ooooo are you sure you want to use such a absolute word such as never before i post evidence to the contrary? I'm fine with this. I'm fine with being wrong. As I've stated before, I'll gladly rescind any statement in an attempt to make it right. I'll easily bow to a more thoroughly supported argument than my own. If I'm wrong I'm wrong. This rhetoric sounds familiar though. I think I used it when someone tried to make a factual statement about how I felt. I want to be humbled. I want there to be some real point I'm missing to the other side's argument I really do. I'm actually kind of disappointed that I didn't take that side as it's the much more difficult argument to defend. I picked the easy side. the following is a quote that i answered you stating marketing stratagem and why pleasing all crowds is a bad marketing plan, which you ignored you should recognize the quotes for you said them: You are in brown i am in green You can't, you'll have losses. I'm okay with these losses as an open game will be conducive to more people's interests as they'll be able to access it more. Yes and when you open your self up for more interests you can shut everyone out at the same time. It is just not smart marketing to try and target every demographic and expect to even please half of each demographic thus resulting in profit, that is just not realistic. "We got a rushed product, not a half assed one." It was half assed because it was rushed, but even still how do you define rushed seeing as Hiromichi Tanaka had 5 years to develop the game.. and a previous game under his belt. When you target to many demographics you are more apt to create a sloppy product. Simple marketing strategy you play to your strengths and you develop a product that has a target demographic not all demographics...
Cite your sources. Then we'll talk. You'll have to show that your Immersion v. Spatial Presence is not an idea of your own and support it with outside sources in order to persuasively make me think that immersion can be objective. I also already read it when you posted it the first time. I just didn't buy it.
I also said that mechanics can be immersion, not necessarily that they always are. Pong can be immersive, the mechanic of a dot being bounced back and forth is the catalyst for the consumer's imagination. The level of immersion in Pong is defined by the player. They could choose to focus solely on the manipulation of their "paddle" to make sure the ball stays in play. They could choose to play defensively or offensively (taking immersion a step further). They could utilize a mixture of both in order to confuse their opponent (even further). They could even pretend the match was table tennis (even further). They could roleplay as their favorite pro tennis athlete (even further). The last is common in youth sports. In childhood pickup games before going in for a lay up or a jump shot from beyond the three point line the player may shout the name of their most admired professional athlete in an attempt to emulate them.
"Jordan!"
I've shown, and many other posters have already shown, how a person's level of immersion is primarily chosen not given. I suggest you read Konachibi's posts. They accurately show how immersion is subjective. Game mechanics act as the catalyst for immersion. Immersion for immersion's sake is considerably less immersive than if it were to involve player input as well. as you can see in your post up till not you cherry picked your answers and then next post attempted to be little immersion once more.
and what does your analogy have to do with your view of subjective material which you state can be objectively scrutinized? [COLOR="red"]Now I've already admitted to my fault when asking you to cite your sources but you're gonna have to quote me on this one. Try using the whole post and highlighting the particular area. Changing the color or bolding it in this case is okay, just use it to highlight my point not yours. I can read yours just fine. Put it behind a spoiler text so it doesn't take up so much space. I've made a lot of analogies and it may not have applied to subjectivity or objectivity. This is why I ask for clarification. To pre-empt I think I know what you're talking about. This text will be put in blue. When I was referring to how my method allows people to "objectively scrutinize" my arguments, I was referring to how they have the available information that can be directly referenced. For example, they can objectively scrutinize my use of the Infinite Jest metaphor and use it as evidence when making a response. When it comes to matters of subjectivity, or my opinion, it's rather difficult to objectively scrutinize that for it belongs to myself. They can't say that I'm wrong for having a feeling. They can provide an well thought out argument to the contrary, but at the end they can't say that I'm wrong. I've don this a few times myself when I've said some thing along the lines as "That's as far from "wrong" as someone can be in an argument about opinion." Remind me to find the exact quote. Yet, they still can point at the information itself from an objective standpoint. They can claim it's a logical fallacy form an objective standpoint. They could claim it's disingenuous by providing examples that show that's the statement is disingenuous, but we don't disagree that matters of opinion and other "subjective" matters cannot be argued "objectively". This is what makes arguing on such topics so difficult, but logic is there to help find the "line of best fit" if you're familiar with mathematics. Rhetoric is used to persuade and doesn't always utilize logic in it's proceedings. please define rhetoric i was not a math major and i means differently in my field. if something is subjective and you state it can objectively be argued We already gone through what is and isn't subjective about immersion. I specifically remember that because I had to look up the word "nadir" as I was unfamiliar with it. I don't think I stated that subjective things can be objectively argued. explained below. "This is actually why I respond the way that I do. It leaves no room for subjugation and it is there for everyone to objectively scrutinize. Your statement is false. This is not a personal conversation whispered in hushed tones behind a lock door, this is a debate on a forum." again a quote from you which you stated, you have all ready stated that you think parts of immersion are subjective so with that logic any argument someone makes against said parts would thus make any argument to the contrary subjective to you yet you say we can objectively argue them thus contradicting yourself. then are you not stating that the term itself could be objective? Yes. There are aspects of immersion that can be objectively argued. Whether or not it exists or is present is one of them. Some aspects of immerison cannot be objectively argued i.e., the level to which someone is immersed, or this is more immersive than that. These aspects of immersion are subjective and are not worth sacrificing game mechanics (legitimate content) to implement. That's the premise I'm coming from. The premise the opposition is coming from is that travel in and of itself is worthwhile content, and I wholeheartedly disagree. It can be, and I've shown how it can be in my "Future Airship Content Ideas" thread, but that idea was the brain child of negotiation and consideration of the opposition. here is a quote of myself as to why the principles of progression are important (aka travel). "The Principle of progression is important because you want people to progress academically, socially and developmentally. Think of progression as growth, whether it be social, academic, physical, what have you. It also indicates adaptation to new situations, material, responsibilities and tasks, which are all important in developing a massive gaming community. Without progression we have idle minds that become stagnant which indicates lack of growth or regression. Of course im speaking of regression as a reversion to an earlier or less mature pattern of feeling, behavior, logic, and even overall psyche." Thus making your hostile posts (elegantly put posts might i add) Thank you but they only got hostile when the rhetoric got hostile or when someone was making the same logical fallacy despite being asked to cease. to the contrary just silly. Again, just matching rhetoric. again no display and no exaggeration in my post if that's what you mean by rhetoric. Maybe again I'm just not understanding your posts because of the tone the downside to matching rhetorical tone.again no rhetoric, rhetoric as i see it, but you really need to define rhetoric seeing as it carries many different meanings in the literary world. and your ambiguous word choices create. Understood. I've actually noticed this and was the reasoning for my admission to a particular misunderstanding. It could've been interpreted multiple ways and needed clarification. This is why I love Crica's posts so much. thank you, and stop bringing other people into your posts they don't need u and u don't need them, i have argued on the basis of individuals not you and 5 other people.
and trust me my posts are sincere Don't doubt this good because they are very sincere.and I'm not pretending to know less then i do (disingenuous)... I question this and my motivations stem particularly from the "cherry picking" condemnation in the post prior. The posting method I employ is to show precisely that I'm not cherry picking. It's not easy but I feel it's necessary as people often use this argument to sidestep points or to feint ignorance in order to press their agenda even further by pointing out things that don't actually pertain to the argument at hand (which most of this post does unfortunately but this is a response to a derail. I'll go wherever I'm called out. Nitpick away.) well my friend that's just semantics and subjective material. what you consider off topic depends on the reader.
P.S. you do i believe sincerely try to explain and discuss every point but attempting to claim you are something you are not (just short of a perfect debater with your word choice of "i never") I never made this claim. That I'm sure of. I know I'm not a perfect debater, but I think I put forth significantly more effort here to understand the opposition than anyone but that's a subjective opinion. my good friend you use never, and always (absolute terms) like its no big deal. i will quote a few: "You're just solidifying my point and this has been discussed thoroughly already. I never cherry pick. That's the entire reason I post the way I do. When I don't agree, I always back that up with supporting evidence directly juxtaposed to the sentence I'm referring to.
Your post is disingenuous at best. No snarkiness detected though.
I have to go grocery shopping.
I like to take the bus.
I like to bring a book with me when I take the bus so I have something to do.
The bus drivers and passengers are okay with this.
I also do not hear hushed whispers on the bus of those unsavory folk who choose to drive in cars. Nor does it ruin my enjoyment of the bus ride, the company I'm with, or the book I'm reading.
On the contrary, I do hear that of people who ride the bus from people who drive cars." as you can see there and then in my explanation at the beginning you do in fact cherry pick making the word never very untrue. Here is another quote: This is actually why I respond the way that I do. It leaves no room for subjugation and it is there for everyone to objectively scrutinize. Your statement is false. This is not a personal conversation whispered in hushed tones behind a lock door, this is a debate on a forum." again using absolute words like its nothing like you never make mistakes. You sir never said your perfect but you are certainly implying it. is just what gets on my nerves. You shouldn't let it as I've never claimed I'm a perfect debater. No but your implying it all the same. and this has happened more then once in our conversation, You'll have to point these out so I can correct the mistake. Pointed out for you to be truly humble you don't need other people to humble you but rather you humble yourself. I'm humble enough as is, but I'll welcome it when it arrives. as you can see in that very sentience focusing on this "I'm humble enough as is" that is the opposite of a humble comment that is what we call display.
Originally Posted by Konachibi
(0)
(0)
Reply With Quote
