Now that the dust has settled, is it about time we finally admit that Alex Kierkegaard was right the whole time?
Now that the dust has settled, is it about time we finally admit that Alex Kierkegaard was right the whole time?
Now that the dust has settled, is it about time we finally admit that Alex Kierkegaard was right the whole time?
>open world
>not too simple for most people
What the hell does he mean by simple? No one thinks Wizardry is too simple.
In terms of mechanics and systems. Dungeon crawlers are simple enough that a toddler could play them.
>More complexity = More quality
Yes, that's correct. Smarter people tend to get bored with simpler games.
As a high IQ genius I can confirm this is true, but not the way most people think. I just get bored of being able to predict the future and it kills the enjoyment.
It's the same reason I hate JRPGs right now because I've already played every JRPG by playing the best ones.
It's also why I could not enjoy baldur's gate.
Either way it doesn't matter because this isn't a common problem.
Lately I been into fear and hunger though if you're wonder what games geniuses play.
See the function in the corner, that's the gaussian.
The stakes are genres of x values ordered by their quality and they fall under their respective area under the integral.
>and they fall under their respective area under the integral.
pseud
Racing games are at the most simple according to the graph.
Yet you can always be faster,the better you are at the game the faster you will be.
Anon... you go forwards and you win...
There's nothing wrong with liking simple games
This is why I inherently disagree with the graph
First they say it's quality and then they say it's complexity under the area
this is inconsistent
A simple game isn't lacking quality because it is a simple i.e. racing games.
There needs to be a good way of defining quality. Quality could mean (god forgive me for uttering it) graphics (I amend this by meaning graphical design).
Though I think in this case it's proportional to the complexity of the gameplay loop.
anon i would tell you to seek help, but i don't think you can be redeemed. kys
Actual high IQ here. The secret is that the games on the left are far more complex than the games on the right. Pseuds get filtered into thinking that having more subsystems and mechanics makes a game more complex, when in reality it often just gives your more busywork to juggle. Routing for score in an arcade game or playing at a top level in a fighting game requires a lot more intelligence than crunching numbers in a strategy game.
>Pseuds get filtered into thinking that having more subsystems and mechanics makes a game more complex, when in reality it often just gives your more busywork to juggle
Spoken like a true pseud.
Pseuds like being given puzzles with many pieces that take ages to solve while lacking the intelligence to see that it is a waste of time. That's what makes them so susceptible to intellectual traps and also describes the genres on the right in a nutshell.
>Pseuds like being given puzzles with many pieces that take ages to solve while lacking the intelligence to see that it is a waste of time.
You could say that of any genre, including fighting games and arcade games. I think you're just coping with the fact you got filtered by genres that actually require intelligent thinking to get good at.
Chess is one of the simplest games to play yet is beloved by smartest of people around. The complexity comes from what you can do with simple gameplay.
Meanwhile complex games are harder to balance and often have a defined meta because of balance issues. This dumbs down the game significantly as players just need to know what the meta is and copy what other people do.
Until True Geniuses discover and redefine said Meta each time. At the highest levels of play complex games really do lead to the most complex gameplay. It's hard to appreciate this when you can only play at the level of a midwit or pseud.
Yeah literally all the quality options above the mean are skinner box trash.
Play fighting games. Actual complexity isn't just numbers splattered on the screen.
>sports and racing games are low popularity
>adventures are low quality
Sports and racing games are popular according to this chart
Dungeon crawlers, first person 4x and survival building are less popular.
I have no fricking clue how you could possibly come to that conclusion given that skyrim is one of the most popular games ever made, but it is what it is
Popularity is described by the bell curve, the popularity of the games falls down on the bell curve, the images' Y position is irrelevant.
That doesn't make sense - they explicitly mark scatter points on the graph with a square even though the line often comes from the game marker itself.
And it also implies that they think sports games are unpopular, despite the fact they consistently top sales charts
>And it also implies that they think sports games are unpopular, despite the fact they consistently top sales charts
That was the point of my initial post - that the chart implies unpopularity of sports and racing games (objectively false, sports games are probably the biggest sellers for normies) and low quality of adventures (subjective).
If it's a scatter plot, why the frick plot a bell curve over it?
>If it's a scatter plot, why the frick plot a bell curve over it?
Because it's two charts using the same axes moron.
The bell curve is the hypothesis, the scatter plot is real data
Forget technological illiteracy - zooms can't even read a fricking two-axis graph anymore.
Seriously, either I'm moronic and about to flunk the statistics class this month, or the chart is fricking stupid, or it's simply channers being moronic and thinking it's a scatter plot when it's not.
The Y position of the screenshots is irrelevant, why else would there be lines going down on the bell curve?
By the way, is there any reason why there's even the bell curve formula in the image? Is that really necessary? I'm thinking the author was thinking he'll look smarter by copy-pasting it in.
Lines connecting to the bell curve is for readability. You want to cram all those images and text right on top of the bell curve?
The graph is highly stupid, but the Gankertards reading are also stupid, so it just compunds.
>fighting games
>popular
>I can't read a plot
The chart is the hypothesis, the genres are a scatter plot of the two axes you fricking moron.
If it's high on the Y axis that means it's popular
You're moronic you stupid Black person.
Look at it again. It's a gaussian distribution not a scatter plot
It's a scatter plot with a bell curve (pointlessly) superimposed onto it. The alternative hypothesis requires believing the author is so disconnected from reality that he thinks sports games are the least popular genre. Not even Alex is that moronic.
No, he is exactly that moronic. But so are you, for thinking the lines mean anything and aren't just there for readability.
I put to you that you are the moron for thinking the bell curve means anything when the data are obviously not normally distributed. Alex even admits as much here
>Racing
>Too simple
>push the pedal down
>win
>Racing
>Not popular
Zoomers dont care about cars anymore. Also, nice post number.
>Zoomers dont care about cars anymore
F1 has been in its biggest boom period ever over the past several years and so have related e-sports. You don't know what the frick young people are interested in, moronic basement-dwelling boomer.
>F1 has been in its biggest boom period ever over the past several years and so have related e-sports
Tell me what F1, e-sports and car culture have anything to do with each other.
Zoomers dont even hang car posters or talk about dream cars. They only care about walkable cities, car sharing, sustainability, EVs and prefer Ubers to owning a car.
The popularity of F1 doesnt have anything to do with car culture as a whole.
Wait, I read this clusterfrick of a graph wrong.
No wait I didn't.
Wait, I did.
How the frick am I supposed to read this graph? The heights of the colored pillars are popularity?
But the height of the bell curve is also popularity? Or is it enjoyment?
Fighting games more popular than Sports?
Am getting worked by a shitpost?
Every single complaint I hear about fighting games is that they're too hard lol
This is stupid. at a very basic level, it confuses complexity with complication. Well-formulate rules and mechanics that promote interesting interactions make a game complex. Just building and iterating rules, mechanics, and features without regards to the quality or interactions of those rules, mechanics, and features just makes a game complicated.
Particularly with regards to fighting games and STG's, the complexity of the gameplay is actually much higher than that of the average survival-building game or even the average RTS by a wide margin, because those games contain a lot of treadmills, power-creep, avatar strength, et cetera.
Also wow, providing the formula for a normal distribution. This is either exquisite bait, or this guy actually thinks that writing down a condition PDF makes him smart. Really annoying. Not even any argument that shows that the distribution actually is normal. You get a C- on this post.
>Particularly with regards to fighting games and STG's, the complexity of the gameplay is actually much higher than that of the average survival-building game or even the average RTS by a wide margin, because those games contain a lot of treadmills, power-creep, avatar strength, et cetera.
post rust k/d and your fighting game ranks
I agree. Real-time strategy games can also be astoundingly simple to such an extent that children can play them and do very well. Turn-based strategy can be just as difficult, if not more, than RTS. When it comes to fighting games, most people think it's just about mashing buttons, but don't understand they would be much better at the game if they bothered to learn the move sets for different characters. For Mortal Kombat, it is different for every character. His choices of where these categories belong on this distribution are arbitrarily decided and do not explicitly prove these game types are more complex.
He has a very surface-level understanding of these games but believes he's a high iq genius who knows everything. Classic midwit pseud.
>Fighting games and STGs
>More complex than the average survivor-building game or the average RTS
Sounds like you've never played a survivor-building game or an RTS before in your life.
You are completely correct on every point, but you will might catch some flak for sounding a little too smug.
>Pass user
Opinion disregarded.
>if i put simple games in the "complex" side people will think i'm interesting
what a homosexual
who
I don't know that is, but he also doesn't know what the frick a bell curve is. So it evens out. Like a bell curve is supposed to.
I don't play video games to interact with real people, so MMOs have no appeal
Icycalm is just trying to scientifically prove that his taste is the best taste in the world. Because he is the Overman; obviously. Whatever.
The Overman; reduced to streaming Rust on Twitch.
>fighting games
>simple
this is the biggest case of "moron who thinks he's smart" ive ever seen
it defeats the whole point of a bel curve if the most popular genres are on the left of it
I really don't understand why autists put so much energy into bad bait that most people won't fall for.
>bait
No, icycalm is genuine.
He is the schizo-philosopher. I'm a huge fan.
>Too simple for most people
>Contains the most games and most popular games
This chart disproves itself.
This is the same guy who thinks star citizen is the second greatest game of all time, just underneath his own vapourware title
>too simple for most people
>fighting all the way on the left
>known for filtering people with inputs
>"""too simple"""
1/10, got me to reply
>several genres at the left end of the bell curve are very popular
>far more than half the genres are on the left half of the curve
The person who made this does not seem to understand what a normal distribution is, and superimposed it onto his scatter plot just to make it seem more legitimate. Verdict: pseud.
is this graph trying to say sports are unpopular? or is it trying to say that fighting games are popular?
either scenario makes it nonsense.
Why would popularity and quality have a normal distribution relationship?
Unimodal, maybe, but definitely not normal. I'd expect it to skew towards more simple games being more popular too
>I'd expect it to skew towards more simple games being more popular too
Even the author's own scatter plot seems to point to this, but he's a pseud so he put a completely pointless bell curve on the graph.
>Make sensible graph
>Throw in an unrelated bell curve for no fricking reason
>Watch as Anons scramble their brains trying to figure out what it means
Devious, OP.
A bell curve is a way of optimizing the area of statistical regimes. It follows from the central limit theorem which is why it's so effective, it's also why the number pi (the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle) is somehow related to human populations and stock markets... it's not it's just an method of optimization. Yeah sorry to break it to all the scientists that think math is literally voodoo magic, most of practiced mathematics is closer to engineering than magic. Not that wizardry is not common place, but magic spells only work in magic worlds.
Thank you for the nerdbabble but what does this have to do with my post? Also the graph in the OP isn't even a bell curve, it just has one pasted in for no reason.
>central limit theorem
applies when variables are independent and identically distributed, not when you place them by fiat along the x-axis. not every dataset is normally distributed.
Yeah it's probably too idealistic
What? It's not about optimizing area, and it's not "following" the central limit theorem. Bell curves appear commonly as a result of the central limit theorem (the distribution of sums of sampled data sampled from any distribution tend towards a normal distribution in the limit). Bell curves aren't some invention or trick, they're the actual distribution for many random variables.
i find this one more accurate
>fps and fighting games "low iq"
>survivalslop and souls "high iq"
New pattern detected. Pseudo-intellectual morons seem to get filtered by executuon/reaction time checks.
That image is, for all intends and purposes, a shitpost. It is crafted for the singular purpose of making fun of senseless IQ graphs
There's nothing intellectual about pressing buttons in reaction to simple stimuli.
Mayhaps that makes you more similar to the lab rats high IQ individuals like myself keep, I suggest you read up on Operant Conditioning Chambers. Or "Skinner's boxes" as laypeople like yourself might call them, and do try to fine the difference between one and a so-called "fighting" ""game"".
>t. +300ms reaction time
frick off Alex everyone thinks you're moronic.
I-I apolgize, 160 IQ anon-sama..
>duuuude I made the numbers go up
you didn't understand the chart, unironically
The chart really needs different placement for fighting games if you're black vs if you're Japanese
What the frick do the axes represent?
>X
>Y
Oh, thanks
>fighting games are "less complex"
>survival build slop is "more complex"
This is a single digit iq chart.
What are some good First Person 4X games, Gankeritizens?
Star Citizen
>First person 4X
>FP4X
What the FRICK is this shit?
Best Massively-multiplayer Multigroup Survival-building 4X Overworld GMRPG (Ultimate Edition) games?
>Survial building
You mean the thing that took normalgays by storm so hard they ruined every other game by trying to shove it in there for a few years?
frick off psued.
There is no scatter plot. The genre images are placed where they are just so they don't overlap with other images at the same x position. They are purely visual
As soon as I saw where Fighting was I completely disregarded the chart
Its just not true. "Sports" is listed there as THE lowest popularity genre of game for being "too simple" (literally at 0) but FIFA is one of the best selling game franchises of all time. NBA 2k and Madden are also huge. Survival Building is "too complex for most" but Minecraft is incredibly huge and one of the best sellers around....among preschoolers. On what planet is Deus Ex more popular than Mario?
He wants to sort games by least-->most complex and somehow assumes their popularity will fall along a bell curve accordingly, but it just doesn't. Its a mess. its a cute idea, but its a mess and its just not working out at all. The more you look at it the stupider it becomes.
its rated lowest quality you pleb
look at all that bullshit you typed based on misinterpretation, have a nice day
"Quality" is not plotted on this graph at all. For all the supidity this chart features, he at least labeled his axis correctly, you just need to READ THEM
>popularity vs quality header
>popularity
>quality
moron
I play 20 year old Korean mmorpgs mainly
terrible image
Let's count the errors
>"Quality" is the X axis label, but the bell curve indicates he actually ment "complexity". Presumably he's conflating the two, which A: should be stated and B: Is fundamentally stupid
>He literally stuck the bell curve formula on there for no god damn reason.
>He's rating the complexity/"quality" of genres as a whole when individual games within a genre could fluctuate to any point on the graph. "Platformers" is way too wide a group to generalise and result in anything but nonsense.
>Even if we assume he's taking the avarage like he shouldn't do, the genre's are listed in vastly incorrect places. 4x on the low end? Fighting games near the bottom? This chart almost feels like it's mirrored, with how bad it is.
>His premise is compeltly counterfactual. He's trying to argue that sports games and platformers are "low popularity" because they're simple when those are 2 of the most popular genres? RTS is more popular than Survival Crafting? What is this guy on?
>And of course, he's trying to make an Objective graph of strictly Subjective values, which is stupid on the face of it
I'm not counting people mistaking it for a scatter plot, that's Ganker's moronation, not his.
People misreading a simple bellcurve and trying to apply their schooling to justify being moronic is the real revelation. Here's a hint: try to design the bellcurve by placing all the same images along the line of the bellcurve keeping the current size of the images for quick visibility.
The chart is also
>"games I like" > "game I don't play"
There are autistic racing games with extreme levels of simulations like tire models and other nonsense. You have to play a fighting game against someone good once to realize it's not just button mashing.
You don't know what a normal distribution actually is. This is a moronic scatterplot which happens to be shaped like a bell, it is not a bell curve. Normal distributions are distributions, they measure the density of data points along a single variable. Distributions show the probability that a randomly sampled datum will fall within a range. This is plotting two variables against each other, making it a scatter plot and not a distribution at all.
>fighting games in too simple
>average person gets filtered by quarter circles
what even is this chart.
Mediocre games are the most popular, that's all it means, which is pretty true
>2D brawler worse than 3D brawler
Eh?
dungeon crawlers are popular in your universe? can we trade realities OP?
You're chart a shit