Really? Or was it you going for extreme examples and even bringing up animals that live off feces?
The base act of eating shit isn't pleasant. You bringing up some random hypothetical doesn't change that, if anything it further proves my point that you would only possibly consider eating shit if your best friend was at gunpoint.
sorry for fucking up your thread snake
Quote from: Verbatim on July 16, 2017, 07:32:05 AMsorry for fucking up your thread snakeNobody likes longer loading times.
if you started using extreme examples i wouldn't give a fuck, why does it matterthey're logically cogent arguments despite being impractical so who caresi would argue that extreme examples have MORE utility than regular ones, because they test the limits of what you believe
you mean "the base act of HUMANS eating shit without a gun to their head"we're adding two modifiers here, so we're actually talking about a more specific base act, you just seem to think everything is implied
once you add those two modifiers, i would have to concede that i'd have to stretch my imagination beyond what i'd consider reasonable (or necessary for this discussion) in order to argue that eating shit is anything but a bad thing
there are plenty of scenarios i can come up with where eating shit might not be a bad thing, but i'll just pretend for a moment that we've covered everything, because they all involve modifying the "base act" as you put it (just like you've done when trying to prove the opposite point, because such a thing is unavoidable)
without those two modifiers, it makes perfect sense for me to bring up animals, because you didn't bar them from discussion, even though i technically knew what you were talking about—i just think specificity is important, especially when you're talking about the philosophy and the metaphysical properties of actions and shit
You're the one that took this to the philosophical level for no reason.
I didn't add anything. You did. You created a hypothetical where being forced to do something unpleasant (eating poop) could be considered good in an abstract sort of way because the outcome is good (hypothetically).
I didn't, though. I said nobody likes longer loading times.
I'm sure you can find some contrarian out there who enjoys longer loading times, but again, it doesn't change the fact that the average and majority opinion is that longer loading times means less time playing which means less enjoyment. That's a bad thing.
in my experience, most people seem to enjoy thinking about stuff in ways that they haven't beforei certainly do, and i think it's healthy to challenge paradigms of what video games should and shouldn't have, or should and shouldn't be, just like i'd do with any other art form
i just don't understand why you're allowed to add modifiers when i'm notit's like you know you're wrong, so you back yourself into a tight corner, putting yourself at an intellectual dead-end, and then you try to say that's what I'M doing to make yourself look right
what if the loading screen has a justifiable reason for it to be longeri can come up with a bunch of extreme examples where you'd want a loading screen to last an hour if you wantyou call it an extreme example, i call it being creative
wonderful, i absolutely agreeyou realize this is all you needed to say right
Yeah, too bad you started talking about eating poop.
Eating poop has no modifiers, it's the act of eating poop. You're modifying it by saying it's a good thing to do if you're at gunpoint. It isn't. It's still gross and unhealthy, and tastes terrible. You would only consider doing it if you're at gunpoint, which further proves how much of an objective negative it is.
I play games to play games. Not watch loading screens.
I said this several times and it was heavily implied. Not to mention it's a given, that isn't something I should have had to write. I felt like I was explaining something to a child by writing that.I know it to be true, so I assumed you did too. Either you were purposefully being obtuse, or you're just dumb.
actually you did
if it was OBJETIVELY negative, then you would NEVER under ANY circumstances eat shitnot for a million dollars, not to save your friend, not to save the worldyou wouldn't do it, because it is OBJECTIVELY badthat's what that means
maybe the loading screen is part of the game
actually, you never said or implied it, and you've repeatedly made the exact opposite statement
I wouldn't. I would never sacrifice my dignity for money. My friend shouldn't have been slippin if we have people after us like that, and the world can burn for all I care.
The loading screen is always part of the game.
fucking lol when
good for you, i happen to feel the exact same wayso you're basically saying that you're the arbiter of objectivity, thenyou decide what's objective because you personally would never eat shit in any circumstance whatsoever
you know what i mean by part of the game
pick any post you made in this thread
No. Eating shit is still bad no matter the outcome. Killing somebody is bad, but the outcome is good if it's one less bad person in the world.
If a developer is smart enough to make loading screens fun that would obviously make it ok if the loading times longer. He still had to go out of his to develop a fun loading screen to deal with the negative that is a loading screen.
Why the fuck haven't we've seen games in loading screens yet?!
Quote from: ねこ on July 16, 2017, 03:45:16 PMWhy the fuck haven't we've seen games in loading screens yet?!i actually think i've played a game that had a game within the loading screen, or some sort of interactivityi was trying to think of it
Quote from: Verbatim on July 16, 2017, 03:50:12 PMQuote from: ねこ on July 16, 2017, 03:45:16 PMWhy the fuck haven't we've seen games in loading screens yet?!i actually think i've played a game that had a game within the loading screen, or some sort of interactivityi was trying to think of itIf its an old game that would've been a Namco game since they patented it, if its a current game the only game that pops into my head is Splatoon
Quote from: ねこ on July 16, 2017, 03:52:14 PMQuote from: Verbatim on July 16, 2017, 03:50:12 PMQuote from: ねこ on July 16, 2017, 03:45:16 PMWhy the fuck haven't we've seen games in loading screens yet?!i actually think i've played a game that had a game within the loading screen, or some sort of interactivityi was trying to think of itIf its an old game that would've been a Namco game since they patented it, if its a current game the only game that pops into my head is SplatoonFound it:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invade-a-Load"Invade-a-Load contained a notable feature other than its fast loading routines: While the actual game was loading—a process which usually took a long time, even with optimized loader routines—the loader allowed the user to play a smaller game to pass time. The game was a clone of the famous Space Invaders game. The minigame was loaded in under a minute, providing entertainment while waiting for the actual game to load which could take a further five to ten minutes."hahahaha suck my cock challenger
then that means killing them was good
okaymaybe the length of the loading screens is tied into the lore somehowwhat about that
Wow, the loading times are so fucking long they had to add in a game to play while you wait.What if you don't like Space Invaders?
The outcome was good. The base act of killing is wrong.
Badly made game if they need to do these things to compensate for ridiculously long load times. Which again proves the point that the longer the loading time is, the worse the game is so you have to add something else in to alleviate the negativity.
SMF 2.0.9 | SMF © 2014, Simple Machines
Check the Rules Patch notes
© Sep7agon.net, all rights reserved. [Version: 2.2.0a]