Hi,
bin gestern auf der Suche nach Seiten zum Thema TBS-Spiele auf einen ganz interessanten Read gestossen den ich wert finde, hier gepostet zu werden.
Grade auch aus aktuellem Anlass der etwas "speziell gelaufenen" Diskussion zum Thema Chaining.
Gerade von den Punkten 1,2,5,9 und 10 war da in der Diskussion reichlich Gebrauch gemacht worden... 
Da mir das Thema Diskussionskultur offensichtlich am Herzen liegt und eine abstrahierte Betrachtung ja oftmals auch weiterhilft, eigene Fehler und Schwächen zu erkennen und im Idealfall abzustellen (schliesse mich da voll ein), hier der Text aus tbstactics.com.
In diesem Sinne, viel Spass beim Lesen und vielleicht sieht man sich ja mal bei einem Online-Scharmützel bei H6.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Common logical errors in video game discussion.
People make mistakes all the time when trying to discuss games. Here are some of the most common.
1. Trying to portray an opinion as a fact, or confusing opinions with facts. Opinions can never be facts. Applying subjective adjectives like fake, real, actually, artificial, etc. to objective, quantifiable terms like difficulty, balance, etc. is illogical and impossible. There can be no arbitrarily defined limit at which point difficulty suddenly becomes "real" or "true" because difficulty is a form of objective measurement based on a required amount and type of skill, thus any measurable amount of difficulty is a valid form of difficulty. If you don't like a certain skill requirement of a game (reflexes, timing, memorization, execution, spatial awareness, analysis, strategy formulation, etc.) then state your opinion clearly.
2. Ad homenim attacks that personally insult the poster instead of dealing with their arguments. Strawman attacks where an argument is distorted and misinterpreted to mean something far different from what the original poster intended. This caricature is then attacked as if it were the original argument. False dichotomy logic where a poster presents two extremes as the only available options. All of these are usually combined with failing to provide any quotes, evidence, or research to back up an argument while ignoring, cherry picking, and distorting any opposing arguments.
3. When discussing whether a game is balanced or what rules should be adjusted to increase its balance, failing to assume that both opponents in a hypothetical match up are equally skilled. The argument that a more skilled player could defeat a less skilled player with a weaker character choice is irrelevant. This is usually combined with cherry picking, making invalid arguments, and attempting to censor balance discussion, usually to preserve an unfair advantage.
4. Trying to measure a players skill using invalid criteria or methods. For example, games that allow time invested or money spent to equal an unfair in-game statistical advantage against newer players. It's difficult or impossible to compare player skill levels in such games because the playing field can often become grossly uneven.
5. Trying to justify one wrong with another wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right, and revenge is not a valid reason to justify your actions. No, a class being nerfed or buffed is not an excuse for another class to be nerfed or buffed. Comparing an imbalanced game to an even less balanced game does not justify either game being imbalanced.
6. Trying to portray a group of people as hypocrites by pretending they are all the same person giving conflicting opinions, despite being made up of a variety of people with differing opinions. Or trying to claim a gaming community "complains about everything", despite being made up of a variety of people with differing opinions.
7. Rating a game poorly because it doesn't fit a preconceived notion of a game genre or other game categorization. A game does not have to fit neatly into any genre category, it should be judged based on its merits and rules. Similarly, arguments about the definition of game genres is usually pointless, as there is no official reference or definition, nor can you claim your definition is a fact.
8. Complaining about a games difficulty being too difficult for you after choosing a difficulty level other than the easiest one. There is no standard definition for what constitutes 'easy', 'normal', and 'hard'. Choosing 'normal' out of pride or preconceptions then complaining that it's not 'normal' enough for you is illogical. Adjust the difficulty instead.
9. Ascribing motivations or intentions to game developers without proof. More than likely you don't know what was going through their heads.
10. Failing to take into account that video game companies are businesses that exist to make the most money possible in the least amount of time. Blaming marketing when your favorite niche genre game fails. Marketing and advertising is the oft flogged whipping boy used as an excuse when a niche game fails, even though it would have made little to no difference if it were advertised, and probably would have made the publisher even less money due to the cost of advertising. Niche games are unpopular because most people don't like them, not because they aren't being plastered in ads all over the internet and TV.
11. Failing to recognize that players of different skill levels besides themselves exist, and that they may have different experiences or opinions. Frequently happens in reviews when the writer assumes every gamer on the planet has the same skill level as them, and thus will all have the same experience. This goes hand in hand with claims that a game "forces" them to level or stat grind, when in truth no grinding is required and they are simply not skilled enough to do so. Similar to inexperienced, poorly skilled gamers refusing to acknowledge that someone might be more skilled and experienced than them and thus have greater insight, knowledge, and better strategies than them.
12. Claiming that a game is 'flawed' because there is no optional grinding to save you if you play poorly. This is a common feature in highly regarded SRPGs such as Fire Emblem and Super Robot Wars. The only flaw is with the players poor strategy, who is upset that they might have to replay the game while utilizing more skill. Claiming that a game is 'flawed' because something unexpected happened and forced you to restart a mission. Games are meant to be replayed (outside of unusual indie titles). It's a normal part of the game play process for the player to restart levels until they have enough execution and memorization to clear it. The amount of memorization required is dependent on the players skill level as well as how random or predictable the game events are.
Posted by Matthew Emirzian (mjemirzian) at 11:38 PM 2 comments
