Archive

Monthly Archives: July 2013

games are made roughly by elaboration. you start with a simple concept, you hope it to shine, and in the play testing you notice something either nonintuitive, or which would add a new quirky expression. because of this projects snowball during the playtesting stage.

when ‘professors’ do games, they start with too finished a concept of what they are doing and it isn’t simple enough.

you need a game which has the capacity to be playable at a simple level. and then from the simple level you need to exaggerate. part of this you have to recognize is why people game. part of it is the thrill of stress. like that damn tertis peice rotating too much and screwing you up, mastery of the stress is a motivator. it is the edification of the ego. the continual improvement is visible as you conquer your prior limitations, cause not by character_trait fault, but inexperience; that is you were pretty much doomed to fail at first- nothing personal. but you try again- and you get further. eitehr through teired ‘levels’ or through greater mechanics understanding.

the problem social-scientists have isn’t that their thing is too ridgid, but that it is too complete. and what is complete isn’t compelling. you can say first person shooter in a complete sense, but you can’t use these experiments which are really minimalistic in the virtual game space. that is you might be able to make a card game version of one- like card matching- or even pen and paper.

but with videogames, because you have access to animation in a reliable way. there is an established precedent that beyond ‘pre-alpha’, there will be graphics; often that they will be animated; often that they will exploit the same psychological tricks of lotto machines where winning is celebrated with a hurrah and flashing lights.

now a medically oriented person might object to this use of doping a person to enjoy the content, and addict themselves to the stimulus. but if one isn’t willing to go that far why even try?

why try to label something which isn’t a game, as a game, and wonder why it fails.

Advertisements
  1. the evidence has authority/truth/value, because the evidence is objective/mindless/impartial.
  2. that which is impartial is true because it is rational and tempered with reason.
  3. that which is reasonable is true because it is based on a preponderance of the evidence.

notice how through each stage why/how evidence has any merit/authority is missed.

what the reasoning is trying to get at is that pragmatic utility is the core from which all value must be derived, but it goes in the opposite direction ‘explaining’ towards greater complexity and intricacy and ‘beauty’ rather than less. it is in a sense aimed at indoctrinating, via dogmatic presentation of way to consider.

the scientific method is similarly circular. point being paradigms are inherently and exclusively circular so one can’t use that trait as honest/earnest criticism, for it is hypocritical. the only time arguments aren’t circular is when they are incomplete. 2+2=4 but what does is the inverse? the creation and maintenance of the circle is what makes it tenable/viable and valid to consider within. 2+2=4 is a valid dogma to consider within but the ‘addition’ of subtraction as a same class alternative allows far more utility and depth of consideration.

one isn’t ceasing the dogma, but adding more layers to it. people don’t reject a dogma because it is circular but because it lacks some maxim/ideal in the meaning/contention.

 

edit: arguments which aren’t circular, are fragmented/incomplete. which leads them to be perceived as of negligible value. part of why the bible can be considered to be competing with ‘evolution’, even though evolution is a fragmented idea which only pertains to and portends to explain only a subset of the allegations of the competing paradigm. this allows the more complete paradigm to attack the incompleteness and invalidity of the more accurate paradigm. evolution says nothing about the creation of the universe, thus it can’t compete and be argued against as it maintains a null state.

more simply, christianity says god gone done it. evolution says nothing. you can’t really argue against nothing. however a person maintaining nothing can argue against something. so there is a disadvantage of the person maintaining a tenable position. so when a group has one explanation for a series of topics, and the alternative paradigm only has an explanation for one of the topics, the incompleteness is seen as negative.

part of why ‘science’ is seen often as a unifying group. it allows the existence of an “evolutionist” both as a means of othering and labeling into a proper noun group (like athiest) and as a meaning of self identity. it allows greater comparison and allows a presenter to attempt to argue superiority in terms of the general when it can’t provide specifics.

apparently threatening people with violence or claiming you are going to inflict it upon them is “just provocative language”, not a threat.

if someone said to me “die cis scum” or whatever i’d think i was in imminent danger and fight back. as someone who has experienced another try to strangle me, it isn’t a rhetorical device, but something immediately accessible. i hope people face the consequences of their ignorant hyperbolic threats. it is terrorism.

note the distinction “cis people should die” vs “die cis scum”. the qualifier ‘should’ mitigates the threat, whereas the alternative is an immediate threat and act of verbal violence literally equivalent to “i’m going to enjoy killing you”. to litterally fight back out of self defense cause you think an angry mod is going to murder/lynch you is hardly unreasonable. but i bet that too would be patriarchy.

Another angry woman

Well, well, well. It seems the latest thing feminism is fighting about is the phrase “kill all men”.

So, before I launch into this defence, let me point out that nobody is actually planning to kill all men. Not even some men. It’s just a phrase, an expression of rage, a rejection of a system which is riddled with violence.

“Kill all men” is a shorthand war cry, much the same as “ACAB” or “tremble hetero swine” or “die cis scum”. It represents a structural critique, presented in a provocative fashion. While my focus here is on “kill all men”, and therefore in relation to sexist oppression specifically, these points are applicable for all oppressors and all victims of oppression who dare to feel angry.

Patriarchy harms men, it’s true, but it oppresses the fuck out of women, and there are few, if any men who are not complicit in…

View original post 734 more words

“pwyw” seems like a really intriguing business model. i wonder if “donate what you think it was worth” would go over similarly well. i also like the idea of the non-monetary side being the negotiating side, where with greater donation one gives more to the donater. it allows reversal of kickstarter model where rather than minimal donations for rewards, you get rewards based on how much you donate relative to the other parties communally investing in the culture. that is. all teirs of goods get “sold”, but it is internal bidding competition in a community context to get the better rewards.

you can’t make me care

and whose fault is it? is it my fault that insipid and inane ramblings about personal circumstance which will fade before morrow, echoing flaccidly like their flabby and vacuous origin contends?

is it your fault that you are so self absorbed that you think anyone could care about the political strife amongst your friends or peers or tribe?

 

the truth of our lives is generally a poorly told story. and the life of truth is discarded in the process.

it is a matter of personal relevance from irreverence, suckling putrid ideological phallus for that sweet nectar of social inclusion.

you read:

the news because you lack critical thinking.

fiction because you lack capacity to understand impersonal reality

drama/entertainment because it is simple and accessible enough to understand

drama kills gods. it removes all power and value from them. it turns them like us, both more accessible but also more complex and invallid. it forces nonsensical need for reconciliation and resolution.

there is all this media one has to wade through, like a barge trapped in a sewer. and it is disheartening because so little of it has value.

the conflict is realism against idealism/meaning/delusion. it is normal and natural for the plights one experiences to be nonsensical stimulus one neither comprehends nor has control over. but does that mean one should use that basal postmodern appeal over the pretentious and elitist one?

why can’t we filter content on these grounds?

postmodern use of fuzzy definition to reduce or illuminate falsification/contradiction.

 

so i was just reading that “introverison and extroversion aren’t absolute categories really, but two extremes on a spectrum.” (sic) person means dimension when saying spectrum.

how does the person know that introversion and extroversion are parts of the same thing?

if you measure extroversion, and the person scores negative, is that negative extroversion- in fact introversion?

if you measure introversion, and the person scores negative, is the expressed negative introversion representative of inherent extroversion?

my point is that saying there are two mutually exclusive categories is a spoiler stance to take than to say there is this one category which has two internal state attributes or positions.  the first is tacit dogma. the later is a factual claim, so prove it.

prove that introversion when negative will always represent a ‘mirror’ effect of extroversion. prove that a personal score of +3 extroversion means the person will have a -3 introversion score. because the meat of the matter is that if they aren’t mirrors then you don’t have two orientations of teh same thing but at best two metrics measuring the same thing (like Celsius measuring cold, and Fahrenheit or Kelvin measuring heat). that is, their orientation may be reversed, but also they may have negative linear correlation, or perhaps further dis-continuity with a non-normal

also you have to prove the dimension limits. think of it like optimism and pessimism. having a negative pessimism doesn’t necessitate optimism, it could be shifting into the third state of ‘realism’.

point is you have to prove the number of dimension which protrude from 0,0,0,0,0,0… and you have to show how each dimension relates to the others. are they inherently diametrically opposed?