Think about it...why else would they be waiting for certification for release? And they already said they were submitting for certification so they were "hoping for late june."
It's not a momentous leap of logic, and it fits with Ockham's razor.
Think about it...why else would they be waiting for certification for release? And they already said they were submitting for certification so they were "hoping for late june."
It's not a momentous leap of logic.
That is not a source. And they never said they submitted. They twice said "about to submit"
Your guess is as good as any, but it's not what "we already know". We don't know anything because they won't say.
Also, it's been demonstrated and proven already that logic doesn't dictate anything that TTG does.
That is not a source. And they never said they submitted. They twice said "about to submit"
Your guess is as good as any, but it's not what "we already know". We don't know anything because they won't say.
Also, it's been demonstrated and proven already that logic doesn't dictate anything that TTG does.
Like I said, Ockham's razor. The razor asserts that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. It boils down to which theory makes the least amount of assumptions.
Lets take theory one: Something went wrong and they are refusing to tell us about it. I count two assumptions.
Now lets Look at theory two: They said they were about to submit for certification and so they hoped for a late june release. This sounds like they want a simultaneous release. That is one assumption.
It's not a momentous leap of logic, and it fits with Ockham's razor.
Actually that's quite the leap. Also wouldn't a bug be much more likely then a simultaneous release making a bug Ockham's razor? This more like Murphy's law to me...
Question for long time telltale fans. When they release the episodes do they let you know in advance or do they release them with little notice?
Usually, you wake up and its out. No real warning. Only real warning you might have is the site goes down for like an hour or two. and when it comes back up, there is a new home page.
Actually that's quite the leap. Also wouldn't a bug be much more likely then a simultaneous release making a bug Ockham's razor? This more like Murphy's law to me...
just because you repeat yourself doesn't make you right. You are assuming... and you know what they say about people who assume... they're ass****s :D:D:D
Like I said, Ockham's razor. The razor asserts that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. It boils down to which theory makes the least amount of assumptions.
Lets take theory one: Something went wrong and they are refusing to tell us about it. I count two assumptions.
Now lets Look at theory two: They said they were about to submit for certification and so they hoped for a late june release. This sounds like they want a simultaneous release. That is one assumption.
Ockham's razor prevails.
Except that they aren't talking to their customers in either theory. You also don't even know if they've submitted to Microsoft/Sony. Ockham's razor doesn't prevail in your example. You can't tack on an assumption to one when it's true for both just to make your argument.
just because you repeat yourself doesn't make you right. You are assuming... and you know what they say about people who assume... they're ass****s :D:D:D
"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"
The fact is that we do not have any conclusive evidence to support the claim of a bug. We do have evidence that they are waiting for certification.
Your argument was for simultaneous release (which there is no evidence for either), not that they were just waiting for certification. Like I said before, we don't even know if they've submitted yet.
Except that they aren't talking to their customers in either theory. You also don't even know if they've submitted to Microsoft/Sony. Ockham's razor doesn't prevail in your example. You can't tack on an assumption to one when it's true for both just to make your argument.
except that its still three assumptions. 1) there is a bug. 2) that is what is causing the delay. 3) That is why they are not talking.
on the other hand, the evidence goes that they stated they were about to submit for certification and that is when they said they were hoping for a late june release.
So theory two makes two assumptions total. 1) They are waiting on certification for releasing the game. 2) that is why they are not talking.
"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"
Precisely, Its much more likely that one of the devs made a mistake (because no one is perfect and it happens all the time in the video game industry) and the game got pushed back. How often do computer games get held back from releasing because they want a simultaneous launch with the consoles? because I can't think of any.
The reason I said Murphy's law is more appropriate for this situatuion is because it seems like every that could have gone wrong did. They found a problem and had to push it back, but the next week was E3 so they couldn't fix it till they got back maybe (ex: handing it in for certification or fixing some bug). Does that sound like a pretty logical chain of events?
except that its still three assumptions. 1) there is a bug. 2) that is what is causing the delay. 3) That is why they are not talking.
on the other hand, the evidence goes that they stated they were about to submit for certification and that is when they said they were hoping for a late june release.
So theory two makes two assumptions total. 1) They are waiting on certification for releasing the game. 2) that is why they are not talking.
Ockham's razor still prevails.
You could tack on that "that is what is causing the delay" to your second theory as well. So for the second time, don't tack on a general assumption for one case when it's true for both just to prove your argument. You're making just as much of a leap as anyone else.
The reason I said Murphy's law is more appropriate for this situatuion is because it seems like every that could have gone wrong did.(assumption #1) They found a problem and had to push it back,(assumption#2) but the next week was E3 so they couldn't fix it till they got back maybe (assumption #3) (ex: handing it in for certification or fixing some bug). Does that sound like a pretty logical chain of events?
The real reason episode 2 was delayed is because the TTG team was thrown through a time portal into a post apocalyptic future where they teamed up to save the world from the Zombie threat
You could tack on that "that is what is causing the delay" to your second theory as well. So for the second time, don't tack on a general assumption for one case when it's true for both just to prove your argument. You're making just as much of a leap as anyone else.
um...no. The evidence supports that they were about to submit for certification and that's why they were hoping for late june... That is not an assumption...that's actual statement of fact.
But for the sake of assumption, let's assume that you are right and that the release is being held back by certification from Sony and/or Microsoft. It's still not their (Sony/Microsoft) fault that the game is delayed. It's not like TTG is completely new to the business so they must have obtained some knowledge and experience regarding games, building them and releasing them. They know the path they have to walk and they know the time frame they might have to deal with prior to releasing a title, or part of a title. So all those people pointing fingers at Microsoft and Sony might wanna try and look at this from a different perspective. If you go skydiving, get on the plane, wait until you're at the right altitude, jump out of the plane and then think "Hmmm, a parachute would really be nice now since my deadline is kinda closing in down there and I really want the parachute as soon as possible.",... well, you might want to look at how you prepared your little adventure. It's useless to point fingers at anyone at this point because you're the only one to blame since you failed to plan properly (and also because, in this particular example, pointing fingers will hardly slow down your fall and will most certainly not break it). And that brings me to the next part of the assuming-game.
Certification might currently be the reason why zombisexuals (sorry, had to do it) are waiting for this chapter, but it is not the reason for the delay. Without any form of useful feedback from TTG the world will never know. And the deafening silence from TTG is yet an invitation for more assumptions. I shall forward my assumption regarding the reason for the delay: Bad preparation and low quality planning. If you don't plan for bug fixing, adaptation, course changes and/or certification then you fail to plan properly. Perhaps the story was injected with some new ideas. And in the world of deadlines, new ideas can be a horror story all by themselves as they usually do not fit into the original plan. If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.
If that's not it then maybe TTG simply don't give a crap about what their customers think. Might sound a bit far fetched, but given the fact that communication is about as frequent as cows laying eggs, I wouldn't completely rule it out.
I'm sure there could be other reasons, but I'm also sure that those most likely would fit into "bad planning". Either way it doesn't matter since I am 63.8% sure that Episode 2 will be released before July (2013).
um...no. The evidence supports that they were about to submit for certification and that's why they were hoping for late june... That is not an assumption...that's actual statement of fact.
yea dude... when they got back from E3... I was just trying to start a conversation but you're clearly a jamoke. So I'm just not gonna talk to you man.
um...no. The evidence supports that they were about to submit for certification and that's why they were hoping for late june... That is not an assumption...that's actual statement of fact.
Really? The last time I heard anything from them it was that they were ABOUT to submit. We still don't even know if they have submitted. If you do know that they have, mind citing a source? Since it's fact and all I'm sure you'll have no problem.
Either way, a bug is still just as likely. Since fixing those and making sure they don't get out is what the certification process was designed for.
Really? The last time I heard anything from them it was that they were ABOUT to submit. (which is what I said is the fact.) If you do know that they have, mind citing a source? Since it's fact and all I'm sure you'll have no problem. (none at all!)
Either way, a bug is still just as likely. (but another assumption.) Since fixing those and making sure they don't get out is what the certification process was designed for. (can you site source for that?)
In your original argument that I was responding to, you said "So theory two makes two assumptions total. 1) They are waiting on certification for releasing the game. 2) that is why they are not talking." You were assuming that they had submitted and were waiting.
In your original argument that I was responding to, you said "So theory two makes two assumptions total. 1) They are waiting on certification for releasing the game. 2) that is why they are not talking." You were assuming that they had submitted and were waiting.
Also, please stop changing your arguments around. It's getting increasingly hard to follow the conversation.
You realize it says nothing about how long certification actually takes. And I didn't change my argument...I backed it up with evidence...to which you simply misread and I corrected you. And no, its not what I assumed. I deduced that because they said "we are about to submit the game for certification with microsoft and sony so we are hoping for late june," means that because they are about to submit it, they are hoping it is done certifying by late june...that's not even close to an assumption.
Comments
Source?
It's not a momentous leap of logic, and it fits with Ockham's razor.
That is not a source. And they never said they submitted. They twice said "about to submit"
Your guess is as good as any, but it's not what "we already know". We don't know anything because they won't say.
Also, it's been demonstrated and proven already that logic doesn't dictate anything that TTG does.
or what fellow forum members come out with...
Like I said, Ockham's razor. The razor asserts that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. It boils down to which theory makes the least amount of assumptions.
Lets take theory one: Something went wrong and they are refusing to tell us about it. I count two assumptions.
Now lets Look at theory two: They said they were about to submit for certification and so they hoped for a late june release. This sounds like they want a simultaneous release. That is one assumption.
Ockham's razor prevails.
Actually that's quite the leap. Also wouldn't a bug be much more likely then a simultaneous release making a bug Ockham's razor? This more like Murphy's law to me...
Usually, you wake up and its out. No real warning. Only real warning you might have is the site goes down for like an hour or two. and when it comes back up, there is a new home page.
You're not the only one
see my last post.
Me too although it's so easy to get your hopes up
just because you repeat yourself doesn't make you right. You are assuming... and you know what they say about people who assume... they're ass****s
If you think me wrong read this http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
Except that they aren't talking to their customers in either theory. You also don't even know if they've submitted to Microsoft/Sony. Ockham's razor doesn't prevail in your example. You can't tack on an assumption to one when it's true for both just to make your argument.
perhaps you should.
"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"
The fact is that we do not have any conclusive evidence to support the claim of a bug. We do have evidence that they are waiting for certification.
Your argument was for simultaneous release (which there is no evidence for either), not that they were just waiting for certification. Like I said before, we don't even know if they've submitted yet.
except that its still three assumptions. 1) there is a bug. 2) that is what is causing the delay. 3) That is why they are not talking.
on the other hand, the evidence goes that they stated they were about to submit for certification and that is when they said they were hoping for a late june release.
So theory two makes two assumptions total. 1) They are waiting on certification for releasing the game. 2) that is why they are not talking.
Ockham's razor still prevails.
Not all releases are delayed. In fact I'd be willing to bet they are already working on the 3rd episode.
Precisely, Its much more likely that one of the devs made a mistake (because no one is perfect and it happens all the time in the video game industry) and the game got pushed back. How often do computer games get held back from releasing because they want a simultaneous launch with the consoles? because I can't think of any.
The reason I said Murphy's law is more appropriate for this situatuion is because it seems like every that could have gone wrong did. They found a problem and had to push it back, but the next week was E3 so they couldn't fix it till they got back maybe (ex: handing it in for certification or fixing some bug). Does that sound like a pretty logical chain of events?
You could tack on that "that is what is causing the delay" to your second theory as well. So for the second time, don't tack on a general assumption for one case when it's true for both just to prove your argument. You're making just as much of a leap as anyone else.
Sounds like a lot of assumptions.
um...no. The evidence supports that they were about to submit for certification and that's why they were hoping for late june... That is not an assumption...that's actual statement of fact.
Still reaching, no facts.
But for the sake of assumption, let's assume that you are right and that the release is being held back by certification from Sony and/or Microsoft. It's still not their (Sony/Microsoft) fault that the game is delayed. It's not like TTG is completely new to the business so they must have obtained some knowledge and experience regarding games, building them and releasing them. They know the path they have to walk and they know the time frame they might have to deal with prior to releasing a title, or part of a title. So all those people pointing fingers at Microsoft and Sony might wanna try and look at this from a different perspective. If you go skydiving, get on the plane, wait until you're at the right altitude, jump out of the plane and then think "Hmmm, a parachute would really be nice now since my deadline is kinda closing in down there and I really want the parachute as soon as possible.",... well, you might want to look at how you prepared your little adventure. It's useless to point fingers at anyone at this point because you're the only one to blame since you failed to plan properly (and also because, in this particular example, pointing fingers will hardly slow down your fall and will most certainly not break it). And that brings me to the next part of the assuming-game.
Certification might currently be the reason why zombisexuals (sorry, had to do it) are waiting for this chapter, but it is not the reason for the delay. Without any form of useful feedback from TTG the world will never know. And the deafening silence from TTG is yet an invitation for more assumptions. I shall forward my assumption regarding the reason for the delay: Bad preparation and low quality planning. If you don't plan for bug fixing, adaptation, course changes and/or certification then you fail to plan properly. Perhaps the story was injected with some new ideas. And in the world of deadlines, new ideas can be a horror story all by themselves as they usually do not fit into the original plan. If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.
If that's not it then maybe TTG simply don't give a crap about what their customers think. Might sound a bit far fetched, but given the fact that communication is about as frequent as cows laying eggs, I wouldn't completely rule it out.
I'm sure there could be other reasons, but I'm also sure that those most likely would fit into "bad planning". Either way it doesn't matter since I am 63.8% sure that Episode 2 will be released before July (2013).
yea dude... when they got back from E3... I was just trying to start a conversation but you're clearly a jamoke. So I'm just not gonna talk to you man.
--peace
Really? The last time I heard anything from them it was that they were ABOUT to submit. We still don't even know if they have submitted. If you do know that they have, mind citing a source? Since it's fact and all I'm sure you'll have no problem.
Either way, a bug is still just as likely. Since fixing those and making sure they don't get out is what the certification process was designed for.
My evidence is supported. Where is yours?
In your original argument that I was responding to, you said "So theory two makes two assumptions total. 1) They are waiting on certification for releasing the game. 2) that is why they are not talking." You were assuming that they had submitted and were waiting.
Also, the certification processes are like quality control. You can read more about it here http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=15650 and I'll find you some more shortly.
Also, please stop changing your arguments around. It's getting increasingly hard to follow the conversation.
It could be either of those or any of millions of other complications.
I'll reiterate, we don't know because they won't tell us.
The deductions, evidence, etc is all stupid.
Yeah, the thread is turning into something like the Illiad. Pretty epic. Lol.
You realize it says nothing about how long certification actually takes. And I didn't change my argument...I backed it up with evidence...to which you simply misread and I corrected you. And no, its not what I assumed. I deduced that because they said "we are about to submit the game for certification with microsoft and sony so we are hoping for late june," means that because they are about to submit it, they are hoping it is done certifying by late june...that's not even close to an assumption.
Yes, your point? EDIT: I can't even reply to you because of the continuous edits, haha.