+- +-

+-Goat

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Baaaahhhhh!

Members
Total Members: 8
Latest: MORTALSFOOL
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 575
Total Topics: 74
Most Online Today: 9
Most Online Ever: 279
(February 23, 2023, 08:28:29 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 7
Total: 7

Author Topic: Question to Satyr as to why modern games suck.  (Read 52 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lord of the internet

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • yourmom
    • View Profile
Question to Satyr as to why modern games suck.
« on: February 09, 2017, 03:10:30 pm »
I have a sense, a "feeling" that modern games suck. But I am not sure why, it is just a subconscious "sense". Can you go on a rant about modern games, will help bring my thoughts to me.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Satyr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 162
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Edge
    • View Profile
    • Know Thyself
Re: Question to Satyr as to why modern games suck.
« Reply #1 on: February 09, 2017, 04:09:22 pm »
I have a sense, a "feeling" that modern games suck. But I am not sure why, it is just a subconscious "sense". Can you go on a rant about modern games, will help bring my thoughts to me.
Huh?
What modern games?
Go with the feeling and explore it, for us.
Externalize those inner voices and let us follow along.
Must be lonely being the "smartest" man, woman, whatever, on the planet.

Your genius is hard to follow, but this is the case for all genius.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2017, 04:11:02 pm by Satyr »
Know Thyself

Arius Didymus

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 309
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Wot?
  • Location: Weirton, West Virginia
    • View Profile
Re: Question to Satyr as to why modern games suck.
« Reply #2 on: February 09, 2017, 07:46:18 pm »
What modern games?  Vs what older games?

Your aware Rhetoric was considered a Olympic Sport in ancient Greece,  right?  Doing what we do on philosophy forums at one time could of won the same Olympic prize as wrestling or track. Not exactly sure by what merits they decided the winner.

Satyr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 162
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Edge
    • View Profile
    • Know Thyself
Re: Question to Satyr as to why modern games suck.
« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2017, 08:19:54 pm »
Being trained to use words to produce an emotional impact, to be convincing to the many, is what made the art of rhetoric fall into ill repute, and is now used as a synonym for sophistry and vacuous word games, on display on ILP among many other internet shitholes.
I will take your admission as an indication of your inability to judge philosophy outside its effect on minds.
This is the most common method of evaluating opinion, these days.   

Certainly, there must be some way to connect metaphysics with physics, so that we do not fall into the temptation of using words to masturbate, using others instead of our hand.

For me the harmonization of physics and metaphysics, so that as few contradictions and empty words remain to fill in for our ignorance, and our alternate psychological motives, is how I determine which philosophy is rhetorical self-pleasuring, measuring itself by the emotional impact it is having, and how pleasing it is to others, and which philosophy is honest, offering useful insights into reality, and measuring itself empirically, and by using a shared experience of existing. 
In my own world view I've managed to integrate my metaphysical positions with my knowledge of physics, and what others have taught me of how the world works.
My positions of genes<>memes, and how I integrate feminization, as but an obvious and small part of nihilism, are not contradicted by my metaphysical positions, concerning dynamic patterns and how their (inter)activity produces our sensual experiences. 

I do not compartmentalize, attempting to use one set of rules in my metaphysics and another in my experiences of the physical world, nor do I intentionally convolute my positions by using words in inappropriate ways, to produce the illusion of a deep and unique insight, as many others do.
My positions are direct, brutally honest, and perfectly harmonious, from metaphysics to physics.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2017, 08:27:05 pm by Satyr »
Know Thyself

Arius Didymus

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 309
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Wot?
  • Location: Weirton, West Virginia
    • View Profile
Re: Question to Satyr as to why modern games suck.
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2017, 10:20:07 pm »
I don't see the point in trying to parallel metaphysics to physics. They are fundamentally two different thought processes. I've seen attempts to simplify statements from ockham on in theology,  and the attempt to assert beautiful statements as better proofs in mathematical languages,  but neither dislodge the fact truth can be sloppy and ugly,  complicated,  and still damn useful,  whereas something logically concise and simplified,  even beautiful,  can be worthless and absurd.

Rhetoric is about convincing. It isn't about the truth unfortunately,  but truthful statements are also at the same time rhetorical in nature. Just the way it is.

It's better for a philosopher admittedly,  to be streamlined,  but I would hardly demand the prohibition of original thinking that isn't,  or thought that rebels against simplicity is beauty to expose contradiction or paradox. I myself am a lover of paradox,  I take delight in the Pythagorean Table of Opposites. Quandry can be ugly and exciting,  like a trapped army breaking out if a viscious encirclement,  certain yo be defeated only to unexpectedly win the day. I'm not Chrysippus desiring to fossilize thought into logical fallacies. I'm open to organic,  sloppy plays if the mind,  if for no other reason than scientific curiosity in seeing how it plays out against accepted theory. Why do you think I always encouraged people to break the rules on debate?  I wanted to see what a unmolested philosophy looked like,  beyond strictures imposed from outside standards beyond that naturally imposed in communication.

You have to accept rhetoric in statements,  even boring,  bland formulas for math,  but your not limited to it either. You can push as far into any direction you care. I'm interested to see what people manage to do here over the years.

Satyr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 162
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Edge
    • View Profile
    • Know Thyself
Re: Question to Satyr as to why modern games suck.
« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2017, 05:25:41 am »
I don't see the point in trying to parallel metaphysics to physics. They are fundamentally two different thought processes.
This only explains why you are a Christian.

Quote
I've seen attempts to simplify statements from ockham on in theology,  and the attempt to assert beautiful statements as better proofs in mathematical languages,  but neither dislodge the fact truth can be sloppy and ugly,  complicated,  and still damn useful,  whereas something logically concise and simplified,  even beautiful,  can be worthless and absurd.
What is absurd, and convenient, is believing that what underlies reality also comes in conflict with the experience of reality.
Thar how the world appears and how the world is contradict each other is cute. the ideal/real conflict, or noumenon contra phenomenon
Noetic harmony is what seduces the needy mind. So easy to live in your head when you body is protected from the worst.
If it is so easy that you can, now, appreciate all the insane theories and obsessions people place their emotional baggage and their faith upon. 

Quote
Rhetoric is about convincing. It isn't about the truth unfortunately,  but truthful statements are also at the same time rhetorical in nature. Just the way it is.
Yes rhetoric is the art of convincing, and this is what marketing is all about: using imagery, insinuations, words, symbols, to exploit weakness and a lack of self-knowledge.
Convincing someone of a lie does not make it true - that's politics, not philosophy.

Philosophy places the standard outside both speaker and listener...what is called objectivity.

Quote
It's better for a philosopher admittedly,  to be streamlined,  but I would hardly demand the prohibition of original thinking that isn't,  or thought that rebels against simplicity is beauty to expose contradiction or paradox.
Not 'streamlined" but harmonized.
The metaphysical cannot contradict the physical.
This is what compartmentalization, and schizophrenia are about.

Your 'original thinking' can be insanity.
Nothing as creatively crazy as a mind detached from reality, and protected from it.
A child.

Quote
I myself am a lover of paradox,  I take delight in the Pythagorean Table of Opposites.
A paradox is an indication of error.
Your ideal contradicted by the real.
Words taken literally, and not metaphorically.
You "delight" in evading this, protecting the absurdity in your beliefs, from the threat of the experienced real.
You delight in mystification....it gives you hope. The incomprehensible hiding a 'positive'. 
 
Quote
Quandry can be ugly and exciting,  like a trapped army breaking out if a viscious encirclement,  certain yo be defeated only to unexpectedly win the day.
Only in this case you enjoy evading being exposed and defeated, and you consider this self-trickery a victory.

Quote
I'm not Chrysippus desiring to fossilize thought into logical fallacies.
Who said anything about static absolutes and fossilization?
I deny absolutes,a s being no more than abstractions referring to ephemeral  relationships.
 
Harmony of real and ideal begins by first perceiving words, language, as what it is: representational art.
Not false.
Evolved and proving itself adequate.
What does a honest artist do but try to represent the real as accurately as his perceptions and talent allows.
This harmony of the art-work and the phenomenon that inspired it.
A child scribbles on paper, according it its whims and emotions and sensations, uncaring about the outcome or how it relates to world - unrestricted by the external, because it scribbles as an expression of self, I world, reacting to world, exposing its inner world.
This is not art....no more than claiming any absurdity you pull out of yourself, without any concern about how it relates to the world outside yourself, is philosophy
It might be therapy, but it is not philosophy. It might be freeing, relieving, and seductive, as a practice, but no thing more than that.   

Quote
I'm open to organic,  sloppy plays if the mind,  if for no other reason than scientific curiosity in seeing how it plays out against accepted theory. Why do you think I always encouraged people to break the rules on debate?  I wanted to see what a unmolested philosophy looked like,  beyond strictures imposed from outside standards beyond that naturally imposed in communication.
Organic is not static, but it is governed by order.

Quote
You have to accept rhetoric in statements,  even boring,  bland formulas for math,  but your not limited to it either. You can push as far into any direction you care. I'm interested to see what people manage to do here over the years.
True.
But when rhetoric is understood as the application of the art of language, motivated by a goal, then the goal must be exposed before the value of rhetoric is appreciated.
Convincing, seducing, a feeble mind, does not change how the world is.
Using words to exploit weakness and by doing so comfort yourself, as well, does nothing to the world.

If language is moved by a need to see world, as it is, and not escape it, or help self cope with it, then it becomes philosophy, and acts as a connector of mind to body and mind to world.
The symbol, the word, as symbol of a mental abstraction that has a reference to a phenomenon outside of it, or it remains esoteric, engulfed by internal motives.

It's easy to convince yourself of any absurdity, and to create a beautiful internal model you can then translate and share with another....but does this have anything to do with world, other than as an escape, or distraction from it?
Is this philosophy/
No, this fantasy, politics, psychology.   
Know Thyself

lord of the internet

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • yourmom
    • View Profile
Re: Question to Satyr as to why modern games suck.
« Reply #6 on: February 13, 2017, 03:41:52 pm »
I read on Genius Forums that talking to the wall is not genius.

I could say what I feel about gaming but sometimes i get tired of my own voice. Sometimes it is a delight to hear refreshing opinions. I don't know if I have it in me to write a cohesive thesis about it. Deep down, I'm a quitter. I quit everything usually. A byproduct of enlightenment is lack of attachment.

The thing of it is, theory of forms makes deep truth an effort. Simplification is often oversimplification, like Neitzche makes philosophy quotes that require your own correct interpretaitons of it to be true. Simplifying a computer by calling it a silicon chip would be missing its essence. Its like a fruit and tomato, something require a more complicated set of behavoiral descriptors. Common philosophy like ILP or pop is lazy and often falls short. But diagnosing videogames is much harder, like diagnosing why some music is bad or some music makes you feel a kind of way. You dont know why it makes you feel a kind of way, it just does. Like the person has a magical essence to them and just has the magic, like Excalibur. I can tell you one reason modern games suck though, my guess is because they are too high poly. If you've ever seen a high polygon mesh it is a nightmare. In ancient days people had low polygon mess, it was simple times where artists weren't overwhelmed. I think nowadays artists and programmers get overwhelmed with the sheer amount of information contained in the game, and it begins to lose focus on its essence.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
72 Views
Last post March 03, 2017, 06:45:06 pm
by Satyr

+-Recent Topics

A STATE OF SELFISH CONTENTMENT by MORTALSFOOL
January 31, 2018, 06:57:37 pm

Today I... by surreptitious57
April 29, 2017, 07:58:02 pm

Video Blocks by Arius Didymus
April 07, 2017, 06:21:07 pm

Truth about TED talks by Arius Didymus
March 28, 2017, 07:31:45 am

Freedom Of Speech Dead In UK by Arius Didymus
March 25, 2017, 09:40:40 pm

KT VIDEO REVIEW by surreptitious57
March 20, 2017, 03:56:07 am

Flux Untology by Satyr
March 15, 2017, 06:27:10 am

Oh no, the ILP supertroll just signed up :( by Arius Didymus
March 14, 2017, 08:48:20 pm

EPISTEMOLOGICAL TOOLS by surreptitious57
March 07, 2017, 04:26:11 pm

The Young Turks Support Incest by Arius Didymus
March 06, 2017, 02:34:06 pm