"LOL...nope. Innovation is the process by which originality is produced. Referring to innovation is a perfectly legitimate part of the argument. Seeking and appreciating innovation IS seeking originality."
Innovation entails originality, but originality doesn't necessary qualify as innovation. Innovation has usefulness and effectiveness qualities that originality alone lacks. So not the same thing. So you made the substitution to fit your narrative, i.e. "people demand innovation" (which most people will agree with); whereas "people demand originality" wouldn't fly as high. lol
"Thinking this game looks dumb has nothing to do with whether we find it to be innovative or not. THAT WAS MY WHOLE D-MN POINT. Innovation sometimes..."
You are the one who mentions both in the same sentence.
"I was responding to someone making gross assumptions about everyone who thinks the game looks dumb so far by pointing out that less assumptions results in the more accurate conclusion. Not liking how this game looks is not evidence that you don't like innovation or originality, but his statement made that assumption"
But you have to provide an alternate hypothesis, otherwise the Occam's Razor mention falls flat. (You seemed to have provided one in your previous comment, which was that people have different opinion.)
"It could very well turn out to be the case, but RIGHT NOW, it looks dumb (to some people)."
"looks dumb" to me means you think the game is trivial, the story is non-sense, the character's actions are futile and pointless. That's a lot of assumptions! There lies the irony. The simple explanation with fewer assumptions: it is weird and mysterious game (because I know very little about it so far).
First of all, you subtly substituted originality (i.e. something different and unfamiliar) with innovation to fit your narrative. They are not the same thing. The initial argument is that people generally prefer familiarity over originality. They like to think they are open to original ideas but it is proven that is not totally true -- the truth is that people want familiarity with a tiny dose of originality. This has been proven and books have been written about this. The entertainment industry knows this best. That's why many content follows the same formula. That's why sequels work. Anyway, let's put that aside.
I take it that your alternative explanation is that people want innovation but don't find it in this game but rather looks "dumb". That alternative explanation is not simpler because it relies on the assumption that everyone can recognize innovation while having limited exposure to and experience with the subject. You assume that everyone knows what innovation is without much information or help understand why it is an innovation and how it benefits the person.
"The least amount of assumptions is that people simply have different opinions than him about this one particular thing"
If every argument has to end at this "simplest hypothesis" (i.e. simply that people have different opinion about something, period), then any debate or argument is pointless. You cannot use that as the "alternate hypothesis". That is simply ridiculous.
Here's one simpler hypothesis about this: Given Kojima's track record, the game will be at least good, if not great. Given the limited exposure we have so far, it is a weird and mysterious game. In my opinion, this is much simpler than "We want innovation but this looks dumb."
@esqueejy: I don't think you understand what Occam's Razor means. Because if you did, you would have noticed the irony of your comment. (Not to mention you applied it in the wrong context.)
Some people just want familiarity and predictability, and want everything to be self-explanatory so that their brain can stay asleep.
This is not for the closed-minded people. If the trailers weed out these people, then so be it. I don't think Kojima cares; if he did, he wouldn't have made this strange game in the first place.
Another entry to the Nintendo museum of gimmicks. After the first month of initial novelty and laughs, this thing will be collecting dust in a dark corner of the basement.
I didn't notice any particularly bad action scenes in QoS. The opening car chase and the subsequent chase to catch Mitchell were well done in my opinion. The action scenes at the opera was purposely theatrical, which is fitting the ambiance of the backdrop. I find that to be a nice touch. I like the scenes with Mathis as well. They, albeit lightly, touch the personal and emotional side of Bond. How he held the dying Mathis in his arms. These are elements that made Casino Royale great and I enjoyed them in QoS as well. Camille was a great character, as you mentioned. The villain Dominic could have been better though.
Spectre was garbage. So much so that I have promptly erased it from my mind. I honestly remember very little of that movie.
Thanos is the best thing that happened to the Avengers series. Great villain with interesting purpose, not just the conquer the world BS, and who kicks butts in the process. My favorite character.
dysonlu's comments