next »

[Gnarf]

My favorite color is red.

[Captain_404]

Reading this thread backward is interesting.

It's like watching one of the slow-motion clips of a glass shattering in reverse.

[C.A. Sinner]

IT'S PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME!


On another note, I played Super Mario Bros yesterday with real-life mushrooms and turtles.

[Eric McQuiggan]

Why do people think thread-shitting is fun?

[Aquin]

Eric, the discussion is pretty much done at this point.  It was interesting while it lasted, but let's not flog a dead horse.  At least this place is a lot less hair-splitting craziness than #tigirc.

NEW BRAINY THREAD PLEASE. 

[Gnarf]

Yeah, Eric, if you think you have something you would like to say on these matters, you're obviously wrong about that, because if that was the case then the discussion wouldn't be done yet and Aquin said that it is done. Logic in reverse.

[Aquin]

Last time I checked, a discussion needs at least two willing people.  It sort of ended a page back.

Of course Gnarf, you're always free to talk to the wall.  I think that's what I'm doing right now with this post.

[Montoli]

I enjoy conversations like this, but I feel like this one has sort of run its course.  I feel like we've covered the original topic, (basically "what do people think of this article?"  (Answer:  Divided, although more seem to think that it is flawed)) and now, all we're really doing is quibbling over what we personally think the word "game" means.

This does not seem as useful to me!  It does not seem like it will make the world any better a place if I convince someone else to redefine some of their terms.  Similarly, it does not seem like I will make better games or become a better person if someone convinces me that I should change my own.

If you want to have a conversation about how games can afffect people, or how you could grow the medium, or stretch the boundaries of what a game can be, or the morality of making games that force players to do immoral things, or any other interesting, possibly borderline-academic topic relating about games, then I'm there!

But it just doesn't seem like we're likely to accomplish much more here in this topic, where we've basically come down to "This is true because my definition of a game is X!" "No, it's false, because MY definition is Y!"

[brog]

making games that force players to do immoral things

This is a hilarious idea for a game.  Not sure how you'd enforce it though.  It could be a facebook app, and all parties involved must confirm immoral acts to score points.  And then there's a list of your most immoral friends!

[John Nesky]

making games that force players to do immoral things

This is a hilarious idea for a game. 

Edmund? I don't think hilarious is the word.

[Aquin]

My game slowly forced you to do immoral acts if you ever did just one.  I don't think anyone considered it hilarious though.

But on the other hand, I was chastized for leaving out necrophilia and cannibalism.

[Gnarf]

This does not seem as useful to me!

And it seems infinitely more useful than, say, discussing the morality of making games that force players to do immoral things, to me. There are several other topics I also don't think are worth discussing. Crazy! So how about, instead of attempting to declare this or that discussion as ended or useless, people who are not interested in a given discussion stay away from that discussion and just let it go on or end on its own?

[Montoli]

Your trolling is getting less subtle.

[Aquin]

Yeah, he's not very good at it.  Or maybe he means what he says, which is admittedly more worrisome.

Now I'm trolling!  This is fun! 

[Eric McQuiggan]

Fuck you guys!

The Simulation aspect of Videogames is Significant enough to differentiate them from regular games, like Sports.