Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Games, Reading/Writing, Surf, Snow, Sk8

Recent Profile Visitors

925 profile views
  1. Moving on, here's another example, again provided by one of my forum members: I am just posting it in the hope that it will keep the thread going and give a chance for more people to contribute examples. PS. For the fans, here is a screnshot of me: http://misc.insomnia.ac/random/icycalm.jpg
  2. I could not take computer games seriously enough. There is nothing more serious happening on this planet at this moment.
  3. Like the rest of the people who write about games, you have a problem with semantics. Here is the answer to your objection: There is a wealth of further explanations in this thread: http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?t=2362
  4. Of course it is. I always stick to reasoned analysis. As for the persecution complex and the pejoratives -- I enjoy them too much to drop them, sorry. I want to have nothing to do with so-called game academics. They have no clue what they are talking about, and my views could not possibly be more fiercely opposed to theirs. Again, the uneducated person's complaint. Citation is not something to be looked down on -- only a peasant would think that way. Without citations we'd still be hunting animals in the woods and living in caves for crying out loud. Jesus Christ with this inanity, already. The more "up to standards" I bring my articles the MORE backlash they generate -- not less. You are just confused on this, like Gillen in the other thread.
  5. I am not going to get into arguments about specific games in this thread, or vague debates about relative levels of intelligence. Every case is unique, and therefore deserves unique consideration, preferably in an extended review. Roughly though, what I mean by complexity is explained in this article, and is quantifiable by each game's possibility space. I have no doubt that when the appropriate tools become available for comparing possibility spaces, Civ Rev's will be shown to be much smaller than Civ IV's. Any sequel which has a smaller possibility space than the original game can therefore, by my definition, be labeled as "dumbed down". Whether this dumbing down is positive or not, again, is an issue that must be examined in each individual case. If we decide that it is positive, we could call the game "streamlined" or whatever, if we decide it is negative we'll keep calling it "dumbed down". SFIV, for example, from what I've been told by some top players, is a dumbed down game compared to SFIII. This means that, if their qualitative estimation is correct, IV's possibility space will one day be shown to be smaller than III's. Until that day, the only thing we have to go by is the qualitative opinions of top players.
  6. Yes, this is what the term "dumbing-down"means. A complex game is made less complex. You could put it that way. Simpler games are certainly more user-friendly, especially if the user is not very intelligent, and therefore can't handle the original game's complexity. The hardcore always exists. Not just in gaming -- in everything. George Orwell, for example, was a hardcore book lover. Pauline Kael a hardcore movie lover. Et cetera, et cetera. These people are not wiped off the face of the planet just because their object of passion has began to attract a wider interest. Yes, we all grew up. As for jobs: some people certainly got jobs. Others made a fortune in the stockmarket, or married into money, or turned to an easy life of crime, etc.
  7. Try telling that to the person who made that post. Even if I wrote an entire book on the subject he wouldn't be able to understand it. He says that "So, on one hand we have a mystery unsupported 'dumbing down' premise." even AFTER all those examples, many of which, if not entirely supportive of the "dumbing down" theory, at least partially support it. In the case of some examples (e.g. Civ Rev) there's not even any question -- even their designers agree that they are dumbed down. It doesn't matter who you are or what you are saying -- there will always be people incapable of grasping even the simplest points, and spewing back nonsense in response. As Wittgenstein said "Explanations come to an end somewhere." After that, dumb people are on their own.
  8. Because it's nonsensical babbling.
  9. I never changed the title. Several of the titles of my articles are different than the URLs. It's just an added message.
  10. That wouldn't work. I'd have to play them for months in order to be able to perceive the changes to the same extent that the experts will perceive them, and we are talking about at least a dozen games here. I am already acquainted with several examples from personal experience (BioWare's games, Civ, Deus Ex, and others), so I am only looking to bulk up my list here, even though this is not fundamentally important for the purposes of my article. I am just obsessing over the details here.
  11. Did you see me say that it is? All the examples posted in this thread can be challenged. I am not currently attempting to challenge them. Besides, how could I? I haven't even played half the games mentioned, and I have certainly not played the TF games, as noted, so I am not passing judgement on their suitability. I only want to amass as many of them as I can, then go away and think about them carefully, bringing them to the attention of other people I know, each of whom are experts in the games in question, before sitting down and picking the best examples to use for my article. This is getting kinda tiring. I made a perfectly specific and succinct OP, and people are trying to pull this thread in a billion directions. I think I'll just ignore whoever is not providing examples.
  12. Yeah, sorry. I only added it half-way through, after the flames began -- it wasn't there from the beginning. As for my username -- people mention this all the time. It's not that I AM icy calm -- it's that I would perhaps like to become that one day. Like, if my username was "Batman" no one would suppose that I was indeed Batman, etc.
  13. I am sure that you are about to give me a rigorous definition of "fun" now. Childishness aside, see the exchange earlier on between Matt0 and me about subjectiveness. He finds a Civ IV with fewer military units more fun -- I find it less fun. You find a simplified TF2 more fun -- the person I quoted finds it less fun. Et cetera et cetera.
  14. Yes, I do mind. You have trouble enough staying on topic as it is.
  15. lol, yes. It would be even more fascinating if I actually acted as if I was trying to make friends and influence people on an online message board. Amusingly enough, no one except me would find that fascinating. Which is even more fascinating! 7. See, I am smart for my age, something which certainly can't be said about several others posting in this thread. I did not ask this question because I already have the answer to it. I simply wanted more examples than I already have to back up the claims I'll be making in the article. The question is not flawed -- and you yourself have already admitted this. Because when you pose your alternative question: 'why are some companies seemingly simplifying their output/franchises?' you are presupposing that some of them do. Which is a correct presupposition, because the facts (see examples in this thread) back it up. But anyway, I repeat that I am not interested in having this thread's premise challenged. I am only interested in examples that back it up. Still, I cannot prevent anyone from straying off-topic, so if you feel you must debate between yourselves whether this process is actually happening, and if you don't feel like starting a new thread about it, I guess you might as well do it in here. Knock yourselves out.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.