Lose/Lose - The Game That Deletes Your Files

[Evil Tim]

What really resonated with me was how few people understood their art and instead got furious. Kudos gentlemen for making a great statement and freaking out the philistines.

Ah, so your esteemed conclusion is this is a game designed purely for an audience who are terminally pretentious and hideously insecure about their education and / or intellect.

 

[Triple G]

That's a good game if you want to delete your HD slowly. Like a school shooting rampage for pussies.

 

[Evil Tim]

Ad hominem mudslinging alone will not disprove a point

Accusing it of being an ad hominem attack on your point would imply you actually had one. Your post was just you fluffing your ego in public, and was called as such.

Not everyone gets the genius of every piece of art or sees the art in it. I happen to see the genius in this piece and laugh not because others miss it but because they interpret it as an insult to their sensibilities.

That's nice, but since you don't actually bother to explain what this hypothetical 'genius' is, your posts [both of them] are just empty statements of your supposed superiority in seeing something you won't actually define. Much like, say, those who claimed they saw the Emperor's fabulous new clothes.

 

[Evil Tim]

You trying to say I'm fluffing my ego is just pretentious trolling on your part. You obviously know nothing of my intents when posting or you would have understood my point.

If I have to read your mind rather than your post, that's your fault for not communicating what you're actually trying to say. All I can see of your intents was you lording over the poor cavemen who just don't see the Emperor's magnificent new clothes.

Again I think you're projecting some of your own uncertainty of you intellectual incompetence onto others to buff your own feelings. You are just a lame troll and I'm calling you out as such.

That sure as hell beats actually stating your position concisely and coherently, after all. Do you actually have one? You think this is art. Ok, fine; why?

 

[Superior Mind]

You know what? This is actually a pretty interesting concept. The problem with it is that it's a pointless game - shoot aliens you don't need to shoot to delete random files or do nothing.
But this concept applied to, say, a stealth game where if your cover was blown and you had to fight your way out of places and every kill was a deleted file - THEN it get's interesting because it gives you a serious motive to stay as undercover as possible.

Still it's a pretty stupid game. Who'd willingly play Russian Roulett with their spank bank? Not me I can tell you that now.

Edit: Hey do you get the feeling that creating this was a total accident and the creators just really realy suck at making games?

 

[Evil Tim]

You admit you're just a troll, fun.

I haven't, actually. But sure, I'm a troll, that's why I posted earlier in the thread explaining precisely what I feel is wrong with this particular piece of 'art.' I'm from that annoying school of trolls that use mean, heavy clubs with names like 'logic' and 'fact.'

Links:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.145145?page=6#3293223
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.145145?page=7#3302130

To call those that don't appreciate the art philistines isn't "lording it over them" its expressing disgust that they go so far as to insult it violently when they don't get what it is.

But they're not saying they don't appreciate art, they're not appreciating a single, specific piece who's value is at best extremely dubious; it's a poor piece in it's medium [it's absolutely terrible if regarded by any standard of actual game design] and the message is pretentious and contradictory, undermined by needlessly contrary mechanics and bizarre contradictions in the author's statements of intent. Effectively, you're calling them Philistines because they don't share your regard for this, not because they have no regard for art as a concept.

Moreover, why do so at all? Sure, a bizarrely large number of people in this thread seem to believe that the artist is some Joker-like figure who'll burst into their house and force them to play the game or die, but it's pointless making a post simply to point out a large number of people don't get it if you're not going to actually explain what the 'it' they're not getting is; the result is just empty ego stroking.

I said a few times that I think its art. By my Andy Kaufman analogy, I even showed a bit of why. Some art is hard to define or describe the nature of its at its essence, you experience and feel soemthing imparted that transcends a simple logical thought.

Evasive as ever, I see. The artist doesn't seem to think his piece is hard to describe, given he does so at the beginning of the article.

By pushing the borders and making something that isn't a game yet is, the creators/artists were communicating the idea of gameness in a method that may make traditional gamers uncomfortable.

Hardly. The game doesn't function on the basic level of being a game, contradicts its own goal, includes the 'artist' describing his game's content in an extremely misleading fashion to explain its message [enemies are actively trying to destroy you by homing in on you, so it's immaterial that they don't fire; this destroys the intended effect of the player not being certain what their mission is, which, in the game he made, would require their opponents to be totally passive and all collisions to appear accidental] and has a conceptual basis in some ludicrous idea that data is somehow a lesser form of property because you can't directly perceive it [a hint of the stupidities of Marxism with its fantasy that the only meaningful labour is physical]. All told, it's a mess, and if tried in any other genre would be called as such instantly.

 

[Evil Tim]

You did actually admit you were a troll, I can simply scroll up and see it.

Then you might wish to demonstrate where this 'admission' is. Let's see, here's the only exchange you could plausibly be talking about:

'You are just a lame troll and I'm calling you out as such.'
'That sure as hell beats actually stating your position concisely and coherently, after all.'

Hm, I don't see any actual acceptance of your premise in that sentence, do you? Maybe you can see the admission because you redefined 'admission' as 'anything.' Because that's a game!

As far as what makes this art, my interpretation of why this is art is every bit as valid a reason. The creator even defined it as being on the periphery but that doesn't, what matters is that my interpretation of it is hard to define

It's hard to argue the validity of something you can't communicate effectively to other people.

After I explain my intent you still miss the point.

Because the 'point' doesn't exist outside your own head, much like that 'admission' you wished into existence with the power of comically poor reading comprehension.

It is a game because I say it is. It is a game if someone else thinks it is.

Yay, we've gone all the way to the 'make words totally meaningless' phase of art argument. Such a hopelessly unspecific definition of a medium just make the word useless as an actual descriptor; if all that's needed to be a 'game' is for someone to call it that, everything can potentially be one. So photosynthesis and bananas are games now!

 

[Ghost]

What if you shoot your first alien, and it deletes one of the games files? Time paradox?

 

[ReverseEngineered]

As somebody else said, it doesn't make sense that killing the enemy (for meaningless points) punishes you by deleting a file on your computer. Isn't the idea of consequences that killing something means that something is gone? What analogy does killing an invading enemy have to killing your own file?

Here's a better game called MAD (Mutually-Assured Destruction). It's a multiplayer game where each player can see every other player's harddrive (in some abstract form). You can "shoot" any file on their computer, permanently deleting it. However, there are a couple catches. Not only can you delete their files, but they can delete yours. And, there's a delay between you choosing to delete a file and it actually happening, in which the other players are informed of your decision, giving them a chance to respond in kind.

This fairly accurately models MAD when it comes to nuclear weapons. The second somebody launches a weapon, everybody else will know and will have the opportunity to return the favor. As a famous movie once said, "The only way to win is not to play." But, that won't stop people from playing, if only for the possibility of ruining somebody else's day.

Of course, there would be ways to cheat (to protect yourself from actually losing anything), but ignore those for the moment.

 

[Lord_Ascendant]

What is the point of this exactly? A fun way to nuke your computer?

 

[James Raynor]

Anyone actually find out if it really does delete any files? lol

 

[Evil Tim]

You obviously know nothing of Wittgenstein or basic gamesd theory. Until you choose to bring some knowledge to the table I won't discuss this with you. It is pointless trying to use logic on someone like you. As I said earlier if anyone ELSE wishes to discuss the validity of this game as art I would love to.

And you know nothing of Muffinwitz or deductive flange cosine theory. See how useless it is to throw out terminology without bothering to explain what the actual relationship it has to the discussion is? Throwing out names [Kaufman, Wittgenstein] in the hope I'll hiss and retreat like a vampire exposed to sunlight is a hilariously poor gambit that won't fool anyone who actually expects their opponent to be able to apply learning to a discussion.

My points exist outside my own head or I wouldn't have been able to have productive discussions about this subject with others.

Bragging about your debating skills is useless if you're incapable of demonstrating them.

you alone seem unable to comprehend my poits and I must conclude that it is either idiocy on your part or an inability to see reason if it contradicts with you feeling correct.

Ah yes, because the idea that you might be wrong or failing to adequately communicate your points is absolutely inconceivable. And you're objecting to being called pretentious.

Funny, that.

Tim -I decry you ability to use logic or have any true reading comprehension. You admit one thing then deny it.

Because I didn't admit it. I notice you haven't answered my challenge to demonstrate where I actually admitted anything, because you can't. Much like you have not at any point attempted any kind of point-by-point rebuttal of my arguments, because you prefer useless grandstanding, handwaved claims of knowledge you fail to actually demonstrate the application of, and digressions about how I'm a troll to actually engaging me in a debate.

I would also point out that the one complaining about an inability to use logic should probably not be the one basing his reasoning on use of an ad hominem tu quoque fallacy. Even if I were a hypocrite, that only means I can't be right in all my statements, not that all of my statements are wrong.

No point using logic with you. Thats why I don't wish to discuss anything with you further- you don't argue coherently enough to be a benefit in any way- you are just a troll.

One classic sign of a poor debater is repeatedly saying they've made their final post on a subject.

You try and call the ineffable nature of some art as inability to articulate- you miss the point of concepts that transcend speech. I honestly pity you. You know nothing of true discussion because you automatically try to interpret the worst possible meaning from a statement in hopes you can "win." You're just tryng to win a discussion and its truly sad and puerile. When you grow up a tad and learn to pursue truth then join the big boy discussions.

Yes, I will happily join the 'big boys' in discussing things that can't be discussed. It's deeply pathetic that you think you can score points by claiming to be more mature than me, you'll find that doesn't impress anyone who's finished high school.

And argumentum ad antiquitatem is also a logical fallacy, by the by.

Read Wittgenstein and perhaps you'll have an idea of what I am talking about.

Funny, I thought I was discussing this with you, not Wittgenstein. Either point out how his works are relevant to the discussion or stop trying to pass off responsibility for defending your arguments to someone else; you and you alone are responsible for demonstrating the merits of the points you make in a debate. I have little inclination to go scampering around at your beck and call on the offchance I suddenly gain some magical insight into your posts by doing so.