Quantcast

Emil, Devola, Popola, More Confirmed for NieR: Automata, New Trailer

Famitsu (and 4Gamer) recently featured a spread introducing a number of new characters that players will get to see in NieR: Automata early next year when the game releases, alongside a new trailer for the game.

Featured above, you can view a new trailer straight from this year’s Tokyo Game Show. Thanks to the new information, we also know voice actors that will be taking the parts – check out the list below.

nier-automata-9-15-2016-8

    • Emil – Voiced by Mai Kadowaki
      • This is the same Emil that was part of the group in NieR. He has some latent magical abilities, and the majority of his memory has faded away in the many years since the first story.

nier-automata-9-15-2016-2

    • Pod 042 and Pod 153 – Voiced by Hiroki Yasumoto and Kaoru Akiyama respectively.
      • Support units for the YoRHa infantry squad. Focused on providing long range attacks and supporting the squad’s movements.

nier-automata-9-15-2016-1

    • YoRHa Infantry Squad Commander – Voiced by Chiaki Kanou
      • The leader of the YoRHa Infantry Squad. She also is the director of the “Bunker”, a satellite base in orbit. She remains level and calm at all times, and appears to have some connection to YoRHa Prototype A2.

nier-automata-9-15-2016-3

    • Operator 60 and Operator 210 – Voiced by Keiko Isobe and Mary Hatsumi respectively.
      • The communications team for the Bunker. They are in charge of handling any transmissions and information analysis for the Squad.

nier-automata-9-15-2016-4

    • Adam – Voiced by Daisuke Namikawa
      • A silver-haired pretty boy who remains a bit of an enigma. While usually calm, he sometimes exhibits an utterly relentless drive when pursuing a goal.

nier-automata-9-15-2016-5

    • Eve – Voiced by Tatsuhisa Suzuki
        • Adam’s twin brother. He is generally simple-minded and tends not to think too hard.

nier-automata-9-15-2016-7

    • Devola and Popola – Voiced by Ryoko Shiraishi
      • Old-styled androids at the resistance camp who feel indebted to the old-styled androids like themselves, that ran amok in history. They are support for 2B and 9S.

nier-automata-9-15-2016-6

  • Pascal – Voiced by Aoi Yuuki
    • A mechanized life-form who is a dedicated pacifist. She is incredibly intelligent, with a deep interest in the history of both machine life-forms and mankind alike.

You can also check out some screenshots of the Bunker and the Resistance Camp below:

nier-automata-9-15-2016-12 nier-automata-9-15-2016-11 nier-automata-9-15-2016-10 nier-automata-9-15-2016-9

NieR: Automata is set for a release in Japan on February 23rd, on PS4. A western release in planned for sometime early in 2017, with an added PC version.

, , ,

About

I'm a pretty chill guy. Huge video game fan, but a bigger anime fan. I also love to write - obviously.



98 comments
  1. Will3316
    Will3316
    September 15, 2016 at 5:24 pm

    Emil, Devola, and Poppola are back! Awesome!

  2. Jack
    Jack
    September 15, 2016 at 5:24 pm

    Emil is back Jesus christ

  3. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 15, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    Given Platinum’s recent shaky record I’m not sure how this game will turn out.

  4. NuclearCherries
    NuclearCherries
    September 15, 2016 at 5:54 pm

    I hope Song of the Ancients comes back. That song is my jam.

  5. Casey
    Casey
    September 15, 2016 at 6:09 pm

    I’m still hopeful given these aren’t paid for by activision unlike korra, transformers and TMNT.
    You know who is stingy when it comes to time and budget?
    activision.

  6. Tristan (Chili1)
    Tristan (Chili1)
    September 15, 2016 at 6:18 pm

    The gameplay videos should tell you to expect MGR type combat.

  7. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 15, 2016 at 6:19 pm

    I didn’t hear many good things about Star Fox and I seriously doubt Square are much more generous. Plus the other Drakengard games weren’t exactly high budget.

  8. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 15, 2016 at 6:20 pm

    The combat in TMNT is pretty good, but that didn’t make it much better as a whole.

  9. Lion
    Lion
    September 15, 2016 at 6:21 pm

    Wait…what!? How!? Oh, they are androids, not the same ones from the first Nier.

  10. Casey
    Casey
    September 15, 2016 at 6:29 pm

    platinum co-developed starfox, and honestly, if it weren’t for those goddamn controls, itd be fine.

    Square is WAY more generous than activision when it comes to budget, and nier isnt a licensed movie/cartoon game, so time isn’t an issue either.

    I don’t fault you for wondering about the budget, but sony has made a big stink about it, so I’m guessing they’ll get it right.

    Of course, Recore just came out on xbone a buggy mess, and that crap was pushed in multiple conferences.

    All we can do is hope.

  11. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 15, 2016 at 6:35 pm

    Even if we ignore the budget issue, I just think Platinum are doing too many projects concurrently, which may negatively affect them all. Their last couple of releases kind of prove that.

  12. Casey
    Casey
    September 15, 2016 at 6:38 pm

    No arguments there. I’m also afraid them stepping away from character action might be a bad move, and nier and scalebound both are supposed to be different than their other games.
    Honestly, I’m mostly worried cause that scalebound demo at e3 looked like trash.

  13. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 15, 2016 at 7:05 pm

    Yeah, combat is the best thing they do. Level design and story are not Platinum’s strong points.

  14. Nagato
    Nagato
    September 15, 2016 at 7:10 pm

    Transformers turned out fine enough, despite being done on a similar budget and timeframe as the other two.

    Granted,that one had the same director as Revengeance, whereas the other two were by this Eiro Shirahama figure, so chances it comes down mostly to which director (and maybe team) is working on a project.

  15. Rumble Red
    Rumble Red
    September 15, 2016 at 7:10 pm

    Devola and Popola, and isn’t Accord from Drakengard 3 supposed to be back for this too? That’ll probably be awkward in English, especially if they’re ever on screen together.

  16. Isaac Sadler
    Isaac Sadler
    September 15, 2016 at 7:10 pm

    The story is written by Taro who wrote for Drakengard 1,3 and Nier with Platinum doing the combat so it should be a very good game.

  17. Casey
    Casey
    September 15, 2016 at 7:11 pm

    What about wonderful 101? That story was so hype! They also managed to fix Bayonetta 1’s story at the end of bayonetta 2.

    Yeah, i guess 2 out of whatever number of games they’ve made isn’t a great track record, but at least they’ll be working with yoko taro on this one. I doubt that guy will let them screw it up… or he’ll screw it up for them.

  18. Grampy_Bone
    Grampy_Bone
    September 15, 2016 at 7:12 pm

    They were androids in Nier too.

  19. Isaac Sadler
    Isaac Sadler
    September 15, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    They got the musician back for that so you might get a remix

  20. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 15, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    There are also other elements like level design, which Platinum are not the best at.

  21. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 15, 2016 at 7:24 pm

    I don’t have a Wii U, so I can’t speak for Wonderful 101 or Bayonetta 2, but Bayonetta’s story was an absolute mess.

    Yoko Taro himself often makes some weird design choices like putting the true ending of Drakengard 3 behind New Game+++.

  22. Casey
    Casey
    September 15, 2016 at 7:29 pm

    if you can find a wii u for cheap and you consider yourself a platinum fan, you owe it to yourself to play W101 and bayonetta 2. They’re both fantastic. It takes a little bit for W101 to click, but once it does it’s amazing.

    And you’re not wrong about yoko taro. If you’re not familiar with nier, it is connected to the original drakengard, specifically, the E “joke” ending. At the very least, it won’t be a BORING story. It might be a crazy mess, but it won’t be boring.

  23. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 15, 2016 at 7:36 pm

    I’ve heard great things about both games, but I have no plans to buy a Wii U. At this point I’m not sure that I’m a Platinum fan – the only game of theirs I fully enjoyed is Bayonetta.

  24. Nagato
    Nagato
    September 15, 2016 at 7:43 pm

    Bayonetta’s story was an absolute mess.

    I’ll never get this stance; stuff really was pretty easy to follow.

  25. Juhata
    Juhata
    September 15, 2016 at 7:47 pm

    Agreed. Not bringing back Song of the Ancients for a Nier game would be like not bringing back Exhausted/Growing Wings for a Drakengard game

  26. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 15, 2016 at 7:50 pm

    Easy to follow, but stupid nonetheless.

  27. Para-Medic
    Para-Medic
    September 15, 2016 at 10:24 pm

    More screenshots with a very distinct lack of aliasing.

    They’ve been marketing the PC version all along I think. The extreme lack of jaggies in all these press shots since before E3 even are likely the result of downsampling combined with post-processing AA which I don’t think the normal PS4 can handle.

    On the other hand, non-character textures look PS3 level at best. There’s also a distinct lack of Anisotropic-Filtering considering the textures on the ground look like soup just a few meters away from the character’s feet. Shadows seem to be the only place where aliasing is noticeable, I just noticed that at the last moment.

    I think it will be interesting to see side-by-side comparisons of PS4 vs PS4 Pro vs PC.

    Edit: Also I hope we get a remix of Devola and Popola’s themes. :3

  28. sanic
    sanic
    September 16, 2016 at 12:51 am

    Huh guess they didn’t stop even for death.

  29. Stilzkin
    Stilzkin
    September 16, 2016 at 1:12 am

    Tha’s kinda the point

  30. Stilzkin
    Stilzkin
    September 16, 2016 at 1:12 am

    Reminder that Emil is a homo

  31. Feniks
    Feniks
    September 16, 2016 at 1:41 am

    Just hope the game isn’t going to be too hard. I’m not a 15 year old Asian kid and thanks to my memory it is dangerous to memorise combos. Got enough useless info stored in there!

  32. 3rdStrike_Ebi
    3rdStrike_Ebi
    September 16, 2016 at 1:59 am

    > Ryoko Shiraishi

    Bruh, fucking sweet.

  33. dogmentation
    dogmentation
    September 16, 2016 at 2:43 am

    Nice to see they’re still making PS3 games.

  34. Smug
    Smug
    September 16, 2016 at 2:59 am

    I have preference for Akihiko Yoshida’s art style in the concept designs over the 3D models personally

  35. 2501
    2501
    September 16, 2016 at 3:31 am

    I don’t think anyone is expecting Automata to be a Platinum game, this partnership is a means to finally giving Yoko Taro a working tool set. I mean, let’s face it – the gameplay in NieR and the Drakengard games are hot garbage. I’ll just be happy playing a Yoko Taro game that doesn’t have chaotic frame rate drops.

  36. Raziel Barkrai
    Raziel Barkrai
    September 16, 2016 at 3:37 am

    Memorization comes more from learning tells enemies give before their attacks in these types of games. Really just remember that and your movesets for each weapon and do what comes naturally. I’m sure Platinum is aware of the demographic of Nier fans so they’ll probably dial back on difficulty a bit and try to explain the mechanics more than they usually do.

  37. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 16, 2016 at 7:30 am

    The point is to have a bad story?

  38. FahBrah
    FahBrah
    September 16, 2016 at 9:55 am

    he sure is, Grimoire Nier lets us know that he totally had the hots for Nier

  39. FahBrah
    FahBrah
    September 16, 2016 at 9:56 am

    Yeah, Drakengard 3’s narration made me so confuse ‘cuz i thought it was either Devola or Popola narrating it before they showed Accord. I hope if they meet that they all have the same VA in english

  40. FahBrah
    FahBrah
    September 16, 2016 at 9:59 am

    Game looks great, and I’m so surprise that Devola and Popola are back! They probably aren’t the same from the first game, but it would be pretty cool if they were.

  41. ProxyDoug
    ProxyDoug
    September 16, 2016 at 10:14 am

    This game looks and sounds so good, just a casting call trailer is a real treat to watch.

  42. Suzaku
    Suzaku
    September 16, 2016 at 10:25 am

    Great song, the entire OST was outstanding. My personal favorite was The Lost Forest.

  43. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 16, 2016 at 2:11 pm

    No, the point was to have a stupid, campy, and fun story. That can actually be good if the player is able to enjoy what’s happening and the characters. A good story can be smart or stupid. It just depends on how it’s all pulled off.

    Bayonetta didn’t try to pretend to be smart. The tone was pretty clear, so it worked out OK. If it tried to be intelligent and pretentious, then it would have been bad.

  44. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 16, 2016 at 3:55 pm

    There is a difference between stupid and bad. The story in Bayonetta clearly tried to create a mythology, but it did so in a very clunky way, plus character motivations were nonsensical.

  45. A Loli de 42 Anos
    A Loli de 42 Anos
    September 16, 2016 at 6:35 pm

    gotta wonder though… did he have the hots for papa nier (a.k.a. better nier) too? or was him just a cool father figure for emil?

  46. FahBrah
    FahBrah
    September 16, 2016 at 11:28 pm

    for sure, as the feelings everyone felt towards Nier remains the same through both games, Grimoire Nier says that the only change toward the character was the brother to father thing

  47. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 17, 2016 at 2:34 am

    It didn’t really try that hard to create a mythology. What it did make worked, and the motivations were rather easy to follow.

  48. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 17, 2016 at 8:05 am

    “It didn’t really try that hard to create a mythology.” – I agree here – it was a half hearted effort.

    “What it did make worked, and the motivations were rather easy to follow.” – seriously?

    Bayonetta had no motivations – she had the whole memory loss trope going for her and that was pretty much it.

    Luka was supposed to hate Bayonetta, since she supposedly killed his father, but he treats her as a point of interest, research subject and even a love interest.

    Balder – the main antagonist – was an absolute mess. He loved Bayonetta’s mother, but is willing to sacrifice his daughter for the greater good? He eliminated all Umbra Witches and Lumen Sages, except for Jeanne, who he brainwashed to probably capture Bayonetta. Further in the story however it was revealed that he just needed to give Bayonetta’s memory back to her to achieve his goal. So why bother with Jeanne and the weird time clone when he could just tell her everything? One also has to question how didn’t he know where Bayonetta was in the first place since it was Jeanne who hid her – he could’ve forced her to retrieve Bayonetta rather than sending just 2 lower class angels.

  49. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 17, 2016 at 8:57 am

    Yeah, and that’s fine. She was doing her own thing, and the angels kept tracking her down. So? A person need not initially need a motivation, so long as they eventually get one. And she eventually did.

    Also, Balder was crazy and possessed. That’s the exact reason he turned evil. Bayo 2 explained that. It did not help his intelligence, either.

    Luka was conflicted by his hate and attraction to her. The guy’s a sucker, but it’s not as if people can’t be conflicted.

    Bayonetta is not a smart series. It never really tries to be, but it’s dumb fun. And fun is good. Hence it’s good. Not once did the plot ever bug me with any major problems.

  50. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 17, 2016 at 9:04 am

    You argued that everyone’s motivation’s were clear and I pointed out 3 clear contradictions as you confirm above.

    I’m not saying that the game is not fun. In fact it’s one of the best hack and slash games out there. This doesn’t mean that the story is above criticism. My original point is that Platinum excel in combat mechanics, but not much else and the dumb story in Bayonetta is an example of that.

  51. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 17, 2016 at 9:08 am

    Being conflicted does not mean the motivation is hard to follow or is complex. I completely disagreed with your statements. Luka is conflicted, Bayonetta’s mostly going with the flow up until she wants to regain her memories, and Balder is possessed and insane. Really not hard to see. At least, that’s my opinion.

  52. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 17, 2016 at 9:12 am

    If you are conflicted you do not have a clear motivation. Same as when you are insane. Bayonetta didn’t have a motivation for half of the game, which is not having a clear motivation.

  53. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 17, 2016 at 9:19 am

    Yeah, but she got one. And it was easy to follow that. Even Luka’s was easy. There were only two aspects to his conflicted motivation: Desire to avenge his father’s death, and his attraction to her. It doesn’t really get too muddy, so it’s easy to follow. That’s it. They don’t really try to get too complex, and that’s fine.

  54. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 17, 2016 at 9:26 am

    This doesn’t make your initial “clear motivation” statement true. It just means that the characters are shallow and one dimensional.

  55. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 17, 2016 at 9:30 am

    Meh, Luka’s wasn’t so muddy that I take back what I said. And simple is a better word, since a character is not just their motivation. Luka maybe, but Bayo’s at least got her confidence, decent amount of kindness, and humor.

    I called it good, not great or anything. Good isn’t too hard to do, and Bayonetta is at least that even taking away the gameplay.

  56. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 17, 2016 at 9:36 am

    What you pointed in Bayo are character traits, not motivation. Your initial statement is incorrect and we already established that with examples.

    I never said that the story is diminishing the gameplay, just that it’s not good.

  57. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 17, 2016 at 9:37 am

    No, it’s not. She got her motivation, and it was a simple one. Statement still stands, unless you are saying she never got it at all. I said her motivation was clear, and it was when she got it.

  58. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 17, 2016 at 9:44 am

    Most of the time she didn’t have one, so getting a motivation towards the end of the game doesn’t really count nor is it good writing. Plus the other two counter examples are still there.

  59. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 17, 2016 at 9:48 am

    It counts. Sorry to burst that bubble. And she started being interested when her flashbacks started manifesting.

    And those counter examples were dismissed. Especially Balder. He’s completely insane from being possessed by a higher, evil being. He’s allowed to be kinda incomprehensible. Two personalities were vying for control, essentially.

    “Good” writing is up to the beholder, truth be told. I called it good enough for what it was. Nothing you can say would change that. Your standards are not mine, after all.

  60. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 17, 2016 at 9:56 am

    “It counts.” – only in your head.

    “And those counter examples were dismissed.” – by you denying facts that I clearly pointed out.

    “He’s completely insane from being possessed by a higher, evil being.
    He’s allowed to be kinda incomprehensible. Two personalities were vying
    for control, essentially.” – this was not made clear in the first game, so no – he’s not “allowed” that. He’s an obvious counter example to your clear motivations statement no matter how much you deny it.

    “”Good” writing is up to the beholder, truth be told. I called it good
    enough for what it was. Nothing you can say would change that. Your
    standards are not mine, after all.” – I completely agree. You may have lower standards.

  61. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 17, 2016 at 10:05 am

    Standards cannot be measured. Each person has their own, and it is intrinsically better than anyone else’s to them. It’s stupid and arrogant to think otherwise. Also childish. It’s not as if you can prove that my standards aren’t higher than yours, for example.

    Facts? It’s just your perspective. That’s fine, but no one has to share them. I said they’re clear. Maybe not crystal, but definitely easy to follow for me. I guess you don’t have the same viewpoint, and that’s fine. But don’t pretend your opinion matters any more than anyone else’s.

    Also, a story is not an isolated thing. That would be like calling the Lord of the Rings’ first book terrible because it didn’t end the story, or didn’t fully expand on anything. You are forced to take the sequels into consideration. If you choose not to, then it is just you who looks bad. Literature and storytelling 101: Take the whole story into account before criticizing.

    Heck, Balder’s motivation is just the resurrection of Jubileus to recreate the universe. It’s just his methodology which is harder to track down, which is a separate issue.

  62. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 17, 2016 at 10:25 am

    “Standards cannot be measured.” – rubbish. Standards are a measurable thing – be that about living, eating or entertainment. This is why they are called standards.

    Everything that I stated about the characters actually happened in the game. There was nothing subjective about it.

    “You are forced to take the sequels into consideration.” – no I’m not. A story should be able to stand on its own. If there are plot holes in the first game they should be called out. “It’s explained in the sequel” is a weak excuse. It may fix the overall perception of the story, but not the one in the first game. Also your Lord of the Rings example is pretty weak – in there it was obvious that the story will continue and in Bayonetta the story was finished as far as we knew.

    Resurrecting Jubileus is his goal, not his motivation. What makes him do the things he does is his motivation. There is no explanation why he wants to do that and from the backstory we got on him it is actually quite contrary to his character.

  63. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 17, 2016 at 10:34 am

    Standards are subjective, you goofball. Can you weigh them on a scale? Materialize them for someone to study? Prove that someone’s standards are objectively higher than the other’s? No, you can’t do any of that. It’s why we have the review systems we do, and how a game can have wildly different review scores. Comparing them means nothing. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. Straight up.

    You must take the whole story into consideration. It doesn’t matter how obvious it is that it will be continued. It’s rather arbitrary to think otherwise. So yeah, you have to look at both 1 and 2. If you don’t, then I don’t really care what you have to say about it.

    There is an explanation for why he acts as he does: Loptr is corrupting him. The fusion of the two holds a warped worldview. But 1, on its own, paints it as an arrogant idea that the current world is too flawed and that he must correct it. Something to that effect. It’s been a couple years, so the exact specifics elude me.

    We can continue this forever, if you want. Nothing you’ve said has proven me wrong or anything. I have little better to do on one of my days off, after all.

  64. Alistair
    Alistair
    September 17, 2016 at 10:57 am

    Truth be known i like the 1st Game Nier for the added replay value to see new cutscenes.

    Great music and not forgetting the foul mouth girl with a penis, it a good job Nier didn’t date him/Her no wonder she was angry to find out who she really is.

    A demon really mess her up. So looking forward to this :)

  65. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 17, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    “Standards are subjective, you goofball.” – no, they are not. Living standards are absolutely objective. Some people can’t live without internet, some can. Some people prefer a deeper story in their entertainment, some watch reality shows.

    “Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.” – not an argument, cupcake.

    Again – I don’t have to look at both if I’m judging only the first game. “If you don’t, then I don’t really care what you have to say about it.” – that sounds like your problem.

    “Something to that effect.” – top kek! It was so clear that you can’t even remember!

    “We can continue this forever, if you want. Nothing you’ve said has
    proven me wrong or anything. I have little better to do on one of my
    days off, after all.” – you started this argument and brought absolutely no evidence to support your case – just blatant statements and logical fallacies. Most of the above was “if you don’t agree with me you are X”.

  66. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 17, 2016 at 12:19 pm

    You still cannot compare standards, and they are not objective in the sense that any one is “true”. They are just what someone uses to determine the quality of a work, or something they enjoy more than the other, but no one set of standards is correct or better than the other. Simple as that.

    Bayonetta is a game I beat 5 years ago. Of course exact specifics are missing. I’ve beaten a decent number of games. Very few I can remember exact details from. This holds true for even simple games like the Kirby series. As time passes, some details are lost. Are you not capable of understanding that simple fact?

    Also, never said you were wrong about anything, buddy. Well, save for the idea that anyone set of standards is “lower” than the other. That statement was stupid. We’re talking opinions, so there’s no room for fallacies when I’m not actually calling you wrong. I just don’t agree. And I’ve supported my thoughts on that in every post. You just don’t hold the same viewpoint.

  67. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 17, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    Somebody hasn’t heard of scientific standards. There are objective standards of measurement. This is why they exist.

    I was just pointing out that you don’t remember the details of something that was supposedly pretty simple and clear, which is hilarious. This forgetfulness also means that you are not capable of arguing with actual facts.

    So the rest of your post can be summed up by:
    http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/be/bef2efbf2e715f7249579d716d1e6d854163fa8f39115019a8f318041e62c8a6.jpg

    Unfortunately for you I presented facts and events that actually happened in the game. I didn’t express an opinion on whether or not I liked the characters.

  68. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 17, 2016 at 12:59 pm

    You seem to be upset. All I have been doing is expressing my opinion on the facts presented. I’m perfectly happy with this arrangement. I, too, presented facts. I referred to motivations (like Luka’s conflict with himself, and Bayonetta’s desire to find out who she is, and Balder’s desire to reshape the world through Jubileus due to his dissatisfaction with the world as well as his possession). Pretty basic stuff.

    Memory isn’t something so simple, buddy. Not sure why you find the common fact of losing a bit of details over time to be so funny. Does the average person remember what you ate this day 5-6 years ago? Do they remember every line of dialogue in the games they’ve played even after half a decade? I mean, you’re free to think this is some sort of death knell to my arguments, but it’s not. It’s just you seeking an escape from this discussion. You’re free to stop talking to me at any time. I’m having the time of my life with this stuff. Always fun.

    Also, standards of quality aren’t the same as scientific standards. To be clear, I was referring to the specific use of the word standard which refers to measuring the quality of a work. Like writing quality, gameplay feel, and the like. All of those are only objective in the sense that the person who holds those standards believes them to be correct. That’s where it ends.

  69. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 17, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    You are the one who resorted to insults, so I’m obviously not the one who’s upset.

    You presented facts, that don’t support your claims or opinions if you prefer.

    “Does the average person remember what you ate this day 5-6 years ago?” – no, but the average person will remember a movie they watched or a game they played that long ago, unless it’s convoluted and unclear. See where I’m going there?

    “It’s just you seeking an escape from this discussion. You’re free to stop talking to me at any time.” – I’m not going anywhere. You ironically made up what my motivation is in your head.

    There are objective factors that contribute to said standards. For example in writing and story telling there is the quality of dialogue, the backstory of the characters, the setting, the complexity of the plot and so on. These are shared across all people who critique a piece of media.

  70. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 17, 2016 at 1:27 pm

    I remember the game, overall. I said that I was a bit fuzzy on the finer details, which is normal for just about anyone. I played Kirby Triple Deluxe earlier this year. I remember the plot’s structure quite well. What I don’t remember is the exact dialogue, despite how simple it was. See where I’m going? And what I said supported my opinions. Can you prove they don’t? That would be quite the task. I felt everything was clear enough to me. Can you prove that I’m lying about that? Because I can say that I’m not.

    Quality is definitely subjective. If someone called Twilight well written, then there’s not much you could do the PROVE that wrong. You can argue against them, but it’s a losing battle. No one is the same when it comes to sharing standards. They can be 100% different. And that’s fine. It’s impossible to prove someone’s standards to be inferior. There is no universal standard that everyone shares. It takes only one to disagree to throw shade on the idea.

    I’m not sure where you got the idea that I was upset. I’m loving this. The worse I got was calling you a goofball, which is pretty low key. I called the thought that anyone’s standards can be “higher” or “lower” stupid and arrogant, but that was insulting the statements. Not necessarily the person.

  71. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 17, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    I didn’t argue your feelings. Just the objective facts of whether it was or wasn’t well presented.

    “Quality is definitely subjective.” – really now? Quality is the standard of something as measured against similar items. There are higher quality materials, machines and works of art in general – they are all determined by measurable properties, like the ones I mentioned for writing. What you are talking is the subjective affinity of people to products of a different quality. Standards do exist even if people are denying them for whatever reason. I never said that there is something wrong with having lower standards for anything, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.

    You suggested the upset idea and the fact remains that you are the one who resorted to insults, while my language remained neutral. It follows that if anyone is upset that wouldn’t be me.

  72. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 17, 2016 at 2:55 pm

    Quality, in this case the quality of a story, is subjective. Quality is an opinion based on criteria set by the person. No more, no less. You’re measuring against made up criteria determined by a person. If someone says a game on the N64 looks better than a PS3 game, then it’s true for them. It’s a “subjective fact”, in a way. You can’t prove it wrong. No matter what. Quality is totally subjective because quality is not fact. No one cares what you use to measure something against. Those criteria never matter to anyone but yourself. That’s it.

    All standards are equal. Going back to my example: If someone says that Twilight is better than LotR, then they’re right. They’re measuring the quality based on their standards, and their standards are the only ones that matter. There are no “low” standards. That’s all on that. Unless you can prove that reality supports your assertion, which is nigh on impossible. It’s why we have different reviews.

  73. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 17, 2016 at 3:50 pm

    Everything was determined by a person at some point in history. This doesn’t make the criteria invalid. Society and in some case institutions have codified these criteria.

    A correct comparison would be comparing the looks of the same game between N64 and PS1. Even if you compare a N64 game and a PS3 one there are objective criteria like the resolution and polygon count. If someone can like a game with a lower polygon count in the modern era, then they do have lower standards for graphical fidelity.

    As for the LotR vs Twilight comparison – they can argue which they like more and that would be subjective, but which one has better developed characters or mythology.

  74. Chin
    Chin
    September 17, 2016 at 5:45 pm

    My body is so fucking ready

  75. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 17, 2016 at 7:51 pm

    But “better developed” is still an opinion. Unlike physical objects, which have tangible properties, stories are completely conceptual. There’s absolutely no way to physically measure anything. So, no, someone CAN argue that Twilight is better developed. I wouldn’t agree, but I couldn’t prove them wrong as a fact.

    Even the N64 vs PS3 comparison works. No one has to care about polygon count and resolution. Someone can say one is better looking than the other and just be right.

    There is no objective measurements for quality for these things, unlike physical objects. You just have to accept that.

  76. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 17, 2016 at 8:06 pm

    No, “better developed” is not an opinion. You can point to a character’s back story and build up.

    “No one has to care about polygon count and resolution.” – them denying that doesn’t change the fact that it exists. What they are saying is that they subjectively like picture A in lower resolution despite the lower image quality.

    I think that you need to accept that there are measurements that are not physical objects and are perfectly objective and measurable. Here are some examples – bytes, watts, saturation, luminosity, age, angles, etc.

  77. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 18, 2016 at 3:53 am

    And none of those measurements need matter when discussing aesthetic value, or even the quality of a story and characters. They are qualities, but can have little to do with quality. The fact that a game with tons of polygons can be considered ugly by just about everyone is proof of this. None of those measurements are proven to impact what is considered “good”. Wind Waker, for example, is still considered one of the best looking games by many. Those “objective” measurements mean squat.

    You need to accept that your common sense fails you. Your standards are based on no absolute authority. Same with “better developed”. There is no objective standards used. Just subjective ones. Again, you can’t seem to acknowledge this simple truth. Why else would we have so many different reviews for books and movies? There is only one answer to that, and it’s pretty simple: Quality of works like games, books, and movies are subjective. Most professional critics accept this. Why can’t you?

  78. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 18, 2016 at 5:23 am

    We’re discussing quality, not someone’s view of what is good or aesthetically pleasing.

    “They are qualities, but can have little to do with quality.” – top kek.

    Somebody liking a game with lower quality graphics doesn’t magically make it this higher quality. This is a non sequitur.

    “Those “objective” measurements mean squat.” – actually they do have meaning. You denying that doesn’t change it.

    My standards are based on existing measurable things, not an authority as you want to present it.

    “Again, you can’t seem to acknowledge this simple truth.” – simple truth? Says who? You don’t get to use an axiom out of the blue without proof.

    “Why else would we have so many different reviews for books and movies?” – the same reason that there are multiple reviews of cars and pieces of software – different experts can consider advantages and disadvantages of the product.

    There are subjective elements of reviewing media, but there are also objective ones. Most professionals accept this. Why can’t you?

  79. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 18, 2016 at 5:40 am

    You missed the point. What constitutes “good” changes depending on a person. Reviewers know this, and accept it. “Good” is a measurement of quality. But what determines “Good”? The definition does not present any criteria for that. It’s up to the person to determine what constitutes a “superior standard”, as there is no absolute authority to put forth such a thing.

    Quality is subjective, as it is the person’s viewpoints that put context to what little objective elements there are to these standards. How is having more polygons more important? What if the models still look terrible? What if the color scheme used clashes? What if the animations look unnatural? What if the style is unpleasing to the eye? Quality takes multiple aspects into account, and is not 100% objective. If it cannot be completely based on measurable elements, then it is not objective. When interpretation creeps into something, then that is subjective in nature.

    Also, top kek isn’t an argument. Qualities can be thrown away due to irrelevance at hand, which is why I used the word “can”. Polygon count can have no bearing. Resolution can have little impact on quality. It is up to the person determine the quality of a work to know what matters and what doesn’t.

  80. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 18, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    Good is a word to describe quality. Good is not a measurement of quality. You have to have something to measure said quality, which is what makes it concrete. Again – no authority is needed when the factors you are taking into account are visible and measurable.

    “How is having more polygons more important?” – it allows the artists to make better models.

    “What if the models still look terrible?” – see above. If the models still look terrible then it’s the artist’s fault and not the objectively better tools he’s using to create his art.

    “What if the color scheme used clashes?” – that’s an objective observation.

    ” What if the animations look unnatural?” – another objective one.

    “What if the style is unpleasing to the eye?” – a measurable visible parameter.

    “Quality takes multiple aspects into account, and is not 100% objective.
    If it cannot be completely based on measurable elements, then it is not
    objective.” – another non sequitur. Having some subjective judgements doesn’t mean that the whole evaluation is subjective. A broken red car without an engine is of much lower quality than a perfectly working blue one, even if the critic prefers red cars.

    “Also, top kek isn’t an argument” – no it’s not. It’s a mockery.

    “Qualities can be thrown away due to irrelevance at hand” – if they are irrelevant then they are not part of the quality measure of the product. Simple as that. All the subjective opinions can be thrown away, but not the realistic observable ones.

    Choosing to ignore some of the objective measures of quality will make the opinion of the reviewer subjective, but not the quality of the product. That means he’s not doing his job properly to deliver non-biased information to his readers.

  81. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 19, 2016 at 3:46 am

    A judgement on quality is biased by default, save for when the judgement refers to an objective end. Writing quality, game quality, and stuff similar to that are not objective ends. Character development is not an objective concept. Colors clashing is actually a subjective measurement. We made up arbitrary rules to determine what colors go with what. Color theory is merely what the majority decided worked in terms of colors. No absolute authority decided that. Not objective.

    Animations looking unnatural can also be subjective. Being too accurate can create an “uncanny valley”, but that depends on the user’s sense of that word. Same with style. Some people find different styles pleasing to the eye, and others do not. Not actually measurable.

    We are still not done. You have still yet to prove anything. It’s kinda funny…

  82. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 19, 2016 at 8:37 am

    “A judgement on quality is biased by default, save for when the judgement refers to an objective end.” – well there you go. Quality is to be measured objectively. Giving a product a subjective evaluation is not a mark of it’s quality.

    Please address the two cars example I gave above.

    “Writing quality” – grammar, spelling, sentence structure, no leaps of logic, lack of plot holes.

    “game quality” – lack of bugs, no graphical artefacts, responsive controls.

    The above are objective measures of quality.

    “No absolute authority decided that.” – you still keep banging on about this absolute authority – there is no such thing and it is not needed to determine quality of a product.

    “Being too accurate can create an “uncanny valley”” – phahaha!

    “You have still yet to prove anything.” – you haven’t supported any of your claims about how everything is subjective with actual examples and have avoided to address every single counter example that I’ve provided.

  83. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 19, 2016 at 9:07 am

    You’re asking for failure/success states. Not “good writing”, because that’s entirely up to the reader to determine(proper grammar can be dismissed as a quality if the reader so chooses). Not “good gameplay” because a bug free game can still be considered bad. I was always referring to this. “Objective quality” would look something like a list of features, amount of polygons per model, a list of voice actors and their roles, and control scheme. It would need personal interpretation to mean anything, though. An objective form of quality would not use the words “better”, “good”, or “superior”. An objective form of quality would just state that the product functions within specifications, has more of any specific thing, and what material it would be made out of. “Good”, “better”, and “superior” do not have objective definitions. Just look at the dictionary definitions, and you’d know what I mean. Even your “objective” quality isn’t the “right” quality to use.

    The two cars example can have different fail states. A person might simply want it as an ornament(the goal), so it being nonfunctional doesn’t matter(an objective quality is now thrown out). As such, it would be rated by visual quality based on objectives the critic points. Perhaps the collector wants a worn look? Perhaps red is their favorite color, so the car must be red? The “objective” use of this ranking in quality is for aesthetic value, and serves a practical use for the consideration between the cars. The critic’s opinion becomes an observable value(the car is either red, or it fails), as that’s a necessary feature needed for a success. The car MUST be red, thus the Blue car is now of a lower value than the broken car. “But his opinion on colors is subjective” you might say. Well, it’s provable by his statements, and measurable as a success/failure state when evaluating the car this purpose. The fact that the car must be red to succeed is fact, not opinion. Quality must serve a purpose, after all. “Naked” data means nothing. Objective quality means nothing, save in specific circumstances.

    The cars are no longer “objectively” better than the other, as there is now a scenario where the red car has a more practical purpose than the blue one. Unless you can prove the blue car is better in every single situation, it no longer becomes straight up objectively better. It just works as a car, but does not work as a collection piece for the person.

    Try rotoscoping in cartoons, and perhaps you’d not look silly laughing. Taking a person, recording their motions, and animating over it. Usually comes from animated series, but can be anywhere. It’s when there’s some sort of visual discrepancy between the visuals and the movements shown. Did you not know of this? It’s beginner stuff. Things that don’t look real, but move like real things, can induce the feeling. Of course, that’s a simple way of looking at it.

    You keep trying to mock me, and getting blown back by the response. It’s cute. First the memory non-argument, then the “irrelevant qualities” bit, and now this. Keep it up. I’m having fun with this exchange.

    Everything? I mentioned, rather specifically, what I was referring to. Perhaps you should read everything I posted? Might help you to keep up. I made it perfectly clear that I was dissecting the “good writing”

  84. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 19, 2016 at 10:15 am

    “proper grammar can be dismissed as a quality if the reader so chooses” – and the reader would be wrong.

    A game in it’s initial state has bugs. The 2.0 version doesn’t everything else is identical. The latter version is of better quality. Same with books – two identical stories, one is without punctuation.

    “An objective form of quality would not use the words “better”, “good”, or “superior”.” – so you are the language police now? Those words are perfectly fine when describing the difference in quality.

    The main function of a car is it’s ability to move. The collector buying the broken red car is buying a lower quality car knowing that, because he’s not interested in the object he’s buying as a car, but as an ornament. This example doesn’t disprove that the blue working car is the higher quality product. A purified water with no bacteria in it is a better drink, but not better for extinguishing fire than liquid nitrogen. You are comparing apples to oranges.

    “Quality must serve a purpose, after all.” – I agree here. You have to define the purpose to determine the quality of the product.

    “Unless you can prove the blue car is better in every single situation, it no longer becomes straight up objectively better.” – that’s utter nonsense. You just have to prove that Blue is better for the purpose of being a car.

    Since you like dictionary definitions let me post this:

    uncanny valley – used in reference to the phenomenon whereby a computer-generated figure or humanoid robot bearing a near-identical resemblance to a human being arouses a sense of unease or revulsion in the person viewing it.

    Cartoons are not near-identical to human beings.

    “You keep trying to mock me, and getting blown back by the response. It’s cute. First the memory non-argument, then the “irrelevant qualities” bit, and now this. Keep it up. I’m having fun with this exchange.” – you keep evaluating the merits of your arguments and patting yourself on the back for points you didn’t prove. It is funny and I too am enjoying this exchange. Mocking some of your silly statements is part of the course.

    “I made it perfectly clear that I was dissecting the “good writing”” – by your own reasoning if I say that it wasn’t perfectly clear then I’m right. :P

  85. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 19, 2016 at 11:07 am

    You’re right in the sense that you thought I wasn’t being perfectly clear. Sure. Perhaps ask for clarification next time? Being passive aggressive does you no good in discussion. If you think that something I said was vague to you, then you should say so and I will do what I can to clarify. Snarking just makes you look bad.

    Those words are not quite appropriate if you wish to stick to objectivity. Good is subjective, because it is the person that determines what is “good”. The definition of the word supports this, as it offers no objective guidelines to determine what fits(see the actual dictionary terms, like from Merriam Webster). The literal definition of the word is either “something desirable” or “having the qualities required for a specific role”. But it does no state what role, and what criteria, as that’s up to the person(hence, subjective in nature).

    Check the definition of the word at Merriam Webster, or Oxford. Nothing there supports the word as being objective in nature, or having any set standards. It is, at its simplest, a success/failure state. When you add “good” to it, then you can compare. But, as per the definition of “good”(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/good) and other similar words, there is no objectively true criteria. That is up to the person. But no one criteria is correct for everyone. What’s the lowest bar? The minimum required to be “good quality”? None of those are answered by the definition of the word. There is no objective ceiling or floor(so long as the object functions for its purpose, of course). That is up to the person to determine. We could go by personal interpretations of the words, but then there’d be nothing to argue: We’d both be right.

    You gonna admit to the non-arguments or keep dancing around them? You never gave a response. Just a non-sequitur to something unrelated to the specific statement. You want to be mocking, then do so in a way that’s actually related. It only serves yourself here. I mean, you’ve proven your arguments as well as mine, at best. I don’t mind admitting my faults if you don’t mind admitting yours.

    I only have to prove that the criteria matches the purpose. Objectivity does not care about motive. It only cares about the goal, or purpose. The car did not work for the stated purpose of being a collector’s item. Just because it is a car does not excuse it of its failure for the person. It is a product, after all. Objectively, it failed the criteria. Purpose is defined by the audience. No one says that it has to fill the intended purpose, as once it is available for purchase that doesn’t matter at all. Now if you were to specify that the car could not leave the lot until it functioned, then I may agree. Something being just objectively superior must fit every possible scenario. If it fails one, then it is inferior in at least one area. You left it vague enough for me to counter. That’s your problem.

    Comparing a product within its stages of design was one such “exception”. I did use that word for a reason. And even then, there are cases where the product loses depth from bug fixing, and can result in a shallow experience compared to its beta version. Super Smash Brothers Melee would be worse off if it lost its bugs, as a number of those issues resulted in a deeper game mechanically.

    Uncanny Valley is defined better here “https://www.techopedia.com/definition/31570/uncanny-valley”, as Google definitions are kinda lacking(as I know you looked at Google’s suggested definitions). Animated movies and shows work, as do ones that employ CG. The closer they get to real, the worse it gets for the audience past a certain point. So long as the subject is rendered into a human design, or its motions apes a human’s.

  86. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 19, 2016 at 2:13 pm

    “Being passive aggressive does you no good in discussion.” – hi pot, I’m kettle – “Did you not know of this? It’s beginner stuff.”, “You have still yet to prove anything. It’s kinda funny…”, “It’s cute.”, “Perhaps you should read everything I posted? Might help you to keep up.” etc.

    You said that people shouldn’t use “better”, “good”, or “superior” to describe a difference in quality. You are wrong. You can’t force people not to use words they find appropriate for comparison. Good in itself can be vague within parameters, but the other 2 are crystal clear.

    “”having the qualities required for a specific role”. But it does no state what role, and what criteria” – it doesn’t have to. Not stating it in the dictionary doesn’t immediately lead to it depends on the person.

    Did you look at the definitions of good in Merriam Webster?

    good – of high quality; of somewhat high but not excellent quality

    So an absolute authority – the dictionary – just contradicted your statement that you can’t use “good” to describe quality.

    “You gonna admit to the non-arguments or keep dancing around them?” – about what exactly? Be specific when you are addressing my points out of order.

    The person is judging a car as a collector’s item, so he’s not evaluating the quality of the car, but rather the quality of the collector’s item. Blue still remains the higher quality car – object that functions as a car that the user will use it as a car and drive it.

    “Now if you were to specify that the car could not leave the lot until it functioned, then I may agree.” – I don’t need to put restrictions in every single example just to make sure you don’t weasel out. I gave you enough credit to know what I mean by a car and it’s intended use.

    “Something being just objectively superior must fit every possible scenario.” – no it doesn’t. It needs to fit just it’s intended purpose.

    “If it fails one, then it is inferior in at least one area.” – that is true. But then we can go on to a smaller scale and discuss the quality of the breaks, the quality of leather on the seats and so on and so forth.

    The Melee example you gave is cherry picking and is deviating from the case study that I set up. As I said – “The 2.0 version doesn’t everything else is identical.”.

    I don’t care if you don’t accept the definition I provided. It is still a valid one.

  87. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 19, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    So? It just means we’ve both been passive aggressive. Still gotta admit it when you are being like that. I sure will. Your whole “haha, your memory sucks” nonsense inspired it, sure, but we’re both guilty. So your idiom fails, as we’re both pots.

    I said that it couldn’t be used to objectively describe quality. I did say that we could use personal interpretations of the words, but then we’d be deadlocked forever. Also, better(https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/better) is about as vague, it seems. Same with superior(https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/superior), though you could use it to describe something that has more of another. Or something that is bigger. But using it to describe the quality of an item is just as vague and up to interpretation. The only “objective” way to make a comparison is to note that it is better for your purpose.

    A car has two uses, at this point. Either it’s driven, or parked in a garage for someone to ogle at as a collector’s item. It’s not a niche example, as car collectors are a thing. It’s a market that quite a few people are attracted to. Of course I could use it as a counter example.

    Melee isn’t cherry picking. The fighting game genre in particular tends to make use of glitches a decent amount of times to create techs that expand the skill ceiling. Quite a number of game genres happen to have this too, but it’s more prevalent in the fighting genre. Having bugs can create a better game experience, and it’s not that uncommon.

    If your definition of quality is valid, then so is mine. It’s not a particularly fun discussion to just state that, though.

  88. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 19, 2016 at 6:32 pm

    “So? It just means we’ve both been passive aggressive.” – it just means you are a hypocrite.

    Did you even look at the definitions you provided?

    better – Of a more excellent or effective type or quality.

    superior – Higher in rank, status, or quality.

    The definitions speak for themselves. An absolute authority has just deemed those words appropriate to describe quality.

    You still define the car as a collector’s item rather than a functional vehicle, but even then a collector would likely want a fully functional car with all its parts in tact.

    The point is that you stayed away from the example I created. If everything else is the same the presence of bugs is an indicator of a lower quality piece of software.

    From here – https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/quality

    quality – The standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something.

    I’m completely fine with that definition.

  89. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 19, 2016 at 9:40 pm

    If you can’t admit it, then you’re a hypocrite. I admitted fault, buddy. That’s not hypocritical. And that’s a fact. Now, if you keep skirting around your faults, then that makes you a hypocrite. Funny how that works, huh?

    Appropriate to describe a subjective measure of quality, yes. I, as the person measuring the products, get to determine what is better or what isn’t. That’s kinda the point. My standards fit my purposes, and falls back on that silly “low standards” nonsense. A standard is only possibly “low” if it does not fit the purpose for which the item is being measured for. Kinda rare for that to happen when evaluating a story or a game.

    A collector wouldn’t need a fully functioning car if it’s just a shelf piece. He could just tow it to his house, or have it delivered. Now, if they wanted to also drive it, then yes. Heck, he could just get the engine repaired and take the non-functioning car for a net discount.

    Yeah, and measured against through a set of standards set up by someone. Said standards could be whatever the person measuring the two wanted. And I noted the special circumstance where it fits, but in that case it just has less bugs objectively speaking. If the bugs never get noticed by the end user, then the quality of the product is effectively the same, even.

  90. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 19, 2016 at 10:04 pm

    You admitted your fault only after I blatantly pointed it out. Before that you were quite happy to lecture me of how I shouldn’t use passive aggressiveness in my responses like I did, despite you overwhelmingly using it. “Being passive aggressive does you no good in discussion.” – remember?

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hypocrisy

    Nowhere in the dictionary definition does it suggest that the terms can only be used for subjective measures of quality, which in turn means that they can also be used for objective measures of quality.

    There is this thing among collectors called mint condition. Repairing the car is not the same as getting it new. Plus having the option to drive said car is a clear advantage over the car that doesn’t have that option.

    The user not encountering the bugs doesn’t change the fact that they are there and could be encountered, which makes the bug free version objectively better. Is it so hard to admit that?

  91. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 19, 2016 at 10:15 pm

    That doesn’t change that I admitted fault. I mean, you have proven my point. I could have just danced around it like you were.

    Nowhere in the dictionary does it offer concrete standards that allow for objectivity. It does not define what it means to be superior, other than to be “better”. Again, all standards are equal in determining what exactly constitutes better. There is no absolute fact involved. Thus, subjective. And, to clarify as I have had to do at least one other time, this is talking about things like game and story quality. Context.

    It’s only an advantage if the collector wants to drive it. Otherwise, it is superfluous.

    Other than the bugs that increase the depth of the game, right? It depends on who is evaluating the game. It the user will never encounter or notice the bugs, then they are effectively the same(for argument’s sake). Aside from that, I already addressed that. See the exceptions statement, as I pointed out.

  92. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 20, 2016 at 12:20 am

    You did admit it once you got caught in doing it. Doesn’t change the fact that you acted like a hypocrite. I didn’t dance around anything, please point to some examples to prove otherwise.

    Nowhere in the dictionary does it offer concrete standards that forbid objectivity. Thus these words can be used to describe the objective difference in quality unlike what you initially stated.

    And I’ll once again repeat that both games and stories have objective elements that can be evaluated. The game bug example is quite a clear case and texts do have to adhere to grammar and spelling, along with common sense and context.

    Whether the collector wants to drive it or not doesn’t matter. The option being there is a clear advantage. A poisoned cake just as pretty as a non poisoned one is of a lower quality regardless if the owner chooses to eat it or not. These quantum leaps of logic don’t really work in the real world. Not looking at the Moon doesn’t mean it is no longer there.

    I said that everything else is the same – so no changes in gameplay. If you want me to further constrain you so that you don’t weasel out (again) we’re talking about game breaking bugs.

    “It the user will never encounter or notice the bugs, then they are effectively the same(for argument’s sake).” – no, I don’t accept this argument. Further constraint – the bugs are unavoidable. The executable crashes upon starting. If the user still hasn’t noticed them it simply means he hasn’t played the game, which would make his opinion absolutely invalid.

  93. Rekka Alexiel
    Rekka Alexiel
    September 20, 2016 at 3:11 am

    This Devola & Popola are not the same androids from the first game, but are part of the same model series. They know what their sisters did and feel great remorse and strive to atone for their sins.

    Yoko Taro stated that he somewhat regrets naming Operator 6O and Operator 21O as such because it’s easy to read their names as “60” and “210”.

    The last digit is actually an O for “Operator”. Pascal is a Bio-machine similar to the others but is a pacifist and prefers not to engage in battle.

    The Commander is a returning character from…*spoiler*

    Accord, like NieR, Kaine, and Yonah, was said to be referenced in name only.

  94. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 20, 2016 at 9:57 am

    I said that we were both doing the passive aggressive thing. I even first said that I’d admit fault if you did(implying recognition of my own errors) before you really said anything. You’re just as much of a hypocrite for not once admitting to this.

    In certain situations, objective comparisons can work. I said that much a while ago. But it’s not a blanket “this is objectively good”, as there are conditions attached. Something is objectively good for x purpose, but that’s it.

    Objective elements are but a part. Proper grammar is fine an all, but it means little on its own. Interesting character development, compelling narratives, and fun mechanics are all what allow us to determine the superior experience. Such things are subjective in nature, too. Same with common sense, as that’s just something society decides upon. It can be changed rather easily if societal norms shift.

    Never said it wasn’t there. It just doesn’t matter to the goal. It’s pretty simple. A shelf piece is meant to be preserved to look at, not to be driven. That can change depending on the person, but if it’s irrelevant, then it’s not really an advantage.

    You have to accept the argument. Contrary to popular belief, bugs need not actually impact the game. For example: A game could have slight bugs in how it is optimized, but these would never be noticed because the engine is so good at handling the brunt of their effects that the game never hitches or drops frames. The bugs are still there, but not noticeable to the player in any way. It happens.

    Your extra constraint just means the game no longer fully functions. If the person still thinks the game is good, then I think they’re crazy but not wrong. Perhaps the game up until the point was a blast, and they can forgive the abrupt end? Opinions are crazy like that.

  95. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 20, 2016 at 10:56 am

    I did admit it. I said “hi pot, I’m kettle”, which is an admission that I was passive aggressive and was using mockery. In fact I stated it plainly a couple of times – “Mocking some of your silly statements is part of the course.”. Natural language really is magical. To quote you – “Perhaps you should read everything I posted? Might help you to keep up.”.

    “Something is objectively good for x purpose, but that’s it.” – no argument from me here.

    “Same with common sense, as that’s just something society decides upon. It can be changed rather easily if societal norms shift.” – so you are saying that societal norms are a form of absolute authority?

    “That can change depending on the person, but if it’s irrelevant, then it’s not really an advantage.” – it’s not irrelevant. To quote you again – “Opinions are crazy like that.”.

    “You have to accept the argument.” – no I don’t have to accept anything. You keep avoiding the concrete example I’ve set up. Also a game with less bugs is better optimised and runs better overall.

    “If the person still thinks the game is good, then I think they’re crazy but not wrong.” – oh, but they are wrong. Crazy people are by definition foolish:

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/crazy

  96. Ckarasu
    Ckarasu
    September 20, 2016 at 11:09 am

    I apologize. The pot and kettle idiom holds a different meaning than you thought, to be fair. It’s an issue of projection. The kettle is reflective on its surface, so it’s just the pot seeing itself in another. The kettle is not as the pot calls it, and is in fact free of blemishes.

    Societal norms are not an absolute authority. They are just a common one, but no one is obliged to follow them save for the obvious issues regarding laws.

    A game doesn’t necessarily run better in every circumstance. If the engine is good, then the minor bugs may not have much of an impact in terms of frames per second. Especially if the game is capped. Just something of an example.

    I think they’re crazy is not the same as them actually being crazy. It’s just a reaction to their opinion. I still accept it.

  97. Mr0303
    Mr0303
    September 20, 2016 at 6:15 pm

    “I apologize. ” – accepted. I too must apologise. I used an inappropriate idiom, which gave you the wrong impression.

    Societal norms are a pretty good guide of what normal behaviour should be. In terms of common sense society built the rules for that based on years of experience and evolution.

    It doesn’t matter exactly how much the bugs interfere with the performance – they are not a good thing and their presence is a sign of the lower quality of said software.

    “I think they’re crazy is not the same as them actually being crazy. It’s just a reaction to their opinion. I still accept it.” – if you have evidence to support the fact that the person is indeed crazy then he very well may be. Accepting the opinion of a crazy person means that you are accepting something that is wrong. The crazy person in that situation is objectively wrong.

  98. Noneofyourbusiness
    Noneofyourbusiness
    September 26, 2016 at 11:19 pm

    With Devola and Popola in the game and a soft piano remix of “Song of the Ancients” in the one of the earlier trailers, it’s a strong possibility.