![[VR] Zakk](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/64/64104.jpg?1587234982){kind=avatar}
What you describe is a series of bad decisions, wrong priorities, and a combination of being overambitious while underestimating complexity.
Sounds about right.
Game Bashing On Steam
- Thread starter shogun195333
- Start date
Sounds about right.
I think part of the communication issue with FDev is, that it is not easy to decipher, what can be taken at face value and what are deliberately vague, but nice to read, filler statements.
Regarding VR in EDO, I think they were honest about it. Though I can't comprehend, how they though dropping VR support for everyone entirely(!) eventually due top the code merge, was the way to go.
But it is better than nothing, I guess console owners would agree.
The main drive for people to "play" simulator is to master the simulated activities. The challenge often comes from the complexity or difficulty that those activities pose. A game can work on the same principle, but is not required to in order to have functional game mechanics. ED is a weird hybrid in that regard.
When it comes to motives and intent, each situation is unique. Whether or not anything lines up with, in essence, a presumptive rule of thumb is pure coincidence.
Apart from being a complete fallacy due to what I wrote above, the irony is that in the discussion that has led to your post using your fallacious argument to dismiss mine, my argument has been the simple and consistent one, and it's the other argument that has had to be continually modified.
It can be, but I would say it's the go to of a lazy mind or one who's trying to deflect inquiring minds, or flat out deceive.
Solution 1 isn't the case for what I'm discussing, though I find it interesting to observe that solution 1 is as encompassing as it can be authoritatively stated, but solution 2 is as extreme in specificity.
Occam's razor fallacy: the simplest solution is not always the correct one
Occam's razor is dangerous. Both our minds and the world are complex machines which cannot be grasped by applying a simplistic approach to decision making.
nesslabs.com
Speaking of other games, saw mass effect andromeda for a few dollars so looked up a review.. was a bit gobsmacked at how it’s identical in visual style.
If you copy someone else’s homework, you’re supposed to change it a little bit to make it yours? Lucky I never played andromeda otherwise odd would be even harder to accept.
Actually invert that. If odd was mass effect andromeda in elite that would have been pretty good. Let’s hope for starfield
If you copy someone else’s homework, you’re supposed to change it a little bit to make it yours? Lucky I never played andromeda otherwise odd would be even harder to accept.
Actually invert that. If odd was mass effect andromeda in elite that would have been pretty good. Let’s hope for starfield
Last edited:
This has always been my sticking point since Day 1 of Odyssey; there are TONS of other games that are just as ambitious as Odyssey and have similar gameplay loops that run FAR FAR better than EDO could ever hope to dream to. Death Stranding is a great example: open world, various pit stop zones, dense zones of enemies (eg: NPC AI), exploration etc. Operates a lot like the on-foot gameplay of Odyssey, but runs WAAAAY better comparatively. I can get 75-110fps in that game at max settings at 1080p.
Compared to EDO after Update 11, where I get 30-40fps in settlements at medium settings while using FSR to reconstruct a 720p up to 1080p.
I guess if the only game you've ever played is Elite, then perhaps I can understand believing that it "runs fine."
I want to point out that slowly building a very logical edifice on top of a wrong initial assertion (usually due to being unable to know the actual truth), to the point of making it completely unrealistic, is unfortunately core to all human being.
This is true for clinically crazy people (saw that happen to a member of my family). Which is also why it's so hard to cure. The entire reasoning IS logical. Why wouldn't it be wrong, even if the end result is pure madness ? You can't prove the reasoning is wrong (it's not), and you may not even have the truth on the initial assertion (some things we simply don't know, such is life), and the patient will be quick to use that as a defence against himself.
This is the same issue with most conspiracy theory. The logic is sound, the starting point is not. The whole edifice of logic is built on a foundation that doesn't exist. And eventually you get flat earth, hole in Antarctica and lizard aliens taking human bodies. Just because the photo the guy saw had some glitch or whatever and it looked like there was a hole in there.
It's also the same on how "hidden camera pranks" works. Our brain, for some reason, is absolutely terrible when it comes to see the madness in slowly built false reality. If it's instant, it will notice it immediately, but slowly ? Nope. So you start by hiding the guy smartphone, change its ringtone and eventually you ends up with him running from imaginary aliens. People often comment on such prank "I would never believe that, it's too far fetched", but they would. It just takes hours, days to get there. And usually knowledge of the victim to know what makes him/her run (usually they have friend and family as accomplice to, for that and for the trust to build it of). OFC, the TV will shorten the experience drastically, and it's obvious how far fetched it is.
To get back to your point, the whole theory you made IS logical. But it started with wrong datas and assertion, so it's going to be all wrong. And the more you pile logic on it, the further you get from reality. Whether or not the reasoning is sound.
Thus bringing the whole "reality check" concept.
Andromeda was so bad that I couldn't even finish it. It's basically the same game as Dragon Age 3 with a different theme. I couldn't finish that one either.Speaking of other games, saw mass effect andromeda for a few dollars so looked up a review.. was a bit gobsmacked at how it’s identical in visual style.
If you copy someone else’s homework, you’re supposed to change it a little bit to make it yours? Lucky I never played andromeda otherwise odd would be even harder to accept.
Actually invert that. If odd was mass effect andromeda in elite that would have been pretty good. Let’s hope for starfield
I am probably going go get Starfield but Bethesda aren't known for innovative games so I am sceptical. So far Elite is still the only game that tries to do something special. Everything that might be more interesting is finished after 30 hours, so no alternative.
Like most Bethesda games, I’m not excited for what Bethesda will put out, I’m excited for what the modding community will deliver.
I had not even considered this before this moment. I had just assumed it would be a separate thing. No mods.
So many possibilities...
I'm gonna have a Santi fountain on the ship
I'm gonna have sultry ladies in the Santi fountain
I'm gonna have Chewbacca in the Santi fountain
Excuse me won't you, I must reverie.
I think the safe assumption will it will be another skyrim map, but with mountains, rivers and pine forests replaced with space. Hopefully they will somehow make the "space" convincing enough.. ie, not like rebel galaxy or especially no mans sky eg. We're getting ship interiors so thats a plus. Preordering most likely. Was on the mailing list from the first trailer launch.
Hi, what would you suggest to do as activity for a community with new 8 players ?
Last edited:
So if this very logical edifice built on top of a wrong initial assertion is also the simpler explanation, is it correct because it fulfills the criteria of Occam's Razor?
Hmm, Are you suggesting that is the case for me?
Which wrong datas and which wrong assertion? Just need to know that you actually understand what it was I was saying, after having to correct people multiple times with things like 'I never said that' etc..
Again, are you saying this relates to me? If so, say it.
Occam Razor say the most likely truth is the simplest one. If you need to build a giant theory with arguments to parry every holes in the logic one by one, when compared to a simple one line sentence that doesn't need any kind of arguments to defend itself, well, let's say you're not the favourite of this race of 2.
Your wrong assertion is to refuse the possibility the negative reviews are simply done by people who don't like the game. Which mean you pick anything else and build on top of it. Like people who refute the earth is round, and will take any theory and build upon.
Nope. It's all of us. Sadly, it's in human nature. Just watch the news or internet for 5minutes, or even this forum, and you'll see plenty of totally average people either making or following some interesting "theories about the truth". All of them a lot more complicated than what is usually admitted as "the truth".
And the more they go into those theories of their, the more out of touch they are.
Similar to when EDO launched with terrible reviews, and the whole fiasco we know. There was a thread where multiple people had a theory the poor reviews had been review bombing from the SC community, to "push" player to test SC instead, since it was in a free weekend at the time of release.
OFC, it was complete nonsense, for many reasons, but they still kept going for a while. I suspect they still believe it, but haven't said it much ever since literally DB himself said EDO had issues.
Like I said before, Occam's Razor isn't applicable when it comes to an individual's motive, otherwise it would be trivial to get away with murder, for instance. You can hold onto your logical fallacy but know that's what it is when used in this context. And I repeat for the nth time, it's not a binary situation. I will also repeat that Occam's Razor is also not a logical basis to pin any argument on, more a rule of thumb that is highly dependent on the given circumstances and nature of any given situation.
I like how you phrase that "Your wrong assertion". But anyway, again, you are making the same mistake as the others, I think it could be said to even have established a pattern at this point. Never did I say it was a binary situation as you are trying insinuate that I am.
Let me explain clearly, this is the logical argument:
My premise: Some of the bad reviews are potentially review bombs. Not a statement of fact, but an assertion of opinion informed by what I've seen.
Yours and others' answer: Not possible, because the bad reviews are from people who don't like the game and, anyway, there are hurdles to doing so.
My further answer: Neither argument put forth invalidate the premise that some of the bad reviews could be review bombs.
The counter-argument is to suggest that no-one would review-bomb Odyssey. Let's go to y'alls favored fallback, Occam's Razor:
Which is more likely true: Out of over 4,000 negative reviews, some of the Odyssey reviews are potentially review-bombs, or absolutely none of the Odyssey reviews are review-bombs. The latter is the position you are taking here.
Seems to me a simple and easy thing to admit that there is potential for it, rather than expounding quite the effort to try to dismiss it as a possibility entirely. If one were to look through the attempts to dismiss my premise you will see it isn't me who has to continually altered their argument. ie; it's impossible to review bomb on steam because you have to buy it, or there's no evidence of any attempt get people to show their negative feelings towards Odyssey. Both of which were shown to be false. I would admit that I dismiss the notion that tagging Odyssey as early access disproves the point on a semantical basis as 1) it shows organization to negatively impact Odyssey, 2) it proves there was a motive to do so, the means by which this is achieved is really six of one and half dozen of the other, and again it is just one method to fundamentally achieve a similar goal. & 3) Odyssey was tagged as early access which proves that the organization was effective.
The points above add weight to my premise that it was possible.
So, here's my question: Are y'all suggesting that not one of the negative Odyssey reviews on Steam fall in the category of a review-bomb?
Yes or No.
It is really that simple.
If I am part of this 'all of us' group you are talking about, explain how can your answer be 'nope'? Also, please elaborate on why you chose to bring that particular argument to the discussion.
Edit: While we are on the subject of human nature, isn't it true that it is part of human nature to lie?
Ok, so if I'm to accept that then, by your same argument, it's entirely possible that you could be the one who's out of touch of reality, no?
"OFC, it was complete nonsense"
That is an assumption based on what? Occam's Razor? You or anyone else for that matter, apart from those involved in the matter you are dismissing - if it were to be true, would feel they would be able to state it was this or that with any certainty, definitely not the certainty you display. I can't say how likely it was but I've seen enough to reasonably believe that it it can't be said to be impossible.
Last edited:
And of what importance is it if there are indeed a few review bombs? Is it really worth all this typing?
I believe I'm yet to see anyone suggest that there are precisely 0 reviews that were posted for the sake of posting a negative review.
Trying to take such a literal reading seems flawed when the term "review-bomb" is poorly defined and also implies that there are many of those reviews (the bomb bit). That implication might have been stated previously, anyway.
Trying to take such a literal reading seems flawed when the term "review-bomb" is poorly defined and also implies that there are many of those reviews (the bomb bit). That implication might have been stated previously, anyway.
I have a problem with the term "review bomb" being used to describe this topic anyway because review bombs have the convenience of having more linear causality to them; they're usually inspired by some easily-quantifiable direct external inspiration or event. They are mass reactionary or organized.
What's going on with Odyssey and what has happened to other games at times is much more decentralized and indirect and would take a massive trawl and cross-reference of various communication mediums and social platforms as well users' past review behaviour in order to verify in any airtight fashion.
Steam reviews often have a low bar for impartiality but as Steam reviews are somewhat communal, you cannot simply declare that a lack of impartiality is irrelevant.
What's going on with Odyssey and what has happened to other games at times is much more decentralized and indirect and would take a massive trawl and cross-reference of various communication mediums and social platforms as well users' past review behaviour in order to verify in any airtight fashion.
Steam reviews often have a low bar for impartiality but as Steam reviews are somewhat communal, you cannot simply declare that a lack of impartiality is irrelevant.
I expect this is leading towards the suggestion that since it can't be disproven, the idea of a lot (or some varying significant quantity) also can't be disproven. And it can't, at least not conclusively. We'd have to rely on circumstantial evidence and balance it or the lack of against the alternative theory - but we're not allowed to do that since that could be called Occam's Razor, which apparently doesn't apply if people are involved.
Anyway, I assert that a number of the community has been assassinated and their accounts highjacked by some anti-Elite person named Ian. It's not impossible that it was done silently, perfectly, and with extensive coverups of the disappearances. Maybe a few people, maybe a lot, maybe Braben too. Can't be disproven, can't even be properly disagreed with unless you accept the idea that the simpler explanation is more likely.
For those who insist it isn't possible, evidently so. As to the why, one can draw their own conclusions.
If you keep digging that hole further buddy, you'll end up in Australia and wonder why the kangaroos are not upside down.
Conspiracy theories are fun and all, but they cease to be fun after a while. Especially when people get serious about them.
Whatever I said my piece.