Criminally, the iPhone version has been overlooked.
Fighting is a sort of social activity sometimes, a way to play and have fun, a way to show a dominance, a way to test ourselves, or even express ourselves. I've seen guys fights each other and then be friends again, as if the fighting was a way to get their issues out and settle them. Fighting should be a last resort, but it doesn't mean it always is. It is hard to justify anymore why someone fights another. We all as individuals may be able to sympathize with both these cases as to why these people fought each other, but to justify it in society's expectations may be trickier. I think both of these instances are justifiable. I am fine these people fought each other. I think it was stupid and rash, but I don't think they wanted to fight necessarily, as if their plan was to physically hurt someone else, they wanted to confront said person first but their emotions took hold. If they had ambushed these people without first talking, or even just having a shouting match or something, I would still understand but I would not think their actions justifiable.
I remember when we were talking about the gaming side of this thread. We usually don't get this far off topic this quick, and certainly not for someone to explain game theory or to justify anarchist beliefs. Usually we got onto like the Devil May Cry reboot or Godzilla, or boobs or something. I wonder what's changed this last week... Oh hey Makaze, how's Goldstein and the Brotherhood doing?
If he is going to use an incorrect definition, whether it is convincingly explained or not, it's still incorrect. He says it's his definition of a game, so he doesn't see these games as games. That's his choice, and it helps support the rest of his argument, but it doesn't change that the established socially accepted norm of the term is still not the one he is using. The reasons we have definitions is to create an understanding of a term so we can better communicate with each other. When that definition is different between people, arguments like this happen. So we could either debate whether anyone person's each individual definition of a word is as merit able as another's, why do we not simply accept the formal dictionary definitions of the term? Why would they go 'extinct'? I believe it's bollocks, because everyone loves shooty bang bang as much as they love munchy munch Pac Man or slashy slash Beat em ups. The way they'll play will evolve more than the genre going defunct. We don't all suddenly dislike books more now e-books are a wildly read format. Things change, need to in order to adapt with the time. Better question, why would it be a problem? If the creators and the audience can't see it is viable either as an expression of their art or financially possible, then why should it linger with its husk? His concerns are fine in his perspective, but I see a guy worrying about something he sees is a threat to his love of overly traditional games, but not an actual statistical worry at this point in time. Just because Telltale games, a mid level dev, have become popular and indie devs like Gone Home's Fullbright Company have made games like this doesn't point towards a massive shift in the market of game genres. Fullbright are a three person dev with Gone Home as their first game, they're sway over the industry is minimal at best and seen as an experimental dev, not a triple A dev. Telltale have made games like this for years, like Back to the Future, Wallace and Gromit and Jurassic Park, but since The Walking Dead has had rave reviews and publicity it's suddenly a threat to traditional games. This is like most conservative views, uniformed and subjective to the current times and not to the breadth of things.
Sorry, I suppose I didn't say this, but I meant if you removed the money aspect of gambling and reduced it to the mechanics of the games. Slots would be a random symbol generating machine. It was designed specifically to make money, much like roulette, but unlike poker, blackjack and such which allow for a degree of skill and interaction that matters in that there is a way to alter the outcome throughout the game, and change, for example, who is the winner and loser. Money is what makes gambling... well gambling, but it doesn't mean it's a game. Yeah, his definition isn't consistent, since he considers some skill based games not games, the conflict between some examples and the definition makes it hard to take credibly. I'm fine with QTEs if they make me feel like I'm doing something cool or satisfying. Heavy Rain is considered QTE the game but it makes the fights dynamic and engaging enough to make me feel like I'm controlling things. I'm sure everything could be proven, obsolete or otherwise, if given the right perspective and convincing argument.
The definition of what a game is, is in his own words (which is what he credits). He defines it as requiring skill, yet many definition websites and my own Penguin dictionary here all summarise that games are activities played for fun, alone or together. If what he believes is a game requires skills, his points are valid from his perspective. If we're basing it off the widespread definition then we have issues. Gone Home is a game. I find it baffling people still question this. Gaynor, one of its creators, actually satirised this conflict when he presented Gone Home mocked up as a Doom clone and discussed it in this years GDC presentation. Watch it, it's interesting: http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1020376/Why-Is-Gone-Home-a It's nice to hear some actual developer's speak about game making, so much so I even wrote an article about it. EDIT: to explain, Gaynor says he accepts people calling Gone Home not a gamr, he doesn't say he agrees, only that it's an opinion. And those tweets of his about a game as a flowchart? Narratives for video games ARE flowcharts in the most basic sense. They're written pretty much like them too, with breaking paths that lead to different results. I don't' get what he's saying but he sounds like he's calling out a badly designed game and wants proof that it isn't. EDIT: Oh for, this is mental, this guy believes story driven experiences are encroaching on the video gaming market as a whole. That's balls, most games still see story as an after though, window dressing for the experience, but not necessarily integral. I mean, how many games have actually great stories? A lot less than the games that have daft or window dressing ones, which let you play with almost no context at all. Also, he brings up Ducktales Remastered and that it was panned by reviewers even though it wasn't different fundamentally from the original, only graphically. It's obviously not a really good game if it can't stand the test of time and instead feels dated. Compared to Pac man or Tetris which are old games yet are still incredibly playable and arguably good, where they still hold the same 'magic'. He also believes the only good games are hard ones or even ones that really challenge you. I use to think that as a kid, where I thought I was bad at games because I couldn't overcome the challenge. Which I now realise is balls, I hated those games in the end, I didn't feel satisfied at beating them, just relieved it was over. Gaming is all about making you feel good about overcoming a perceived challenge, not necessarily from being an actual challenge. Gaming journalism corruption. Right. These low end, cheaply padi freelance writers are all in collusion. I think too many people just read reviews and don't know the reviewer behind them and can understand the point they're trying to put across. EDIT: There is so much presumption and so little evidence in this video. "This sounds strange" "This is immature". I really need to stop editing this post. Talking of games/not games, what are gambling games? Many are clearly not games yet market themselves as such. You don't play slots for fun, if it had no money involved you're playing a random symbol generator basically. Roulette would be basically the same, a wheel which will randomly land on a coloured number which you're trying to guess it'll be.
Ah, see the first bit in Sariff industries when it's broken into, that's impossible to be proper sneaky since it introduces all the game's mechanica to you. You can be properly sneaky after you get all your augmentations. And the stealth jn that game is a bit tough, you've got to take the invisible aug asap.
I'll give feedback, if you're serious about it. I may be overly critical though, as a warning.
I's say I collect games, but in reality I suppose I collect game boxes but... I don't feel like I collect them if you know what I mean? Like they're simply vessels for games. Suppose this explains my non attachment to discs and my welcome for the digital versions. I may post them, but it'll just be shelves of blurred sides of games.
Looks nice, very reminiscent of that classic style. I've been getting into Twine recently, an interactive fiction creator, which is kind of like this in that it's a really simple bare bones way to make a part of a game. If we combine forces, we'll be able to put something on Steam soon enough!
Hitman games might be a shout out. Blood Money and Absolution are some great games. Absolution is fairly forgiving too. Are we talking original Deus Ex or Human Revolution?
I always knew i was the lynch pin to holding the staff together. Without me they have crumbled!
If you don't mind shoody framerate and graphics, which is rough around the edges, State of Decay is a more intense type of Dead Rising.
Moments like this make me wish I knew another language.
Collecting apples that aren't yours. Only a year, really? Feels longer.
I feel like there should be a term for people who post about nostalgic memories or of nostalgia threads about this site. Because it's such a common thing some people do. Kind of like scrumping.
Jumping on the band wagon of ripping apart Makaze's statement, one of the worst things for a child's mental and physical development is an unhealthy diet or lack thereof. A number of sociological studies argued that the reason middle class children are, on average, better in education than the lower class is based around the better lifestyle of their parents, which includes dietary needs and general health care. It's detrimental to restrict any food unless it's for an optimum diet. Positive and negative reinforcement through conditioning are both proven as effective means to mould early behaviour development. It all comes down to our ancestral and instinctual need to separate good from bad. I don't mean morally, but what is beneficial and what is damaging. Milgram's obedience theory of following the commands of a superior actually disputes the idea of positive reinforcement, where simply having the feared authority position means people listen to you. Worked for Nazi controlled Germany. Though I suppose i'm going a bit too grandiose when we're talking about kids, still I think it applicable to any human.
I thought the title had some wrong use of roman numerals for one minute.
My mate from uni is a big player, competes in a lot of London tournaments and won a few, and he's also written a few articles for a Magic site. I'll text em quick, sure there are beginners guides on there, can't remember the name of the place though. EDIT: So he told me that the best place to see some articles on beginning, the best place is the Magic site itself. Type in Daily MTG to find it and then search some of the articles there. He also recommended once you know the rules and such to buy an event deck which is the best way to get into it, but I suppose you have the cards covered.
Yeah, this. When you're sniping, it's good. When it's anything else, it's fairly poor. But it's fun to snipe, planning your moves, much like a stealth game.
