The Post-Game Thread (now with moar games!)

[Mr. MR]

Then you lean towards the belief of Zelda being Shakespearean work. That is quite interesting...

I, myself, find Superman 64 to be a tragedy on the level of Romeo and Juliet.

Never said it was a Shakespearean work, but it is art and it does have meaning.
Superman was solely a gameplay experience and a poor one at that.

I am simply noticing the synergy in storytelling that MM does so well

Even Henley ended up explaining the significance of his work. Aonuma did not. Nor, to my knowledge, has he ever done that.

Plenty of game devs do tell of their reasons for a story being the way it is through interviews, or at least hint to it. MM is getting a remake, which would present a perfect opportunity for us to delve into his almighty emotion storytelling presentation through some QA. He won't, though. We both know that.

No he didn't, and like he said, it defeats the purpose of communicating in that way in the first place.

Competitiveness=/=sports. The free market is not a sport. Government elections are not sports. Sports have been here for thousands of years to get to where they are. Video games can only dream to catch up and reach the caliber and prestige of such activity. Merely having a competitive aspect doesn't denote it it to being on par with sports.

Chess is pointless now that we have computers. It's very hard to call those competitive.

Competitiveness is one of the reasons why we play sports. It is also one of the reasons why we play video games (and normal games). Another reason is achievement, which again applies to video games and sports and games of any kind. And what do these reasons have in common? They incite emotion.

Chess is not pointless because of computers. There are reasons why people still play it and those reasons are the ones mentioned above. Are video games pointless because of TAS? No, we strive for ourselves no mater if a computer or anyone else could do it better.
Why do you do anything if it isn't for emotional value? The alternative is there is no meaning in anything. Then what is the point in living?

No! No emotion. We did not invent communication because of emotion. Emotions exist just fine even if one were to never communicate, ergo communication is NOT the essence of emotion. I don't know where you're getting your reasoning from, but it's very wrong. Friggin' plants and cells communicate with one another, but they aren't doing it because of feels.

Actually they might be doing it for the 'feels'. Plants react to stimuli. They move towards light to be fed so they avoid starvation. However there is still a big difference from that and humanity. The reasons to communicate from a psychological Freudian basis would be to avoid pain and to seek pleasure, from a scientific basis survival, and from a 'spiritual' basis emotion. The plant and cells may communicate as a necessity for survival, same with us, but unlike us, every time we communicate, emotion cannot help but play a role.

 

[WiiAssasin]

Never said it was a Shakespearean work, but it is art and it does have meaning.
Superman was solely a gameplay experience and a poor one at that.

Anything is art and has meaning. Like Superman 64. Not good quality, but I can attribute plenty of symbolism to it. The creator of that game never explicitly stated it had any meaning, which makes it even more deep according to yourself.

I am simply noticing the synergy in storytelling that MM does so well

Most of what you're seeing in MM doesn't exist. It's a pretty base series. The creator of the game has never been reported to have ever attempted creating something deep or meaningful that he specifically attributes to MM and no other of his works. They were sidequests made around the concept of a time-travelling mechanic. That's all. Good sidequests, but not much more. Any perceived covetous bonds of emotion were extraneously added after the deed was done. Aonuma was most definitely not going off on Campbell or anything of that sort.

No he didn't, and like he said, it defeats the purpose of communicating in that way in the first place.

Henley (regarding Hotel California): "My simple explanation is: It's a song about a journey from innocence to experience. That's all."

It's funny, though. The reason he said this is because "people see images on the album cover that aren't there" so he had to straighten out all these inaccuracies. Funny that, no?

Competitiveness is one of the reasons why we play sports. It is also one of the reasons why we play video games (and normal games). Another reason is achievement, which again applies to video games and sports and games of any kind. And what do these reasons have in common? They incite emotion.

Yes. A reason. Not the reason. Feels aren't everything.

Chess is not pointless because of computers. There are reasons why people still play it and those reasons are the ones mentioned above. Are video games pointless because of TAS? No, we strive for ourselves no mater if a computer or anyone else could do it better.

I would love to see TAS LoL matches.

Why do you do anything if it isn't for emotional value? The alternative is there is no meaning in anything. Then what is the point in living?

And there you go with your feels again. Where did this revelation in your life come from?

Actually they might be doing it for the 'feels'. Plants react to stimuli. They move towards light to be fed so they avoid starvation. However there is still a big difference from that and humanity. The reasons to communicate from a psychological Freudian basis would be to avoid pain and to seek pleasure, from a scientific basis survival, and from a 'spiritual' basis emotion. The plant and cells may communicate as a necessity for survival, same with us, but unlike us, every time we communicate, emotion cannot help but play a role.

Plants are physically unable to have emotion. Cells moreso. Reactions to stimuli are literal feels, not memetic feels. Freud is also not a very good source for anything.

 

[Mr. MR]

Anything is art and has meaning. Like Superman 64. Not good quality, but I can attribute plenty of symbolism to it. The creator of that game never explicitly stated it had any meaning, which makes it even more deep according to yourself.

Most of what you're seeing in MM doesn't exist. It's a pretty base series. The creator of the game has never been reported to have ever attempted creating something deep or meaningful that he specifically attributes to MM and no other of his works. They were sidequests made around the concept of a time-travelling mechanic. That's all. Good sidequests, but not much more. Any perceived covetous bonds of emotion were extraneously added after the deed was done. Aonuma was most definitely not going off on Campbell or anything of that sort.

[video=youtube;KkXmABkDlNE]http://youtu.be/KkXmABkDlNE[/video]
Well, he basically said it has uncanny in it's storytelling.
Termina means End
He out rights says "world doom to destruction" aka Fate and Death

And not everything is Campbell though it does have some Campbell elements. Such is expected from a monomyth. Plus that book is complicated. You wont be able to understand it all on a first time read. (I still don't understand it all)

Henley (regarding Hotel California): "My simple explanation is: It's a song about a journey from innocence to experience. That's all."

It's funny, though. The reason he said this is because "people see images on the album cover that aren't there" so he had to straighten out all these inaccuracies. Funny that, no?

I have no idea what you are seeing. Simple Explanation -> General Summery -> Ends General Summery
That hardly covers the meaning of the Wine Spirit lines and so I deduce that his general summery is not in fact all the meaning in the song and so requires more looking into.

Yes. A reason. Not the reason. Feels aren't everything.
And there you go with your feels again. Where did this revelation in your life come from?

You are avoiding the question.
What does anything mean without emotion? Give me a reason why we do things. I gave you 4 and said emotion is always present in them when dealing with humanity. Such is the nature of emotion.

Plants are physically unable to have emotion. Cells moreso. Reactions to stimuli are literal feels, not memetic feels. Freud is also not a very good source for anything.

Never said plants experience emotion; Quotes around "feels" for a reason. There is truth in the avoidance of pain and the seeking of pleasure. Freud was not the first to come up with the thought. Ever heard of the Carrot and the Stick? The idea of incentive in the form of reward and punishment have been going around long before Freud existed. Generally I disagree with Freud with most things such as pleasure and pain being the only motivators for life as to contradict him I mentioned 2 other motivators.

Do I have to constantly explain simple thoughts that can be deduced with little reason?

 

[Splash_King]

Pogeymanz battles. Much easier than debate.

need to return to competitiveness one day

 

[Mr. MR]

Pogeymanz battles. Much easier than debate.

It's funny we went from MM to the meaning of life
I have a feeling it might end the same way with Pokemon battles.

need to return to competitiveness one day

21st hopefully

 

[Splash_King]

It's funny we went from MM to the meaning of life
I have a feeling it might end the same way with Pokemon battles.

Aye, Pokemon is the meanin' of life.

21st hopefully

So long as Sm4sh isn't competitively lousy like vBrawl, and the love people have for it won't wear off once the shininess of newness does, I'll definitely return t' competitive Smash. 'Specially if y'all trounce my n00b tailfin, that'l give me the sort'a motivation I've not had in a long time.

Competitive Pokemon, on the other hand... who knows.

 

[Tragonight]

[video=youtube;KkXmABkDlNE]http://youtu.be/KkXmABkDlNE[/video]

Looks like I'll be playing Majora's Mask after all. Thanks for posting that.

 

[WiiAssasin]

Well, he basically said it has uncanny in it's storytelling.
Termina means End
He out rights says "world doom to destruction" aka Fate and Death

14 years after its release. After the Zelda Timeline. Was Aonuma even in the Direct? The man created a supposed masterpiece and should be the prime focus of this video.

World doomed to destruction has always been plot of the game. It's how they implemented the time-travelling mechanic. It's not one of the symbolic fruits of life that you claim are spread throughout the game.

And not everything is Campbell though it does have some Campbell elements. Such is expected from a monomyth. Plus that book is complicated. You wont be able to understand it all on a first time read. (I still don't understand it all)

It's complicated, that's precisely why Aonuma included it in the game even though everything in the game isn't Campbell but the monomyth's in there somehow but you won't mention an instance of it since it can be applied to virtually every other game ever but it can't be understood being read the first time or the second time and not even the person claiming this is true is not able to understand it in the first place. It's just so obvious.

I have no idea what you are seeing. Simple Explanation -> General Summery -> Ends General Summery
That hardly covers the meaning of the Wine Spirit lines and so I deduce that his general summery is not in fact all the meaning in the song and so requires more looking into.

Rejecting word of God? That too is quite interesting. I can't say I blame you, though. He does seem to contradict himself in a confusing manner.

You are avoiding the question.
What does anything mean without emotion? Give me a reason why we do things. I gave you 4 and said emotion is always present in them when dealing with humanity. Such is the nature of emotion.

There are 2 main branches to be stemmed from here. One where emotion is irrelevant, the other where emotion is a hindrance.

The former accounts for basic processes: Waking up, eating, loving, growing up or growing old, etc. Natural processes. Life, if you will. You do these things under the rules of life, not emotion. Emotion happens naturally in life, but it doesn't depend on it. We can all agree to that, I hope.

The latter is more man-made: Government, liberty, the will to choose, jobs, work, science, math, medicine, theories, etc. In these circumstances, you typically want to avoid getting emotionally invested. Efficiency is the favorable outcome and primary force behind these.

There is truth in the avoidance of pain and the seeking of pleasure. Freud was not the first to come up with the thought. Ever heard of the Carrot and the Stick? The idea of incentive in the form of reward and punishment have been going around long before Freud existed. Generally I disagree with Freud with most things such as pleasure and pain being the only motivators for life as to contradict him I mentioned 2 other motivators.

That's classical conditioning, which involves abusing the subject's emotion in order to produce a favorable outcome.

Do I have to constantly explain simple thoughts that can be deduced with little reason?

Absolutely. I do not know how common your beliefs are among others, but I hope that seeing the mechanics behind it will be helpful in the long run.




Also, rip in peace Huge Succeeded. "Perfect" will never substitute your top-tier Engrish. You will be remembered always.

 

[Mr. MR]

14 years after its release. After the Zelda Timeline. Was Aonuma even in the Direct? The man created a supposed masterpiece and should be the prime focus of this video.

World doomed to destruction has always been plot of the game. It's how they implemented the time-travelling mechanic. It's not one of the symbolic fruits of life that you claim are spread throughout the game.

This is what I mean by spelling it out for you.
Can you clearly see the difference in the way Majora's Mask goes about World Doomed to Destruction from other games or should I explain what the differences are?
Think on the context of immediacy and presence before responding.

It's complicated, that's precisely why Aonuma included it in the game even though everything in the game isn't Campbell but the monomyth's in there somehow but you won't mention an instance of it since it can be applied to virtually every other game ever but it can't be understood being read the first time or the second time and not even the person claiming this is true is not able to understand it in the first place. It's just so obvious.

Again you are missing the point of what the Monomyth is.

Such is expected from a monomyth.

Do you know what I mean by this statement? The monomyth has aspects of all stories. Such is the nature of the monomyth, or single myth. The point of it is to show that all myths and stories are related. Campbell tries to tell us why in the Hero with a Thousand Faces. Not everything is based around Campbell's monomyth but the monomyth itself is built around everything. Even if I tell you the significance of themes and symbolism you would surely discount it on the basis that it was not intended to be so. It is there you are wrong. As I said all things we do are for reasons and those reasons are affected by emotions. Storytelling shows us why we think like we do without directly saying it. Try to see the big picture and don't write off the things we do as mere coincidences. Artists are very deliberate in what they do as I said before and as I said before art is subjective in the way we interpret it. If you wish not to see it in MM then I can't change that but I can try to show you what I value in it. Such is the way of art and perspective.

Rejecting word of God? That too is quite interesting. I can't say I blame you, though. He does seem to contradict himself in a confusing manner.

What are you saying? You failed to derive the meaning in what I said. That fact is, it was a general summery and by definition does not contain all information.
Again you failed to pick up on simple logic.

There are 2 main branches to be stemmed from here. One where emotion is irrelevant, the other where emotion is a hindrance.

The former accounts for basic processes: Waking up, eating, loving, growing up or growing old, etc. Natural processes. Life, if you will. You do these things under the rules of life, not emotion. Emotion happens naturally in life, but it doesn't depend on it. We can all agree to that, I hope.

The latter is more man-made: Government, liberty, the will to choose, jobs, work, science, math, medicine, theories, etc. In these circumstances, you typically want to avoid getting emotionally invested. Efficiency is the favorable outcome and primary force behind these.

You failed to understand what I was talking about.
Avoidance of Pain, Seeking of Pleasure, Survival, and Emotions are all motivators. I recognize another that I didn't mention before because it's origins are a phenomena and that is Justice. However as I said before, all of them cannot but helped be intertwine with emotion. Emotions affect all of the above mentioned and in some cases emotion is their origin. You say government would be more efficient without emotion? It might be true from one perspective but it wont be ideal. If you want a fast and effective government by means of depriving it of emotion, government would be far from ideal in the interests of why government was formed in the first place. There is a reason we have a jury of peers in our current system of law (which is part of the government). I don't blame you that you think government would be more effective without emotion because that's exactly what an Enlightened government would want. But it is far from an ideal government.

What is the point of jobs, work, science, math, medicine, theories, government and liberty without emotion? What is the point of life without emotion? Simply nothing. In essence emotion could be directly connected to free will. An animal eats to survive and is motivated by pain and pleasure. A computer only does what it is told. We on the other hand can deny all motivation through willpower and emotion. We do things because we decided to do them.

You seems to think like the Enlightenment philosophers. There is some truth in what they say but there is also error. The Enlightenment was very much masculine in thought (I would let you figure out the meaning of that). At the time of the Enlightenment there was also Romanticism which embraced feminine traits. The ideal way to think is a balance of both.

That's classical conditioning, which involves abusing the subject's emotion in order to produce a favorable outcome.

Pain and pleasure on the context of stimuli are not emotions and I would not consider them emotions but rather emotions are connected to pain and pleasure because emotions have the power to incite pain and pleasure.

Absolutely. I do not know how common your beliefs are among others, but I hope that seeing the mechanics behind it will be helpful in the long run.

I was not referring to your failure to understanding my beliefs. I was referring to you not being able to derive the intended meaning from what I am saying. Spend some time thinking about what I mean before responding.
Either way, it represents the meaning of this argument: Either you have the inability to see intended meaning or I fail to see coincidence.
What is intentional and what is coincidence? A debate of everything.

 

[WiiAssasin]

This is what I mean by spelling it out for you.
Can you clearly see the difference in the way Majora's Mask goes about World Doomed to Destruction from other games or should I explain what the differences are?

Specific examples, while some being obvious, would be very helpful in order to get into details of what you're seeing in MM that I do not see. I'm sure you wouldn't find intended monomythical meaning behind the bottle minigame, for one.

Storytelling shows us why we think like we do without directly saying it. Try to see the big picture and don't write off the things we do as mere coincidences. Artists are very deliberate in what they do as I said before and as I said before art is subjective in the way we interpret it. If you wish not to see it in MM then I can't change that but I can try to show you what I value in it. Such is the way of art and perspective.

The best way to know whether or not the MM traits that you see are in fact there and are not imagined by yourself (as I conclude) would be to get the info straight from the horse's mouth. But that has never happened. Aonuma has never said this and the game itself never goes into the degree necessary to be taken seriously as say, many RPG's or VN's do.

What are you saying? You failed to derive the meaning in what I said. That fact is, it was a general summery and by definition does not contain all information.
Again you failed to pick up on simple logic.

He called it his "explanation", not a summary, which directly contradicts his previous mantra of explanations ruining his works.

Emotions affect all of the above mentioned and in some cases emotion is their origin.

Such as?

You say government would be more efficient without emotion? It might be true from one perspective but it wont be ideal. If you want a fast and effective government by means of depriving it of emotion, government would be far from ideal in the interests of why government was formed in the first place. There is a reason we have a jury of peers in our current system of law (which is part of the government). I don't blame you that you think government would be more effective without emotion because that's exactly what an Enlightened government would want. But it is far from an ideal government.

An ideal is different person to person, and is therefore irrelevant when it supports neither or both of our causes. Justice is obstructed far too often with crocodile tears and silver-tongued speeches. Emotion should not be encouraged and should remain irrelevant for a truly just government.

What is the point of jobs, work, science, math, medicine, theories, government and liberty without emotion?

Money, accomplishment, discovery, evil, not dying, understanding, stability, and freedom. In that order, respectively.

What is the point of life without emotion? Simply nothing. In essence emotion could be directly connected to free will. An animal eats to survive and is motivated by pain and pleasure. A computer only does what it is told. We on the other hand can deny all motivation through willpower and emotion. We do things because we decided to do them.

You believe that a life without emotion means nothing. That is not fact, that is your belief. I do not feel it right that you dismiss lack of emotion as devaluing a life. The controversy surrounding the state of a human vegetable or a catatonic, for example, makes your statement for life seem downright offensive.

Regardless of what the point of life is, I think, therefore I am.

You seems to think like the Enlightenment philosophers. There is some truth in what they say but there is also error. The Enlightenment was very much masculine in thought (I would let you figure out the meaning of that). At the time of the Enlightenment there was also Romanticism which embraced feminine traits. The ideal way to think is a balance of both.

I have no idea where my allegiances lie, actually. If my thoughts do not meet my needs, I change them. I'm sure it's not a unique stance, but I doubt masculinity and femininity are crucial in it. But again, your ideal is not "the" ideal.

I was not referring to your failure to understanding my beliefs. I was referring to you not being able to derive the intended meaning from what I am saying. Spend some time thinking about what I mean before responding.
Either way, it represents the meaning of this argument: Either you have the inability to see intended meaning or I fail to see coincidence.
What is intentional and what is coincidence? A debate of everything.

In this discussion, clear statements are of the utmost importance. Give examples of your supporting statements in order to clear them of confusion.

We know if something is intentional or not based on facts. In MM's case, the non-existence of the author claiming any emotive or philosophical concept leads me to my case, which you have nicely stated.

 

[Neosquid]

never noticed that debate before...

I was battling MR on showdown
he was down to just conkeldurr. I had to send out mega sharpedo because it was the last thing on my team which could survive his conkeldurr's mach punch

having to use sharpedo for the purpose of tanking a mach punch, while no one else could. I'm pretty sure that's the most ironic thing that's ever happened to me

we gave pokemon illegal moves for the fun of it. Like, at one point I was using prankster stunfisk in doubles with rest/sleep talk/eerie impulse/electro web, it would have been a lot better if his only special attackers weren't megamence and rotom with quick guard. fuck quick guard

I, myself, find Superman 64 to be a tragedy on the level of Romeo and Juliet.

heh, sounds about right

 

[Mr. MR]

Specific examples, while some being obvious, would be very helpful in order to get into details of what you're seeing in MM that I do not see. I'm sure you wouldn't find intended monomythical meaning behind the bottle minigame, for one.

Maybe you should play the game again to refresh your memory or you could read over earlier in the discussion which I gave you example which you wrote off as coincidence.

If you want an interpretation of Majora's Mask here's one I agree on:
[video=youtube;7S1SVkysIRw]http://youtu.be/7S1SVkysIRw[/video]

It is up to you to see it as coincidence or intentional.

The best way to know whether or not the MM traits that you see are in fact there and are not imagined by yourself (as I conclude) would be to get the info straight from the horse's mouth. But that has never happened. Aonuma has never said this and the game itself never goes into the degree necessary to be taken seriously as say, many RPG's or VN's do.

The greatest shame would be to have the artist tell you what his art means. As Don Henley put it: "My only regret would be having to explain it in detail to you, which would defeat the purpose of using literary devices in songwriting and lower the discussion to some silly and irrelevant argument about chemical processes." (Talking about the Wine Spirit line from Hotel California)

You never understood what I was talking about here. The point of using art is so it can be interpreted. If the artist has to say what it means it defeats the purpose of interpreting it for yourself.

He called it his "explanation", not a summary, which directly contradicts his previous mantra of explanations ruining his works.

You purposefully left out the word "Simple" to aid your argument. If you want to know how justice can be obstructed 'without' emotion there's one example. Presentation is everything. I have the "without" in quotes because you did it for a reason. Why do you feel the need to protect your arguments? If they are solid they should stand alone without aid.

Next time if you quote a phrase, quote the whole thing. And don't be smart about it

I don't know if you are honestly thinking about what I am saying or just trying to salvage your own points.

Simple Explanation = General Summery

Such as?

Be more clear please. Not sure what you thought I was referring to.

An ideal is different person to person, and is therefore irrelevant when it supports neither or both of our causes. Justice is obstructed far too often with crocodile tears and silver-tongued speeches. Emotion should not be encouraged and should remain irrelevant for a truly just government.

That's a scary thought: true justice. Without mercy all punishments would be death. Now consider what I mean by that. Why are people punished differently for different crimes? Fairness? No. What is fair about a mass murderer who only has one life to pay with? That's where the "law" of retaliation fails and retributive justice fails. What makes the punishments so diverse is because of mercy.

Justice without emotion means there are no emotional punishments. It would not see the stripping away of meaning as viable punishment and so institutionalization would be vain. Prisons would be worthless. Ownership, a human construct, would not exist save the ownership of ones own life. And so the only thing that we could pay with is our life. True justice is harsh without mercy and without remorse. If that is what you truly seek.

Perhaps we don't even own our existence in which the case would be, if justice would have it, that justice has the right to wipe away our further existence from this world.

As for Ideal:

You say government would be more efficient without emotion? It might be true from one perspective but it wont be ideal. If you want a fast and effective government by means of depriving it of emotion, government would be far from ideal in the interests of why government was formed in the first place.

Ideal in the interests of why government was formed. Why was government formed in the first place? Government is for people. Does a legalistic, rigid, and callous government help people? Not as much as a sympathetic, merciful and flexible government but not to the extent where it becomes irresolute, prejudice, and yielding. It must be in balance of being decisive, just, and firm with being sympathetic, merciful, and flexible. That is an ideal government that takes in consideration the individual and the people.

Money, accomplishment, discovery, evil, not dying, understanding, stability, and freedom. In that order, respectively.

Why do we need them? And I already told you about accomplishment. If you derive them far enough we get to the avoidance of pain, seeking of pleasure, survival, justice, and emotion. If you can find more I want to know.

Haha mathematics evil.

You believe that a life without emotion means nothing. That is not fact, that is your belief. I do not feel it right that you dismiss lack of emotion as devaluing a life. The controversy surrounding the state of a human vegetable or a catatonic, for example, makes your statement for life seem downright offensive.

There is no point to life without emotion does not mean I don't have respect for life. (And if you didn't know I have respect for life). I was talking about meaning. What is the meaning of life? (and DBloke will probably be posting a Monte Python Life of Bryan youtube clip) Life means nothing to us without emotion. If we strip away emotion, we would have no respect for life.

Regardless of what the point of life is, I think, therefore I am.

If you are satisfied with that answer...
Which does not talk about the meaning of life but just the acknowledgement of existence or simply put self-awareness.

I could apply that to your statement of the human vegetable and say if one does not think then does he exist? How would you apply this to animals who can't reason themselves to this statement? I could say how offensive you are but I wont. Because I understand what you are saying and what you aren't saying. You are not saying such things. I find it offensive however that you would not give my statements such courtesy.

I have no idea where my allegiances lie, actually. If my thoughts do not meet my needs, I change them. I'm sure it's not a unique stance, but I doubt masculinity and femininity are crucial in it. But again, your ideal is not "the" ideal.

Could you ellaborate on your phillosophies and what you mean by your statement?

I told you to think about it (on the masculine and feminine). You will have to find the meaning of that by yourself. I will give you a hint: Apotheosis.

In this discussion, clear statements are of the utmost importance. Give examples of your supporting statements in order to clear them of confusion.

That's your ideal. What makes deep meaningful statements wrong in this discussion? If deriving meaning (such is why we are having this conversation in the first place) is of the utmost importance put more effort into it.

Though I did consider the thought to use symbolic logic and metalanguage though it would be no help to you and a bore to me.

We know if something is intentional or not based on facts. In MM's case, the non-existence of the author claiming any emotive or philosophical concept leads me to my case, which you have nicely stated.

Not always. Facts can be presented in a misleading way which happens all to often in this world. The deepest lies are built on truth. You failed to understand what I said in this discussion about communication. Artists communicate through their art. What authors say is in the stories they craft. Consider that they created it and in itself creation is communication.

You say the artist needs to say what their art means to know intentions. The fact is they are telling us the meaning of their art through the same art. The artist himself is directly saying what the meaning is. So what is your point?

 

[Splash_King]

Black Flag multiplayer because nostalgia and good distraction. Keepin' tabs on seven players at once that can travel in any direction and use various abilities in any way in a moment's notice has a way of takin' up plenty of brain power.

having to use sharpedo for the purpose of tanking a mach punch, while no one else could. I'm pretty sure that's the most ironic thing that's ever happened to me

lol

 

[Neosquid]

I was battling MR friend on showdown

I posted this on BMGf with "my friend", if anyone was wondering about this particular typo. I fixed it.

 

[WiiAssasin]

Maybe you should play the game again to refresh your memory or you could read over earlier in the discussion which I gave you example which you wrote off as coincidence.

If you want an interpretation of Majora's Mask here's one I agree on:

(...)

It is up to you to see it as coincidence or intentional.

Yes, I've seen that video recommended to me countless times. That's Game Theory . I will never watch one of their videos. Everything about it feels wrong, and that's without watching the videos themselves. It's like a Cracked article with gamers being the target. There must be a more credible source that doesn't give off the tabloid vibe. If that's your source for many of your theories, then that makes me sad.

The point of using art is so it can be interpreted. If the artist has to say what it means it defeats the purpose of interpreting it for yourself.

That's a bold and firm statement for one of the flimsiest words and concepts in existence. Remember that Aonuma was creating a game first and foremost. It was not art that took heed. Not with that irl time-limit.

You purposefully left out the word "Simple" to aid your argument. If you want to know how justice can be obstructed 'without' emotion there's one example. Presentation is everything. I have the "without" in quotes because you did it for a reason. Why do you feel the need to protect your arguments?

I don't know if you are honestly thinking about what I am saying or just trying to salvage your own points.

Simple Explanation = General Summery

Definition's come in handy here: The word simple means clear and easy to understand. The word general means broad and non-specific. Those are nearly opposing words. Excluding the word "simple" did not aid me, nor hinder me. I quoted the word "explanation", for that was the specific word used by Henley. He did not use the word "Summery" nor the word "general. The latter of which isn't even a synonym for simple.

If they are solid they should stand alone without aid.


Next time if you quote a phrase, quote the whole thing. And don't be smart about it

I don't think anyone that takes themselves seriously would agree with you on either point. Like, that's almost universally wrong.The more aid you have, the better your points will stand. For the second statement, quoting the whole thing just leads to tl;dr. Only quote what you need, no more.

irsmurt

Be more clear please. Not sure what you thought I was referring to.

"in some cases emotion is their origin". This sounds like a breakthrough for many intellectual fields. Expound on how emotion started basic life processes or governments.

That's a scary thought: true justice. Without mercy all punishments would be death.

There's no reason to change penalties to death. If anything, that sounds like something a deeply emotive victim would cry out for. Justice is an impartial adherence to law. A traffic fine remains a fine, not changed to a death penalty. Don't know how you concluded death for everyone in that.

Justice without emotion means there are no emotional punishments. It would not see the stripping away of meaning as viable punishment and so institutionalization would be vain. Prisons would be worthless. Ownership, a human construct, would not exist save the ownership of ones own life. And so the only thing that we could pay with is our life. True justice is harsh without mercy and without remorse. If that is what you truly seek.

Again, I don't know how you reach these conclusions. Prisons are extremely profitable, especially private ones. Prisons keep out the rabble from screwing up society.

Justice does not depreciate mercy, as prison sentences are a merciful alternative to death in some cases.

Does a legalistic, rigid, and callous government help people? Not as much as a sympathetic, merciful and flexible government but not to the extent where it becomes irresolute, prejudice, and yielding. It must be in balance of being decisive, just, and firm with being sympathetic, merciful, and flexible. That is an ideal government that takes in consideration the individual and the people.

I do not believe I've ever seen support for this from any professional source. As it should, for it is opinion.

If you derive them far enough we get to the avoidance of pain, seeking of pleasure, survival, justice, and emotion.

Correct, but survival, justice, and the avoidance of pain would not necessarily fit into the same grouping of emotion and pleasure. For instance, a sadomasochist would go against survival and the avoidance of pain for the sake of pleasure and emotion.

Life means nothing to us without emotion. If we strip away emotion, we would have no respect for life.

For yourself, that could be the case. That may not be so for others. This is the meaning of life you speak of, after all. I do not condone what others think of it since I don't have an established meaning for it.

If you are satisfied with that answer..
Which does not talk about the meaning of life but just the acknowledgement of existence or simply put self-awareness.

It's not an answer to the meaning of life. It's a truth. The truth, to be precise. I've not enough info to conclude what the meaning of life is, but I at least have that.

I could apply that to your statement of the human vegetable and say if one does not think then does he exist? How would you apply this to animals who can't reason themselves to this statement? I could say how offensive you are but I wont. Because I understand what you are saying and what you aren't saying. You are not saying such things. I find it offensive however that you would not give my statements such courtesy.

Then you misinterpreted Descartes' entire argument. It was never about others or humanity or even consciousness. It was about a point of reference for truth. Cogito Ergo Sum literally makes no distinction between vegetables, animals, or even you because it doesn't matter. Whatever happens or whatever we find out, we now have a point of reference. Everything could be a wacky dream of lies and math for all it cares, but there would at least be a single established truth in it.

Could you ellaborate on your phillosophies and what you mean by your statement?

I told you to think about it (on the masculine and feminine). You will have to find the meaning of that by yourself. I will give you a hint: Apotheosis.

Vivec, is that you? If so, then this entire discussion suddenly makes perfect sense.

That's your ideal. What makes deep meaningful statements wrong in this discussion? If deriving meaning (such is why we are having this conversation in the first place) is of the utmost importance put more effort into it.

I think 'most everyone prefers clear statements as opposed to unclear and vague ones. Especially when discussing what we are.

Not always. Facts can be presented in a misleading way which happens all to often in this world. The deepest lies are built on truth. You failed to understand what I said in this discussion about communication. Artists communicate through their art. What authors say is in the stories they craft. Consider that they created it and in itself creation is communication.

I suppose we could find out if MM themes were intentional or not by looking at opinions and lies, but that makes my head hurt thinking about it. I'll stick with facts.

You say the artist needs to say what their art means to know intentions. The fact is they are telling us the meaning of their art through the same art. The artist himself is directly saying what the meaning is. So what is your point?

I've said either through the art or artist, yes. MM has neither backing up the game's believed deeper concepts.

A game with some thematic similarities is Xenosaga, but it's presented in a way that undoubtedly contains deep concepts. Xenosaga, like MM, has a constantly repeating world. Specifically, it's Nietzsche's eternal recurrence concept come to life that's present in the series. The artist never says any of this, but the inclusion of religious and philosophical themes in the game and story makes this obvious to anyone who's tried the series. MM does not do this.