1. Originally Posted by Zaboomafoozarg
I LOL'd - that's value in my book
Berzees a regular comedian. I remember the time he was earnestly trying to convince us he played FPS on some mythical daily 2 hour bus journey using a track pad. How we laughed.

As ever, bringing no added value.
Berzee's post seemed to make a respectable effort to add values.

3. Originally Posted by gwathdring
Berzee's post seemed to make a respectable effort to add values.
*Standing ovation*

4. Berzee's post was an old Mathematicians joke... 2 + 2 = 5 if the values of 2 are large enough, but truncated, and you're rounding up. 2.3 + 2.4 = 4.7, rounded up to 5, but 2.3 & 2.4 would both be rounded down to 2. Just because you didn't see any value in it, doesn't mean it was empty of value. And shit... there was a half page discussion of Ginger Beer preceding it, why wasn't that called out for having no value?

And, as for subjective logic... entire disciplines sprouting from Bayesian theory are based on subjectivity.

Edit: Also, bravo gwathdring.

From what I can gleam Bastion sold something like 2 Million copies, but RAGE based on PS3, 360 & retail (no DD figures) did around 1.5 million so probably overall unit sales were likely consistent taking into account DD & reduced sales.
Right but what were your completion stats based on for those? I assumed the Bastion ones were from Steam, where the game has been bundled on PC. I'd wage a huge number of Bastion's sales were in bundles on PC, compared to RAGE and DNF. And while we can't get accurate console states, but True Achievements lists 48%, with RAGE and DNF both at 45%.

But then how do you account for only 10% of gamer's finishing Read Dead Redemption? Most people know Rockstar's wheel house but very few people played it to completion. However around 30% completed GTA IV. Was having horses rather than cars that much of a turn off?
I don't know, how do you? I'd guess GTA fans picked it up as it was sold as GTA on horses, when it's really not?

So 2+2 does in fact equal 5?
In the realm of grade school arithmetic it equals four. When you devise an equally-straightforward algorithmic derivation of your investment moralizing you'll have me hook line & sinker (and you'll be rich beyond measure if you've any sense about you, but I implore you to share your derivation with me first).

Next you'll be telling us that you also buy tickets for films you have no intention of seeing just because you happen to like the director. If you can't see how propping up a venture that you have no actual investment in as an enterprise within itself is hollow patronage then in truth you're beyond any degree of meaningful engagement at this point.

In truth I get the impression that you're offended by the suggestion because it grates with your own actions, but so far you've not really presented a positive argument for propping up developers through what can best be described as pity purchasing. You're mistaking indie developers for big issue sellers. They're not comparable.
I have in fact bought tickets to films I wouldn't attend, but that's less to support the maker and more as a gift to people I like (although it ultimately serves both purposes). Something about the films made me think they were worthwhile purchases even though I had no interest in seeing them myself. That's a marketing success in some sense, yes?

You haven't presented a negative argument against charity anymore compelling than my defense that I buy unplayed games for emotional benefits and for whatever the "propped-up" devs might produce in future. You're essentially telling me that my charitable behavior is improper, to which I say: I blow my nose at you!

To that end, I get the impression that you're overconfident in your rhetorical puissance and/or trolling. But just to indulge you since you clearly asked for it: yes, your insightful deconstruction of my financial endeavors has induced crippling cognitive dissonance in my mind. You've made me realize that I must neatly and logically rationalize my monetary expenditures like a piece of accounting software, and I'm flailing wildly and basely in reaction because I don't know how to be GnuCash. You've done this to me; you've brought me low and made me shudder in existential horror at my incompetent profligacy. Pray, have mercy! Look into your heart. Help me manage my money. Teach me how to stop corrupting market signals with my erstwhile frivolous spending. Herr Weidmann, save me from myself!

Corporations don't operate on whims (because they have fiscal accountability). However Joe indie can. To view them as one and the same simply because 'duh people' is naive.
Actually, afaict ignoring accountability seems to be exactly what many corporate actors do (indeed, many of them are immune to accountability). Regards our US housing bubble: some loaners and traders indulged their greed and caprice (aka fiscal whims) and made a mockery of accountability by cooking up all manner of shitty debt vehicles. Then just to screw the plebs twice our government decided to mock accountability as well by bailing out those same loaners and traders because the web of crap debt they wove accounted for so much of the financial sector's assets that their rapid devaluation might've triggered a larger monetary collapse (hence the use of the phrase "too big to fail" when describing these shitmongering institutions).

So first financiers fleece the public with shit loans and bundle those into inscrutable instruments which are rapidly and emotionally traded and then the Fed buys up those crappy instruments when they threaten to break the dollar (i.e the Fed is using its ability to inflate the dollar to slowly absorb the devaluation of now-public crap assets rather than letting poorly-leveraged private financial corporations go bankrupt overnight). It's as if accountability and rules don't matter if you have the right opportunities (in this case, power and wealth, or in Introversion's case, lots of goodwill to exploit). As Mark Blyth would say, "[modern] democracy is asset insurance for the rich, and don't skim on the payments!" Capitalocracy, more like; revolving door, etc. Grumble grumble.

You're still apparently fixated on the notion that I must play a game in order for my purchase of it to be meaningful. Tralalala, sis-boom-ba, I disagree! Because you haven't put forth a compelling case.

Citizen Kane was a commercial flop, but no one in the film industry fails to acknowledge the impact of it upon the evolution of medium as a whole.
Yes, it had memetic popularity but not commercial popularity. Again, popularity can be a metric of success, I'm just saying it's not a clear or intrinsic metric of success, and that there are other metrics. In other words, contextual information (i.e. how we frame and support argumentation) is important in making claims of success.

I'm not an advocate of the 10% rule. However at the same time Bastion is not a long game: -

http://www.gamelengths.com/games/playtimes/Bastion/

If 26% of gamers can plough their way through Duke Nukem Forever or 37% through RAGE, neither of which were particularly well received critically then it does beg the question why the drop off for a title that won so much praise and plaudits.
The articles I listed went into that a bit, but yes, it's a very open question. fwiw I'm wary of comparing completion across games, especially in light of the GameFront piece. As with popularity, I don't think completion is a clear metric of success.

Bastion may be end up being the reverse of Citizen Kane, i.e. commercially successful but not particularly inspirational to (or memetically infectious of) creators or audiences. I doubt that, though. The Telltale guy on the Idle Thumbs podcast mentioned chatting with Amir Rao et al. (irrc) and he said he was inspired and impressed by their design ethos and by what they achieved with their team size and with the narrative structure of the game, so that's at least one working game-industry type directly influenced by Bastion. Ken Levine mentioned a similar impression in a chat he did with Guillermo del Toro.

In any case, as I said, that completion thing was your most compelling point thus far despite being super-vague, and it points to some stats which would be neat to have more granular insight into. I can only imagine the treasure trove of info Valve et al. are sitting on. Somebody should Watergate their books or something. With more competence, though, obviously.

That *would* be preposterous claim, but I was using a TrackBALL (the only external pointing device that is worth anything in deskless situations).

As ever, bringing no added value.
Old friend, this is the sharpest knife, and not least of all because it is SO TRUE. :(

Originally Posted by Tikey
*Standing ovation*
Seconded, but without standing (bad back, you know).

8. Originally Posted by Jambe
I have in fact bought tickets to films I wouldn't attend, but that's less to support the maker and more as a gift to people I like
Then they're not relevant to the discussion.

You haven't presented a negative argument against charity anymore compelling than my defense that I buy unplayed games for emotional benefits and for whatever the "propped-up" devs might produce in future. You're essentially telling me that my charitable behavior is improper, to which I say: I blow my nose at you!
Because it's not charity. These people aren't homeless, disadvantaged or disabled, they're self employed and they have skill sets. If their business fails because their product doesn't gain market traction, then that's unfortunate, but it's the risk they take, and it's a resultant of what they themselves do.

To that end, I get the impression that you're overconfident in your rhetorical puissance and/or trolling. But just to indulge you since you clearly asked for it: yes, your insightful deconstruction of my financial endeavors has induced crippling cognitive dissonance in my mind. You've made me realize that I must neatly and logically rationalize my monetary expenditures like a piece of accounting software, and I'm flailing wildly and basely in reaction because I don't know how to be GnuCash. You've done this to me; you've brought me low and made me shudder in existential horror at my incompetent profligacy. Pray, have mercy! Look into your heart. Help me manage my money. Teach me how to stop corrupting market signals with my erstwhile frivolous spending. Herr Weidmann, save me from myself!
Feel free to debase yourself further. I never bore of people doing that in truth.

Actually, afaict ignoring accountability seems to be exactly what many corporate actors do (indeed, many of them are immune to accountability). Regards our US housing bubble: some loaners and traders indulged their greed and caprice (aka fiscal whims) and made a mockery of accountability by cooking up all manner of shitty debt vehicles. Then just to screw the plebs twice our government decided to mock accountability as well by bailing out those same loaners and traders because the web of crap debt they wove accounted for so much of the financial sector's assets that their rapid devaluation might've triggered a larger monetary collapse (hence the use of the phrase "too big to fail" when describing these shitmongering institutions).

So first financiers fleece the public with shit loans and bundle those into inscrutable instruments which are rapidly and emotionally traded and then the Fed buys up those crappy instruments when they threaten to break the dollar (i.e the Fed is using its ability to inflate the dollar to slowly absorb the devaluation of now-public crap assets rather than letting poorly-leveraged private financial corporations go bankrupt overnight). It's as if accountability and rules don't matter if you have the right opportunities (in this case, power and wealth, or in Introversion's case, lots of goodwill to exploit). As Mark Blyth would say, "[modern] democracy is asset insurance for the rich, and don't skim on the payments!" Capitalocracy, more like; revolving door, etc. Grumble grumble.
Banks are different ballpark from game publishers.

You're still apparently fixated on the notion that I must play a game in order for my purchase of it to be meaningful. Tralalala, sis-boom-ba, I disagree! Because you haven't put forth a compelling case.
I've not said that at all. I've simply expressed the opinion that I don't think it's beneficial to buy products simply in order to prop up a developer. A good game will gain market traction off of it's proponents. For instance Telltales The Walking Dead gained sales momentum principally through positive world of mouth. After the disappointments of Jurassic Park and Back to the Future, things weren't exactly looking good for them and confidence was pretty low. However they made a compelling first episode and people got into it, and encourage their friends to give it a shot (They didn't get promotion from AMC, because the TV series is tied to to Activision's FPS). From nothing to game of the year, and principally off positive word of mouth.

Yes, it had memetic popularity but not commercial popularity. Again, popularity can be a metric of success, I'm just saying it's not a clear or intrinsic metric of success, and that there are other metrics. In other words, contextual information (i.e. how we frame and support argumentation) is important in making claims of success.
The conversation was never about success (that's something you've concocted). I'm not sure why you're continuing to try and angle that into the discussion. The original point was that the vast bulk of money coming into game development is that poured back into the industry by the publishers, and because they're essentially competing against each other that's where a lot of innovation occurs.

The articles I listed went into that a bit, but yes, it's a very open question. fwiw I'm wary of comparing completion across games, especially in light of the GameFront piece. As with popularity, I don't think completion is a clear metric of success.
The problem with the gamefront piece is they're all AAA titles. There's no broader metric.

Bastion may be end up being the reverse of Citizen Kane, i.e. commercially successful but not particularly inspirational to (or memetically infectious of) creators or audiences. I doubt that, though. The Telltale guy on the Idle Thumbs podcast mentioned chatting with Amir Rao et al. (irrc) and he said he was inspired and impressed by their design ethos and by what they achieved with their team size and with the narrative structure of the game, so that's at least one working game-industry type directly influenced by Bastion. Ken Levine mentioned a similar impression in a chat he did with Guillermo del Toro.
The narration idea is pretty interesting. I expect some people will pick up on that, however it's not something that you want to over use. I wouldn't be surprised to see SR4 feature something like it during one mission or some such.

In any case, as I said, that completion thing was your most compelling point thus far despite being super-vague, and it points to some stats which would be neat to have more granular insight into. I can only imagine the treasure trove of info Valve et al. are sitting on. Somebody should Watergate their books or something. With more competence, though, obviously.
The best salesmen any developer has is the hardcore fan of their product. If you make a good game, those evangelists will sell it for you. The entire reason Bioware pulled a Mea Culpa over the ME3 ending was simply because they knew they'd alienated their hardcore base and that losing the positive word of mouth for their products from those people was not something they could afford to lose in the long term.

Originally Posted by Berzee
That *would* be preposterous claim, but I was using a TrackBALL (the only external pointing device that is worth anything in deskless situations).
Yes of course you were Berzee.

Because it's not charity. These people aren't homeless, disadvantaged or disabled, they're self employed and they have skill sets. If their business fails because their product doesn't gain market traction, then that's unfortunate, but it's the risk they take, and it's a resultant of what they themselves do.
I think that construal of "charity" is overly narrow and I don't like that last clause with the word "resultant" (I think random luck is a big factor in much market traction), but the middle bit about failure seems alright.

Feel free to debase yourself further. I never bore of people doing that in truth.
I demand more psychoanalysis before another rant!

Banks are different ballpark from game publishers.
Publishers span the greed-to-generosity and principled-to-unethical gamuts just as bankers do.

I've not said that at all. I've simply expressed the opinion that I don't think it's beneficial to buy products simply in order to prop up a developer. A good game will gain market traction off of it's proponents. For instance Telltales The Walking Dead gained sales momentum principally through positive world of mouth. After the disappointments of Jurassic Park and Back to the Future, things weren't exactly looking good for them and confidence was pretty low. However they made a compelling first episode and people got into it, and encourage their friends to give it a shot (They didn't get promotion from AMC, because the TV series is tied to to Activision's FPS). From nothing to game of the year, and principally off positive word of mouth.
I don't think "a good game will gain market traction of its proponents" is always true. Sometimes, surely, but that's not a rule. As I've said before, markets are complex; consumers don't magically ensure that the wheat is separated from the chaff. Markets are inefficient because they're complicated by emotions and incomplete information. I buy your suggestion that WOM is five flavors of the shit, but can you cite identification of the mechanisms behind The Walking Dead's performance or is that just supposition?

The conversation was never about success (that's something you've concocted). I'm not sure why you're continuing to try and angle that into the discussion. The original point was that the vast bulk of money coming into game development is that poured back into the industry by the publishers, and because they're essentially competing against each other that's where a lot of innovation occurs.
OK, and? What's the takeaway supposed to be there? I don't have a vendetta against publishers.

The problem with the gamefront piece is they're all AAA titles. There's no broader metric.
True, but it's at least better than speculation (and I only looked into it for a few minutes).

The narration idea is pretty interesting. I expect some people will pick up on that, however it's not something that you want to over use. I wouldn't be surprised to see SR4 feature something like it during one mission or some such.
Yeah. There's surely more to be taken away from Bastion than the narration, though, especially if it introduces a youngin to the medium or hits a nascent developer at an especially impressionable time. That is its central gimmick, certainly.

The best salesmen any developer has is the hardcore fan of their product. If you make a good game, those evangelists will sell it for you. The entire reason Bioware pulled a Mea Culpa over the ME3 ending was simply because they knew they'd alienated their hardcore base and that losing the positive word of mouth for their products from those people was not something they could afford to lose in the long term.
I don't dispute that active fandom moves units but rather that it does so in a consistent or predictable enough fashion to use that as a metric of marketing success or failure. There's more going on.

10. Trackpads are for schmucks. I play my mobas and FPS games on my touchpad. Motherfuckers laugh at me for not using a mouse but we are all in the same ELO, so...

Demos forever.

11. 968888.jpg

Top that. Oh wait ... I just DID!

Leather-fetish-boot-stand-010.jpg

The only two ways I play games.

12. But if you want to game on the go, I recommend one of these:
51ug04ts3RL._SX385_.jpg.

13. Originally Posted by Jambe
I think that construal of "charity" is overly narrow and I don't like that last clause with the word "resultant" (I think random luck is a big factor in much market traction), but the middle bit about failure seems alright.
Call me a radical, but I'm a big fan of deploying a word as intended.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/charity?s=t

Also how is random luck a big factor? People buy a product because they're interested in it, not because DOG rolls a double 6 that day. If you decide to release your modest game the same day Blizzard release Starcraft 2, that's not bad luck. That's just you putting your head through the noose and kicking the chair away.

What about cult classics like BGaE & Mirrors Edge? Neither sold particularly well at release, but gained word of mouth momentum later on through discount sales. Principally people weren't prepared to throw down full price for them. I'd say the child like look of BG&E worked against it and Mirrors edge had known flaws.

I demand more psychoanalysis before another rant!

Publishers span the greed-to-generosity and principled-to-unethical gamuts just as bankers do.
Is that a statement or are you going to provide some actual evidence to back it up? You can get the quarterly results of most publishers to find out where the money goes.

I don't think "a good game will gain market traction off its proponents" is always true. Sometimes, surely, but that's not a rule.
When have you never not told friend(s) about that great game/film or TV series you've stumbled across? We share our enthusiasms.

As I've said before, markets are complex; consumers don't magically ensure that the wheat is separated from the chaff. Markets are inefficient because they're complicated by emotions and incomplete information. I buy your suggestion that WOM is five flavors of the shit, but can you cite identification of the mechanisms behind The Walking Dead's performance or is that just supposition?
Observation. The first episode people enjoyed, but it was the second episode where people started to begin talking about it in a positive fashion on forums and the like and the success ball started rolling from there.

I don't dispute that active fandom moves units but rather that it does so in a consistent or predictable enough fashion to use that as a metric of marketing success or failure. There's more going on.
What's the most likely audience for Mass Effect 4? Whose most likely to advocate it to others? Whose most likely to dismiss it?

Call me a radical, but I'm a big fan of deploying a word as intended.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/charity?s=t
Me too! We apparently differ in that I don't think there's some hard line between commercial interest and charitable interest. "Game developers aren't poor" isn't an insightful critique of my spending. Not all game developers are moneyed, and furthermore, even if some particular devs aren't poor, so what? The definition you listed clearly has the breadth to encompass my spending (beware of absolutism, I say again).

Also how is random luck a big factor? People buy a product because they're interested in it, not because DOG rolls a double 6 that day. If you decide to release your modest game the same day Blizzard release Starcraft 2, that's not bad luck. That's just you putting your head through the noose and kicking the chair away.

What about cult classics like BGaE & Mirrors Edge? Neither sold particularly well at release, but gained word of mouth momentum later on through discount sales. Principally people weren't prepared to throw down full price for them. I'd say the child like look of BG&E worked against it and Mirrors edge had known flaws.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/luck

Some writer at a popular website visits a forum, sees an obscure thread about a game in development, writes about it in a compelling manner and unleashes tens of thousands of hits on it. The "word of mouth" of which you speak can be based on luck, too, by the same mechanism of fortuitous happenstance cascading into traffic entirely among normal consumers.

I could ramble on and on, but the point is that instances of success don't neatly map to the intention and behavior of individual humans. You made a good/bad game, you're a good/bad businessperson, you're a good/bad marketer, you do/don't have access to the internet, etc – none of those things neatly reduce to individuals. I strongly object to the notion that success or "good games" or "good marketing" arise merely out of the intention and/or hard work of successful quantized individuals. That idea calls to mind Ayn Rand's narcissistic and hatefully fundamentalist oeuvre (among other things) and is imo corrosive of goodwill, honesty, and a basic respect of 1) the boundaries of human knowledge and 2) the nature of our absurd existence. Skill and dedicated effort are clearly extremely important, but they aren't the full picture of economic endeavors.

The second para there seems agreeable.

I guess? I like to think I retain childlike qualities. imo those who habitually associate positive connotations with words like "mature" and "adult" tend to be as boring as taupe hallways at best and stodgy and authoritarian at worst.

Is that a statement or are you going to provide some actual evidence to back it up? You can get the quarterly results of most publishers to find out where the money goes.
"Publishers" was used in reference to individual humans as with "bankers", just to be clear. Again, I don't consider these entities quanta. I don't think the accounting of a publisher is a straightforward way to tell where the entity as a whole would generally fall on those spectra, but by god, you're free to try making such a case yourself (I'm still waiting on your algorithmic derivation of "good investment", so perhaps you can assemble it from publishers' books). As for evidence:

I could ramble on, but publishers (either as quanta or as groups of individuals) are not innately Good anymore than they are innately Bad; on a case-by-case basis they lie somewhere between those abstract moralistic notions, and where they end up depends on how their behavior, ideology, etc sits vis-a-vis the worldviews and values of the judges.

When have you never not told friend(s) about that great game/film or TV series you've stumbled across? We share our enthusiasms.
I usually never not tell my friends about stuff I like, but infrequently I don't tell them about an enthusiasm because we don't share it (I wouldn't broach the subject of my favorite kink webcomic with some of my friends, and I probably wouldn't bring up the latest journal article on silvology with any of them, despite being quite enthused about both). But the point there was that something must happen for the game to have enthusiasts and the mechanisms by which that occurs are not clear-cut.

Observation. The first episode people enjoyed, but it was the second episode where people started to begin talking about it in a positive fashion on forums and the like and the success ball started rolling from there.
I'll take your word for it, but consider this: if they hadn't made the first episode would they have made the second? Was the second episode quantifiably different from the first such that we can say said difference was responsible for the increase in WOM?

What's the most likely audience for Mass Effect 4? Whose most likely to advocate it to others? Whose most likely to dismiss it?
You say this as if I'm a case to be convinced but you're preaching to the choir there. I don't dispute that WOM is ichor of the gods, I'm just saying that when reducing a market phenomenon in that manner one may be liable to overlook other phenomena (and thereby reduce oneself to watery moralism-via-generality that is mostly useless as a persuasive tool and rhetorically counterproductive when directed at person of my reductionist demeanor).

15. Originally Posted by Jambe
As for evidence:
You forgot that empty suit they hired to run THQ into the ground. What was his face? Jason Rubin?

16. Originally Posted by Nalano
You forgot that empty suit they hired to run THQ into the ground. What was his face? Jason Rubin?
Wasn't it kinda sunk before he got there? But yeah, I think Rubin was the one. The Naughty Dog guy.

17. Originally Posted by Jambe
Wasn't it kinda sunk before he got there? But yeah, I think Rubin was the one. The Naughty Dog guy.
That didn't stop him from hastening its departure what with attacking one of the only profitable IPs the publisher had left.

18. Originally Posted by Nalano
That didn't stop him from hastening its departure what with attacking one of the only profitable IPs the publisher had left.
That comment makes him seem like a humorless pedestrian dickweed and a piss-poor executive.

19. Originally Posted by Jambe
Me too! We apparently differ in that I don't think there's some hard line between commercial interest and charitable interest.
Charity is not a commercial exchange.

Some writer at a popular website visits a forum, sees an obscure thread about a game in development, writes about it in a compelling manner and unleashes tens of thousands of hits on it. The "word of mouth" of which you speak can be based on luck, too, by the same mechanism of fortuitous happenstance cascading into traffic entirely among normal consumers.
John Blow & Phil Fish weren't 'discovered'. They promoted themselves. That's how any indie developer gets attention. They don't just expect a Jim or john to somehow randomly stumble across some mention of their game somewhere on a forum.

I guess? I like to think I retain childlike qualities. imo those who habitually associate positive connotations with words like "mature" and "adult" tend to be as boring as taupe hallways at best and stodgy and authoritarian at worst.
Well you certainly are childish, that's abundantly clear.

"Publishers" was used in reference to individual humans as with "bankers", just to be clear. Again, I don't consider these entities quanta. I don't think the accounting of a publisher is a straightforward way to tell where the entity as a whole would generally fall on those spectra, but by god, you're free to try making such a case yourself (I'm still waiting on your algorithmic derivation of "good investment", so perhaps you can assemble it from publishers' books). As for evidence:

I could ramble on, but publishers (either as quanta or as groups of individuals) are not innately Good anymore than they are innately Bad; on a case-by-case basis they lie somewhere between those abstract moralistic notions, and where they end up depends on how their behavior, ideology, etc sits vis-a-vis the worldviews and values of the judges.
What exactly am I supposed to do with this list? Are there some self-evident truths to be derived from them? Or are you intending to provide some comprehensive breakdown for them as well? Also given you're now talking about a case by case basis, that seems at odds with your earlier generalizations.

I usually never not tell my friends about stuff I like, but infrequently I don't tell them about an enthusiasm because we don't share it (I wouldn't broach the subject of my favorite kink webcomic with some of my friends, and I probably wouldn't bring up the latest journal article on silvology with any of them, despite being quite enthused about both). But the point there was that something must happen for the game to have enthusiasts and the mechanisms by which that occurs are not clear-cut.
But you do share with the people who share those same enthusiasms yes? So what I said is entirely correct in that regard no? If you are playing a game you like, for instance an RPG you'll probably tell your other gaming friends who like RPGs about it.

I'll take your word for it, but consider this: if they hadn't made the first episode would they have made the second? Was the second episode quantifiably different from the first such that we can say said difference was responsible for the increase in WOM?
It's a five episode season with an over arching narrative running through it. They'd already mapped out the events in broad before they even started the game. You might as well ask whether The Two towers would of been better without The fellowship of the Ring.

Originally Posted by Jambe
That comment makes him seem like a humorless pedestrian dickweed and a piss-poor executive.
Well context is everything: -

http://www.polygon.com/gaming/2012/6...12-jason-rubin

Versus taking the Destructoid toerag spin on things.

Charity is not a commercial exchange
Again, I think that's an unnecessarily narrow (absolutist) construal of language. For fun:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commercial

See connotation 2? We can move from there to here:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/profit

And then ponder how that ties into my conception of charity.

John Blow & Phil Fish weren't 'discovered'. They promoted themselves. That's how any indie developer gets attention. They don't just expect a Jim or john to somehow randomly stumble across some mention of their game somewhere on a forum.
B and F are P-like so S-Z are P-like. Mmmm no. Some truth there, but that ain't no rule.

Well you certainly are childish, that's abundantly clear.
D'aw, I'm blushing over here! You didn't even notice m'crow's feet!

What exactly am I supposed to do with this list? Are there some self-evident truths to be derived from them? Or are you intending to provide some comprehensive breakdown for them as well? Also given you're now talking about a case by case basis, that seems at odds with your earlier generalizations.
It's the same thing you're doing but from the opposite angle. Also, afaict that bulleted list constitutes more cited suggestorization than you've done in this whole thread, yet (as you say) it's quite vague and incomplete. Here I thought I'd demonstrated that I'm incontrovertibly right just as you wtf-bombed me earlier with 1st grade arithmetic. You shot me down.

The point, again, is that if a priori reasoning is troublesome and incomplete when applying the most stripped and basal of abstract logic to the least dynamic test scenarios, then using weak, generalized, moralistic "logic" in offhand reference to highly-complex systems like human economies is probably even more troublesome.

But you do share with the people who share those same enthusiasms yes? So what I said is entirely correct in that regard no? If you are playing a game you like, for instance an RPG you'll probably tell your other gaming friends who like RPGs about it.
Yep! Alas, clearly not everyone is an RPG fan, so obviously something happens to introduce new people to new genres. Maybe it's WOM, maybe it's an advert, maybe it's some editorial, maybe a chance visit to a pub during a broadcast of a video game tournament, whatever.

It's a five episode season with an over arching narrative running through it. They'd already mapped out the events in broad before they even started the game. You might as well ask whether The Two towers would of been better without The fellowship of the Ring.
I'm trying to suggest that "better" is explicitly moralistic whereas "why" could be at least nominally empirical. Stats, for instance, would be nice. Or at least accounts from the makers/publishers involved. We should lobby Telltale.

Well context is everything: -

http://www.polygon.com/gaming/2012/6...12-jason-rubin

Versus taking the Destructoid toerag spin on things.
Yes, there are multiple ways to approach moralistic judgement. My preferred angle here:

Funny and childish. Just how I like it!

Page 6 of 8 First ... 45678 Last

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•