Home ›
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Basically, IJBM's timestamps are fucked up, so now it looks like we're both in the present and in the past, causing a most amusing effect akin to being Doctor Manhattan, except you don't get to see the future.
i guess all we must do is assemble the Seven Soldiers of Victory
Mentioned this in another thread, but I have been suspended from TV Tropes, possibly banned. (Long story short, I tried to defend KiTA after his ban for "pedophilia.") I'd like to ask someone to post my ban in Absent People, if possible.
I have to disagree with this on the basis that it doesn't cover the essence of a game. A game might include a challenge, but climbing a sheer wall is also a challenge. If a game is fundamentally a challenge, and climbing a sheer rock wall is fundamentally a challenge, then a game is climbing a sheer rock wall. There might be games that include climbing a sheer rock wall, but the act of climbing that is not, in and of itself, a game.
Take the following statement:
I don't think anyone disagrees with that, right? It's a truthful, valid statement, but it's still missing a few things. For instance, you also play with toys. A ball, action figure or what-have-you is not in and of itself a game, so clearly the above statement doesn't clearly define what a game is. Let's have a look at what other elements we can add to the definition by quickly observing a few different games from different mediums.
Now we have three different games in three different mediums, and we can look for common factors:
So our definition of a game might become:
But even then, what about a game like Minecraft? It has "sides" (the player against the game's natural world), and certainly abstraction, but much like tag it has no designated ending. It doesn't contain an objective, either. If Minecraft is a game, then the definition I wrote above is clearly faulty in some respects. At least we can tell now, via exception, that not all games require inherent objectives. I would argue, on the other hand, that games require the ability for players to set objectives. So while a game might not have its own objectives, it should provide a competitive element that suggests them.
You might have noted something else faulty about my definition up there.
So a game is objective-based and has a designated beginning, but no designated end? That's a contradiction. Ergo, we have to cut down the definition.
Does this definition work? Sure, on a technical level. But it's missing something, perhaps a few somethings. But this illustrates how difficult it is to define games, which after all are not physical products but abstract systems of play and interaction -- among other things. But ultimately, Zelda isn't any different from chess or playground tag in terms of the core product you're being exposed to, which is an abstract system of play that tests you against opposition. A system is incomplete without a user, because without a user, it does not reach its conclusion.
^It'll be done.
I'd argue against the "opposing sides" bit, really. unless you consider a deck in solitaire an opponent, I guess.
Thank you, Juan.
Alex all you need to do to fix this is admit I'm right about Star Wars, video games, and fantasy fiction. It's up to you!
Solitaire has opposing sides, even though it's played by one person with no AI to stand in for other people. Your opponent in a game of solitaire is the deck of cards and its randomisation, where the objective is to mitigate the randomisation by cleverly manipulating the cards in play via a logical system of numerical progression.
So it's essentially a game of chaos against order.
^No, don't! You'll upset the balance of Alexness and Malkness! If you do everything'll burn!
IJBM: People thinking possession in football is the be all and end all of it
Never! I am a landsknecht, like some presumed ancestor before me!
IT'S ENDING!
FUCK CAUSALITY YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
V NO YOU FOOL, YOU KNOW NOT WHAT YOU WROUGHT!
^I would totally play football if the ball was possessed, what are you talking about?
EDIT: fuck you future me.
Was a good ride, and I didn't even have to fuck a timestream gap.
Chelsea beat Barca 1-0 in the first leg of the UCL semi final but the intertubes is full of whining Barca fanboys upset that they had about 70% of the ball compared with Chelsea's 30% and got beat.
We still getting weird stuff here and there
The important thing is that it didn't end whilst we were still goofing around and thus make some people look foolish when they were referencing something no longer happening.
Between Feo's "Don't Panic" and Don Zabu's "Morrowind" thread and the fact that some people still talk about it, I have to wonder:
Why do people still care about TV Tropes? I'd have thought that most people, at least here, would have realized that there is no point in seriously discussing it. But still some people attempt to do this (instead of just snarking about it and making cheap potshots). I mean, there is absolutely no hope for it.
And as recent events show, even when they attempt to fix (real) problems, they screw it up (like beating the to-hit roll, but rolling for 0 damage).
Personally, I hang around TVT because there are some people there I still like to talk to. Apart from that, I could take it or leave it. Harmless fun and distraction, and I can't take it seriously for very long at all.
I agree with Alex's last sentence.
^^^ That was just an old annoyance of mine. TV Tropes is just one manifestation of it.
Pretty much my line of reasoning. Granted, I used to try and fight for change more, but I guess it's simply because it was entertaining.
Honestly, the thing that bothers me is that there's much potential in the idea of TvT, but it's wasted by people who really really need to talk about the stuff they like instead of actually caring about media.
Hanging around there is what I do too, but that doesn't explain why people are seriously discussing it, as if there is an hope of improvement.
I wouldn't say that Feotakahari and KITA qualify as your typical IJBMer. With that said, I think most of us share your cynicism regarding TvT except GMH. And with that said, I don't mind expressing what I think would be a good solution, even if I'd never see it implemented in the first place.
^^^^ Trufax.
It's been impossible thus far to get a discussion on, say, video games as a collective concept, industry and artform going. People only want to talk about specific games, and I've even been blocked in my efforts by a certain someone claiming that I (and the handful of others like me) are overthinking it.
The new media forum is a better place for this, granted, but most people only check the threads when a new video from their favourite online shows pops up, so the topics covered by the likes of Extra Credits and moviebob don't get much discussion beyond agreement or disagreement.
People will post all their video game ideas in the relevant threads, but aren't willing to discuss or learn why their concepts may or may not work, or how they might be altered to be better games.
One thread that sticks in my mind was the "Is the video game industry running out of ideas?" thread, which was full of stupid on both sides. One side was claiming that existing developers are just bad (hint: they're not, they just have to work under the awful conditions and limitations publishers impose on them) with the other claiming games they personally liked were evidence of actual creativity without support. A few legitimately creative games were mentioned, but again, the choices weren't supported by discussion, leaving them little better than shitposts.
Wow, I guess I got worked up about that more than I ought to have.
weee this is actually happening
loliforgoticouldjustuse[name]insteadofmyname