Lose/Lose - The Game That Deletes Your Files

[Mekado]

wow, what an absolutely stupidly pointless "game"

So...we're supposed to what ? have a divine revelation that murder is wrong, who(what?)ever we're murdering ?

Long live the pixels! (what?)

 

[Evil Tim]

If you think Wittgenstein is just a name drop you need to take some remedial philosophy classes. His work is pertinent to the core fo this discussion. [...] If you don't see the relation between Wittgenstein and open concepts (which is what we're discussing) then there's no point in continuing a discussion.

If you think I'm taking remedial philosophy classes because you can't explain your own arguments properly, you have an even more ridiculously inflated opinion of your own importance than I credited you with. It is not my job to go out of my way to make your arguments for you. If Wittgenstein has some bearing on the discussion, feel free to explain it. If you're not prepared to do that, don't bring it up at all; there is no point in pointing to the existence of information if you're not prepared to present it as part of your argument.

Every one of your counterpoints is false- you're just a troll who refuses to get logic.

I notice you have neither explained why they are false, nor answered my challenge to actually rebut point-by-point as I have been doing; instead, you've started trying to use even more fallacies [appeals to authority and popularity] and hilarious proclaimations you've already answered me when you haven't. Further, you seem to have failed to, as I requested, actually quote the post where I said I was a troll [most likely because, as I noted, the post in question doesn't exist outside your mind].

You just want to argue and no amount of true logic will get through to you.

I suppose 'true logic' is another term like 'art' that has whatever meaning you choose to assign it. Certainly, your 'true logic' is riddled with fallacies and doesn't resemble any form of logic I'm familiar with.

Just so you know 10 different online friends read these posts and are confused by your inability to get my point. You maintain I'm not explaining it well enough, but they all agree that the points I make are clear and you are either deliberately misunderstanding them for trolling purposes or are just unable to comprehend my wording.

Yeah, and I asked each and every employee of NASA including the janitors what they thought of your posts, and they all agreed with me. Have you really become so desperate you're resorting to 'my friends say you're wrong' as a debating tactic? Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy, especially when the popularity itself is dubious. Your imaginary friends have no bearing on the merits of your argument.

Again I end this not because I'm a poor debater but because you don't have the requisite skills to debate.

And so you make your third 'final' reply. I look forward to your fourth.

The ad hominem and tu quoque are just showing your fallacies not substitutions for my logical points. I choose not to reiterate them because I have already stated fine solid logical points already and you choose to ignore them in lieu of ad hominem bashing.

I think your soon-to-be-mentioned 'logic prof' would have issues with you not realising 'ad hominem tu quoque' is the whole name of one fallacy, not two seperate ones. Also, slapping yourself on the back for points you conspicuously haven't made is ludicrous.

A good debater would engage the topics, not the debater, which you fail to do. There is no point debating this with a troll any further.

It's amazing how you can go from 'a good debater engages the topics and not the man' to 'you are a troll' in two consecutive sentences without realising the slight contradiction. Your continued chants of 'troll, troll, troll' in these posts are really quite pitiful. It's like even you're not convinced and have to keep reminding yourself you're the good guy so it doesn't matter that I'm addressing everything you throw out while you're just insulting me and claiming you've already answered my points, notably without actually saying where you've done so or quoting yourself.

BTW I forwarded this to my old logic prof for amusement and he laughed his ass off. He said you'd be a surefire D- student. That doesn't negate your argument but it did provide amusement in his classroom.

Sure you did, and then you forwarded it to Zeus, Buddha and God and they said I was wrong too. Do you seriously think this is going to impress anyone? Children use tactics like this in arguments.

I refuse to reiterate all the points you've made which I've soundly countered because it is pointless seeing that you'll likely miss the points again.

That's ok, the forum software doesn't allow blank posts anyway.

I think its art. I think it pushes the boundaries on the definition of art.

How? It's a contradictory statement with mechanics that don't match it's message, rooted in pseudo-Marxist assumptions about relative value of data versus more material things. It's the kind of game any idiot with basic programming skills could make and is easily subverted with any number of simple techniques that prevent it removing data. It's entirely unremarkable.

This is art- for those that don't see it I'm sorry. I see it as art thus it is art. Any individual can make art thusly if they truly perceive the art of something.

Which renders 'art' a worthless non-word that can describe absolutely any thing or collection of things. For the word to actually have any descriptive value at all, it must have some greater criteria than 'arbitrary label anyone can assign to anything on a whim.'

 

[Alex_P]

Its a game on the periphery of gameness. Can something be a game even if it isn't "fun?"

By the most functional definition of "game" I know, yes. There's a fictional space you step into with its own set of goals. (Also the game is presenting itself as a game; that counts for something.)

I think you're vastly overstating the artistic merit of this piece, though.

In my opinion, psDoom is a superior implementation of the same concept. The use of Doom as the background places more emphasis on violence -- both because of Doom's own iconography and Doom's historical role as the inspiration for many shooters and military simulators (when I think of Doom modifications, the first thing I think of is Marine Doom). Most importantly, you get to actually experience progressive system degradation as you play. The game's configurability also allows the audience to experiment with redefining the experience -- taking on the role of a sadistic system administrator toying with another user is quite different from shooting down your own processes. All of this from a game that was really designed to be a toy with a pun on "daemons" rather than an artistic statement.

I'm also naturally biased against the scrolling-shooter motif because I think video-game art spends too much time navel-gazing in the ancient past of the medium.

Mostly Lose/Lose is disappointing because what I see from the video and description doesn't jive with the statements the author makes on the site. Despite the file-deletion gimmick, I think the game fails to meaningfully contextualize the "loss" it's trying to explore. The play space is so simplistic and familiar that there's little reason to explore it, whether as an "aggressor" or "observer".

It's art that doesn't accomplish half of what it aspires to. Which makes it feel more like an excuse to write down that paragraph about what it aspires to than a finished piece that really communicates that itself.

Playability is an overly neglected element of games-as-art. Fundamentally, Lose/Lose gives you less possibility to engage with it than most other games. You can sorta admire it from a distance but there's not a lot to be gained from the actual experience of play. That's shallow. (And, seeing as how it's 2009 and we have decades of conceptual art behind us, I really don't need yet another piece that's just in it to say "This is art that you're not supposed to engage with. Stay away!")

-- Alex

 

[Alex_P]

I guess I'm just a fan of conceptual art that pisses off the masses.

This response is really an aside. It's mostly not related to Lose/Lose anymore.

For the most part, I like conceptual art that pisses off the masses, too!

For me, an essential part of appreciating conceptual art and creating a context in which it can flourish as art (rather than, say, flourish as business -- it's pretty easy to stagnate as art while flourishing as business) is being a dick to the creators: criticize any piece that overlooks a key thing and absolutely excoriate anyone who's copying something that's been done better before. When an artist claims to be challenging assumptions, the audience should fight back just as hard in order to force the artist's own orthodoxies to the surface and keep him or her from falling into complacency and self-celebratory repetition.

-- Alex

 

[Grassassassin]

Yeah, I may just give this a bash at school. B) heh heh heh.

Just what I was thinking.

 

[Evil Tim]

I would love to see a game that gave your files BACK if you beat the end boss. Or even awarded you with some sort of bonus data.

There was actually an old computer virus that did something similar to that; it would corrupt a drive and then challenge the victim / player to answer a quiz on music trivia to get their data back.

Random Note- Anyone that thinks Wittgenstein is remedial philosophy is either being pretentious or doesn't understand him.

Ah, because someone did mention that, after all.

If you think Wittgenstein is just a name drop you need to take some remedial philosophy classes.

Whoops, it was you.

 

[Captain_Heavy]

They should make one of these for anti-virus programs. While the game is "loading" it is actually scanning your PC for viruses. Then you get to blast anything found into a million pieces

that may very well be the best idea i have ever heard in the entirety of my existence.

 

[Captain_Heavy]

we can liken the spaceship going forward and aliens coming down as walking down the street. that WHOLE street is not going to be filled with people you know or care about and killing them wouldn't directly result in you losing something you loved. sure you'de go to jail but in that case they chould have other ships trying to detain you and when they do your computer becomes locked for some time.

 

[Captain_Heavy]

it's not a virus if it dosn't attach itself to other files and make copies of itself, it's also not illegal, there is a big red disclaimer at the start that basically says "this will FUBAR your hard drive." if I'm correct (which i am about 56% of the time)

 

[WorldCritic]

The only way I could find enjoyment out of that is if I made someone I don't like play it.
Me: Play this game, it's awesome.
Dumb Ass: OK! -5 minutes later- This is boring. I'm playing something else... Where did my Fallout 3 files go?

 

[gigastrike]

Wtf? Alternativly: take THAT viruses!

 

[Coffeejack]

Is this game Windows Vista compatible? Hee hee.

 

[JSoup]

This seems like the kind of game you'd send someone you didn't like who also never reads. Let'em get a high score, that'll teach'em.

 

[Zakarath]

That's just an absolutely retarded game. It isn't "Art." It's a fucking virus.

.01% chance: Game deletes a file you care about. you are sad.
90% chance: winmsXXX.dll deleted. computer is now fucked. you are sad.
10% chance: other random program is screwed up
.0001% chance: game deletes itself. Victory!

A core idea of games is that they take place in a realm where any consequences stay confined to that realm and do not spill into real life. This "game" tries to be all cool and artsy by blurring that line, but all it succeeds in is forcing people to ignore it.