42 replies to this topic

[GStick]

Subjects,
look at the Game Design forum and tell me the sorts of topics there, which would be transferable to a Sub-Forum for discussing commercial games.
That would be my basis for describing that half. I think that topics relating to psychology, how to draw players in to an experience, can really benefit from looking into commercial games which set the standards and which have high production costs.

Let's talk about Bioshock Infinite for example. What is this game doing to attract players to the experience? Is there something different in the art style? Perhaps more games will follow. Did the Wii console push developers to think of new ways to create immersive/cinematic experiences? Might these ideas have been borrowed by Xbox and PS3 developers, to try and extend the lifespan of the consoles?
When the value of the pure experience is so much greater than a general commodity, i.e Iphone games VS 3DS games, how will developers with great funding and power compete against eachother and draw new players in?
How does cloud computing affect the industry. If everything is built into the TV eventually, might sony stop producing games consoles? Which companies will suffer?

The other half may be more ambiguous. Media analysis would naturally look at so many media publications and surveys out there. Would we criticize the sources? Given that most articles online have comments sections below and that many game designers come here, it is logical.

So that's what I have. Basically I read a lot of stuff about game design, read a lot of articles, have read a few books. Of couse I don't like to be relied upon and I'm sure there are plenty of others, it's a popular interest.

It sounds like that fits right in with the regular Game Design forum and the Distributing Games forum. They already have their places.

The Games Discussion forum is basically for talking about games from a player point of view. You can already talk about all of the things you want to talk about, what more do you want?

Edited by GStick, 27 May 2012 - 10:29 PM.

[Yal]

The big disclaimer that tells you to read the rules in GIaD also reads "Here you develop your existing game ideas... or discuss more general game design topics" or something like that. I don't see why you can't discuss such things there. But be aware that I'll be watching you closely over there.

[=(:5/7A!I:)=]

Okay, the Game Design forum allows for general discussion. The distribution forum allows for a slight shift into other topics. If I could want more, it would be a different organization, as that is initially what this topic focused on. I explained my reasons and it has been debated amongst a few.
We all know that different subjects are to be discussed in different places, and that name-changes and rule/disciption/purpose tweaks (if you will) encourage other varieties of participants and contributions. While things, indeed, can be the way they are and things are just as- etc, that is rather like laying things to rest. I was trying to stimulate another kind of thinking.

Right, now I'd better be prepared for being watched. :s

[chance]

...name-changes and rule/disciption/purpose tweaks (if you will) encourage other varieties of participants and contributions.

True. But another way to encourage "other varieties" of contributions is by posting that variety yourself. So for example, if you posted an interesting discussion about the games industry and/or media analysis in the Games Discussion forum, other similar topics might follow.

And after all, that forum is specifically made for those kind of discussions. From the Games Discussion rules:

Suggested topics include:

...

-- industry trends and conferences

That's what you wanted to discuss, according to your OP.

[=(:5/7A!I:)=]

Hello again chance. Well I don't know how much more you can add to this discussion; it seems like everyone has said what they want to say.
In response to what you've just said, I can easily say that I'm not quite ready to encourage it. I feel that I am too opinionated to resist the opportunity to spread my own values. Even though I could do that, I think it would be rather obvious that I'm just a nasty piece of work with my own agenda.

Personally, I don't think my values are bad. The idea of asking for a change in structure to allow for my own sort of ideas, may be wrong.

I could have just merrily gone along with it and posted some non-biased stuff, but that's just not my style. It's a shame but I suppose it's part of my DNA or something.

To be perfectly honest I just want nintendo to trash microsoft and sony, which are just bloated corporations.
It's alright, I have the capacity to laugh at myself.

Edited by =(:5/7A!I:)=, 06 June 2012 - 07:59 AM.

[chance]

I feel that I am too opinionated to resist the opportunity to spread my own values.
...
I could have just merrily gone along with it and posted some non-biased stuff, but that's just not my style.
...
To be perfectly honest I just want nintendo to trash microsoft and sony, which are just bloated corporations.

Of course you're opinionated. We all are. But controversial subjects make the best discussions!

There's nothing wrong with stating your opinion, and then explaining why you hold that opinion. Then other members can agree, or give dissenting opinions to refute yours. That makes interesting discussion.

[=(:5/7A!I:)=]

I am still learning about contributing well, with my ideas. I said I am not ready and this is because I fall into the same trap that many others fall into. I do not think it would be easy to persuade anyone when I am so opinionated. I feel that the right ideas can be made wrong if not reasoned correctly.
I have decided that my ability to persuade is poor and that my desire for change is unsuitable. It is this basic tendency of wanting more and wanting change, that stops it from becoming a clear goal.

Uncertainty would not do my ideas any favours. Others are free to discuss useless ideas and it may even be interesting.
Just because I can explain why, it doesn't mean I know why I have come to that decision or what it really means. For others to then argue with me, would be useless.

Edited by =(:5/7A!I:)=, 09 June 2012 - 01:15 PM.

[makerofthegames]

I have decided that my ability to persuade is poor and that my desire for change is unsuitable. It is this basic tendency of wanting more and wanting change, that stops it from becoming a clear goal.

Wanting change? Most people around the internet hate change and scream whenever even the slightest thing changes, good change or not. See: Youtube, the GMC, Facebook, any online game. etc

[=(:5/7A!I:)=]

Wanting change? Most people around the internet hate change and scream whenever even the slightest thing changes, good change or not. See: Youtube, the GMC, Facebook, any online game. etc

Hi makerofthegames,

Facebook puts you by the side of relatives, friends, etc, and exposes you so you musn't say anything out of line. Change is not wanted on facebook.

I think that on the GMC people's opinions are quite varied and that changes do occur with people's attitudes and with the forum structure. I reserve the right to ask for change to (change) be done differently. With the reputation system, people tend to act as though they are bidding or trying to stand out.
Perhaps it is more difficult to make that generalization about the GMC.

I don't know as much about Youtube. What I know is that it appears as though there is a certain deal of diversity and madness going on, especially in the comments section. If I am honest, I think that the changes made to the layout is a bad decision.

Let's talk about change. Ok, most companies providing a service feel that it is well within their rights to change things around. How about Yahoo mail which eventually forces users to upgrade their accounts in order to view emails. How about changes to privacy policies? How about the Facebook timeline? How about IMVU with its updates and if you don't update after so long, you cannot use the program?

I will tell you how change can be a bad thing. It is when people are subscribed to something, and through peer pressure (or that sort of thing) they won't opt out when devious changes creep in to corner people's freedoms.

Perhaps change should be something that is inspired; something that empowers large groups of people. Usually I notice it is something that creeps in without notice and the mainstream doesn't usually think about the implications.

As for the real feelings people have toward changing things or having personal input: I would like to say that all people want to have some say in what goes on. People do want change but so many feel powerless and are pressured into conforming. Notice that when your average person does have an opinion it is usually quite ignorant, thus the basic desire for change in all of us is usually not advanced well enough for it to be of any worth; with less time to think things through as the overarching powers rule over us and force things to move forward at a disconcerting pace, sensible ways of thinking are not encouraged.

Now don't get me wrong. The people running this YoYo games thing, are probably quite decent people. I can already sense that as far as things go these forums are quite alright. Don't think I'm accusing anyone here of anything. More like, I'm perhaps just doing the usual thing I do... that is, it is better to be safe than sorry.

Edited by =(:5/7A!I:)=, 09 June 2012 - 05:23 PM.

[chance]

It is this basic tendency of wanting more and wanting change, that stops it from becoming a clear goal.

Wanting change? Most people around the internet hate change and scream whenever even the slightest thing changes...

He isn't asking for change, in that sense. Just the opposite. He's asking for Games Discussion (formerly called Games in General) to go back to a dedicated forum. In other words, undo the change.

I will tell you how change can be a bad thing. It is when people are subscribed to something, and through peer pressure (or that sort of thing) they won't opt out when devious changes creep in to corner people's freedoms.

I agree. But in this case, the staff didn't have an ulterior motive. They weren't trying to curtail anybody's freedom of discussion.

I think their rationale was simple: they created an Off-Topic section in preparation for the arrival of YYG forum members. So it seemed natural to group all the off topic forums together.

Alternatively, they could've created an entirely new category, and then put the Off Topic and Games Discussion forum under it, as separate forums. But either way's fine.

[makerofthegames]

He isn't asking for change, in that sense. Just the opposite. He's asking for Games Discussion (formerly called Games in General) to go back to a dedicated forum. In other words, undo the change.

But there's no quantitative difference! Subforum, regular forum, it's exactly the same area.
Unless I'm still not getting something. (really, the user's posts seem insanely vague and all over the place to me)

[=(:5/7A!I:)=]

But there's no quantitative difference! Subforum, regular forum, it's exactly the same area.
Unless I'm still not getting something. (really, the user's posts seem insanely vague and all over the place to me)

I have explored many possibilities which you have put forward your own argument against. You think that everything I have said has not accounted for the idea that there is no quantitative difference between a Subforum and a regular forum. Let's not forget that it is important to qualify things semantically. The purpose of Sub-Forums is not to save space, it is -to -reduce -the -importance -of. A sub-forum is a by-place; it is not the main focus.

Analogies are not vague, they are purely representative of logical relationships. Or so I think.
The analogy is this. People gather in set places, they give importance to different areas and through time will learn appropriate behaviour. It is important to keep these practices as a constant, rather than confuse priorities. This is an analogy to the structure of the GMC.


I don't think that being explorative and bringing awareness to certain ideas demonstrates poor comprehension and articulation. All it doesn't do is offer to you the substance that you are looking for, which is some kind of numerical logic that you are probably experienced with, so I would be happy to hear more about your side of the argument. Thanks.

Edited by =(:5/7A!I:)=, 10 June 2012 - 05:59 PM.

[makerofthegames]

I have no idea what you're saying.

[=(:5/7A!I:)=]

Well, we all have our doubts. I don't know what your stance is, so I'll just assume you won't provide any further input.

[chance]

I don't think that being explorative and bringing awareness to certain ideas demonstrates poor comprehension and articulation. All it doesn't do is offer to you the substance that you are looking for, which is some kind of numerical logic that you are probably experienced with...

Do you talk this way in normal life?

[=(:5/7A!I:)=]

I don't think that being explorative and bringing awareness to certain ideas demonstrates poor comprehension and articulation. All it doesn't do is offer to you the substance that you are looking for, which is some kind of numerical logic that you are probably experienced with...

Do you talk this way in normal life?

Writing on the internet let's people see posts and read them through over and over again. Writing is usually more complicated than normal speech, although that's not to say that my speech doesn't ever come across like my writing. My speech tends to be a bit slower and I don't have the luxury of spending time thinking of different responses or re-hearing other people's talking and then coming to a different decision. As far as I am concerned, this is perfectly normal.

[makerofthegames]

The correct response is "Yeah, sometimes."

[Yal]

Do you talk this way in normal life?

Writing on the internet let's people see posts and read them through over and over again...

The thing is, you don't answer the question. It's more like:

Do you like to eat apples?

Apart from being a popular brand of technological products, Apple is a fruit with high vitamin D contents. It's also fabled as it has appeared in many myths and legends, such as for instance in the story about how Newton discovered gravity when he was hit by an apple with positive vertical velocity.

[chance]

Do you talk this way in normal life?

Writing on the internet let's people see posts and read them through over and over again.

But reading them "over and over again" shouldn't be a requirement for understanding them. Sometimes people mistakenly believe their argument is strengthened by writing in a complex style -- when in fact, just the opposite is true.

Nevertheless, I understand your argument that "sub-forum status" of Game Discussion might reduce its usage. And you may be correct. Time will tell.

(+1 for Yal's excellent parody. )

[makerofthegames]

read them through over and over again.

But reading them "over and over again" shouldn't be a requirement for understanding them. Sometimes people mistakenly believe their argument is strengthened by writing in a complex style -- when in fact, just the opposite is true.

The simpler and clearer you can state your argument, the more likely people will understand your opinion.