So it's been over a year now and is it safe to say the MP is dead? Or near enough anyway? I wonder how that plays into its high score especially compared to other MP titles who's lives and player bases are leagues above.
Would just like to point out to everyone that the "missing games" are Witcher 3 (which sponsored this apparently as per the opening of the video), and Bullet Storm which shared a spot with Gears of war... for whatever reason that may be.
So 1 + 5 + 1 = 7 games. They didn't "lie".. but they sure didn't make sensible.
(Also there may be other ways to view a country as "small" as opposed to just physical size or population; for example, the entire point of the video was the amount of games you wouldn't realise came out of said country, ergo small in (known) contribution. Among other possible interpretations).
I cannot believe this has actually been published, by the APS of all... For crying out loud. So many issues with the study.
1. Serving chilly is not necessarily evil, that's a subjective opinion. If anything it could be considered a little hilarious. 2. Serving chocolate COULD be considered evil just as much as chilli, the UNKNOWN recipient could be allergic, and the person serving it is under the impression they MUST consume the entire amount.
3. ANY CONCLUSIONS draw can ONLY express a correlation, and not a cause and effect. Playing a video game did not MAKE the person serve chilli or chocolate. Playing a video game might influence a particular disposition however.
4. The study did not attempt to explore at all whether they are testing for TRAIT personality features of the individuals, or just the state based personality inclinations. IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW, that trait and state are very differing. A person might have a happy trait disposition, where the MAJORITY of their life they express themselves happily, however this does not mean that they do not express in the opposite way sometimes (state based). Observing a state based action is NOT indicative of a personality trait.
5. Were the participants followed afterwards? How long were these conclusions applicable for? Is it being suggested that these participants are now forever more inclined towards evil or good? Or is it just for 5 more minutes?
6. The article stated that they used an "(ANOVA) revealed the predicted interaction effect, F(2, 188) = 35.91, p < .001, ηp2 = .28, but no main effects" - BUT NO MAIN EFFECTS. Which means they did not find what they were looking for or what they concluded in the end. WTF. The conclusion APPEARS to be draw entirely from experiment 2 which apparently only just had a significant finding. Even this should be verified.
This is a terrible study by any measure. I have completed a masters up to this level, and if I came across this article, I would NOT cite it. I cannot believe it was published, it fails on so many basic levels of good science.
Also, twice as many people is actually a small amount. It's only 50% more. It's saying that out of 5 people, 1 person gave more chilli than the breaking point. That is, 2 gave chocolate, 3 gave chilli. No big deal
And yes, I like chilli, and I would've been disappointed if someone gave me chocolate instead. I would do the same for the other person. That does not make me evil, and this study can go poo itself.
I came here by clicking on the link above the 9/10 Titanfall score to better understand why that "review" was just a game description and not a critique? I didn't expect to read a wall of advertising of the features of the game, I've seen enough youtube videos for that. I wanted a critique of the good and bad, not of how I can play the game.
I've been a member for almost 1.5 decades, and GS is just getting worse and worse sigh. I haven't given up yet. But come on people, what even?
I came here by clicking on the link above the 9/10 Titanfall score to better understand why that "review" was just a game description and not a critique? I didn't expect to read a wall of advertising of the features of the game, I've seen enough youtube videos for that. I wanted a critique of the good and bad, not of how I can play the game.
I've been a member for almost 1.5 decades, and GS is just getting worse and worse sigh. I haven't given up yet. But come on people, what even?
@Dudersaper "probably" as in "might be", but not likely. One would assume that a person reading scores/reviews would compare the respective opinions with titles at a similar time.
@Dudersaper "probably" as in "might be", but not likely. One would assume that a person reading scores/reviews would compare the respective opinions with titles at a similar time.
I wanted to add that I get the feeling Titanfall will be just like MoH or Tribes: Vengeance. Great fun, really enjoyable BUT, not enough content and online community will disappear within 4-12 months to which your game will just sit and collect dust and be unplayable...
You do not play BF to "level up"...... You're playing it wrong.
Games should have a learning curve, they should be difficult. Pandering to the lazy is not a solution to the 'problem'.
It did not take me more than 10 matches to "master" this game and start topping kills, and scoreboards, even against xPrestige levelled players, making me wonder if there's any point to further progressing or playing this game: what's the draw if I'm already doing so well?
dark_death78's comments