I cracked up at the scorpion with the boxing gloves on.
This series is fantastic, please do more!
This series is fantastic, please do more!
How to Talk About Games #3
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
My opinion of you as a person is growing. This made me laugh. Genuinely.Grey Carter said:
OT: You know what I am finding really funny?
People getting angry about these current comics. Its better than the comics themselves. Its like people are deliberately missing the point. If you are finding this preachy and annoying, or hell, finding this condescending, then I am worried for you. If it is preachy or annoying to have someone explain why, in this case, you cannot just call an opinion subjective and get away with not justifying it then I think one is protesting too much.
In other words, you find yourself making the mistakes that are being outlined and are getting angry and defensive.
Opinions are pretty much worthless unless they are backed up by fact. End of.
tldr;
Grey made a funny and the comics are just getting better. Good points being made and laughter being had. Plus...
I miss the incredibly long and convoluted plot. I really do. I mean, this stuff is funny, and this stuff is sorta what Critical Miss was, but... Yeah. I liked how it was. I guess I should keep reading the other webcomics I go for on a regular basis. But bleh, too many characters in QC these days.
Protip: You forgot one thing about protips. Being professional is important, but not everything. I mean, a plumber cannot really give you protips about comics. Then again, I cannot give you protips on anything, due to being a dirty student. So whilst only professionals can give protips, technically, MOST professionals could not, actually, give you applicable protips.
Also I just noticed I put a TLDR in the body of my post instead of at the end. I am tired. And now by adding this I make everything worse.
rhodo said:Grey Carter said:I can tell you without hesitation that I have never called any of my readers moterfuckers.rhodo said:TheBelgianGuy said:
Ahahahah, seriously? XD That's the most arrogant, the most "I-am-so-totally-better-that-you" reply ever. In fact, this explains why you call your readers "moterfuckers". You're that kind of person.
Now I feel more sorry for you than anything else. And no, I am not going to call you the m-word. I'm kinda more mature than that.
Grey Carter said:rhodo said:Oh come now, you're just being mean now.Grey Carter said:I can tell you without hesitation that I have never called any of my readers moterfuckers.rhodo said:TheBelgianGuy said:
Ahahahah, seriously? XD That's the most arrogant, the most "I-am-so-totally-better-that-you" reply ever. In fact, this explains why you call your readers "moterfuckers". You're that kind of person.
Now I feel more sorry for you than anything else. And no, I am not going to call you the m-word. I'm kinda more mature than that.
Hilarious, but mean.
Come on guys, this isn't funny at all. Can you stop with the elitist bs and just go back to making witty comics?
Actually, "Fun" is more complex than the writer is giving it credit for. To be Fun does not mean shallow or lacking intellectual fulfillment. Some people get their jollies from solving complex issues. Some get their jollies from smashing their fingers. One sort of fun is not fundamentally better than another persons fun. Fun, by the media, is the assumption that the activity is simple or basic. For some reason they do not consider that the players at EVO may being having fun beating opponents and learning weaknesses in their own tactics. Fun seems to not be considered when a player is doing his best not to be caught in a game like Tenchu. Where you use your wits to complete the task at hand with the least possible complication or conflict.
Fun is not shallow or lacking in intellectual fulfillment. Fun is simply enjoying the activity you are participating in, plain and simple. It encompasses nearly everything. And yes, I would have fun with that ride.
Fun is not shallow or lacking in intellectual fulfillment. Fun is simply enjoying the activity you are participating in, plain and simple. It encompasses nearly everything. And yes, I would have fun with that ride.
rhodo said:Grey Carter said:It... It took you over three years to figure out how Grey interacts with people?rhodo said:Grey Carter said:I can tell you without hesitation that I have never called any of my readers moterfuckers.rhodo said:TheBelgianGuy said:
Ahahahah, seriously? XD That's the most arrogant, the most "I-am-so-totally-better-that-you" reply ever. In fact, this explains why you call your readers "moterfuckers". You're that kind of person.
Now I feel more sorry for you than anything else. And no, I am not going to call you the m-word. I'm kinda more mature than that.
You're right; you called them motherfuckers.
Grasping at a small typo..... aren'tcha soooooo clever.
Yeah, sorry about that - you aren't really worth my time, and I'm already giving you way too much attention. Your kind of replies are all I needed to realize I shouldn't bother writing to sad little you.
Ciao.
By the way, being bafflingly condescending and holier-than-thou, while hilarious, doesn't do you any favours in the court of public opinion.
UltraDeth said:
Well, for gaming it's had an increasingly negative connotation for a while. One of the big issues in the gaming community is that casual gamers have ruined gaming because their vast numbers and simple contentment to have shallow fun has encouraged the gaming industry to increasingly make games targeted at that kind of demographic since it can make the most money. Gaming companies looking exclusively at the bottom line have thus largely ceased to make deep games (even if they claim nearly every game is deep as a buzzword, as even shallow people like to think of themselves as deep or intellectual). Weighty games becoming fewer and further between, and increasingly you have to look to the indie circuit where the low budgets mean that a lot of the most satisfying games to those looking for depth are done on a shoestring and look like crap. Increasingly even indies have gotten casual as every private developer on a budget nowadays seems to want to try and be the guy with the next "Angry Birds" or "Peggle".
Increasingly it comes down to a game being fun to someone who talks about it is a "duh" so in a discussion for a game to matter it has to have something behind it other than just being fun. On a certain basic level "Twin Stick Shooters" are fun which is why people keep making them, but it's not something that has much in the way of redeeming merits, has anything to really say, stimulates the intellect or in any way moves gaming or humanity forward.
It's sort of like the old movie skit about "Oh, I can't hear you over all the fun I'm having!" once viewed as a smackdown on snobs, it's increasingly become the negative stereotype of the lowbrow gamer, someone who occupies the basic niche of a primitive having a great time banging two rocks together to make noise, being totally unaware of anything better, and perhaps so out of context developmentally that they might not be able to appreciate it if they did (ie Bobo the Caveman is unlikely to be able to appreciate the Opera is you just brought him there, and after a lifetime of living in caves even after a decade he's unlikely to have changed so much given his formative years that he will be able to gain an appreciation of it).
Apologies for the ramble, this is pretty much a more in depth explanation of how "fun" has a negative connotation on it's own. This is not to say that it's right.
Not wrong, worthless. They can, in retrospect, be proven to be right. But if they are not based in fact, listening to them is simply futile.Retrograde said:
Easy, simplistic example.
Imagine a politician in the 1930's saying "Hitler needs to be stopped because Germans are all warmongering maniacs". Said politician would have been right, hitler should have been stopped and was a warmongering maniac, but the premise of the argument is incorrect and the opinion is pretty much worthless (And grounded in xenophobia and racism.).
So, I accept that the opinion I put forward there is an opinion and, under my own premise, worthless because I am not putting forward a fact to back it up (Just further opinion.). In some cases you do not need to put forward the facts (Very rare cases mind) if the facts are assumed to be universally known. Within a poltics final, for example, if you need to reference the Harm Principle of JS Mill, you are not expected to have to explain the principle or who JS Mill was, simply because it is safe to assume that the Lecturer knows who Mill was.
So no. Opinions that are not accompanied by facts can be both right and wrong, however they are worthless. If you cannot justify your opinion with fact, your opinion is worthless. The idea that all opinions are equal is damaging and comes from a trend of anti-intellectualism that has been present in the west for many, many years.
If a wanker on the street says "Immigrants are taking all of the jobs, send them off back to bongo-bongo land!", his opinion on the matter is worthless. If a wanker in a suit states that "Immigration can be seen to be damaging to the economy, and here is why..." his opinion is less worthless, although I would argue that both are equally incorrect yet of different worth (And the second statement is deliberately the kind of broad statement you get form politicians, the words "Can be shown to be" can be used to hide just about anything.).
Your mistake was equating "Worth" with "Accuracy.". When any group of people have a discussion, there will be different opinions being floated. Naturally, everyone with their own opinion will believe their opinion to be right. If everyone is backing their arguments up with hard facts, their opinions, however differed, will be of equal worth.
Now, most of the debating I do is political, but examples within gaming exist. "Battlefield is better than COD because it is more fun!" = Worthless, subjective opinion that cannot be proved. "Battlefield is better on *insert issue* than COD because *insert justification* and I therefore believe it to be a better game." = Opinion with some merit, whether or not it is accurate.
If you are arguing your opinion with someone and you cannot provide justification or facts expect to be torn apart regardless.
tldr;
Opinions are pretty much worthless unless they are backed up by fact, arguing on an issue if you do not know the facts is utterly pointless and holding a position without facts to justify said position is just stupid.
lol was my thoughts exactly, the word titan doesn't come up often beyond that anime and when referring to herculesRipVanTinkle said:Colossal Douche-Titan?
Has someone been watching Attack on Titan lately?
OT: laughed at quite a bit of this, and highly enjoyed its point(s)
10/10, better than the last 2 entries. I didn't laugh at all, but I think the points made were mostly fairly strong.
Rift suffers from assuming complexity of skillset = depth of class.
Rift's design philosophy for their classes is to give lots of activated abilities which either have a debuff duration attached (thus you won't rely on spamming them) and has a long cool down.
Which means you end up having an action bat with about 8 skills you use all the time in succession.
What makes it even worse is that you can often macro the majority of skills into one macro. Thus reducing 6 skill buttons into 1 single button
-
I think this is also related to nostalgia for game mechanics.
Rift has the old fashioned intimidating Talent Tree system with a lot of +2% damage [0/5] talents.
Just because game mechanics were part of a game that you cherish greatly, doesn't mean the mechanic themselves are positive and should be retained.
Rift's design philosophy for their classes is to give lots of activated abilities which either have a debuff duration attached (thus you won't rely on spamming them) and has a long cool down.
Which means you end up having an action bat with about 8 skills you use all the time in succession.
What makes it even worse is that you can often macro the majority of skills into one macro. Thus reducing 6 skill buttons into 1 single button
-
I think this is also related to nostalgia for game mechanics.
Rift has the old fashioned intimidating Talent Tree system with a lot of +2% damage [0/5] talents.
Just because game mechanics were part of a game that you cherish greatly, doesn't mean the mechanic themselves are positive and should be retained.
Well, it's in the name, isn't it? I'd say the comics are pretty hit-and-miss, but the name would suggest they're more of the latter.TheBelgianGuy said:
I don't think there's much point to this latest chain of comics (how to talk about games) - as you say, it's the wrong place to make such points, and the kind of people who read parodic video game comics are most likely already familiar with the common pitfalls and misconceptions surrounding video game critique.
Ha do you not see how that is the self contradictory? The statement "Opinions are pretty much worthless unless they are backed up by fact. End of." is not only itself an opinion it is also unsupported (and arguably unsupportable) by fact or evidence. But anyway it's good for you to tell us a large part of western philosophy and art criticism is worthless, otherwise I might of fallen in to trap of thinking they actually had some value!Mr F. said:
Just wanted to give my two cents to this titanic (hue) thread.
For me, whether a game is "good" or "bad" has nothing to do with how fun it is, and it is measured according to myself. That is, if I want to know how good a game is, I ask "would I be able to create this game (given the materials, programming team and money needed)?"
For example, I consider Planescape: Torment an amazingly good game. Why? Because, although *I* would be able to think and design the fighting mechanics, it would be pretty much impossible for me to come up with the story and, yes, philosophy the game has.
On the other hand, I consider Gone Home a terrible game (oh boy here we go). Why? Because not only would I be able to write a better story, but I probably could even program it by myself, create the models, and maybe even find voice actors as good (and I wouldn't ask for 20 dollars).
Last but not least, as I said, I don't think fun has nothing to do with the quality of a game, although this can be because my standards in this regard are pretty low. For god's sake, I had fun with (the previously known as WarZ) Infestation Stories, and I seriously doubt there are people on the world that honestly think THAT is a good game. In fact, I've met several that think it isn't even a game, but an abomination.
For me, whether a game is "good" or "bad" has nothing to do with how fun it is, and it is measured according to myself. That is, if I want to know how good a game is, I ask "would I be able to create this game (given the materials, programming team and money needed)?"
For example, I consider Planescape: Torment an amazingly good game. Why? Because, although *I* would be able to think and design the fighting mechanics, it would be pretty much impossible for me to come up with the story and, yes, philosophy the game has.
On the other hand, I consider Gone Home a terrible game (oh boy here we go). Why? Because not only would I be able to write a better story, but I probably could even program it by myself, create the models, and maybe even find voice actors as good (and I wouldn't ask for 20 dollars).
Last but not least, as I said, I don't think fun has nothing to do with the quality of a game, although this can be because my standards in this regard are pretty low. For god's sake, I had fun with (the previously known as WarZ) Infestation Stories, and I seriously doubt there are people on the world that honestly think THAT is a good game. In fact, I've met several that think it isn't even a game, but an abomination.