Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Solarn

The /newstuff Chronicles #361 [mimesis]

Recommended Posts

Edit (myk): Split from here.

myk said:

Rhetoric isn't sophistry unless it aims to confuse or hide argument faults. It can be used to reinforce language, grammatically or figuratively. If I'm arguing good maps concentrate on a mechanic "play board" over other elements, giving other aspects the focus is way of not being into the fabric or primary aspect of the game while designing.


You're using rhetoric to force a contrast between "being into a map" and "imitating something external", based on the fact that the words in italics can be antonyms when stripped of context. In context, what you are saying is that being focused on creating a map is the opposite of basing a map on something that already existed before it.

So yes, sophistry.

myk said:

I specifically noted that I was not against enhancing maps with some form of worldly representation. As far as I'm concerned, one must give importance to the playability aspect, and may bring in some "realism" as long as the top priority is covered. It was a response to printz which didn't entirely disagree with what he said, but added how it can also be an issue. He said it is good, as if invariably. That, I do not agree with. It can be good, when used in good measure and without getting in the way of play-oriented design.

myk said:

I replied to printz about mimesis. It wasn't me who made the association between detail and representation. Printz was talking about using detailing to produce realistic aspects. I didn't make any direct link myself, although detailing and realism can both be used as a main focus in design, and can serve each other.

printz said:

Detail is good. It makes you want to play further, because it gives you the feeling that the author really was into the map and tried to represent something.


This is what printz wrote. There is nothing in it about imitating realistic locations. "Trying to represent something" doesn't necessarily mean making maps based on real places. It could just as easily mean trying to represent the concept of the map as it's present in the author's mind. printz was talking about detail in general.

myk said:

It's a classic term referring to the imitation of nature or reality. It's similar realism, that is tied to an aesthetic movement, but focuses on the fact that nature or reality is being imitated, instead of on the assumed resemblance obtained in an attempt

I'm fully aware of what mimesis is, but I'm not certain it applies in the case of computer game levels made to look like real life locations.

Share this post


Link to post

Solarn said:
You're using rhetoric to force a contrast between "being into a map" and "imitating something external", based on the fact that the words in italics can be antonyms when stripped of context. In context, what you are saying is that being focused on creating a map is the opposite of basing a map on something that already existed before it.

You've managed to reduce what I said beyond recognition. Does what you are nitpicking even address my points?

Who would argue against the fact that both a game play designer or someone mapping for some other purpose are focused on designing and editing? While doing so, however, one is focused more on game essentials, the other, more on something else.

As you know, because I mentioned it, what is internal, inherent, or focal in good and playable DOOM levels is that action-oriented aspect, the chess-like arrangement of a board to play. Focusing on something else, like representing something, is not essential; it's external in that sense. The external or secondary is more optional and needs to be subservient to the main ingredient. I mean, this playability aspect is not about representing or expressing anything. It's about playing in the stricter sense, like football or poker.

This is what printz wrote. There is nothing in it about imitating realistic locations. "Trying to represent something" doesn't necessarily mean making maps based on real places. It could just as easily mean trying to represent the concept of the map as it's present in the author's mind. printz was talking about detail in general.

Saying "representing something" has nothing to do with the imitation of nature or reality is not true, as it would certainly be one way to represent something. It's inclusive. Yes, printz could be referring to representation in a broader sense. I'm fine with that.

In my estimation, DOOM level design is naturally a craft and not an art, as it serves the practical function of playing (in the sense that I noted previously.) Just like making wheelbarrows and swords, the aim is to create something with a particular use, which makes it more limited in representing things than artistic disciplines which aren't subject to any specific aim for their materials. Anything can be art, so you may make a level for artistic purposes, as well, but that will be different in roughly the same sense that you can distinguish an informative text or direct communication from an artistic poem. If you really want to do art in a game, you'll most likely want to stop worrying about the players, just like someone developing an artistic film will not be that much concerned about the box office. It'll just get in the way of expression.

I'm fully aware of what mimesis is, but I'm not certain it applies in the case of computer game levels made to look like real life locations.

Fully aware? If you're uncertain about things, I suggest not jumping the gun with accusations like bullshit and sophistry, especially coupled with vague stuff like "seems to me" and little argumentation. If you require clarifications from anyone, start civilly and with respect, rely on goodwill and try to make your points clear well before you even think of attacking people. This may sound like more than a recommendation, and it is.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

You've managed to reduce what I said beyond recognition. Does what you are nitpicking even address my points?

Who would argue against the fact that both a game play designer or someone mapping for some other purpose are focused on designing and editing? While doing so, however, one is focused more on game essentials, the other, more on something else.

As you know, because I mentioned it, what is internal, inherent, or focal in good and playable DOOM levels is that action-oriented aspect, the chess-like arrangement of a board to play. Focusing on something else, like representing something, is not essential; it's external in that sense. The external or secondary is more optional and needs to be subservient to the main ingredient. I mean, this playability aspect is not about representing or expressing anything. It's about playing in the stricter sense, like football or poker.


You use a lot of words to say what can simply be put as: "The core part of what makes a good Doom map is the action-oriented gameplay. Map design should focus on that and realism should only be allowed insofar as it doesn't get in the way." Which is not exactly what you said before, but I welcome the step down from the confrontational rhetoric. Too bad that now you're trying to bury me under words. Even worse that you're unsuccessful because I can keep up.

myk said:

Saying "representing something" has nothing to do with the imitation of nature or reality is not true, as it would certainly be one way to represent something. It's inclusive. Yes, printz could be referring to representation in a broader sense. I'm fine with that.

In my estimation, DOOM level design is naturally a craft and not an art, as it serves the practical function of playing (in the sense that I noted previously.) Just like making wheelbarrows and swords, the aim is to create something with a particular use, which makes it more limited in representing things than artistic disciplines which aren't subject to any specific aim for their materials. Anything can be art, so you may make a level for artistic purposes, as well, but that will be different in roughly the same sense that you can distinguish an informative text or direct communication from an artistic poem. If you really want to do art in a game, you'll most likely want to stop worrying about the players, just like someone developing an artistic film will not be that much concerned about the box office. It'll just get in the way of expression.


You say that map design is a craft, not an art, yet you write of it in florid prose more befitting of an artist than a craftsman. See? I can make vague accusations based on wordplay as well!

In all seriousness, while it's true that "representing something" in the level design may mean an attempt at realism as much as simply an expression of the mapper's ideas, your previous arguments immediately assumed the first option.

However, I must disagree on your second point. your simile falls short if we consider that while a wheelbarrow or a sword always has one particular use which limits its form, "playing" is not a very restrictive function, seeing as how many different people play in many different ways. It allows for much more freedom and in fact, there are good maps around with gameplay based around the mapper's design idea, rather than the other way around.

To use your similes, rather than making a "sword", creating a map is more like making a "weapon". What kind of weapon it ends up as is based on your inspiration. (Also, I've been reading way too much manga, which is where I got the idea of marking the particular kind of emphasis used here with quotation marks.)

myk said:

Fully aware? If you're uncertain about things, I suggest not jumping the gun with accusations like bullshit and sophistry, especially coupled with vague stuff like "seems to me" and little argumentation. If you require clarifications from anyone, start civilly and with respect, rely on goodwill and try to make your points clear well before you even think of attacking people. This may sound like more than a recommendation, and it is.


I say it as I see it. Your initial paragraph that started all this seemed like bullshit to me and after this argument, I'm quite certain that it was bullshit. It didn't simply not make sense or I would have said that; it felt like it wasn't meant to make sense, only to confuse readers into accepting your points.

During the course of this argument, you started by covertly insulting me, then followed up by using endless repetition to bury me under words and subtly changing your arguments each time and then claiming that they were always that way. You're using fallacy after underhanded tactic, which makes me question the validity of your views.

Share this post


Link to post

Solarn said:
You use a lot of words to say what can simply be put as: "The core part of what makes a good Doom map is the action-oriented gameplay. Map design should focus on that and realism should only be allowed insofar as it doesn't get in the way."

Realism, or any other aspect or expression. A lot of words, yes, but how else does one back, illustrate and explain a surmised idea? Much of it was in response to your questioning. Unless you only had ill intent, you should have expected a reply addressing this stuff you thought was deception.

Which is not exactly what you said before, but I welcome the step down from the confrontational rhetoric.

Writing exactly what I said before would be the equivalent of quoting myself instead of expanding or clarifying, and fitting what you thought I was expressing is not going to happen because I'm me, not you seeing me.

Too bad that now you're trying to bury me under words. Even worse that you're unsuccessful because I can keep up.

What is this, a pissing contest?

However, I must disagree on your second point. your simile falls short if we consider that while a wheelbarrow or a sword always has one particular use which limits its form, "playing" is not a very restrictive function, seeing as how many different people play in many different ways. It allows for much more freedom and in fact, there are good maps around with gameplay based around the mapper's design idea, rather than the other way around.

Yeah, some disagree. That's why I'm arguing my points. In previous posts of mine, such as my replies to esselfortium, Craigs and rf, I noted some reasons why I like the "making of swords" rather than the "making of weapons". I mean, I know people do that, but have various experience and playing-based reasons to distance myself from level design that neglects play in the strict sense. Playing, in general, which applies to both toys and games, is not restricted at all, but things like the structure of a game and player skills or choices do delimit playing, and people start to acquire standards in respect to that.

I say it as I see it.

You saw something, had a knee jerk reaction, and spurted it out. Don't do it again or there may be consequences. I think, and largely due to my temperance, we have managed to make this into an argument instead of a shit fest. Don't count on that always being the case when you shoot first and ask questions later.

During the course of this argument, you started by covertly insulting me,

I have a hard time seeing how I could have started anything, given I replied to your unexplained and blatant accusation.

You're using fallacy after underhanded tactic, which makes me question the validity of your views.

The two concrete things you questioned where my use of in and out in relation to mapping one way or another, and that I took off with realism from printz's mention of representation. I explained the first, and the latter was much of a non-issue. You also say you disagree in the swords versus weapons crafting, but that hardly makes anything I say a fallacy, and just that you might appreciate maps that emphasize things other than bottom-line game play, unlike me.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

Realism, or any other aspect or expression. A lot of words, yes, but how else does one back, illustrate and explain a surmised idea? Much of it was in response to your questioning. Unless you only had ill intent, you should have expected a reply addressing this stuff you thought was deception.


Straightforwardly, concisely and clearly, none of which your replies are. Instead, you repeat words and use the most cumbersome grammatical structures available in order to cow me into submission. It's not working.

myk said:

Writing exactly what I said before would be the equivalent of quoting myself instead of expanding or clarifying, and fitting what you thought I was expressing is not going to happen because I'm me, not you seeing me.


I meant the change in your arguments when I wrote that. Originally, you claimed based on the words printz used that being focused on a map, on making it a good map, and basing it on an already-existing structure were mutually exclusive.

myk said:

If he was into the map why should he try hard to imitate something external?

Later, you argued that the "external" element was a valid part of map design, only completely subordinate to gameplay.

myk said:

As you know, because I mentioned it, what is internal, inherent, or focal in good and playable DOOM levels is that action-oriented aspect, the chess-like arrangement of a board to play. Focusing on something else, like representing something, is not essential; it's external in that sense. The external or secondary is more optional and needs to be subservient to the main ingredient.

Of course, my meaning was quite obvious, so you're either perfectly aware of it and deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue by focusing on the least relevant way my words can be taken, or you're stupid. I choose to believe you're deceptive rather than stupid but if you want me to change my opinion, I'd be happy to oblige.

myk said:

What is this, a pissing contest?


If trying to call attention to your bullshitting constitutes a pissing contest, then yes, it is. Otherwise, no.

myk said:

Yeah, some disagree. That's why I'm arguing my points. In previous posts of mine, such as my replies to esselfortium, Craigs and rf, I noted some reasons why I like the "making of swords" rather than the "making of weapons". I mean, I know people do that, but have various experience and playing-based reasons to distance myself from level design that neglects play in the strict sense. Playing, in general, which applies to both toys and games, is not restricted at all, but things like the structure of a game and player skills or choices do delimit playing, and people start to acquire standards in respect to that.


Except you're not arguing, you're stating every single statement as irrefutable fact. This:

myk said:

As you know, because I mentioned it, what is internal, inherent, or focal in good and playable DOOM levels is that action-oriented aspect, the chess-like arrangement of a board to play. Focusing on something else, like representing something, is not essential; it's external in that sense. The external or secondary is more optional and needs to be subservient to the main ingredient.

is not an argument. This is a revelation of absolute truth.

You're elevating yourself and your opinions above everyone else, saying that the only proper way to play/map is the one you are espousing and everything else is inherently inferior, because you possess some kind of deeper understanding of what Doom is than everyone else.

Which is bullshit.

myk said:

You saw something, had a knee jerk reaction, and spurted it out. Don't do it again or there may be consequences. I think, and largely due to my temperance, we have managed to make this into an argument instead of a shit fest. Don't count on that always being the case when you shoot first and ask questions later.


The reaction was not knee-jerk at all. It was very well thought out. Just because I made a very heavy accusation, that doesn't mean it was a knee-jerk reaction.

myk said:

I have a hard time seeing how I could have started anything, given I replied to your unexplained and blatant accusation.


I explained it plenty already. However, up until this point, I never actually insulted you. You, however, started with this:

myk said:

Don't worry. Not everybody can read anything. Some people get lost on simple instructions, let alone reading developed personal viewpoints from a few paragraphs.


myk said:

The two concrete things you questioned where my use of in and out in relation to mapping one way or another, and that I took off with realism from printz's mention of representation. I explained the first, and the latter was much of a non-issue. You also say you disagree in the swords versus weapons crafting, but that hardly makes anything I say a fallacy, and just that you might appreciate maps that emphasize things other than bottom-line game play, unlike me.


You repeat words, synonyms of words and phrases over and over again, only slightly changed to avoid obviousness. Whenever I provide an argument against them, you simply repeat the same statement a different way instead of responding to my argument: Proof by assertion fallacy.

You use words that, while they might have a dictionary meaning of what you are trying to say, aren't regularly used in the context you are using them in, instead of more obvious and simple word choices. You also use convoluted and almost archaic grammar structures to make your sentences harder to parse: sophistry.

You change your position whenever it becomes untenable and then claim that it's always been that way: A very strange form of the "Moving the goalposts" fallacy

You keep insisting that being based on an external model (or simply looking good) and being focused on gameplay are mutually exclusive traits of a Doom map and one must choose between these two when mapping: False dilemma fallacy

Share this post


Link to post

Threads with Myk arguing are always mildly interesting. Very rarely because of the content of his argument, but rather the way he puts it. They are interesting from the external perspective, but often when you're the one arguing with him, can become maddening. The key to an argument with Myk is to realize that it's his opinion, and if the argument has gone on for three or more posts back and forth without you changing his mind, just go "whatever" and leave it be, because it's simply not going to end with a clear consensus. Just present your argument clearly, and don't get sucked in. When it just devolves into two or more people arguing about the semantics of the argument itself, everyone just ends up looking foolish. Myk and the arguer inclusive.

But that's like, just my opinion, man. Also, this thread is entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post

Shaikoten said:
The key to an argument with Myk is to realize that it's his opinion, and if the argument has gone on for three or more posts back and forth without you changing his mind, just go "whatever" and leave it be, because it's simply not going to end with a clear consensus. Just present your argument clearly, and don't get sucked in.

That sounds like the key to any involved argument, well, except that changing one's own mind can also be a candidate.

When it just devolves into two or more people arguing about the semantics of the argument itself,

That's why I moved this, which was starting to spam the T/nC thread. Besides, it got way too personal for most people to care. It's all about me except when it's about Solarn being about me or me being about him being about me. It's more or less PM material but there's no way to move threads into PMs, and since it's already here, whatever, if people want to watch or add something not retarded, good for them.

It's true that I could have cut this off easily, but it's fine with me to have someone scrutinizing my conceptions and I rather let Solarn know about some things he shouldn't do (about behavior, not opinion.)

I do have 1-on-1 arguments often, but they don't involve just some wording of mine like in this case and are usually of a more general interest. I mean, if my writing is already not the easiest to read, who would want to read Solarn's interpretation of my writing, plus my comments or refutations. Maybe as a form of entertainment, sure :p

Solarn said:
Instead, you repeat words and use the most cumbersome grammatical structures available in order to cow me into submission. It's not working.

Ah, I bet it's all me being cumbersome and nothing to do with your lack of grasp for my conceptions or personal idiosyncrasies! I owe you no explanations, especially given you started the discussion with what is essentially a troll. Yet, I replied civilly. You, wedged into an aggressive position, didn't find a way back without validating your aggression. As you said in another thread, you have issues relating with people. You do not communicate well due to prejudice. You pretend that my discourse should adapt to however you read things, or call me a falsifier if I fail to adapt to your nitpicking subjective view, and come forth with a preconceived ill-view of my intents and purposes.

I don't know if I'm the clearest of communicators, but it appears I'm not crippled at it in the sense you are. We all have different aptitudes and flaws, evidently.

I meant the change in your arguments when I wrote that. Originally, you claimed based on the words printz used that being focused on a map, on making it a good map, and basing it on an already-existing structure were mutually exclusive.

Is that all you can refer to? I already noted how that is not and cannot be what I meant. Did you even read my post, can you even address it without pretending that your initial impression of what I said is the holy truth? Or maybe you want relative rewordings or repetitions? I don't even need to add anything because you didn't touch what I said.

Later, you argued that the "external" element was a valid part of map design, only completely subordinate to gameplay.

Mimesis can be a creative excuse and a means, but not an end to an action game is already clarifying that that is the case. In addition to various other similar statements. As you noted, I don't say something just once but reuse ideas in similar but varied contexts. Don't you see it now? Just quit trying to read each sentence as if they had nothing to do with each other.

If trying to call attention to your bullshitting constitutes a pissing contest, then yes, it is. Otherwise, no.

It just refers to your attitude here. You're the one thinking in those terms in regard to the discussion. If I thought you were just shit talking to win an argument, you'd be banned.

This is a revelation of absolute truth.

You're letting yourself be cowed into a defensive position just because someone doesn't insert "in my opinion" every two sentences? Are you that insecure? Like I said, try reading as a whole. Suddenly, one sentence refers to opinion, but now it's not valid because another just says "as I mentioned, something is"... brilliant!

You're elevating yourself and your opinions above everyone else, saying that the only proper way to play/map is the one you are espousing and everything else is inherently inferior, because you possess some kind of deeper understanding of what Doom is than everyone else.

The day you get rid of your inferiority complex, you won't need to see a well-asserted opinion that way.

The reaction was not knee-jerk at all. It was very well thought out. Just because I made a very heavy accusation, that doesn't mean it was a knee-jerk reaction.

You actually thought out to make a reply quoting something, saying it is deception, without even addressing why? In retrospect, knee jerk reaction was a compliment.

I explained it plenty already.

I was referring to the beginning. You tried to explain later, although, like I said in my last post, one thing you thought was wrong, the other not important.

However, up until this point, I never actually insulted you. You, however, started with this:

Yes, it's a bit patronizing. And now you have to try to prove there's no truth in it to comfort your ego, right? Nah, you believe in final truths apparently, hence your first impression must be true. What would you have preferred, a flame? I had and have confidence that I have decent arguments for my point of view, and don't have the idea I'm deceptive. So, acting in goodwill toward your not very friendly attempt to discuss my opinion, I gave you the chance to expand, not without subtly chiding you for your boorish attitude and faux pas.

Whenever I provide an argument against them, you simply repeat the same statement a different way instead of responding to my argument:

Is that how you interpret my pointing out how your critique on the into/external is erroneous? That's the main point of contention, after all.

You use words that, while they might have a dictionary meaning of what you are trying to say, aren't regularly used in the context you are using them in, instead of more obvious and simple word choices.

Obvious to you. I use words I choose because they have certain meanings. Mimesis, for instance, and because that's what you brought up specifically, is unequivocally tied to theory and aesthetics, for example, as opposed to the more mundane words that are roughly synonymous with it, which I also use sometimes, for one reason or another.

You also use convoluted and almost archaic grammar structures to make your sentences harder to parse:

So, you not being able to read my posts very well shows I express myself to confuse people? I fail to see the connection. I love language (it says it in my profile) and use it at the fullest extent I can to illustrate my points and conceptions. If some are left behind, so be it. I also get lost reading computer programs... so? I can go back and explain, in any case, in other words, which practically anyone (you too?) can comprehend eventually.

You change your position whenever it becomes untenable and then claim that it's always been that way:

I like how you accuse me of repeating myself and then repeat yourself. I think (especially varied and contextualized) repetition can be used in some situations, but hypocrisy is funny.

You keep insisting that being based on an external model (or simply looking good) and being focused on gameplay are mutually exclusive traits of a Doom map and one must choose between these two when mapping:

Try reading my posts again to avoid making a fool of yourself. I mentioned many times that it was about priorities or focus, and that its a model as well as anything that isn't that game play mechanic. I also gave practical reasons why not minding "detail" too much is of direct benefit to game play.

Anyway, I bet that now that you've linked to Wikipedia articles with each comment everything you say is true, you erudite man!

Share this post


Link to post

Guys don't stop, this [arguments about arguments] is turning me on.

Share this post


Link to post
Shaikoten said:

Solarn's quote to text ratio is priceless in this latest post.

And yet he manages to say so much more than his opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Shaikoten said:

Solarn's quote to text ratio is priceless in this latest post.

Nobody told him that quotes don't add to his postcount.

Share this post


Link to post

Arguments about arguments. Quotes quoting quotes. Arguments about quotes. Quotes about arguments. A thread about arguments about quotes about arguments about quotes, and the quotes argued of quoted arguments. You could argue about the quotes, or quote the argument, but you can't quote the argumentative quote which started the argument. Soon the argumented argument and the quoted quote will gain mass and sentience and bring down the entire forums, nay, universe in a massive crash which will quote argument quote argument quote OH SHI-

Share this post


Link to post

esselfortium said:
And yet he manages to say so much more than his opponent.

How so? Other than you feeling empathic with him because we've argued a few times, that is, which I can imagine. I'm just asking because it makes me wonder that someone can find much in mostly broken arguments around one sentence of mine, which I had an opportunity to detail pretty well since.

Solarn said:
I never wanted to find a way back. I'm quite comfortable in my aggressive position until you start actually arguing with me instead of talking down to me.

What you think you want is compatible with my perception of your situation, as far as I'm concerned.

They're due to my refusal to pander to anyone's feelings and my inhibitions about mingling in communities.

Those things are communicational aspects and are channeled through prejudice. I didn't say anything about grammar or wording, although some conceptual or semantic associations you've made have been skewed because you must work from your antipathy and inhibitions.

I love how you cut my argument in two to make it look like there were two, much more inane arguments.

You mean because I have two quotes with replies? The only odd thing I do there is say "I don't need to add anything" but then quote myself in italics to show how what you are attributing to my into/external sentence contradicts what I say in the same paragraph.

is not someone's opinion. It's the absolute truth as declared by someone who is privy to it, to someone who isn't.

Right, the absolute truth of reminding you that you know of my position or opinion because I mentioned it previously. Got any more sentences you want to read in way that fits your preconceived and forced idea of what I'm saying?

"I have various experience and playing-based reasons" is not actually an explanation. It's a form of special pleading, which is a fallacy.

A form of what? Why are you doing a logical exegesis of my text? If you're looking for those practical reasons, they are elsewhere. This is just me mentioning that through years of playing and other game activities, I've gotten that view of things. It could have been different, like experience mainly based on tests or examining the code, or what my master told me.

to make me accept as truth worded in yet another different way.

If you feel some force emanating from my wording that impels you to follow my ideas, I'm impressed. Perhaps I am a true prophet!

But yeah, if you keep trying to read opinions as true or false as if there were an imperative for that, it's no wonder you went crazy with the wiki articles. Looking back, Shaikoten saw that and gave you a tip on reading critical opinions properly.

Your response to Craigs is a particularly atrocius mix of strawman argument (first part in italics),

What the hell? It means that, since I value low detail levels about as much as more detailed ones if their game play is good, that the point for more attention to detail becomes rather moot, in the sense of something becoming devaluated, like money.

an assumption to know the reasons for doing what you are arguing against

Who said that? What I wrote is a recommendation. I am suggesting people do extra detailing (always on top of good game play and without interfering) if they really like it, personally, and not for non-personal reasons like praise or the idea that it'll make or break their levels. This is kind of response to a certain anxiety that there tends to be about levels not being "detailed enough."

appeal to consequences (the third part in italics)

And...? An appeal to general practices for general results.

and irrelevant conclusion (the last part in italics).

How is clarifying that I don't think one of the sets is detailed not relevant?

The day you get rid of your need to talk down to others you will see how that went way beyond a well-asserted opinion.

Others? I'm talking to you.

You seem much more like a regular bully to me now.

Okay. You must be the nerd I get to pick on.

Yes, because I already responded that and instead of taking my response into account,

Seriously, you might want to quote that, as all I recall is some sort of obtuse denial of my explanation because it did not fit your initial impression. Did anyone else reading this for the hell of it see anything else he tried to say about this?

This fragment is much more relevant and illustrates the problem much more clearly:

Problem? That fragment expands that sentence you started this whole argument about, taking it apart. And indeed, in my initial sentence, which apparently made your logic-reductionist mind go into a fit, there's a sort of synthesis of the whole thing. Of course, that sentence alone could not illustrate my idea, but marks contrast.

You repeat words, turns of phrase and even sentences with minor variations multiple times in one post for no reason other than to make the post longer.

You have a problem with my wording yet are bothered I use various images and rewording to paint the picture robustly? Your mind is apparently too autistic or analytic to read my text properly. At least without an interpretation through Wikipedia entries on logical fallacies, heh.

No, you didn't.

Oh yeah, you quote stuff yet miss it, talking "logical" pot shots at other parts of what I told each guy. I told rf that the particular make of a game defines certain play possibilities, in the way the shape of a weapon gives you usage possibilities. An axe will chop, a knife stab and slash, and so on. In the reply to essel I'm talking about how players and designers can see the levels differently, materially, where mainly the players see the playing aspect. Lastly, the reply to Craigs starts off with a handful of things low detailing offers in practice.

Oh, I can read your posts pretty well.

In the sense that you can spell the words out, yeah.

These posts are getting ridiculously long without going anywhere.

Really? I find this useful, and probably not in any way you think I should. I certainly would not have spent the time, otherwise. It revolved around my ideas, after all. At least I got to know more insights on how some people who can't read more literary or free theoretic language too well and must translate anything to logical processes see my writing, as well as yet another opportunity to review these ideas and my language usage. Don't get excited, though; it doesn't mean that from now on I'll be writing in a way you need, in particular. In addition, it may shed some light for some amused readers, that may find the analyses (perhaps mine, when associated to what you try to interpret, at least) useful for reading longer or more theoretic stuff I write.

You can have the last word if you want, as much good as it will do you.

More good than it will do you, apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

one sentence of mine, which I had an opportunity to detail pretty well since.

But it completely ruined its gameplay...

Share this post


Link to post

Dear myk,

If you cannot keep your arguing separate from your modding, I think it would be best if you stepped down.

Yours truly,

Bloodshedder

Share this post


Link to post

Gez said:
But it completely ruined its gameplay...

Heh, good catch, I used that word on purpose ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×