Inaccurately Accurate

[Mutsukki]

And misses in D&D are randomly generated through die-rolls but the chance of missing is just based on how fast you are and how good your armor is, so most "misses" are really just "glancing off of armor", and you can increase your ability to hit through skills and the like, it's not really a randomly generated number.

I think people have said here, in video game RPGs is not like that either, just a random number that makes you miss. Most RPGs have some sort of speed or agility stat, and that always influences your chance to avoid an attack or to hit one.

In Pokémon's case, while the actual speed stat doesn't help (I think, I'm not sure), it has move accuracy, something needed for it's balance, and they play a big part on the overall strategy of the game. They're not just "random", they all have reasons, that's why you get moves that increase hability or chance to do critical hits or whatever

[Butler]

If they simply renamed "miss" to "defended2 or "blocked" it would make more sense.

[Kriven]

that doesn't meaningfully change the argument at all

what is the problem with questioning the merit of a genre's tropes, exactly

it is perfectly possible for a genre in and of itself to be "bad" or lacking in quality, either because of the prevalence of negative or questionable tropes, or because the the things that define that genre are in and of themselves misguided

judge quality on a specific level, but don't delude yourself into thinking that "genre" is some kind of sacred umbrella that instantly negates criticism

Genre is simply too big of a label to really criticize. There are too many things that can fall under the label. It doesn't do any good to criticize a genre. You have to criticize things at a specific game-by-game. You can't say "Every single game would be better without a miss chance" because that's simply wrong. You could say "Pokemon could be better without a miss chance" and maybe be right, or "Why the fucking hell does Borderlands have a miss chance?"

But at a point where you want to change genre conventions, well, it's already been done. A new genre was named and labeled specifically because someone else warped the genre already. If you don't like the tropes that define a genre, don't participate in that genre.

[Gwen]

Genres are perfectly fine to criticize, for the most part, Deathcore as a musical genre is abysmal. There's like 3 or 4 bands from that genre who I think are even okay. Genres are not untouchable.

[PrettyNier]

Kriven, I don't think you're understanding the nature of the criticism here. Criticizing a genre at large does not mean criticizing every single game, or every single thing within that genre; it means criticizing the genre in and of itself as a larger, branching abstract concept. That there are exceptions does not undermine that, there are exceptions to nearly every rule.

If you don't like the tropes that define a genre, don't participate in that genre.

okay so clearly its not possible to have objective concerns with the design decisions or the very things that define what a genre is, and its Only Possible to either 'like' or 'dislike' them.

[Kriven]

objective concerns

There are none of these. There are no objective concerns. There are exclusively subjective ones. A world with objective concerns is a world with little variation in individual thought. Ants can have objective concerns within their colony, because they are essentially one single entity. Human beings cannot have objective concerns beyond survival. Media and entertainment is literally nothing but pure subjectivity, and so are the concerns it generates.

[SKELTON S. SKELETON]

kriven i'm just curious where you learned your highschool rhetoric dude, come on
"everything is subjective" you mean a broken convention that clearly defines certain aspects of a genre can't be questioned??

[PrettyNier]

you cant have subjectivity without objectivity
subjectivity is nothing but the internal perceptional response to objective stimuli; human beings are a species with a relatively consistent make-up, and the things that we think and feel are nothing but biological stimuli

which means

hey

there is an objective basis for everything we do and everything we like and dislike

subjective is only applicable when standards of quality are irrelevant. there is a difference between saying "I LIke this" AND "THIS IS good". furthermore the two are not mutually exclusive. just because something is good does not mean you have to like it or dislike it. the reverse is also true.

[Kriven]

"everything is subjective" you mean a broken convention that clearly defines certain aspects of a genre can't be questioned??

A convention being broken is subjective, not objective. Accuracy is not objectively a broken convention.

there is a difference between saying "I LIke this" AND "THIS IS good". furthermore the two are not mutually exclusive. just because something is good does not mean you have to like it or dislike it. the reverse is also true.

Quality and good are not objective in any way. These are things which have been decided by flawed human thoughts, and continue to skew other flawed human thoughts. There is no such thing as an objective "Good" there is only "Right for me."

Whenever anybody says anything is good or bad, it is nothing more than an opinion. There is no factual basis for any of it. There's a basis for whether or not something was well made, but for whether the end result is good or bad? No. There is no objectivity there.

[PrettyNier]

Okay, so poison is not objectively bad for the human body, and basic sustence is not objectively good. Right, okay. "Good for me" is quantifiable, both on the "subjective" level of what one decides they want (in which case, there is still going to be a slew of objective reasons for that) and what one intrinsically needs.

Flawed human thoughts? as opposed to what? Perfect thoughts? By whom?
Look, it is this simple: media, entertainment, art, these are all made for and by human beings, meant to appeal to human sensibilities. Our brains work in largely similar ways because, ultimately, we all have the blueprints for our brain. There are deviations, yes, but these are generally not major, and even when they are, there are objective reasons for them to be the way they are.

something is "good", in a qualitative sense, if it uses its own tools well to create a reaction with a human being. At this point you're probably to start going "but thats subjective!" at which point i'm going to have to remind you human beings are not subjective. certain things - absolutely - are going to be pleasing or displeasing to us based on their structure and our structure. this is a really, really gross simplification - as was the previous post.

get past high school philosophy class, man, you'll never grow up if you dont

[Kriven]

get past high school philosophy class, man, you'll never grow up if you dont

Thank you for enlightening me, Master. I'll try harder to narrow my opinions and burn what I don't like.

I've already addressed or stated everything in your post, and created the distinction between the subjectivity of art and the objectivity of survival (your poison nonsense falls here.) I've already addressed the distinction between subjective enjoyment of something "good" and something being well made "good." Keep arm-twisting, though.

Flawed human thoughts? as opposed to what? Perfect thoughts? By whom?

My point was that there are no perfect thoughts. At all. Anywhere. Which means that nothing in the realm of art and media is objectively good or bad.

[PrettyNier]

I'll try harder to narrow my opinions and burn what I don't like.

you're receding deeper and deeper into high school territory

there are plenty of things that I don't particularly care for but admit are, qualitatively, pretty good! they just don't quite strike my fancy.

Which means that nothing in the realm of art and media is objectively good or bad.

Objective doesn't mean perfect. It means "existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions". It means "undistorted by emotion or personal bias". It means "of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc".

That last one is important when we begin to realize that there is no meaningful distinction between external phenomena and internal phenomena.

By saying that there is nothing objective about quality in art, you are also saying that there cannot be subjectivity, either. Subjectivity is nothing but a reaction to objectivity.

You've stated what you believe is a difference, but you have not addressed the difference. You have yet to actually meaningfully counter an argument.

[Kriven]

Objective doesn't mean perfect. It means "existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions".

I know this. Which is why it doesn't exist in art. There is nothing independent of perception about a medium which is entirely based on perception. Art is a perception, and when you view art, you create a perception of someone else's perception. There is no objectivity.

By saying that there is nothing objective about quality in art, you are also saying that there cannot be subjectivity, either. Subjectivity is nothing but a reaction to objectivity.

This is false. Subjectivity and Objectivity are brittle conceptions without tangible basis. One can exist without the other just as much as a tree makes a noise with nobody around to hear it.

You've stated what you believe is a difference, but you have not addressed the difference.

I have. You simply refuse to acknowledge it.

You refuse to acknowledge a lot of my argument, actually. I dislike the selective reply game, Romney.

You have yet to actually meaningfully counter an argument.

I have. You've yet to bother to care. And I don't think you ever will. You're too busy sitting on your cloud of pseudo-intellectualism. Which has been growing thicker and thicker for a while now. It's funny, because you rarely show up here, and when you do it's literally to bludgeon somebody again and again with long winded phrases that amount to: "You're stupid because I have an opposing set of beliefs."

Which is honestly where we're at and why this argument will have no foreseeable end, and why you feel like I haven't made a counter argument. Our sets of beliefs, and oh trust me, this is a debate of belief, is so far opposite to each other that either we can't acknowledge them as legitimate, or we just don't even recognize the logic behind them.

The other problem is that you didn't come in with an attitude of debate. You came in hot and ready to lecture. That's not any way to have a meaningful conversation with anyone.

you're receding deeper and deeper into high school territory

You're ascending higher and higher on your horse. Don't forget that air gets thin!

[Previous]

Before anything escalates, I'd like to ask you two not to have this discussion here. For one, it's going off-topic and for the other, it starts to get personal. Feel free to throw around personal insults in private discussions, but please don't bring them to this board. Thank you.

[Kami]

Ontopic: This honestly depends on the game itself.

Not alot of things and mechanics in video games make much sense, TBH.