMM as a failure: you're missing out, really. But as long as your non-participation isn't taken by the developers to mean the system doesn't need further good enhancements, I'll gladly take the shorter line at the entrance.

[BRP]

Understanding how a system works may make something less challenging, but again the task is NOT just understanding but execution as well.

Execution requires you to understand how the system works. There is no need to separate them. After all, if you didn't know how to jump you wouldn't be able to jump. Even in reflexive games like Street Fighter(and well, Starcraft too) you will need to learn and practice. This leaves my previous statements true.

Something can be intuitive and challenging.
Something can be intuitive and not challenging.
Something can be not intuitive and challenging.
Something can be not intuitive and not challenging.

Nope. Of course you could provide reasoning at some point if you'd like, but all I can do now is say nope. (EDIT: Well actually, you got 2/4 right)

That's how a game like Starcraft is intuitive, memorizing stats isn't part of it at all other than the generalization that a certain unit is or isn't going to need help going up against something else.

You have already admitted it requires learning with the previous sentence.

Good luck playing "rock-paper-scissors" if you can't remember what beats what. When going up against entire strategies luck won't cut it.

They have, in subsequent updates after Absolute Virtue has been defeated. I'm not sure why you'd try to argue this.

I am not sure why you would argue it either. Maybe you don't understand what I am saying. If AV could adapt to players it would be impressive, but considering it is not controlled by an AI or a player it is not likely.

Not only is it NOT an exploit,

Oh, but it is. Because the devs say so. Now, even if it wasn't, what would be your point? I am not arguing AV is intuitive.

Absolute Virtue remains a "not intuitive" fight because the basics and strategies/methods we learn in the game aren't working effectively against it.

Which basics do not work? Which parts of the battle system are cut out? Pretty sure it is all there.

We are still largely in the dark about how to control how it reacts,

Practice makes perfect.

I don't understand how in one breath you can claim that something like challenge (or, "what creates difficulty") is not subjective, and then list the very reasons why and say they're irrelevant.

Because what I am saying is that it is perfectly reasonable to discuss difficulty while you are saying it is impossible because how people react to difficulty is "subjective." Difficulty can be measured and examined, even if "some people" can't reach certain points. Even if someone stands above all of FFXI challenges(no longer challenged) he will be able to see which is easier.


EDIT: The only difference between "challenge" and "bullshit" is the person's limit(and temperament / if he is prone to give up.) Often this is done way too early and people will call just about anything bullshit despite it being pretty easy if they have a clear head.


EDIT: Also this thread wasn't "ruined." Not only was it long finished being on-topic, it never produced any interesting discussion to begin with. Thread ended with the OP. All there was to do was to point out 'Grrr I hate SE!' on some quote and nod and say 'Oh, I see' on another quote. What you see here is the result of people not caring enough about the interview to begin with, hence a derail about AV and blah blah. (Go read the first 5 replies if you don't believe me)

[orson]

BRP won't ever concede in the slightest I wouldn't bother arguing with him. In his mind his opinion is the only one that is correct even if is completely against what almost everyone else believes. It's obvious he also has more than enough time to spam pointless arguments. Seriously I think people like BRP are the reason that the old Advanced really turned into a endless cycle of pointless arguments.

[BRP]

BRP won't ever concede in the slightest I wouldn't bother arguing with him. In his mind his opinion is the only one that is correct even if is completely against what almost everyone else believes. It's obvious he also has more than enough time to spam pointless arguments. Seriously I think people like BRP are the reason that the old Advanced really turned into a endless cycle of pointless arguments.

Who ever goes into an argument wanting to concede? You miss the point of arguments in the first place. But go ahead and paint me as some villain or something lol. It is not like you take part in these arguments and don't concede either right?

Old Advanced had bigger issues than arguments. Standard's arguments would have been a breath of fresh air.

[Deimos]

BRP won't ever concede in the slightest I wouldn't bother arguing with him. In his mind his opinion is the only one that is correct even if is completely against what almost everyone else believes. It's obvious he also has more than enough time to spam pointless arguments. Seriously I think people like BRP are the reason that the old Advanced really turned into a endless cycle of pointless arguments.

That's the problem with arguing with morons. They're not smart enough to realize when they're wrong, so you can't possibly win. BRP is a prime example of this. If you honestly believe that something can't be both intuitive and challenging, I just... wow.

Here, let's try some learning through examples:

Is "fighting" intuitive? You hurt the other guy until they stop hurting you. Childen and animals seem to be able to figure out how to fight. Is it challenging? Millions of martial artists, boxers, etc. would probably say that it is.

Is "playing the piano" intuitive? You push a key and it makes a noise. Is it challenging?

There are many, many examples of both the things you say are impossible. Just because you don't properly understand the definitions of words doesn't mean you're correct.

[Aksannyi]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_35kDzNt-gT...dead+horse.gif

[BRP]

They're not smart enough to realize when they're wrong, so you can't possibly win.

Unfortunately, there are those who seem to be too preoccupied with "winning" rather than actually finding flaws within arguments.

If you honestly believe that something can't be both intuitive and challenging, I just... wow.

Clearly you can't explain how, because you skip right to examples.

Is "fighting" intuitive?

Fighting what/who? Fighting how? Are you fighting well or just fighting like an animal?

Boxing, for example, is only challenging against good opponents.

Is "playing the piano" intuitive?

Playing a song? No.

There are many, many examples of both the things you say are impossible.

Are they all this stupid? How about you actually explain something instead of weaseling out with examples?


EDIT: Here are some definitions to work with:

Challenging:

1. offering a challenge; testing one's ability, endurance, etc
2. stimulating, interesting, and thought-provoking
3. provocative; intriguing

Intuitive:

1. perceiving by intuition, as a person or the mind.

Intuition

1. direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.

[Yugl]

Intuitive simply means the activity is easily perceived through intuition. Intuition is merely knowledge about the activity. If the activity is challenging, it can apply either to knowledge about the activity or performing the activity.

[BRP]

Intuitive simply means the activity is easily perceived through intuition. Intuition is merely knowledge about the activity. If the activity is challenging, it can apply either to knowledge about the activity or performing the activity.

When applied to actions(for example, within playing a game) it would include the actual execution as well. You cannot ignore the reflex and subconscious reaction you can learn/train through experience. Knowing which action is best, how to do it, and if you can do it will all come from experience.

For example: Someone new to fighters will have to practice doing quarter circle motions and such before they could do so with almost perfect execution. Same with swinging a bat and so on.

At some point doing the quarter circle motion alone is no longer a challenge, but doing it under pressure and/or doing it within a small window of opportunity will keep it difficult.

[Yugl]

When applied to actions(for example, within playing a game) it would include the actual execution as well. You cannot ignore the reflex and subconscious reaction you can learn/train through experience. Knowing which action is best, how to do it, and if you can do will all come from experience.

Intuitive by definition is simply knowledge or perception. It does not change once applied to video games. Reflexes and subconscious reactions have a physical component which means they cannot be entirely intuitive. Thus, any activity requiring reflexes may be intuitive, yet challenging because you are unable to perform the physical requirements.

Think of some games that require you to hit certain buttons on the screen in order to complete special. What's intuitive is the fact that you need to hit those buttons. Most people who are familiar with video games will figure out that you need to hit those buttons displayed even without reading a guide. However, it can still be challenging since you don't react fast enough. Thus, the dichotomy between intuitiveness and challenging lies in the difference between knowledge or perception and physical capability.

[BRP]

Intuitive by definition is simply knowledge or perception.

Intuition is built on knowledge and perception, but it is not exactly either. It is immediate understanding. This is in contrast to something that one would find complex and need to think about and learn about.

Reflexes and subconscious reactions have a physical component which means they cannot be entirely intuitive.

I don't see how this is true and for the rest of your argument you presume it is without explaining it. (Though I might understand what you mean if you rephrase it, but it would still be pointless because "mental component" would be the same)

Physical ability is ruled by understanding what your body must do and how to do it. To do a special attack you don't just learn to push some buttons, you learn to push those buttons in a special manner.

EDIT: Actually saying something can/can't be "entirely intuitive" is odd. I think what you mean to say is something can't be entirely learned?

[Yugl]

Intuition is built on knowledge and perception, but it is not exactly either. It is immediate understanding. This is in contrast to something that one would find complex and need to think about and learn about.

The definition I'm looking at suggests perception or understanding. If your definition of intuitive is different, then that is fine, but don't expect full compliance when using different definitions.

intuitive definition | Dictionary.com

I don't see how this is true and for the rest of your argument you presume it is without explaining it. (Though I might understand what you mean if you rephrase it, but it would still be pointless because "mental component" would be the same)

It's true because reflexes are a physical reaction. It's not you thinking about it, it's your body receiving a stimulus that makes your nerves trigger a response. There is absolutely no knowledge, perception, or understanding necessary in order to trigger a reflex.

Physical ability is ruled by understanding what your body must do and how to do it. To do a special attack you don't just learn to push some buttons, you learn to push those buttons in a special manner.

You misunderstand what physical ability is. It is the *ability* to move at a given time. You may know exactly what your body must do in order to move. You may know how to as well. However, if you are incapable of doing so, then you lack the physical ability. Think of a patient with a severed limb or nerves. Suddenly severing a limb does not mean they suddenly forget how to move their limbs. It can mean however, that they are unable to do so because it is impossible for them to do so.

EDIT: Actually saying something can/can't be "entirely intuitive" is odd. I think what you mean to say is something can't be entirely learned?

Entirely intuitive means that the activity is successful simply through intuition. If an activity is not entirely intuitive, then it means that more than simply perception, knowledge, or understanding is necessary.

This entire conversation is similar to the "which is better" arguments in Ballista. People say "If you do this, then I'll do this on RDM" and so forth. However, they do not realize that in a real setting, there is no certainty in action. Thus, arguments about Ballista involving "If you do this, I'll do this, and if you counter with this, I'll return attack with this" are futile since they very rarely play out in real time settings. You may know intuitively what you must do to win, but it doesn't mean you're going to do it.

[Siatdiat]

I've known BRP since early 2004 in FFXI. He is not a bad guy at all, but yes he is a debater. I am used to the mentality because I have many friends who were serious debaters way back in high school. Often in discussions they will play devils advocate and argue points they dont agree with just for the sake of enlightenment (enlightenment from the view point of learning new things about a topic by examining from different perspectives).

From BRP's side I'm sure it would be hard in any discussion to concede he is wrong without a very solid argument. From the general population of BG forums I think it is even more impossible to admit anyone was wrong because of the mentality that more people agree so they are more likely to be right, or because its been argued too long and they would be embarassed at this point to admit they were wrong the whole time. BRP will win the majority of arguments on here not because he is always right, but because he is much better at most people at arguing (or debating).

I only wanted to make this post because some people seem to want to imply that BRP is immoral, or that he is making up for something he lacks in real life. I don't think I have to point out how silly both of those ideas are. The only two real possible conclusions to a debate BRP has been involved in I have seen here are either he was correct and everyone acts like he wasn't, or the topic is proven to be nothing to a battle of semantics, and BRP will still not let up regardless.

Edit: This topic looks like its going the way of semantics, or people involved were operating under different ideas/definitions of the vocabulary involved, namely intuitive.

[Kaeko]

Semantics is not worth arguing usually. Doesn't matter who wins.

When you start breaking out definitions of basic English words, its safe to say both sides should just call it a day. Just my opinion though.

[Yugl]

Semantics is not worth arguing usually. Doesn't matter who wins.

When you start breaking out definitions of basic English words, its safe to say both sides should just call it a day. Just my opinion though.

Semantics arguments don't start off as ones and usually aren't intended to continue as ones. No one here wants to argue about the definition of [Word here], but if people are going to give advice, there has to be continuity in terms. If I posted on the forum saying Provoke is 3.6k VE, I'm sure you and others would rush to make a refutation of that statement. Now is that statement true? It depends. If by 3.6k VE I mean the VE using your data, then sure, it's incorrect. If by CE I meant some other sort of scale where my VE is 2x your VE, then I would be correct.

This is pretty much how every semantics argument plays on out BG. Why does it continue? It's because definitive terms are needed in order to state facts. Sure, we could go around saying "well provoke gives you 3.6k Yugl VEs, 1.8k Kaeko VEs, or BRP 900VEs", but that would be ridiculous. Can you imagine going on this forum learning three or more different systems? It would make almost every post on here ambiguous. This is not the goal of a forum that seeks information for the betterment of players.

What is the solution? It's simple, and it's one that science uses all the time. Submit authority of definitions to one source of knowledge. In most cases, people do just that. In other cases, people brand their own definition and use that as a line of defense. The dichotomy between definitions (Or operational definitions, since I think that's the science term?) and truthful statements will always remain in a place where people seek facts. Is it worth arguing? Sometimes it is. You never know if you and the other individual are arguing towards the same point using different definitions. You also never know if you and other individual are arguing different points using different definitions. That is where semantics arguments come in. If you find common ground on which you both can agree to a definition, then you can truly see who is making facts and who is lying.

[Kaeko]

stuff

You're right. I guess my real point was that the whole argument itself was kind of pointless - the arguing of semantics of a pointless topic is still pointless, but I suppose if I felt that way I shouldn't have posted to begin with and let them argue. I do think the derailing of a very good topic (from Elmer's article to the definition of "Intuitive") is unfortunate though.

To try to maybe get this a bit more on topic,

I feel like at this point in the game and all the history behind AV and ninja patches, those who still choose to experiment and fight it should just see it as a temporary challenge - one which even a victory is only short lived (as is likely to be patched very soon after public disclosure). While this seems like a turn off to a lot of potential LSs that can attempt it, there are some players out there that still find this a worthwhile challenge.

If it is not necessarily the challenge, but the items, that draws a group to fight AV, then my only advice would be to keep your mouth shut and hide it if you do, by some gift from God, find out how to beat it. This way it never enters public knowledge and SE would have a harder time patching it in a timely manner (enough time for you to spam it to death for drops). Of course, when it does eventually become public, you always risk the chance of a ban if the community gets pissed off enough at you hiding whatever you were using.

Basically, AV is what it is. It's something that keeps people who've beaten everything there is to beat in the game - and for that it's successful in the only thing that ultimately matters to SE - that you keep your account open.

[BRP]

Yugl for the most part you are talking about reflexes only on a basic(for lack of a better word...) level. I am speaking of "muscle memory." This is the mastery of reflexes. You will need some form of mastery to play videogames. It is not so much about "triggering" reflexes at will(lol), but developing them to trigger correctly.

I am not sure if I made myself clear, but physical and mental condition of a person do play a huge role in videogames. However, I don't bother to make the distinction because I assume this already. Someone who is smart and someone who is quick will always be better than someone who is slow and dimwitted if they are within a reasonable distance of mastery. (Though it could be argued the inferior player will never reach the same amount of mastery to begin with.)

However, they do not realize that in a real setting, there is no certainty in action.

This is actually apart of figuring out the "What to do" portion. Players must not only perform the action and know how to perform it, but know their odds when performing it. They must bet on the one their instincts tell them to go with(or maybe they will just get lucky.) This is a huge part of learning about action games where you might not even have a 95%+ success rate on execution.

For example: a player new to Street Fighter can still win even if he doesn't bother with Supers if he doesn't know how to do them and doesn't ruin his chances by failing to perform them. That is an obvious and easy example. Most of the time these choices will come at you at blinding speeds, only giving you less than a second to decide even if only subconsciously.

I use this definition of intuition because it is the only one I see working in other writings of games. The most common use is "these controls are intuitive," which only make senses if you count in physical movements as well.



The issue is larger than semantics, which is why I would be glad to bring it back. There is no such thing as being "too difficult," only "too difficult for me." Certainly there is nothing else. Everything else is an excuse to make the person feel better about his efforts(even if only sympathetic, which most AV bashing is.) Calling AV "unintuitive" as if it means something else is an example of this.

The more noticeable trait of AV is that you can only fight him under certain conditions and he "costs" more than other NMs. Cost meaning everything from exp loss to player requirement. FFXI and other MMOs are full of these barriers and costs. The end result is less opportunity to fight AV therefor much slower learning. Would it be a stretch to say only 30-40 AV are popped each day when averaged? Now how many of those pops fulfill the "cost" conditions? This is a fair complaint, but anything else is misdirection.

Imagine for a moment if we could fight AV anytime we want in a "Danger Room" type of activity in Whitegate or something. No exp loss, no pop items, etc. It would have a decent effect, no? Now imagine AV could be solo'd. Without these costs and barriers he becomes no different than your typical boss where you would learn and beat in any videogame.

Also yeah, anyone who feels the need to insult me because they can't "win" shouldn't bother taking part in any argument. It is a little pathetic.

[Blackbrock]

May I have your attention please.
This thread is now about starcraft.
That is all.

[Plow]

BRP ... is much better at most people at arguing (or debating).

oh lawd, can't move, compulsive laughter overtaking me...