PDA

View Full Version : Assassin's Creed: Revelations Creative Director leaves Ubisoft.



catkiller97
01-13-2012, 04:19 PM
Assassin's Creed: Revelations creative director leaves Ubisoft.

http://asia.gamespot.com/news/assassins-creed-revelations-creative-director-leaves-ubisoft-6348486

No Assassin's Creed in 2012?

kriegerdesgottes
01-15-2012, 04:35 AM
Yeah I made a thread about this yesterday. Pretty crazy. I wonder who will take over for ACIII.

LordWolv
01-15-2012, 07:13 AM
Urgh. What a shame. I guess we'll just have to wait.

LightRey
01-15-2012, 11:07 AM
They change creative directors with every game, y'know. This should have absolutely no impact on the release date of AC3.

kriegerdesgottes
01-15-2012, 02:54 PM
They change creative directors with every game, y'know. This should have absolutely no impact on the release date of AC3.


I don't remember anyone saying that was the case and Patrice was the creative director for the first two and a half games before Alex did one. The only reason he is leaving is because he found another job at a advertising company called Cassette or something like that.

LightRey
01-15-2012, 03:05 PM
Assassin's Creed: Revelations creative director leaves Ubisoft.

http://asia.gamespot.com/news/assassins-creed-revelations-creative-director-leaves-ubisoft-6348486

No Assassin's Creed in 2012?

The OP did.

SixKeys
01-15-2012, 03:21 PM
I'm pretty sure the creative director for AC3 has been decided a long time ago. I didn't expect Amancio to be at the helm for the final game anyway.

LightRey
01-15-2012, 03:27 PM
I'm pretty sure the creative director for AC3 has been decided a long time ago. I didn't expect Amancio to be at the helm for the final game anyway.

Ditto. Besides, they changed creative directors before without it having any impact on the frequency of the releases. I don't see why that wouldn't be the case now.

kriegerdesgottes
01-15-2012, 03:29 PM
I was actually curious as to whether or not they would have him continue being creative director. Now I'm curious all over again as to who it's going to be for ACIII.

LightRey
01-15-2012, 03:33 PM
I was actually curious as to whether or not they would have him continue being creative director. Now I'm curious all over again as to who it's going to be for ACIII.

I don't really. I know very little about them personally and their creative "visions".

LordWolv
01-15-2012, 04:51 PM
I've never known much about the AC team, and honestly I don't want to unless there's a dramatic change in the games - inwhich case I'd look into it. Meh. I'm sure it'll be fine.

rileypoole1234
01-15-2012, 08:02 PM
This has worried me since I first heard this. I wonder where the series will go from here. Hopefully they can still make it, and make it good at that.

LightRey
01-15-2012, 08:04 PM
This has worried me since I first heard this. I wonder where the series will go from here. Hopefully they can still make it, and make it good at that.

It will have virtually no impact on the series. It's not like Alex is the sole individual that came up with ideas. His leaving was probably announced to the rest of the devs months ago.

kriegerdesgottes
01-16-2012, 02:43 AM
Tbh I'm not worried by this as much as I was/am for the loss of Patrice. AC is Patrice's baby which is how he referred to it recently in an interview and he basically co-created it but Alex was just a replacement for him whose vision was .......ACR......which we all agree was good but I have to say I haven't played it in about a month because I have no want to do so. So I am more curious at this point than worried. I mean I am worried about the entire franchise in general but I still have a little hope for the franchise.

SixKeys
01-16-2012, 03:28 AM
To be honest ACR felt more like an inbetween project anyway. Patrice worked on all three previous games (he left while ACB was still in the works, but he did have a little influence on it). ACR originally started out as Nintendo DS project after all, until one of the higher-ups suddenly decided it should be turned into a full-fledged console release. Considering that seven different studios worked on ACR simultaneously and it still came out buggy, short and not very innovative, to me it's clear it was a rushed project and Amancio was only meant to be there for this one game while others worked on AC3.

LordWolv
01-16-2012, 07:03 AM
I don't really. I know very little about them personally and their creative "visions".
Ditto. I do watch the full credits, though, just a matter of respect..

LightRey
01-16-2012, 09:22 AM
Why the hell is this worrying people? It happens all the freaking time with game series.

kriegerdesgottes
01-16-2012, 04:55 PM
Why the hell is this worrying people? It happens all the freaking time with game series.


Well I'm not worried but here is what I know. Patrice made AC1 and AC2. They were both incredible. Patrice left in the middle of ACB because he wasn't happy about Ubisoft telling him how to run things. http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2011/07/21/after-leaving-ubisoft-patrice-desilets-is-back-in-the-game-at-thq/ Then Alex comes and makes ACR. decent game but not that great. So basically what I am seeing is my favorite franchise of all time circling the drain and this next game will be the almighty deciding factor in whether or not I will continue to buy AC games because if it's anything like Revelations, I am done.

LightRey
01-16-2012, 05:10 PM
Well I'm not worried but here is what I know. Patrice made AC1 and AC2. They were both incredible. Patrice left in the middle of ACB because he wasn't happy about Ubisoft telling him how to run things. http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2011/07/21/after-leaving-ubisoft-patrice-desilets-is-back-in-the-game-at-thq/ Then Alex comes and makes ACR. decent game but not that great. So basically what I am seeing is my favorite franchise of all time circling the drain and this next game will be the almighty deciding factor in whether or not I will continue to buy AC games because if it's anything like Revelations, I am done.

Well I found ACR and ACB both to be outstanding games worthy of the name Assassin's Creed, so I do not share that vision. Besides, the games are made by more people than just the creative directors and their quality is not at all solely or even mainly dependent on their "genius".

Slaymog
01-16-2012, 08:51 PM
The job of the Creative Director is cursed like some jobs in Hogwarts are :D Revelations was alright(Brotherhood wasn't). But they will never come to the rank of AC I & II... It is not only the Creative Director who has failed this time. It is more or less the whole team...

RzaRecta357
01-17-2012, 03:30 AM
Revelations was great. The writing was awesome. Soundtrack rocked. Man, sometimes I think LightRey and a few others are the only ones with IQs high enough to truly understand it. It was Worthy of the title assassins creed.

The only thing that worries me about this and I may be wrong is that they get final say in the end don't they? Like Patrice wanted diversity in the seconds gameplay. Every video he says that. That's what they did.

I almost feel like Amancio was the one to say OK, let's include a tower defense game....turns out most people hated it. I didn't mind it even though I only did it like twice as its easy to avoid.

PhiIs1618033
01-17-2012, 08:12 PM
Revelations was great. The writing was awesome. Soundtrack rocked. Man, sometimes I think LightRey and a few others are the only ones with IQs high enough to truly understand it. It was Worthy of the title assassins creed.
You're implying anyone who doesn't really likes the game is stupid (if we go by the general view of IQ). This is insulting, not to mention in itself pretty stupid.

dxsxhxcx
01-17-2012, 09:26 PM
there's no such thing as "truly understand" something, you have your opinion and there'll be people who will agree and disagree with you, just because someone had a bad impression about the game this doesn't mean they're wrong, your opinion isn't better than other people's opinions just because you think the game is good...

SleezeRocker
01-17-2012, 09:35 PM
Just give me a good AC(3) game and im good, don't really care :P

LightRey
01-17-2012, 09:59 PM
You're implying anyone who doesn't really likes the game is stupid (if we go by the general view of IQ). This is insulting, not to mention in itself pretty stupid.

No, he's implying that those he has seen argue that the game isn't good, did not show that they had been able to understand the game. There's a difference.

Also, even if we were to assume that he was implying that people that didn't like the game have an IQ lower than the people he mentioned, it could just as easily have meant that he considers those who liked the game to be exceptionally smart.

You're jumping to conclusions, which is pretty stupid.

There most definitely is such a thing as "truly understand" something if there are axioms. Now if we assume for a second that people generally perceive life with the same axioms, then that would mean that there definitely would be people that could "truly understand" a concept, contrary to others.

mustash
01-17-2012, 10:36 PM
No, he's implying that those he has seen argue that the game isn't good, did not show that they had been able to understand the game. There's a difference.

Also, even if we were to assume that he was implying that people that didn't like the game have an IQ lower than the people he mentioned, it could just as easily have meant that he considers those who liked the game to be exceptionally smart.

You're jumping to conclusions, which is pretty stupid.

There most definitely is such a thing as "truly understand" something if there are axioms. Now if we assume for a second that people generally perceive life with the same axioms, then that would mean that there definitely would be people that could "truly understand" a concept, contrary to others.

Wrong. He says
Revelations was great. The writing was awesome. Soundtrack rocked. Man, sometimes I think LightRey and a few others are the only ones with IQs high enough to truly understand it. You are reading too much into it LightRey, he asserts quite clearly that only a few people such as yourself have IQ's high enough to understand the game, the side that is favorable of the game. Opinions of favorability or unfavorability have little or no correlary with an IQ level. Not that his opinion is right or wrong, it just is, but his assertion is false.

LightRey
01-18-2012, 01:21 AM
First of all, to claim such a thing you would have to do a statistical analysis, which you don't seem to have done. Ergo, your argument is invalid. Second, He's clearly not saying that there are people with a low IQ, merely theorizing that there is a correlation between a person's IQ and whether they appreciate the game, which contrary to what you might believe, is not at all an unlikely theory. People with an IQ above a certain value are quite likely to have common interests, which could quite easily be found in the game. Furthermore, as he suggests that there is something to understand in order to fully appreciate the game, assuming that he's correct, that would mean that in fact a certain level of intelligence is needed.

But the fact of the matter is that at no point he actually even suggests that the people that don't like the game have a low IQ. He suggests that (certain) people that do, have a higher IQ than those people, which could just as easily mean that he means these people have an above average IQ (i.e. > 100).

As I said, assuming that he implied that people that don't like the game aren't smart is jumping to conclusions.

mustash
01-18-2012, 01:36 AM
How can you, on the one hand invalidate the statement
Opinions of favorability or unfavorability have little or no correlary with an IQ level. and then start espousing your own statement, which basically says the opposite WITHOUT the exact same parameters you asked of me, that is, a study of some kind. What I said may or may not have support, i'd be interested in finding out but don't try and take the high ground in saying people of a certain IQ range, have a similar set of common interests and from that go on to imply that somehow correlates with favorability of something (in the sense that something is OBJECTIVELY good, rather than SUBJECTIVELY). At least, not on the grounds you were making.

This is all completely off topic anyway friend, my fault.

Back to topic, I must be strange because I for one am excited, not nervous about the change of creative director. It's happened before of course so getting fresh blood may be a good thing like it was in the past. Amancio had a decent enough vision and should be commended for handling, what was it, 6 different studios all at once? The game was way ambitious for a one year cycle so he has major props, even if story wise, I was left unsatisfied.

catkiller97
01-18-2012, 05:43 AM
For those who think ACR lack something,it is the best of the series.

PhiIs1618033
01-18-2012, 10:45 AM
No, he's implying that those he has seen argue that the game isn't good, did not show that they had been able to understand the game. There's a difference.

Also, even if we were to assume that he was implying that people that didn't like the game have an IQ lower than the people he mentioned, it could just as easily have meant that he considers those who liked the game to be exceptionally smart.

You're jumping to conclusions, which is pretty stupid.

There most definitely is such a thing as "truly understand" something if there are axioms. Now if we assume for a second that people generally perceive life with the same axioms, then that would mean that there definitely would be people that could "truly understand" a concept, contrary to others.
Here's the thing in logical statements:
Premise 1: People don't think the game is good => People don't/can't understand the game
Premise 2: People have high IQ => People can understand it
With premise 2 we get:
Statement 1: You can't understand the game => You don't have high IQ
Because if A=>B, then not B => not A. Walking in the rain implies you get wet, but if you're not wet, you can't have walked in the rain, for then you would be wet.
And as such, combining Premise 1 and statement 1, we get:
People don't think the game is good => People don't have a high IQ.

So, yeah, logically he was saying that people who don't think the game is good can't have a high IQ, which would be implying they're stupid.

The weak point in this is the distinction between "don't" and "can't", which is a matter of interpretation.

SixKeys
01-18-2012, 11:44 AM
I love how we went from discussing the departure of a Ubisoft employee to flow charts pertaining to who has the highest IQ when it comes to critiquing video games.

LightRey
01-18-2012, 12:04 PM
Here's the thing in logical statements:
Premise 1: People don't think the game is good => People don't/can't understand the game
Premise 2: People have high IQ => People can understand it
With premise 2 we get:
Statement 1: You can't understand the game => You don't have high IQ
Because if A=>B, then not B => not A. Walking in the rain implies you get wet, but if you're not wet, you can't have walked in the rain, for then you would be wet.
And as such, combining Premise 1 and statement 1, we get:
People don't think the game is good => People don't have a high IQ.

So, yeah, logically he was saying that people who don't think the game is good can't have a high IQ, which would be implying they're stupid.

The weak point in this is the distinction between "don't" and "can't", which is a matter of interpretation.

Wrong. Your attempt at a logical deduction is ridiculously flawed.

He says people with a high enough IQ can understand it. Notice the subtle adding of a single word completely ruins your reasoning.

Example:
high IQ: > 100 (i.e. above average)
high enough IQ: >130 (i.e. intellectually gifted)

This example clearly shows a situation which you predict impossible with your reasoning (the situation in which someone with a high IQ is still not capable of "fully understanding" the game. Ergo, your reasoning is flawed.

Don't use logic if you can't even get the premises right.
Stop trying. You're embarrassing yourself.

mustash
01-18-2012, 02:52 PM
Okay, here's the thing Lightrey. You and others are essentially trying to put forth the notion that only some special band of high IQ individuals are the only ones who can truly understand a piece of entertainment. It's a sure sign you are trying to flatter yourself by not only implying that those with average IQ's somehow lack the capacity to understand, again get this you'll like this, a piece of ENTERTAINMENT. It's rediculous. IQ no doubt plays a part in someones ability to understand something, to comprehend it's meaning. But the distinction here is it's completely subjective, not objective like essentially all entertainment. "truly understanding" something would imply an objective standard to measure entertainment by, it's intellectual, artistic and qualitative merits. Last time I checked, there wasn't one.

Have a nice day :)

LightRey
01-18-2012, 03:18 PM
Okay, here's the thing Lightrey. You and others are essentially trying to put forth the notion that only some special band of high IQ individuals are the only ones who can truly understand a piece of entertainment. It's a sure sign you are trying to flatter yourself by not only implying that those with average IQ's somehow lack the capacity to understand, again get this you'll like this, a piece of ENTERTAINMENT. It's rediculous. IQ no doubt plays a part in someones ability to understand something, to comprehend it's meaning. But the distinction here is it's completely subjective, not objective like essentially all entertainment. "truly understanding" something would imply an objective standard to measure entertainment by, it's intellectual, artistic and qualitative merits. Last time I checked, there wasn't one.

Have a nice day :)

That's not the point of the discussion. I'm not arguing whether or not the theory posed by RzaRecta357 is "flawed". I'm arguing that the conclusion that he is suggesting that he thinks people that don't like the game are stupid is unfounded.

I would also again point out that there could very well be a correlation between the IQ of a player and their level of appreciation of the game as there are likely a number of common interests amongst people with an IQ above a certain level. Examples of appropriate candidates for such interests would be math, physics, literature, philosophy, science, science fiction, etc. Seeing as many such interests can be satisfied in playing a game such as Assassin's Creed Revelations, the possibility of there being a correlation between a person's IQ and whether or not they like the game does not at all seem so unlikely.

Your reasoning is also flawed, as you presume that one's ability to understand something has no effect on their likes and dislikes, which is absolutely preposterous. So until you provide us with adequate logical reasoning and data, your entire point is moot.

Oh, and by the way, it's spelled "ridiculous".

mustash
01-18-2012, 04:42 PM
Thanks for the correction, I must have missed it when scanning over what I wrote.

I'm still failing to see how a completely subjective opinion about what is defined as "truly understanding" a piece of entertainment has anything to do with an IQ. The idea itself about "truly understanding" would only make sense if there was a standardised set of expectations that a piece of entertainment would need to meet, objective ones. One might make the arguement that there is a set of standards that must be met or that maybe because high IQ individuals are well versed in certain topics which a piece of entertainment covers, that they are best qualified to understand it. But I implore you not to see anything other then a correlation of interests and expectations for it's subjective whether a piece of entertainment can be truly understood no matter what IQ you possess or how much material like it you understand.

You keep asking me for some data but I could very well ask you the same, as we are both asserting something here. I don't recall asserting that ones ability to understand something won't effect their likes and dislikes, in fact I said
IQ no doubt plays a part in someones ability to understand something, to comprehend it's meaning . I'm not sure where we are disagreeing here because I very well agree with you about understanding something effecting ones likes and dislikes. The only thing I'm proposing is that it's subjective as to whether someone likes or dislikes something, regardless of how well someone understands it. For instance, one might truly understand a musical piece by Bach but be of the completely subjective opinion that it is terrible. Do you not see where I am coming from? Perhaps you do.

If I am guilty of some kind of cognitive dissonance here, please point it out.

LightRey
01-18-2012, 05:52 PM
Thanks for the correction, I must have missed it when scanning over what I wrote.

I'm still failing to see how a completely subjective opinion about what is defined as "truly understanding" a piece of entertainment has anything to do with an IQ. The idea itself about "truly understanding" would only make sense if there was a standardised set of expectations that a piece of entertainment would need to meet, objective ones. One might make the arguement that there is a set of standards that must be met or that maybe because high IQ individuals are well versed in certain topics which a piece of entertainment covers, that they are best qualified to understand it. But I implore you not to see anything other then a correlation of interests and expectations for it's subjective whether a piece of entertainment can be truly understood no matter what IQ you possess or how much material like it you understand.

You keep asking me for some data but I could very well ask you the same, as we are both asserting something here. I don't recall asserting that ones ability to understand something won't effect their likes and dislikes, in fact I said . I'm not sure where we are disagreeing here because I very well agree with you about understanding something effecting ones likes and dislikes. The only thing I'm proposing is that it's subjective as to whether someone likes or dislikes something, regardless of how well someone understands it. For instance, one might truly understand a musical piece by Bach but be of the completely subjective opinion that it is terrible. Do you not see where I am coming from? Perhaps you do.

If I am guilty of some kind of cognitive dissonance here, please point it out.

Ah, but I am not the one with the burden of evidence here. All I am saying is that the "solutions" you are finding regarding what he said have, without the appropriate data, equally reliable alternatives.

Of course it is subjective, but that doesn't mean there is no correlation. In the end all decisions people make are subjective, but still many decisions we make are common ones. Most of us decide to walk on 2 legs, most of us decide to wear glasses or contacts, when our eyesight diminishes. These are common decisions made by specific groups of people. To say that there is no such thing as correlation between at least some of the common natures of groups of people and their interests is preposterous.

It could very well be that there is "hidden meaning" inside the story of Assassin's Creed Revelations, which only people with an IQ of a certain level or higher could comprehend and it could also very well be that in understanding this hidden meaning, most such people would satisfy one or more of their common interests.

The main flaw with RzaRecta357's "theory" is not that he suspects for there to be such a correlation, but that he assumes (or seems to) that such an understanding is an absolute requirement to like the game and that is somewhat preposterous.

However, I am quite convinced that it was never RzaRecta357's intention to be so concise and that much of his statement was a hyperbole.

luckyto
01-18-2012, 05:54 PM
I completely understand Revelations and I don't think it is that great. It is better than Brotherhood, but simply for a few reasons; the missions were better designs, the story/writing was stronger and the city of Constantinople is one of the best maps of the series. But only marginal improvements. AC1 and AC2 had better missions, better story, stronger characters, and more maps. Plus AC1 is still the technical superior in terms of graphics. Free Roam is better in AC1 and AC2 as well. In fact, almost every measure I can place against Revelations marks it a significantly inferior product to the original Assassin's Creed or the opus Assassin's Creed 2. My judgements are still purely subjective, regardless to how intelligent or in-depth my analysis. But I would argue that the people short on IQ are the ones who cannot see the glaring shortcomings of this game; because they are evident in my opinion.

mustash
01-18-2012, 06:32 PM
Ah, but I am not the one with the burden of evidence here. All I am saying is that the "solutions" you are finding regarding what he said have, without the appropriate data, equally reliable alternatives.

Of course it is subjective, but that doesn't mean there is no correlation. In the end all decisions people make are subjective, but still many decisions we make are common ones. Most of us decide to walk on 2 legs, most of us decide to wear glasses or contacts, when our eyesight diminishes. These are common decisions made by specific groups of people. To say that there is no such thing as correlation between at least some of the common natures of groups of people and their interests is preposterous.

It could very well be that there is "hidden meaning" inside the story of Assassin's Creed Revelations, which only people with an IQ of a certain level or higher could comprehend and it could also very well be that in understanding this hidden meaning, most such people would satisfy one or more of their common interests.

The main flaw with RzaRecta357's "theory" is not that he suspects for there to be such a correlation, but that he assumes (or seems to) that such an understanding is an absolute requirement to like the game and that is somewhat preposterous.

However, I am quite convinced that it was never RzaRecta357's intention to be so concise and that much of his statement was a hyperbole.

Understood friend :) Thank you for being civil

mustash
01-18-2012, 06:41 PM
Whilst I would agree with you Luckyto that AC:R is a weak installment of the franchise imo, I would disagree about the graphics. AC:R has had some major lighting tweaks, atmospherics, SSAO, smoother framerate on the consoles, better draw distance, better facial detail and in general, better graphics then any other AC title. I think your memory is remembering AC1 in a better way then it actually appears. If you consider AC:B and AC:R as extensions of AC2, you can see that they don't really need very big tweaks in terms of gameplay, cities or what have you.

luckyto
01-18-2012, 07:34 PM
I'll grant you that ACR dominates AC2 and ACB graphically. It does. It is a very noticeably improvement. I'll grant that the facial detail is, in fact, the best of all. Framerate, SSAO, and draw distance - I just don't believe so. ACR's engine is, at least, stable; which AC1's was buggy and prone to freezing but it rendered brilliantly.

PhiIs1618033
01-18-2012, 07:51 PM
Wrong. Your attempt at a logical deduction is ridiculously flawed. He says people with a high enough IQ can understand it. Notice the subtle adding of a single word completely ruins your reasoning. Example: high IQ: > 100 (i.e. above average) high enough IQ: >130 (i.e. intellectually gifted) This example clearly shows a situation which you predict impossible with your reasoning (the situation in which someone with a high IQ is still not capable of "fully understanding" the game. Ergo, your reasoning is flawed. Don't use logic if you can't even get the premises right. Stop trying. You're embarrassing yourself. I study mathematics, and thus far I've yet to fail any class. I think I'm pretty well-versed in logic, thank you. What you're pointing out is that your definition of high IQ is different than mine. An IQ of 101 does not make you have a high IQ. In fact, the chance that a random member of the population has an IQ less than 115 is more than 80 percent. Thus, if you have an IQ of 115 still 1/5'th of the population has a higher IQ than you do and I don't consider that high. With high IQ, by your terms I meant: 'intellectually gifted IQ'. In the strictest sense, he was implying that those who do not understand the game cannot be intellectually gifted, which I find insulting as it does not correspond with how I do at intellectual tasks. Also, don't be a ******. I don't mind if you disagree with me (I enjoy discussing stuff), but it's no fun if you're an ******* about it.

ACSineQuaNon
01-19-2012, 06:33 AM
I study mathematics, and thus far I've yet to fail any class. I think I'm pretty well-versed in logic, thank you. What you're pointing out is that your definition of high IQ is different than mine. An IQ of 101 does not make you have a high IQ. In fact, the chance that a random member of the population has an IQ less than 115 is more than 80 percent. Thus, if you have an IQ of 115 still 1/5'th of the population has a higher IQ than you do and I don't consider that high. With high IQ, by your terms I meant: 'intellectually gifted IQ'. In the strictest sense, he was implying that those who do not understand the game cannot be intellectually gifted, which I find insulting as it does not correspond with how I do at intellectual tasks. Also, don't be a ******. I don't mind if you disagree with me (I enjoy discussing stuff), but it's no fun if you're an ******* about it.

Hahaha. LightRey at it again. It's funny how he ignores all of the counter arguments you guys throw at him, and simply acts like using big words and ironically demanding statistical data automatically makes him correct.

It's obvious that "truly understanding" a work of art is subjective. Claiming only a select few with a certain IQ are capable of appreciating it at a more realized level is ridiculous. Only arrogant, self-absorbed narcissists who enjoy spending their time futilely intellectually-masturbating would argue otherwise.

LordWolv
01-19-2012, 08:09 AM
Bloody hell..
You guys need to calm down, LightRey clearly and spectacularly wins.

B_Crispino
01-19-2012, 08:41 AM
as always! i just get overwhelmed with such intelligence! really... i must ask... why the hell would you guys argue about a random guy's comment? if you wanna know what he meant, just ask him, for god's sake!

LordWolv
01-19-2012, 08:47 AM
as always! i just get overwhelmed with such intelligence! really... i must ask... why the hell would you guys argue about a random guy's comment? if you wanna know what he meant, just ask him, for god's sake!
Or listen to LightRey.

LightRey
01-19-2012, 10:50 AM
I study mathematics, and thus far I've yet to fail any class. I think I'm pretty well-versed in logic, thank you. What you're pointing out is that your definition of high IQ is different than mine. An IQ of 101 does not make you have a high IQ. In fact, the chance that a random member of the population has an IQ less than 115 is more than 80 percent. Thus, if you have an IQ of 115 still 1/5'th of the population has a higher IQ than you do and I don't consider that high. With high IQ, by your terms I meant: 'intellectually gifted IQ'. In the strictest sense, he was implying that those who do not understand the game cannot be intellectually gifted, which I find insulting as it does not correspond with how I do at intellectual tasks. Also, don't be a ******. I don't mind if you disagree with me (I enjoy discussing stuff), but it's no fun if you're an ******* about it.

Yes, and I study astronomy, and randomly using such a statement as to gain false authority is pointless. Also, the real "masters" of logic are philosophers, not mathematicians. In fact, it happens all the time that a universally accepted mathematical definition is proven to be insufficiently concise by a philosopher (most often by providing a logically valid example that contradicts the definition).

It doesn't matter what any of our definition of IQ is, since Rzarecta is the one who made the statement and he didn't even use anything to describe high IQ, but only a high enough IQ. The definition of a high IQ is beside the point. Even if your definition would be the "correct one" All I'd have to do with my statement is replace the number "100" with "115" and I would still be correct, therefore your point is moot.

The point is that your statement false because you assumed that Rzarecta, by referring to a high enough IQ was referring to a high IQ (which, btw, as you pointed out yourself, is a subjective term, and could because of that alone not serve your claims at all). A high enough IQ, as you might realize being a mathematician, means IQ > c, with c being a constant (which at this point has not been provided). Only if c <= [your definition of a high IQ] are you correct, so we have a whole set of c > [your definition of a high IQ], which are perfect examples of possible solutions that directly contradict you (because you assume c = [your definition of a high IQ].

If you "enjoy discussing stuff", please refrain from calling people "stupid", as you did with Rzarecta. It helps, y'know, keep the discussion civil.

SweetsMachineGun
01-19-2012, 10:57 AM
LightRey, what DON'T you study? :rolleyes: I think the quote in your signature describes you to a T.

LightRey
01-19-2012, 11:12 AM
LightRey, what DON'T you study? :rolleyes: I think the quote in your signature describes you to a T.

Well I don't study anything else, but I do have many interests and my parents both have jobs within the scientific community, so my curiosity has always been well-nourished.

EscoBlades
01-19-2012, 11:37 AM
You guys sure do love to argue, haha!

PhiIs1618033
01-19-2012, 01:38 PM
Yes, and I study astronomy, and randomly using such a statement as to gain false authority is pointless. Also, the real "masters" of logic are philosophers, not mathematicians. In fact, it happens all the time that a universally accepted mathematical definition is proven to be insufficiently concise by a philosopher (most often by providing a logically valid example that contradicts the definition).
I could do some type of 'logic test' and thus show my ability to use logic, but I figured mentioning that I studies maths was a tad easier. You were saying I couldn't use logic. I disagreed and that's why I said I studied maths. Also, mathematics is about defining something, then seeing what happens with that. There are no 'accepted definitions' in mathematics. There are definitions that are commonly accepted as applicable to the real world, but that is not our domain. Physicists can play around with that. We just mess with stuff.



It doesn't matter what any of our definition of IQ is, since Rzarecta is the one who made the statement and he didn't even use anything to describe high IQ, but only a high enough IQ. The definition of a high IQ is beside the point. Even if your definition would be the "correct one" All I'd have to do with my statement is replace the number "100" with "115" and I would still be correct, therefore your point is moot.

The point is that your statement false because you assumed that Rzarecta, by referring to a high enough IQ was referring to a high IQ (which, btw, as you pointed out yourself, is a subjective term, and could because of that alone not serve your claims at all). A high enough IQ, as you might realize being a mathematician, means IQ > c, with c being a constant (which at this point has not been provided). Only if c <= [your definition of a high IQ] are you correct, so we have a whole set of c > [your definition of a high IQ], which are perfect examples of possible solutions that directly contradict you (because you assume c = [your definition of a high IQ].
Like I said before, in the end it's just a matter of interpretation of what you think is a 'high enough IQ'.
Also, there's no such thing as 'correct definition'. :P


If you "enjoy discussing stuff", please refrain from calling people "stupid", as you did with Rzarecta. It helps, y'know, keep the discussion civil.
I was annoyed and I shouldn't have said that, you're totally right.

I remember you being Dutch. Where do you study? Nijmegen?

LightRey
01-19-2012, 01:59 PM
I could do some type of 'logic test' and thus show my ability to use logic, but I figured mentioning that I studies maths was a tad easier. You were saying I couldn't use logic. I disagreed and that's why I said I studied maths. Also, mathematics is about defining something, then seeing what happens with that. There are no 'accepted definitions' in mathematics. There are definitions that are commonly accepted as applicable to the real world, but that is not our domain. Physicists can play around with that. We just mess with stuff.


Like I said before, in the end it's just a matter of interpretation of what you think is a 'high enough IQ'.
Also, there's no such thing as 'correct definition'. :P


I was annoyed and I shouldn't have said that, you're totally right.

I remember you being Dutch. Where do you study? Nijmegen?

With "accepted definitions" that are refuted I mean that there is a difference between the notation of a mathematical definition and how it is interpreted. It's mostly regarding the proper notation of axioms.

In the end it's a matter of Rzarecta's interpretation of what is high enough. We can only guess what it was, which was my point.

I study in Leiden. I have also recently decided to stop studying astronomy and have started looking for another subject. I will be finishing this year and then move on to something else. As much as I love astronomy I found that I just didn't feel comfortable in the field and the stress resulting from that had been getting to me. I'm currently looking into fields that involve programming, as I've gained quite a fondness of it and it's one of the few things I found myself working on hours on end, even if I didn't really like the assignment.

PhiIs1618033
01-19-2012, 07:35 PM
With "accepted definitions" that are refuted I mean that there is a difference between the notation of a mathematical definition and how it is interpreted. It's mostly regarding the proper notation of axioms.

In the end it's a matter of Rzarecta's interpretation of what is high enough. We can only guess what it was, which was my point.
I guess we agree, then.


I study in Leiden. I have also recently decided to stop studying astronomy and have started looking for another subject. I will be finishing this year and then move on to something else. As much as I love astronomy I found that I just didn't feel comfortable in the field and the stress resulting from that had been getting to me. I'm currently looking into fields that involve programming, as I've gained quite a fondness of it and it's one of the few things I found myself working on hours on end, even if I didn't really like the assignment.
Informatica, then? Delft is pretty nearby, although the study there has a huge dropout rate.

LightRey
01-19-2012, 10:18 PM
I guess we agree, then.


Informatica, then? Delft is pretty nearby, although the study there has a huge dropout rate.

I don't really like Delft, tbh. I could just stay in Leiden for that too, which is preferable for many reasons. Either way I still need to look around.

playassassins1
01-19-2012, 10:31 PM
I don't think Alex Amancio leaving will have impact on the story, because there are many others that work with him. And he is not the only one doing the work. I hope they bring Patrice back