Such as? Scott is guilty of this much moreso than I am
Maybe, but I don't fancy to discriminate between the two, thus why I used "Scrym" to refer to you as a single unit, rather than "Rym and Scott".
Anyone who honestly claims thatWorld War Zwas well-written has either not read many well-written books or, in my estimation, has bad stylistic taste. For you, I would suggest studyingThe Lively Art of Writing.
I said nothing about World War Z other than that you don't seem to like it, therefore, in your honest review, you're likely going to bash it the whole time. The statement that You seem to say "I don't like this therefore it is objectively bad" was a response to someone who was talking about World War Z, to whom I was pointing out that it fits right in with your broader pattern - And further, I explicitly said that, essentially, I'm giving the the benefit of the doubt till I hear the episode(which, obviously, I'd not heard at the time I wrote that post).
Lastly - World War Z is, while not the worst written book I've ever read, isn't exactly quality. Brooks tells an interesting tale, but he's lacking in polish, bad with his pacing, and somewhat limited in his prose. However, I find that it's a fun enough book that I can forgive it. That's about all I have to say, really - It's pretty middle of the road, were it not a book which appeared at the right time for the niche it was aimed at, it would have been nothing more than a lukewarm success, just another mediocre scribbling by some celebrity offspring.
The whole point is that defining what better means differs. Y
Yes. However, that's a separate subjective argument. If someone wants to say that randomness is what defines a good game or test of skill, I will subjectively judge them as lacking any understanding of games or game theory.
I know a friend who understands the nature of WoW and of its repetitive grinding, and thinks it's a good game because because of this elements. I think he's an idiot but that's because my taste is different to his.
Yes, but his taste is, for all intents and purposes, bad. Most everyone who understands games and gaming would agree with that. You're edging too close to the line/fact that ALL things are subjective, as we are but solipsistic beings. It's a stupid line, and you shouldn't use that as a real argument.
The consensus of a few decades worth of movie critics holds more weight than some guy who thinks Casablanca is a poorly made movie. It may be his "taste," but reasonable people can agree that his taste is likely derived from ignorance or defect and not worthy of much consideration.
In the case of your friend, I highly doubt he actually understands what he claims to. I can objectively state that grinding is a poor test of any skill, and thus a poor mechanic in any game, game being reasonably defined as an "enjoyable test of skill" or even a "series of interesting decisions." By just about every reasonable measure of "good" and every useful definition of "game," grinding is a poor mechanic. To disagree with this is to be effectively objectively wrong.
God, if another thread turns into a meta argument over taste/what is good or bad objectively I'm going to shoot myself. HOW MANY THREADS DO WE NEED ON THIS SUBJECT.
God, if another thread turns into a meta argument over taste/what is good or bad objectively I'm going to shoot myself. HOW MANY THREADS DO WE NEED ON THIS SUBJECT.
A million, because no one ever reads all the words...
It's just we are having the same exact argument in like two or three threads at the same time.... It's always the same. Someone makes a statement either about their individual taste or whether some aspect of the book is objectively bad. They either over reach with the statement (Rubin) or misunderstand that a book that is poorly written can be true while the book can still be entertaining to others (Everyone in the freaking forum).
It's just we are having the same exact argument in like two or three threads at the same time.... It's always the same. Someone makes a statement either about their individual taste or whether some aspect of the book is objectively bad. They either over reach with the statement (Rubin) or misunderstand that a book that is poorly written can be true while the book can still be entertaining to others (Everyone in the freaking forum).
Arguments on the Internet will stop when people stop being wrong.
W T F. Mel Brooks has about a zillion more talents than his son. Clearly he did not pass it on.
Is that such a bad thing? Based on his work that I have read and seen, I really get the feeling he doesn't want to be in his dad's shadow and wants to make his own path. It's very similar to the fundamental difference between Ivan Reitman and Jason Reitman, one made Ghostbusters and one made Up in the Air.
Is that such a bad thing? Based on his work that I have read and seen, I really get the feeling he doesn't want to be in his dad's shadow and wants to make his own path. It's very similar to the fundamental difference between Ivan Reitman and Jason Reitman, one made Ghostbusters and one made Up in the Air.
I understand people not following in their parent's footsteps, but really it's not an issue. You should do what you are good at and what you enjoy, whether or not that is what your famous or non-famous parent(s) also did.
If your mom is a famous chef, and you're good at cooking, and you enjoy cooking, don't avoid being a chef just because you don't want to follow your parents. If you try to do something else, you'll probably just suck.
I don't know why they keep coming up as an example, but nobody is making fun of Eli or Payton Manning for following their father, because they are actually good at what they do. Chris Simms, on the other hand, followed his dad and isn't even on a team right now.
I can objectively state that grinding is a poor test of any skill,
And you're wrong. Grinding is an amazing test of one's patience and ability to perform repetitive menial tasks.
It may be a small skill, and not one which you yourself value, but I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the skill of "grinding" has useful, significant, real-world applications upon which numerous important things depend. The whole of science is nothing more than grinding. What do you think it means to have a study be "rigorous?"
Monotony, tedium, and mindless repetition is work for robots and computers. People have brains, and should only be doing the work which requires thought.
People have brains, and should only be doing the work which requires thought.
You are wrong in thinking that repetitive work does not require thought. There are instances where this is the case, but the nature of much repetitive science work is that it requires immense patience, repetition, and a greater level of thought and attention to detail than most people give to anything ever. The nature of my work requires an amazing level of attention to detail and in-depth thought, and it requires it repetitively.
That's part of the reason why lab scientists either burn out or go crazy.
In any event, that's part of the reason why the statement that "grinding is a useless test of skill" is overly broad and inaccurate. Once again, in order to make a discussion of this sort useful, we must outline our terms more strictly and keep our statements more focused. Otherwise, you cannot make a solid claim to objectivity. Well, you can claim objectivity, but you have to account for the uncertainty generated by your broad assumptions and generalizations.
You are wrong in thinking that repetitive work does not require thought. There are instances where this is the case, but the nature of much repetitive science work is that it requires immense patience, repetition,anda greater level of thought and attention to detail than most people give to anything ever. The nature of my work requires an amazing level of attention to detail and in-depth thought, and it requires it repetitively.
Give an example of repetitive task that it is impossible to accomplish via a robot or computer. Yes, it takes thought and attention to detail to program the computers and robots in the first place, that's my job.
Solve 100 sudoku puzzles or write a program that solves any given sudoku. In the year of 2010, we should only really be doing the latter.
And you're wrong. Grinding is an amazing test of one's patience and ability to perform repetitive menial tasks.
And, for games that are ostensibly enjoyable and consisting of a series of interesting decisions, the grind itself fails as a mechanic. You're conflating far too many oranges with these apples.
Science, work, and life require grind. There are physical and logistical limitations to reality as we know it. Games should not. Games that require grinding tend to be poor games. Even the designers of grindgames know this, but they also know that grinding is an effective means of getting people to play their game while simultaneously knowing that it's bad design by most reasonable definitions of game. They've defined "game" to be "something that other people will pay money to us to continue doing." Grind games are wonderful games in that regard.
Saying that grinding itself is a test of patience is technically true, but also a useless and, may I say, stupid statement. By that logic, all bad games are wonderful tests. The point is that game designers understand and generally agree that "patience" is not a useful or interesting thing to test in a game in most cases.
Show me a game that is either a series of interesting decisions or a test of skills where grinding as a mechanic is beneficial.
It may be a small skill, and not one which you yourself value, but I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the skill of "grinding" has useful, significant, real-world applications upon which numerous important things depend. The whole of science is nothing more than grinding. What do you think it means to have a study be "rigorous?"
Notice how I use words like "most?" In most cases. For the majority. Someone could possibly make a game, using grind, where the grind is an important part of the game somehow. But it has yet to happen. Someone could make a game that teaches good lab practices via grinding. This is a good "game as a teaching tool for a real world skill." Most game designers and players don't bother with this definition of game.
Once again, in order to make a discussion of this sort useful, we must outline our terms more strictly and keep our statements more focused.
As we just have. Game designers, game theorists, and people who understand games generally agree on what constitutes a good game. The two most often used definitions are a "test of skill" or "a series of interesting/meaningful decisions." These are the default definitions, especially in a forum where people ostensibly are passionate about gaming. To implicitly use some definition beyond these two puts the person doing so squarely in the wrong, and the burden of redefinition is on them.
Otherwise, you cannot make a solid claim to objectivity.
By the above definitions, generally-agreed-upon, we are reasonably objective. No one and no thing can claim absolute objectivity, and it's stupid to constantly point that out in a real argument.
Do you honestly, really think game designers should use some definition other than "a series of interesting decisions" or "a test of skill?" Do you honestly, really think testing someone's patience with a poor mechanic is a useful skill to test in a game ostensibly for enjoyment? Learning/teaching games are almost an entirely separate discussion. They are the exception, and any good game designer will define an alternate definition if he wishes to discuss them.
You can twist the definitions all you want, and we can discuss all sorts of types of games, but these two definitions are the default, just as "sky" defaults to "Earth's atmosphere visible from the surface" and "your mom" refers to what I had sex with last night.
I do definitely see that as a major problem in Internet arguing. People bring things in that are technically correct, but do not matter. For example, we all know cogito ergo sum. Technically we don't know anything. But if we're talking about whether a video game is good or not, then you do not need to bring that up. If the only flaw in my argument is the same flaw that is inherent in all human knowledge, then for all practical intents and purposes, I'm right. You don't need to bring up solipsism when we are talking about Super Mario Bros.
Grinding games suck, and if the only way you can argue against that is to discuss the nature of objectivity, then you've already lost.
Grinding games suck, and if the only way you can argue against that is to discuss the nature of objectivity, then you've already lost.
QFT.
As I already noted, if anyone really, truly, honestly disagrees with the two most basic and widely used definitions of game, the standard by which most all real game designers operate, do you have ANY argument that isn't solipsistic bullshit?
You should perhaps try World War Z in audiobook. It's abridged, for one, so you'd have to consume less of it, and it's also a full-cast narration, which helps a lot to give it the feel of idiosyncracy and plurality that I think Brooks was striving for but didn't quite achieve.
Notice how I use words like "most?" In most cases. For the majority.
Yes, I noticed the way in which you fail to make any definite claims about the specific failings of specific grinding mechanics in specific games. You've made numerous non-committal statements while also claiming objectivity, which you expressly cannot do.
Your lack of specificity in criticizing "grinding" mechanics is what I'm criticizing. I agree that a game is "a test of skill." I disagree with your overly broad statement that "grinding is a poor test of any skill," which you claim is objective, because you lack specificity in making this statement. Which implementations are poor? Why are they poor? Which implementations are good? Why are they good? This same argument applies to your assessment of World War Z as being "poorly written." What specifically constitutes poor writing and good writing, and where specifically does World War Z fall flat?
In order to claim any degree of objectivity, you must enumerate specific failings within specific criteria. You've never done this, and thus your claim of objectivity cannot be measured. Your uncertainty is large, and thus your objectivity is meaningless.
This is what I was talking about in my science education bit. The limits of objectivity of any kind are a hell of a lot tighter than almost anyone understands, or at least far tighter than the purposes for which they are used.
This same argument applies to your assessment ofWorld War Zas being "poorly written." What specifically constitutes poor writing and good writing, and where specifically doesWorld War Zfall flat?
He did say that he was annoyed by the fact that everyone had the same voice.
...In order to claim any degree of objectivity, you must enumerate specific failings within specific criteria. You've never done this, and thus your claim of objectivity cannot be measured. Your uncertainty is large, and thus your objectivity is meaningless.
This is what I was talking about in my science education bit. The limits of objectivity of any kind are a hell of a lot tighter than almost anyone understands, or at least far tighter than the purposes for which they are used.
You clearly didn't read anything I just posted, or else chose to ignore it.
Nothing is objective. You "win." Now what? Grinding games still suck on every subjective level (since there is no objectivity possible) for every reasonable definition of game. You completely ignored the separate class of teaching games. Grind without a means of automating is nothing more than a test of how much time one is willing to spend to achieve advancement. The sprint in track & field is a test of the peak short-distance speed of a human. If a track & field event were created called "the wait," where two people sat in chairs and waited until one of them gave up, is that an interesting or engaging game? An interesting test of skill? Anything more than a meta-game of external opportunity cost? A pure grind is no different.
As for World War Z, I enumerated several complaints. Monotonous style, similar diction for every character, ham-fisted world building, cloying nods to real world politics, and an unengaging plot were the surface of my complaints. I could go on. For example, he's inconsistent in terms of simple things like ammunition. He makes poor use of parallelism, in that the structure of his sentences has no meter or meta structure. The pacing is all over the place. The characters are one-dimensional. The footnotes are insultingly overdone, an obvious attempt at a "documentary" feeling. There is no attempt at allegory or anything interesting. The story has practically no moral or message of any interest, and the individual story attempts at them read like a high-school wrote them.
Will you disagree that it's writing is worse than, say, Michael Chabon or Charles Dickens? Or is that too objective?
This same argument applies to your assessment ofWorld War Zas being "poorly written." What specifically constitutes poor writing and good writing, and where specifically doesWorld War Zfall flat?
He did say that he was annoyed by the fact that everyone had the same voice.
He did say that, and it's a valid criticism. Max Brooks has a pretty particular, fidgety writing style and it's evident in every part of the book even though they're all supposed to be interviews with different people.
On the one hand, you read a book by an author and you're going to get one voice. That's part of the deal. On the other, different authors are more or less skilled at creating believably different facets of that voice for different characters.
You clearly didn't read anything I just posted, or else chose to ignore it.
I read what you posted. You didn't say anything new. You made arguments which had no bearing on my point. I never once disagreed with the "general definition of a good game," though I could certainly call you out on that. How many people actually agree on this? How many different definitions of a "good game" are there? However, those questions have no relevance to my point. My point has nothing to do with the definition of what constitutes a good game.
You stated that "grinding is a poor test of any skill" but refused to provide a definition of what constitutes a good test. The idea of a game being a test of skill is not under dispute, but rather your measure of what constitutes a "good test."
By the above definitions, generally-agreed-upon, we are reasonably objective.
The point is that game designers understand and generally agree that "patience" is not a useful or interesting thing to test in a game in most cases.
You do not provide a definition of what constitutes a good test. You've made overly-broad non-committal statements containing weaselly unsupported claims. Even "reasonable" objectivity has more strict requirements than what you've offered up. When you say "in most cases," you need numbers to back that up. If you're making an assessment based on personal knowledge, you cannot claim any degree of objectivity.
Tell me, are you familiar with the concept of semi-quantitative science assays?
He did say that he was annoyed by the fact that everyone had the same voice.
Yes, but does that constitute bad writing and why? I can say that there are many cases where using the same voice across multiple characters could be an excellent writing tool. What makes it objectively bad in World War Z?
Grinding games suck, and if the only way you can argue against that is to discuss the nature of objectivity, then you've already lost.
I'm not discussing the core nature of objectivity, I'm discussing an individual's poor claim to it.
Comments
I said nothing about World War Z other than that you don't seem to like it, therefore, in your honest review, you're likely going to bash it the whole time.
The statement that You seem to say "I don't like this therefore it is objectively bad" was a response to someone who was talking about World War Z, to whom I was pointing out that it fits right in with your broader pattern - And further, I explicitly said that, essentially, I'm giving the the benefit of the doubt till I hear the episode(which, obviously, I'd not heard at the time I wrote that post).
Lastly - World War Z is, while not the worst written book I've ever read, isn't exactly quality. Brooks tells an interesting tale, but he's lacking in polish, bad with his pacing, and somewhat limited in his prose. However, I find that it's a fun enough book that I can forgive it. That's about all I have to say, really - It's pretty middle of the road, were it not a book which appeared at the right time for the niche it was aimed at, it would have been nothing more than a lukewarm success, just another mediocre scribbling by some celebrity offspring.
Max Brooks was an SNL writer.
Max Brooks is the son of Mel Brooks.
W T F. Mel Brooks has about a zillion more talents than his son. Clearly he did not pass it on.
The consensus of a few decades worth of movie critics holds more weight than some guy who thinks Casablanca is a poorly made movie. It may be his "taste," but reasonable people can agree that his taste is likely derived from ignorance or defect and not worthy of much consideration.
In the case of your friend, I highly doubt he actually understands what he claims to. I can objectively state that grinding is a poor test of any skill, and thus a poor mechanic in any game, game being reasonably defined as an "enjoyable test of skill" or even a "series of interesting decisions." By just about every reasonable measure of "good" and every useful definition of "game," grinding is a poor mechanic. To disagree with this is to be effectively objectively wrong.
If your mom is a famous chef, and you're good at cooking, and you enjoy cooking, don't avoid being a chef just because you don't want to follow your parents. If you try to do something else, you'll probably just suck.
I don't know why they keep coming up as an example, but nobody is making fun of Eli or Payton Manning for following their father, because they are actually good at what they do. Chris Simms, on the other hand, followed his dad and isn't even on a team right now.
It may be a small skill, and not one which you yourself value, but I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the skill of "grinding" has useful, significant, real-world applications upon which numerous important things depend. The whole of science is nothing more than grinding. What do you think it means to have a study be "rigorous?"
That's part of the reason why lab scientists either burn out or go crazy.
In any event, that's part of the reason why the statement that "grinding is a useless test of skill" is overly broad and inaccurate. Once again, in order to make a discussion of this sort useful, we must outline our terms more strictly and keep our statements more focused. Otherwise, you cannot make a solid claim to objectivity. Well, you can claim objectivity, but you have to account for the uncertainty generated by your broad assumptions and generalizations.
Solve 100 sudoku puzzles or write a program that solves any given sudoku. In the year of 2010, we should only really be doing the latter.
Science, work, and life require grind. There are physical and logistical limitations to reality as we know it. Games should not. Games that require grinding tend to be poor games. Even the designers of grindgames know this, but they also know that grinding is an effective means of getting people to play their game while simultaneously knowing that it's bad design by most reasonable definitions of game. They've defined "game" to be "something that other people will pay money to us to continue doing." Grind games are wonderful games in that regard.
Saying that grinding itself is a test of patience is technically true, but also a useless and, may I say, stupid statement. By that logic, all bad games are wonderful tests. The point is that game designers understand and generally agree that "patience" is not a useful or interesting thing to test in a game in most cases.
Show me a game that is either a series of interesting decisions or a test of skills where grinding as a mechanic is beneficial.
Do you honestly, really think game designers should use some definition other than "a series of interesting decisions" or "a test of skill?" Do you honestly, really think testing someone's patience with a poor mechanic is a useful skill to test in a game ostensibly for enjoyment? Learning/teaching games are almost an entirely separate discussion. They are the exception, and any good game designer will define an alternate definition if he wishes to discuss them.
You can twist the definitions all you want, and we can discuss all sorts of types of games, but these two definitions are the default, just as "sky" defaults to "Earth's atmosphere visible from the surface" and "your mom" refers to what I had sex with last night.
Grinding games suck, and if the only way you can argue against that is to discuss the nature of objectivity, then you've already lost.
As I already noted, if anyone really, truly, honestly disagrees with the two most basic and widely used definitions of game, the standard by which most all real game designers operate, do you have ANY argument that isn't solipsistic bullshit?
Also, it has Alan Alda.
Your lack of specificity in criticizing "grinding" mechanics is what I'm criticizing. I agree that a game is "a test of skill." I disagree with your overly broad statement that "grinding is a poor test of any skill," which you claim is objective, because you lack specificity in making this statement. Which implementations are poor? Why are they poor? Which implementations are good? Why are they good? This same argument applies to your assessment of World War Z as being "poorly written." What specifically constitutes poor writing and good writing, and where specifically does World War Z fall flat?
In order to claim any degree of objectivity, you must enumerate specific failings within specific criteria. You've never done this, and thus your claim of objectivity cannot be measured. Your uncertainty is large, and thus your objectivity is meaningless.
This is what I was talking about in my science education bit. The limits of objectivity of any kind are a hell of a lot tighter than almost anyone understands, or at least far tighter than the purposes for which they are used.
Nothing is objective. You "win." Now what? Grinding games still suck on every subjective level (since there is no objectivity possible) for every reasonable definition of game. You completely ignored the separate class of teaching games. Grind without a means of automating is nothing more than a test of how much time one is willing to spend to achieve advancement. The sprint in track & field is a test of the peak short-distance speed of a human. If a track & field event were created called "the wait," where two people sat in chairs and waited until one of them gave up, is that an interesting or engaging game? An interesting test of skill? Anything more than a meta-game of external opportunity cost? A pure grind is no different.
As for World War Z, I enumerated several complaints. Monotonous style, similar diction for every character, ham-fisted world building, cloying nods to real world politics, and an unengaging plot were the surface of my complaints. I could go on. For example, he's inconsistent in terms of simple things like ammunition. He makes poor use of parallelism, in that the structure of his sentences has no meter or meta structure. The pacing is all over the place. The characters are one-dimensional. The footnotes are insultingly overdone, an obvious attempt at a "documentary" feeling. There is no attempt at allegory or anything interesting. The story has practically no moral or message of any interest, and the individual story attempts at them read like a high-school wrote them.
Will you disagree that it's writing is worse than, say, Michael Chabon or Charles Dickens? Or is that too objective?
On the one hand, you read a book by an author and you're going to get one voice. That's part of the deal. On the other, different authors are more or less skilled at creating believably different facets of that voice for different characters.
You stated that "grinding is a poor test of any skill" but refused to provide a definition of what constitutes a good test. The idea of a game being a test of skill is not under dispute, but rather your measure of what constitutes a "good test." You do not provide a definition of what constitutes a good test. You've made overly-broad non-committal statements containing weaselly unsupported claims. Even "reasonable" objectivity has more strict requirements than what you've offered up. When you say "in most cases," you need numbers to back that up. If you're making an assessment based on personal knowledge, you cannot claim any degree of objectivity.
Tell me, are you familiar with the concept of semi-quantitative science assays? Yes, but does that constitute bad writing and why? I can say that there are many cases where using the same voice across multiple characters could be an excellent writing tool. What makes it objectively bad in World War Z? I'm not discussing the core nature of objectivity, I'm discussing an individual's poor claim to it.