While We Wait: Part 6

[~Darkening~]

I mean seriosuly who determines what makes a nes 'good' or 'bad'

Who cares? Honestly, do you take anything anyone says here seriously? No? They why would you listen to what they consider to be good or bad? Yeah, a few of the newer people might be persuaded away from paying attention to anything other than what is supported, but I honestly feel sorry for anyone who is here now and that fails to think for their self. If you like something, hopefully you wouldn't quit because someone you don't even know tells you it isn't worth it.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Like in ChaNES, where I am de facto the only active player.

Just because we don't post diagrams declaring our superiority does not make us 'inactive', Symphony.

Does anyone else get a mental image of Dr. House every time Symphony posts? Brilliant and blunt? Anyways, Sym is in the right here, though he is not exactly being as tactful as possible.

It was his avatar a while back.

Well my orders this turn were simple, and I guess Ninja DUde, Masada's and Iggy's were long and well prepared. So lets see if my hypothesis is correct or not. I don't expect to be butchered.

l_j, you clearly don't know me well enough. I don't send long ordersets- das has received my longest ever, and I think he can confirm that they are not particularly lengthy. My set to NK this turn was 839 words long, and I could post it in the Orders thread if you'd like to see them.

I prefer diminishing returns as well as thinking about quality. But yeah, stupid story wars aren't really that productive.

Only if the stories are of a very poor quality.

If you can shoot down a torpedo or missile so easily what makes a fighter so immune to being likewise shot-down? In the final event of something somehow breaching MAC rounds and PD-lasers you just put up a wall of plasma in the form of a nuclear or antimatter warheads. Nothing gets through.

I believe this is something Homeworld 2 and in many ways Star Wars (the original series, and ignoring Luke) got right: fighters are basically useless except for taking out each other (or similar sized things), and individual systems on a larger ship (weapons, engines, communications, etc) to give one's own capital ships a bigger advantage. Carrier-based combat (modern Navy analogues) doesn't make that much sense compared to Battleship-based combat (WWI and WWII analogues) in space, just because the scales, protection, technology, and firepower are extremely exaggerated compared to terrestrial counterparts. That said, just like back then, the space battleship, at 1km or 2km or 18km or whatever long, is going to be prohibitively expensive, so a lot of space combat is going to be played out on smaller scales where small ships are more effective.

How are tactics in Homeworld 2 different from those in Homeworld and Homeworld Cataclysm? I have, unfortunately, never played anything more than the demo of HW 2.

 

[Birdjaguar]

On a wholly unrelated subject, I want to return to this idea of "quality is quantity" that keeps being floated around. I want to submit to the people espousing that the quality of a game is purely measured by the number of updates as players the example of McDonald's.

McDonald's has 31,000+ locations worldwide, a market cap of $60.07 billion dollars, 390,000 employees, serves 47 million people daily (that is, for the record, the entire population of the United States of America every week), and "billions and billions served" (they stopped counting on their signs at about 100 billion).

Would any of you argue that McDonald's is gourmet food? Even quality food? Really now? Because that smacks to me of McDonaldization. If the theory is correct that all that matters is volume to some minimal level of satisfaction, there is no point in quality control, progression and advancement, detail, or any of that. By that logic, the template for the "perfect" NES already exists and if everyone is simply interested in "success" as you define it, then everyone should convert to that model immediately.

It is clear, from the existence of that model that some people buy into your theory. But the existence of games that do not adhere to that theory present an alternative representation and definition of "quality" that you have not and possibly cannot explain. By comparison to McDonald's, this is anywhere from the lowly Outback to the Michelin 3-Star Le Bernardin in New York.

To begin, let me say that I think your comparison of NESing quality to food quality at McDs is a bad one and your argument based on it was poor also. But that is not what I am going to post about. You should be able to figure that out on your own.

As I see NESing the single most important aspect of any game is the fun players have, whoever they are and at whatever level they care to play. If a NES isn’t fun to play, then it is not a quality experience and is a poor NES. The second most important feature of a NES is that players have the opportunity to experience the fun for a period of time. A fun NES that only lasts 2 updates is not a quality experience in my book. I don’t have a fixed number of updates that are required, but 10-15 seems like a reasonable minimum range. All the bells and whistles in a NES may be part of what makes it fun, but players seem to have fun in games that don’t have those too. The fun created by the mod whether the game is simple or complex, establishes the quality. As a player I am very picky about games I play in. I only choose games that I think will be fun for me. In creating a game to mod, I have a whole different set of standards in deciding what I want my games to be like, but there are many players who would not enjoy those types of games. They don’t consider them fun. BirdNES 2 was not as fun as it should have been and not a quality experience.

You want to imply that my standards are somehow “low”, devoid of any quality control and similar to those that guide fast food industry (a guilt by association argument). I would argue that my standards for quality are actually more precise than whatever you would come up with and much easier to measure too. I would also say that they use the highest quality control available: customer satisfaction. On top of that, my standards are better suited to this forum and its purpose. You may have your own purpose for NESing and have goals for how this place ought to be, that drives what you consider a quality game. You may even find support among others here for whatever that position is, but such positions are always built on a foundation of arrogance and “knowing what is best” for all of the “lesser” players. This is a game forum; how can providing the most fun for the most people not be the highest achievement? If you want to challenge people, then make a game that challenges them. But to do that you have to get them to play and keep playing. If you notice, both das an NK continually change their games and add and subtract things to make them better, to add to the fun and the challenge of playing them. Their games are quality games that are a notch or two above typical games. Can they improve their games? Of course they could and they probably will. Simple games can be challenging and fun too. The fact that you want to see something in a game does not mean that it is actually an improvement.

Players here will try just about anything once and they flock to games that are fun and last. Any other standard is just intellectual musings and wishful thinking. In fact the process of talking about what makes a quality game usually creates discussions about the perfect game and how it can never be because….the players can’t handle it, or the fabulous ideas would have to be dumbed down to get enough players or whatever excuse is dreamed up to make sure that such a wonderful game never happens. Discussion about the “impossible dream game” is mostly intellectual masturbation about why it cannot be done. “Woe is us!” That is where the quality argument goes. I say put up or shut up. If you think you know what a quality game is, make and mod it. This crowd will let you know very quickly whether or not you are correct. If you think that uber realism is the ultimate NES, then make one. If you cannot, then I suspect that your standards suck and were poorly chosen. If you just want to have a discussion about the perfect NES, then have that, but don’t pretend that you are quantifying anything.

I defy supporters of this theory to defend their idea in detail. You claim the best possible solution is maximal updates, yet it is evident that extremely few moderators actually aim for that goal. If it is truly success, why is its method of attainment not striven for more frequently, and attained only so seldom? Account for this.

I guess I could “defy” you to defend why anything other than “fun and duration” should be used to measure quality in NESing.

The fact that mods have their own personal reasons for creating and running games has nothing to do with what constitutes a quality game. I wish both of my games had gone on for many more turns, but they didn’t and such a short duration reflects on the quality of the games.

This should make my position clear. I see no reason to repeat it again.

 

[Thlayli]

On the subject of a ratings system, I remain opposed to numerically rating NESes according to a formula.

But the idea of reviewing certain NESes for the purpose of improving the community is a good one. Constructive criticism can be very useful, as long as it's properly worded, considers the various viewpoints and playstyles of the NESing forum, and doesn't come across as elitist.

 

[Amon Savag]

Very well said, Birdjaguar.

 

[Condor_green]

why create a perfect nes? once that is accomplished there wont be anything to strive for and nes would die out. as long as the game is fun i couldnt care less how realistic or perfect the nes is.

 

[Thlayli]

There isn't really a 'perfect NES' in that sense. There are so many different philosophies of NESing that what achieves 'perfection' for one player achieves 'old hat' for another.

The perfect NES is like the perfect government or the perfect diet pill: They just don't exist.

With that said, there are excellent NESes that happen to be both fun and high quality. For the more intelligent sort of player, a high quality NES is usually fun, no matter what the ruleset or moderating philosophy happens to be.

There are no perfect NESes, but there are great ones, good ones, mediocre ones, and badly planned ones that should be fixed or abandoned. Any type of NESing evaluation should help to draw the distinction between these categories.

 

[Kentharu]

Symphony D. could you quantify what the best music please?

I didn't think so.

And saying NESing is not like music, when NESing like music is about personal preference much like food, is wrong.

I don't need a giant paragraph of crappy logic to make a point.

 

[Kal'thzar]

You are aware that gravity-manipulation should be like extremely high-tech unless you're going for Star Trek, right?

Perfectly aware, Building the Dreadnaught is an engineering problem, solving it is a Physics one.

I'm gonna think of some more potential solutions

 

[Masada]

I proclaim the end of my expressions of grief in public for my cat. I do reserve the right to call all my NES's the KCS [Kitty Commemorative Series] I also adopt the Cat as my official NESing Deus Ex Machima.

My cat was trying to take over the world just as a note.

 

[das]

Re: the above: honi soit qui mal y pense.

 

[Angst]

l_j, you clearly don't know me well enough. I don't send long ordersets- das has received my longest ever, and I think he can confirm that they are not particularly lengthy. My set to NK this turn was 839 words long, and I could post it in the Orders thread if you'd like to see them.

Sounds quite interesting, I'd like to see that since I then can analyse my errors in my ordes. I'll post mine as well then.

 

[Masada]

perfect diet pill

I happen to own the rights to that.

 

[Symphony D.]

To begin, let me say that I think your comparison of NESing quality to food quality at McDs is a bad one and your argument based on it was poor also. But that is not what I am going to post about. You should be able to figure that out on your own.

Actually, I'm sorry but I can't. "It's obvious," doesn't work for me as an answer when it's not obvious at all and several other people agree with me that it's a quite apt analogy, including our resident economist.

As I see NESing the single most important aspect of any game is the fun players have, whoever they are and at whatever level they care to play. If a NES isn’t fun to play, then it is not a quality experience and is a poor NES.

Fun is subjective. Stating "make your game fun," is not predictive, or analytical, or even something that can be acted upon; it's at best a guideline. It's not information you can use to do anything with. It's a statement. It's no more detailed than saying "the sky is blue."

The second most important feature of a NES is that players have the opportunity to experience the fun for a period of time. A fun NES that only lasts 2 updates is not a quality experience in my book. I don’t have a fixed number of updates that are required, but 10-15 seems like a reasonable minimum range.

So by your judgment then 95% or so of all NES are more or less total failures regardless of what their content is or what they achieved? Because most don't get that far by a long shot. NES2 V by this definition was a complete waste of time since it got to 8 or 9 updates. The first half of NES2 VI had 9, IIRC. DisNES II had 9. Are those somehow just arbitrarily failures because they didn't make it to 10?

All the bells and whistles in a NES may be part of what makes it fun, but players seem to have fun in games that don’t have those too.

As I asked, if you believe that to be the case, then why do people bother with complexity at all when they can run absolutely minimal, arbitrarily driven games and pump out dozens of updates for the same amount of effort? Because more is important than just number of updates, and there are different kinds of fun than just yours.

You want to imply that my standards are somehow “low”, devoid of any quality control and similar to those that guide fast food industry (a guilt by association argument).

By your own statements, a nebulous definition of "fun" and length is all that matters to you. You have repeatedly rejected content as being important to you. That means that the internal quality of that content means nothing. That is a rejection of quality control of material. It is an argument in favor of volume over all else. That is why I am asking you to clarify.

I would also say that they use the highest quality control available: customer satisfaction.

And you are assuming that everyone wants volume, just like you do. Some people do want content. You have rejected that out of hand, and are now not accounting for it.

[...] but such positions are always built on a foundation of arrogance and “knowing what is best” for all of the “lesser” players.

I'm sorry, but I'm not the one standing on a soapbox and saying that the number of updates is all that matters and all that anyone should care about.

This is a game forum; how can providing the most fun for the most people not be the highest achievement?

I again return to the fact that your argument is based on taking your personal definition of fun and applying it universally to everyone else. That is a prime example of "knowing what is best" for the "lesser" players. You are not stating it as opinion, but as gospel.

If you notice, both das an NK continually change their games and add and subtract things to make them better, to add to the fun and the challenge of playing them.

Most of their games have historically lasted under 10 updates. According to your own logic, they have repeatedly failed. You can acknowledge that or you can contradict yourself. I believe you are contradicting yourself. The argument is wholly circular. "Players will play things that are fun. Fun things will go a long time. Long things must be fun. Players will play things that are fun." It doesn't take into account at all the fact that the majority of people will play things simply because they are available and convenient--which is precisely the reason people eat McDonald's despite the fact there are better restaurants.

Symphony D. could you quantify what the best music please?

I didn't think so.

And saying NESing is not like music, when NESing like music is about personal preference much like food, is wrong.

I can tell you didn't notice, but I'm the one arguing for choice, whereas Birdjaguar is the one telling you that you should only like long-lived games. I would ask you to read what we're actually saying instead of just assuming I'm automatically wrong.

 

[Masada]

One is inclined the ask the question: Do we play some NES's merely because they are there? The answer for many is a resounding yes, they might not be filling or terribly good, but they have a passing image to something approximating to quality, they are accessible, so yes we play them. Do we terribly like them? Probably not. Do we remember them with fond misty eyed memories? No. Overwhelmingly the misty eyed memories are reserved for a very small number of NES's from a select number of Mods. Short answer is a great many NES's are only played simply because they are there, they might have lots of players, sure but do they have commitment from the players? Do they generate buzz? Does the mod get pestered eternally in roundabout ways? Or is the update consumed with the barest concern? By players who are not invested in the game?

 

[das]

One might say there are two reasonably distinct categories of involved NESes and casual NESes. It tends to depend on the moderator's own attitude towards it, to some extent (there is nothing to stop casual NESers from playing in involved NESes, but it is somewhat likely that they will not last long for one reason or another; and vice versa, mostly). It is tempting to say that they correspond to Simulationist and Arcader alignments, if not specific doctrines; Storyist and Boardist NESes could belong to either camp depending on, well, involvement.

 

[Symphony D.]

Just because we don't post diagrams declaring our superiority does not make us 'inactive', Symphony.

The majority turning in orders on the very last day of a five-week sending period says "little interest," to me at least. There's also a general lack of stories, of diplomacy, of basically pretty much anything but orders--given most people are in the business of governing and doing domestic things related to development, that says that although there could very well be a lot of creativity, a lot of it is probably variations on "grow economy."

How are tactics in Homeworld 2 different from those in Homeworld and Homeworld Cataclysm? I have, unfortunately, never played anything more than the demo of HW 2.

Frigates are crappier, Corvettes are less powerful and a Battlecruiser, with a few Workers for repairs, can tear its way through an entire enemy fleet if properly handled. The only thing that can really stop one is a bunch of bombers taking out its engines and weapons, or another Battlecruiser getting the drop on it (whoever shoots first in a slugging match wins--Hiigarans have an all-around advantage but Vaygr will just barely beat them if they get in the first shot).

 

[Kentharu]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough

You can't rate NESing

You can't rate personal preference

I understand what you are trying to do Symphony. It's not evil, it won't ruin NESing, however it won't be accurate. (This is me trying to be nice) I don't think its worth your time man. If you can tell me how you can accurately rate NESing, while some how taking into account personal preference, then I'm all for it.

I'm listening

Note: No I wasn't being sarcastic.

 

[Symphony D.]

I understand what you are trying to do Symphony. It's not evil, it won't ruin NESing, however it won't be accurate. (This is me trying to be nice) I don't think its worth your time man. If you can tell me how you can accurately rate NESing, while some how taking into account personal preference, then I'm all for it.

People rate things that are determined by personal preference all the time. Movies. Books. Games. Music. Food. Clothes. Cars. Places. Houses. Companies. People. Of course it's not perfectly accurate. Nothing is. It's supposed to be a source of information to help people make choices, not rule their lives and make decisions for them. That's the entire point of having material to inform your opinion. You may still think that's a waste of time but I'm not going to be the one doing it (and I said as much earlier), so even if it is, it's not taking my time.

 

[Kentharu]

I can see how that my be beneficial to newer NESers.