MMO

>[Posted this].
Why?

It's true.

Not particularly effectually / necessarily factually.

It's factual

Back your claims / their relevance.

I proved this Friday, Ian. I asked you for evidence, and you didn't have any. I asked for sources, and you didn't have any.

>making a reasonably perfect game is simple.
>making
No.
>designing
Yes.

Oh, what's that? You think your design is solid?
>someone doesn't like X and rallies peers to agree and demand change
>someone is incompetent and you have to rely on them anyway
>something doesn't work because consoles are made from baling wire and duct tape
>investor demands Y for personal reasons or falsely perceived value
>marketing tells investor they need Z because 5 year old trendy statistics are totally relevant
Aw, too bad. Better luck next time!

Oh hey, are you the original quality is objective guy?
Haven't seen you around in ages. How's it going?

You claimed that it wasn't evidence because it wasn't some exact, appealing to absurdity.

A few developers could make a couple of characters, items, zones, and activities per day and have a functional MMO within a month.

Attached: BF - Featured Aspects of the Series and BC2.png (887x234, 56.21K)

It wasn't evidence because it was evidential to anything. Saying it's an appeal won't let you weasel out of this. Present the evidence thart supports your claim with the sources.

You underestimate the force of resistance to good direction in corporate, user.
Indie, there's no chance you'll maintain your company without getting poached, so you have either have no cohesion and contract everything out or take a risk on a friend, assuming you have friends who can actually fulfill the roles you need. The garage game dev dream is dead in the US.
Corporate, your design and your goals means nothing if either HR or the money tells the suits to run in another direction.

You have zero evidence.

If it's so simple, why haven't you made it?

That's not how claims work. That's not how proof positive works. You must first present claims as reasonably close to true. You haven't done that. There is no evidence you've presented it that supports it.

Your position is too easily made fun of.

There's a large difference in efficiency between 1 person and 2-8.

You're the one making claims (that are off-topic unless you're going to actually make an obvious assertion).

Attached: ~Prefacing Objectivity - An Explanation on the Popularity of Shooters.png (328x415, 67.62K)

Attached: Objectivity - Spatial Intensity.png (613x113, 13.17K)

Spatial skills =/= joy and these shooter games aren't what you're talking about, you're talking about. You need to provide evidence that supports your claim and not a different claim. Provide the evidence that supports your claim.

Hire more people than. Take out a loan. Start with a basic game and see if it's perfect.

>Spatial skills =/= joy and these shooter games aren't what you're talking about
Spatial skills being stimulating is exactly what that's suggesting; and shooter MMOs are existent / possible.

This doesn't correlate to some objective measure of joy however. I've read the passage. Back up your claims with something related to them

See, that's an example of you being stupid. If it wasn't obvious already that skillfulness is rewarding, an explanation is also in .

Write in your own language and run it through google translate, it'll probably be more coherent

this pretentious ESL retard has been spamming here for far longer than just one year
arch.b4k.co/v/search/text/"is of objectivity"/page/10/

>[Not a specific criticism].

>[Feigned your post as off-topic up until the point of how much content is available in that URL].

Attached: Controls-Example - 'Combos'.png (500x804, 29.91K)

My criticism is very specific, you're incoherent and there's a chance you might come across as less of a schizo if you were at least comprehensible, although I suspect that in your case you're doubly disadvantaged.

So, on some of Yea Forums's claimed problems with the genre:

>External social programs.
No.
>MTX.
Not really.
>New MMOs can't compete because of content.
No; it's extremely easy for a small studio to make a game with replayability via economy, and the intensity of entertainment value is such a rarity that advertisement should simply make way for droves of players from other games and the overall industry.
>High risk.
No.
>Low payout.
No; the genre is the best because of player counts guaranteeing competitiveness and other aspects of mastery, socialization and other aspects of relatedness, and alternatives to simple AI NPCs simultaneously with the benefits of activity variety and other aspects of autonomy.
>Wikis.
No.
>Theme park design.
Yes.
>Sandbox popularity.
No.

>My criticism is very specific
No.

Attached: English Alphabet as Symbols.png (974x650, 34.64K)

Wrong, Ian. It's an example of you making one claim and trying to substantiate it with something else that isn't really related to the original claim.

Based Ian destroyer.

No.

Not going to bother trying to get through the twin layers of abstraction that are ESL and mental illness to try to discern whether or not there may be an actual point there. Meet me in the middle, dude.

You should stop posting; you are so into vagueness that your posts are low quality.

Yes.
Subjective ≠ Objective, Ian. Nobody gives a fuck about your shitty opinions. Prove your hypothesis by making a perfect game or forever be an armchair developer and """ideas guy""" that is laughed at.

>

Ian literally has no recourse for real criticism. He will just say "No," or "There's no evidence of that," or "Prove it," even though he's the one making the claim. What are the goals of his threads? Nobody knows. He's not convincing anybody of anything he's mentioned.

You should stop posting. This is an English board, you autistic retard.

Stop using somebody's real name on an anonymous forum; it makes you look like an idiot, and it's against the rules. Also, that garbage has already been refuted; there are evidential discussions posted.

>[Not an argument].

Your talent for irony is remarkable.

It's not against the rules, Ian. Doxxing is. This isn't doxxing. There is no evidence that supports your claims, Ian. We've gone over this. Where is the actual evidence, Ian? Not just screencapped posts of yours (subjective) and unrelated materials (non-sequitur). The actual evidence.

No; I can actually deliver content when queried.

So this is what autism looks like

What do you actually want evidence for; you're not inquiring specifically.

Thus far you have not demonstrated that ability.

>

You've not yet demonstrated an argument of for objectivity; you must so do this-specifically the requirement.

I can't even derive enough sense from your posts to ask anything specific. So, be clearer?

I have, but it's going to be understanding based; even "I am" has been debated.

Then leave.

Attached: smiling.jpg (526x224, 43.42K)

>Then leave.
No.

If being creative isn't why you're here, what are you doing?

This is haven't'ed is far as can be oft understood; non-understood premises aren't permitted—donc, start over.

No.

Be a little less creative with grammar

Be relevant if you can.

Incorrect. You aren't of objectivity. If you disagree; -- make a videogame that exhibits these.

You're appealing to extremes.

You're appealing to: non-sequitur. Also; fallacy-fallacy

I could if I knew what the fuck it'd be relevant to

No.

You haven't been trying.