|
I still don't understand what I just watched, the narrator whos talking at 5.0x speed is continually bringing up different points while calling everything, ''ghey'', and stupid. If the whole video was mean't to be sarcasm, then just ignore this, but if it was to be taken seriously, then it doesn't make a very valid point does it?
Skill is something that is not natural. However, physical/mental traits may give you an edge at doing something. If I play basketball and I'm 6''5, then obviously I would have an advantage over most of the other players. If I had a voice that had a large dynamic range, and healthy lungs, then I could easily become a singer. I cannot though, as this is not the case. Starcraft 2 is something that everyone sucks at when they've never played it before. It's not like JulyZerg immediately knew how to play starcraft 2 as well as he does now when he was born. These, ''n00bs'' screaming certain aspects of the game are imbalanced is simply from the lack of knowledge surrounding the game (or they're just trollin because they have nothing else to do). It may seem like mutalisks are imbalanced in the sense that they have so much mobility, they can poke in and our of your mineral line and continually make you feel closed in. You might try building stalkers but you don't know how to control them well enough to stop the mutalisks. Or maybe you place some cannons but they're in the worst possible positions. Or maybe you just don't UNDERSTAND the game well enough to counter this. Starcraft 2 is not perfectly ''balanced'' and it won't ever be. The thing is though, the game is set up so that no matter what your enemy does, there is a counter to it. Its like playing a game of rock-paper-scissors, except its not based on chance. Its based on your own understanding of what's at your disposal and how to execute what you wanna do properly.
Geez I hope that made sense ^^
|
On March 09 2011 22:02 Axeinst wrote:
People too often labels Jaedong-like players as God that is in unreachable level by "lower" people.
While there is absolutely no evidence for claim that to be Jaedong you need to be genetically gifted, it is logical and reasonable to assume that you need only proper training.
Just like with concept of god, it is only logical to assume that there is no god because there is no evidence for it.
No. Clearly you didnt read the end of my post. The burden of proof isn't on us to prove that us lower level players can't reach Jaedong's level. In our world as it is now, there is only 1 Jaedong and only a handful of others who are near his level. People who train their asses off but aren't anywhere near his level, on the other hand, are a dime a dozen.
I'm gonna say it again. Our evidence that not everyone can get to the top level is the current state of the world and the history of all mankind. You saying that we need to provide the proof here is like religious people saying that you have to prove that God DOESNT exist. In this case the burden of proof is on YOU to provide evidence than anyone and everyone can get to his level with the proper training.
Edit: Oh and no one said he was a God. Hes just way better at SC than us. I dont really follow BW so im no dick rider here. Im just saying, different people are born different, and some people are better than others at some things while being worse at other things.
Edit #2: Im not gonna say people should use this as an excuse to go "aww fuck it" about everything in life. Of course you should try your hardest in everything you do. To quote Antoine Ego: "Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere."
|
I don't like this video (which i saw awhile ago) because it assumes that easy games are low quality games. I think that just because a game like Assassin's Creed is piss-easy doesn't mean it's not a well-done game, and i know of multiple hardcore gamers who love Mass Effect solely for the writing and story elements. Portal isn't a long or hard game, but it is well-designed and very well-written and is therefore fun and funny to play.
The problem is games like MW2, which changes from CoD4 mainly consist of taking every problem and making it ten times worse, then releasing it without adequate security or good game-testing. Or, not quite as bad, games like Halo Reach, which tries to split the middle between competitive and casual and then fails on both fronts. Games can be a challenge all they want, but gameplay doesn't have to be hard for it to be good. And don't get me wrong, i'm a competitive player who loves a challenge, but i don't assume everyone or everyone should be.
|
I disagree that people have natural talent for things. Talent is a product of practice. I remember reading an article about how the most talented people in the world have over 10,000 hours dedicated to their craft. That experience is what makes them talented. It's true that some people could never paint the Mona Lisa, but that's because they're not interested in painting and would never dedicate enough time to do it. And it's true that there are players in Bronze League with 1000 games and still suck balls, but that's because they're not playing to get better. Drawing a circle a thousand times won't teach you how to draw the Mona Lisa.
|
On March 10 2011 12:54 KevinIX wrote:
I disagree that people have natural talent for things. Talent is a product of practice. I remember reading an article about how the most talented people in the world have over 10,000 hours dedicated to their craft. That experience is what makes them talented. It's true that some people could never paint the Mona Lisa, but that's because they're not interested in painting and would never dedicate enough time to do it. And it's true that there are players in Bronze League with 1000 games and still suck balls, but that's because they're not playing to get better. Drawing a circle a thousand times won't teach you how to draw the Mona Lisa.
Yes, youre right. Anyone could practice long enough to paint the Mona Lisa. But could that same person create a new piece of art as well renowned as the Mona Lisa?
|
I personally believe physical/mental traits are very important in determining if someone is good at something or bad at something. Although it definitely depends on what the activity is. Some things are mindless and practice only will bring a person to a top level. Also some peoples genetic makeups make them able to practice much more than another person and allow them to practice at a more efficient rate. Of course there's no way to prove this.
So basically I definitely feel like people have natural talents for things, this "thing" could even be a natural talent for practice. (motivation, work ethic, etc)
|
This thread is so full of troll :[
|
On March 10 2011 10:52 Supamang wrote:
You saying that we need to provide the proof here is like religious people saying that you have to prove that God DOESNT exist.
No, you are wrong. The thing is exact opposite.
YOU need to prove that talent DO EXIST. I dont have to prove that it DOESNT exist. Currently, there is no evidence for it, deal with it.
It is not evidence that there is only few people at the top.
|
I have actually seen that before.
Its still funny.
Thank you for making a bad day at work better.
|
On March 10 2011 14:56 Axeinst wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 10:52 Supamang wrote:
You saying that we need to provide the proof here is like religious people saying that you have to prove that God DOESNT exist. No, you are wrong. The thing is exact opposite. YOU need to prove that talent DO EXIST. I dont have to prove that it DOESNT exist. Currently, there is no evidence for it, deal with it. It is not evidence that there is only few people at the top.
No, talent is observed empirically, unlike the presence of a creator. You need to prove the opposite.
Edit: The fact you acknowledge talent difference in other sports give you a shaky ground to give evidence to your shaky hypothesis
|
On March 10 2011 16:16 hmsrenown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 14:56 Axeinst wrote:On March 10 2011 10:52 Supamang wrote:
You saying that we need to provide the proof here is like religious people saying that you have to prove that God DOESNT exist. No, you are wrong. The thing is exact opposite. YOU need to prove that talent DO EXIST. I dont have to prove that it DOESNT exist. Currently, there is no evidence for it, deal with it. It is not evidence that there is only few people at the top. No, talent is observed empirically, unlike the presence of a creator. You need to prove the opposite. Edit: The fact you acknowledge talent difference in other sports give you a shaky ground to give evidence to your shaky hypothesis
There is no empirically proved talent in starcraft 2 unlike some other sports.
In science, there is no need for even hypothesis to say that something does not exist. In science, you need hypothesis and later on theory to proove that something do exist.
Currently, there is no scientifically prooved existence of genetic talent for starcraft 2.
|
this person has made a crude knock off video of a video game reviewer named yahtzee. how is his opinion valid at all?
|
On March 10 2011 16:26 Axeinst wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 16:16 hmsrenown wrote:On March 10 2011 14:56 Axeinst wrote:On March 10 2011 10:52 Supamang wrote:
You saying that we need to provide the proof here is like religious people saying that you have to prove that God DOESNT exist. No, you are wrong. The thing is exact opposite. YOU need to prove that talent DO EXIST. I dont have to prove that it DOESNT exist. Currently, there is no evidence for it, deal with it. It is not evidence that there is only few people at the top. No, talent is observed empirically, unlike the presence of a creator. You need to prove the opposite. Edit: The fact you acknowledge talent difference in other sports give you a shaky ground to give evidence to your shaky hypothesis There is no empirically proved talent in starcraft 2 unlike some other sports. In science, there is no need for even hypothesis to say that something does not exist. In science, you need hypothesis and later on theory to proove that something do exist. Currently, there is no scientifically prooved existence of genetic talent for starcraft 2.
Well again, the statistical difference of your average A-teamer and S-class players. No scientific journal has been written about this yet because nobody would pay the research funds, and it is amazing how people can train together for extended period of times while on pro teams but there are only so few superstars among them.
Now, please look up scientific journals regarding hand-eye coordination and see if humans as a whole have any variation on that based on factors other than practice. If there are variation at all then your theory is in a lot of trouble. Because it is well established in scientific field that video game ability is closely related to hand-eye coordination skills.
|
On March 10 2011 16:42 hmsrenown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 16:26 Axeinst wrote:On March 10 2011 16:16 hmsrenown wrote:On March 10 2011 14:56 Axeinst wrote:On March 10 2011 10:52 Supamang wrote:
You saying that we need to provide the proof here is like religious people saying that you have to prove that God DOESNT exist. No, you are wrong. The thing is exact opposite. YOU need to prove that talent DO EXIST. I dont have to prove that it DOESNT exist. Currently, there is no evidence for it, deal with it. It is not evidence that there is only few people at the top. No, talent is observed empirically, unlike the presence of a creator. You need to prove the opposite. Edit: The fact you acknowledge talent difference in other sports give you a shaky ground to give evidence to your shaky hypothesis There is no empirically proved talent in starcraft 2 unlike some other sports. In science, there is no need for even hypothesis to say that something does not exist. In science, you need hypothesis and later on theory to proove that something do exist. Currently, there is no scientifically prooved existence of genetic talent for starcraft 2. Well again, the statistical difference of your average A-teamer and S-class players. No scientific journal has been written about this yet because nobody would pay the research funds, and it is amazing how people can train together for extended period of times while on pro teams but there are only so few superstars among them. Now, please look up scientific journals regarding hand-eye coordination and see if humans as a whole have any variation on that based on factors other than practice. If there are variation at all then your theory is in a lot of trouble. Because it is well established in scientific field that video game ability is closely related to hand-eye coordination skills.
I dont have any theory, because there is no need for theory to say that something does not exist.
You have the burden of evidence, sir.
Currently, you have not provided any evidence, instead of that you are just saying statistical clutter. Statistics does not prove that there is genetic talent.
Deal with it.
|
Hey Axeinst what rank are you on the ladder?
|
On March 10 2011 17:17 TheBlueMeaner wrote:
Hey Axeinst what rank are you on the ladder?
His rank is "as good as IMMVP if I tried as hard as him", just like the rest of us...
Axeinst, the burden of proof lies with whoever takes the position against the general state of things. There is no hard evidence for God existing and having an impact in our lives, so therefore the burden of proof lies with the Christians. Currently, there ARE pros who excel far above other pros who also practice ridiculously hard. This may not be your desired proof, but it is evidence and the general state of the world. There is no evidence and there are no cases showing that anyone and everyone could be as good as the super stars if they just tried as hard. Tell me again, why does the burden of proof lie with us when it is your side that is going against the status quo?
|
On March 10 2011 18:32 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 17:17 TheBlueMeaner wrote:
Hey Axeinst what rank are you on the ladder? His rank is "as good as IMMVP if I tried as hard as him", just like the rest of us... Axeinst, the burden of proof lies with whoever takes the position against the general state of things. There is no hard evidence for God existing and having an impact in our lives, so therefore the burden of proof lies with the Christians. Currently, there ARE pros who excel far above other pros who also practice ridiculously hard. This may not be your desired proof, but it is evidence and the general state of the world. There is no evidence and there are no cases showing that anyone and everyone could be as good as the super stars if they just tried as hard. Tell me again, why does the burden of proof lie with us when it is your side that is going against the status quo?
Because it only proves, that there is only few people as good as those top pros. It doesnt prove genetic gift.
Scientifically, it doesnt prove that they have genetic gift that others do not posses. You can assume as much as you can, but it does not prove anything.
Btw, alot of people believe god exist. You are so wrong about that if enough people believes in something it will make it valid argument.
There is false argumentation called "Argumentum ad populum". Your argumentation just relies in popular opinion.
Please, stop using logical fallacies in argumentation.
|
Axeinst what league are you in?
|
|
|
On March 10 2011 19:05 politik wrote:
Why hasn't this troll been banned yet?
I should be banned because I will not stand any logical fallacies what many people here do keep posting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
