Quote from: FatherlyNick on October 08, 2015, 05:51:14 PM

mommy and daddy never forked out for an 800 gaming rig for me. I want to play games so never could commit for saving up money for it myself. I could commit 380 euros to get consoles so yeah...

Uhm

Gaming computers are cheaper than ever and you could buy one that ran the same as a PS4/Xbone and have it still be cheaper. The thousand dollar rigs you see are for idiots who probably want launch nukes and overclock their PC's.

A decent PC cost's at least $800.

That's a lot of money for some people.

married couple

they're meant for each other tbh

And we aren't having that discussion again, are we?

Well, I just had it with Luciana in this thread, and it went reasonably well. She sees where I'm coming from, mostly--why can't you?

Do I really have to preface with "if we limit our values to that which pertain to differences in performance relating to processing capability, not in the scheme of all things on God's green Earth"?

No--you just have to be aware that you're stating an opinion. If it doesn't pertain to the scheme of all things on God's green Earh (or, in other words, objectivity), then that's what we call a subjective interpretation.

It's great that you think PC gaming has advantages over console games, but that's just your opinion.

60 is greater than 30; a 99 on a test is better than a 98 on a test. If I even specify that I'm speaking of superiority in measures of performance, your rebuttal to that statement should be focused on counter-arguing the contents of that statement. Otherwise, it's simply clouded with irrelevance.

Of course--but I'm not really here to change anyone's opinion on anything.

I'm just saying that PC gaming is not factually better than console gaming.

Fuck off.

pa-POW

YOU THINK THIS IS A JOKE?

I'm sorry lads, I think I killed it.

Tru shares part of the blame as well.

No, she's probably still just typing.

We've discussed this before--it was actually the first time I used the metaphysical arguments that I'm using here, so I wasn't able to convey it properly.

But I've argued it before, so I think I can get my point across much clearer now, because I know what I'm trying to say.

Well, I just had it with Luciana in this thread, and it went reasonably well. She sees where I'm coming from, mostly--why can't you?

Precisely because we came to the conclusion last time that you're speaking from a philosophical standpoint. And since we've had that conversation, you should damn well know that I'm speaking in terms of tangible differences in terms of performance to judge this. That's why I'm actually a little pissed off that this conversation is coming up again, because we've already had this discussion, and we agreed on each others stances.

No--you just have to be aware that you're stating an opinion. If it doesn't pertain to the scheme of all things on God's green Earth (or, in other words, objectivity), then that's what we call a subjective interpretation.

It's great that you think PC gaming has advantages over console games, but that's just your opinion.

Are you seriously implying that you can't have an objective stance that doesn't involve to everything available on Earth? "It doesn't matter if a diamond is 24 carat or 8 carat, the quality is subjective because a stable home is more important."

If we want to refer to one of the discussion-pieces last time, "60fps isn't better in all cases. For example, found-films." Great. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the camera capable of 1080p/60fps footage is a higher quality camera than one that can only do 240p/24fps because the former camera's materials allow it to function at a higher performance than the latter. This isn't because it's 1080/60, it's because it's capable of it and the other camera isn't. We even reached this conclusion last time, Verb; that if we speak in the context of a work's critical quality (that is, on the merits of which apply to its field and subjective parts such as acting, themes, etc), then quality is subjective because its contents are innately subjective. But I'm not talking about that, which should have been incredibly obvious by the fact that I even used the words "in terms of performance" to describe the quality.

Of course--but I'm not really here to change anyone's opinion on anything.

I'm just saying that PC gaming is not factually better than console gaming.

And I'm not saying that PC gaming is better either. Every response I've given in this thread, besides towards you, was in argument that higher quality does not necessarily mean something is better. That's why I even cited the first OED definition of "superior", specifically so that you wouldn't interpret it as me saying it's "better".

I'll even say it in the context of the question posed by Cindo: No, PC gaming is not better than consoles. It is an incredibly subjective descriptor. There are many reasons ranging from convenience and comfort, to choice in available games, what your friends have, to platitudes like "it just feels right". Choosing whether you want to use a PC or console is entirely dependent upon the values on which the individual warrants are important to him or herself.

And I am in all honesty regretful for the manner in which I typed at least half of that post, and the attitude I'd displayed in the last couple of posts I've made. I'm just angry at the fact that you've chosen to interpret my argument completely out of context and the ways in which you've responded. If you want to talk metaphysics, I'll talk metaphysics. But I expect to limit the discussion to metaphysics (heh), and I expect you not to respond with such a flippant attitude.

If the point I'm making is obviously limited in scope in the first place, then respond in a way that is within the same scope.

tfw you agree with verb

What else is new.

---

A developer using a low FPS on purpose to make the player feel like their game is broken to fit in with a theme of brokeness (or whatever), would be pretty cool IMO.

Precisely because we came to the conclusion last time that you're speaking from a philosophical standpoint. And since we've had that conversation, you should damn well know that I'm speaking in terms of tangible differences in terms of performance to judge this. That's why I'm actually a little pissed off that this conversation is coming up again, because we've already had this discussion, and we agreed on each others stances.

Well, last time, I wasn't arguing very well. I was using a bunch of weird, shitty examples that didn't really express what I was trying to say very well, because I had only just then come to that conclusion that that was how I looked at the whole thing. So because of that, I wasn't sure if you actually understood what I was trying to say.

If you did, I'd think you'd stop using terms like "better" or "best" or "superior" with regards to this kind of stuff.
Not that you have to--but that's what made me think.

We even reached this conclusion last time, Verb; that if we speak in the context of a work's critical quality (that is, on the merits of which apply to its field and subjective parts such as acting, themes, etc), then quality is subjective because its contents are innately subjective. But I'm not talking about that, which should have been incredibly obvious by the fact that I even used the words "in terms of performance" to describe the quality.

I suppose. But I mean, that's sorta the same terms I was going by, too. In terms of performance, there are games where I might prefer 30fps. *shrug* It's true.

I know what you're saying now, though.

And I'm not saying that PC gaming is better either. Every response I've given in this thread, besides towards you, was in argument that higher quality does not necessarily mean something is better. That's why I even cited the first OED definition of "superior", specifically so that you wouldn't interpret it as me saying it's "better".

I'll even say it in the context of the question posed by Cindo: No, PC gaming is not better than consoles. It is an incredibly subjective descriptor. There are many reasons ranging from convenience and comfort, to choice in available games, what your friends have, to platitudes like "it just feels right". Choosing whether you want to use a PC or console is entirely dependent upon the values on which the individual warrants are important to him or herself.

👌

You didn't have to type this all out, though, you know. I got your point. I know this sort of thing irritates you, but I just get really touchy when people start playing around with subjectivity and objectivity.

I've been getting on your nerves a lot lately. Sorry about that.

A developer using a low FPS on purpose to make the player feel like their game is broken to fit in with a theme of brokeness (or whatever), would be pretty cool IMO.

I wouldn't say it would work in general, but maybe for a quest that's fourth wall breaking; making the screen tear, or massive drops, to convey some matter that's present thematically.

And I am in all honesty regretful for the manner in which I typed at least half of that post, and the attitude I'd displayed in the last couple of posts I've made. I'm just angry at the fact that you've chosen to interpret my argument completely out of context and the ways in which you've responded. If you want to talk metaphysics, I'll talk metaphysics. But I expect to limit the discussion to metaphysics (heh), and I expect you not to respond with such a flippant attitude.

If the point I'm making is obviously limited in scope in the first place, then respond in a way that is within the same scope.

Fair enough. I'm almost always thinking in philosophical terms, and I was already having the conversation with Luciana and Lemon and others (went well with Luciana, not so much with Lemon), so I guess I was just in the mood to talk about metaphysics.

I don't even think I used the "objectively" in the first place, just "superior" in reference to the platform's performance.

Yeah, but it does have that connotation, I think. The first word you used was "best" with reference to PC ports, which is definitely an objective statement. But yeah, I know what you're saying, and I probably should've known from the start. My bad.

Everybody just stop

tfw you agree with verb

What else is new.

---

A developer using a low FPS on purpose to make the player feel like their game is broken to fit in with a theme of brokeness (or whatever), would be pretty cool IMO.

I'm very glad you see what I'm talking about. Yeah, that would definitely be cool.

Quote from: Prime Uta on October 08, 2015, 08:45:02 PM

I wouldn't say it would work in general

Neither would I.

But like all things, it could be awesome if executed well.

Quote

but maybe for a quest that's fourth wall breaking; making the screen tear, or massive drops, to convey some matter that's present thematically.

Exactly. The closest thing I can think of was the Mantis boss fight in MGS1 with the "Hideo" screen thing. That shit was cool back in the day.

By "in general", I mean "always a thing through the entire game", especially an MMO. It might be cool at first, but it would get annoying pretty fast; that's why you'd have to limit the period in which it happens.