Oh...

And I have been reading some Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser stories. They are kind of fun.

Did you read the one with the interdimensional bazaar of odd objects? That one's great. 

Nope. I'm halfway (or so) through Swords Against Death, and I see that the last story in that one's called Bazaar of the Bizarre. So like if that's the one then I'll get around to it reasonably soonishlike.

idealism, expectancies, i.e. basically religion. completely arbitrary beliefs which determine how you interpret events. if you have the right expectancies and don't have some sort of ideal model of what games "should" be like, you can have fun with any game (within reason).

Yes. For instance, my nephew used to have as much fun with shit platformer that came with a box of cereals as with above average Mario games. Now he is older and his mind is clouded with experience : (

But oh, it does not stop there. If you don't have some "arbitrary" ideal model of what games should be, then it doesn't matter if they are games or not (and "game" is completely meaningless label). It doesn't matter if you pick up a great game or a piece of wood; if you approach it with the open mind of an infant, you will find it interesting and fun either way.

no, just that it can -- but i think that, if i'm going to spend leisure time on an activity for entertainment, it's a good thing if i enjoy more of that time than less, and enjoy more games than less. but some people actually enjoy not enjoying games more than they enjoy enjoying games, so it varies

Haha. Yeah. And if you like shit food you can eat at McDonalds all the time. Death to taste or something. I bet people who don't eat at McDonalds all the time just enjoy not enjoying food.

Interesting. Using similar techniques of adding and removing letters, I have found that you are all secretly posting gibberish.


And I have been reading some Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser stories. They are kind of fun.

I think Tim Langdell already is a parody of Tim Langdell. Making another one sounds like redundant.

Do we need more non-racing games also too maybe?

When I took a play writing class in college we weren't allowed to have any guns or weapons in our plays. Not because the teacher didn't like violence, but because it was an artificially easy way to create tension and conflict. If you can't figure out what a character should do, or the plot seems like it is slowing down, just have them whip out a gun... Not sure what to do with a character? Kill them off! It is much harder to keep this kind of drama and conflict going using other techniques, which I think is what video games need to look into more.

PS: Plants vs. Zombies is so violent in my book it isn't even funny. No, there isn't any blood or gore, but only because the visual style is "cute" The theme has zombies devouring your plants, while they shoot seeds (bullets) at the zombies. It isn't breaking any new ground in non-violent gaming. It is just sugar-coating traditional game themes.

Then I'll say that your non-violence is sugar-coating of conflict.

Is Crawford right, or is the industry okay with the state that it is in right now?

Yeah. I tried that thing Chris Crawford came up with after all them years. Nuked the shit out of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In my opinion, it is time for people to stop "riffing of the classics." We don't really need any more mediocre platform games with trendy art and a slight tweak to game play. We don't need any more matching colored block games, or hectic arena shooters, or gory first person shooters, or hilarious but stale adventure games with no actual game play.

We don't need it. We just love it.

$79k for a Green Day song is a pretty bad deal.

Yeah, that's basically my criteria when judging them.

well, sometimes you don't actually know whether something works or not until after it's made -- bugs in games for instance

The test was supposed to provide results. The only way it could "not work out" was if they already had some results in mind. In which case the test was redundant bullshitting.

Also,

i don't get this 'i'm suing you cause you didn't promote me' thing, it's stupid no matter who does it

Doesn't matter that much here. In pretend-world, where people don't sue over promotions, the employers would not have tossed the results in the first place. Because that was what they were afraid of.

but the people who felt that the tests were unfair were the employers, the people who created and administered the test -- doesn't that count for something?

It does, yeah. It is reasonable to assume they made a test that they considered fair.

Corpus' point might have been that the "if it is part of who you are" reasoning is bullshit, and not that talk is exactly the same thing as rape and murder.

Oh god- I'm sorry- I didn't realize you didn't want me to express an opinion here.

Yeah, what is this, a communist dictatorship? Can't a man express his opinion without people disagreeing with him? Have we not freedom of speech?

Woo friggin' hoo, jackson's dead. Why do so many people give a shit?

I just registered on this forum to say that I think it's weird that so many people give a shit about indie games.

You don't actually need to fill in the blanks.

I don't think you're limiting yourself when you think about how your message will impact your public, asking yourself if there are other more subtle ways you could express it if the current one is perceived as very offensive.

You're not limiting yourself by thinking about how your message impact your public, but if you limit yourself to expressing yourself subtly or inoffensively, then yeah, you're limiting yourself. Maybe you think it's a good limitation though. Paul was in favor of limitations like that back in that Rohrer thread.

HP = (number of posts) * (persistance) * (ability to argue semantics and unimportant things)

So guess what the scouter says about his Hit-point levels?

They're over NINE THOUSAAAAND!!!!

Yes. Meme fuckwittery is more important than semantics. If you're a parrot, it's not important what your words mean.

@gnarf - what i meant by conclusions and premises was that the only evidence that he made the game to offend people who pin their problems on others is the intent statement, rather than anything in the game itself

There was no deeper meaning to be found in the game itself. My interpretation of the post does not rely on the assumption that the post was lies.

Edit: oh, and,

if you didn't have the theory that he was creating the game just to offend people

My "theory" is that offending people was just a means to an end. So he was not just trying to offend people. But it was intended, and not just some side effect.

Cos when it's 20 pages too long, it needs more noise.

He is trying to offend his enemies.

that's kind of assuming your premise, though -- i.e. using the conclusion as evidence that the conclusion is true

I'm not sure I'm with you on what the conclusion is and what the evidence is here.

To maybe clarify: His enemies include people who pin their problems and unhappiness on someone making a game that offends them. He made a game intending to offend as many people as possible. That distinguishes himself from those people.

He is trying to offend his enemies.

Don't you try and educate me on this. That's unconstitutional.

"We don't need no education" is like the second amendment.

hmm -- so you are saying he spent the time describing how most people have enemies and how he created the game as a ritual to separate himself from that behavior just to lead into saying who his enemies are?

No. That wouldn't make sense. The ritual bit comes after the bit where he says who his enemies are; it is does not lead into it.

First he describes how most people have enemies (and later in the paragraph he argues that it's not just most, but everyone) and what he means by that. Then he lets us all know who his enemies are.

He never said that he made the game as a ritual to separate him from that behavior. Just after telling us who his enemies are, he goes: "To distinguish myself in my own mind from qualities and attitudes that I do not want for myself." The qualities and attitudes he wants to distinguish himself from are those of his enemies. That fits nicely with how he explained that enemies are "used". And with how he said that his enemies could be people who pinned their unhappiness or problems on some guy on the internet making a game that offends them -- he intended on offending as many people as possible.