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

[Splash_King]

Haven't played anythin' all day, and aren't in the mood to... what in karps name

Prisons keep out the rabble from screwing up society.

On paper, anyways.

 

[Tragonight]

Haven't played anythin' all day, and aren't in the mood to... what in karps name

go to fucking sleep

... Or eat. If I'm not playing video games, I'm either doing one or the other.

 

[Splash_King]

go to fucking sleep

Grand idea, but not an option.

... Or eat.

Grand idea, will do. Need lunch.

If I'm not playing video games, I'm either doing one or the other.

Here, have a third choice.

 

[Mr. MR]

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.

Believe what you want. I refer you to a book called Green Eggs and Ham.
And this just proves the point that presentation is everything. You wont even watch it because of how it looks and feels. You are letting your emotions get in the way of this discussion. However you can still sift truth or the truths you want to see. It's still worth a watch.

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.

Time limit does not degrade art. Ask any author who writes for periodic publications.

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.

An uncomplicated explanation as opposed to a complicated explanation. One were he gives a general idea as opposed to giving exact points what what he was saying. By saying it was uncomplicated it alludes to an untold more complicated explanation. As we know, he directly says there was deeper meaning in the lines that were questioned. Noting this the meaning of simple explanation denotes a more complicated meaning.

"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.

Why do we need government in the first place?

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.

You have it backwards. Punishment was changed from death. Ownership and property allows us to be punished in different ways by stripping us of it. Though true justice does not recognize property, a human construct. We could go into the topic of whether or not justic itsef is a human construct but I would rather not go into that. I am exhausted already.

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.

True justice does not care about the well being of people.

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

Experts are opinionated as well. There is always an expert or professional who disagrees with other experts and professionals. Journalists can find an expert to prove their point no matter the opposition.

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.

You miss the point of grouping them together. They are all motivators.

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 do not have an established meaning then why speak about it?

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.

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.

The truth lol. Just because we can acknowledge our existence doesn't make it truth. We can write a computer program that can make a computer declare its own self-awareness. Whose to say we aren't programmed to do so?

The opposite is also true of the statement, I think therefore I am. I think, therefore I am not.

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

Your thoughts on the matter. Doesn't make it right or true.

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.

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.

I keep saying how art is subjective. Believe what you want.
Also, what do you think of religious themes? Too often I see it used shallowly.

 

[KRKanon]

Dafaq with the walls of text.
...just walk away, don't get involved...
---------------

Got another (used and dual region) Gamecube!
Battle Stadium DON plays alot differently than I remember. Must be Smash spoiling me.
Played Sonic Adventure 2 Battle and it is very fun. The controls don't make me sick of it like the newer ones.

 

[Splash_King]

Pogeymanz. But only theorymon... I DIDNT PLAY A SINGLE VIDYA GAEM YESTERDAY DAFUQ

Dafaq with the walls of text.
...just walk away, don't get involved...

I'd get involved if it weren't a two-person debate. Also if I wasn't lazy. Also if I could articulate my thoughts clearly as these two... I've Transformed into a derp over these many years of intellectual complacency...

 

[WiiAssasin]

Played some Minecraft since a long while. I'm no longer dying after the first couple of days. I still loathe hunger mechanics.

Believe what you want. I refer you to a book called Green Eggs and Ham.
And this just proves the point that presentation is everything. You wont even watch it because of how it looks and feels. You are letting your emotions get in the way of this discussion. However you can still sift truth or the truths you want to see. It's still worth a watch.

More like the turd sandwich. You need not try one to know you will not like the taste. One without fecal matter is more likely to be worth a look.

Time limit does not degrade art. Ask any author who writes for periodic publications.

Doesn't help it either. In addition, he has never before or afterwards made any in-depth work that is considered more artistic than MM. Nor has he ever acknowledged any of them being any kind of special work.

By saying it was uncomplicated it alludes to an untold more complicated explanation. As we know, he directly says there was deeper meaning in the lines that were questioned. Noting this the meaning of simple explanation denotes a more complicated meaning.

"My simple explanation is: It's a song about a journey from innocence to experience. That's all." I do believe he said that was all. That's the gist of it.

Why do we need government in the first place?

There's no agreed upon answer, that's why we've different governments. But you seem to know the origins of government, so I thought you'd enlighten me.

True justice does not care about the well being of people.

Your source? I'm looking at a dictionary right now, and it mentions that justice is fair and establishes rights. That's sounds exactly like involving the well-being of the people.

You miss the point of grouping them together. They are all motivators.

A motivator is not an emotion, rather a cause or influence. Grouping emotion along with the rest means that everything indeed does not boil down to emotion, for it is just one of many motivators. There may be other factor or motivators behind people's actions in math, government, etc which are not solely determined by emotion.

If you do not have an established meaning then why speak about it?

You asked me to. Furthermore, nearly every field does not have all the answers, yet they speak about the unanswered questions. It is a grand task. Philosophy in particular loves getting into this, and it certainly doesn't have an clear-cut answer.

The truth lol. Just because we can acknowledge our existence doesn't make it truth. We can write a computer program that can make a computer declare its own self-awareness. Whose to say we aren't programmed to do so?

A computer lacks a mind. It literally cannot think.

The opposite is also true of the statement, I think therefore I am. I think, therefore I am not.

If you are thinking, is it possible to doubt that you exist? When one contemplates one's existence, it is not possible to have the slightest doubt that one does in fact exist. If you did not exist, you wouldn't be able to doubt in the first place. In short, doubt validates existence.

Your thoughts on the matter. Doesn't make it right or true.

It's preferred by the majority, and for good reason.

I keep saying how art is subjective. Believe what you want.

You can see whatever you want, but you must also recognize that doesn't make it true.

Also, what do you think of religious themes? Too often I see it used shallowly.

Final Fantasy is guilty of this, what with Shiva, Jenova, and Sephiroth being name-dropping for the sake of looking cool or too lazy to come up with their own designs. On the other hand, games like Xenosaga have a more interesting implementation of religious themes. When used poorly, they make the entire experience feel pretentious and unnecessarily bloated or amateurish. If used right, they can enhance the experience above and beyond what any other media can do.

 

[Mr. MR]

Ok I am going to draw all these points together to try to consolidate all our separate conversations.

First off, Justice can not be understood by reading it in a dictionary. The same goes for reading Christianity or Daoism in a dictionary. Justice is a philosophy all humans share but interpreted differently.

The purpose of Justice is balance which can be seen through all cultures on Earth. Here's some examples: in Judaism the sacrifice of animals bring balance by satisfying the Justice of God, in Christianity Jesus died to satisfy the Justice of God in the place of humanity, the Cherokee Blood Law balances wrongs done to one clan to another not necessarily to the individual person which brings balance to the world (and not done out of revenge like some would claim), among other examples. The only way to truly satisfy Justice is payment of blood as most religions and cultures can acknowledge. The purpose of Justice is to bring balance and not for the well being of people but it is interconnect in a way as bringing balance will bring well being.

Let's go back to intentional or coincidental. Intuition shows us patterns and connections. Rationalization show us where there aren't patters or connections. If one thinks more towards rationalization, they will miss connections and patterns. If one thinks more towards intuition, they will see connections and patterns where there aren't any. They aren't opposites of each other but rather compliments. Each one has weaknesses and strengths. Rationalization's strengths covers intuition's weaknesses and intuition's strengths covers rationalization's weaknesses. In balance they becomes much more effective than having one. Same can be said about Western and Eastern ways of thinking. Western thinking is linear while Eastern thinking is cyclical. Is one better than the other? No, but together we get a better way to think. This is the same with Romanticism and Enlightenment, left brain and right brain, masculine and feminine, and so on. They aren't opposites or they are believed to be opposites but together they give us a better, more balanced understanding. By denying one side you limit yourself to the other side. Not all answers can be solved by logic. Gödel proved through logic, that logic could not prove everything.

As for computers not being able to think because they have no mind: essentially, our mind is a processor, our body is the hardware making us computers.
http://www-rci.rutgers.edu/~cfs/472_html/Intro/MinskyArticle/MM1.html
Interesting read.
What sets us apart from a computer I believe is emotion, spirit, and/or soul. Emotion is in everything we do or is entangled in everything we do. We give personal meaning to things and the things we do.

On the matter of religion, the link you showed me seemed to have Da Vinci Code elements which shows the lack of understanding of Christianity and only confirms that religion is used poorly too often.
As Wittgenstein said, "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."

Also Gist = Summery, so you can see what I am saying if you didn't want to admit it.

 

[Neosquid]

★Luigi Vampa: its not a swalot anymore
★Luigi Vampa: its the devil

MR in response to me giving Swalot Prankster and Slack Off.

 

[WiiAssasin]

First off, Justice can not be understood by reading it in a dictionary. The same goes for reading Christianity or Daoism in a dictionary. Justice is a philosophy all humans share but interpreted differently.

You can't just go denying a credible source by claiming it's a matter of individual interpretation, artistic or no. The professional field is not very kind to that attitude.

The purpose of Justice is to bring balance and not for the well being of people but it is interconnect in a way as bringing balance will bring well being.

And what professional sources are supporting your findings? Your statement is also a bit odd to read, what with your previous words saying "Justice is a philosophy all humans share but interpreted differently". Then you just up and say precisely what the purpose of justice is, while denying what a more credible person says regarding the matter.

Not all answers can be solved by logic. Gödel proved through logic, that logic could not prove everything.

Expound on this.

As for computers not being able to think because they have no mind: essentially, our mind is a processor, our body is the hardware making us computers.http://www-rci.rutgers.edu/~cfs/472_html/Intro/MinskyArticle/MM1.htmlInteresting read.What sets us apart from a computer I believe is emotion, spirit, and/or soul. Emotion is in everything we do or is entangled in everything we do. We give personal meaning to things and the things we do.

No person is a computer. No computer has a mind. A machine cannot think. This isn't science fiction. We do not have self-aware ai. But I'll follow. Even if we were just machines that could think, that changes nothing regarding existence. A thinking machine would still be subject to what a human person would. If it can think it doesn't exist, then it exists.

On the matter of religion, the link you showed me seemed to have Da Vinci Code elements which shows the lack of understanding of Christianity and only confirms that religion is used poorly too often.As Wittgenstein said, "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."

Xenosaga predates the Da Vinci Code. Also, Xeno uses Gnostic Christianism. You'll find many Japanese use this version of Christianity. Fits nicely in games/manga/animoo. In which case, Xeno adapts those religious elements to a T. Heck, it's probably technically more accurate than most other Christian professions. The Gnostic branch is one of the earliest Christian groups, after all. Early Christian writings are a fascinating read, and are different than much of what you see today.

Also Gist = Summery, so you can see what I am saying if you didn't want to admit it.

I said gist, but the subject of that discussion said explanation. Henley limited his explanation to what he said. Also, I've said summary correctly a couple of times, and you still use the E. I doubt you're talking about seasons.

 

[Mr. MR]

You can't just go denying a credible source by claiming it's a matter of individual interpretation, artistic or no. The professional field is not very kind to that attitude.

Justice is a philosophy. People still try to understand it and I don't think anyone truly understands what it is. If you want to believe in the dictionary definition of justice that's fine but you need to treat it like a philosophy. You are ignoring all the philosophical studies that people dedicate their lives to just because there's a dictionary definition. The professional field is not very kind to that attitude.

And what professional sources are supporting your findings? Your statement is also a bit odd to read, what with your previous words saying "Justice is a philosophy all humans share but interpreted differently". Then you just up and say precisely what the purpose of justice is, while denying what a more credible person says regarding the matter.

The simple matter is I am giving you an overall view of what it could be based on religion and culture. I would presume that at the source of all this, only God knows what true justice is and how to implement it. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil we did eat and so obtained our sense of justice. That is where I beleive justice or at least our sense of it came from.

Expound on this.

It's simple
Kurt Friedrich Gödel, famous logician, philosopher, and mathematician, did a proof in 1931 that showed logically that logic could not prove everything. It's called Gödel's incompleteness theory. If you had such faith in the perfectness of logic this whole time I am sorry to inform you that you can't prove everything with logic.

No person is a computer. No computer has a mind. A machine cannot think. This isn't science fiction. We do not have self-aware ai. But I'll follow. Even if we were just machines that could think, that changes nothing regarding existence. A thinking machine would still be subject to what a human person would. If it can think it doesn't exist, then it exists.

Read that piece I gave you. It is what you wanted, a professional source.

Xenosaga predates the Da Vinci Code. Also, Xeno uses Gnostic Christianism. You'll find many Japanese use this version of Christianity. Fits nicely in games/manga/animoo. In which case, Xeno adapts those religious elements to a T. Heck, it's probably technically more accurate than most other Christian professions. The Gnostic branch is one of the earliest Christian groups, after all. Early Christian writings are a fascinating read, and are different than much of what you see today.

Do you understand what the biblical canon is?
Early Gentile Christians also transitioned directly from non-Judean religions and so took some of their own philosophies into Christianity. Paul had to explain to both Jews and Gentiles about the errors they brought to the Church. Even in Jewish history, the Israelite tried to mix paganism with Judaism.

If you think this use of mixed religion is fine for media, then it is a shallow view on what religion is.
Religion should be taken seriously ergo, "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."

Also, I've said summary correctly a couple of times, and you still use the E. I doubt you're talking about seasons.

Hahaha so your right, and now you degraded this conversation to a spelling competition. Congratulation you won it. I was never good at spelling and once in a while, simple words become foreign to me (like it doesn't look right even though I have been using that word for decades).

 

[WiiAssasin]

If you want to believe in the dictionary definition of justice that's fine but you need to treat it like a philosophy. You are ignoring all the philosophical studies that people dedicate their lives to just because there's a dictionary definition. The professional field is not very kind to that attitude.

The professional field is what determines definitions in the first place, so by denying a word's meaning you are rejecting the works of countless intellectuals in their respective fields. If your thoughts on justice no longer fit the parameters of what justice means, then you are no longer talking about justice, but another word entirely.

only God knows what true justice is and how to implement it.

Grand. An "I don't know" is fine too. I've said the same regarding the meaning of life. But this just makes a lot of your previous answers on justice seem moot. Unless you're implying you're God and you therefore must know best.

Gödel's incompleteness theory.

Explain without maths.

Read that piece I gave you. It is what you wanted, a professional source.

"there are many other reasons why so many experts still maintain that machines can never be creative. intuitive. or emotional, and will never really think, believe, or understand anything. This essay explains why they are wrong."

In short, the author believes machines can think. Then I'll just reiterate my previous statement: "Even if we were just machines that could think, that changes nothing regarding existence. A thinking machine would still be subject to what a human person would. If it can think it doesn't exist, then it exists."

Do you understand what the biblical canon is?

Which one? Catholics have different canon from many protestant denominations. The Mormons also hold a different canon. Same goes for Christian Gnostic denominations.

All of those are Christian groups with their own biblical canon. And yes, there are many outside influences among all of them. Christianity itself comes from Judaism. There are no sacred cows here.

If you think this use of mixed religion is fine for media, then it is a shallow view on what religion is.

That disqualifies virtually every religion from ever being properly portrayed or taken seriously in media. You are rejecting the validity of a game's use of religion just because you think the religion being portrayed is wrong or of impure blood due to mixing with other religions. That's more you being religiously intolerant than anything else.

Hahaha so your right, and now you degraded this conversation to a spelling competition.

It was an addendum to my response on Henley's statement, where you insisted the word "summery" be used multiple times. I preferred using "explanation", as Henley did. It was you who brought the misspelling to attention, not I.

 

[Mr. MR]

The professional field is what determines definitions in the first place, so by denying a word's meaning you are rejecting the works of countless intellectuals in their respective fields. If your thoughts on justice no longer fit the parameters of what justice means, then you are no longer talking about justice, but another word entirely.

The dictionary definition is not the only definition or even the most correct one when talking about philosophical ideas. There are many experts who try to define justice, though you ignore their efforts on the basis that the dictionary must be the only worthy source of definitions. That's where you need to actually look some of that up. I try to give you an understanding but you ignore it because it does not fit with your thought. Until you can recognize that people aren't perfect and we all disagree then you wont be able to understand another's ideas. You look to the most convenient of sources, though you aren't prepared to look deeper.

Grand. An "I don't know" is fine too. I've said the same regarding the meaning of life. But this just makes a lot of your previous answers on justice seem moot. Unless you're implying you're God and you therefore must know best.

Nope, but the Bible gives us an explanation of where our sense of justice comes from. If you can find another source I want to hear it (really I want to see what others think on the matter).

Explain without maths.

If you aren't prepared to understand logic then you wont be able to understand logic therefore you shouldn't be talking about it but instead be studying it.

"there are many other reasons why so many experts still maintain that machines can never be creative. intuitive. or emotional, and will never really think, believe, or understand anything. This essay explains why they are wrong."

In short, the author believes machines can think. Then I'll just reiterate my previous statement: "Even if we were just machines that could think, that changes nothing regarding existence. A thinking machine would still be subject to what a human person would. If it can think it doesn't exist, then it exists."

The author is Marvin Minsky, the co-founder of MIT's AI labs and a philosopher. You should read it and not discount it on the basis of what you think is wrong but instead think on the truths you can glean form it.
If you think you know better than an expert in his own subject then why do you even need professional sources when you are the only 'professional source' you would except (and the sources that back up what you think)?

Which one? Catholics have different canon from many protestant denominations. The Mormons also hold a different canon. Same goes for Christian Gnostic denominations.

All of those are Christian groups with their own biblical canon. And yes, there are many outside influences among all of them. Christianity itself comes from Judaism. There are no sacred cows here.

That disqualifies virtually every religion from ever being properly portrayed or taken seriously in media. You are rejecting the validity of a game's use of religion just because you think the religion being portrayed is wrong or of impure blood due to mixing with other religions. That's more you being religiously intolerant than anything else.

How can you speak about something you know nothing of? Whereof One Cannot Speak, Thereof One Must Be Silent.
Until you learn the basics, you wont be able to understand and should not speak until you do.

Religious intolerance is a big accusation. Religion should be respected and using it without the original meaning is disrespectful.

Go read some Wittgenstein:

Consider for example the proceedings that we call "games". I mean board-games, card-games, ball-games, Olympic games, and so on. What is common to them all? Don't say: "There must be something common, or they would not be called 'games' - but look and see whether there is anything common to all. - For if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. (Sec. 66)

You need more philosophical study before you can address the topics in this discussion.

 

[Neosquid]

I'm curious how long this debate is going to continue existing. I believe it's been about a week now.

 

[Mr. MR]

I'm curious how long this debate is going to continue existing. I believe it's been about a week now.

Hopefully today
I spend too much time thinking about this and ignoring other things