next »

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?p=14189#14189

some quotes

rohrer:

I think the "artgame" thing has pretty much run its course at this point. But it was a necessary development. It couldn't have not happened, as you have pointed out. But we won't go down the rabbit hole of modern art. Instead, the whole artgame thing will have a small, positive impact on the industry---highlighting the need to make room for an authorial voice, and *hopefully* inspiring a bit more experimentation and risk-taking design-wise.

icycalm:

First off I'll debunk his sham-friendly, reconciliatory attitude. It's a standard artfag tactic (and generally a tactic employed by weaklings) to paralyze enmity in the adversary.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: Hospitality. -- The meaning of the usages of hospitality is the paralysing of enmity in the stranger. Where the stranger is no longer felt to be first and foremost an enemy, hospitality decreases; it flourishes as long as its evil presupposition flourishes.

You can see this tactic in action in the rare occasions when some journlolist grows some balls and common sense and calls the artfags out on their bullshit -- e.g. that Jim Sterling dude. Soon afterwards they patch things up with some fagotry about "different strokes for different folks", or "agreeing to disagree" or some such nonsense, and everything goes back to business as usual. But this shit won't fly with me. I am not out to let off some steam and then patch things up -- I am out to fucking destroy you.

So if I am in the middle of bludgeoning you to death with a sledgehammer, and you suddenly raise your hands and cry out in surrender, I am by no means going to stop and let you walk away. I am going to keep pounding you into smaller and smaller pieces, until there's nothing left of you than microscopic specks of dust -- I am a machine that makes dust. This is what I do -- that is my calling in this life. My response to passive-aggressive behavior, therefore (evident not only in the video linked above, but also throughout his email), is aggressive-aggressive aggression -- an aggression raised to the third power. There's no way to trick me into a compromise, to sign a peace treaty -- I've said it once already: no association with these people is permissible, no reconciliation possible.

Second off, I don't have "theories", fagot: I KNOW, because I have studied, thought about, and comprehended the history of art better than any human being that has ever existed.

You are infecting master game designers with the suspicion that pathetic "messages" can somehow elevate their games in the eyes of the public and substitute for cutting-edge complex mechanics -- then giving them an excuse, when the mechanical deficiencies have been exposed in expert reviews like those on this site, to come out and say "but I am making art -- it's all about the 'message'" -- see for example David Cage. Your poison is seeping, slowly but surely and inevitably, throughout the entire industry, DEVALUING the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE ARTFORM, then LOWERING THE QUALITY OF PRESENT AND FUTURE WORKS FOR ALL TIME, then DESTROYING THE CRITICAL ABILITY of those who wish to provide criticism (by messing their criteria to such an extent that criticism simply becomes impossible, and any deficiency whatsoever can be defended by the retarded excuse "but it's art"). And if all that were not enough, you are LOWERING THE LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE OF THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE, by spreading and increasing the level of pretentiousness and unconscious hypocrisy, to the point where ENTIRE GROUPS OF PEOPLE BECOME FOR EVER UNRECEPTIVE TO CRITICAL EVALUATION, REASONED ARGUMENT AND PHILOSOPHY, losing entire chunks of their lives among cheap simulacra, not even getting any enjoyment out of them but desperately trying to uncover some "meaning" in them, INSTEAD OF LOOKING FOR IT IN LIFE, INSIDE THEMSELVES, effectively MENTALLY STUNTING ENTIRE GENERATIONS OF HUMAN BEINGS... and you have the nerve to contact me in order to tell me that your diabolical schemes will not "derail videogames" -- WHEN YOUR WRETCHED, VENAL SHENANIGANS ARE HELPING TO DERAIL THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE!

and so on, it's entertaining to read if you like this kind of thing.

[FK in the Coffee]

Damn, you could cut the tension between these two with a knife.

[s0]

I think a Rohrer x Icycalm fanfic is in order. Where's Phubans when you need him?

[Pineapple]

Icycalm is mental o_O

So if I am in the middle of bludgeoning you to death with a sledgehammer, and you suddenly raise your hands and cry out in surrender, I am by no means going to stop and let you walk away. I am going to keep pounding you into smaller and smaller pieces, until there's nothing left of you than microscopic specks of dust -- I am a machine that makes dust. This is what I do -- that is my calling in this life. My response to passive-aggressive behavior, therefore (evident not only in the video linked above, but also throughout his email), is aggressive-aggressive aggression -- an aggression raised to the third power. There's no way to trick me into a compromise, to sign a peace treaty -- I've said it once already: no association with these people is permissible, no reconciliation possible.

@Sinclair either him or PbN 

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

another icycalm quote, when asked by rohrer why he doesn't make games himself if he cares so much about game design:

But to answer his question: I find game design boring. Playing games is more fun than making them: and this is no mere opinion, but a philosophical truth of the first rank -- as I will one day get around to explaining. An intelligent Insomnia reader should have already figured out the reason anyway. I've pretty much already given it away.

The only way game design could be redeemed is if one saw it AS A GAME. As a creative activity, demanding skill and effort, etc. Seen in that light, though still inferior to other forms of game-playing, it can be redeemed. But I ALREADY AM engaged in a creative activity that demands skill and effort: and indeed the most demanding such activity that a human being can engage in. So I am all sorted out in that respect. What I look for in videogames, then, is to enhance the enjoyment of myself on my downtimes: to brighten up an evening, for example, after a hard day's surfing. Or thinking and writing. Or travelling and reading. Etc. etc. Which by the way is the only healthy way to engage in videogames, or any other artform for that matter. Not looking for "meaning" in them, but for enhancing the enjoyment of your downtimes, your rest periods from the serious business of life: which is war.

[Kramlack]

Can we please ignore this icyclam guy? He's obviously just trollin' around, and giving him attention is just adding fuel to the fire.

[RCIX]

I love how this guy thinks people who actually want a reasonable argument are

artfag

s.

Anyway, yea move on he's a troll of the first order

[JoGribbs]

I think Roher was wrong to engage with him in that way. All it will do is validate in Icycalm's mind that it's us against him and that we, the 'artfags', are troubled by him in any serious way.

I appreciate that Roher is trying to be tolerant but Icycalm is beyond that. He's shown time and again that he is unwilling to engage in a mutually respectful discussion, so I don't think it's worth reaching out to him.

EDIT: For Example:

What's interesting is that the thing that happened to modern planar and plastic arts DIDN'T seem to take hold in film. I'm sure you have your theories about why, and so do I.

First off, no one gives a fuck what you think or what theories you have.

Second off, I don't have "theories", fagot: I KNOW, because I have studied, thought about, and comprehended the history of art better than any human being that has ever existed.

[Melly]

Rohrer is making a mistake to try and address Icycalm directly, as anyone else that tries to talk to that pile of trolling and hatred.

I'll go ahead and lock this topic. It'll only be ego fuel for Icycalm if he reads this, and I can't see much of anything worthwhile coming out of this, besides people posting quotes and other people telling them to not bother.

PM me if you have objections.

EDIT: I have unlocked the thread based on a well-worded request from C.A. Sinclair.

Dude can't live without his troll-bashing I tell ya. I kid

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i do not believe he's a troll and don't think we should engage in troll bashing; the point of this thread was to discuss whether people think rohrer or icycalm is right about what they say (or whether they are both wrong and something else is right)

[deathtotheweird]

this should at least be moved to the pornodrome or mancrib so we can properly discuss this with the yullimunati

in secret

while giving each other handjobs and chanting satantic verses while playing art games and discussing our plots to destroy the world with said art gams

[s0]

i do not believe he's a troll and don't think we should engage in troll bashing

We should engage with his opinions though, because, as I said in my request to Melly, it's been bothering me that very little of what Icycalm writes ever gets challenged by anyone, making him look like a guru whose words are the sacred gospel of truth and also like a bit of an intimidating figure, both of which he isn't.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

yeah but i don't think the main reason for discussing these ideas is to challenge or oppose him, he does a good job of refuting himself by himself. but i think that occasionally some of the things he says are worth discussing.

for instance,

he said that sequels which refine a good formula endlessly aren't a bad thing, just as it's not a bad thing to make basketballs year after year similar to previous basketballs. rohrer thinks this is a bad thing because copying the past leads to less change and innovation, and or less movement towards his particular goal (a sort of chriscrawfordian situation where we have games about prostitutes with a heart of gold and interact with them through natural language, and where games make you cry). is refining a good game by making it even better bad? if not, why does rohrer dislike it? or is it only bad if the industry focuses entirely on that and nothing else?

[SirNiko]

Second off, I don't have "theories", fagot: I KNOW, because I have studied, thought about, and comprehended the history of art better than any human being that has ever existed.

If it was anyone else, at this point I'd assume they were being sarcastic.

Icycalm is clearly a troll. He makes inflammatory statements for the singular purpose of making trouble to get attention. His repeated defense of the use of 'fagot' is simply to draw attention to himself and his 'arguments', which are nothing more than the repetition of his opinion that certain genres, like JRPGs, are terrible.

He has no point, no goal, no purpose except to be well known for spouting his anti-artgame drivel. His purported goal of somehow improving the medium of video games is impossible through the means he chooses to employ but it doesn't matter, because he doesn't care. He just wants people to slurp up his vitriol and abuse.

I agree this thread should remain unlocked, but the best solution for dealing with idiots like Icycalm is to not talk to them. He creates the illusion of intelligent debate when the reality is his side of the discussion consists of nothing but logical fallacies and opinions masquerading as fact. Attempting to rationalize with him is marching into a trap. You can't beat him at his own game, and trying only gives him exactly what he wants.

I strongly encourage others to say their piece and then leave it be. Continuing any discussion about Icycalm only feeds his ego, nothing else.

[s0]

another icycalm quote, when asked by rohrer why he doesn't make games himself if he cares so much about game design:

Y'know I don't care that he doesn't make games (you don't need to be a chef to know how food tastes), but what does annoy me is that he apparently has no fucking clue about game development or what goes into it. It's not hard to look up this stuff on Wikipedia or read a book about it or something.

For instance:

i.e. a group of people each of whom, by the time they got together to create their masterpiece, had been programming for 14 years straight, and were at the cutting edge of their craft. Note moreover, throught the entire series of videos, how strong and effusive Romero's enthusiasm for gaming, for simply PLAYING games is, both points of which are entirely antithetical to the attitude of the fagots: who are so crap at programming that if told to make their own engines they wouldn't know where to start, and who, as they repeat again and again, simply HATE playing games.

He conflates game design with programming, as if technology is all there is to a game. Which is interesting, because specifically in the case of Doom, it was the excellent level design by Romero and others and generally id's great use of the technology they had developed that made it more than a tech demo and ultimately made it the classic it is today. I mean, have you tried playing Doom recently? It's aged incredibly well and is still heaps of fun, whereas Half-Life 2 which also introduced new technology at the time already feels slightly dated and gimmicky (to me).

Also, it's nice how he paints Romero as some kind of gaming god who has been "corrupted by the artfags" when in reality he's kind of a hasbeen who completely lost the plot long before the terms "art games" even existed. It'll also be interesting to see if he gets a reply to his email.

[PGGB]

 

That is one baaaad dude...

Or not. I really don't know what to reply to someone who starts off a conversation with a Nietzsche quote. Then he has several articles about Nietzsche on his website. Now it may just be that I'm not particularly fond of Nietzsche myself, but to me it seems that he has generally really low self esteem and tries to balance that out by convincing himself that he is really a Übermensch.

yeah but i don't think the main reason for discussing these ideas is to challenge or oppose him, he does a good job of refuting himself by himself. but i think that occasionally some of the things he says are worth discussing.

Granted there are a lot of ideas I don't share with Rohrer, but there have been quite a few discussions on TIGS about this already. It's not like any of the things icycalm says are revelatory. I can read the same ideas here on TIGS without the stupid "I'm going to crush you"/"I'm a bad motherfucker" bullshit.

[eva_]

reading through this i agree with icycalm on this part...

rohrer:
When someone like me complains about video games being artless and worthless, I'm not complaining about what Romero was doing back in 1992. I'm not shitting on the whole history of video games. I'm complaining about the hundreds of games that have simply repeated his/Carmack's brilliant formula (and all the other brilliant formulas), with small variations, over and over and over in the decades since then.

It's great to get all starry-eyed about the classics. But I walk into GameStop today. There is nothing there that I want to play. Something like 80% of the listed games are sequels to sequels of not-so-interesting games.

If you look at this list:
http://www.ign.com/index/upcoming.html ,
don't you feel as sick as I feel?

icycalm:
Yes, and next thing we know you'll be complaining that basketball has remained the same pretty much since its invention.

IF YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THE ARTFORM, EVERYTHING IS NOT-SO-INTERESTING.
As for their being sequels, the only thing it proves is that
1. Their designers have hit on AN AWESOME FORMULA, and
2. Are willing to put in the effort -- guess what! -- TO TRY AND MAKE IT EVEN MORE AWESOME

(i censord it lol)

[Dragonmaw]

The few nuggets of reasonable suppositions are hidden under so many layers of vitriol and narcissism that it's almost impossible to find them. and they aren't particularly revolutionary either. saying that "sequels aren't always bad" is not particularly dangerous.

[JoGribbs]

I'd be interested in discussing that, but I don't think cleaning up the viewpoint and attributing it to icycalm is right.

Saying:

sequels which refine a good formula endlessly aren't a bad thing, just as it's not a bad thing to make basketballs year after year similar to previous basketballs,

is different from:

Sick at what? At a list of upcoming videogames, half of which are potential masterpieces?... Hint to stupid fagot: IF YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THE ARTFORM, EVERYTHING IS NOT-SO-INTERESTING.

Both might be around abouts the same point, but one I would feel comfortable in answering, and the other just makes me want to leave the discussion (which is what icycalm probably wants). I guess there might be some interesting discussion points in there, but I just don't see the point in inspecting what he is saying for them.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i think he's said some original things which aren't common sense and can't be found anywhere else, but i agree that the way he says them makes them unlikely to be discussed because they're hidden under all the hate.

sequels being not so bad may not be the best example though; although i at least submit that the idea that the mainstream industry has *no problem* with sequels and that it should be that way, and that innovative games aren't worth exploring because basically all the good formulas have been found, isn't something that many besides icycalm and eva believe