orodalfMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited July 2013
xhrit, I'm going to respond to you. Just let me go through all of your posts first, because I actually haven't said anything directly to you yet except "You're missing the point."
0
xhritMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Okay, I mostly agree with you, but you are insinuating that dyslexics can't read. I have several disabilities, including dyslexia, and I find that offensive. Talk about people who won't read, that's fine, but please don't insinuate that dyslexics can't read or refuse to read.
I would never insult anyone like that. I said "does not even bother", not "can't or refuses". I also was using dyslexia as a hypothetical example of only one reason why a person would not bother to read quest text; my list is not exclusive. I personally know several people who do not read quest text, for several different reasons, and none of them are dyslexia.
I have a Chinese friend who learned to speak English by listing to people talk on vent, but can not read English. I myself played Phantasy Star Online 2 on the Japanese servers until Sega decided to reject US credit card processing. In any case, I do not know Japanese, so I did not read the quest text. I learned enough katakana to know what the stats on gear and abilities were, but the quest text was all kanji and hiragana. I had no clue what any of the NPCS were saying in game... but that did not stop me from S ranking Quartz Dragon with my HU/RA Caseal.
orodalfMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited July 2013
So, after reviewing your posts, I think I know what you want to say. To summarize:
The most successful quest is the one that appeals to the masses. "The masses" in this case is in large part made up of individuals who won't bother with playing a quest for story. Therefore, a successful quest will appeal to these individuals, but also to the individuals who want story.
Therefore, everyone's criticism of every quest is valid. The review cited in the original post is a valid way to express "Your quest is not complete-able for the people who don't want to read the dialogue or think about puzzles at all!" and these people who don't want to read or think at all should have a say in the average rating of quests, as they are part of the masses.
Is this what you are trying to say, xhrit?
Note that I haven't stated a response yet, this is merely my attempt to understand your argument.
0
cipher9nemoMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited July 2013
Since this thread has become greater than the sum of its parts...
I have usually held to my own beliefs about successful UGC, not just in Neverwinter but certainly applicable here. For me it comes down to two paths.
1.) Mass appeal. You do what the majority prefers and you try to do it better than everyone else. This is always going to be an uphill battle. If you're talented, and can see the overall picture and pay attention to details at the same time. Then you have a decent chance at publishing successful UGC. But there is almost always going to be someone who's better at doing this than you.
~or~
2.) Something unique. If you have some different to offer, play to those strengths. It will help your UGC stand out from the crowd. Unfortunately, you're still going to have to appeal to the masses at some level. You'll want a baseline that will keep your unusual UGC from becoming too much of a sleeper or appealing to far too narrow of an audience. That's not an easy balance to strike, but it has certainly been done plenty of times in the past. I usually aim for this because I enjoy the process of creating the content much more than just doing what everyone else is doing. Because of that I still need to include things that will at least make the masses somewhat content in the long run.
orodalf, if you just made your quest merely for the enjoyment of the process itself and are not interested in having it succeed as UGC, then you might want to admit that now. There's nothing wrong with that at all. If you enjoyed creating it and want nothing more, that's fine. We can end the discussion and everyone's happy.
But if you care about reviews, as it appears your OP states, you'll want to choose some path to take to make successful UGC. If you just want to appeal to a very select audience, then expect those 1 ratings from the masses. There's nothing you can do to change that, and it's rather autocratic to demand a way to remove/report those ratings.
I personally don't see how your quest is something unique, and if you don't want to make quests just for the sake of the experience, then what are your goals? All I see left is how to have your quests appeal to a wider audience.
I fully understand critique is subjective. Critique is based on taste, and everyone's tastes are different. What you are failing to understand is that when you measure everyone's tastes as a whole and come up with a baseline, you can then use the advanced scientific field of Quantitative Research to in fact objectively measure the value of a product, not to an individual, but to culture itself. Within the whole there are certain tastes that are shared by a statistical majority.
This, at least to me, doesn't establish an objective truth. It merely establishes a baseline that, while more concrete because of an average concensus, is still, nevertheless, a subjective opinion. Because while one culture may find it absolutely fascinating, another may find it completely drab... or tragic... or over-dramatic. But that's all beside the point. To be objective, it has to be what it is despite any number of differing opinions or conditions. It is a quest (objective, because it's a quest whether it's good or bad). It is a quest made by orodalf (objective, whether good or bad, it's a quest made by orodalf) It doesn't fit popular culture (subjective, as its 'fitting' popular culture is subject{ding, ding, ding, root word} to what popular culture is at any given time). So, as someone else stated, there is no such thing as 'objectively' better or worse.
I would never insult anyone like that. I said "does not even bother", not "can't or refuses".
it still feels like an insult, only instead of "incapable of reading," the insinuation is that disabled people are lazy when it comes to something considered averse to their disability (i.e. reading for dyslexics, races for paraplegics in wheelchairs, etc.).
So, as someone else stated, there is no such thing as 'objectively' better or worse.
Objective reality is what exists independently of an individual's conceptions. The quest objectively exists. This is an indisputable Fact. Your conceptions about the quest are subjective, the quest itself is not.
This, at least to me, doesn't establish an objective truth. It merely establishes a baseline that, while more concrete because of an average concensus, is still, nevertheless, a subjective opinion. Because while one culture may find it absolutely fascinating, another may find it completely drab.
When you measure those two cultures together as a whole instead of separate, you get a new baseline. That baseline itself fits the definition of an objective datum. Sure the measurements can change, but that in no way invalidates the data. If you make that argument, it is like saying measurements of rainfall are not objective, because it might rain more later.
The most successful quest is the one that appeals to the masses. "The masses" in this case is in large part made up of individuals who won't bother with playing a quest for story. Therefore, a successful quest will appeal to these individuals, but also to the individuals who want story.
Therefore, everyone's criticism of every quest is valid. The review cited in the original post is a valid way to express "Your quest is not complete-able for the people who don't want to read the dialogue or think about puzzles at all!" and these people who don't want to read or think at all should have a say in the average rating of quests, as they are part of the masses.
Almost. I never said a large part, I said non zero portion. Other then that, yes. In order to be the most successful, a quest needs to be well rounded. Long dialogs and complex puzzles should ideally be optional, and award the player with shortcuts, lore, or extra loot. Even combat should be optional; players should be able to avoid or despawn most encounters. Official Cryptic content follows this pattern pretty closely.
For example in The Lair of the Pirate King, there are a series of gears and levelers in a wing of the dungeon far away from the sparkle path that open a secret room with an extra boss. Most of the normal mobs can be bypassed or avoided just by walking around them. And there is a resource node guarded by a magical ward that I have not figured out how to open yet. Maybe someday I will figure out that puzzle, but most groups don't even bother...
Ok Ill post what I was going to post. If you truly enjoy what you're doing. Just be Howard Roark from Ayn Rands, The Fountainhead.
Howard Roark is undoubtedly a hero from the very beginning of the novel. The traditional sense of a hero is a swashbuckling do- good-er, a brave knight in shining armor. However, Roark is more of an intellectual hero. He is uncompromising and selfish, two qualities that many view as negative, but in Rand’s philosophy make the difference between a man and a great man. His own opinion is the one he respects, and he is mostly indifferent to the opinions of others, not because he is close minded, but because he is armed with the simple knowledge that he is right.
Howard Roark is undoubtedly a hero from the very beginning of the novel. The traditional sense of a hero is a swashbuckling do- good-er, a brave knight in shining armor. However, Roark is more of an intellectual hero. He is uncompromising and selfish, two qualities that many view as negative, but in Rand’s philosophy make the difference between a man and a great man. His own opinion is the one he respects, and he is mostly indifferent to the opinions of others, not because he is close minded, but because he is armed with the simple knowledge that he is right.
Howard Roark is also a fictional character. A better example would be Howard Roark's creator, Ayn Rand herself. Ayn Rand, much like her hero, was uncompromising and selfish. Her own opinion was the only one she respected, and she was mostly indifferent to the opinions of others.
Unfortunately the simple knowledge that she is right did not prevent her from dying pennyless and on wellfare, because her fictional works were largely unsuccessful. What is more, is that she was a heavy smoker who refused to believe that smoking causes cancer. Not ironically, Miss Rand was a fatal victim of lung cancer.
That is a more realistic portrayal of the fate that befalls those unwilling to compromise.
To be objective, it has to be what it is despite any number of differing opinions or conditions. It is a quest (objective, because it's a quest whether it's good or bad). It is a quest made by orodalf (objective, whether good or bad, it's a quest made by orodalf) It doesn't fit popular culture (subjective, as its 'fitting' popular culture is subject{ding, ding, ding, root word} to what popular culture is at any given time).
It doesn't fit popular culture (subjective, as its 'fitting' popular culture is subject{ding, ding, ding, root word} to what popular culture is at any given time.
note: I super-sized the important parts that you seemed to have completely ignored.
Objective reality is what exists independently of an individual's conceptions. The quest objectively exists. This is an indisputable Fact. Your conceptions about the quest are subjective, the quest itself is not.
measurements of rainfall are not objective, because it might rain more later.
For the simple fact that time is a part of a persons conceptions, and measuring rain is done in a manner that is subject (there's that root word, again) to our conception of time.
Also, objective reality is not only what exists independently of an individual's conceptions, but what exists despite anybody's conceptions.
When you measure those two cultures together as a whole instead of separate, you get a new baseline. That baseline itself fits the definition of an objective datum.
Well, this is only objective concerning those two cultures. Meaning outside of those two cultures, the "objective" is shown as nothing more than subjective to those two cultures. You can add more and more and get more datum, but it is still subject to whatever is included. Hence, subjective. As a side note, this actually makes me understand the dislike that some of those of the hard sciences have with those of the soft sciences (and subsequently why they say the soft sciences aren't really sciences at all).
Granted you can call something objective within the scope of a conception (being an amount of time, the tastes of a particular group of people {averaged or otherwise}, etc.), but that doesn't make it any less subjective to those particular conceptions.
And, from what I've gathered of everything you've been saying, it seems to me that you're confusing the objectivity of descriptive sentences (i.e. I like rock and roll, he likes ice cream, they dislike watching movies) with the subjectivity of what it means to 'dis/like something'.
I am working with both aspects. (skip or read dialog).
In first part it is really linear and the dialog (except for ones that change the environment) can be totally bypassed. If you don't want to hear the story you can zippidy doo dah your way through it in the required (daily) 20 minutes..
The second one is a tad longer, primarily because it does advance the story. The hints are in the dialog as well as more lore. Kept them short, but dialog needs to be gone through to advance the quest. These will eventually be a campaign, and the story needs advancing.
However, people just do not read the dialog a lot. If it is too chunky I avoid it also, so...
There are some which have a dedicated story, and if I am asked to review it, even with massive dialog I will read it and check for typo's or misdirection. But normally, the massive walls of text get the bit bucket.
Not judging here. If I do not want to see a lot of dialog, I will avoid one that says it is Story Heavy. (but then that requires I READ the foundry main text to begin with heh heh).
Even so, I don't believe anyone reads ALL the text in foundries. But if it is kept short and to the point, it should get at least a rudimentary scanning.
As to PM'ing a one star. Up to you, but I wouldn't waste my time. The person gave his opinion and getting into a Tell war with them is not going to change anything.
If there was something to the bad review, analyze the quest and try to improve it. If there was not, then roll on. Not everyone is going to like your technique or method, and this has to be accepted.
.
the Book Binding series by @HarbingerDrum ----> Help Defeat Lolth's Minions
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Well, this is only objective concerning those two cultures. Meaning outside of those two cultures, the "objective" is shown as nothing more than subjective to those two cultures. You can add more and more and get more datum, but it is still subject to whatever is included. Hence, subjective.
So what you are saying is partial datasets are subjective? Umm, yeah that is the point. You need to include everything to get an accurate impartial view of a subject.
The statement "It doesn't fit popular culture" is subjective only because it is ill defined. If you elaborate with more data points you can clarify.
"It doesn't fit the popular culture amongst English speaking internet users in the early 21st century" is closer to being an impartial statement. This does not prevent the style of art from coming into favor in other periods, as has happened many times with artist's works. Just like rainfall averages for a given year are not invalidated if it rains more the next year.
Ayn Rand sold more books after her death then when she was alive. That does not change the fact that most critics during her lifetime viewed her fiction as tripe.
When you measure those two cultures together as a whole instead of separate, you get a new baseline. That baseline itself fits the definition of an objective datum.
No, it really doesn't.
A collection of multiple sources of "subjective" opinion is still subjective.
You are suggesting that "subjective" + "subjective" = "objective", and that "subjective" + "subjective" + "subjective" = "even more objective".
The way to move from "subjective" to "objective" is to add "objective" to "subjective"; adding more "subjective" simply does not do that.
Pretty much. That's why 'objectively better' is an impossibility. In the realm of objectivity, there is no 'good' or 'bad,' 'better' or 'worse.' There just 'is.' A thing either exists or it doesn't.
As for Ms. Rand, well, I find her work to be incredibly naive. Course, I can't say I'd give much credence to a person who considered a psychopath the epitome of humanity. Gory stuff, that, too. He kidnapped a rich mans daughter and, when the rich man paid the ransom, he got in the car, started to drive off and threw out a number of suitcases which contained the various body parts of the rich man's daughter. But, hey... he was doing it for his own furtherance, so that makes him a hero in her book.
I basically told OP to suck it up. Anything you put out to the public will be analyzed and criticized. And your responses were the exact outcome I expected to prove my point.
I basically told OP to suck it up. Anything you put out to the public will be analyzed and criticized. And your responses were the exact outcome I expected to prove my point.
To OP. Deal with it.
We know that, rollingonit. He was using those examples to show objectivity. Both of the last two sentences are objective, but what the critics 'felt' about her work is subjective. I was merely explaining to xhrit what my opinion of Rand was in response to his example... it was a side note, really. Not important to the discussion that he and I were having. The only thing that our exchange had to do with you was that you brought her up and that while it was still fresh in Xhrit's mind, he used it as an example... at least, that's what I'd gather from his inclusion of the example about rain, a thing which also happened to be present in the recent forum posts of this thread (by us, no less).
A collection of multiple sources of "subjective" opinion is still subjective.
You are suggesting that "subjective" + "subjective" = "objective", and that "subjective" + "subjective" + "subjective" = "even more objective".
The way to move from "subjective" to "objective" is to add "objective" to "subjective"; adding more "subjective" simply does not do that.
All The Best
Actually, that is exactly what objectivity is.
All subjectivity is, is one persons opinion.
Objectivity is looking at something and coming to a conclusion after considering many points of view without expressing any of your own opinions. Remaining objective means you don't let your own personal views enter the discussion. You only consider others subjective opinions. On those subjective opinions you come up with a conclusion.
So if persons A, B, and C, all look at something and give their personal opinions, all of their opinions could be considered subjective. Person D could use all previous subjective opinions and not his own to formulate an objective opinion.
so subjective + subjective + subjective=Objective is pretty close to being a good description. But a better way to describe it is coming to a conclusion without using your own opinions as the basis of that conclusion.
Edit: Remaining completely objective is really hard to do.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors. Video Preview
Objectivity is looking at something and coming to a conclusion after considering many points of view without expressing any of your own opinions. Remaining objective means you don't let your own personal views enter the discussion. You only consider others subjective opinions. On those subjective opinions you come up with a conclusion.
Mmmm, well none of my Philosophy Professors would recognise that as anything close to being a description of objectiveness, and I was fortunate to have some very good ones.
If something is "objectively true" then it is so regardless of the opinion of the observer, it was so prior to the existence of the observer, and remains so after the demise of the observer.
Thus "objective" can never be simply the sum of multiple subjective (derived from an observer) views.
so subjective + subjective + subjective=Objective is pretty close to being a good description. But a better way to describe it is coming to a conclusion without using your own opinions as the basis of that conclusion.
No it isn't, for the exact reason I outline above.
All that is is "subjectivity by consensus proxy".
That isn't objective in the least, because it relies on the accumulation of multiple subjective views.
Objective truths are true even if they are never observed.
They are independent not only of an individual observer, but also of all possible observers.
A judge in a court case tries to remain objective. He evaluates the subjective opinions of both the prosecution and the defense and considers only facts, logic, and laws when evaluating those opinions. That is as good as I can describe the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. To me, I can see the clear difference. Others have a hard time with it. They want so badly for their own personal opinions to be called "Objective". You can't state your personal opinion and claim objectivity. It is impossible. You can only evaluate others opinions with indisputable facts, laws, and logic. That is objectivity. As soon as you state a personal opinion, you are no longer being objective.
Some peoples opinions though are called "Expert Opinions" and those opinions are considered facts. This is why you commonly see people on the forums telling everyone their education level and job titles. They want their subjective opinions to be considered as facts. That rarely ever works though.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors. Video Preview
Thus "objective" can never be simply the sum of multiple subjective (derived from an observer) views.
Just for my own knowledge... Explain how there can be something that is objective without there being subjectivity?
Edit to add PS...
Here is my point. Which is a little hard to explain with words rather than visually. But here goes...
I place a "cup" in front of you and ask you what it is. You say "cup". I then say "No you are wrong. It is a bird.". We get into this long argument... Etc. Etc. What it boils down to is that "Cup" is a word used to describe the object in front of you. The objective opinion is that it is a "cup" because of the subjective opinion of others. Right?
Edit: PPS... In other words it is the Yin and Yang thing. You cannot have good without evil. You cannot have up without down. And you cannot have objective without subjective.
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
Just for my own knowledge... Explain how there can be something that is objective without there being subjectivity?
Edit to add PS...
Here is my point. Which is a little hard to explain with words rather than visually. But here goes...
I place a "cup" in front of you and ask you what it is. You say "cup". I then say "No you are wrong. It is a bird.". We get into this long argument... Etc. Etc. What it boils down to is that "Cup" is a word used to describe the object in front of you. The objective opinion is that it is a "cup" because of the subjective opinion of others. Right?
Edit: PPS... In other words it is the Yin and Yang thing. You cannot have good without evil. You cannot have up without down. And you cannot have objective without subjective.
That is a problem of the subjectivity of language, and thus thought.
The only objective part of that is that you placed an object in front of me. Whether the correct term for it is "cup", "bird" or "boomshallabang" is determined by the subjective processes of language and thought.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] The entire campaign can be found here:NWS-DQS27OINC
Individual quests:
1. Heeding the Call - NW-DMJCDZ5XJ
2. Bored of the Rings - NW-DFWE3XR6W
3. Draconian Ways - NW-DUNZEJG2J
4. When All is Said and Done... - Look at the picture
1) You said he "tries to remain objective", not that "he is objective", thus admitting that real objectivity is independent of the observer.
You see this is called a philosophical discussion. A judge is considered objective. It is the very nature of his job. Now you think that in order to be completely objective that things must be unobserved. That is impractical in many cases. Because objectivity is a philosophical concept, it is best defined with examples and not definitions. That is why I did not define it and went with an example. If you want to use a definition, go ahead. I am sure you will find one that matches exactly what you are trying to point out. Then I will give you a definition of objectivity that completely disputes yours.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors. Video Preview
That is impractical in many cases. Because objectivity is a philosophical concept, it is best defined with examples and not definitions. That is why I did not define it and went with an example. If you want to use a definition, go ahead. I am sure you will find one that matches exactly what you are trying to point out. Then I will give you a definition of objectivity that completely disputes yours.
That is like saying air is independent from lungs and therefore is not required for breathing. I just want you to think about that for a minute.
Air is independent from lungs, and fish don't need it to breath... and in fact, there are organisms on earth that don't even require oxygen to breath. This line of argument must be trolling. Why are you trolling ovaltine?
Air is independent from lungs, and fish don't need it to breath... and in fact, there are organisms on earth that don't even require oxygen to breath. This line of argument must be trolling. Why are you trolling ovaltine?
Fish don't have lungs and it is you who are trolling me. If you want to completely change the subject and I know you do because you are hostile like that. Humans don't breath air, no more than fish breath water. We both breath oxygen. I could go into a great long discussion that takes us way off topic about how some tropical fish come to the surface to extract oxygen from the air to breath, but that would be silly.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors. Video Preview
1) You said he "tries to remain objective", not that "he is objective", thus admitting that real objectivity is independent of the observer.
That is a problem of the subjectivity of language, and thus thought.
The only objective part of that is that you placed an object in front of me. Whether the correct term for it is "cup", "bird" or "boomshallabang" is determined by the subjective processes of language and thought.
The nomenclature of objects is purely subjective.
All The Best
But objectivity is thought. Right?
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
Fish don't have lungs and it is you who are trolling me.
Oh, a wee bit, mainly because I fail to see how your example even relates. The air will be there whether there are lungs to breath it or not. The existence of the lungs is not necessary for air to exist. So your example does nothing to support your argument. And on that same note, the existance of the lungs is not dependent upon the existance of air... If a body is lying dead in a vacuum sealed container that is also completely absent of air, the lungs are still there in the body despite the absence of air.
Comments
I would never insult anyone like that. I said "does not even bother", not "can't or refuses". I also was using dyslexia as a hypothetical example of only one reason why a person would not bother to read quest text; my list is not exclusive. I personally know several people who do not read quest text, for several different reasons, and none of them are dyslexia.
I have a Chinese friend who learned to speak English by listing to people talk on vent, but can not read English. I myself played Phantasy Star Online 2 on the Japanese servers until Sega decided to reject US credit card processing. In any case, I do not know Japanese, so I did not read the quest text. I learned enough katakana to know what the stats on gear and abilities were, but the quest text was all kanji and hiragana. I had no clue what any of the NPCS were saying in game... but that did not stop me from S ranking Quartz Dragon with my HU/RA Caseal.
Feast of the Moon | Rising of the Dark | Shadow of the World | Everdark
The most successful quest is the one that appeals to the masses. "The masses" in this case is in large part made up of individuals who won't bother with playing a quest for story. Therefore, a successful quest will appeal to these individuals, but also to the individuals who want story.
Therefore, everyone's criticism of every quest is valid. The review cited in the original post is a valid way to express "Your quest is not complete-able for the people who don't want to read the dialogue or think about puzzles at all!" and these people who don't want to read or think at all should have a say in the average rating of quests, as they are part of the masses.
Is this what you are trying to say, xhrit?
Note that I haven't stated a response yet, this is merely my attempt to understand your argument.
I have usually held to my own beliefs about successful UGC, not just in Neverwinter but certainly applicable here. For me it comes down to two paths.
1.) Mass appeal. You do what the majority prefers and you try to do it better than everyone else. This is always going to be an uphill battle. If you're talented, and can see the overall picture and pay attention to details at the same time. Then you have a decent chance at publishing successful UGC. But there is almost always going to be someone who's better at doing this than you.
~or~
2.) Something unique. If you have some different to offer, play to those strengths. It will help your UGC stand out from the crowd. Unfortunately, you're still going to have to appeal to the masses at some level. You'll want a baseline that will keep your unusual UGC from becoming too much of a sleeper or appealing to far too narrow of an audience. That's not an easy balance to strike, but it has certainly been done plenty of times in the past. I usually aim for this because I enjoy the process of creating the content much more than just doing what everyone else is doing. Because of that I still need to include things that will at least make the masses somewhat content in the long run.
orodalf, if you just made your quest merely for the enjoyment of the process itself and are not interested in having it succeed as UGC, then you might want to admit that now. There's nothing wrong with that at all. If you enjoyed creating it and want nothing more, that's fine. We can end the discussion and everyone's happy.
But if you care about reviews, as it appears your OP states, you'll want to choose some path to take to make successful UGC. If you just want to appeal to a very select audience, then expect those 1 ratings from the masses. There's nothing you can do to change that, and it's rather autocratic to demand a way to remove/report those ratings.
I personally don't see how your quest is something unique, and if you don't want to make quests just for the sake of the experience, then what are your goals? All I see left is how to have your quests appeal to a wider audience.
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
This, at least to me, doesn't establish an objective truth. It merely establishes a baseline that, while more concrete because of an average concensus, is still, nevertheless, a subjective opinion. Because while one culture may find it absolutely fascinating, another may find it completely drab... or tragic... or over-dramatic. But that's all beside the point. To be objective, it has to be what it is despite any number of differing opinions or conditions. It is a quest (objective, because it's a quest whether it's good or bad). It is a quest made by orodalf (objective, whether good or bad, it's a quest made by orodalf) It doesn't fit popular culture (subjective, as its 'fitting' popular culture is subject{ding, ding, ding, root word} to what popular culture is at any given time). So, as someone else stated, there is no such thing as 'objectively' better or worse.
And this? it still feels like an insult, only instead of "incapable of reading," the insinuation is that disabled people are lazy when it comes to something considered averse to their disability (i.e. reading for dyslexics, races for paraplegics in wheelchairs, etc.).
Prologue: Fort Neverember
NW-DL2RVQ54C
Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
NW-DHGEFBMGD
Objective reality is what exists independently of an individual's conceptions. The quest objectively exists. This is an indisputable Fact. Your conceptions about the quest are subjective, the quest itself is not.
When you measure those two cultures together as a whole instead of separate, you get a new baseline. That baseline itself fits the definition of an objective datum. Sure the measurements can change, but that in no way invalidates the data. If you make that argument, it is like saying measurements of rainfall are not objective, because it might rain more later.
Almost. I never said a large part, I said non zero portion. Other then that, yes. In order to be the most successful, a quest needs to be well rounded. Long dialogs and complex puzzles should ideally be optional, and award the player with shortcuts, lore, or extra loot. Even combat should be optional; players should be able to avoid or despawn most encounters. Official Cryptic content follows this pattern pretty closely.
For example in The Lair of the Pirate King, there are a series of gears and levelers in a wing of the dungeon far away from the sparkle path that open a secret room with an extra boss. Most of the normal mobs can be bypassed or avoided just by walking around them. And there is a resource node guarded by a magical ward that I have not figured out how to open yet. Maybe someday I will figure out that puzzle, but most groups don't even bother...
Feast of the Moon | Rising of the Dark | Shadow of the World | Everdark
Howard Roark is undoubtedly a hero from the very beginning of the novel. The traditional sense of a hero is a swashbuckling do- good-er, a brave knight in shining armor. However, Roark is more of an intellectual hero. He is uncompromising and selfish, two qualities that many view as negative, but in Rand’s philosophy make the difference between a man and a great man. His own opinion is the one he respects, and he is mostly indifferent to the opinions of others, not because he is close minded, but because he is armed with the simple knowledge that he is right.
And Stars/AD/feedback should be little concern.
Fox Stevenson - Sandblast
Oh Wonder - Without You
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
- Dylan Thomas
Howard Roark is also a fictional character. A better example would be Howard Roark's creator, Ayn Rand herself. Ayn Rand, much like her hero, was uncompromising and selfish. Her own opinion was the only one she respected, and she was mostly indifferent to the opinions of others.
Unfortunately the simple knowledge that she is right did not prevent her from dying pennyless and on wellfare, because her fictional works were largely unsuccessful. What is more, is that she was a heavy smoker who refused to believe that smoking causes cancer. Not ironically, Miss Rand was a fatal victim of lung cancer.
That is a more realistic portrayal of the fate that befalls those unwilling to compromise.
Feast of the Moon | Rising of the Dark | Shadow of the World | Everdark
He'll be happier this way.
Fox Stevenson - Sandblast
Oh Wonder - Without You
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
- Dylan Thomas
And this disputes, this... For the simple fact that time is a part of a persons conceptions, and measuring rain is done in a manner that is subject (there's that root word, again) to our conception of time.
Also, objective reality is not only what exists independently of an individual's conceptions, but what exists despite anybody's conceptions.
And this... Well, this is only objective concerning those two cultures. Meaning outside of those two cultures, the "objective" is shown as nothing more than subjective to those two cultures. You can add more and more and get more datum, but it is still subject to whatever is included. Hence, subjective. As a side note, this actually makes me understand the dislike that some of those of the hard sciences have with those of the soft sciences (and subsequently why they say the soft sciences aren't really sciences at all).
Granted you can call something objective within the scope of a conception (being an amount of time, the tastes of a particular group of people {averaged or otherwise}, etc.), but that doesn't make it any less subjective to those particular conceptions.
And, from what I've gathered of everything you've been saying, it seems to me that you're confusing the objectivity of descriptive sentences (i.e. I like rock and roll, he likes ice cream, they dislike watching movies) with the subjectivity of what it means to 'dis/like something'.
Prologue: Fort Neverember
NW-DL2RVQ54C
Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
NW-DHGEFBMGD
I am working with both aspects. (skip or read dialog).
In first part it is really linear and the dialog (except for ones that change the environment) can be totally bypassed. If you don't want to hear the story you can zippidy doo dah your way through it in the required (daily) 20 minutes..
The second one is a tad longer, primarily because it does advance the story. The hints are in the dialog as well as more lore. Kept them short, but dialog needs to be gone through to advance the quest. These will eventually be a campaign, and the story needs advancing.
However, people just do not read the dialog a lot. If it is too chunky I avoid it also, so...
There are some which have a dedicated story, and if I am asked to review it, even with massive dialog I will read it and check for typo's or misdirection. But normally, the massive walls of text get the bit bucket.
Not judging here. If I do not want to see a lot of dialog, I will avoid one that says it is Story Heavy. (but then that requires I READ the foundry main text to begin with heh heh).
Even so, I don't believe anyone reads ALL the text in foundries. But if it is kept short and to the point, it should get at least a rudimentary scanning.
As to PM'ing a one star. Up to you, but I wouldn't waste my time. The person gave his opinion and getting into a Tell war with them is not going to change anything.
If there was something to the bad review, analyze the quest and try to improve it. If there was not, then roll on. Not everyone is going to like your technique or method, and this has to be accepted.
.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
1- 20, 2- 35, 3- 18, 4- 20 min
Comments to -> the Book Binding
So what you are saying is partial datasets are subjective? Umm, yeah that is the point. You need to include everything to get an accurate impartial view of a subject.
The statement "It doesn't fit popular culture" is subjective only because it is ill defined. If you elaborate with more data points you can clarify.
"It doesn't fit the popular culture amongst English speaking internet users in the early 21st century" is closer to being an impartial statement. This does not prevent the style of art from coming into favor in other periods, as has happened many times with artist's works. Just like rainfall averages for a given year are not invalidated if it rains more the next year.
Ayn Rand sold more books after her death then when she was alive. That does not change the fact that most critics during her lifetime viewed her fiction as tripe.
Feast of the Moon | Rising of the Dark | Shadow of the World | Everdark
No, it really doesn't.
A collection of multiple sources of "subjective" opinion is still subjective.
You are suggesting that "subjective" + "subjective" = "objective", and that "subjective" + "subjective" + "subjective" = "even more objective".
The way to move from "subjective" to "objective" is to add "objective" to "subjective"; adding more "subjective" simply does not do that.
All The Best
Looking For Reviews For Your Foundry Quest?
Drop By Scribe's Enclave & Meet Up With Volunteer Reviewers.
As for Ms. Rand, well, I find her work to be incredibly naive. Course, I can't say I'd give much credence to a person who considered a psychopath the epitome of humanity. Gory stuff, that, too. He kidnapped a rich mans daughter and, when the rich man paid the ransom, he got in the car, started to drive off and threw out a number of suitcases which contained the various body parts of the rich man's daughter. But, hey... he was doing it for his own furtherance, so that makes him a hero in her book.
Prologue: Fort Neverember
NW-DL2RVQ54C
Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
NW-DHGEFBMGD
I basically told OP to suck it up. Anything you put out to the public will be analyzed and criticized. And your responses were the exact outcome I expected to prove my point.
To OP. Deal with it.
Fox Stevenson - Sandblast
Oh Wonder - Without You
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
- Dylan Thomas
We know that, rollingonit. He was using those examples to show objectivity. Both of the last two sentences are objective, but what the critics 'felt' about her work is subjective. I was merely explaining to xhrit what my opinion of Rand was in response to his example... it was a side note, really. Not important to the discussion that he and I were having. The only thing that our exchange had to do with you was that you brought her up and that while it was still fresh in Xhrit's mind, he used it as an example... at least, that's what I'd gather from his inclusion of the example about rain, a thing which also happened to be present in the recent forum posts of this thread (by us, no less).
Prologue: Fort Neverember
NW-DL2RVQ54C
Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
NW-DHGEFBMGD
Actually, that is exactly what objectivity is.
All subjectivity is, is one persons opinion.
Objectivity is looking at something and coming to a conclusion after considering many points of view without expressing any of your own opinions. Remaining objective means you don't let your own personal views enter the discussion. You only consider others subjective opinions. On those subjective opinions you come up with a conclusion.
So if persons A, B, and C, all look at something and give their personal opinions, all of their opinions could be considered subjective. Person D could use all previous subjective opinions and not his own to formulate an objective opinion.
so subjective + subjective + subjective=Objective is pretty close to being a good description. But a better way to describe it is coming to a conclusion without using your own opinions as the basis of that conclusion.
Edit: Remaining completely objective is really hard to do.
NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors.
Video Preview
Mmmm, well none of my Philosophy Professors would recognise that as anything close to being a description of objectiveness, and I was fortunate to have some very good ones.
If something is "objectively true" then it is so regardless of the opinion of the observer, it was so prior to the existence of the observer, and remains so after the demise of the observer.
Thus "objective" can never be simply the sum of multiple subjective (derived from an observer) views.
No it isn't, for the exact reason I outline above.
All that is is "subjectivity by consensus proxy".
That isn't objective in the least, because it relies on the accumulation of multiple subjective views.
Objective truths are true even if they are never observed.
They are independent not only of an individual observer, but also of all possible observers.
All The Best
Looking For Reviews For Your Foundry Quest?
Drop By Scribe's Enclave & Meet Up With Volunteer Reviewers.
Some peoples opinions though are called "Expert Opinions" and those opinions are considered facts. This is why you commonly see people on the forums telling everyone their education level and job titles. They want their subjective opinions to be considered as facts. That rarely ever works though.
NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors.
Video Preview
Just for my own knowledge... Explain how there can be something that is objective without there being subjectivity?
Edit to add PS...
Here is my point. Which is a little hard to explain with words rather than visually. But here goes...
I place a "cup" in front of you and ask you what it is. You say "cup". I then say "No you are wrong. It is a bird.". We get into this long argument... Etc. Etc. What it boils down to is that "Cup" is a word used to describe the object in front of you. The objective opinion is that it is a "cup" because of the subjective opinion of others. Right?
Edit: PPS... In other words it is the Yin and Yang thing. You cannot have good without evil. You cannot have up without down. And you cannot have objective without subjective.
Narayan
I refuse to have an opinion.
1) You said he "tries to remain objective", not that "he is objective", thus admitting that real objectivity is independent of the observer.
That is a problem of the subjectivity of language, and thus thought.
The only objective part of that is that you placed an object in front of me. Whether the correct term for it is "cup", "bird" or "boomshallabang" is determined by the subjective processes of language and thought.
The nomenclature of objects is purely subjective.
All The Best
Looking For Reviews For Your Foundry Quest?
Drop By Scribe's Enclave & Meet Up With Volunteer Reviewers.
The entire campaign can be found here: NWS-DQS27OINC
Individual quests:
1. Heeding the Call - NW-DMJCDZ5XJ
2. Bored of the Rings - NW-DFWE3XR6W
3. Draconian Ways - NW-DUNZEJG2J
4. When All is Said and Done... - Look at the picture
You see this is called a philosophical discussion. A judge is considered objective. It is the very nature of his job. Now you think that in order to be completely objective that things must be unobserved. That is impractical in many cases. Because objectivity is a philosophical concept, it is best defined with examples and not definitions. That is why I did not define it and went with an example. If you want to use a definition, go ahead. I am sure you will find one that matches exactly what you are trying to point out. Then I will give you a definition of objectivity that completely disputes yours.
NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors.
Video Preview
Why is a judge considered objective?
And by whom?
Why is it the "nature of his job"?
You are not implying the law is objective are you?
I never said that.
I said that something is objectively true independently of how it is observed and by whom?
Being "observed" doesn't invalidate objectivity, but neither is it required for objectivity.
But you gave a very poor example.
And that is where your argument failed.
All The Best
Looking For Reviews For Your Foundry Quest?
Drop By Scribe's Enclave & Meet Up With Volunteer Reviewers.
That is like saying air is independent from lungs and therefore is not required for breathing. I just want you to think about that for a minute.
NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors.
Video Preview
Prologue: Fort Neverember
NW-DL2RVQ54C
Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
NW-DHGEFBMGD
Fish don't have lungs and it is you who are trolling me. If you want to completely change the subject and I know you do because you are hostile like that. Humans don't breath air, no more than fish breath water. We both breath oxygen. I could go into a great long discussion that takes us way off topic about how some tropical fish come to the surface to extract oxygen from the air to breath, but that would be silly.
NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors.
Video Preview
But objectivity is thought. Right?
Narayan
Oh, a wee bit, mainly because I fail to see how your example even relates. The air will be there whether there are lungs to breath it or not. The existence of the lungs is not necessary for air to exist. So your example does nothing to support your argument. And on that same note, the existance of the lungs is not dependent upon the existance of air... If a body is lying dead in a vacuum sealed container that is also completely absent of air, the lungs are still there in the body despite the absence of air.
Prologue: Fort Neverember
NW-DL2RVQ54C
Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
NW-DHGEFBMGD