Why the style meter is nothing that you should take too seriously.
In this entry I already talked about subjectivity, objectivity and other topics, but since it goes too deep (and will stay unfinished forever, probably) I will make a summary of the main points in a more practical way. Which will be important later when talking about the Style Meter itself.
Think about a simple table in your home. You consistently use it, put things on it, touch it, etc. People around you do the same. And the perception of the whole system of phenomenona and elements around you (the ones that you think you understand) are consistent with the hypothesis that, indeed, the table most probably exists (even if not necessarily exactly as you perceive it). And you consider it a fact. It could still be a visual and tactile hallucination, but it's simply not probable.
What is the actual difference between a table presumably existing objectively and a combo being subjectively good (or not)?
The table's properties are presumably outside ourselves (our perception), independent from the same tool we use to perceive them. And it exists in the same way regardless of who perceives it (here we exclude our perception of how elegant is the table for oneself, etc.).
Meanwhile, the combo itself is also (presumably) objective as a bunch of visual and auditory stimuli, but its qualities in this regard (style) aren't inherent to it. A combo is good or bad regarding at least ONE subject that can perceive its properties in such terms (beauty, style, etc.), and not all subjects will perceive it necessarily in the same way. A combo can't be stylish without someone perceiving it as such.
The problem here is, however, that the perception of these properties isn't any magical nebula in our head independent from the rest of reality (where objective elements exist); it doesn't come from the touch of a fairy or some mystic lottery. It's a synaptic combination (something objective, presumably) in a concrete moment after processing the visual and auditory stimuli from the photons and mechanical waves (objective, presumably).
What you should infer from the previous paragraph is that the mentioned synaptic combination, the result of the whole processing and final psychological experience of finding a combo stylish is not anything disconnected from the causal flux, which means that there must be reasons to perceive it in a concrete way.
It's non-essential to talk about a dichotomy objective/subjective when analyzing style and the perception of it. The important question is: why is the synaptic combination favorable or not... Why do you, or I, perceive a combo or gameplay as good, stylish or pleasant...
To answer this question one has to isolate variables and observe their impact/influence in our perception. The analysis has to be individual and collective, trying to find patterns and the most universal variables.
You can go around saying that you have the best combo mad ever, but if you are spamming stinger on the ground or repeating some very simplistic loop, nobody will take you seriously just because style is subjective.
It's true that combos are a very important aspect of DMC and enemies are more passive compared to other action games. But even if it's a tool to express yourself, which is something beyond the original function of a video game, it still preserves the typical function of challenge.
(No, I am not good at them... yet).
And no, I am not mocking everybody focused on S ranking. You can still have your own personal challenges, standards and play as you want. I talk exclusively about these who consider it inherently a proof of being a really good and experienced player.
Think about a simple table in your home. You consistently use it, put things on it, touch it, etc. People around you do the same. And the perception of the whole system of phenomenona and elements around you (the ones that you think you understand) are consistent with the hypothesis that, indeed, the table most probably exists (even if not necessarily exactly as you perceive it). And you consider it a fact. It could still be a visual and tactile hallucination, but it's simply not probable.
What is the actual difference between a table presumably existing objectively and a combo being subjectively good (or not)?
The table's properties are presumably outside ourselves (our perception), independent from the same tool we use to perceive them. And it exists in the same way regardless of who perceives it (here we exclude our perception of how elegant is the table for oneself, etc.).
Meanwhile, the combo itself is also (presumably) objective as a bunch of visual and auditory stimuli, but its qualities in this regard (style) aren't inherent to it. A combo is good or bad regarding at least ONE subject that can perceive its properties in such terms (beauty, style, etc.), and not all subjects will perceive it necessarily in the same way. A combo can't be stylish without someone perceiving it as such.
The problem here is, however, that the perception of these properties isn't any magical nebula in our head independent from the rest of reality (where objective elements exist); it doesn't come from the touch of a fairy or some mystic lottery. It's a synaptic combination (something objective, presumably) in a concrete moment after processing the visual and auditory stimuli from the photons and mechanical waves (objective, presumably).
What you should infer from the previous paragraph is that the mentioned synaptic combination, the result of the whole processing and final psychological experience of finding a combo stylish is not anything disconnected from the causal flux, which means that there must be reasons to perceive it in a concrete way.
It's non-essential to talk about a dichotomy objective/subjective when analyzing style and the perception of it. The important question is: why is the synaptic combination favorable or not... Why do you, or I, perceive a combo or gameplay as good, stylish or pleasant...
To answer this question one has to isolate variables and observe their impact/influence in our perception. The analysis has to be individual and collective, trying to find patterns and the most universal variables.
Relevant and Irrelevant variables
Following the analogy with the apple of the first entry, the percept comes mainly from the chemical composition, which will affect the receptors in the tongue, and after a sensory transduction and a processing in different areas of the brain, we will experience consciously a sweet or acid flavor (for example). Which will also be pleasant or not...
Keeping in mind the patterns of our design, by default people will prefer apples in a range of an adequate composition. Not way too acid, for example. Because our receptors are designed in a certain way to detect (maybe) types of apples with more fructose, and we get rewarded from a more caloric intake.
There are other variables, however, that aren't related to the immediate patterns of our organism to prefer a certain range of chemical composition.
For example, depending on your mood, habits, circumstantial variables (like being currently bored from a certain flavor of a type of apples because you eat them too frequently), etc., it can be more or less pleasant to eat a certain apple. Even if the chemical composition is the same.
For example, depending on your mood, habits, circumstantial variables (like being currently bored from a certain flavor of a type of apples because you eat them too frequently), etc., it can be more or less pleasant to eat a certain apple. Even if the chemical composition is the same.
If we wanted to design a study to find which apples taste better (tend to taste better in the most universal way possible), we would like to isolate or compensate the irrelevant variables (like your mood or being depressed, having eaten too many apples of certain type, etc.) from the relevant ones (the chemical composition of each class of apples).
In the same way there are different types of variables affecting our perception of a combo or gameplay.
Following again an analogy from my first entry, you may have watched at young age (and first) plenty of films and shows related to the European medieval age. I may have watched others related to the feudal Japan.
Thus, you may have a preference for combos that use a lot rebellion (which resembles more some types of medieval swords), while I have a preference for combos that use more frequently Yamato.
This example is very simplistic, and the concrete sequence of stimuli that could affect our perception in such a secondary or superficial way can be very complex. But you see how such variable wouldn't be relevant if we wanted to make a study to find the most universal ones.
Of course we won't do a study for combos (or definitely not in a short term). However, we can:
1) Try to find patterns in viewers/observers.
Even if people were exposed to a different sequence of stimuli (affected by different uninteresting variables for our object of study like in the simplistic example), when one observes many, the patterns should still be visible because the irrelevant variables would compensate each other. As long as the samples are from different regions, cultures and numerous enough.
Following again an analogy from my first entry, you may have watched at young age (and first) plenty of films and shows related to the European medieval age. I may have watched others related to the feudal Japan.
Thus, you may have a preference for combos that use a lot rebellion (which resembles more some types of medieval swords), while I have a preference for combos that use more frequently Yamato.
This example is very simplistic, and the concrete sequence of stimuli that could affect our perception in such a secondary or superficial way can be very complex. But you see how such variable wouldn't be relevant if we wanted to make a study to find the most universal ones.
Of course we won't do a study for combos (or definitely not in a short term). However, we can:
1) Try to find patterns in viewers/observers.
Even if people were exposed to a different sequence of stimuli (affected by different uninteresting variables for our object of study like in the simplistic example), when one observes many, the patterns should still be visible because the irrelevant variables would compensate each other. As long as the samples are from different regions, cultures and numerous enough.
2) Infer patterns from other similar types of objects and how people overall or experts perceive them (especially experts, as they have a more trained and detail-oriented perception). Like a choreography in an action movie, movement in gymnastics or figure skating.
3) Infer from already studied patterns in perception or other areas (from psychology or any other science).
For example, variety of components, complexity, speed, harmony, novelty, precision/accuracy, etc., can all be relevant variables (inferred from 1, 2 and/or 3; some were even explained in my first entry).
This list was done by DelusionaryKiller some days ago.
While his list is actually about possible improvements for the style meter, it's also useful to illustrate certain relevant variables (even if indirectly).
Like 1
Even if a hard loop sacrifices partly the variable variety of stimuli, the speed, movement and harmony that adds to a sequence can be very pleasant to watch. Also one thing are fast sequences or loops, and another one spamming stinger on the ground (it's not about any type of repetition).
In the following example the Style Meter interprets this sequence with reversed DT Stinger from the second slash of Yamato rave pretty much as if I was only spamming the first and second slash of Yamato rave.
3) Infer from already studied patterns in perception or other areas (from psychology or any other science).
For example, variety of components, complexity, speed, harmony, novelty, precision/accuracy, etc., can all be relevant variables (inferred from 1, 2 and/or 3; some were even explained in my first entry).
Still, though: Why is the style meter useless...
This list was done by DelusionaryKiller some days ago.
While his list is actually about possible improvements for the style meter, it's also useful to illustrate certain relevant variables (even if indirectly).
Like 1
Even if a hard loop sacrifices partly the variable variety of stimuli, the speed, movement and harmony that adds to a sequence can be very pleasant to watch. Also one thing are fast sequences or loops, and another one spamming stinger on the ground (it's not about any type of repetition).
In the following example the Style Meter interprets this sequence with reversed DT Stinger from the second slash of Yamato rave pretty much as if I was only spamming the first and second slash of Yamato rave.
Like 2, 3 and 4:
The examples this time speak by themselves.
An advanced technique executed pretty much in the fastest way possible (faster than this would cancel the projections of aerial JdC):
A simple ground combo (don't forget to look at the SM):
You could counter argument that, as a more experienced player, I can be bored from something as basic as a regular ground combo (again, dismissing merit or difficulty execution-wise and strictly focusing on beauty). You could argue that a fresh noob who never played the game could perceive any of these 2 clips as more stylish than the other one.
But the game is meant to be played in a long term, and the evolution of standards speaks by itself. Nobody would get a lot of compliments from spamming that ground combo, even if he gets SSS in the SM pretty much constantly.
And anyway... I really doubt that even a noob would consider more stylish the second clip, mainly because this type of moves are much more typical overall in video games, and predictable overall (let alone the speed).
Like 5.
As complexity (explained in my first entry) and order play an important role.
You really only have to look at the evolution of standards in combo-making and freestyle in DMC4. At the beginning people were still learning, and the meta was about chaining as many moves as possible using JC, even if it was in a pretty static way.
When players developed their knowledge and increased their execution, they learned how to add much more movement to make structures more complex.
The paths of our character and the enemies, the trajectories they follow, are interpreted by our brain and we are rewarded for identifying patterns and harmony.
The most obvious evidence of the importance of such variables is just how the successful players use a lot of movement in different ways (including enemy displacement).
Like 7.
Again, the examples speak by themselves.
There are moves that fit much better as a type of cherry on top of the cake than others. This improves the perception of order, precision and logic in the whole sequence.
I don't think it's necessary to make a poll to see how many people would consider the first version of this short combo (which was a fail) much more lame and anticlimactic than the second one.
The examples this time speak by themselves.
An advanced technique executed pretty much in the fastest way possible (faster than this would cancel the projections of aerial JdC):
A simple ground combo (don't forget to look at the SM):
You could counter argument that, as a more experienced player, I can be bored from something as basic as a regular ground combo (again, dismissing merit or difficulty execution-wise and strictly focusing on beauty). You could argue that a fresh noob who never played the game could perceive any of these 2 clips as more stylish than the other one.
But the game is meant to be played in a long term, and the evolution of standards speaks by itself. Nobody would get a lot of compliments from spamming that ground combo, even if he gets SSS in the SM pretty much constantly.
And anyway... I really doubt that even a noob would consider more stylish the second clip, mainly because this type of moves are much more typical overall in video games, and predictable overall (let alone the speed).
Like 5.
As complexity (explained in my first entry) and order play an important role.
You really only have to look at the evolution of standards in combo-making and freestyle in DMC4. At the beginning people were still learning, and the meta was about chaining as many moves as possible using JC, even if it was in a pretty static way.
When players developed their knowledge and increased their execution, they learned how to add much more movement to make structures more complex.
The paths of our character and the enemies, the trajectories they follow, are interpreted by our brain and we are rewarded for identifying patterns and harmony.
The most obvious evidence of the importance of such variables is just how the successful players use a lot of movement in different ways (including enemy displacement).
Like 7.
Again, the examples speak by themselves.
There are moves that fit much better as a type of cherry on top of the cake than others. This improves the perception of order, precision and logic in the whole sequence.
I don't think it's necessary to make a poll to see how many people would consider the first version of this short combo (which was a fail) much more lame and anticlimactic than the second one.
I could go on and even mention other points, like the difference between using taunts spamming them after dropped combos to fill holes and have a break to think vs using them in a more interactive way.
But it should already be clear that the Style Meter in its current state isn't even close to identifying the complexity of the perception of style regarding relevant variables. And this is why replies like it's just subjective are non-essential and ignorant.
Yes, it's ultimately subjective.
But do you know what else is subjective? The smell of farts.
A fart (I can't believe I am typing this) is basically a chemical composition. Your sense of smell is designed (again) around receptors that react differently depending on this chemical composition. There are steps involving transduction (conversion from chemical signals to action potential, which is the unit of electrical signals neurons use), processing in different areas and the final psychological experience (which is obviously unpleasant).
The fart itself is (presumably) objective, while your perception of its smell is subjective.
Still... If someone farts and you find it disgusting, how would you react if he or she replies it's subjective, bruh.
Obviously for 99 % of people farts don't smell good, so maybe ask yourself why. Googling why farts smell bad is a task that I will leave for you though.
Our perception isn't isolated from the causal flux, and people who want to end debates with it's subjective don't know what they talk about (no, I don't mean that it's always used wrongly... I think at this point you are able to make the distinction).
In any case, it's more complex than saying that X is subjective/objective. And when referring to irrelevant variables, one can specify or refer to them as personal preference.
This can be applied to areas like music, movies and more.
While part of the beauty of art is to perceive differently than other people and have different impressions, this doesn't mean the subjectivity around this process can't be discussed. And not always necessarily to talk in terms of better and worse.
Speaking of which though, better and worse players do exist in the stylish department.
High level players have different styles and it's pointless to try to make absolutely perfect rankings of them. But there is a clear distinction with a player who has, for example, a much more modest skill-set.
You can go around saying that you have the best combo mad ever, but if you are spamming stinger on the ground or repeating some very simplistic loop, nobody will take you seriously just because style is subjective.
If I disagree with DK on something, however, is that I wouldn't bother trying to improve the Style Meter assuming non unlimited resources or budget. It's just a hint for newcomers to understand what's the game about. And even if I am no expert in programming, I doubt it would be easy (I could be wrong).
Final comment about Merit/Difficulty
My point is that even if I tried to focus on the raw perception of style in this entry, assuming 2 clips that are visually similar in terms of the explained relevant variables, the difficulty and merit will tend to be taken into account by players with a minimal knowledge about the game and its mechanics.
For example, it will have more merit to start a sequence out of a flipper recovery compared to a simple air trick towards a scarecrow.
And it will have more merit to do side raves juggling a frost compared to side raves on a standing frost...
Even if it doesn't have so much to do directly with style in the visual sense... It has to do with the concept of challenge-reward. And this is also something that the SM (again) mostly misses.
It was also exemplified by DK in the 11th point, even though it's still mixed with the purely visual aspect of dodging, as doing it with a reversed stinger instead of a DT trickster dash or roll, for example, is more unpredictable and potentially pleasant to watch (relevant variable).
I think that, after reading all this, it should be clear why people shouldn't beat their chest in front of properly advanced players just for S ranking certain missions and/or spamming DRI (hopefully). Another thing is if it's ALSO done in a stylish way regarding the explained relevant variables from human patterns and our design.
And no, I am not mocking everybody focused on S ranking. You can still have your own personal challenges, standards and play as you want. I talk exclusively about these who consider it inherently a proof of being a really good and experienced player.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario