|
Andrast posted:You really shouldn't use a single study and apply the result to everybody like that (or apply it at all). People are different and react to things differently. Obviously it's going to vary from person to person but "I know a few of the important things about this so I'm not even going to try it for myself" is a pretty crappy line of thinking. Is there really anything to gain from being so defeatist about it like that?
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:53 |
|
|
CJacobs posted:Obviously it's going to vary from person to person but "I know a few of the important things about this so I'm not even going to try it for myself" is a pretty crappy line of thinking. Is there really anything to gain from being so defeatist about it like that? It's more that 99% of all journalism about science is garbage (even more than journalism usually is). If an article says "A new study tells us that X" there is a really big chance that the study doesn't say that and might even actually say the opposite. Even if an article is accurate about the results of a study, the study probably isn't conclusive in any way and needs about a hundred more similar studies before it's actually considered relevant in any way. I'm not disagreeing with your opinion about spoilers by the way. Andrast fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Baal posted:Yeah, I generally don't agree with posting articles and studies on that since it's something you can't necessarily prove only give personal experiences for. People respond to things in their own unique ways and have their own personal feelings. Now, I can't acknowledge that because it would mean I would have to recognize Internet people as actual people when in reality they're all just things I made up for my own personal amusement. i am pretty amusing *spins bowtie*
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
I don't know what to tell you guys. It's just a mindset knowing "Well, I am going to get one of three outcomes" really takes me out of the experience and makes me aware I'm playing a game instead of letting myself get swept up in the narrative. If the game plays with even that notion, then that's actually pretty great and nobody confirm or deny it, but I've been burnt on high expectations so many times that my heart has turned to stone somewhat. I guess certain stuff just makes me aware I'm experiencing a piece of media, and because of that I'm made aware that that isn't the best way to experience it, and that takes me out of the experience. It's like watching American Horror Story with my SO. She talks about characters and events as if they really happened as we discuss things, and I just always think about it and discuss it in the mindset of "Well, this is how the writers portrayed things for drama and to make things seem plausible." It's just how I'm built. I'm easily taken out of the moment. I don't think anyone is gonna convince me otherwise. The fact that people are baffled on someone having a different mindset like mine is what's super confusing. It's just media. People enjoy it (or not enjoy it) in their own way. Calling people crazy/less of a person is just kinda lovely. And yeah, knowing that there's a twist isn't a catch-all, that's just unreasonable. It's just this particular game for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Andrast posted:It's more that 99% of all journalism about science is garbage (even more than journalism usually is). If an article says "A new study tells us that X" there is a really big chance that the study doesn't say that and might even actually say the opposite. I guess so, but it's really not just one study from one article, that's why I said "articles like this", because there have been tons of them over the years. It's a genuine documented phenomenon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:I guess so, but it's really not just one study from one article, that's why I said "articles like this", because there have been tons of them over the years. It's a genuine documented phenomenon. I'm probably just too quick to jump on this topic since, as a scientist/researcher, science journalism being garbage is a big pet peeve of mine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
So It Goes posted:I also could not disagree more strongly with that last sentence and think that's a legitimately insane way to interact with society and media. You are genuinely selling yourself short as a person to let stuff like that affect your interaction with media to the degree it apparently does. Uh excuse me, that's the best way to interpret consumable goods. I refuse to try things the more popular and hyped they become. It's why I've never played Dark Souls, Fire Emblem: Awakening, Wolfenstein: The New Order, any Pokemon game, and Call of Duty. Also, I avoid any and all Birthday Parties and Christmas celebrations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Andrast posted:I'm probably just too quick to jump on this topic since, as a scientist/researcher, science journalism being garbage is a big pet peeve of mine. I mean you're not wrong that news media study presentation is often bullshit, it's just that the reason I brought it up is because there's actual evidence that it's true, being-reported-through-journalism aside. If it was just sensationalist hooey then I wouldn't have said anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
pulp rag posted:I don't know what to tell you guys. It's just a mindset knowing "Well, I am going to get one of three outcomes" really takes me out of the experience and makes me aware I'm playing a game instead of letting myself get swept up in the narrative. If the game plays with even that notion, then that's actually pretty great and nobody confirm or deny it, but I've been burnt on high expectations so many times that my heart has turned to stone somewhat. I cannot understand this on any level I'm sorry
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Ah well. I don't blame you or anyone in the thread. It's just how I am.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
I was genuinely surprised by the fact that the Undertale discussion actually was fairly civil. The only real point I took umbrage with was Pat claiming "the ending(s) blinded you to the flaws of the game" which made me legitimately kind of annoyed, because really dude? Come on. Other than that it's simply a case of him not jiving with the humor and characters the same way I and the other 3 guys did. It's a game made primarily by a single guy, so if you don't find his sense of humor funny most of the time, then that's that. The emotional stuff isn't going to hit you as hard. It jived with my sensibilities almost perfectly, so everything was that much more powerful when it counted, and when it didn't count I still loved it anyway. The random battles were great you just gotta get good at making friends you big baby. TriffTshngo fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Ruggington posted:I cannot understand this on any level I'm sorry I get it (I think). It sounds like it's kind of an issue of how able you are to suspend your disbelief, to trick yourself into thinking fictional characters are real, that the idea of a "canon" of fictional events actually means anything, that what you are reading / watching is what characters are doing/feeling/thinking and not what a writer thought would be entertaining/dramatic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
I love how Matt brings up the Worf destroying barrel almost every TNG discussion. Like no sarcasm, it gets a chuckle out of me.
Oxyclean fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
CuddlyZombie posted:I get it (I think). It sounds like it's kind of an issue of how able you are to suspend your disbelief, to trick yourself into thinking fictional characters are real, that the idea of a "canon" of fictional events actually means anything, that what you are reading / watching is what characters are doing/feeling/thinking and not what a writer thought would be entertaining/dramatic. Yeah. That's put way better. "Suspension of disbelief" is the phrase I was trying to remember.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
CuddlyZombie posted:I get it (I think). It sounds like it's kind of an issue of how able you are to suspend your disbelief, to trick yourself into thinking fictional characters are real, that the idea of a "canon" of fictional events actually means anything, that what you are reading / watching is what characters are doing/feeling/thinking and not what a writer thought would be entertaining/dramatic. I understood the basic idea, I just really can't relate to being taken out of a piece of fiction because I know how the sausage is made
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Ruggington posted:I understood the basic idea, I just really can't relate to being taken out of a piece of fiction because I know how the sausage is made Then what's the issue you're having?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Like, I know the Snake People got Matt Damon off of Mars ages ago, but I can still get into Matt Damon Hanging Out on a Soundstage The Movie
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
CuddlyZombie posted:not what a writer thought would be entertaining/dramatic. But this is like the most interesting part of the sausage. For me seeing the designer's influence can be immersion breaking, but I can still respect the puppet show you've put on for me and the mastery and value inherent in such a path. I'm not gonna smash it over my knee like so many other weaker things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
pulp rag posted:Then what's the issue you're having? by "understand" I meant more that I couldn't relate to the situation guess I could have been more clear there 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Originally, in 2015, this post had a really bad interpretation of a spoiler study that got published in 2011. For one, the spoiler research linked was attributed to some random writer of an article (which made the sensationalist article title seem more damning) instead of the original... scientists? Anyway, that's linked here. Also I did not know what a 9-point hedonic rating was, which is like those questions on surveys that ask you if you are "likely, somewhat likely, neither likely or unlikely, somewhat unlikely, unlikely" to do something, which obviously has nothing to do with the number of people in the study (which does skew heavily on women, 176 male and 643 female participants). I know it's incredibly unlikely that anyone will go through this dumb post from 2015 in the Best Friends thread but I was bored and also realized my own realization was bullshit since this study still comes up and prompted me to check my reasoning on it again. Anyway, hi archive readers! CJacobs posted:I mean you're not wrong that news media study presentation is often bullshit, it's just that the reason I brought it up is because there's actual evidence that it's true, being-reported-through-journalism aside. If it was just sensationalist hooey then I wouldn't have said anything. The problem isn't the articles (which all point to the same study), it's that the correlation in the study isn't so strong as to say that it's true absolutely. Like, the linked study is this tiny bit of news: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/soc/2011_08spoilers.asp Which comes down to this tiny little graph:  Which shows a tiny difference (less than an actual person!) between people liking the story spoiled vs. unspoiled, and in one of those cases the unspoiled version is liked better. And the study says nothing about the cause of the correlation and even admits it's outside of the case of the study. Phantasium fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Apr 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Phantasium posted:The problem isn't the articles (which all point to the same study), it's that the correlation in the study isn't so strong as to say that it's true absolutely. I would say that it absolutely is a problem with the articles. They shouldn't report on things without actually looking at the study to make sure they aren't writing bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Andrast posted:I would say that it absolutely is a problem with the articles. They shouldn't report on things without actually looking at the study to make sure they aren't writing bullshit. While true, the title of the study "Spoiler Alert: Stories Are Not Spoiled by 'Spoilers'" is kind of sensationalist garbage to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Phantasium posted:While true, the title of the study "Spoiler Alert: Stories Are Not Spoiled by 'Spoilers'" is kind of sensationalist garbage to begin with. Sure I agree with that, the study seems pretty bad too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
FauxGateau posted:But this is like the most interesting part of the sausage. For me seeing the designer's influence can be immersion breaking, but I can still respect the puppet show you've put on for me and the mastery and value inherent in such a path. I'm not gonna smash it over my knee like so many other weaker things. That can also be compelling (and in this case I definitely think it is), but for entirely different reasons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
I can accept the Pat crazy because it's actually pretty mild in this case: he acknowledges skeletal supremacy, praises the music, says everything from the core on is fantastic, etc. I even agree with him about the funniest part of the game (it's also the only part where I totally lost it). As for spoilers a person only gets one shot at a clean viewing so just let them have it, there's plenty of time for more well informed viewings later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Ruggington posted:by "understand" I meant more that I couldn't relate to the situation No problems there on the misunderstanding. I gently caress up a lot in explaining poo poo. FauxGateau posted:But this is like the most interesting part of the sausage. For me seeing the designer's influence can be immersion breaking, but I can still respect the puppet show you've put on for me and the mastery and value inherent in such a path. I'm not gonna smash it over my knee like so many other weaker things. Pretty much. I didn't mean I don't enjoy fiction knowing what goes into it, I love looking for the seams in fiction and media because I can appreciate the work and performances that goes into it as someone that makes media myself. It just seems that Undertale is a game that kinda relies on you getting swept up (unless I'm wrong, as Dias says I am, and I'm super okay with that), and doubly so from people talking about it so highly and so much, that I'm not gonna have anywhere close to a "genuine" reaction, so I'm not even gonna bother with playing the game myself. It's why I wanna give it to my SO. She'll have a genuine reaction not knowing anything about it, and I'll probably have a fantastic time discussing it with her from an "outsider" perspective. My original intention was to explain to people that it's not unreasonable to come to a conclusion similar to Pat's due to the community hyping and discussing the game a ton - not that my mindset is the "best" one or that spoilers/discussions/whatever are always terrible. Hell, I don't think spoilers/discussions/whatever for this game is bad for it. I'm aware I'm one of the few people to have this kind of experience. Whatever, let's get back to our usual yelling at Matt, Pat, Woolie, and Liam for doing weird stuff. I still need to listen to this week's podcast.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
I've been selling people on Undertale by linking them to the final boss of the Genocide run, and gotten at least ten people to buy it because of that. Come at me salty spoiler babies  edit: new episode  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWYDZvcHwfk
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Captain Invictus posted:I've been selling people on Undertale by linking them to the final boss of the Genocide run, and gotten at least ten people to buy it because of that. If only I could go back and record my initial reaction to that fight and my immediate bodybagging
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
I'd be a world famous Let's Reactor
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
On a related note Pat is surprisingly more likely to cut decent Rustlemania II promos than Woolie. So he has that 'right' brand of crazy that says 'okay, I guess I can trust you around my children.' But not 'oh god, all the sliverware is gone and the phone lines are cut.' Rustlemania II: Promo Character Tier list 1. The Punishment - good idea for a character, but didn't use a bunch of puns. You can retcon this of course. Performance and voice seemed to either evoke Savage or Warrior. Good pull. 2. Cactus Pat - good energy, easy to get caught up in his crazy bibles. He really nailed the crazy whisper on skelebones bit. 3. Liam - can't see his eyes so I don't know if I can trust him not to hustle me. hustle my heart more like. Deadpan talking at the camera was good really Cena-like. Good stuff good stuff. 4. El Woolío - oh woolie. His dorky mouth breathing through the mask killed me. Future Storyline ideas: Tag teams(time travel?) MR. McMuscles becomes new ceo of zaibatsu turns Rage into a product. In order to 'new coke' Rage for Cenable. Cactus Pat soul transfers into Zubaz's corpse, but has to go to the storeroom from Raiders to get it.(this one might be a little difficult to manage)
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Was that intro in Undertale supposed to played two episodes in a row?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
HGH posted:Was that intro in Undertale supposed to played two episodes in a row? Yeah, That sort of strikes me as a workflow error.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Not an error, I just thought two episodes was enough to catch people up. Won't be on any subsequent episodes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Oxyclean posted:I love how Matt brings up the Worf destroying barrel almost every TNG discussion. Like no sarcasm, it gets a chuckle out of me. "Matt and Pat discuss how wonderfully stupid star trek is" was my favorite part of these last two casts, I'm gonna be sad when it stops.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
So what I'm getting from the last 50 replies in this thread is that I should play Undertale.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Yeah, go for it, dude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edflm7Hh3hs
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
I don't know if it would strictly count as a horror game, but Medievil 2 took place in Victorian London, with zombies and pumpkins wandering the streets. It really is a good setting for horror games so it's surprising it's not as exploited as it could be. Koudelka is also in the late Victorian period and that was creepy as hell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
how does koudelka compare to shadow hearts
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:53 |
|
|
Ruggington posted:how does koudelka compare to shadow hearts No idea, I haven't played Shadow Hearts. It had a grid based system for placing members of your party, sort of like a chess board, and the difficulty seemed unforgiving but it's been years since I saw it. As for spooks, the setting was a really grimy castle/church with lots of deformed silent hill-esque monsters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 01:12
|
|