I think you missed his point, and maybe I did too, so correct me DA.
I think his point is that it is too early to say whether 600 hours of meaningful content is out there.
He also said that even if some people now start claiming 600 hours of content, he may still not know whether that content will be meaningful to him.
Others are raising the point that currently most players seem to be finishing the game within 80-120 hours. DA's point seems to be that early reviews are not indicative of the actual content quite often as per the example that people had finished Skyrim within 20-30 hours originally but that doesn't mean much to him as he doesn't play like them.
In essence DA is waiting for more information.
From my understanding he doesn't look up to people who say they are experts on Internet forums because he doesn't actually know them and would class it as a potential unknown to take too much information from them.
Instead of saying: I am an expert in x and this is how you do it.
DA expects you to say: from my understanding of how it works and my experience of having worked in the field, a good way to do x is to follow the following y steps because that provides the following z benefits.
Most people on forums don't bother with that, so DA simply says he doesn't listen to you as a supposed expert.
Anyway, I might be wrong with all of the above, but that's my current understanding of DA.
Finally, DA, you had said you would be careful to not overextend yourself again and argue on the forum all the time. You seem to be falling into your own issue again.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You seem to understand me better than most
Of course, maybe it's because you actually care about understanding.
As for "experts" - I use that in a sarcastic way, because I've been among them all my life. I'm supposed to be an expert myself in a few fields.
The truth of the matter, however, is that even if you spend your entire life doing only one thing - there's really no guarentee that you're all that good at it. That's just a common assumption.
For instance, I've worked in IT most of my life. Right now, I work in a place where there are hundreds of these experts around. I'm one of the more respected among them. But it's just words and assumptions - nothing more. Sure, I'm pretty good at my job - but that's hardly much of a feat. We're all good at something.
Based on my own personal experience - and my own personal perception - maybe a couple of these guys would qualify as what I would consider reliable experts.
IT is an extremely broad field - and almost no one is an ACTUAL expert in anything - and certainly not everything. Maybe the word means more to me than others.
It's my experience that people who start out listing their credentials care more about being perceived as an expert - than actually getting at the heart of the matter.
It makes no impression on me.
Take someone like Quentin Tarantino for instance. It's well known that he worked in a video store for many years before actually getting the chance to direct his first movie.
Does that mean that some average guy who finished film school is more of an expert than Quentin was just before he got some credentials on paper? No, life doesn't work that way.
Quentin had a very intense passion for movies - and that's why he chose to work in a video store.
Not everyone cares passionately about their jobs. In fact, I would say that's disturbingly rare.
So, when Myrthos and Lucky Day starts out listing their credentials - it means absolutely nothing. All it means is that they might know what they're talking about - and they might not. Even if they'd never spent a minute of their lives doing actual work in these fields - they might know or they might not.
What really matters is if what they're saying is rational and it holds up to scrutiny.
Anyone with the slightest understanding of human nature WILL understand that it's absolutely not true that "developers suck at testing".
That's an absurd generalisation. It has zero bearing on reality.
Does that mean that developers are good at testing? Of course not. It…. depends…. on…. the…. developer.
Even more obviously, it will depend on circumstances. A solo developer working alone on a big project will need to hold all roles. He NEEDS to be a good tester - or there's no way he can get his project finished.
By that token alone, I would like to claim that Cleve is a pretty competent tester simply because he finished this big game and it seems to be working relatively well in terms of crashes and serious issues. Sure, there are bugs - but ALL big games have bugs. Yes, ALL of them - no matter how many testers and developers are involved.
People are not giving Cleve much credit here. That's a personal thing, not an objective thing.
Some developers are primadonnas - just like some pizza delivery guys are primadonnas. It has very little to do with the job and everything to do with your personality.
In professional game development, developers are EXPECTED to have their work scrutinised - and they're even expected to scrutinise their own code constantly.
If a developer got upset because a tester found a bug, then he would be a very unprofessional developer. His job is to do the best he can and let others do the best THEY can.
His job is to be happy when a bug is fixed, not upset that his code wasn't perfect.
So, you might say the rather stereotypical examples that Myrthos, joxer and Lucky Day are trying to pass off as the norm - are very bad developers in terms of being coworkers.
Sure, some developers are like that - and they're not always good at coding even so. In fact, I'd say people who let their egos dominate their nature are generally worse at doing their job than those who don't let their egos get in the way. Big egos take up energy - and they tend to skew your behavior towards the destructive.
So, either these "experts" have been very unlucky when dealing with developers - or they're not being fair towards them. That, or they're exaggerating because they don't want to accept that they might be wrong.
There's simply no rule any expert can put forth that would convince me that developers are necessarily bad testers - because it goes 100% counter to everything I know about game development and human beings.
So, it's very, very easy for me to reject their claims. I don't care if they've been honored by royalty or carry a shiny gold badge of supremacy.
They clearly don't have a clue what they're talking about.
That's all there is to it.
Finally, DA, you had said you would be careful to not overextend yourself again and argue on the forum all the time. You seem to be falling into your own issue again.
Pladio - you're right. I've made the same mistake again. I've gone and overextended myself over nothing. A topic like this clearly means a lot to people and they're taking it to heart.
My fault - and I mean that.
I will try to let this go and stop contributing my thoughts for a while.
