a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building
You are not logged in.
Cogito wrote:One of what games?
It accurately gets classified as one of the games which are role-playing games.
Cogito wrote:You didn't engage with what I wrote at all.
I would think that making clothing is like 'purchasing gear' in other role-playing games, since money in games like Final Fantasy or Dragon Warrior can get obtained by killing enemies, and often such is or can be larger a matter of time played and knowledge of game mechanics.
Cogtio wrote:I said "RPGs in general", as a clarification of the typical types of games where "a character has skills".
You said "or where you can purchase better gear, things like that". I view making clothing for oneself in OHOL as similar.
Cogito wrote:Games where the character is long lived, and their chance of beating any given challenge is highly dependent on their skills, not just the player's ability to complete the challenge.
I would argue that there exist role playing games that don't take much skill. The original Dragon Warrior/Dragon Quest. Final Fantasy Mystic Quest. EarthBound (which is a brilliant game).
I don't get why you keep engaging with the wrong minutiae in every post, but once again you are not engaging with what I wrote.
When I mentioned RPG it was ONLY as an example of the kinds of games where your character gains skills. I do not care if you or anyone else classifies OHOL as an RPG, with respect to this discussion, because the important characteristic is: "A game where the player character gains skills over time, and those skills change what the character is able to accomplish". OHOL is NOT one of those kinds of games.
My guess, reading from another thread, is that you take implications of the form "A implies B" to be equivalent to "B implies A", which doesn't hold in general and makes it hard to have a discussion with you. For example in this discussion I used RGPs as an example category of games where the characters tend to 'gain skills' and level up. In response to this you have argued that OHOL is an RPG, but you have not argued that characters in OHOL gain skills and level up. The two ideas are not equivalent, so proving one does not prove the other.
I then go on to further clarify the types of games I am talking about, and you counter with RPGs that are different to that kind of game. Who cares if there are RPGs that don't require skill? We are discussing OHOL and it clearly does require skill.
Cogito wrote:In OHOL you don't level up your character, and you can't buy items for your character.
But you can change your character's temperature which changed the pip drain rate which makes starvation less likely.
Yes. This is a skill that a player can learn that helps them keep their character alive. It has nothing to do with the character.
Cogito wrote:OHOL is a game where the player's skill, the skill (and temperament) of the player's around them, and the actions of the players who lived before them, are solely responsible for the character not dying.
So there has existed spawning from a single spot. I watched on Twitch the day in 2019 when everyone spawned as an Eve around a single spot. I don't think what you've claimed here holds true for that day.
Even if that were true, who cares? What happened one day in 2019 has no bearing on how the game is today, nor does it have any relation whatsover to this conversation.
Just to refute your point anyway, that is the exact kind of situation where experienced, skilled, and co-operative players would be capable of surviving and those who are not would die.
Also, all foods for all generations where 1 pip during one day this winter as I understand it. The pip drain rate has changed, and is different for new accounts than older accounts. Furthermore, genetic score changes the maximum amount of pips one can have at the end of a life. So, I don't think what you've claimed there accurate.
You are describing characteristics of *players* not characters.
I am more than happy to expand my list to be "the age of the player's account, the player's skill, the skill (and temperament) of the player's around them, and the actions of the players who lived before them" - it still has nothing to do with the character.
By the way, this nitpicking only weakens your position. These points don't relate to your thesis at all, in fact I don't even know what your thesis is. Case in point:
Cogito wrote:All of this to say, what on earth does the lived experience of our one-handed characters have to do with Ninendo Hard?
OHOL characters do have two hands, as can get seen when they walk sometimes, the back arm will swing out. Sometimes they use the left hand, and sometimes they use the right hand. They just can't use two hands simultaneously.
The experience of OHOL characters, having one hour one life experiences, is not compatible with "Nintnedo Hard". If one has a "one hour one life" experience, then that life wasn't "Nintendo Hard", or at least no one that I know of beats any "Nintendo Hard" game after one hour of gameplay. If one has a "Nintendo Hard" experience, then they didn't have a one hour one life experience, they died earlier, and didn't survive one hour of gameplay, meaning that they didn't have gameplay for one hour and one life.
You are saying that the one hour life of a character has nothing to do with Nintendo Hard. I agree. Nintendo Hard is only even about the players and their skills.
Given that it is about players and their skills this whole discussion is ridiculous. Players play multiple lives, for more than an hour, and while you might not like the concept of Nintendo Hard this fixation on the characters and their one hour lives has nothing to do with it.
Offline
My guess, reading from another thread, is that you take implications of the form "A implies B" to be equivalent to "B implies A", which doesn't hold in general and makes it hard to have a discussion with you.
I am aware of those as different. But, didn't you see what you had written above? You've changed your description of what you meant.
Yes. This is a skill that a player can learn that helps them keep their character alive. It has nothing to do with the character.
The character is cold. The character wants to stay alive for some time, I think. So, I do think putting on clothing for purposes of temperature has something to do with the character.
Yes. This is a skill that a player can learn that helps them keep their character alive. It has nothing to do with the character.
It got put there to show that there's more than just the players as responsible for whether their characters live or die.
Just to refute your point anyway, that is the exact kind of situation where experienced, skilled, and co-operative players would be capable of surviving and those who are not would die.
Absolutely not. *All characters* die, and none are capable of surviving... not for all that long. Also, plenty of capable players couldn't survive for very long, not 60 minutes, let alone 30, from what I saw when everyone spawned from a single spot as Eves in 2019.
You are describing characteristics of *players* not characters.
I talked about pip drain rate. And number of pips gained from foods. And number of pips in old age. All of those apply to the character. They don't apply to the player who doesn't have pips in real life. Also, you should know that if one leaves their computer screen before their character is dead, the character can live to 60 if others feed it (and don't kill it/subject it to a wild animal attack). Why? Because pips apply to the character, not the player who left. So, I was describing characteristics of characters.
These points don't relate to your thesis at all
The concept of "Nintendo Hard" is inappropriate for this game. "Nintendo Hard" is inconsistent with one hour one life (Jason saying otherwise shows that he is not consistent). No exceptions to that. The game should be one hour one life for the average new player who tries to have such and doesn't get impeded by other players. The game is NOT 30 minutes one life. The game is NOT 20 minutes one life. The game should not be some Nintendo Hard "5 minutes one life" game, as it isn't advertised that way, and "Nintendo Hard" games have multiple lives anyways. They also are the exact same replicas of themselves over and over again, and this game has more varying conditions. The game shouldn't be 57 minutes one life. The game should be one hour one life.
Last edited by Spoonwood (2020-11-08 07:58:11)
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
jasonrohrer wrote:Game should be Nintendo Hard for an Eve camp starting up a new town. Failure rate there should be way more than 50%. Wild food should run out just before the first farm produces crops. A few people should die of starvation along the way, even as expert players. This part of the game is close to the correct hardness... maybe slightly too easy, but close.
Of course, the fruits of civilization should make basic survival easier. Otherwise, it wouldn't make any logical sense. We have a farm and a well and clothes and buildings now, but food is still running out and half of us are starving?
Living to 60 as the daughter of an Eve should be pretty darn hard.
https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewt … 296#p82296
It never did and never will.
The game is "Eat or Die!". The game's name is One Hour One Life.
first time players deserve to get the game
players can kill others for the sake of drama such a fundamental concept, and a philosophy
perhaps that's the biggest comprehensive vision
Offline
I'm not going to repsond to every point you're making, because I find these discussion drift far too quickly to trying to explain why your nitpicking is misdirected at best. I disagree with every point you made, as they all continue to argue from a position where the character is somehow meant to be important.
I'll address one of them, just to give a flavour for why I disagree with these points you're making, but then I'll move on to your last paragraph because I think you are maybe getting close to a cogent argument, even though I don't think it's valid in any way.
Cogito wrote:You are describing characteristics of *players* not characters.
I talked about pip drain rate. And number of pips gained from foods. And number of pips in old age. All of those apply to the character. They don't apply to the player who doesn't have pips in real life. Also, you should know that if one leaves their computer screen before their character is dead, the character can live to 60 if others feed it (and don't kill it/subject it to a wild animal attack). Why? Because pips apply to the character, not the player who left. So, I was describing characteristics of characters.
I had originally quoted what you talked about, but to avoid confusion I'll go through them one by one to show that they are characteristics of the player not the character (where here the character is the crying baby born naked into the world).
Spoonwood: "Also, all foods for all generations where 1 pip during one day this winter as I understand it."
This one is related to neither the player nor the character. First of all anything that is a oneoff is irrelevant, but even if it was it applies to all characters and all players equally, so has nothing to do with the *relative* chance of a character overcoming an obstacle. Nothing about your character makes you more or less likely to overcome the challenge of surviving.
Spoonwood: "The pip drain rate has changed, and is different for new accounts than older accounts."
This is a characteristic of the player, not the character. That is, new *players* have this feature; it is nothing to do with the character.
Spoonwood: "Furthermore, genetic score changes the maximum amount of pips one can have at the end of a life."
Gene score is a characteristic of the player, not the character.
You go on in this post to say the character can live to 60 "If others feed it" ie if you are playing with other players who kepp you alive! You are making my argument for me!! It is the players who keep the character alive, and always has been. A simple experiment proves the point: get born into the world and do nothing - the character will die, unless some other player stops them from dying.
Sidenote, but can you please stop taking common phrases so literally as to render them absurd, it makes communicating really hard. Everyone knows that every character dies in this game, so everyone knows that when someone says "survive" or "isn't killed" or "doesn't die" they mean "dies of old age". You do it for a few things ("families cannot survive because they eventually die when the server resets!", "an ad once said you can have babies but if you're born a boy you can't!", "it's called one *hour* one life, not 57 minutes one life") and it never improves communication, nor makes things clearer, nor makes your argument better.
Cogito wrote:These points don't relate to your thesis at all
The concept of "Nintendo Hard" is inappropriate for this game. "Nintendo Hard" is inconsistent with one hour one life (Jason saying otherwise shows that he is not consistent). No exceptions to that. The game should be one hour one life for the average new player who tries to have such and doesn't get impeded by other players. The game is NOT 30 minutes one life. The game is NOT 20 minutes one life. The game should not be some Nintendo Hard "5 minutes one life" game, as it isn't advertised that way, and "Nintendo Hard" games have multiple lives anyways. They also are the exact same replicas of themselves over and over again, and this game has more varying conditions. The game shouldn't be 57 minutes one life. The game should be one hour one life.
This isn't a game where every life lasts for an hour. It just isn't, and no word posturing on your behalf will change that.
Your argument here seems to be:
1. This is a game where every life should be 1 hour long.
2. If the Eve portions of the game are Nintendo Hard, some lifes will necessarily be shorter than 1 hour.
3. Therefore the Eve portions of the game should not be Nintendo Hard.
The problem with this argument is that no one (barely anyone?) agrees that every life should be 1 hour long.
The problem with this discussion (this whole thread) is that you are trying to use the above argument to convince people that every life should be 1 hour long. This is failing because you already assume that every life should be 1 hour long in the argument; you are begging the question. Oh and no one agrees that every life should be 1 hour long.
----
I would actually enjoy a 'creative mode' that is roughly identical to the current game but without death. It would be a different game, and I don't know which of these two games I would prefer. In any case, the *name of the game* is irrelevant when talking about mechanics like this, as they are completely up to the game creator and they have not formed a contract with anyone on the basis of the title of the game, that would be absurd.
Last edited by Cogito (2020-11-08 09:46:45)
Offline
First of all anything that is a oneoff is irrelevant, but even if it was it applies to all characters and all players equally, so has nothing to do with the *relative* chance of a character overcoming an obstacle. Nothing about your character makes you more or less likely to overcome the challenge of surviving.
So it would just be just as easy for your character to survive if you spent all of your life inside of a desert naked instead of in a grassland with warm clothing on in OHOL? I don't think so. Pips also do apply to the character.
This is a characteristic of the player, not the character. That is, new *players* have this feature; it is nothing to do with the character.
New players have that feature *for their characters*. Hence, it has something to do with the characters.
Spoonwood: "Furthermore, genetic score changes the maximum amount of pips one can have at the end of a life."
Gene score is a characteristic of the player, not the character.
The maximum amount of pips is for the character, since it's not the player, but the character that eats or starves.
You go on in this post to say the character can live to 60 "If others feed it" ie if you are playing with other players who kepp you alive! You are making my argument for me!! It is the players who keep the character alive, and always has been. A simple experiment proves the point: get born into the world and do nothing - the character will die, unless some other player stops them from dying.
The character gets kept alive though.
Sidenote, but can you please stop taking common phrases so literally as to render them absurd, it makes communicating really hard.
Taking phrases literally is necessary for precision and accuracy. Also, if phrases aren't meant literally, their meaning is not clear, and possibly ambiguous if not equivocal.
You do it for a few things ("families cannot survive because they eventually die when the server resets!", "an ad once said you can have babies but if you're born a boy you can't!", "it's called one *hour* one life, not 57 minutes one life") and it never improves communication, nor makes things clearer, nor makes your argument better.
I think when I state things literally, it's clear what I said, since literal interpretations come as simpler and require less guesswork than other interpretations. Arguments do become more precise the more literal and literal they get.
This isn't a game where every life lasts for an hour. It just isn't, and no word posturing on your behalf will change that.
Your argument here seems to be:
1. This is a game where every life should be 1 hour long.
2. If the Eve portions of the game are Nintendo Hard, some lifes will necessarily be shorter than 1 hour.
3. Therefore the Eve portions of the game should not be Nintendo Hard.
You have failed to hear what I said, because you would NOT take what I said literally. It was your *lack* of taking what I said literally that lead to this state of poor communication. Nowhere did I say that every life should be 1 hour long. What did I literally say?
The game should be one hour one life for the average new player who tries to have such and doesn't get impeded by other players.
You *worsened* my argument. Why? Because now instead of having premises that I would all assert as true, you started from a premise that I would regard as false. And arguments aren't good when they are not sound.
The problem with this argument is that no one (barely anyone?) agrees that every life should be 1 hour long.
You got into that problem, because you wouldn't take me seriously enough to read what I wrote literally.
This is failing because you already assume that every life should be 1 hour long in the argument; you are begging the question.
No, the problem with that argument is it is a straw-man. Not taking people literally who make arguments creates straw characterizations of their arguments.
It would be a different game, and I don't know which of these two games I would prefer. In any case, the *name of the game* is irrelevant when talking about mechanics like this, as they are completely up to the game creator and they have not formed a contract with anyone on the basis of the title of the game, that would be absurd.
Check the story from the website, and the Steam advertisement as quoted here: https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewt … 92#p102992
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
Spoon, when you say it’s not possible for anyone to survive, because everyone dies, you’re excluding the use of the word ‘survive’, for no good reason.
I understand the desire to be precise, but you’re not arguing against what the other person is trying to say, you’re trying to find gotcha moments. “Technically everyone dies, so you’re wrong hahahahahah”.
There is so much implied in every single sentence we say, it’s not reasonable to spell everything out every time.
I didn’t weaken your argument, I just didn’t repeat exactly what you said (in that one quote you pulled) because I was paraphrasing you. Replace my point 1 with exactly what you said and my points all still stand. Reading back through what you’ve said from the start, I think it’s an accurate paraphrase. After all it’s not 20 minutes 1 life is it?
But let’s take my (1) literally - are you saying you disagree? If so, does that mean you think the average new player should live for 1 hour but the average experienced player shouldn’t? Or is it something else? What is a reasonable death in your eyes?
Lastly, and others have said it before, the advertisement is a list of things that were, are, or may be possible in the game. A game you can play more than once. No reasonable person expects everyone who plays the game to experience all of those things every time they play the game. You are being unreasonable when insisting that lives should last an hour based on that or any other advertisement. You need to find some other line of reasoning for why we should accept your premise around how easy or hard it should be to live to 60.
Offline
Spoon, when you say it’s not possible for anyone to survive, because everyone dies, you’re excluding the use of the word ‘survive’, for no good reason.
I understand the desire to be precise, but you’re not arguing against what the other person is trying to say, you’re trying to find gotcha moments.
You didn't quote the sentence in full:
Just to refute your point anyway, that is the exact kind of situation where experienced, skilled, and co-operative players would be capable of surviving and those who are not would die.
Absolutely not. *All characters* die, and none are capable of surviving... not for all that long. Also, plenty of capable players couldn't survive for very long, not 60 minutes, let alone 30, from what I saw when everyone spawned from a single spot as Eves in 2019.
Didn't you assert that the responsibility for living to 60 rested solely with the players? But, that's not plausible for plenty of examples. And for a "Nintendo Hard" game, saying that it's the responsibility of the player who dies within 5 minutes *when that player is set up to fail* just doesn't work.
I didn’t weaken your argument, I just didn’t repeat exactly what you said (in that one quote you pulled) because I was paraphrasing you.
Average does NOT mean "all" or "every". The concepts of 'the average new player' and 'every player' are very different concepts.
Reading back through what you’ve said from the start, I think it’s an accurate paraphrase.
Are you serious? The average *new* player is some player who is like the mean, median, or mode player skill wise for new players (or some other measure of central tendency), given that we could measure those players skill. *Every player* includes those at extremes, and those extreme cases are by definition not average, AND plenty of those players are not new. You said "every life", so it would make sense for you to have talked about every player. No, absolutely not, you most certainly did not accurately paraphrase my argument.
But let’s take my (1) literally - are you saying you disagree?
Yes, not every player should live to 60 every time. For starters, players killing their own self should be possible. I said this in the original post even:
It's one thing that players can kill their own self via wild animals or others killing them for the sake of drama or immersion in some story by players own choice.
If so, does that mean you think the average new player should live for 1 hour but the average experienced player shouldn’t?
I don't know about the average experienced player living for an hour or not. I haven't thought about it. But, it's not all that relevant here. The game is a one hour game. If the average experienced player can't survive for one hour, well, they had an hour of playtime before, right? So at least, it wouldn't be like the advertisement for the game would be inaccurate with many experienced players dying before 60. It would be kind of different though if most experienced players could survive to 60, while most experienced players couldn't survive to 60.
What is a reasonable death in your eyes?
I don't think that's a good question to ask at this point in time. I think it's better to ask "what is a reasonable life?" both in terms of life expectancy and what happens/can happen in a life. After all, you don't play it so your character can die out of it, right? You play the game to have your character live inside of it, and so that you or your character can have experiences inside of it, right?
Lastly, and others have said it before, the advertisement is a list of things that were, are, or may be possible in the game. A game you can play more than once.
In one sense yes. In another sense, no. The one life concept means that when your character is dead, that's it.
No reasonable person expects everyone who plays the game to experience all of those things every time they play the game. You are being unreasonable when insisting that lives should last an hour based on that or any other advertisement.
You call me unreasonable, but it is you and others who have deliberately ignored at least some of what the advertisement has said. The advertisement gets written for players who haven't played the game yet. It is not unreasonable to take things at their plain meaning. Again the Steam advertisement says:
"A multiplayer survival game of parenting and civilization building. Get born to another player as your mother. Live an entire life in one hour. Have babies of your own in the form of other players. Leave a legacy for the next generation as you help to rebuild civilization from scratch. Updated weekly. "
One life. Not two, since the game has perma-death for all characters. An *entire* life in one hour. 'Entire' means whole https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entire One hour one life. Not 5 minutes one life. One hour one life.
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
(Taking what you said literally, to the point of absurdity)
It is not possible to live longer than 60 minutes, so if the average life should be 60 minutes than every life should be 60 minutes. QED.
The one life concept means that when your character is dead, that's it.
Good to know that, since you believe this, you have only ever played the game once. Thanks for sticking around on the forums for so long after you finished playing.
Oh and “an entire life in 1 hour” means your character is born and dies within 1 hour, which is very much possible even though it doesn’t happen every life (when you Eve).
Offline
It is not possible to live longer than 60 minutes, so if the average life should be 60 minutes than every life should be 60 minutes.
That isn't how reductio ad absurdum arguments work. For a reductio ad absurdum you assume the negation of the proposition in question, then show that such a *negation* leads to an absurdity, and then conclude that the original proposition must hold true.
To use it less controversially, assume that the proposition we want to address is "someone should be able to live for one hour". Now, to use reductio ad absurdum, we would assume that "no one should be able to live for one hour." But, then the game is not one hour one life *for anyone*. And we have would the absurdity of the game becoming a 100% fraud *for all* players. Therefore, "someone should be able to live for one hour" stands as true by reductio ad absurdum. As was to get demonstrated.
The form to the argument in the paragraph above differs from how you distorted "average life" into "every life".
Good to know that, since you believe this, you have only ever played the game once.
The last character I played had one life only. It won't have another life.
Oh and “an entire life in 1 hour” means your character is born and dies within 1 hour, which is very much possible even though it doesn’t happen every life (when you Eve).
Eves not living for an hour OR Eves existing in the first place is a problem. Either way, Eves at present are NOT consistent with one hour one life. Ruling out one hour one life a priori is worse than whether acheiving such is hard or not.
Last edited by Spoonwood (2020-11-08 21:50:00)
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
Why are you talking about reductio ad absurdum?
I’m not claiming your argument is wrong because the logical conclusion is absurd, I’m saying your insistence on taking everything absolutely literally is absurd. It’s a bad way to argue because it doesn’t make your points stronger and it doesn’t refute the opposing points.
Try an experiment for me? Can you put in your own words what you think my point of view is?
Offline
Try an experiment for me? Can you put in your own words what you think my point of view is?
On what matter?
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
I’m not claiming your argument is wrong because the logical conclusion is absurd, I’m saying your insistence on taking everything absolutely literally is absurd. It’s a bad way to argue because it doesn’t make your points stronger and it doesn’t refute the opposing points.
Also, since I take my own arguments literally, it prevents non-literal interpretations from being valid. Like how you interpreted 'the average player' as 'every player'. It works out well for me to protect my own arguments from misinterpretation. Your interpretation could quickly get understood as an incorrect one, since it wasn't literal. But you're claiming that it's a bad way to argue, when it worked out *well* for me.
Also it's better usually when people get taken at their word. Understanding arguments literally is one way of taking people at their word.
Not taking people at their word on the other hand is a means of distorting or misunderstanding what they said.
Points don't get refuted when people don't get taken at their word. Points get straw-manned or get inflated as if they meant more than they did, when arguments don't get taken literally.
Expecting people to say what they mean and mean what they say can help them get closer to honesty or helps to make dishonesty clear.
Last edited by Spoonwood (2020-11-08 23:48:59)
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
Cogito wrote:Try an experiment for me? Can you put in your own words what you think my point of view is?
On what matter?
This whole discussion. What is my key point of view (or views)?
Offline
Not taking people at their word on the other hand is a means of distorting or misunderstanding what they said.
Interpreting someone in an overly legalistic and literal way is the opposite of taking them at their word. It may be appropriate when discussing a contract, but in a forum it comes across as wilfully misrepresenting what the other person is saying. That is why I asked if you could summarise my point, so that I can make sure we’re not arguing past each other - so far it’s not clear to me that you have understood any of the points I’ve tried to make (which may well be my fault).
Furthermore, your ‘literal’ reading of statements always seems to give an interpretation that agrees with the point you want to make. For example, you take the statement “live a whole life in one hour” and the title of the game to mean that new players should be able to, as the default, live for a full hour each life. Nobody else thinks that is what the advertisement or title of the game means. You are the only person saying that a 5 minute life is not consistent with the premise of the game.
Your interpretation of the advertisement, and the rest of it, is not correct. Not in a legalistic way, not in a literal way, not in any way.
If you think I’m wrong on this, can you find anyone else who understands these statements in the same way you do? This is important, as you are arguing from the point of view of new players, and you haven’t provided any reason to think that is how new players think. Everyone else in these threads interpret it differently to you, so it is far more likely that new players do as well.
Offline
Spoonwood wrote:Cogito wrote:Try an experiment for me? Can you put in your own words what you think my point of view is?
On what matter?
This whole discussion. What is my key point of view (or views)?
I think you can summarize them yourself if you want.
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
Cogito wrote:Spoonwood wrote:On what matter?
This whole discussion. What is my key point of view (or views)?
I think you can summarize them yourself if you want.
Of course I can! That is why I asked you to try the experiment, as I clarified later:
That is why I asked if you could summarise my point, so that I can make sure we’re not arguing past each other - so far it’s not clear to me that you have understood any of the points I’ve tried to make (which may well be my fault).
This is a technique that is really effective for making sure everyone is talking about the same thing and understands each other's point of view - repeat back in your own words what you think their point of view is, it becomes immediately clear if there is understanding or not.
Last edited by Cogito (2020-11-09 04:52:34)
Offline
Furthermore, your ‘literal’ reading of statements always seems to give an interpretation that agrees with the point you want to make. For example, you take the statement “live a whole life in one hour” and the title of the game to mean that new players should be able to, as the default, live for a full hour each life.
I don't think that's what I said, no. I think I talked about the average new player.
You are the only person saying that a 5 minute life is not consistent with the premise of the game.
Five minutes one life is not consistent with the game. Neither is twenty minutes one life. Neither is fifty seven minutes one life. One hour one life.
If you think I’m wrong on this, can you find anyone else who understands these statements in the same way you do? This is important, as you are arguing from the point of view of new players, and you haven’t provided any reason to think that is how new players think.
New players don't come here. One has to have an account in order to register here, and almost always I suspect people play for a bit, before coming to the forums, IF they come to the forums.
Everyone else in these threads interpret it differently to you, so it is far more likely that new players do as well.
No, it is not. The people who come here are not new players. Also, the players that come here AND post on the forums consist of a small fraction of the players. There exist far more views on almost all posts than the number of comments on those posts. Some people just read and don't comment. Additionally, plenty of people who have played NEVER visit these forums. They go to reddit or don't read anything. Furthermore, there exist some people who have played once and that's it. Or a small handful of times and that's it. People you read on these forums aren't likely to have played a small handful of times. There's likely more here also.
It makes for a rather large mistake to think that forum users think like new players or the average new player.
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
Additionally, I don't really need for the average new player to expect to have a one hour one life experience for the above to work.
Simply put, interpreting the advertisements as I have *is a more consistent* interpretation of them than other interpretations I have seen.
Cogito and others *avoid* the issue that the game becomes something like 5 minutes one life, 20 minutes one life, or 40 minutes one life for the average new player. They don't answer the question "but wouldn't it be something other than one hour one life then?"
It comes as more consistent to interpret the advertisements as concerning a one hour one life game than anything else.
Lastly, I'm also sure that when the advertisement says "having babies" *that* part is meant as literal in the sense that it's about characters having babies. "Nintendo Hard" doesn't work well with that, because one's character has to live for a certain amount of time for that character to have babies, and "Nintendo Hard" games usually worked out that a new player would not play for 15 minutes before dying once.
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
Cogito wrote:Furthermore, your ‘literal’ reading of statements always seems to give an interpretation that agrees with the point you want to make. For example, you take the statement “live a whole life in one hour” and the title of the game to mean that new players should be able to, as the default, live for a full hour each life.
I don't think that's what I said, no. I think I talked about the average new player.
I am equivocating 'average new player' with 'new players, by default' as they mean the same thing as far as I can tell. 'average new player' is not a precise term. My understanding of your position is that, barring suicide, actions from other players, and potentially other infrequent events, new players should be able to live for a few hours whole hour. That is, by default, new players are able to live for 1 full hour.
Cogito wrote:You are the only person saying that a 5 minute life is not consistent with the premise of the game.
Five minutes one life is not consistent with the game. Neither is twenty minutes one life. Neither is fifty seven minutes one life. One hour one life.
Yes, you have repeated your point of view many times. Repeating it is not evidence that what you are saying is inconsistent with the premise of the game.
For me, reading what I have and playing the game, the key premise is that (unlike other games) I control a character for their entire life, each minute of my time is one year of the character's, and the character dies of old age at age 60. Dying early is consistent with this premise.
If you don't agree with me you need to show that this premise is fundamentally flawed (the title One Hour One Life is not evidence against this premise, nor is the advertisement you keep bringing up), or somehow that dying early is inconsistent with it.
Cogito wrote:If you think I’m wrong on this, can you find anyone else who understands these statements in the same way you do? This is important, as you are arguing from the point of view of new players, and you haven’t provided any reason to think that is how new players think.
New players don't come here. One has to have an account in order to register here, and almost always I suspect people play for a bit, before coming to the forums, IF they come to the forums.
This is not evidence for what new players think, nor is it a reasonable argument for why what you think is what they would think.
Cogito wrote:Everyone else in these threads interpret it differently to you, so it is far more likely that new players do as well.
No, it is not. The people who come here are not new players. Also, the players that come here AND post on the forums consist of a small fraction of the players. There exist far more views on almost all posts than the number of comments on those posts. Some people just read and don't comment. Additionally, plenty of people who have played NEVER visit these forums. They go to reddit or don't read anything. Furthermore, there exist some people who have played once and that's it. Or a small handful of times and that's it. People you read on these forums aren't likely to have played a small handful of times. There's likely more here also.
It makes for a rather large mistake to think that forum users think like new players or the average new player.
I did not say that "forum users think like new players or the average new player", I said that the fact everyone else here interprets it differently to you is evidence that new players would interpret it differently to you as well. You have no evidence to suggest new players would interpret it as you do at all.
Last edited by Cogito (2020-11-09 05:26:54)
Offline
Additionally, I don't really need for the average new player to expect to have a one hour one life experience for the above to work.
Simply put, interpreting the advertisements as I have *is a more consistent* interpretation of them than other interpretations I have seen.
More consistent with what?
Game advertisements list things that are possible within the game.
They do not provide a guarantee for what will happen in every single playthrough that every single player (or even the 'average new player') will have.
They advertise possibilities, and are misleading only if those possibilities are unachievable. The things listed in that advertisement are possible, and are achieved by players new and old, all the time.
Cogito and others *avoid* the issue that the game becomes something like 5 minutes one life, 20 minutes one life, or 40 minutes one life for the average new player. They don't answer the question "but wouldn't it be something other than one hour one life then?"
It comes as more consistent to interpret the advertisements as concerning a one hour one life game than anything else.
No it doesn't. As others have pointed out, the interesting thing about One Hour One Life is that each life is AT MOST one hour long, not AT LEAST one hour long. This is what sets it apart.
Lastly, I'm also sure that when the advertisement says "having babies" *that* part is meant as literal in the sense that it's about characters having babies. "Nintendo Hard" doesn't work well with that, because one's character has to live for a certain amount of time for that character to have babies, and "Nintendo Hard" games usually worked out that a new player would not play for 15 minutes before dying once.
Just because some other Nintendo Hard games kill you before 15 minutes of game play, killing you before 15 minutes of gameplay is not a defining characteristic of Nintendo Hard. This is another example of the "A -> B" therefore "B -> A" mistake you've been making in a lot of threads recently.
Furthermore, don't forget that we are talking about Eveing as Nintendo Hard, NOT the rest of the game. It is not Nintendo Hard to have a baby - don't be an Eve (or close descendant of an Eve), and you'll probably live to be old enough to have babies. I mean, if you ARE the Eve then it is extremely likely you will have babies.
Offline
I am equivocating 'average new player' with 'new players, by default' as they mean the same thing as far as I can tell.
Just plain bizarre. Plenty of new players will have less than average skill for new players.
My understanding of your position is that, barring suicide, actions from other players, and potentially other infrequent events, new players should be able to live for a few hours.
What? Maybe I should just stop reading and believe that you're trolling at this point. A few hours? It's a one hour game. After 60 minutes of play there is at least one death for every player. No player n the form of the character is able to live for a few hours. That's NEVER been the case. I don't think it will ever be the case. And most certainly, if any player could live for a few hours via one character, how would 'one hour one life' be accurate? The game is not two hours one life, nor is it three hours one life. One hour one life.
I did not say that "forum users think like new players or the average new player", I said that the fact everyone else here interprets it differently to you is evidence that new players would interpret it differently to you as well.
No. It doesn't work that way, because if it did, then you'd have implied a connection between how players commenting in this post think and how new players think. We neither know that new players would agree with me, nor do we not know that they would agree with me. There is no way of knowing also.
Also, see my other post above. My position can still work out even if average new players don't agree with me, because the interpretation I've put forth comes as more consistent than "five minutes one life" or whatever "Nintendo Hard" interpretation would be for this game. If the average new player had a one hour one life experience, I could claim consistency with the title *on the basis of their experience*. That just isn't possible if the game gets designed to work as five minutes one life for them.
Again, not two minutes one life. Not twenty minutes one life. Not thirty minutes one life. Not fifty seven minutes one life. One hour one life.
Last edited by Spoonwood (2020-11-09 05:23:20)
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
Cogito wrote:I am equivocating 'average new player' with 'new players, by default' as they mean the same thing as far as I can tell.
Just plain bizarre. Plenty of new players will have less than average skill for new players.
Not sure why you are bringing up skill?
If you mean 'average' as 'mean', then it is silly to say the average is the max (one hour is the max life, so the mean can only be the max if every value is the max).
If you mean 'average' as 'typical', then the average new player living to 60 is the same thing as saying new players live to 60 by default, or in the typical case.
Cogito wrote:My understanding of your position is that, barring suicide, actions from other players, and potentially other infrequent events, new players should be able to live for a few hours.
What? Maybe I should just stop reading and believe that you're trolling at this point. A few hours? It's a one hour game. After 60 minutes of play there is at least one death for every player. No player n the form of the character is able to live for a few hours. That's NEVER been the case. I don't think it will ever be the case. And most certainly, if any player could live for a few hours via one character, how would 'one hour one life' be accurate? The game is not two hours one life, nor is it three hours one life. One hour one life.
Sorry about that, it was a typo! Fixed in post above. Note that the very next sentence clarified my point so it *should* have been obvious what my intent was - "That is, by default, new players are able to live for 1 full hour."
Cogito wrote:I did not say that "forum users think like new players or the average new player", I said that the fact everyone else here interprets it differently to you is evidence that new players would interpret it differently to you as well.
No. It doesn't work that way, because if it did, then you'd have implied a connection between how players commenting in this post think and how new players think. We neither know that new players would agree with me, nor do we not know that they would agree with me. There is no way of knowing also.
I am, crazily, drawing a connection between how some people interpret something, and how other people interpret something. It is reasonable to think these subgroups (new players and people commenting on the forums) interpret things in similar ways, especially as commenters were all new players at one point.
Do you think everyone who is commenting here has changed their point of view simply because they have played the game for a little bit? I know that my point of view on this subject has not changed simply because I have played the game, and my point of view seems consistent with what everyone except you states.
Also, see my other post above. My position can still work out even if average new players don't agree with me, because the interpretation I've put forth comes as more consistent than "five minutes one life" or whatever "Nintendo Hard" interpretation would be for this game. If the average new player had a one hour one life experience, I could claim consistency with the title *on the basis of their experience*. That just isn't possible if the game gets designed to work as five minutes one life for them.
Again, not two minutes one life. Not twenty minutes one life. Not thirty minutes one life. Not fifty seven minutes one life. One hour one life.
I believe I addressed this in my last post.
Also waiting to see if you can summarise my point of view (or anyone else in the threads point of view really).
Offline
More consistent with what?
More consistent with the rest of the advertisement.
Game advertisements list things that are possible within the game.
Time passing is more than possible. Time passing is inevitable. To talk of 'one hour' is to talk of an inevitable length of time.
They advertise possibilities, and are misleading only if those possibilities are unachievable. The things listed in that advertisement are possible, and are achieved by players new and old, all the time.
No, not all things advertised for this game are possible. Note that the game is advertised as one hour *one life*. Thus, it's fine for a player to play exactly one life in one hour (given that they can live that long), and expect that what gets advertised should be possible. But, as confirmed by checking the leader board, some players get born male in their first life (. It is *impossible* for those players to have babies, and "having babies" is one of the things advertised. There's also infertility during children of men mode. But, finding a new player and was male who played during that time period is more difficult.
No it doesn't. As others have pointed out, the interesting thing about One Hour One Life is that each life is AT MOST one hour long, not AT LEAST one hour long. This is what sets it apart.
Setting the game apart from other games does not have anything to do with the consistency of its advertisements.
Just because some other Nintendo Hard games kill you before 15 minutes of game play, killing you before 15 minutes of gameplay is not a defining characteristic of Nintendo Hard.
The design process of "Nintendo Hard" games was such that the designers *expected* players on their first life to die within a short period of time. That's what I think, and I wasn't yet 13 when many of the "Nintendo Hard" games were first released.
It is not Nintendo Hard to have a baby - don't be an Eve (or close descendant of an Eve), and you'll probably live to be old enough to have babies.
See above about playing as a male character.
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
Not sure why you are bringing up skill?
Because by 'average new player', I mean 'average skilled new player'.
Do you think everyone who is commenting here has changed their point of view simply because they have played the game for a little bit?
I don't know. I do know that I didn't have the idea of judging the game as worth it or not on the basis of one hour or one life of gameplay before I played it. But, that is what the one hour one life concept suggests.
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
Cogito wrote:More consistent with what?
More consistent with the rest of the advertisement.
Who cares about consistency with the rest of the advertisement? We are talking about if the game should be the way you think the advertisement portrayed it, ie is the game consistent with the advertisement.
Cogito wrote:Game advertisements list things that are possible within the game.
Time passing is more than possible. Time passing is inevitable. To talk of 'one hour' is to talk of an inevitable length of time.
Huh? This is not your best work.
Cogito wrote:They advertise possibilities, and are misleading only if those possibilities are unachievable. The things listed in that advertisement are possible, and are achieved by players new and old, all the time.
No, not all things advertised for this game are possible. Note that the game is advertised as one hour *one life*. Thus, it's fine for a player to play exactly one life in one hour (given that they can live that long), and expect that what gets advertised should be possible. But, as confirmed by checking the leader board, some players get born male in their first life (. It is *impossible* for those players to have babies, and "having babies" is one of the things advertised. There's also infertility during children of men mode. But, finding a new player and was male who played during that time period is more difficult.
Spoonwood, you don't even believe that players only live one life, please stop repeating this without bring up some new idea.
It is possible to achieve all these things, over the course of multiple lives. That you can't do all of them all of them time may be interesting, and may be worth investigating why, but it doesn't magically make the ad a giant conspiratorial lie (this is an exageration).
Cogito wrote:No it doesn't. As others have pointed out, the interesting thing about One Hour One Life is that each life is AT MOST one hour long, not AT LEAST one hour long. This is what sets it apart.
Setting the game apart from other games does not have anything to do with the consistency of its advertisements.
This point is not related to the consistency of advertisements, it is about how new players are likely to interpret the name and the ad. These things don't exist in a vacuum, they exist exactly to advertise a game to people and why they should play it. How this game is different to others is an integral part of the ad.
Cogito wrote:Just because some other Nintendo Hard games kill you before 15 minutes of game play, killing you before 15 minutes of gameplay is not a defining characteristic of Nintendo Hard.
The design process of "Nintendo Hard" games was such that the designers *expected* players on their first life to die within a short period of time. That's what I think, and I wasn't yet 13 when many of the "Nintendo Hard" games were first released.
So, again, we are not talking about games that inspired the term Nintendo Hard but about a game where an aspect of the game was aspirationally described by the game's creator as Nintendo Hard.
Just because the games that inspired the term Nintendo Hard involved you dying within 15 minutes (even if that is true, I don't know that it is), it does not mean that games can only be described as Nintendo Hard if you die within 15 minutes.
In any case, Jason definitely seems to want it to be extremely hard for anyone to Eve successfuly - good thing new players don't have to Eve all that often!!
Cogito wrote:It is not Nintendo Hard to have a baby - don't be an Eve (or close descendant of an Eve), and you'll probably live to be old enough to have babies.
See above about playing as a male character.
See above about how you don't have to do everything in every playthrough.
Offline