Hey Vorsuc
. Your feedback is much appreciated.
VMerken said:
Sure, but please, we're all intelligent boys and girls, ignoring the points made in a reply and just dismissing disagreements with 'well that's your opinion' is very disrespectful. Either respect your OP enough to offer counter points and discussion of their points or ease the finger off the reply button.
Well, right back at you. You dismissed the point made in my OP and instead talked about something else in your reply. Even hinted at me being part of the "pissing contest", which isn't true. By the way, I did address some of your points and offered counter points or tried to rationalise since differing, equivalent perspectives exist. That's why I broke up your post and responded to each "block". Sorry if some counter arguments point to their relativity, but that's how I see it.
vorsuc said:
But x hours on 10 games or x hours on 5 is still x hours of time, which *most* people don't have.
x is a variable, and thus x can equal 0. So the equation you propose is valid for all people, although I won't consider the x=0 population for obvious reasons.
The precise value of x depends on the person involved, sure. How much time is one willing to invest in video gaming? How much time does one have available? The precise amount can differ from day to day. It's a complex matter, which is why comparisons can only be made if x is the same for the gamers you're trying to compare. That was the assumption I made in my previous posts. Thing is you can have hardcore and regular gamers with x = 10, you can also have such gamers with x = 1. As long as x is the same for both, one can compare their gaming behaviour, evaluate it on an equivalent basis.
It's the same in science: in order to study gas pressure in function of gas volume, all other relevant gas parameters need to be constants.
By the way, a more accurate depiction of "regular gamer versus hardcore gamer" isn't 10 games versus 5 games, but rather 10 games versus 1 - maybe 2. A hardcore gamer specialises, a regular gamer wants different experiences. Whether they each play 1 hour a day on their games or 10, is irrelevant.
vorsuc said:
The point I feel the review was trying to make and that the one I re-iterated was that while the early stages of the game can be completed with a reasonable 'time investment' the later stages require the patience of a saint and isolation in some secret government bunker removed from such distractions as a day job, family, kids and 'life'.
Sure, but the review also made it a point (and showed it visually) that if you live up to the challenge of GH3, then you're a "freak". Which means the people who made those GH3 Youtube movies are freaks. Sorry, but I do not consider (the majority of) them freaks and am a little offended (not utterly and completely offended, of course, this is Zero Punctuation after all
at that kind of gamer branding.
vorsuc said:
The point that 'hardcore gamers just play less games' (which is surely a definition that depends on who you talk to) doesn't really enter into the equation.
It does, and is central to my considerations, as shown above. I do not call someone who plays video games 10 hours a day just to complete them "hardcore". However, someone who plays 1 video game 1 hour a day could very well be hardcore, if the player already completed the game earlier on and is now attempting to hone his/her skills.
Of course, within this terminology, a regular gamer could also be considered a sign of going "hardcore", since in that case the player's genre of choice is "playing everything". However, if one wants to go truly deep in that case and become hardcore at it, the time investment needed will be significant, and that is not something I'd expect a regular gamer to cough up. There are always exceptions, of course.
vorsuc said:
And were ZP done by said GH3 QA team, you'd have a point. As it is, we're all here for Yahtzee's opinion. And on that topic...
Yahtzee's review is only one viewpoint concerning the relativity of the perceived difficulty curve of GH3 - which fits perfectly to the point I discussed.
vorsuc said:
Which brings us back to the original point that 'yes we do, but only when it is indeed a challenge, not mission sodding impossible'.
Again, whether or not it's mission sodding impossible is relative. For you it is, for someone else it isn't, for yet someone else it was but no longer is because he or she practiced or discovered a new, seemingly trivial insight which turned out to be crucial for the game segment involved. Either way, *IF* the QA team was up to snuff (important assumption, obviously), the segment you're facing is definitely not mission sodding impossible. Several people got past it. It's up to you to run away or find out how they did it (with or without a little help).
So let me rephrase my question: "You're at a point in the game where it *seems* mission sodding impossible. Do you persist, or back down?"
vorsuc said:
Maybe I'm not 'hardcore' enough, maybe Yahtzee isn't, god knows he's mentioned often enough in his reviews that he's more than happy to f**k a game right off if it stops being fun and that's the key part of the point being made.
Not that we're running away from the challenge of GH3 when it is asking us to open a can of soda without breaking a nail, but that suddenly without warning game switches from 'ooo this is a bit tough' to the button mashing equivalent of sending the South Ascot Ballerina Association into Iraq on a peacekeeping mission, without any reason or warning other than the dark chuckle eminating from the console.
Personal anecdote: first time I faced Nightmare (a boss creature) in Devil May Cry (Normal mode), I thought I was going insane. Before, everything went relatively smooth, but Nightmare creamed me like no tomorrow with me not even close to denting it. Major spike in difficulty for me. Knee-jerk reaction: "What the **** were they thinking with this thing"?! I faced a choice: quit playing and never see the ending, or persist. I persisted, gradually discovered a few interesting facts about Nightmare's defences, and eventually overcame the challenge. And it felt great - personal victories like that are an important part of gaming for me now, and I can appreciate the road you need to follow to achieve them. Like I said before, rhythm games are not my genre so I can't say if the GH3 spike is similar to the DMC spike I experienced, but the existence of the Youtube videos lead me to suspect that this is indeed the case.
vorsuc said:
Sure that's the *opinion* being offered here, but just because it isn't yours doesn't make it wrong nor should it be a reason for you to "take offense" when such opinions are offered.
Again, I do not take offense because Yahtzee perceived a difficulty spike and talks about it. I take offense in him calling those who got past that spike "freaks". I'm pretty sure that save for a few exceptions, this simply isn't the case.
vorsuc said:
Thanks, you too
.