Kortney said:
No, I'm not into JRPGs. One thing you are forgetting is that genres have similar themes. I love Jazz music because I love the musical structure of it. I don't have to listen to every piece of jazz music to know I enjoy it.
Same thing with JRPGs. Of course they differ. Kingdom Hearts is very different to Final Fantasy - but I dislike both heavily. Why should I be forced to sit through every JRPG on the planet to come to the conclusion that I just don't enjoy them.
Ah but that's what I'm trying to say about examples against generalisation. Like with Jazz, you can deconstruct any JRPGs you've played to find parts of the games you didn't like. If they're common between all JRPGs you've played (I believe you've mentioned that they annoy or bore you, leading me to think the story/dialogue/pacing might not be to your tastes) then you can look at other non-played examples that have been grouped as 'JRPGs' and make an educated guess that you'll most likely not enjoy those examples if you played them. You don't need to play them to make that claim, but to say with absolute certainty that you don't like a game you must obtain empirical evidence of playing it.
Kortney said:
And yet I have a funny feeling that if I said "I am into JRPGs" you wouldn't of said a thing.
I can't say that's impossible because I've not been in the situation, however I have the sneaking suspicion you may be right.
Kortney said:
I love the fact that you have divided functionality and logic here. The are, or rather should, be near synonyms. No one on Earth follows your mental "logic" here. Admit it!
Actually I'm just following the logical progressions that I've been taught (probably, memory isn't perfect and it's been roughly 4 years since I was taught it). My logical reasonings stem from my study of Philosophy at University, this whole 'must be logically valid' schtick was pretty much the hallmark of the Anglo-American school of Philosophy, which was obsessed with creating a one-size-fits-all rules system for philosophical thought. To them, logic was everything.
I subscribe more to the continental European school of philosophy, which is far more interested in looking at specific examples for their stand-alone merits rather than running them through some logical deconstruction test. It's somewhat ironic in a way that the Anglo-American school of philosophy is based off ancient Greek thinkers, who would be on continental Europe. Well, more recent continental philosophy has come from countries like France, Germany and Switzerland.
Kortney said:
Amethyst Wind said:
The reason I didn't pick up on other people talking in general terms about genres is because I'm already addressing the concept in my discussion with you. Repetition will come later if needed.
I'm sorry, but, I don't believe you. I want to, but I just don't haha. I think the only reason you initiated this argument is because you like JRPGs and you want to defend them. Your post count would be in the millions if you really thought this way, because every time someone says they like or dislike a genre you'd have to call them out.
Haha indeed. I like some JRPGs, haven't played any of the
Dragonquests,
Tales Ofs or
Shin Megami Tenseis, couldn't give an opinion on them. I can give you an opinion of every JRPG I have played on its own merits, even those in the same series would be dealt with separately (I've played like 10 Final Fantasys and some unique projects).
As for my post count, I'm pretty much a 'targets of opportunity' poster, were I to actively seek out every post I could argue against then I'd have a much larger post count, but I'm too lazy. Occasionally, like with our exchange here, I'll press the issue, but only if I feel like it, I'm not exactly what you call consistent (*shrugs*), but Devil's Advocate is fun to engage in sometimes.
Kortney said:
Amethyst Wind said:
Of course you can dismiss or praise something, provided you've experienced it. You can't dismiss an entire perceived group simply through specific examples you've experienced, you can only dismiss the examples.
Amethyst Wind said:
All this "next time, make sure you..." stuff leads me to believe that you're angry about our exchange here. I hope this isn't the case. This is simply Devil's Advocate for me (possibly some Socratic reasoning thrown in too, though I'm not sure if that's right, I'll need to get back to you), there's no ill intention here, I'm simply looking for a frank and engaging discussion. You haven't disappointed.
I'm not angry with you in the slightest. The repetition of "next time..." was to enforce how ludicrous your point is. As I said before, the world doesn't work the way you are arguing here. If every piece of Chinese food I have eaten has disgusted me, then I am allowed to say "I do not like Chinese food". I don't have to delve into a discussion involving abstract logic saying:
"Well, rather, I should clarify that I don't like fried rice, beef noodle soup, honey chicken, honey prawns, Mongolian beef, Kung Pao chicken, Jiaozi or Youtiao. Similarly, I have a strong distaste for Hot and sour soup, Won ton soup, ginger duck, fish cake and spring rolls. However, I have not had dish number 23 and dish number 38 from my local Chinese resturant yet. So, that leads me to believe that perhaps my original - and may I say totally illogical! - thought of not enjoying Chinese food Per se was incorrect. So, excuse me for that. Let me reprhase. I don't like fried rice, beef noodle soup, honey chicken, honey prawns, Mongolian beef, Kung Pao chicken, Jiaozi or Youtiao. Hot and sour soup, Won ton soup, ginger duck, fish cake and spring rolls. There."
That sounds more like a conversation with Rain Man rather than someone who is logical to me!
I would love to see if anyone could actually finish that spoken monologue with a straight face. Also, I have no clue what some of those are.
This was, essentially, why I stressed the difference between fuctionality and logic. Logic is, well, straight-up useless on its own. It is very much a meta-concept. Within language and yet not necessary for everyday communication. In terms of small talk, saying "I don't like Chinese food" would be sufficient as the other people in the conversation would unconsciously make the connection that you had tried some Chinese food in the past and hadn't taken to it. This would happen instantaneously and the conversation would move on unheeded. In a purely logical conversation, "I don't like Chinese food" would have to be followed by a "Why?", and the "Why?"s would keep coming until you have provided sufficient detail to satisfy valid premises and conclusion. It is certainly ludicrous for every day life, but there is method to the madness, it's just an absolute chore in practise. Most why it's banished to philosophy classrooms and mathematical formulas.
Kortney said:
Amethyst Wind said:
P.S. I left the "sonny boy" in the quote box because it made me chuckle.
