Update #30

[Boothie]

aslong as 60£ stockings get some too

 

[Verva]

lol, well that speaks for itself doesn't it?

What I'm trying to say is that I don't want that sort of publicity for Sui Generis. Don't get me wrong, I hope Bare Mettle manage to make this the "next big thing", but I don't think there's a positive value in having the game travel in those circles, so to speak.

Let's not delve into that realm of pretentiousness. People enjoy different games for different reasons. You may like the in-depth and interesting AI, someone else may like playing with the physics. Whose to say who is right? One thing you should never do, however, is get to thinking that certain people aren't good enough to play the game you like because they don't like it for the same reasons. It's just silly.

 

[tiny lampe]

One thing you should never do, however, is get to thinking that certain people aren't good enough to play the game you like because they don't like it for the same reasons. It's just silly.

Let's assume that one person likes Sui Generis because of its comic relief potential (tripping over chairs, fighting in a way that looks uncontrolled and drunk...). Let's further assume that another person likes Sui Generis because he respects, and even admires, what the game is bringing to the RPG genre. The first person doesn't have any emotional attachment for the game, the second person does.

Now your argument, as reasonable as it sounds, con only be used by people who don't have this emotional attachment towards the game. It's completely unrealistic to expect a person who feels personally involved with a certain product to remain impassible when others are making fun of it. That's simply not how humans are hardwired to think. What will happen is that 1) the emotionally-attached individual will of course consider those who make fun of the game unworthy of it and 2) if the game needs financial support, he will ratioanlize that although certain people are not good enough for the game he admires, their money is as good as anybody else's.

 

[Verva]

Let's assume that one person likes Sui Generis because of its comic relief potential (tripping over chairs, fighting in a way that looks uncontrolled and drunk...). Let's further assume that another person likes Sui Generis because he respects, and even admires, what the game is bringing to the RPG genre. The first person doesn't have any emotional attachment for the game, the second person does.

Now your argument, as reasonable as it sounds, con only be used by people who don't have this emotional attachment towards the game. It's completely unrealistic to expect a person who feels personally involved with a certain product to remain impassible when others are making fun of it. That's simply not how humans are hardwired to think. What will happen is that 1) the emotionally-attached individual will of course consider those who make fun of the game unworthy of it and 2) if the game needs financial support, he will ratioanlize that although certain people are not good enough for the game he admires, their money is as good as anybody else's.

Lets not forget that we're talking about a game here. Games are made to be enjoyed. If someone enjoys it, who cares how or why.

No one on earth is for any reason "unworthy" to play a game. Furthermore to say that the person that just enjoys the fighting mechanics is not as true or as worthy a fan as you are is about as bull as it gets. And to say that because they don't like the game in the same way you do, they're "Making fun of it" is stupid.

Example: some people play Skyrim to learn everything about the lore and storyline and play the game to utter completion. Some people enjoy putting baskets on people's heads. BOTH ARE CORRECT WAYS TO PLAY THE GAME. The end goal is enjoying yourself with a game, and if you do that, you're playing it correctly.

So you can shut up with this "certain people are unworthy of playing" pretentious crap.

 

[tiny lampe]

Lets not forget that we're talking about a game here. Games are made to be enjoyed. If someone enjoys it, who cares how or why.

No one on earth is for any reason "unworthy" to play a game. Furthermore to say that the person that just enjoys the fighting mechanics is not as true or as worthy a fan as you are is about as bull as it gets. And to say that because they don't like the game in the same way you do, they're "Making fun of it" is stupid.

Example: some people play Skyrim to learn everything about the lore and storyline and play the game to utter completion. Some people enjoy putting baskets on people's heads. BOTH ARE CORRECT WAYS TO PLAY THE GAME. The end goal is enjoying yourself with a game, and if you do that, you're playing it correctly.

So you can shut up with this "certain people are unworthy of playing" pretentious crap.

You just showed how unreasonable people can get when a position/idea they feel strongly about is being called into question. And that was my point actually; some people are going have a strong emotional attachment to Sui Generis, that is to say, they are going to feel strongly about it. For some of those people, videos like the ones I described in my previous post are going to be seen as disrespectful and the players uploading them are going to be seen as juvenile and, yes, even unworthy of the game. I never claimed that such behaviors are correct or desirable. I simply stated that they happen.

 

[Verva]

You just showed how unreasonable people can get when a position/idea they feel strongly about is being called into question. And that was my point actually; some people are going have a strong emotional attachment to Sui Generis, that is to say, they are going to feel strongly about it. For some of those people, videos like the ones I described in my previous post are going to be seen as disrespectful and the players uploading them are going to be seen as juvenile and, yes, even unworthy of the game. I never claimed that such behaviors are correct or desirable. I simply stated that they happen.

"You just showed how unreasonable people can get when a position/idea they feel strongly about is being called into question."
Yes because arguing a point is unreasonable. I should just lay down at your mighty superiority for that is the only reasonable thing to do! I BOW TO THEE MY LORD!

No but seriously you lack perspective on this. A game is a game is a game. To say that it's not enough to just enjoy playing with the frankly highly enjoyable combat isn't enough is misguided. You have a preconception of what you think is the right way to play the game and you're pushing that on other people. If someone wants to laugh when the combat does something silly, they can. To say they're unworthy, or juvenile, for it is completely idiotic.

BTW I don't appreciate this "Oh is just SOME people that MIGHT feel strongly about it" theme... Again you're projecting an idea onto others. Just speak of your own experience and don't try to talk for people. If you do then i'm arguing a fake point you've just made up and no matter what I say you'll just go "well that's no me its just some people out there" when realistically it's just you.

 

[Pilluminati]

You just showed how unreasonable people can get when a position/idea they feel strongly about is being called into question. And that was my point actually; some people are going have a strong emotional attachment to Sui Generis, that is to say, they are going to feel strongly about it. For some of those people, videos like the ones I described in my previous post are going to be seen as disrespectful and the players uploading them are going to be seen as juvenile and, yes, even unworthy of the game. I never claimed that such behaviors are correct or desirable. I simply stated that they happen.

Does it matter if that happens though? Frankly I don't care one bit about those "enthusiasts" getting butthurt. As long as more people play and Baremettle get more income resulting in a better game I'm happy.

 

[ZaratanCho]

If games are made to be enjoyed and my main goal is not "enjoying yourself with a game" then i am playing it incorrectly ? ;d

So what if someone thinks certain people are unworthy, just because you don't agree with something that doesn't make it invalid and they should shut up ;d I can treat you the same way and say. Shut up with this 'no one on earth is unworthy to play a game' if i don't agree.

And i don't like that attitude too much, personally ;d ''We are talking about a game here", it's just a game etc. Point is some people will recognize and appreciate all the incredibly hard work and passion poured into the project and will have a richer experience when playing. Other people will not care at all and will just mess around.

Anyone can buy the game and do whatever they want with it so i am not sure what your issue is here ;d No one will be going around inspecting every single buyer to decide if they are 'worthy' ;d People can say whatever they want to each other in forum and comment sections. Comments like "You suck at this game stop playing it", "you play it wrong" etc are not uncommon, big deal ;d

My opinion is that some people will definitely do a lot more justice to a game than others, obviously anyone can play it either way.

What is a correct way to play a certain game or if someone is unworthy is completely subjective(it's quite easy to understand how someone might see someone else as unworthy, which doesn't equal to saying he shouldn't play it either). Plenty of people might say the correct way to play a game is the way it is intended to be played by the developers. Not like you have huge choice on how to play most games though ;d Open world and sandbox are different ;d

And tiny is not acting at all superior or said anything you imply he did ;d All of this pretty pointless though. Anyone can buy the game and do whatever they want. If someone doesn't like a video or something for whatever reason they are as well free to write a comment about it ;d

 

[Komuflage]

Text

This ^

However what can be important to remember is that IF person A loves the game, and feel emotionally attached to it, (s)he might get really upset when person B just say it sucks and everyone looks drunk. So while everyone is entitled to their opinion (and no one is more 'Right' than the other) we should still think about what we say.(type)
If we all just throw out all our negative opinions, the only thing that will come out of it is flamewar. (And wouldn't some rationalized discussion be more 'Fun'?)

Edit: 999

 

[TwoPumpWarrior]

But what if I'm emotionally attached to this game AND I think it's okay that things look silly?

 

[Verva]

But what if I'm emotionally attached to this game AND I think it's okay that things look silly?

You're an enigma wrapped in a riddle, my friend.

 

[tiny lampe]

Yes because arguing a point is unreasonable. I should just lay down at your mighty superiority for that is the only reasonable thing to do! I BOW TO THEE MY LORD!

I'm afraid you misinterpreted me. When I said that you were being unreasonable I meant to say that your way of arguing was unreasonable and not that arguing a point was, by itself, an unreasonable thing to do. I should have clarified it better, my bad.

BTW I don't appreciate this "Oh is just SOME people that MIGHT feel strongly about it" theme... Again you're projecting an idea onto others. Just speak of your own experience and don't try to talk for people. If you do then i'm arguing a fake point you've just made up and no matter what I say you'll just go "well that's no me its just some people out there" when realistically it's just you.

I see. So if I provide scientific evidence to support my points you will see them on a different light? Let me try to do that then.

In the field of consumer behavior there is a theory called 'Balance Theory'. The theory has been traditionally used to explain the relationship between consumers, products, and product endorsers (such as celebrities or elite sportsmen). The theory suggests that when you feel neutral towards a certain product and you discover that such product is endorsed by somebody you like, your positive feelings towards that person transfer to the product and you start liking the product too. That's why celebrity-based advertisement works. Sounds reasonable so far?

Balance theory also has a different prediction, and this one is very relevant for the point I was presenting before. The theory suggests that if a person likes a product but he dislikes the product endorser, this person is going to experience a cognitive imbalance. In other words: it becomes more difficult to like something if you know that a person you dislike likes it too. The root of that phenomenon is people's 'need for cognitive consistency'. This phenomenon explains why some people end up disliking a product ex: the Twilight books/movies) because they disliked the fanbase first.

Let me explain how the phenomenon above relates to Sui Generis. Let's imagine a person who takes Sui Generis very seriously. He watches a video of somebody who also likes the game but, unlike him, that other player prefers to mess around with the physics. Let's assume that the serious player feels offended and starts disliking that person. According to Balance theory, now the serious player is experiencing an imbalance: he likes the game, but so does the person he dislikes. Balance theory offers several solutions to correct this imbalance; the serious player could stop liking the game (if such sillyness is possible, I want no part of it) but that's unlikely to happen if the serious player is sufficiently attached to the game. Another solution is to downplay the player he dislikes (he cannot appreciate the game, he is not worthy of it...). Both solutions allow the serious player to restore his cognitive balance and the latter is more likely if he is emotionally attached to the game. That was precisely my argument in my previous posts.

Of course, for balance theory to apply, the serious player needs to feel offended at the sight of the other player messing around with the game. If that doesn't happen, then no imbalance is experienced. That's why @TwoPumpWarrior may feel emotionally attached and still believe that it's ok if things look silly.

TL;DR: I was not projecting; I was just sharing my knowledge; searching for 'Balance Theory' and 'Need for Cognitive Consistency' should clarify and support the point I made in my previous posts.

 

[Tony]

But what if I'm emotionally attached to this game AND I think it's okay that things look silly?

I fall under this category too. I very much appreciate what Bare Mettle is doing in Exanima/SG and I'm more excited about SG than I have been about any game in decades. However, I like to mess around in the game and do things for comic relief. Doing so not only enhances my enjoyment of the game but it is a crucial part of alpha/beta testing the game. People need to do things that are not typical in order to properly stress test the game. Not to mention that currently content is quite limited so once you do everything there is to do all that remains is doing the unconventional; doing strange or silly things just for the sake of it or to see what will happen.

 

[Verva]

I'm afraid you misinterpreted me. When I said that you were being unreasonable I meant to say that your way of arguing was unreasonable and not that arguing a point was, by itself, an unreasonable thing to do. I should have clarified it better, my bad.



I see. So if I provide scientific evidence to support my points you will see them on a different light? Let me try to do that then.

In the field of consumer behavior there is a theory called 'Balance Theory'. The theory has been traditionally used to explain the relationship between consumers, products, and product endorsers (such as celebrities or elite sportsmen). The theory suggests that when you feel neutral towards a certain product and you discover that such product is endorsed by somebody you like, your positive feelings towards that person transfer to the product and you start liking the product too. That's why celebrity-based advertisement works. Sounds reasonable so far?

Balance theory also has a different prediction, and this one is very relevant for the point I was presenting before. The theory suggests that if a person likes a product but he dislikes the product endorser, this person is going to experience a cognitive imbalance. In other words: it becomes more difficult to like something if you know that a person you dislike likes it too. The root of that phenomenon is people's 'need for cognitive consistency'. This phenomenon explains why some people end up disliking a product ex: the Twilight books/movies) because they disliked the fanbase first.

Let me explain how the phenomenon above relates to Sui Generis. Let's imagine a person who takes Sui Generis very seriously. He watches a video of somebody who also likes the game but, unlike him, that other player prefers to mess around with the physics. Let's assume that the serious player feels offended and starts disliking that person. According to Balance theory, now the serious player is experiencing an imbalance: he likes the game, but so does the person he dislikes. Balance theory offers several solutions to correct this imbalance; the serious player could stop liking the game (if such sillyness is possible, I want no part of it) but that's unlikely to happen if the serious player is sufficiently attached to the game. Another solution is to downplay the player he dislikes (he cannot appreciate the game, he is not worthy of it...). Both solutions allow the serious player to restore his cognitive balance and the latter is more likely if he is emotionally attached to the game. That was precisely my argument in my previous posts.

Of course, for balance theory to apply, the serious player needs to feel offended at the sight of the other player messing around with the game. If that doesn't happen, then no imbalance is experienced. That's why @TwoPumpWarrior may feel emotionally attached and still believe that it's ok if things look silly.

TL;DR: I was not projecting; I was just sharing my knowledge; searching for 'Balance Theory' and 'Need for Cognitive Consistency' should clarify and support the point I made in my previous posts.

Very nice response, I'm sorry I misunderstood your point.

I've had a conversation with a friend of mine recently about this theory in a larger argument we were having about cognitive dissonance. I've been very aware of the effects of dissonance and inbalance in my life since a young age and as such have become quite good at avoiding it, to a point where I often forget it effects others. Understanding that there's a clear separation between the things I like and my own personality, and the things others like and their personalities, means my tastes aren't effected by others, no matter my relationship with them.

I always felt this was one of the most basic signs of maturity and that everyone should be active in dispelling thoughts that result in conflict, including those described in social balance theory. E.g., adapting a "you do you" attitude and applying it equally to people you love, or hate.

Because of this I feel that if one experiences inequalities described in balance theory, it is a sign of immatury and lack of deeper thought into the situation. A mature person should see that if they can allow themselves to like whatever they want for whatever reason without judgement, they can extend that allowance to others and not have it bother them.

In essence, I don't like let's players, I like sui generis. If a let's player like sui generis I don't give a damn.

 

[ZaratanCho]

Fun and silly videos are fine with me ;d What i wouldn't like is someone misrepresenting the game. As in going around tripping on everything, fighting terribly for fun and saying 'That's how the game is, you trip on stuff and die'

Let's say i like a let's player because we have something in common or we have similar taste. Of course if he plays a game i will take a look at it thinking there is a better chance i'll like it. Plenty of different situations. Sure, the typical 'Oh this famous football player was on a commercial for some shoes, so i need to have them because of that' is on the stupid side(but hey i'd still try to understand that perspective, unless it's just stupid ;d).

I never liked something based on just someone else liking it(concept sounds silly to be honest, to me at least) but if someone decides to like something because someone else they really trust likes it, sure i guess. Whether or not that trust is justified is whole different question. I guess it's just a matter of choice if you decide to so completely trust someone.

As for that dissonance and imbalance stuff, seems to me you are taking it a bit to one of the extremes. Doesn't seem balanced to me. ;d Nothing is so black and white and 'this' or 'that'(why not this and that ;d).

Even by what you have said it is ok for some people to be judgemental of others or act the opposite of what you are suggesting ;d Things can go in so many different directions it becomes a big mess if you(i) try to write a few words. As in a lot of cases we should probably look at the core and very deep and big archetypes of it all to understand things better. Things like 'balance theory' only stay near the surface, which might be fine in some cases. ;d

Should probably find something to do ;d

 

[Murf]

I LOVE the physics in the game, I have found some bug (that have now been fixed) because of my fascination of the physics in the game. I mean cmon, I hang a bucket by it's handle on a hook and it will swing back and forth?! How freakin' cool. By the same token I was a tad disappointed when I turned over the hourglass and nothing happened, but oh well (I know, that would involve manipulating single grains of sand, too much I know, I know, I still hoped though ). I can and do still enjoy the game and it's lore and it's mechanics all they while enjoying and experimenting with the physics.
Madoc has already stated they are not looking for this to big a big huge blowout type game, nor do they expect it to be. It will be a niche game, still they are going to need our help in getting some sales on Steam to further their progress with the overall project.

I like the idea of us putting our videos on the community hub when the steam page is up. The trailer should be be comprised of things the dev's put into it, they can manipulate the setting and tweak it to make it look just right. Looking forward to the release!

 

[burgzaza]

I personally think and hope that Exanima and SG will set a new standard in 3D games. And will be very well known/sold once enough press/youtube reviewers ( sigh ) will be as mindblowed as we are.
Seriously once it's out, any studio that want to make decent physics will look at SG and try to match it. And they will fail if they think it's easy
And big games studios that think they are the masters and can come up every half-a-year with a "new" game that is the exact copy of the previous one will lose credibility at least if people consider what Baremettle accomplished, but maybe it's naïve

 

[Murf]

@burgzaza One can only hope that is the affect it will have