-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bloodborne |OT++++| Now with Trusty Patches
- Thread starter Robot Pants
- Start date
You are exactly doing what Im doing but with more success, I cant kill the damn dog lol.
ah - I actually switched to the Saw Cleaver (L7 with some 15% phys attack gem) to get him - was a tough fight
RandomSeed
Member
Has the DLC ever been on sale? Took a break from the game after getting the platinum, but I'm starting to think it could be fun to play now, before Dark Souls 3 is out.
Yea it has, I bought it on sale for like 10 I wanna say back in januari ? but not sure
I also beat Defiled Amygdala last night. Still missing a couple of red jellies, will probably farm them through Isz tonight. I'm getting so close to the Platinum trophy, I can smell it!
Marty-esque
Member
Zank Frappa
Banned
I have the final boss left to play. I initiated Eileen's quest line in Central Yharnam in the beginning, but never bothered with her afterwards. Can I still do her quest line? God knows where she might be now.
If you only spoke to her in CY, then she will probably be in Ameilia's place hostile
kinda failed her quest but you can still get her badge for her armor and weapon.
CaptainofIndustry
Member
Ok peeps,
I need a blood rock and I've found the area in the nightmare of mensis to get it. The problem is that I can't seem to get around these giant brain creatures to get to it. Any tips?
I need a blood rock and I've found the area in the nightmare of mensis to get it. The problem is that I can't seem to get around these giant brain creatures to get to it. Any tips?
JadedWriter
Member
Equip some Frenzy resist armor and rune and kill them. That's the only advice I can give you since there's more than one in that area. Also bring sedatives.
Don't worry about it sounding aggressive, I'm usually the one in that position, so I understand the position of being argumentative without being aggressive. It's very difficult to not come off as one without the other, so I get it, and don't take it personally.
First, let me point out that the argument wasn't acquiring a professorship in astrophysics. When we said "become like NDT" we weren't referring to his jobs, but his knowledge. The latter is far easier to require. You wouldn't need to prove your knowledge to anyone, you wouldn't need to pass any tests, you wouldn't need to to master any computer science to be capable of doing the kind of tests you want, etc. If you were fry cook with as much sheer knowledge as NDT, you would be the person being described in the analogy. Now, the practical knowledge of doing those things probably helps in further mastery of his subject, but broadly speaking, he wouldn't need to learn the things he'd need to run experiments if all he was going to do is read about experiments. He just needs to understand them, and there is a difference.
Second, see my post to Dahbomb. An analogy essentially functions on saying one thing is similar to another in functions, but not features, and severity is a feature. The statement being made by it is that "If a person dedicates the time to it, then they can become an expert in it. However, not everyone has the luxury to do that." That is the argument, and it applies to anybody who wants to study Bloodborne, or Astrophysics, or Poker, or Dog Training, or anything. The point was that BB was relatively difficult to decipher enough that doing so would require more patience and effort than some could afford, so shrugging off people who miss it as simply 'not paying attention' is somewhat dismissive.
From that function, the analogy applies, and the severity aspect of it is nonwithstanding. Want proof? Then lets move beyond this and use other analogies. "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep moving." "Friends and family are like butt cheeks: shit might separate them, but they always come back together." "Friends are like trees: they fall down when you hit them multiple times with an axe." But going through life is a significantly more complicated process, while all you need to do on a bike is keep pushing pedals! But friends and family can be separated by larger distance, more difficult problems, while buttcheeks are only away by a couple inches the whole time. But trees require so many more hits with an Ax than friends!
If severity was an issue, it would actually invalidate most analogies period. Think of analogies you've used, or look up more of them, and you'll find that they have a difference of severity while keeping to the same function.
equip the ashen armor(and frenzy runes)
use a blue elixir
run past all the winter lantern on the bridge
spam blood vials when the frenzy meter is full
it should take like 10 seconds.
I pushed my Reiterpallasch to +10 yesterday and I love this thing. Sure, the burst damage isn't that great, but some enemy types, especially humanoids, get staggered all the time and are really easy to handle.
The hunters in the DLC (machine gun guy, beast guy) drove me crazy with my arcane char. This was much easier with the Reiterpallasch.
Tonight Ludwig it is. Again. And I see many many deaths ahead...
As the others said: frenzy resist and sedative. Bolt paper helps, too. Don't be greedy, they will grab you, dodge that. Kill one of them fast, use sedative, repeat.
Asshole section, that's for sure.
The hunters in the DLC (machine gun guy, beast guy) drove me crazy with my arcane char. This was much easier with the Reiterpallasch.
Tonight Ludwig it is. Again. And I see many many deaths ahead...
As the others said: frenzy resist and sedative. Bolt paper helps, too. Don't be greedy, they will grab you, dodge that. Kill one of them fast, use sedative, repeat.
Asshole section, that's for sure.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Ah, good. It certainly wasn't meant to be like that. I got super paranoid after posting! XD
Actually, the distinction you made was "a master level like NDT". What is a Professorship but an academic acknowledgement of one's 'mastery' over a subject? How else does one make the distinction of being a 'master' of the subject without the acknowledgement or comparison to others?
I think that's a fairly bold assumption to make.
Life isn't an America Underdog movie. Time and effort are not all that are required to master subjects or disciplines.
I think the premise "anyone can master anything given time and effort" is a gross oversimplification and fundamentally wrong. Especially so when you're talking about a subject that requires (even at a text book reading level) an understanding of multiple branches of physics, chemistry, mathematics and mechanics at a degree level (at least) to begin to "master [it] like NDT".
Video games, even niche ones like the Souls series, are inherently egalitarian, albeit to varying degrees of 'severity'. The barrier for entry requires no pre-knowledge whatsoever, merely the ability to read and to push buttons.
The analogy is flawed because the fundamental assumption ("anyone can do anything given enough time and effort") is flawed, thus any supposed "functional" similarities don't hold water: Not anyone can "master [astrophysics] like NDT". However, anyone CAN (by design and by the very nature of video games) play Bloodborne and "understand" the lore. Miyazaki himself has said there are no correct interpretations to Bloodborne's lore/narrative, so the barrier for entry is ridiculously low.
PS Those example analogies you included in your post are terrible too! Funny, sure, but terrible.
They're funny because they are drawing comparisons between disparate elements through wordplay. They don't survive any kind of meaningful scrutiny and are thus not actually "good" analogies. A good analogy is made up of something familiar being reframed to represent something else. The functional similarity between the two things need to be as maximal as possible, which the features of your Astrophysics to Bloodborne most certainly aren't.
Actually, the distinction you made was "a master level like NDT". What is a Professorship but an academic acknowledgement of one's 'mastery' over a subject? How else does one make the distinction of being a 'master' of the subject without the acknowledgement or comparison to others?
I think that's a fairly bold assumption to make.
Life isn't an America Underdog movie. Time and effort are not all that are required to master subjects or disciplines.
I think the premise "anyone can master anything given time and effort" is a gross oversimplification and fundamentally wrong. Especially so when you're talking about a subject that requires (even at a text book reading level) an understanding of multiple branches of physics, chemistry, mathematics and mechanics at a degree level (at least) to begin to "master [it] like NDT".
Video games, even niche ones like the Souls series, are inherently egalitarian, albeit to varying degrees of 'severity'. The barrier for entry requires no pre-knowledge whatsoever, merely the ability to read and to push buttons.
The analogy is flawed because the fundamental assumption ("anyone can do anything given enough time and effort") is flawed, thus any supposed "functional" similarities don't hold water: Not anyone can "master [astrophysics] like NDT". However, anyone CAN (by design and by the very nature of video games) play Bloodborne and "understand" the lore. Miyazaki himself has said there are no correct interpretations to Bloodborne's lore/narrative, so the barrier for entry is ridiculously low.
PS Those example analogies you included in your post are terrible too! Funny, sure, but terrible.
They're funny because they are drawing comparisons between disparate elements through wordplay. They don't survive any kind of meaningful scrutiny and are thus not actually "good" analogies. A good analogy is made up of something familiar being reframed to represent something else. The functional similarity between the two things need to be as maximal as possible, which the features of your Astrophysics to Bloodborne most certainly aren't.
Professorship is a job, defined by teaching a subject to others. Simply because you are a master of something doesn't necessarily imply you do anything with it. You don't have to teach it, you don't have to experiment with it, etc. It just means you know it.
Granted, when one acquires a mastery of a field, it's typically because one wants to work in it. But that because something is typical doesn't make it necessary.
I think that's a fairly bold assumption to make.
It's what I gathered from my study in astrophysics. I've taken some higher level classes in it and talked to professors. Make no mistake, there is a value in having practical experience, actually working the field you're teaching. But sheer concepts? Those can be taught without them. You don't have to have performed any experiments to read any research paper. Just studied the field enough to know what all the words mean.
Well, in that, I disagree, except for one thing: Opportunity. You need opportunity to dedicate said time and energy. That's something that is determined by other factors. Priveledged people have all the opportunity in the world, while the oppressed do not. If you're black or poor, you immediately lose opportunities just from a statistical perspective, either from people not wanting to hire a black person, or if you're poor you need to work more to make ends meet, which uses up your resource of time, taking away the opporunity to work on what you want. Assuming opportunity provided, all you need to do is dedicate your study to something.
What life is actually missing that makes it not an underdog movie is the montage. The hours put into working on something are grueling and unending. But, for me, if I decide to put my time and effort pretty much anything, I can succeed in it. I hate mathematics, but if it's all I studied for a year, I'd excel at it. I have no knowledge whatsoever about law practice other than what I gleamed from casual experience, but if I decided to dedicate my college experience to that, then that's what I'd know. And to your addage that you need to understand physics, chemistry, mathematics, and mechanics? That doesn't in any way refute my argument, it just defines in. "Okay, so what you need to master astrophysics is to study physics, chemistry, mathematics, and mechanics."
So, if you want to master Astrophysics, you do that. You're not really making an argument for why I or anyone else can't learn these things. You're just pointing out why it'd be tough as balls to do so.
Heh, sorry, but that's not true at all. Tell you what, get your dad or grandfather to play a video game. They can read and push buttons right? See how that turns out. They are fundamentally untrained in interpreting the signals games send out that we take for granted because we grew up with them. And it'll be harder because their old. That means their reflexes are slowed and learning acquisition is declined.
But, given enough time and effort, they'll make it happen. Because...
Again, first off, you're kind of ignoring my argument about how analogies work. Severity is irrelevant. I've given examples in my other post examples of things being compared to other things that are disproportionate to each other in some way. Here, you're just repeating the same statement as the previous post, without addressing the argument that countered it. Even if you feel the argument doesn't work, the analogy is solid.
Second, this simply isn't the case. I don't just say that as a life coach sort of advice, there have been studies that look at skill acquisition and not in any single one of them has there been an instance of people who can't do something. The studies have established that people with hundreds of different variables that are better or worse for skill acquisition, but nothing ever makes you outright incapable of it unless you're going as far as brain damaged patients. So, if you are really, REALLY dedicated, there are plenty of ways to become a master of astrophysics. Assumung you can't afford college, you pick up textbooks, and you go through them. It would be insanely difficult without a teacher or guide, which is partially why people go to college in the first place, and you use what time you have to study. It's really that simple. Not easy. But simple.
And if you disagree about that statement then I just have to ask: What is the absolutely irreversible condition that you perceive that prevents people from doing so? Because now you're just saying "Not everyone can do that!" Well, what stops them?
Lastly, as far as the lore comment goes, your reference of canoncy not only goes on a completely different tangent than what is currently being discussed, because understanding/interpretation of the lore is not related to mastery of the lore, so it's borderline irrelevant. To wit: A random user coming in here and saying "I think bloodborne is about a guy who is borne in blood and he is fighting demons because an evil guy is trying to take over the world and that's what I think my friend told me when he talked about the game while I was halflistening and watching better call saul" would be an interpretation of the lore but none the less demonstrate a poor understanding and mastery of the the lore, which we would all rightfully deem as wrong because it is supported by nothing in the game. All Miyazaki is saying when he says that is that the piece of art is what is important rather than what the artists says about it. Death of the author, if you will. Which is a philosophy I agree with, enough that even if Miyazaki was screaming "no, no, THIS is what I actually meant" at the top of his lungs, I still would be looking at the game instead of his comments. And what this all has to do with skill acquisition, I have no idea.
Zank Frappa
Banned
Should I want to do go to NG+ if I want to do the dungeons still? I feel like I'm moving on to NG+ way too fast.
Sorry, meant to edit, accidentally doubleposted
You're not being very specific here. First off, all those analogies do reframe something familiar to represent something else. Friends to trees, friends to buttcheeks, bicycle to life. If that is the only criteria you have, then they pass with flying colors.
What is 'meaningful scrutiny' here? Sorry, but you're not explaining it very well.
I wish I had my logic book with me. I actually did a research paper specifically on the logic of analogies. Let me see if I can find it....
Hey, actually did! It manages to include some paraphrases of the book I mentioned earlier too.
Okay, now rereading it, maybe that's why we're confused. I thought it was called the functional aspect, but it was the RELATIONAL aspect. Still, I feel my statement still works. Both focus on the relational aspect, of how you get from A to B. "If you work to understand X, you will master X" and it is that way either bloodborne or astrophysics. From my understanding, it works.
That said, I think we should either condense the discussion or else just postpone it to another time, because when we get to the point where I'm looking up my research papers to prove a point about analogies, I don't think were talking about bloodborne anymore. Which isn't because I want to end it, because I love talking about stuff, and the best conversations tend to go on such tangents, but it might upset the rest of the fanbase, since hte posts are getting rather long.
PS Those example analogies you included in your post are terrible too! Funny, sure, but terrible.
They're funny because they are drawing comparisons between disparate elements through wordplay. They don't survive any kind of meaningful scrutiny and are thus not actually "good" analogies. A good analogy is made up of something familiar being reframed to represent something else. The functional similarity between the two things need to be as maximal as possible, which the features of your Astrophysics to Bloodborne most certainly aren't.
You're not being very specific here. First off, all those analogies do reframe something familiar to represent something else. Friends to trees, friends to buttcheeks, bicycle to life. If that is the only criteria you have, then they pass with flying colors.
What is 'meaningful scrutiny' here? Sorry, but you're not explaining it very well.
I wish I had my logic book with me. I actually did a research paper specifically on the logic of analogies. Let me see if I can find it....
Hey, actually did! It manages to include some paraphrases of the book I mentioned earlier too.
Okay, now rereading it, maybe that's why we're confused. I thought it was called the functional aspect, but it was the RELATIONAL aspect. Still, I feel my statement still works. Both focus on the relational aspect, of how you get from A to B. "If you work to understand X, you will master X" and it is that way either bloodborne or astrophysics. From my understanding, it works.
That said, I think we should either condense the discussion or else just postpone it to another time, because when we get to the point where I'm looking up my research papers to prove a point about analogies, I don't think were talking about bloodborne anymore. Which isn't because I want to end it, because I love talking about stuff, and the best conversations tend to go on such tangents, but it might upset the rest of the fanbase, since hte posts are getting rather long.
Dungeons aren't effected by NG+
just make sure to get some ritual items from the game like living string before going to NG+
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
As well as being a job it is also considered the highest academic 'rank' in university and post-secondary institutions. Professors are deemed experts in their fields by their peers. The Paleblood writer isn't, he's a good writer.
Hmm. Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect...?
I'm not stopping anyone, I'm simply stating they aren't all that's required to become a "master" in your chosen field.
Look:
Anyone can hit a string on a guitar, right? Quite a lot of people can learn chords. Takes time, but they can do it. Quite a lot of people can actually play through whole songs if they're taught them. Fewer can just jam over a song at the drop of a hat and make it sound good. Even fewer than that can hear a song and instantly start playing it. Very few people can master the guitar: do all of the above AND play it like that awful Steve Vai bloke (and thank god too). There is no shortage of people that want to be able to play like that. They have the guitar, they all put the time and effort in, they have the inclination, yet they never reach those heady heights...
Why is that?
Every teen kid in the UK wants to be a footballer. They put in the time and effort, they have the opportunities and the drive to succeed, yet not all of them make it as professionals, even though it's all that matters to them....
Why is that?
I used to be a teacher (English Literature/Media Studies). I would see students - no matter the opportunities, the support given, the effort they put it, or their drive to excel - fail because they simply did not have the mind/body for their chosen subject.
It's that simple.
More people with time and effort CAN play video games to a certain standard, I didn't dispute that. However, relative to astrophysics, video games are absolutely egalitarian. They are designed specifically to be accessible to large groups of people, even when they are niche.
I'm not ignoring it. I don't think it's a case of severity/scale, I believe they are fundamentally different.
But we're talking about "mastery", remember?
Your analogy basically puts The Paleblood writer as a "master" of Bloodborne lore. This is implicit due to the comparison with NDT, who is a master in his field. That isn't the case. The barrier of entry to Bloodborne is functionally different to Astrophysics (the former being specifically designed to appeal to a wide audience). To grasp the game as The Paleblood writer has doesn't require years of study in multiple disciplines or even that you be an expert at the game's mechanics, it requires the ability to read. To be a "master", in the terms of your analogy, requires you to read all the text/environmental clues and see all the cutscenes in the game. My Dad and Grandad could absolutely do that.
Death of the Author isn't really a philosophy, it's (simply put) more a method for criticising works isolated from the author's intention. It has its uses but it isn't the be all and end all the internet seems to think it is.
My point in bringing the interpretation of the lore up and Miyazaki's views on it, was to highlight that the Paleblood writer's analysis and interpretation is no more valuable than anyone else's, so implicitly drawing comparisons with NDT is just another area where the analogy falls apart (NDT's views being held - rightly or wrongly, more or less - in higher regard by the community).
Yeah, we're totally derailing this thread, like you said. I think your analogy was poor, it doesn't match up well because the relationship between the objects (Bloodborne/Astrophysics, NDT/PB Writer) is misrepresented and it doesn't give any more insight (pun!) into the situation it's supposedly representing, relationally or otherwise. Sorry. We can PM, if you like.
As I mention at the bottom, I wrote out this reply before I realized you wanted to end it here.
You're talking about a whole bunch of other stuff that isn't relevant here. Recognition, fame, etc. I'm talking about pure knowledge. If the world suddenly got amnesia related to who NDT was and all his work just disappeared off the face of the planet, he would still be as knowledgeable in his field as he is with those things.
Sure, but have heard of other irrelevant things, like the word incarnadine?
I never claimed to be an expert in astrophysics. I don't need to be to state that you can become an expert in astrophysics by studying it sufficiently. I made some progress, but hardly enough to master the field, and most of it is forgotten by now, but if I decided today that I wanted to master it, I still could.
You haven't said anything aggressive so far, but this one comes off as passive aggressive. If you don't think I know what I'm talking about, say so. I can actually get the sources from my research on skill acquisition.
Because of about a million other variables? Come on, real life isn't a scientific experiement. How do they practice? How often? In what conditions? How do you know they all try equally? What about the fact that some of those are limited number institutions that wouldn't allow more than a certain number of people no matter how good the pool was? How are you even measuring the 'skill' in an artistic medium like guitar playing?
Not to discount your life experience, but it's not scientific. It doesn't hold generalizable answers. You have to know this, especially if you're a teacher. Again, there are literally HUNDREDS of possible variables that could be at play here that you can't possibly take under account in your assessment. Not to mention for all the stories where you see someone where a teacher assesses that student as incompetent in the area of study, they go on to have major success through persistance and hard work. For example, Terry Pratchett was told by his teacher he'd never be a successful writer, and look how that turned out.
And more than anything, you know these kids for a year then? Maybe 4? What if it takes 5 years for them to start making progress? Or 10? Or 30? How do you know you're simply not teaching them the right way?
On the other hand, there hasn't been a conclusive study, barring things like braindamage, where a person is simply incapable (no matter the means, effort, attitude, time, or any other variable) of mastering something. If someone is incapable of learning something, that indicates some kind of major deficit.
And Education isn't? Doesn't? Even putting aside the fact that I'm in college, opportunities for education on the cheap are everywhere. Go to your library. Look things up online. Go to a community college. Khan Academy. Youtube. Education has never been easier to acquire. Degrees may be another story, but education itself? It's everywhere!
Okay, bring it to basics then. Answer this: Will you become more knowledgable in astrophysics if you study it than if you do not? If yes, then also answer this: Will you become more knowledgable in bloodborne if you study it than if you do not?
If you answered yes to both those questions, then the analogy applies, because that's the statement being made by it.
Well, first off, you're mistaken. It's not enough that you merely know all the content of the game, you have to draw inferences from it. That's a different skill.
Second, your dad and granddad can also become masters of Astrophysics if they apply themselves enough as well. It might take years, require more effort in a hundred different areas than BB, but they could do it.
And if you're going to argue against that, then explain why not. What is it about your dad that makes them actually functionally incapable of this.
I mean, you just said they can read. All of Astrophysics is just information, and information can be read, which you claim your dad and grandad can do. It might take YEARS before they read and comprehend and memorize everything, but there's no reason they can't do it.
The only way you could argue against this is if you believe that astrophysicists have some kind of knowledge they do not share with the public. From there, you can't merely read their textbooks, because that would be incomplete information. But if you have no reason to believe they'd hide their findings, then literally everything any astrophysicist knows is written down somewhere. So, mastering it is just a matter of reading and comprehending it. And presumably, all of this is available to the pubic.
If all that is true, then why? Why do you believe your Dad and Granddad can't just read and learn?
I meant the term philosophy loosely. Or, even if you don't think so, terms evolve over time, and if you view EVERY artistic work as seperate from artist intentions, then you can say it's a philosophy. I think we may have had this argument before in another thread, unless I'm thinking of someone else. I still have yet to hear a convincing argument why I should put any more value on a creator's opinion than anyone else's. Contrary to popular belief, there really isn't an inherent connection between creator and creation.
And my point is that interpretations rely on the strength of support from the work, rather than there is no strength at all because the creator said so. The Paleblood Hunt certainly cites various sources for it's arguments, so it can be said to have greater mastery of the material than the hypothetical noob I mentioned in my last post.
I wouldn't have responded yet again, but by the time I got to this part, I had already written out the rest of the post. ANd I think you have a severe misunderstanding of how analogies work as I feel the relational connections are very clear and have explicitely defined them many times while addressing why the severity of difficulty is not a relevant counterargument, and you've failed to substantiate a reason for why people are incapable of certain things without major cognitive deficiencies. But yeah, PM me if you want to continue this
You're talking about a whole bunch of other stuff that isn't relevant here. Recognition, fame, etc. I'm talking about pure knowledge. If the world suddenly got amnesia related to who NDT was and all his work just disappeared off the face of the planet, he would still be as knowledgeable in his field as he is with those things.
Hmm. Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect...?
Sure, but have heard of other irrelevant things, like the word incarnadine?
I never claimed to be an expert in astrophysics. I don't need to be to state that you can become an expert in astrophysics by studying it sufficiently. I made some progress, but hardly enough to master the field, and most of it is forgotten by now, but if I decided today that I wanted to master it, I still could.
You haven't said anything aggressive so far, but this one comes off as passive aggressive. If you don't think I know what I'm talking about, say so. I can actually get the sources from my research on skill acquisition.
Because of about a million other variables? Come on, real life isn't a scientific experiement. How do they practice? How often? In what conditions? How do you know they all try equally? What about the fact that some of those are limited number institutions that wouldn't allow more than a certain number of people no matter how good the pool was? How are you even measuring the 'skill' in an artistic medium like guitar playing?
Not to discount your life experience, but it's not scientific. It doesn't hold generalizable answers. You have to know this, especially if you're a teacher. Again, there are literally HUNDREDS of possible variables that could be at play here that you can't possibly take under account in your assessment. Not to mention for all the stories where you see someone where a teacher assesses that student as incompetent in the area of study, they go on to have major success through persistance and hard work. For example, Terry Pratchett was told by his teacher he'd never be a successful writer, and look how that turned out.
And more than anything, you know these kids for a year then? Maybe 4? What if it takes 5 years for them to start making progress? Or 10? Or 30? How do you know you're simply not teaching them the right way?
On the other hand, there hasn't been a conclusive study, barring things like braindamage, where a person is simply incapable (no matter the means, effort, attitude, time, or any other variable) of mastering something. If someone is incapable of learning something, that indicates some kind of major deficit.
And Education isn't? Doesn't? Even putting aside the fact that I'm in college, opportunities for education on the cheap are everywhere. Go to your library. Look things up online. Go to a community college. Khan Academy. Youtube. Education has never been easier to acquire. Degrees may be another story, but education itself? It's everywhere!
Okay, bring it to basics then. Answer this: Will you become more knowledgable in astrophysics if you study it than if you do not? If yes, then also answer this: Will you become more knowledgable in bloodborne if you study it than if you do not?
If you answered yes to both those questions, then the analogy applies, because that's the statement being made by it.
Well, first off, you're mistaken. It's not enough that you merely know all the content of the game, you have to draw inferences from it. That's a different skill.
Second, your dad and granddad can also become masters of Astrophysics if they apply themselves enough as well. It might take years, require more effort in a hundred different areas than BB, but they could do it.
And if you're going to argue against that, then explain why not. What is it about your dad that makes them actually functionally incapable of this.
I mean, you just said they can read. All of Astrophysics is just information, and information can be read, which you claim your dad and grandad can do. It might take YEARS before they read and comprehend and memorize everything, but there's no reason they can't do it.
The only way you could argue against this is if you believe that astrophysicists have some kind of knowledge they do not share with the public. From there, you can't merely read their textbooks, because that would be incomplete information. But if you have no reason to believe they'd hide their findings, then literally everything any astrophysicist knows is written down somewhere. So, mastering it is just a matter of reading and comprehending it. And presumably, all of this is available to the pubic.
If all that is true, then why? Why do you believe your Dad and Granddad can't just read and learn?
I meant the term philosophy loosely. Or, even if you don't think so, terms evolve over time, and if you view EVERY artistic work as seperate from artist intentions, then you can say it's a philosophy. I think we may have had this argument before in another thread, unless I'm thinking of someone else. I still have yet to hear a convincing argument why I should put any more value on a creator's opinion than anyone else's. Contrary to popular belief, there really isn't an inherent connection between creator and creation.
And my point is that interpretations rely on the strength of support from the work, rather than there is no strength at all because the creator said so. The Paleblood Hunt certainly cites various sources for it's arguments, so it can be said to have greater mastery of the material than the hypothetical noob I mentioned in my last post.
Yeah, we're totally derailing this thread, like you said. I think your analogy was poor, it doesn't match up well because the relationship between the objects (Bloodborne/Astrophysics, NDT/PB Writer) is misrepresented and it doesn't give any more insight (pun!) into the situation it's supposedly representing, relationally or otherwise. Sorry. We can PM, if you like.
I wouldn't have responded yet again, but by the time I got to this part, I had already written out the rest of the post. ANd I think you have a severe misunderstanding of how analogies work as I feel the relational connections are very clear and have explicitely defined them many times while addressing why the severity of difficulty is not a relevant counterargument, and you've failed to substantiate a reason for why people are incapable of certain things without major cognitive deficiencies. But yeah, PM me if you want to continue this
Defiled Amygdala is done baby!!
What Im more proud of this fight is this:
Notice I only used 3 vials lol, and thats because I got nervous at the last phase of the fight, I basically died like 30 times before I got the entire thing sequence locked down, I went no hurt till the last phase in wich I got myself stepped down a couple of times hence my vials usage.
Now I needed to go and kill Ebrietas for that Isz chalice so I can farm those red jellys so I can create the Ihyll chalice, Im close now fo those damn Gems!!
Also the other day I was fighting the Bloodletting Beast and that bastard knocked me off the damn stage lol, I was about to one shot him and this happens, this is the below the floor by the way.
Lol.
What Im more proud of this fight is this:
Notice I only used 3 vials lol, and thats because I got nervous at the last phase of the fight, I basically died like 30 times before I got the entire thing sequence locked down, I went no hurt till the last phase in wich I got myself stepped down a couple of times hence my vials usage.
Now I needed to go and kill Ebrietas for that Isz chalice so I can farm those red jellys so I can create the Ihyll chalice, Im close now fo those damn Gems!!
Also the other day I was fighting the Bloodletting Beast and that bastard knocked me off the damn stage lol, I was about to one shot him and this happens, this is the below the floor by the way.
Lol.
JadedWriter
Member
Did you get falcon pawnched off the stage? I think when I beat Defiled Amygdala I used like 7 vials, so that must've been a good fight for you. For the last phase I just spammed Black Sky Eye at him.
Zank Frappa
Banned
I haven't done any of the defiled dungeons yet. I'm about to embark on fighting the final boss(es). I think I have the three important npc specific badges for the weapons. My question is: Can I, at this point & without going into the dungeons, collect all weapons and collect all hunter tools? I mainly want to get the trophies.
Mobile Suit Gooch
Grundle: The Awakening
I forgot that I was on my fourth playthrough. I beat Lady Maria by myself for the first time too.
JadedWriter
Member
No, since you need to go into the Ailing Loran dungeon to get the beast claws.
Zank Frappa
Banned
Thanks. Any other weapon that I must acquire in a dungeon? And what about the Hunter tools?
JadedWriter
Member
I don't remember, but I think the hunter tools are all in the main game, it's been awhile since I looked for them. After I platinumed the game they're really not too much of a priority though you should look for a video on getting the Messengers Gift, that one can easily be missed.
Messensgers gift is in the Nightmare Frontier, but that can be grabbed on the way to Amygdala and the materials cause thats a must to get the Ailing Loran Chalice in order to get the Claws.
Kill two birds one stone kinda of a deal
JadedWriter
Member
You can easily finish NF without getting it though since that's what I did the first time, I didn't get it till my NG+ run. It's in that asshole poison swamp section guarded by a winter lantern.Messensgers gift is in the Nightmare Frontier, but that can be grabbed on the way to Amygdala and the materials cause thats a must to get the Ailing Loran Chalice in order to get the Claws.
Kill two birds one stone kinda of a deal
I got it by accident because
Patches threw me there and I ran to that way without knowing what was there lol.
JadedWriter
Member
The first time I completely avoided that scenario, the second time was a pain cause it was in NG+ I had dealt with that another time and found out how to just get to that area quicker at the beginning of the level.
Zank Frappa
Banned
Can I prevent going to NG+ if I
consume all three Umbilical Cords (I have four lol), Fight Gehrman, "refuse" (whatever this means, apparently I have to refuse something), die to Moon Essence, so I can basically still do whatever and then go back to Moon Essence?
Zank Frappa
Banned
Great. So the usb/plus savegame method still works then. I was afraid the might have patched that out or something.
Orochinagis
Member
On my last run, I declined gehrman, kill him and used a bold hunter to warp away.
Marty-esque
Member
Yeah you need the ritual materials. You need to beat the last boss of the Pthumeru Ihyll dungeon for a trophy. You will have to go through the other dungeons to obtain the materials needed to make it. Most notably the red jellies. You get two of those from Lower Loran. And if you don't have the other two you get them from a chest in the lecture building.
So I can do this in this run I think,
so I refuse, kill him and the bold hunter? is there a particular time in wich I bold hunter away?
JadedWriter
Member
When you see
Moon Presence
Orochinagis
Member
Now I remember you need to eat the cords before
killing Gerhamn
Second ending, Dont eat the cords, Decline and kill Gehrman. You cant warp out since killing him starts the cutscene ending
Reload save
Third ending, Eat the cords,Decline and kill Gehrman, when moon presence appears, warp out if you want to not be pushed to NG+ and do your chalices and DLC .
Reload save
Third ending, Eat the cords,Decline and kill Gehrman, when moon presence appears, warp out if you want to not be pushed to NG+ and do your chalices and DLC .
There are some bosses I dont even know what they look like, like the Cleric Beast, or Mergos Nurse, I dont know, I went in and kill them without looking at them :O
Orochinagis
Member
Or actually hearing their boss themes, too busy fighting for my life
I'm getting a real good look at the Pthumerian Descendent at the moment, as he stands hulking over me after the 4th time I've had him down to a sliver, before getting punked...
Ludwig, this stupid horse drives me crazy. Dodging his sword attacks feels impossible atm.
edit: wtf, teleporting is a thing with this boss? I was standing right at his left side of him during his spit attack and the next second he is across the room charge attack killing me. Things like this make me mad.
edit: wtf, teleporting is a thing with this boss? I was standing right at his left side of him during his spit attack and the next second he is across the room charge attack killing me. Things like this make me mad.