Off Topic Productions

DDL wrote:What if I suggested that player controlled viewports were sexist?

*runs away*

Racist too.

DDL wrote:What if I suggested that player controlled viewports were sexist?

*runs away*

DDL wrote:What if I suggested that player controlled viewports were sexist?

*runs away*

AEmer wrote:Right; but even supposing they did an exact copy of mario 64's camera, and more open environments, don't you reckon it would still be a major issue?

No. The first and foremost problem with Epic Mickey's camera is that the level design gives it absolutely no consideration. More open environments would definitely help with it, although not completely fix the issues, as Epic Mickey doesn't fit on the wiimote as well as Mario fit on the n64 pad, making the manual controls more cumbersome to hit. There are a few open areas in the game that I got to, for example an outdoor area with a teacup ride, and they were ok (but boring).
I can't ever recall getting angry at Mario 64 for camera issues, though, while Epic Mickey managed to piss me the fuck off in the third level or so, a sewer level with very closed in walls, dangerous drops into acid, timed platforming due to moving platforms, and things shooting at me I couldn't see. Trying to line up a jump off a rotating platform in a direction I can't point the camera, due to a wall, while an enemy shoots goop at me, and if I miss the timing or get hit I fall into acid? FfFffffffff- I really don't care enough about Disney for this! Square Enix did a better job by the brand than Junction Point did, and that's terribly shameful.

Jonas wrote:I didn't tell you off. You can take your martyrdom and shove it, I have no patience for that today.

According to wikipedia, a true scottsman is

No true Scotsman is an informal logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion

You were saying I attempted to retain an unreasoned assertion rather than admit that it was, in fact, unreasoned. You didn't say I was being imprecise, you made it a point to say I believed something, changed my mind, then refused to admit that I changed my mind. Now, I know what I was thinking when I wrote the post. I know this isn't the case, bar some kind of self-delusion.

It implies I don't care about the truth of the argument, just about not looking like I was wrong. That I don't care to admit I was wrong even when I should know that I was.

The term was advanced by philosopher Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking: Do I sincerely want to be right?.[2]

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."

The whole point of it is to illustrate Hamish McDonald, and people who reason as he does, as pigheaded idiots. As far as I can see, that entire book is about the concequences of wanting to be right and being willing to delude yourself to thinking that way.

So what do you want me to do when you say I'm behaving like that, exactly? After all, I wouldn't want to be indignant, because apparently then I'll be told to shove it. This is a serious question. If you want to use the 'no true scottsman' accusation, what kind of room are you leaving open for people to defend themselves against it? What kind of opportunity will they get to argue that your accusation was unreasonable?

Of course there's another way of looking at it: If accusing someone of pulling a no true scottsman is an insult, and yet you didn't insult me when you did it, your scottsman must've been a no true no true scottsman.

Jetsetlemming wrote:I can't ever recall getting angry at Mario 64 for camera issues

I guess that's where we differ; I do recall getting angry with it, and thinking it was terrible =P

added: And my impression was I wasn't alone with this perspective.

But point taken that epic mickey is much worse all the same.

All right. As quoted, this is what you wrote:

I'd argue that first person and thirdperson cameras are automated viewports - they snap to what the player character is aiming at. Regardless, if they're not, then my statement isn't true, so for the purposes of my statement they are.

How do you want me to interpret "if they're not, then my statement isn't true, so for the purposes of my statement they are" if not as "by your definition I'm wrong, so I'm going to define it my own way"? Is that not pretty damn close to a No True Scotsman fallacy? Do you think your intention matters one jolt to me? Do you think it should matter? I didn't call you out on your logical fallacy as a way to insult you, and I'm incredibly annoyed that you accuse me of rudeness. I perceive a fault in your logic and I call you out on it, so let me turn your question around on you: if pointing out that I think there's a flaw in your argument is rude, then what would you want me to say? After all, I wouldn't want to point it out in a light-hearted way, then I'll be inflicting a grievous injury upon the honour of your family.

You'll note that when I put it to you that I thought you were using a No True Scotsman, you didn't say "That's not what I meant, I was just being imprecise, here is what I meant...". You said "You're seriously accusing me of inversing the argument for the purposes of not looking like I'm wrong?" Frankly, I was. Then, Jaedar chimed in to agree. Then, you told him off for "not contributing". That, to me, is nothing but a claim to martyrdom. I had written half a somber and polite reply to your post, but then I got to "That's rude, it's wrong, and I don't understand why you're doing it" and decided that I just didn't have the patience to engage with you on that level.

And now we're stepping on each other's face fighting for some moral high ground, and DDL has elegantly exposed what I was sorely tempted to say myself: this is why we can't have nice things.

For the sake of brevity, I'll deal with just one of your arguments; we can return to the others if you view them as important, but I feel this is the root of the matter.

I'd argue that first person and thirdperson cameras are automated viewports - they snap to what the player character is aiming at. Regardless, if they're not, then my statement isn't true, so for the purposes of my statement they are.

This is a clear admission that my argument presumes a certain classification of viewports; for the purposes of my making my statement, this is what I had assumed would be correct. I point out, this is the classification I would argue makes sense, but if you wanted to use another classification, then my statement should be disregarded, and seen as false.

It's simply a way of saying that I'm not interested in defending the truth of my statement unless we share the same vocabulary. I've already argued why I think it's a reasonable classification, but I realize and accept that there are other plausible classifications people might use.

The reason it's not a "no true scottsman" is that I'm not redefining the meaning of the term I used, "player-managed viewports", after the fact. I always had this definition. This is the classification I was working with all along. The distinction to the scottsman analogy is that the scottsman is talking about a very clearly defined group of people, and he proceeds to pull a new definition for them out of his ass after he's presented with evidence that his statements about that group of people were factually wrong.

The distinction is, you didn't understand my classification initially. This isn't your fault (if anything, it's mine), but I didn't change it to fit it around your example such that my statement would remain true, I explained it as I had always understood it, and still understand it.

By saying I pulled a no true scottsman, you're saying I did in fact change it after the fact, and that I'm so petty that to not appear wrong I will jump through hoops rather than admit I made a mistake. I checked that this is in fact what you meant to say, because I found it baffling, but you stuck to it.

I find it rude, I know that it's factually wrong (I didn't change a damn thing in my classification, because I would remember if I did)...and I don't get why you would say that I did change the classification in such a petty manner; you have no way of knowing that I did since I never presented it with enough precision and clarity that you'd be able to tell if I did change it, or if it was meant that way all along.

All right well let's just drop it then. I get what you mean now, and squabbling over who accused who of what for which reason is going to get us nowhere. Peace in our time, etc.

AEmer wrote:I'd argue that first person and thirdperson cameras are automated viewports - they snap to what the player character is aiming at.

See, I don't buy this.

For every place the player can stand in the game he can turn the camera in any possibly direction. This is player controlled by the very definition. The fact that you control the aim at the same time as the camera isn't really significant because you could just as well say it's the other way around(and most people would probably do so since you can control the camera without having a weapon drawn).

Thirdperson cameras are... well I assume you're referring to over the shoulder view, so I'll adress that and you have some point. Most OTS is somewhat automated. If you stand with your back to a wall, there are many games where the camera will move closer to the PC than if you stand with your back to open space. But it's still largely controlled by the player.

Camera control is good to have.

I've already explained my point of view; I've tried elaborating on our disagreement, but I find myself simply repeating what I've already written....so I think we'll have to agree to disagree on what's the more meaningful classification.

Doesn't change the fact that for my purposes, the other classification seemed to be an inherently a more useful way of looking at things, since it neatly sections things up into genres of games where spending some effort babysitting the viewport is acceptable, and genres where it really isn't. It allowed me to discuss the specific overhead of various schemes, and paint one particular scheme as the one with the most overhead.

Of course, with the way the discussion developed, it's turned out to be somewhat less than ideal for conveying my meaning.

That was pretty much the most pointless argument i've seen anyone spend so much time on, as far as this forum is concerned.

And AEmer, you seriously need to learn to say MORE with LESS words.

VectorM wrote:That was pretty much the most pointless argument i've seen anyone spend so much time on, as far as this forum is concerned.

And AEmer, you seriously need to learn to say MORE with LESS words.

I agree

Someone should summarize this thread for me, sparing no detail or ugly rumour that may be have been cast in an effort to discredit.

Hashi wrote:Someone should summarize this thread for me, sparing no detail or ugly rumour that may be have been cast in an effort to discredit.

Different points of view. In games and in discussions.

The End