Casten, I am not confusing objectivity with awareness or anything else. Objectivity is not the truth. It is a means to pursue the truth. It is the absence of personal opinion and bias when analyzing parts to a problem. It is considering all points of view without interjecting your own point of view. That is what objectivity is.
This. I do not refer to objectivity as a philosophical concept, but rather a scientific one.
for real..... i dident read a single quest in this game???? WHY DO U PLAY????? Ive played chainmail back in the day. If u dont read anything whats the point in playing have u ever played tabletop d&d???? READ
This. I do not refer to objectivity as a philosophical concept, but rather a scientific one.
The scientific one is still dictated by the subjective methods of gathering the information. In other words, the statement, "They think A is better than B," is objective, because it's not stating "A is better that B" (which is subjective). It's stating that, "They think A is better than B." Data gathered will just be showing an objective analysis of subjective information. It doesn't make the analyzed information any less subjective. Your arguments have been presented in a fashion that's saying that because the presentation of the analysis is objective, the subjective information that was analyzed becomes objective. Which is not the case. The subjective information is still subjective, the objective analytic statement does not change that, because it is not complete, and hence cannot make the subjective information truly objective.
Casten, I am not confusing objectivity with awareness or anything else. Objectivity is not the truth. It is a means to pursue the truth. It is the absence of personal opinion and bias when analyzing parts to a problem. It is considering all points of view without interjecting your own point of view. That is what objectivity is. This is why scientific data is not considered relevant until it has been reviewed by peers. Collective subjectivity is your friends jumping off a bridge. Your mother is the objective one. She is not influenced by your friendly relationship with those that just plummeted to their doom. Listen to her.
Yup, the argument is definitely about semantics. You are currently arguing from the definition of, 'expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations' (which you weren't initially arguing from... you were initially arguing from the second definition I've been using in my arguments) I've been arguing from the definition of, 'existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions' and also with this definition, 'limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum," to show that objectivity in science is still subject to whatever subjective factors remain.
You have been arguing... what have you been arguing? Your points have not been coherently connected. I've been arguing that your view is incomplete. It is, because of the second definition I've been arguing from. In statistical analysis you can never be 100% objective, because statistics are continually expanding and changing, you can only reduce the subjective factors (caused by those expansions and changes) to a minimum through limiting it to a particular group of people, or a particular span of time, etc. It's still considered 'objective' (probably done out of linguistic simplicity), but it's still a flawed 'objectivity.'
BTW, your sentence "absense of personal opinion or bias" is immediately contradicted by the next sentence... If you consider all points of view, you're including the personal opinions of everyone... which is also known as bias.
Your example, also, is a poor one. If lack of one type of influence was the only thing necessary for objectivity, then friends would be just as objective for lacking the influence of my particular familial bonds.
The opinions of the friends and the mother are still subjective. Because if you were to consider the opinions of the parties in your example, then statistical analysis would side with the friends. That doesn't make it an objective truth. Just as with Newton's theory of gravity, or Galileo's heliocentric theory, consideration of all opinions does not always reveal an objective truth (as, in Galileo's case, not everyone will be willing to accept your observations as truth, immediately). The objective truth is that if you jump off a cliff, you'll hit the ground hard (and probably go splat). It is a truth, despite what your friends think and also despite what your mother thinks.
for real..... i dident read a single quest in this game???? WHY DO U PLAY????? Ive played chainmail back in the day. If u dont read anything whats the point in playing have u ever played tabletop d&d???? READ
What is the point of playing? To hit things with my massive sword, duh. You don't need to read to do that.
I did not read a single quest in Phantasy Star Online 2. Why not? I can't read Japanese! I seriously did not understand a single thing anyone said in that game, and yet I managed to hit level cap and get full 9*+10 armor modules and an assault rifle for my robo-loli. Honestly I would still be playing pso2 if stupid Sega corp. had not decided to reject US credit cards.
What is the point of playing? To hit things with my massive sword, duh. You don't need to read to do that.
I did not read a single quest in Phantasy Star Online 2. Why not? I can't read Japanese! I seriously did not understand a single thing anyone said in that game, and yet I managed to hit level cap and get full 9*+10 armor modules and an assault rifle for my robo-loli. Honestly I would still be playing pso2 if stupid Sega corp. had not decided to reject US credit cards.
It looks like a beautiful game... You gonna hit up the English version when it's released or just say screw it because of the loss of the previously gathered gear?
It looks like a beautiful game... You gonna hit up the English version when it's released or just say screw it because of the loss of the previously gathered gear?
Last I heard, the US release has been postponed indefinitely. Rumor was it will never be released in the US, like the last Phantasy Star title. Second, it plays a lot like neverwinter, but with guns.
Things that PS02 does better then NW : physics (for example can break parts off bosses, knock them down and run up their backs to hit weak spots on their head), cloth simulation/hair. PSE BURST!
Things that ps02 gets worse then NW : F2P model ( cant use most features unless you pay for terribad freemium subscription, lottery based cash shop means you cant buy costumes, but have to buy lottery tickets for random items with the chance to get the costume you want ). Gameplay (The difficulty in ps02 comes from time limits, not actual difficulty like in NW )
Sure it was fun, but I've decided that if I never play PS02 again that will be ok.
Last I heard, the US release has been postponed indefinitely. Rumor was it will never be released in the US, like the last Phantasy Star title. Second, it plays a lot like neverwinter, but with guns.
Things that PS02 does better then NW : physics (for example can break parts off bosses, knock them down and run up their backs to hit weak spots on their head), cloth simulation/hair. PSE BURST!
Things that ps02 gets worse then NW : F2P model ( cant use most features unless you pay for terribad freemium subscription, lottery based cash shop means you cant buy costumes, but have to buy lottery tickets for random items with the chance to get the costume you want ). Gameplay (The difficulty in ps02 comes from time limits, not actual difficulty like in NW )
Sure it was fun, but I've decided that if I never play PS02 again that will be ok.
Ugh... I hate that model. Boredom sets in extremely early for me in those types. And I think every game out there currently does cloth simulation better than NW (not really... just exaggeration for effect)... It annoys me to no end when my cloak gets stuck protruding my toon's stomach...
Blow that off and keep creating because YOU and the rest of the Foundry Builder Community are the game.
I think that the stereo-typical Hack/Slash/Grinder/PvPer/Raider MMO player will leave this game anyway.
I don't think this game is the type of game they want to play to begin with. The rewards to play Foundry quests suck so people who play Foundry quests are only doing it to get AD (grinder) or want to see your story.
The "show me story" people is the true audience for this game. The developers of this game know it because that is what DnD is to being with. I've been developing software for almost 20 years, trust me, the devs know and get pissed when what they create get's jacked by suits, which I believe happened to this game.
It's obvious, at least to me, that the rest of the "standard" MMO stuff is bolted on.
That is the suit sitting at his/her desk saying "sell more Zen!".
Here is the thing.....
The Foundry and the tools you get to create these quests are hands down the game.
Everything else which is standard/canned MMO stuff: PvP, PvE grind, instances, raids, tiered gear, multiple currencies, blah, blah....you can get with ANY MMO. Pick any one of those things and their is already a game which does it better than this game.
However, the ability to make quests/campaigns at the level of detail in this game is the singular, most innovative piece of functionality to come along in a MMO in a long time. Heck, I played EQ2 when it originally released for maybe 2 months, dropped it and went back in 2012 when you could build your own dungeons...and that is nothing compared what you have available here. Not even close...
Ironically, DnD invented the entire genre we all play and so many DnD video games suck. Very hard to pull off a DnD video game because the video game media is static which is not what DnD is to being with. It is a group of people creating content, telling stories, killing stuff, being a community at some level in the biggest "sandbox" available, your imagination.
Don't get me wrong....a ton of stuff is screwed up with this game.
The Foundry is not one of them. Other games are going to do this. It NEEDS to do it to advance this genre....or in some opinions, regress back to what this genre started out before WoW set this current standard of what a MMO should be...
The Foundry Builder Community is driving not just this game....you really are driving the MMO genre itself. And don't think the devs who created this don't think that as well.
KEEP CREATING, DON'T GET DISCOURAGED!
I should point out after this love fest manifesto I just wrote up...no, I don't work in this industry I have a software company doing contract work for large, boring companies. lol. We don't write video games but I know ground breaking innovations and again, Foundry is one of them....Heck, people STILL write modules for Neverwinter Nights...
0
lolsorhandMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 981Bounty Hunter
I'm not discouraged (spelling) by the ones I get, i'm discourgaged by the limitations the foundry has. Tell me then, how to solve those? I simply dislike using the same buildingblocks over and over again, which i've been forced to so far. It's just well, not fun to build different things using the same blocks over and over again. Especially when building a campaign as I am. (Part 3 easily reaching 9k details.)
If I may be Devil's advocate here: get over it. Nobody cares. It's not your fault, though. All blame lies solely on Cryptic.
Let's be honest here. Cryptic tried to steal the mass appeal NWN had with the Aurora Toolset and *FAILED* epically. The Foundry sucks in massive proportions. It's designed purely for hack-and-slash, which is the biggest problem. The loot drops are dismal, at best, the monsters completely limited, there's no illusions that the player can freely roam. It's wholly linear. You can't add resource nodes, you can't add your own chests, can't add vendors. To make matters worse, you get *ONE* chest at the end of the quest and within that chest is *ONE* item, 90% of the time being something you can't use. Cryptic intentionally crippled the Foundry to "prevent exploiting" (I won't go into the irony of such a move, considering the shoddy state the game, itself, is in), but do you even see them removing exploit Foundry quests? No, and even if they did, a dozen more would pop up where that one was removed, cost Foundry quests have absolutely *ZERO* quality control, except through the author. So tell me, what is the incentive to run a Foundry quest then?
4,000 Astral Diamonds.
That's it. That's the only incentive, which means people are going to grind through them as quickly as possible. They don't care about your "story", 'cos they already know it. They're *ALL* the same: Kill the mobs, grab the chest and rinse and repeat, til they get their Daily done. Why else would you do it? The drops are ****. The mobs are the same ones over and over again, 'cos Cryptic thought it "best" to limit what you could use. You know you're gonna have to go from point A to point B to point C, etc., so you hope the author made it as simple as possible, 'cos you don't have any other incentive to play their quest, except for the AD.
I've played a few foundry quests that were outright gems. Bill's Tavern, A Clash of Wills, Tired of Being A Hero come to mind. Each one of those authors I tipped, 'cos it wasn't your standard "slash through all the monsters, run through what seems a ridiculously long dungeon, for ONE item" and sadly, that's what most quests are, 'cos that's all they CAN be. Few, if any, have a decent story that draws you in and the ones that do are few and far between. Most people can't be bothered sort through the THOUSANDS of ****ty quests to find yours. Especially when the reviews say:
"Nice"
or
"This was awesome!"
or
"Stop smoking the weed."
I check the reviews of any Foundry quest I run, and 95% of the time, it's some lame, BS review. Hell, I've had to truncate my reviews, 'cos once again showing their infinite wisdom, Cryptic chose to limit the review text which is WHY you get such BS reviews. People don't have time for that. I've shredded authors for poor mechanics in their quests. Missing something that you HAD to find to further the quest, but overlooking it, simply 'cos they made it a ridiculously boring grind fest. Neverwinter Nights had the exact SAME problem, but at least it's toolset was worthwhile. This one, is not, which is why I haven't bothered to build any quests myself, as I feel it's a complete waste of MY time (and YOURS), 'cos Cryptic decided to go on the cheap with the Foundry. Maybe when Module 1 is released, we'll see an improvement, but honestly, I doubt it, given their track record. Tired of Being A Hero almost got a SCATHING review from me, simply 'cos I knocked a mob in the lava in the very beginning, but it wouldn't die, so I had to jump in the lava to kill it, only to find out I couldn't get out and had to teleport back to the Enclave. I was hoping it would let me start where I left off, but I had to start over from the beginning and it's a good thing I did, 'cos when I got to the "end boss", I was in a fit of laughter when I finished.
Most of the time when people do Foundry quests, they know the only thing they have to look forward to is that 4k in AD, plus that random drop that *MIGHT* be worth something. They just want to grind through the quest as quickly as possible. Even I am guilty of this and I will HAPPILY exploit the maps to throw mobs over cliffs, losing that paltry 20 cp and a possible item, if it sheds 10 minutes off my time, 'cos I know it's just more of the same, tired old ****, due to the limitations of the Foundry and imposed by Cryptic. That's *NOT* your fault, though, but crying about a ****ty review is rather childish, even if it "violates the TOS." Honestly, if some random "author" pm'ed me *****ing about my review, like you did, I'd probably block him, or run *EVERY* module they made and give it a poor review, just for the audacity to <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> and moan about my comments on something they did for *ME*. Don't kid yourself on that either. You made a module, 'cos you want the recognition of making it. You want the "5 stars." Fact is, this guy bruised your fragile ego and you couldn't hack it. You can't please everyone and if you seriously want to make quests that people will want to play over and over again, start *****ing at Cryptic to give you a DECENT tool to use to do so.
You are very wrong if you think Bill's Tavern doesn't have a "good story" xhrit, it may be a story that doesn't engage you at all, it may even be "lore breaking" (is there anything in this game that isn't in some way lore-breaking) but in terms of what Bill's Tavern is the story is excellent. It does just enough to set a plot, it provides a few places for the "hanck'n'slash" to engage with and progress the story, and it doesn't get bogged down in "fluff".
Now, some of us like "fluff", I'm one that does, but that doesn't mean I think all "non-fluff" stories are bad.
BTW: Wasn't it you that was arguing, in this thread, that the consensus of the masses determines what it good, what is meaningful, and Bill's Tavern is probably the most played, most 5 starred, and most tipped Foundry there is; so by that metric it is a "very good" story, so you are being contradictory yourself.
BTW: Wasn't it you that was arguing, in this thread, that the consensus of the masses determines what it good, what is meaningful, and Bill's Tavern is probably the most played, most 5 starred, and most tipped Foundry there is; so by that metric it is a "very good" story, so you are being contradictory yourself.
No, I am not being contradictory. There is a difference between a good quest and a good story. You do not need a good story to have a good quest. Sure it helps, but there are good hack and slash quests, as well as bad hack and slash quests. Just like there is good standup and bad standup, and good standup doesn't need a story at all.
I agree it is a 5 star quest, but not because of any story the quest may have. As you pointed out, the actual story in the quest is pretty thin, and only serves out just enough plot to advance the yuks.
First off, this is complete BS and you know it. You don't get to "pick" any Foundry quest for your daily. You get the ones that Cryptic decides are for Daily Foundry and they switch those out, every so often.
Do they?
As I understand there are quite simple criteria for a quest to become "Daily Eligible" and once that is achieved the only way to lose that eligibility is if the average run time drops below 15 minutes.
As I understand there are quite simple criteria for a quest to become "Daily Eligible" and once that is achieved the only way to lose that eligibility is if the average run time drops below 15 minutes.
All The Best
You never lose your daily eligibility, but your quest isn't always eligible. They rotate it, so people play more and more of the Foundry quests, which make sense. That way, more quests hit a larger target base.
0
lolsorhandMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 981Bounty Hunter
You never lose your daily eligibility, but your quest isn't always eligible. They rotate it, so people play more and more of the Foundry quests, which make sense. That way, more quests hit a larger target base.
No, it's 20 plays and 15 min or above, then it becomes a daily. The moment it goes below 15 min, the daily reward is forfeit by completing the quest.
I just had gotten my latest quest to qualify for the daily, but after some A-hole down-voted me twice in a "Review Trade" causing me to lose 0.25 adjusted rating points, I'll have to most likely withdraw, dupe, and republish. And edit my sig. Goddamned pricks.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
maerwinMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
I just had gotten my latest quest to qualify for the daily, but after some A-hole down-voted me twice in a "Review Trade" causing me to lose 0.25 adjusted rating points, I'll have to most likely withdraw, dupe, and republish. And edit my sig. Goddamned pricks.
TBH, I never ever looked at a quest and thought: "Oh, I would play this if it had 0.25 higher adjusted rating"
TBH, I never ever looked at a quest and thought: "Oh, I would play this if it had 0.25 higher adjusted rating"
The thing is, just losing 0.01 point can knock your quest down ten or twelve spots on the New list. 0.25 is a HUGE number when it comes to adjusted ratings, and quest visibility.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
cipher9nemoMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
The thing is, just losing 0.01 point can knock your quest down ten or twelve spots on the New list. 0.25 is a HUGE number when it comes to adjusted ratings, and quest visibility.
If you care about that then you care about public opinion in an MMO. That's not worth caring about. So long as the majority of players have enjoyed your quest, that's already mass appeal. As with the OP, I'd forget about the cruddy one-off reviews that aren't worth even a second glance. If you've been getting mostly good reviews and constructive feedback, then everything is fine.
The review process is out of the author's hands. There is not sense in lamenting over something we have no control over, and there is no point in trying to control something meant to allow the public to express their honest opinion over the work we've done.
All we can do is put out work we are willing to stand behind, adjust the work according to constructive criticism, ignore the negative criticism and let the work stand on its own.
For better or worse once I receive a significant amount of feedback and finish off a quest, as I feel I have with Mage Masher, I don't look back at it. I avoid the feedback altogether because I know it will negatively effect the next quest I work on.
We hope we instill our quests with a certain set of attributes that will give them some value, but eventually we need to just let them go and the quests have to survive on their own. There will always be people out there grateful of the work done, and there will always be people who dislike it for whatever reason. Don't sweat either.
Indeed. It won't make a difference in the long run.
If you care about that then you care about public opinion in an MMO. That's not worth caring about. So long as the majority of players have enjoyed your quest, that's already mass appeal. As with the OP, I'd forget about the cruddy one-off reviews that aren't worth even a second glance. If you've been getting mostly good reviews and constructive feedback, then everything is fine.
Thanks for the encouraging words. I'm not really a people-person, I tend to let my emotions get the best of me, and over-react to things. You're right though, I've gotten more five star ratings than all the others put together. So I shouldn't let it get me down.
... what is the incentive to run a Foundry quest then?
4,000 Astral Diamonds.
That's it. That's the only incentive...
Personally I couldn't care less about AD -- or the XP or final loot item. The incentive for me is the quest itself. Good stories, interesting settings, cool effects, challenging combat, fun puzzles, etc.
The review process is out of the author's hands. There is not sense in lamenting over something we have no control over, and there is no point in trying to control something meant to allow the public to express their honest opinion over the work we've done.
All we can do is put out work we are willing to stand behind, adjust the work according to constructive criticism, ignore the negative criticism and let the work stand on its own.
For better or worse once I receive a significant amount of feedback and finish off a quest, as I feel I have with Mage Masher, I don't look back at it. I avoid the feedback altogether because I know it will negatively effect the next quest I work on.
We hope we instill our quests with a certain set of attributes that will give them some value, but eventually we need to just let them go and the quests have to survive on their own. There will always be people out there grateful of the work done, and there will always be people who dislike it for whatever reason. Don't sweat either.
I used to have that same opinion. I am of a different opinion now though. Why should we tolerate the abuse? Their impact on your overall ratings may be minor, but their audacity should not be accepted. They should be held accountable for their actions. The system should be adjusted to either prevent this sort of behavior or discourage it through meaningful disciplinary action to those that would do something so despicable.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors. Video Preview
It is not abuse, it is paranoia. A lot of authors think other authors have it out for them, or Cryptic is keeping their quest from gaining popularity, that paranoia is turning into censorship because the general population is not giving them the feedback they want to hear.
Believe me, my quest recently exploded this last week with over 1000 reviews, roughly 200 a day. I have more 1 and 2 star reviews than most authors have ratings. Some of the comments left are outright mean. As the general public comes across the quest at whatever rate they do, the 1 and 2 star ratings are going to happen, it isn't abuse, it is there opinion, and they are going to like what they like and hate what they hate.
And even if some of my 1 or 2 stars came from jaded authors, it is just a drop in the bucket in the long run. Censorship is not the answer. A majority of authors start off their journey with review trades, which 90% of them are blatant fluff, so when the unfiltered criticism comes in it feels unnatural compared to what they would expect because of review trading.
It is not abuse, it is paranoia. A lot of authors think other authors have it out for them, or Cryptic is keeping their quest from gaining popularity, that paranoia is turning into censorship because the general population is not giving them the feedback they want to hear.
Believe me, my quest recently exploded this last week with over 1000 reviews, roughly 200 a day. I have more 1 and 2 star reviews than most authors have ratings. Some of the comments left are outright mean. As the general public comes across the quest at whatever rate they do, the 1 and 2 star ratings are going to happen, it isn't abuse, it is there opinion, and they are going to like what they like and hate what they hate.
And even if some of my 1 or 2 stars came from jaded authors, it is just a drop in the bucket in the long run. Censorship is not the answer. A majority of authors start off their journey with review trades, which 90% of them are blatant fluff, so when the unfiltered criticism comes in it feels unnatural compared to what they would expect because of review trading.
It is not paranoia. It is happening. I have seen the proof. The thread was closed for naming and shaming, but I saw it. Denying that it is going on at this point is foolish.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors. Video Preview
I used to have that same opinion. I am of a different opinion now though. Why should we tolerate the abuse? Their impact on your overall ratings may be minor, but their audacity should not be accepted. They should be held accountable for their actions. The system should be adjusted to either prevent this sort of behavior or discourage it through meaningful disciplinary action to those that would do something so despicable.
And what is so despicable about players, even other Authors, giving their opinions of Foundry content?
Who decided that an Author giving another Author's Foundry a 1 Star rating is abuse? I've seen no mention of such in any of the RoC I have read, so where did this idea come from that it is abuse?
Where does this sense of entitlement to be protected from views you don't like come from?
Has the world really become so sickeningly politically-correct and spineless that we all need protecting from something that will hurt our delicate sensibilities.
In a different part of my life, away from on-line games, I have a short story and a poem that have been published; the very first thing you learn once you have published anything at all is that it now belongs to "them" as much as it does to you, and they will be brutal in their condemnation if they don't like it.
If you can't live with that its best just not to publish at all.
Personally when it comes to such things I am with the Duke of Wellington.
It is not paranoia. It is happening. I have seen the proof. The thread was closed for naming and shaming, but I saw it. Denying that it is going on at this point is foolish.
Yeah it exists, and so does paranoia. The argument is in the ratios. I know exactly the sort of comment you’d label abusive (because you told me). Demanding a level of censorship normally reserved for police states is certainly one way to go, but I gotta’ tell you, I wouldn’t want to be part of a community where reviewers won’t be able award less than five stars unless they justify it in a 52 page essay and add a smiley face at the end of every sentence. Look how happy we are! *Looks nervously behind* Yep, happy, happy, happy!
Check out Adventuring College! A 20 minute male-centric comedic solo adventure.
Quest ID: NW-DPCZNUVQ7
Comments
This. I do not refer to objectivity as a philosophical concept, but rather a scientific one.
Sorry
I did not mean,
to blow your mind
But that **** happens to me,
all the time!
Feast of the Moon | Rising of the Dark | Shadow of the World | Everdark
*just has to giggle*
[SIGPIC]http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=98570189&dateline=1372572330[/SIGPIC]
NW-DCJV53UTU
[Open for play, link to spotlight thread]
Yup, the argument is definitely about semantics. You are currently arguing from the definition of, 'expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations' (which you weren't initially arguing from... you were initially arguing from the second definition I've been using in my arguments) I've been arguing from the definition of, 'existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions' and also with this definition, 'limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum," to show that objectivity in science is still subject to whatever subjective factors remain.
You have been arguing... what have you been arguing? Your points have not been coherently connected. I've been arguing that your view is incomplete. It is, because of the second definition I've been arguing from. In statistical analysis you can never be 100% objective, because statistics are continually expanding and changing, you can only reduce the subjective factors (caused by those expansions and changes) to a minimum through limiting it to a particular group of people, or a particular span of time, etc. It's still considered 'objective' (probably done out of linguistic simplicity), but it's still a flawed 'objectivity.'
BTW, your sentence "absense of personal opinion or bias" is immediately contradicted by the next sentence... If you consider all points of view, you're including the personal opinions of everyone... which is also known as bias.
Your example, also, is a poor one. If lack of one type of influence was the only thing necessary for objectivity, then friends would be just as objective for lacking the influence of my particular familial bonds.
The opinions of the friends and the mother are still subjective. Because if you were to consider the opinions of the parties in your example, then statistical analysis would side with the friends. That doesn't make it an objective truth. Just as with Newton's theory of gravity, or Galileo's heliocentric theory, consideration of all opinions does not always reveal an objective truth (as, in Galileo's case, not everyone will be willing to accept your observations as truth, immediately). The objective truth is that if you jump off a cliff, you'll hit the ground hard (and probably go splat). It is a truth, despite what your friends think and also despite what your mother thinks.
Prologue: Fort Neverember
NW-DL2RVQ54C
Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
NW-DHGEFBMGD
Okay Moriarty, Sherlock gives up. You win. I have to go raid now, have a good night.
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
What is the point of playing? To hit things with my massive sword, duh. You don't need to read to do that.
I did not read a single quest in Phantasy Star Online 2. Why not? I can't read Japanese! I seriously did not understand a single thing anyone said in that game, and yet I managed to hit level cap and get full 9*+10 armor modules and an assault rifle for my robo-loli. Honestly I would still be playing pso2 if stupid Sega corp. had not decided to reject US credit cards.
Feast of the Moon | Rising of the Dark | Shadow of the World | Everdark
It looks like a beautiful game... You gonna hit up the English version when it's released or just say screw it because of the loss of the previously gathered gear?
Prologue: Fort Neverember
NW-DL2RVQ54C
Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
NW-DHGEFBMGD
Last I heard, the US release has been postponed indefinitely. Rumor was it will never be released in the US, like the last Phantasy Star title. Second, it plays a lot like neverwinter, but with guns.
Things that PS02 does better then NW : physics (for example can break parts off bosses, knock them down and run up their backs to hit weak spots on their head), cloth simulation/hair. PSE BURST!
Things that ps02 gets worse then NW : F2P model ( cant use most features unless you pay for terribad freemium subscription, lottery based cash shop means you cant buy costumes, but have to buy lottery tickets for random items with the chance to get the costume you want ). Gameplay (The difficulty in ps02 comes from time limits, not actual difficulty like in NW )
Sure it was fun, but I've decided that if I never play PS02 again that will be ok.
Feast of the Moon | Rising of the Dark | Shadow of the World | Everdark
Ugh... I hate that model. Boredom sets in extremely early for me in those types. And I think every game out there currently does cloth simulation better than NW (not really... just exaggeration for effect)... It annoys me to no end when my cloak gets stuck protruding my toon's stomach...
Prologue: Fort Neverember
NW-DL2RVQ54C
Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
NW-DHGEFBMGD
I think that the stereo-typical Hack/Slash/Grinder/PvPer/Raider MMO player will leave this game anyway.
I don't think this game is the type of game they want to play to begin with. The rewards to play Foundry quests suck so people who play Foundry quests are only doing it to get AD (grinder) or want to see your story.
The "show me story" people is the true audience for this game. The developers of this game know it because that is what DnD is to being with. I've been developing software for almost 20 years, trust me, the devs know and get pissed when what they create get's jacked by suits, which I believe happened to this game.
It's obvious, at least to me, that the rest of the "standard" MMO stuff is bolted on.
That is the suit sitting at his/her desk saying "sell more Zen!".
Here is the thing.....
The Foundry and the tools you get to create these quests are hands down the game.
Everything else which is standard/canned MMO stuff: PvP, PvE grind, instances, raids, tiered gear, multiple currencies, blah, blah....you can get with ANY MMO. Pick any one of those things and their is already a game which does it better than this game.
However, the ability to make quests/campaigns at the level of detail in this game is the singular, most innovative piece of functionality to come along in a MMO in a long time. Heck, I played EQ2 when it originally released for maybe 2 months, dropped it and went back in 2012 when you could build your own dungeons...and that is nothing compared what you have available here. Not even close...
Ironically, DnD invented the entire genre we all play and so many DnD video games suck. Very hard to pull off a DnD video game because the video game media is static which is not what DnD is to being with. It is a group of people creating content, telling stories, killing stuff, being a community at some level in the biggest "sandbox" available, your imagination.
Don't get me wrong....a ton of stuff is screwed up with this game.
The Foundry is not one of them. Other games are going to do this. It NEEDS to do it to advance this genre....or in some opinions, regress back to what this genre started out before WoW set this current standard of what a MMO should be...
The Foundry Builder Community is driving not just this game....you really are driving the MMO genre itself. And don't think the devs who created this don't think that as well.
KEEP CREATING, DON'T GET DISCOURAGED!
I should point out after this love fest manifesto I just wrote up...no, I don't work in this industry
I'm not discouraged (spelling) by the ones I get, i'm discourgaged by the limitations the foundry has. Tell me then, how to solve those? I simply dislike using the same buildingblocks over and over again, which i've been forced to so far. It's just well, not fun to build different things using the same blocks over and over again. Especially when building a campaign as I am. (Part 3 easily reaching 9k details.)
Brethren of the Five, Campaign. - Story focused
The Dwarven Tale - Hack 'N Slash
If I may be Devil's advocate here: get over it. Nobody cares. It's not your fault, though. All blame lies solely on Cryptic.
Let's be honest here. Cryptic tried to steal the mass appeal NWN had with the Aurora Toolset and *FAILED* epically. The Foundry sucks in massive proportions. It's designed purely for hack-and-slash, which is the biggest problem. The loot drops are dismal, at best, the monsters completely limited, there's no illusions that the player can freely roam. It's wholly linear. You can't add resource nodes, you can't add your own chests, can't add vendors. To make matters worse, you get *ONE* chest at the end of the quest and within that chest is *ONE* item, 90% of the time being something you can't use. Cryptic intentionally crippled the Foundry to "prevent exploiting" (I won't go into the irony of such a move, considering the shoddy state the game, itself, is in), but do you even see them removing exploit Foundry quests? No, and even if they did, a dozen more would pop up where that one was removed, cost Foundry quests have absolutely *ZERO* quality control, except through the author. So tell me, what is the incentive to run a Foundry quest then?
4,000 Astral Diamonds.
That's it. That's the only incentive, which means people are going to grind through them as quickly as possible. They don't care about your "story", 'cos they already know it. They're *ALL* the same: Kill the mobs, grab the chest and rinse and repeat, til they get their Daily done. Why else would you do it? The drops are ****. The mobs are the same ones over and over again, 'cos Cryptic thought it "best" to limit what you could use. You know you're gonna have to go from point A to point B to point C, etc., so you hope the author made it as simple as possible, 'cos you don't have any other incentive to play their quest, except for the AD.
I've played a few foundry quests that were outright gems. Bill's Tavern, A Clash of Wills, Tired of Being A Hero come to mind. Each one of those authors I tipped, 'cos it wasn't your standard "slash through all the monsters, run through what seems a ridiculously long dungeon, for ONE item" and sadly, that's what most quests are, 'cos that's all they CAN be. Few, if any, have a decent story that draws you in and the ones that do are few and far between. Most people can't be bothered sort through the THOUSANDS of ****ty quests to find yours. Especially when the reviews say:
"Nice"
or
"This was awesome!"
or
"Stop smoking the weed."
I check the reviews of any Foundry quest I run, and 95% of the time, it's some lame, BS review. Hell, I've had to truncate my reviews, 'cos once again showing their infinite wisdom, Cryptic chose to limit the review text which is WHY you get such BS reviews. People don't have time for that. I've shredded authors for poor mechanics in their quests. Missing something that you HAD to find to further the quest, but overlooking it, simply 'cos they made it a ridiculously boring grind fest. Neverwinter Nights had the exact SAME problem, but at least it's toolset was worthwhile. This one, is not, which is why I haven't bothered to build any quests myself, as I feel it's a complete waste of MY time (and YOURS), 'cos Cryptic decided to go on the cheap with the Foundry. Maybe when Module 1 is released, we'll see an improvement, but honestly, I doubt it, given their track record. Tired of Being A Hero almost got a SCATHING review from me, simply 'cos I knocked a mob in the lava in the very beginning, but it wouldn't die, so I had to jump in the lava to kill it, only to find out I couldn't get out and had to teleport back to the Enclave. I was hoping it would let me start where I left off, but I had to start over from the beginning and it's a good thing I did, 'cos when I got to the "end boss", I was in a fit of laughter when I finished.
Most of the time when people do Foundry quests, they know the only thing they have to look forward to is that 4k in AD, plus that random drop that *MIGHT* be worth something. They just want to grind through the quest as quickly as possible. Even I am guilty of this and I will HAPPILY exploit the maps to throw mobs over cliffs, losing that paltry 20 cp and a possible item, if it sheds 10 minutes off my time, 'cos I know it's just more of the same, tired old ****, due to the limitations of the Foundry and imposed by Cryptic. That's *NOT* your fault, though, but crying about a ****ty review is rather childish, even if it "violates the TOS." Honestly, if some random "author" pm'ed me *****ing about my review, like you did, I'd probably block him, or run *EVERY* module they made and give it a poor review, just for the audacity to <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> and moan about my comments on something they did for *ME*. Don't kid yourself on that either. You made a module, 'cos you want the recognition of making it. You want the "5 stars." Fact is, this guy bruised your fragile ego and you couldn't hack it. You can't please everyone and if you seriously want to make quests that people will want to play over and over again, start *****ing at Cryptic to give you a DECENT tool to use to do so.
Just my 2p.
Now, some of us like "fluff", I'm one that does, but that doesn't mean I think all "non-fluff" stories are bad.
BTW: Wasn't it you that was arguing, in this thread, that the consensus of the masses determines what it good, what is meaningful, and Bill's Tavern is probably the most played, most 5 starred, and most tipped Foundry there is; so by that metric it is a "very good" story, so you are being contradictory yourself.
All The Best
Looking For Reviews For Your Foundry Quest?
Drop By Scribe's Enclave & Meet Up With Volunteer Reviewers.
No, I am not being contradictory. There is a difference between a good quest and a good story. You do not need a good story to have a good quest. Sure it helps, but there are good hack and slash quests, as well as bad hack and slash quests. Just like there is good standup and bad standup, and good standup doesn't need a story at all.
I agree it is a 5 star quest, but not because of any story the quest may have. As you pointed out, the actual story in the quest is pretty thin, and only serves out just enough plot to advance the yuks.
Feast of the Moon | Rising of the Dark | Shadow of the World | Everdark
Do they?
As I understand there are quite simple criteria for a quest to become "Daily Eligible" and once that is achieved the only way to lose that eligibility is if the average run time drops below 15 minutes.
All The Best
Looking For Reviews For Your Foundry Quest?
Drop By Scribe's Enclave & Meet Up With Volunteer Reviewers.
You never lose your daily eligibility, but your quest isn't always eligible. They rotate it, so people play more and more of the Foundry quests, which make sense. That way, more quests hit a larger target base.
No, it's 20 plays and 15 min or above, then it becomes a daily. The moment it goes below 15 min, the daily reward is forfeit by completing the quest.
Brethren of the Five, Campaign. - Story focused
The Dwarven Tale - Hack 'N Slash
NW-DMFGWPBN3 The Lost City - Review Thread
The thing is, just losing 0.01 point can knock your quest down ten or twelve spots on the New list. 0.25 is a HUGE number when it comes to adjusted ratings, and quest visibility.
Indeed. It won't make a difference in the long run.
If you care about that then you care about public opinion in an MMO. That's not worth caring about. So long as the majority of players have enjoyed your quest, that's already mass appeal. As with the OP, I'd forget about the cruddy one-off reviews that aren't worth even a second glance. If you've been getting mostly good reviews and constructive feedback, then everything is fine.
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
All we can do is put out work we are willing to stand behind, adjust the work according to constructive criticism, ignore the negative criticism and let the work stand on its own.
For better or worse once I receive a significant amount of feedback and finish off a quest, as I feel I have with Mage Masher, I don't look back at it. I avoid the feedback altogether because I know it will negatively effect the next quest I work on.
We hope we instill our quests with a certain set of attributes that will give them some value, but eventually we need to just let them go and the quests have to survive on their own. There will always be people out there grateful of the work done, and there will always be people who dislike it for whatever reason. Don't sweat either.
A short solo hack-n-slash: The Dirty Dwarf
Thanks for the encouraging words. I'm not really a people-person, I tend to let my emotions get the best of me, and over-react to things. You're right though, I've gotten more five star ratings than all the others put together. So I shouldn't let it get me down.
Personally I couldn't care less about AD -- or the XP or final loot item. The incentive for me is the quest itself. Good stories, interesting settings, cool effects, challenging combat, fun puzzles, etc.
Do you play pencil & paper D&D for the loot?
The Cursed Emerald:
I used to have that same opinion. I am of a different opinion now though. Why should we tolerate the abuse? Their impact on your overall ratings may be minor, but their audacity should not be accepted. They should be held accountable for their actions. The system should be adjusted to either prevent this sort of behavior or discourage it through meaningful disciplinary action to those that would do something so despicable.
NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors.
Video Preview
Believe me, my quest recently exploded this last week with over 1000 reviews, roughly 200 a day. I have more 1 and 2 star reviews than most authors have ratings. Some of the comments left are outright mean. As the general public comes across the quest at whatever rate they do, the 1 and 2 star ratings are going to happen, it isn't abuse, it is there opinion, and they are going to like what they like and hate what they hate.
And even if some of my 1 or 2 stars came from jaded authors, it is just a drop in the bucket in the long run. Censorship is not the answer. A majority of authors start off their journey with review trades, which 90% of them are blatant fluff, so when the unfiltered criticism comes in it feels unnatural compared to what they would expect because of review trading.
A short solo hack-n-slash: The Dirty Dwarf
It is not paranoia. It is happening. I have seen the proof. The thread was closed for naming and shaming, but I saw it. Denying that it is going on at this point is foolish.
NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors.
Video Preview
And what is so despicable about players, even other Authors, giving their opinions of Foundry content?
Who decided that an Author giving another Author's Foundry a 1 Star rating is abuse? I've seen no mention of such in any of the RoC I have read, so where did this idea come from that it is abuse?
Where does this sense of entitlement to be protected from views you don't like come from?
Has the world really become so sickeningly politically-correct and spineless that we all need protecting from something that will hurt our delicate sensibilities.
In a different part of my life, away from on-line games, I have a short story and a poem that have been published; the very first thing you learn once you have published anything at all is that it now belongs to "them" as much as it does to you, and they will be brutal in their condemnation if they don't like it.
If you can't live with that its best just not to publish at all.
Personally when it comes to such things I am with the Duke of Wellington.
All The Best
Looking For Reviews For Your Foundry Quest?
Drop By Scribe's Enclave & Meet Up With Volunteer Reviewers.
Yeah it exists, and so does paranoia. The argument is in the ratios. I know exactly the sort of comment you’d label abusive (because you told me). Demanding a level of censorship normally reserved for police states is certainly one way to go, but I gotta’ tell you, I wouldn’t want to be part of a community where reviewers won’t be able award less than five stars unless they justify it in a 52 page essay and add a smiley face at the end of every sentence.
Quest ID: NW-DPCZNUVQ7