Zero Punctuation: Dante's Inferno

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Sounds like the real Yahtzee was murdered a long time ago and they're desperately trying to keep him alive through voice synthesizing.

You were the one who said you had misused the term.

Go back to where I said that and read again. There's a difference between there being 'ambiguity' and the term being 'misused.'

When I read what you said I operated on the idea that you had intended to use the word genre to describe what you meant.

You sure did. And you were wrong to do so because you took the word out of context.

Actually, I'm going to stop right there:

You took me out of context. You've always been taking me out of context.

That is where the failure to communicate was.

End of story. Simple. Simple enough that it would require a herculean amount of stubborn immaturity not to understand.

geldonyetich:

You were the one who said you had misused the term.

Go back to where I said that and read again. There's a difference between there being 'ambiguity' and the term being 'misused.'

When I read what you said I operated on the idea that you had intended to use the word genre to describe what you meant.

You sure did. And you were wrong to do so because you took the word out of context.

Actually, I'm going to stop right there:

You took me out of context. You've always been taking me out of context.

That is where the failure to communicate was.

End of story. Simple. Simple enough that it would require a herculean amount of stubborn immaturity not to understand.

Well if you say that it creates ambiguity because what the word means isn't actually what you mean then it is a misuse of the term. I didn't take you out of context, you tried to create a context for yourself without defining what that context even was until now. Even then it still makes no sense because the context that you have created isn't even properly defined to distinguish it from the words you are using. You haven't defined what you think this new genre is, yet you claim that these games are all a part of it while every other game that is understood to actually be a part of the genre these games belong to is not. In other words you created an entirely arbitrary designation, didn't explain said designation, made fun of people for not getting your unexplained and arbitrary designation, then tried to pass yourself off as the "mature" party, failed to consider that the idea that these games are a genre unto themselves makes absolutely no sense since other games have done the things these games do long before they were made, unless you define the elements you are talking about; then proceeded to accuse others of taking you out of context.

If the context only exists in your head whilst you make no effort to actually communicate that context, people can't take you out of context.

Well if you say that it creates ambiguity because what the word means isn't actually what you mean then it is a misuse of the term.

Good God, why do you try so hard to be so wrong?

No, when something creates ambiguity, it does not mean the word is misused, it just means that it's possible to misinterpret.

Now, consider this: even in a perfectly worded paragraph, the possibility of misinterpretation exists.

For example, the reader could take your words out of context. Completely their fault. No matter how well-worded the sentence was, it would be unavoidable.

Maybe I was wrong to even say the word "genre" was ambiguious at all. Webster's dictionary says it was the right word. I imagine most English majors would agree that the word was used appropriately.

I was trying to be generous. I see that was wasted on you because apparently that you've seen the word "genre" used in a certain way on certain websites has cemented your brain into such a fossilized brick that you're unable or unwilling to look at it in any other way.

No, you probably just have this deep irrational psychological need to be the guy who's "right" to the point where you'll desperately attempt to bend time and space to get there. Deeply ironic that you'll never be right because you won't see where you went wrong.

Thats the funniest ZP ive seen in quite a while

geldonyetich:

A1:
As far as straw man tactics go I've seen a lot better than that.

That's not a straw man tactic. It's an overenthusiastic expression of exasperation that you misinterpreted my message.

Which failed.

Granted, this shouldn't surprise me. As as been my experience of forums, if someone didn't bother to read and understand what I wrote the first time, they won't the second or subsequent times either.

The two games may be of the same genre but the similarities pretty much end there for the most part. And let's not forget that story and characters are important parts to factor in too. And a key word here is "seems". It would be nice if you could reserve passing judgement until after the game has actually been released and has had a chance to prove it's worth to the gaming community.

To clarify, the reason I mentioned Devil May Cry isn't because the game is better or worse than God Of War but rather because Devil May Cry did the genre first. [Edit: Lest we run into anybody else as thick as Shadow Skill, don't take the word "genre" as implying "Action" or "Beat'Em'Ups" or "Fighting" or any silly word someone tasked with categorizing games might have put under the word "genre." Instead, think of it as something much more specific to the God of War/Devil May Cry experience.]

Again, that you chose to interpret this as me judging anything is wrong. I'm guessing you're chomping at the bit to get back into some long gone Devil May Cry vrs God Of War thread. I've some bad news there:

[Jedi Wave] this is not the Devil May Cry vs God Of War post you are looking for.

Do you know what straw man tactics are?

Essentially a straw man tactic is when someone takes something that's easy to attack or counter and attributes it to their opponent. Or perhaps more formally it's misrepresenting your opponent's position.

""You: OMG! GOW-III IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN DEVIL MAY CRY! I'M GOING TO NAME MY FIRST BORN SON KRATOS AND CAST YOU DOWN INTO A PIT OF DESPAIR FOR DARING TO SLANDER THE GOD OF WAR NAME.""

Does this look familiar? It seems to look like an attempt to misrepresent my position.

You seem to be accusing me of being overzealous (and yes I am referring to what appears to be your original unedited post). But I'm simply defending the game. That by no means automatically makes me overzealous.

""To clarify, the reason I mentioned Devil May Cry isn't because the game is better or worse than God Of War but rather because Devil May Cry did the genre first.""

Perhaps you should take a closer look at my previous posts. I didn't say anything at all about anything being better or worse. Although perhaps this is at least partially my fault because maybe I didn't have sufficient clarification (although this seems to be a mistake that you could probably relate to to at least some extent). What I mean is that based on the latest God of War 3 trailer and the characteristics of Devil May Cry 4 it would seem that in terms of similarities the two game franchises are growing farther apart from each other, whether they be of the same genre or not. Especially if one is referring to God of War 3 specifically (which I am by the way).

""Again, that you chose to interpret this as me judging anything is wrong""

Perhaps. But on the other hand your previous post seems to be at least somewhat lacking in terms of clarity (although I know that I'm really not in any position to judge with regard to that particular subject). What I mean is this:

""Maybe I would wait for God of War III if I wasn't already pretty bored of the Devil May Cry formula.""

This seems to strongly imply that you aren't willing to wait for the game. That in turn seems to strongly imply that you've already made up your mind about the game. And that in turn would seem to bear a little more than a passing resemblance to a judgement call.

""I'm guessing you're chomping at the bit to get back into some long gone Devil May Cry vrs God Of War thread. I've some bad news there:

[Jedi Wave] this is not the Devil May Cry vs God Of War post you are looking for.""

Now you're being presumptuous and not particularly mature. Especially when taking into account that I am not the one who brought up Devil May Cry in the first place.

It's the job of the person making the statement to be clear. Especially in an environment like this where it cannot be known if the people reading what is being said are native English speakers. If someone doesn't understand something you say it is your fault not theirs. It's not about genre being used a certain way on the internet, it is about how it is used in the English language itself. It's not jargon, that only select circles know about, it is a standard term. You don't invent a new definition for a term without defining it. Simply saying "It's the stuff common to W,X,Y,Z." Isn't a definition because it doesn't tell the reader what those common things actually are.

geldonyetich:

Well if you say that it creates ambiguity because what the word means isn't actually what you mean then it is a misuse of the term.

Good God, why do you try so hard to be so wrong?

No, when something creates ambiguity, it does not mean the word is misused, it just means that it's possible to misinterpret.

Now, consider this: even in a perfectly worded paragraph, the possibility of misinterpretation exists.

For example, the reader could take your words out of context. Completely their fault. No matter how well-worded the sentence was, it would be unavoidable.

Maybe I was wrong to even say the word "genre" was ambiguious at all. Webster's dictionary says it was the right word. I imagine most English majors would agree that the word was used appropriately.

I was trying to be generous. I see that was wasted on you because apparently that you've seen the word "genre" used in a certain way on certain websites has cemented your brain into such a fossilized brick that you're unable or unwilling to look at it in any other way.

No, you probably just have this deep irrational psychological need to be the guy who's "right" to the point where you'll desperately attempt to bend time and space to get there. Deeply ironic that you'll never be right because you won't see where you went wrong.

No one here actually knows what you mean, they are not in your head. They may not speak English as a first language. If you are going to discuss a subject with anyone learn to actually define what you mean and frame your argument correctly. Chanting "You're wrong." without going into actual reasons why (IE. Not mere vagaries.) is not the way to do it. Especially if you are going to belittle another person.

It's the job of the person making the statement to be clear

Yes, but I'm not at fault here, the idiot who got all hung up on the use of one word out of a sentence, [u]one appropriately-used but misinterpretted anyway[/u, is at fault here.

It's the job of the reader to try to understand what is written. From the very start, you have been trying NOT to understand what is written. And that is why you fail.

I'm the one who wrote the message, and I explained to you how you misunderstood it, and you still failed. Do you have any idea how pathetic that is?

Anyone who has been able to follow this "conversation" we've been having and see that you are desperately hanging upon the fact that I used the word "genre" as rationalization that I made a mistake.

Which is as adorable as ever, but guess what, kid? You're still dead wrong.

And this is the most adorable part of all:

Chanting "You're wrong." without going into actual reasons why

Again: Good God. I can't believe how many times I've explained things to you only to have you say that I'm being vague. I tried to simply, I really did, but it just wasn't good enough. Your brain is simply not developed adequately to understand what I am saying.

Tell you what, archive this and get back to me in 12 years.

A1:

geldonyetich:

A1:
As far as straw man tactics go I've seen a lot better than that.

That's not a straw man tactic. It's an overenthusiastic expression of exasperation that you misinterpreted my message.

Which failed.

Granted, this shouldn't surprise me. As as been my experience of forums, if someone didn't bother to read and understand what I wrote the first time, they won't the second or subsequent times either.

The two games may be of the same genre but the similarities pretty much end there for the most part. And let's not forget that story and characters are important parts to factor in too. And a key word here is "seems". It would be nice if you could reserve passing judgement until after the game has actually been released and has had a chance to prove it's worth to the gaming community.

To clarify, the reason I mentioned Devil May Cry isn't because the game is better or worse than God Of War but rather because Devil May Cry did the genre first. [Edit: Lest we run into anybody else as thick as Shadow Skill, don't take the word "genre" as implying "Action" or "Beat'Em'Ups" or "Fighting" or any silly word someone tasked with categorizing games might have put under the word "genre." Instead, think of it as something much more specific to the God of War/Devil May Cry experience.]

Again, that you chose to interpret this as me judging anything is wrong. I'm guessing you're chomping at the bit to get back into some long gone Devil May Cry vrs God Of War thread. I've some bad news there:

[Jedi Wave] this is not the Devil May Cry vs God Of War post you are looking for.

Do you know what straw man tactics are?
Essentially a straw man tactic is when someone takes something that's easy to attack or counter and attributes it to their opponent. Or perhaps more formally it's misrepresenting your opponent's position.

""You: OMG! GOW-III IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN DEVIL MAY CRY! I'M GOING TO NAME MY FIRST BORN SON KRATOS AND CAST YOU DOWN INTO A PIT OF DESPAIR FOR DARING TO SLANDER THE GOD OF WAR NAME.""

Aww, I'm sowwy, did I hurt your feelings so badly with my tongue-in-cheek comment in the capital letters above that anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be able to figure out wasn't meant to be taken seriously that you immediately fell back into "STRAW MAN! IT'S A STRAW MAN! MAKE THE BAD MAN STOP!" mode?

Well, because you did take it seriously, you're already existing in a state of delusion. It wasn't meant to be interpreted as an argument, it was meant to be interpreted as a "you misread my message" wake up call. Therefore, to call it a Straw Man argument makes no sense because it wasn't even being used as an argument.

How about you look past your little tiny hurt ego and understand the message I was attempting to convey? I already explained it to you once. I know this because you've quoted where I explained it. My experiences with Shadow Skill on this thread remind me why I should not bother explaining it again.

It's my fault, really - I shouldn't have even bothered to reply to you. From your very first message, it's clear you're desperate to pick a fight, because you actually went out of your way to misread my original comment in such a way that you could try to interpret it as an invitation.

Are you serious? You have said that DMC, Bayonetta, GOW and Dante's Inferno are a genre unto themselves but you have yet to explain what specific elements they share that other games do not. No one knows what you are talking about. No one who actually researches things will understand why these games are not brawlers. Do you know why? Because you haven't actually described the elements, you have only said that they exist.

geldonyetich:

A1:
As far as straw man tactics go I've seen a lot better than that.

That's not a straw man tactic. It's an overenthusiastic expression of exasperation that you misinterpreted my message.

Which failed.

Granted, this shouldn't surprise me. As as been my experience of forums, if someone didn't bother to read and understand what I wrote the first time, they won't the second or subsequent times either.

The two games may be of the same genre but the similarities pretty much end there for the most part. And let's not forget that story and characters are important parts to factor in too. And a key word here is "seems". It would be nice if you could reserve passing judgement until after the game has actually been released and has had a chance to prove it's worth to the gaming community.

To clarify, the reason I mentioned Devil May Cry isn't because the game is better or worse than God Of War but rather because Devil May Cry did the genre first. [Edit: Lest we run into anybody else as thick as Shadow Skill, don't take the word "genre" as implying "Action" or "Beat'Em'Ups" or "Fighting" or any silly word someone tasked with categorizing games might have put under the word "genre." Instead, think of it as something much more specific to the God of War/Devil May Cry experience.]

Again, that you chose to interpret this as me judging anything is wrong. I'm guessing you're chomping at the bit to get back into some long gone Devil May Cry vrs God Of War thread. I've some bad news there:

[Jedi Wave] this is not the Devil May Cry vs God Of War post you are looking for.

Don't you think you ought to let people know just what the God of War/Devil May Cry experience is? What if they haven't played those games thoroughly?

Are you serious? You have said that DMC, Bayonetta, GOW and Dante's Inferno are a genre unto themselves but you have yet to explain what specific elements they share that other games do not. No one knows what you are talking about.

Maybe the real root of this issue is that you have no idea what the word "genre" even means. You're just putting it in the context of something you saw on written in a magazine or gaming websites. I was not wrong in my use of the word. Ask your estranged English teacher. Don't bother to tell me that I told you I misused it - if I did, I was clearly mistaken to give someone as desperate-to-be-right as you that much leeway to delude yourself.

geldonyetich:

Are you serious? You have said that DMC, Bayonetta, GOW and Dante's Inferno are a genre unto themselves but you have yet to explain what specific elements they share that other games do not. No one knows what you are talking about.

Maybe the real root of this issue is that you have no idea what the word "genre" even means. You're just putting it in the context of something you saw on written in a magazine or gaming websites. I was not wrong in my use of the word. Ask your estranged English teacher. Don't bother to tell me that I told you I misused it - if I did, I was clearly mistaken.

Yes in fact I do know what it means. I also know that you have not actually explained how all of these games are a part of a genre that Kung fu Master or Legend are not a part of.

For the curious here is a link to the definition:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genre

Forum battles are sad...I'm losing faith in the human race as I read these posts.

On another note, good ZP this week, though I'm not sure if I agree with Yahtzee. It's far too easy to dismiss the game as a God of War rip-off, and I'd hoped he wouldn't stoop to that like Gamespot did. God of War wasn't exactly original, was it?

Yes in fact I do know what it means. I also know that you have not actually explained how all of these games are a part of a genre that Kung fu Master or Legend are not a part of.

For the curious here is a link to the definition:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genre

Very good! Now, why don't you go read it? Or do you need me to hold your hand while your brain goes to the bathroom, passing out the stupid that's stopping you from seeing there's nothing wrong with the way I used the word genre?

Hint: definition 3, noun.
(Although even definition 1, noun, would work given that there's no universal authorities that defines genre terms and what they encapsulate.)

geldonyetich:

Yes in fact I do know what it means. I also know that you have not actually explained how all of these games are a part of a genre that Kung fu Master or Legend are not a part of.

For the curious here is a link to the definition:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genre

Very good! Now, why don't you go read it? Or do you need me to hold your hand while your brain goes to the bathroom, passing out the stupid that's stopping you from seeing there's nothing wrong with the way I used the word genre?

Hint: definition 3, noun.
(Although even definition 1, noun, would work given that there's no universal authorities that defines genre terms and what they encapsulate.)

You don't get it do you.

A. Genre can be used in the way you have used it.
B. The assertion that DMC did the genre first, is factually incorrect Because of A.
C. If one suggests that B is false because DMC et all is set a part in such a way that precludes it from being a part of the existing brawler genre and it's subdivisions, what sets it a part must actually be defined, otherwise B is still true.

A. Genre can be used in the way you have used it.
B. The assertion that DMC did the genre first, is factually incorrect Because of A.

Oh, that made me LOL.

"Hey, because I can use the word genre in a specific way, it makes something factually incorrect."

I mentioned that you're desperate to bend time and space to your whims to be right. Thanks for providing a specific example.

C. If one suggests that B is false because DMC et all is set a part in such a way that precludes it from being a part of the existing brawler genre and it's subdivisions, what sets it a part must actually be defined, otherwise B is still true.

Make that two examples, the second one being even more extremely out there than the first. It goes to reason - you base a premise upon an already faulty premise and you end up with an even faultier one.

UnSeEn60:
Forum battles are sad...I'm losing faith in the human race as I read these posts.

You and me both. I admit I'm a part of the problem, but I see myself as being a bit of the ledge of sanity that the demons of stupidity are pulling themselves out of the pit upon. If the ledge goes away, the demons do not assert themselves on this physical plane, but they still remain in the realm of ignorance. That I bother to provide them a means to manifest at all causes me to question my own credentials as a ledge of sanity.

geldonyetich:

A. Genre can be used in the way you have used it.
B. The assertion that DMC did the genre first, is factually incorrect Because of A.

Oh, that made me LOL.

"Hey, because I can use the word genre in a specific way, it makes something factually incorrect."

I mentioned that you're desperate to bend time and space to your whims to be right. Thanks for providing a specific example.

C. If one suggests that B is false because DMC et all is set a part in such a way that precludes it from being a part of the existing brawler genre and it's subdivisions, what sets it a part must actually be defined, otherwise B is still true.

Make that two examples, the second one being even more extremely out there than the first.

I'm trying to find out just what it is that makes you assert that DMC invented a genre. That I point out that something is factually incorrect unless it is defined isn't evidence of anything save logic. I'm also trying to tell you that belittling people while not actually explaining your position doesn't make your position cool, or mature.

If you the sky is polka-dot during the day and I say no it isn't and show you a picture of the sky being blue as proof of reasoning it only shows the reasoning behind me statement.

"It's like my right hand on a Sunday afternoon"... Jesus-fucking-christ, how the fuck does he come up wuth stuff like that? I loled for 3 minutes straight...

I'm trying to find out just what it is that makes you assert that DMC invented a genre.

Technically, I didn't even say this.

First, we consider that when I used the word "genre" I was referring specifically to a type of games that have characteristics unique to God of War, Devil May Cry, and Dante's Inferno.

Second, consider that when I used the word "first," I was also referring specifically to God of War, Devil May Cry, and Dante's Inferno.

So that's a second misinterpretation you've done. You've not only misinterpretted me about the use of the word "genre" but you also misinterpretted me about the use of the word "first" by thinking I'm implying this would reflect anywhere outside of those three games. (Well, four if you include Bayonetta).

Like it or not, out of those three (or four) games, Devil May Cry was first.

If you the sky is polka-dot during the day and I say no it isn't and show you a picture of the sky being blue as proof of reasoning it only shows the reasoning behind me statement.

Given the wanton nature if your misinterpretting everything I said, it doesn't matter what color the sky is.

geldonyetich:

I'm trying to find out just what it is that makes you assert that DMC invented a genre.

Technically, I didn't even say this.

First, we consider that when I used the word "genre" I was referring specifically to a type of games that have characteristics unique to God of War, Devil May Cry, and Dante's Inferno.

Second, consider that when I used the word "first," I was also referring specifically to God of War, Devil May Cry, and Dante's Inferno.

So that's a second misinterpretation you've done. You've not only misinterpretted me about the use of the word "genre" but you also misinterpretted me about the use of the word "first" by thinking I'm implying this would reflect anywhere outside of those three games. (Well, four if you include Bayonetta).

Like it or not, out of those three (or four) games, Devil May Cry was first.

If you the sky is polka-dot during the day and I say no it isn't and show you a picture of the sky being blue as proof of reasoning it only shows the reasoning behind me statement.

Given the wanton nature if your misinterpretting everything I said, it doesn't matter what color the sky is.

What are those elements though, and how then is it possible to say that it is the DMC formula given the fact that these games don't exist in some artificial vacuum that only you seem to know about? Even if we take what you said at face value it still makes no sense because these games all play very differently from DMC. With the except of DI as it relates to God of War, the formulas of Bayonetta and God of War and DI are distinct from DMC outside of the most general comparisons.

oh, i almoast bought this for my 360 when this game was new!

now i`m going to borrow it from a friend, and after i`m done with that i`m buying god of war collection for my new PS3 (= still have my 360 though =)and them i`ma buy GOD OF WAR III AWSOME =D

sbrff:
oh, i almoast bought this for my 360 when this game was new!

now i`m going to borrow it from a friend, and after i`m done with that i`m buying god of war collection for my new PS3 (= still have my 360 though =)and them i`ma buy GOD OF WAR III AWSOME =D

I'm not finding the game very fun personally but it is well made. I have to give Visceral that credit at least.

What are those elements though, and how then is it possible to say that it is the DMC formula given the fact that these games don't exist in some artificial vacuum that only you seem to know about? Even if we take what you said at face value it still makes no sense because these games all play very differently from DMC. With the except of DI the formulas of Bayonetta and God of War are distinct from DMC outside of the most general comparisons.

This is the first good question you asked me. Unfortunately (and I know this will sound like a cop out) I don't have the energy to isolate the specifics anymore. Besides, words aren't very good at conveying some things, the "feel" of a game is one such thing.

Suffice to say, if you've played Devil May Cry, Bayonetta (made by the DMC creators), God of War, and Dante's Inferno, you will notice a very specific isometric perspective, pacing, and interactivity mechanism involving combo chains, jumping, and enemy dispatching, that is quite unique from your earlier example. Come to think of it, there was another game - Heavenly Sword - I'd include that as well.

Besides, even if you did manage to find a game that pre-dated Devil May Cry and had enough characteristics involved that I believed it passed, why do you think I would have any reason to care? All I was saying is, "hey, these kinds of games are becoming derivative, I wish the developers would innovate a bit more."

If you found an earlier game, what does that change? I'm still bored of it. The more games you can find that are similar, the more you simply reinforce my point that these games are derivatives and, as such, boring.

Even though I don't care, I wouldn't even be wrong as pertains to mentioning DMC as being the "first," because the context of the message did not include any earlier games. I could very well be meaning the first of only two games (God of War and Devil May Cry) because those are the only two that were mentioned when I said that.

lol, yahtzee ran out of breath- 1:40 - 1:45
i ROFLed...and actually rewinded the video just to hear it again...
"on his face"!..GASP!! "

kekekekeke

he referensed the rickroll box incident
yay

sorry, thats "he ran out of breath 2:40 - 2:45"

geldonyetich:

What are those elements though, and how then is it possible to say that it is the DMC formula given the fact that these games don't exist in some artificial vacuum that only you seem to know about? Even if we take what you said at face value it still makes no sense because these games all play very differently from DMC. With the except of DI the formulas of Bayonetta and God of War are distinct from DMC outside of the most general comparisons.

This is the first good question you asked me. Unfortunately (and I know this will sound like a cop out) I don't have the energy to isolate the specifics anymore. Besides, words aren't very good at conveying some things, the "feel" of a game is one such thing.

Suffice to say, if you've played Devil May Cry, Bayonetta (made by the DMC creators), God of War, and Dante's Inferno, you will notice a very specific isometric perspective, pacing, and interactivity mechanism involving combo chains and enemy dispatching, that is quite unique from your earlier example.

Besides, even if you did manage to find a game that pre-dated Devil May Cry and had enough characteristics involved that I believed it passed, why do you think I would have any reason to care? All I was saying is, "hey, these kinds of games are becoming derivative, I wish the developers would innovate a bit more." If you found an earlier game, what does that change? I'm still bored of it.

Even though I don't care, I wouldn't even be wrong as pertains to mentioning DMC as being the "first," because the context of the message did not include any earlier games. I could very well be meaning the first of only two games (God of War and Devil May Cry) because those are the only two that were mentioned when I said that.

I don't nessecarily care but I would say that your definition is rather weak. Gekido probably fits the bill depending on just which DMC you are talking about. I would continue saying that even if one was to accept your criteria you run face first into the fact that so many other games share boatloads of similarity to even the first DMC that your own logic cancels itself out; because the distinction is rendered meaningless, due to all of the other elements these games have in common with those other games. The way in which you try to distinguish these games flows in the opposite direction as well, with no trouble.

It's like the debate some people have about the difference between science fiction and fantasy. Or more appropriately the distinctness of Fantasy from Science-Fiction. When considered logically there really is no reasonable argument that can be made for fantasy being distinct from science fiction. Or at least I have yet to hear it.

In order for them to be distinct from each other one has to do more than say that within the context of the story in question the events are plausible based on the laws of that world. What such an idea really says is that if the author decides to explain it, it is not "magic" and therefore not "Fantasy." That isn't much of a distinction really, at the end of the day Fantasy is really just a type of "soft" science fiction.

Or for a slightly less verbose example the difference between a god and an alien is absolutely nothing. Gods, especially the more abstract variety, are by their very nature alien; regardless of whether there is a distinction made between physical and non physical.

I don't nessecarily care but I would say that your definition is rather weak. Gekido probably fits the bill depending on just which DMC you are talking about. I would probably continue that even if one was to accept your criteria you run face first into the fact that so many other games share boatloads of similarity to even the first DMC that your own logic cancels itself out because the distinction is rendered meaningless due to all of the other elements in common with those other games. The way in which you try to distinguish these games flows in the opposite direction as well with no trouble.

That would make a lot of sense if it weren't being framed against a completely imaginary context of an argument that's not happening.

It's like the debate some people have about the difference between science fiction and fantasy. Or more appropriately the distinctness of Fantasy from Science-Fiction. When considered logically there really is no reasonable argument that can be made for fantasy being distinct from science fiction. Or at least I have yet to hear it.

In order for them to be distinct from each other one has to do more than say that within the context of the story in question the events are plausible based on the laws of that world. What such an idea really says is that if the author decides to explain it, it is not "magic" and therefore not "Fantasy." That isn't much of a distinction really, at the end of the day Fantasy is really just a type of "soft" science fiction.

Or for a slightly less verbose example the difference between a god and an alien is absolutely nothing. Gods, especially the more abstract variety, are by their very nature alien; regardless of whether there is a distinction made between physical and non physical.

Well, you're still hung up on "genre," which is something I was never that hung up on considering how little it matters to the actual point I was trying to make... but now you're actually disproving what you said earlier:

If you can't distinguish Fantasy from Science-Fiction, yet the two exist as popular genres, what's so wrong with my distinguishing games that are similar to Devil May Cry, Heavenly Sword, Bayonetta, God of War, Prince of Persia, ect as being a type of unnamed genre with specific characteristics in which I am bored?

In other words, earlier you said:

A. Genre can be used in the way you have used it.
B. The assertion that DMC did the genre first, is factually incorrect Because of A.

And while I don't agree with the truth of these premises, I would like to point out that what you just said is the opposite of what you're saying here. Because genre can be used in whatever way you see fit, an assertion that any body of works belonging to a genre is unable to be determined to be factually incorrect because of A.

Ah, who am I kidding? I'm taking you off ignore. Young Grasshopper does cause his ill-adjusted sensei much frustration, but this is merely the inquiring mind of youth.

geldonyetich:

I don't nessecarily care but I would say that your definition is rather weak. Gekido probably fits the bill depending on just which DMC you are talking about. I would probably continue that even if one was to accept your criteria you run face first into the fact that so many other games share boatloads of similarity to even the first DMC that your own logic cancels itself out because the distinction is rendered meaningless due to all of the other elements in common with those other games. The way in which you try to distinguish these games flows in the opposite direction as well with no trouble.

That would make a lot of sense if it weren't being framed against a completely imaginary context of an argument that's not happening.

But it is happening, all I'm doing is deconstructing the logic (argument) you are using here. Though yes there is no confrontation or debate persay. You already presented your argument by posting as you have. The only thing I have been trying to point out is the flaw in your reasoning. (Argument.)

But it is happening, all I'm doing is deconstructing the logic (argument) you are using here. Though yes there is no confrontation or debate persay. You already presented your argument by posting as you have. The only thing I have been trying to point out is the flaw in your reasoning. (Argument.)

No, young grasshopper, you are deconstructing the logic (argument) that you are imagining.

Sensei only wishes to express he is bored with games similar to God of War and Devil May Cry, and consequently that he wishes developers would innovate more.

Anything else you think is going on here, such as the importance of "genre" or "first", is but an illusion you have wrought for yourself.

What, then, could you hope to accomplish? Would you like to attempt to disprove I am not bored with what I am bored with?

Actually, I suppose I was having an argument. It wasn't with you, however. It wasn't about games or definitions of words, per se. It was specifically with our failure to communicate. As I've yet to win this argument, I can only assume we're still failing to communicate.

geldonyetich:

I don't nessecarily care but I would say that your definition is rather weak. Gekido probably fits the bill depending on just which DMC you are talking about. I would probably continue that even if one was to accept your criteria you run face first into the fact that so many other games share boatloads of similarity to even the first DMC that your own logic cancels itself out because the distinction is rendered meaningless due to all of the other elements in common with those other games. The way in which you try to distinguish these games flows in the opposite direction as well with no trouble.

That would make a lot of sense if it weren't being framed against a completely imaginary context of an argument that's not happening.

It's like the debate some people have about the difference between science fiction and fantasy. Or more appropriately the distinctness of Fantasy from Science-Fiction. When considered logically there really is no reasonable argument that can be made for fantasy being distinct from science fiction. Or at least I have yet to hear it.

In order for them to be distinct from each other one has to do more than say that within the context of the story in question the events are plausible based on the laws of that world. What such an idea really says is that if the author decides to explain it, it is not "magic" and therefore not "Fantasy." That isn't much of a distinction really, at the end of the day Fantasy is really just a type of "soft" science fiction.

Or for a slightly less verbose example the difference between a god and an alien is absolutely nothing. Gods, especially the more abstract variety, are by their very nature alien; regardless of whether there is a distinction made between physical and non physical.

Well, you're still hung up on "genre," which is something I was never that hung up on considering how little it matters to the actual point I was trying to make... but now you're actually disproving what you said earlier:

If you can't distinguish Fantasy from Science-Fiction, yet the two exist as popular genres, what's so wrong with my distinguishing games that are similar to Devil May Cry, Heavenly Sword, Bayonetta, God of War, Prince of Persia, ect as being a type of unnamed genre with specific characteristics in which I am bored?

In other words, earlier you said:

A. Genre can be used in the way you have used it.
B. The assertion that DMC did the genre first, is factually incorrect Because of A.

And while I don't agree with the truth of these premises, I would like to point out that what you just said is the opposite of what you're saying here. Because genre can be used in whatever way you see fit, an assertion that any body of works belonging to a genre is unable to be determined to be factually incorrect because of A.

Ah, who am I kidding? I'm taking you off ignore. Young Grasshopper does cause his ill-adjusted sensei much frustration, but this is merely the inquiring mind of youth.

Uhh no. Simply put no. You can't just say something belongs to a given class without actually defining what that class is, that is why B is factually untrue because of A. A. is a classification, you can't say something belongs to a given classification without ever saying what it is or why this is the case. Not when there is already a class for those given items. Your assertion doesn't become relevant until you actually define what is, nor does it solve the problem of C. If C is left unanswered then B. cannot be said to be the first to do anything. (B is the given genre that DMC belongs to. DMC already has a genre and you have to explain what makes it distinct from it's given genre. Which you have done now.)

Uhh no. Simply put no. You can't just say something belongs to a given class without actually defining what that class is, that is why B is factually untrue because of A.

Not true.

You can say something belongs to any class. When you define the rules of that class, you define the class, true. However, the arbitrary definition of the rules is why you can include anything you want.

For example, when I used the word "genre" originally, the context in which I used the word only included one defined rule:
A) Include God of War, Devil May Cry, and (via the thread topic) Dante's Inferno.

There is no rule suggesting any other game is included. At least until I added an edit, which even better defined it was being specifically A and only A.

The genre's name was undefined. It is assumed the reader isn't so thick as to require a concept has a label to conceptualize it. You can call it "temporary genre A" if you prefer.

This is the power, and the uselessness, of a mere label - of which "genre" in terms how you're using it certainly is.

You decided I was implying "Beat'Em'Ups." I said no such thing. Thus, you tricked yourself. Though I've been opening my mouth, all I was doing was clarifying. There was no argument to be had except for the argument you created when you misinterpreted the use of a word. All I've been is a sounding board for the argument you've been having with yourself.

Granted, I have been a rather relentless sounding board. >:] Out of my own frustration with my failure to communicate to you the madness you've been propagating, I lost my temper more than once, and no doubt this fueled the fire.

Funny how human nature works.

Except that isn't what you said. What you said is that you are getting tired of the Devil May cry formula which isn't the same as saying that the gameplay of Dante's Inferno seems derivative in light of the existence of many Devil May Cry/God of War type games. You are actually changing the argument. Factually the God of War/Devil May Cry comparisons end at their being in the same genre and therefore possessing certain similarities. Anything beyond that would be like saying Blazblue is a Street Fighter clone because you punch, kick, throw, and shoot projectiles in both games.

Yes in fact it does change the argument because what you argue originally is that you are bored of Devil May Cry mechanics. You then proceed to change your argument to "I am tired of the genre itself."

It's the difference between saying that you are bored with the Lord of the Rings formula, vs. being bored with the fantasy genre itself. One implies boredom with items that seem to be derived from the tropes that Lord of the Rings created whereas the other says that you are bored of the tropes that make a given work a part of the genre itself.

I said this a whole page ago that saying you are bored of the DMC formula is not the same thing as saying you are bored with the genre itself. I also said later on that you shouldn't start belittling people while changing your argument from a very specific type of boredom to a more general one.

Furthermore you are trying to say now rather magically that you can make up a new class and not tell anyone you did and somehow everyone else is supposed to simply ignore the given classification that is already accepted. If you say DMC did the genre first, it is not in any way the same as saying that DMC created a new genre which these games are all a part of. Doing the genre first implies that it was the first to do what it does which it simply is not the case given the known category to which DMC belongs. If DMC didn't already have a known category the first statement would be perfectly fine by the way.

The two statements and the two arguments are markedly different from one another.

If you are going to be putting down people whether it be on the internet or elsewhere you should make sure what you say actually makes sense. Consider your words more carefully. The definition and how a word may be used is not the same as the logical construction created with a word.

I said this a whole page ago [blah blah]

Very good! Now would you like to go and re-read the replies to those statements you made?

Perhaps you will understand why both passages you've just quoted are so mind-bogglingly deluded.

If you are going to be putting down people whether it be on the internet or elsewhere you should make sure what you say actually makes sense.

I'm going to continue to put you down while you frustrate me with your inability to communicate because this inability is, as far as I'm concerned, the initial put down.

Basically, that last post of yours made me think, "oh, God, I thought I was making progress -- now, it seems he's regressing."

Maybe repetition will help:

No, young grasshopper, you are deconstructing the logic (argument) that you are imagining.

Sensei only wishes to express he is bored with games similar to God of War and Devil May Cry, and consequently that he wishes developers would innovate more.

Anything else you think is going on here, such as the importance of "genre" or "first", is but an illusion you have wrought for yourself.

I dearly suspect this conversation of ours is a preview of a circle of Hell I'm destined for. Though, considering it tends to make up the majority of human interaction on forums, that seems sort of redundant.

I'm not worried you know you seem to only be capable of belittling people and inventing rules that nobody else knows about that make it safe for you to ignore whatever else is going on in the world outside of your own mind. While you bitch and moan about other people being deluded you demonstrate an inability to understand why it doesn't look good to go around making fun of people while your arguments change into forms that make no more sense than the previous one. You seem to think that if you just invent a genre in your head don't explain it until a page and a half after being asked on multiple occasions to actually define the elements that make all of these things a new genre that you have any business telling anyone to get perspective on anything.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here