BRAINTEMPLE'S PROFILE

author=NeverSilent
Telling people they can't watch Let's Plays or read additional material on a game is a rather simplistic and one-sided approach. That's like telling people they're having fun the wrong way. It's a simple fact that different people have different tastes and different skills. So watching someone else play a certain game you want to see in action but wouldn't enjoy tackling yourself is an absolutely legitimate way of experiencing it, too. Plus, the added "cultural context" can also be a good thing for some games, as it can be a lot of fun to see games through other people's eyes. This has nothing to do with being a "leech," but simply with prioritising certain aspects of the game experience over others. Not to mention that sometimes, Let's Players can share observations and insights on the workings of a game that you normally wouldn't have noticed yourself even when playing the game on your own.

This is not to say that I think playing games for yourself is unimportant when trying to develop a better sense of good game design - far fom it, actually. But taking it to either extreme doesn't seem effective or productive to me at all. You're certainly not going to get far as a game developer if you only ever watch others play but never pick up a controller or keyboard yourself, because you'll lack essential practical experience. But there's also no need to retreat into an imaginary vacuum with your games and try to shut out the rest of the world in an attempt to make the experience more "genuine." If you really care about learning more about games as a medium, I think the most important part is to find a reasonable balance between personal, subjective experience and external, more or less factual knowledge.

author=zeello

author=NeverSilent
Telling people they can't watch Let's Plays or read additional material on a game is a rather simplistic and one-sided approach. That's like telling people they're having fun the wrong way.

I think perhaps where I differ from others is after a certain point I've placed the expectation on the game to be fun. Trying to sidestep the game means that either the game is not fun or you do not find games fun.

It's a simple fact that different people have different tastes and different skills. So watching someone else play a certain game you want to see in action but wouldn't enjoy tackling yourself is an absolutely legitimate way of experiencing it, too.

Personally if a dev excluded you out of their game, I say do not consume their game, because why would you wish to encourage that.
We have different subcultures as a consequence of differing tastes and standards, and the like. I say let people stick to their own camps. Outsiders who digest a game without playing it is a form of deception in a way, like wearing a disguise.

Plus, the added "cultural context" can also be a good thing for some games, as it can be a lot of fun to see games through other people's eyes.

For critical purposes, people who've played the same game should discuss their experiences with each other, yes.

Not to mention that sometimes, Let's Players can share observations and insights on the workings of a game that you normally wouldn't have noticed yourself even when playing the game on your own.

If before playing a game you do something that alters your experience then the integrity of your playthrough has been compromised. You're just piggybacking on someone else's playthrough and made yourself meaningless. Actually you're worse than meaningless, because now you've become a meme carrier, one in a horde of potentially thousands of "youtuber x's playthrough" players that elevate one youtuber's experience with a game to be disproportionately more normative.
It's the same reason why if you do a survey, you're not supposed to tell the participant the results before hearing their answers.

If you really care about learning more about games as a medium, I think the most important part is to find a reasonable balance between personal, subjective experience and external, more or less factual knowledge.

Except... the game IS the external. That's kind of what makes media compelling, it empirically exists, but the subjective experience is unlocked by consuming it in a vacuum. This rule fails however when you defer to cultural concoctions representing the game in place of the actual game. At that point you've basically made up your mind before you even started, so you might as well not even bother.

Anything other than the game that you could possibly appeal to as external or objective is someone ELSE'S playthrough of said game. But if your playthrough is imaginary and arbitrary, then technically, so is his or hers... >_>

Yo, thanks guys!
I guess I was overthinking the puzzle; it was the "en guarde" knight that seemed to really mess with my head for some reason. ^^;

Oh, Wonderslime, you a math major too? Heck yeah, bro!

If anything, for the most part, this game totally satisfies and makes up for the fact that we don't have Dragon Quest X in the west.
I haven't been hooked on a game like this in awhile ^^

Also, keeping you in the loop, I got to Balghast and before I could have Catherine setup any magical or breath defense spells, he blasted her ass inside out with a critical hit, and I was screwed from the get go lol
I think my only complaint is that since the hero dies and Benjamin takes over the lead, you only have one character with life restoring spells. I could've potentially recovered from Balghast's 500 damage critical hit otherwise. Catherine only had around 270 max HP ;-;
I'm gonna level grind some in case something happens like that again, so that I may still hopefully stand a chance with just Ben and Melmut.
Regardless, the game's awesome dude, and I'd love to see more games from you

Peace ^_~

Edit:
Okay, well Balghast really isn't as bad as I thought considering his surprisingly low HP count haha
Stroke of bad luck the first time around. He still busted everyone up though. Only had Melmut left after that fight was over.

Edit 2:
Another boss fight apparently. Let's see if I can win with just Melmut against Wythefarr.

Edit 3:
Cool, she tore his ass into the tenth dimension with two Blazemosts right off the bat lol

Edit 4:
Hopefully Balghast won't be back, and I can just deal with Wythefarr.

Edit 5:
*sees Balghast chillin'*
*Turns game off*
I'll level grind more later. @~@

Edit 6:
having mental breakdown regarding these two bosses slammed back to back anticipating another experience like DQII's Cave to Rhone

anime judy hopps drawn by some weird korean guy on twitter

kingdom hearts because it is a period piece where everyone online thought it was cool and then went through a culturally collective existential crisis ten years later

Hey man, like, for real, this this is an excellent fan game and very true to the spirit of Dragon Quest, but I'm stuck regarding the puzzle in Balghast's castle concerning the statues, even after consulting the tiny library near the castle's entrance.
Either the information is purposefully vague or I'm not mentally equipped atm to figure out the puzzle which is embarrassing to admit considering that I was a math major in college.
I tried to treat it as two independent systems overlapping each other with the "en guarde" knight as the puzzle's conclusion:
3
1 | 2 0 1 2 | "en guarde" knight
1

Here's a layout of what I've tried:
E = "en guarde" knight

x x x x
x x x x
x x x E


x x 3 x
1 x x x
1 x x E

x x 1 x
2 x x 2
x x x E

putting these two independent systems together in the overall matrix:

x x (3,1) x
(1,2) x x 2
1 x x E

It also mentions the overall total concerning the numbers of the rows and columns, but I still can't seem to figure out what that might mean. I've tried other things taking the totality into account, but I constantly end up unintentionally multiplying the matrices on the back of an envelope as if that's going to derive the answer to the dang puzzle somehow lol

Any help would be very appreciated, dude! Thanks! ^-^