Why do you choose RPG...?

[RemyC]

You haven't actually provided any evidence that this is the case. You aren't saying things that are difficult to understand-- you are saying things that just aren't true.

When I was a little kid playing games on their easiest difficulty setting, I would barely get through the first few levels. I thought the games were impossible. In time I was able to beat them. Now I put them all on their hardest difficulty settings and beat them. It was all just a matter of time.
Same applies to my baby sister. She has the worst motor skills, but I've been sitting her down and teaching her the appropriate way to approach different video-games. She is still terrible, but the more time she spends with the games, the better she gets.

People have limits in their abilities, and those limits are different for individuals.

I will make some exemptions for my rule: people without limbs, and people that have a mental disorder, so they can't comprehend what is on the screen.
Anybody else can eventually get good enough at any game and complete it.

some people may try their hardest, but focus their efforts incorrectly, attempting over and over again to accomplish their goal with a strategy that is designed to fail.

Once that strategy fails, they will attempt another that may get them closer to the goal.

often the skills you use in earlier stages are not the same skills needed in later stages.

I disagree. I good game has you utilizing the same skills throughout, just with more hassles in your way as you progress.

[Limewater]

When I was a little kid playing games on their easiest difficulty setting, I would barely get through the first few levels. I thought the games were impossible. In time I was able to beat them. Now I put them all on their hardest difficulty settings and beat them. It was all just a matter of time.
Same applies to my baby sister. She has the worst motor skills, but I've been sitting her down and teaching her the appropriate way to approach different video-games. She is still terrible, but the more time she spends with the games, the better she gets.

You're missing the point. Nobody is arguing that people will not improve with practice. The fact that your little sister's motor skills are currently improving does not mean that they will continue to improve at the same rate. There is a limit to her potential.

Generally, if you have no experience in an activity, you will make rapid improvements at that activity initially, but there are diminishing returns. Again, to use running as an example, you will improve quite rapidly when you first begin running. Your mile time may drop by a full minute in just a matter of weeks. However, as you gain experience, the improvements you see will become more incremental. Eventually, you will be training hard for a year just to shave one second off of your mile time.

The fact that you personally may be very good at video games is little evidence that anyone can be similarly successful. We cannot all be that successful. That is why there are world records for things. That is why athletes like Michael Phelps are celebrated. We don't all have limitless potential.

For a good graphical example, imagine that your abilities in something are measured on a scale from 0 to 1. Because of diminishing returns, your skill related to time put in will look something like the graph of the function:

1 - (1/(t+1))

Where t is time and is bounded [0, Inf). If you plot this function, you will see that your skill at any given time is always less than 1. However, on this graph, for you, beating
"Battle Toads" might be a 0.95, while for someone less skilled, beating "Battle Toads" might be a 1.1 -- which is impossible.

I'm not just pulling this out of the air. Individual Human achievements in any strength or skill follows this general pattern. It applies to speed, strength, endurance, flexibility, reaction time, maximum cardiovascular output, the number of times you can mash the 'A' button in ten seconds, the speed at which you can tremolo pick a guitar, the speed at which you can stack plastic cups, etc... There is no reason to believe that video game skill is any different.

I will make some exemptions for my rule: people without limbs, and people that have a mental disorder, so they can't comprehend what is on the screen.
Anybody else can eventually get good enough at any game and complete it.

Again, you haven't shown that at all. The closest you have come is to claim that YOU can do it. YOU may be a video game prodigy, for all I know. You cannot generalize from one instance to the population in general. For instance, I can stick out my tongue and touch it to the tip of my nose. I cannot take that information and then claim that anyone could do it if they just tried hard enough. Most people just can't.

The fact that you're making exemptions to your rule is further evidence that it is incorrect. You're shifting the goalposts, but I'll allow it for the sake of discussion.

Are you then willing to say that anyone (except those without legs or in wheel chairs) are capable of jumping twenty feet in the air? Because that's a goal I would like to reach.

I will point out here that you have neglected to answer my previous point about your claims about your own running ability. I'll ask again: How long will it take you to train to run a mile in three minutes, forty seconds?

Once that strategy fails, they will attempt another that may get them closer to the goal.

You seem to put a lot of faith in people.

often the skills you use in earlier stages are not the same skills needed in later stages.

I disagree. I good game has you utilizing the same skills throughout, just with more hassles in your way as you progress.

A lot of people would call a game that has you utilizing the same skills throughout, just with more hassles, "boring."

[RemyC]

You're missing the point. Nobody is arguing that people will not improve with practice.

That is all that I have been arguing. You originally claimed something to the extent of, "RPGS are the only sure thing, when it comes to completion".
Where I counter argued, "Any game can be completed, if you devote enough time to it"

The fact that you're making exemptions to your rule is further evidence that it is incorrect. You're shifting the goalposts, but I'll allow it for the sake of discussion.

Are you then willing to say that anyone (except those without legs or in wheel chairs) are capable of jumping twenty feet in the air? Because that's a goal I would like to reach.

I don't believe that my claims are anywhere near as outrageous, as wanting to jump twenty feet int he air. I'm not denying the human body's physical limitations.
My exemptions were for people without limbs, and people that can't comprehend what they are involved in. I believe that this is an understandable exemption because; A) A person without limbs can not play a video game, and B) a person that can't comprehend what they are involved in...can't do much at all.
When it comes to training reaction time, and motor skills for a video game, you have your entire lifetime to train these skills, in the EXACT same scenario. These aren't the same motor skills that a world class martial artist tries to develop. They are the motor skills that are required to move your fingers a few centimeters from their current location.
Some people may take an entire year to realize that when playing Castlevania, its wiser to throw a bottle of holy water at the enemy across the plateau, before trying to make a jump.
Just as someone that is training to be a runner, but always throws up halfway down the road will eventually realize, "hmm, maybe I shouldn't eat 3 bigmacs, with a supersized cola before I run."

I will point out here that you have neglected to answer my previous point about your claims about your own running ability. I'll ask again: How long will it take you to train to run a mile in three minutes, forty seconds?

I couldn't give you an accurate number, I never time myself when I go for a run.

A lot of people would call a game that has you utilizing the same skills throughout, just with more hassles, "boring."

Contra, Castlevania, Megaman, Sonic, Mario, Shinobi, Donkey Kong, Ninja Gaiden, Doom, any racing game...All have you utilizing the same skills throughout, just with more hassles tossed into the mix as you progress...They are all, also, very popular games.

[Dylan]

So Everybody, why do you choose RPG?

[Original_Name]

So Everybody, why do you choose RPG?

Stay on topic, Dylan!

[Limewater]

You're missing the point. Nobody is arguing that people will not improve with practice.

That is all that I have been arguing. You originally claimed something to the extent of, "RPGS are the only sure thing, when it comes to completion".
Where I counter argued, "Any game can be completed, if you devote enough time to it"

You may think this is all you are arguing, but you aren't. There are a ton of other factors involved, but lets assume for the moment that you will always get better with practice.
This is still not enough to say that you can then beat any game if you devote enough time to it. You can improve every time you play a game for all eternity and still never beat it.

Again, look at the function I mentioned previously. I'm guessing you are still in highschool or something, so I'll put it in normal x-y coordinates. y = 1 - (1/(x+1))

This function is positive definite on the domain [0 Inf). That means that for everywhere x is positive, the function is increasing. It's not just staying the same. It is increasing. Yet this function never reaches 1 for any positive x.

This demonstrates that you can improve every time you do something and never reach your goal. You can improve every time you play a game and never actually reach your goal of beating it.

I don't believe that my claims are anywhere near as outrageous, as wanting to jump twenty feet int he air. I'm not denying the human body's physical limitations.
My exemptions were for people without limbs, and people that can't comprehend what they are involved in. I believe that this is an understandable exemption because; A) A person without limbs can not play a video game, and B) a person that can't comprehend what they are involved in...can't do much at all.

But some games require more of the player than is within the physical limitations of some players. You don't have to be mentally retarded to have slow reaction time. Heck, my color-blindness has screwed me up on a few games-- particularly on handhelds. I only completed Wario Ware Inc. through luck for a couple of the micro-games. And almost any color-based column-type game is pretty much hopeless for me.

When it comes to training reaction time, and motor skills for a video game, you have your entire lifetime to train these skills, in the EXACT same scenario. These aren't the same motor skills that a world class martial artist tries to develop. They are the motor skills that are required to move your fingers a few centimeters from their current location.

But it's not always the exact same scenario. Many arcade-style games are purely deterministic, and you can know exactly what to expect. However, some games have random elements.

But again, this doesn't matter. Even if it is the EXACT same scenario, that is not enough to say that anyone can beat any game. Were that the case, anyone could be come a world-class concert pianist, for example.

Some people may take an entire year to realize that when playing Castlevania, its wiser to throw a bottle of holy water at the enemy across the plateau, before trying to make a jump.
Just as someone that is training to be a runner, but always throws up halfway down the road will eventually realize, "hmm, maybe I shouldn't eat 3 bigmacs, with a supersized cola before I run."

You give people and games too much credit.

I will point out here that you have neglected to answer my previous point about your claims about your own running ability. I'll ask again: How long will it take you to train to run a mile in three minutes, forty seconds?

I couldn't give you an accurate number, I never time myself when I go for a run.

I'll go ahead and answer for you. You will not run a mile in three minutes, forty seconds. Never. Ever.

A lot of people would call a game that has you utilizing the same skills throughout, just with more hassles, "boring."

Contra, Castlevania, Megaman, Sonic, Mario, Shinobi, Donkey Kong, Ninja Gaiden, Doom, any racing game...All have you utilizing the same skills throughout, just with more hassles tossed into the mix as you progress...They are all, also, very popular games.

Not really. All four levels of Donkey Kong give different challenges, even if involving a jumping mechanic. Each boss in Mega Man requires a different strategy. It's not just a matter of getting better at moving, jumping and shooting. But this particular topic is really getting too ambiguous to discuss much further. I mean, most old-school arcade-style games are based upon memorization. Knowing all of the patterns and having memorized the first level of a game will not necessarily help one in a later level.

[RemyC]

You don't have to be mentally retarded to have slow reaction time. Heck, my color-blindness has screwed me up on a few games

Due to your color-blindness, you would fall into category "B", you can't comprehend what is on the screen.

To go with everything you are saying, what then makes RPG's a sure thing? What about them would make ANY person capable of beating them?

Again, look at the function I mentioned previously[...]

I don't need you to explain graphing, and the restrictions of certain equations to me, but thank you.
I understand the point that you are illustrating. I don't agree that the equation would apply to all games. That type of equation would apply to a game such as, Tetris, or Columns, where their is no definite ending. If you are skilled enough, you could play forever, however, once you set your high score, your improvements will be minimal.
Anybody could complete any game that has a definite ending, eventually. It would simply be a lot more challenging for some people.
The human mind isn't as limited as the human body.

Each boss in Mega Man requires a different strategy. It's not just a matter of getting better at moving, jumping and shooting.

Sure it is. If you know what the boss is going to be doing, but can't jump, move or shoot...you won't accomplish much. If you are a pro at handling Mega Man, it wouldn't matter what the boss did, you would be able to counter attack on the spot. You know how to utilize his skills.

[MrPopo]

To go with everything you are saying, what then makes RPG's a sure thing? What about them would make ANY person capable of beating them?

Many (not all) RPGs can be won by leveling. Many RPGs reach a point where you simply out-stats the boss in question and defeating him becomes trivial.

The human mind isn't as limited as the human body.

I hear you use your body to play games. And there is a finite limit to one's reaction ability. Some people might just have slow reactions that will leave them SOL in some games.

I'm kind of curious as to why you're getting so in to defending a "you can do anything" viewpoint? I came to peace a long time ago that I'd never get good at basketball or be able to understand the highly advanced math they're using in modern physics (I had enough problems with diff eq). Does the notion that we all have limits cause some level of distress to you?

[Dylan]

I think that this argument has strayed into the theoretical. I believe that any human is physically capable of beating a game (as RemyC is stating), but whether or not they actually do is based on if they're able to use their body in the necessary way (as Limewater is stating). The only problem is that the circumstance presented (dedicating one's existence to beat a game) has never occured, and I've actually seen this argument in other forms (for example: with hard enough work can anyone become a professional athlete).

I think that the situation is being viewed differently by both parties. To RemyC, because a human is physically capable of beating a game, it's quite reasonable to assume that they can. However, Limewater has a more complex argument that even though a human is physically capable of beating a game, they would be unable to do so based on overwhelming chance (like how it's physically possible to hit 18 hole-in-ones in golf, but the odds of this are so great that's it's likely it will never happen).

So, in theory, you're both right. In practice though, because both ideas are theoretically sound, this argument cannot possibly go anywhere.

[dlmvii]

This is reminiscent of the Guitar Hero argument from a while back involving RemyC and others.