This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Azumarill
Pages: 1 ... 180181182 183184 ... 255
5431
« on: February 04, 2015, 07:53:20 PM »
ask her to put some more clothes on because we're making bacon and i dont want her pretty skin to get burned
Considerate
yeah im a "nice guy"
5432
« on: February 04, 2015, 07:52:36 PM »
My support skills are unmatched as:
is that steve from accounting?
5433
« on: February 04, 2015, 07:51:39 PM »
ask her to put some more clothes on because we're making bacon and i dont want her pretty skin to get burned
5434
« on: February 04, 2015, 07:50:35 PM »
one time i was in chinatown, NYC with a few friends. we all placed our orders, and the guy came to the table with an plate of pork fried rice. none of us had ordered an extra plate, and we tried telling that to him, but he kept saying "o no it on da house" "powk flied lice" and just being like ok take it for free. so we did, we divided it amongst ourselves, and they ended up charging us all extra for the plate that we hadnt ordered and had been told was free. so, i didnt tip. i dont think anyone else did either. fuck that guy.
5435
« on: February 04, 2015, 07:48:07 PM »
conflict is a natural part of human relationships. you shouldnt live in fear of it
5436
« on: February 04, 2015, 07:47:16 PM »
looks like a shameless cash grab, and breaking bad wasnt that good in the first place, so ill probably pass. at least until the series is finished, then i might watch it in one go if i hear good things.
5437
« on: February 04, 2015, 07:46:28 PM »
havent met any girls that want to fuck me
5438
« on: February 04, 2015, 07:45:33 PM »
FLCL is an absolutely incredible work of art. i want an OVA about Atomsk. he's such a fucking badass. also ITT: ignorant fools who pass off anime as an art form because of ill-conceived prejudices.
5439
« on: February 04, 2015, 07:35:43 PM »
if you dont come prepared for proper discourse, dont whine when your poor logic gets refuted. the thread wasnt derailed. i was the fucking OP, the flow of discussion went in a direction that i was prepared for.
5440
« on: February 04, 2015, 06:33:52 PM »
on all fronts This is the disagreement, right here. Something can have aspects of realism and still be unrealistic as a whole. For example-- on a smaller scale-- reloading a gun isn't unrealistic, or throwing a brick to create a diversion isn't unrealistic. The backdrop can be realistic while the game, as a whole, is unrealistic. I don't know how I can say it more perfectly than, "the backdrop is realistic, but everything else is unrealistic."
That's the thing, I don't think the backdrop is realistic.... I thought I made that clear
5441
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:50:39 PM »
I think, fundamentally, the important issue here is that realism requires an effort against idealization- as you said, the least amount of compromises in terms of reality contributes to just how realistic something is. Now, with that said, the thing I'm arguing against is the entire concept- it's so grounded in non-realism, from the very idea of a mutated fungus spreading and killing 60% of the population (a very idealized version of something that has very little precedent in reality) to the absolutely dreadful execution of the "realistic" gameplay (which is important to talk about with regard to the intent of the original post.) So, TLOU is disqualified from "realism" on all fronts, assuming we're all working off the same definition of realism. Now, where does that leave us? I think we should ignore TLOU completely in a discussion about realism in games.
5442
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:01:10 PM »
People, Mordo isn't saying that TLOU is realistic (it isn't). That's why he specified backdrop. Zombies are clearly fictional, but how everyone reacts to a fatal and highly contagious infection isn't that out there. How it handles an apocalyptic scenario isn't that far fetched either.
the general idea is founded in a very un-realistic setting, so i would argue that it doesnt qualify as realistic by virtue of its inherent theme. that's all im saying, fundamentally
Nobody is disagreeing that TLOU is unrealistic. A backdrop is defined as, "the setting or conditions within which something happens". The conditions being "a highly contagious and fatal infection spreads throughout the US (most likely the world) and results in a failing of government agencies to hold society together. How do people react to this?"
yes, TLOU does deal with those things in a plausible way. but, as we've established, for something to be considered realistic, it needs to be grounded in reality and fidelity to nature/real life with accurate representation and without idealization. In the case of TLOU, is it fundamentally grounded in a very unrealistic theme- it handles the consequences of the outbreak in a solid, plausible way, but by its very nature it is rendered unrealistic, and isn't fit to be mentioned in the realm of "realistic video games." does that make sense?
This is why I started with "TLOU isn't realistic". Nobody has debated that, nobody disagrees with you. You're equating the whole of the game-- which is unrealistic-- to the backdrop, the only thing he mentioned in his post.
TLOU is unrealistic.
The backdrop isn't. You are both correct because you are both arguing two different points.
i could go all day picking this stuff apart and arguing semantic logic but im not getting through to you guys so ill leave it at this. the backdrop of TLOU fundamentally includes its setting, which is grounded in the fictional spread of a (fictionally mutated) fungus across the world and the consequences of that fungal outbreak on society. the execution is realistic for its context, but the context itself is inherently unrealistic, so it lies entirely in the realm of non-reality. now, how does this tie in with the OP? TLOU's gameplay wants to be realistic, but the AI is so goddamn retarded that the execution falls flat on its face. the actual story progresses logically and plausibly within the confines of the overarching theme, but as i stated before, it's inherently unrealistic. so, at the core of things, if we categorize games into "realistic," and "unrealistic," TLOU obviously falls into the latter category. but that begs the question; how many games are actually realistic, then? how many games are close enough to reality to actually qualify as fundamentally realistic? i think that's the question we should really be finding the answer to, because this argument is going nowhere fast.
5443
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:50:12 PM »
People, Mordo isn't saying that TLOU is realistic (it isn't). That's why he specified backdrop. Zombies are clearly fictional, but how everyone reacts to a fatal and highly contagious infection isn't that out there. How it handles an apocalyptic scenario isn't that far fetched either.
the general idea is founded in a very un-realistic setting, so i would argue that it doesnt qualify as realistic by virtue of its inherent theme. that's all im saying, fundamentally
Nobody is disagreeing that TLOU is unrealistic. A backdrop is defined as, "the setting or conditions within which something happens". The conditions being "a highly contagious and fatal infection spreads throughout the US (most likely the world) and results in a failing of government agencies to hold society together. How do people react to this?"
yes, TLOU does deal with those things in a plausible way. but, as we've established, for something to be considered realistic, it needs to be grounded in reality and fidelity to nature/real life with accurate representation and without idealization. In the case of TLOU, is it fundamentally grounded in a very unrealistic theme- it handles the consequences of the outbreak in a solid, plausible way, but by its very nature it is rendered unrealistic, and isn't fit to be mentioned in the realm of "realistic video games." does that make sense?
5444
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:41:03 PM »
People, Mordo isn't saying that TLOU is realistic (it isn't). That's why he specified backdrop. Zombies are clearly fictional, but how everyone reacts to a fatal and highly contagious infection isn't that out there. How it handles an apocalyptic scenario isn't that far fetched either.
the general idea is founded in a very un-realistic setting, so i would argue that it doesnt qualify as realistic by virtue of its inherent theme. that's all im saying, fundamentally
5445
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:39:54 PM »
Prolly just going to get the mods in to lock this thread.
This forum is literally cancer. Don't know why I bother spending time here.
what would they lock it for? this has been a very civil discussion. i have provided all the proper sources for my arguments against TLOU's "realism" and i have given you ample opportunity to do the same for your argument. dont back out on me now... it was just getting fun =]
This thread has been derailed to fuck over the basis of a word. That warrants a lock.
derailed? we're simply having a discussion about TLOU's realism. this is actually very on topic. i would know, since i made the thread..
5446
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:36:13 PM »
Prolly just going to get the mods in to lock this thread.
This forum is literally cancer. Don't know why I bother spending time here.
what would they lock it for? this has been a very civil discussion. i have provided all the proper sources for my arguments against TLOU's "realism" and i have given you ample opportunity to do the same for your argument. dont back out on me now... it was just getting fun =]
5447
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:33:51 PM »
im arguing that The Last of Us isnt a realistic game. it's only realistic in the sense that it takes place on our earth and has human characters who use guns and stuff. the non-realistic story elements, such as the fungus zombies, comprise the overarching theme and therefore it is inherently based in non-reality. so, it's a very bad example of a "realistic game."
sure, if you ignore all the unrealistic elements of the game, then it becomes realistic... but the fundamental idea of The Last of Us isnt realistic at all.
And if you actually read my post, I never stated it was outright grounded in realism either. I said it was as close as any videogame has ever gotten to the post apocalyptic setting due it's attention to grit, and the fact that it uses actual real life viral pathogens.
Christ, this forum really needs a crash course in basic literacy.
oh hey shit we've gotten to the backtracking stage of losing an argument
good golly god damn kid you're a goldmine of impotent rhetoric
Please, I'd love for you to point out in my posts where I stated that TLOU was a realistic game.
What do you mean by realism? Realistic combat like Operation Flashpoint, or realistic(ish) settings and backdrops like The Last Of Us?
right there, actually oddly enough, you were much more willing to admit your insecurities about TLOU's realism in the original post. its as though you just dont want to lose the argument. its ok to be wrong. i get what you mean, i just think its silly to mention TLOU in a discussion about realistic games.
5448
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:31:51 PM »
mordo, since you keep repeating the same thing over and over, i thought id take the liberty to repost something i said earlier in the thread that you might have missed.
here, let me clue you in on some #relevanthistoricalinformation
the confucians have long believed in a concept called "the rectification of names," which encourages proper nomenclature of things so as to catalyze social harmony. so, when you take words like "realism," dilute the meaning and apply it to define something that... isnt realistic at all... that's a breach of proper confucian conduct, and you are fostering social enmity instead of harmony
I'm not sure why you're bringing out ancient Chinese philosophy to debate microbiology, but eh. Whatever. I'm done with this inflammatory thread.
inflammatory? oh, friend, you have it all wrong... you pulled out the autist card, i simply played the game you started.
le funy reaction face ex dee dee
Really though, what are you guys even arguing at this point? I asked a question then I get a torrent of sperglords trying to debate semantics and contest basic biology.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/realistic
You're changing the meaning of realistic to possible.
Possible != realistic.
Which is why Azu said:
here, let me clue you in on some #relevanthistoricalinformation
the confucians have long believed in a concept called "the rectification of names," which encourages proper nomenclature of things so as to catalyze social harmony. so, when you take words like "realism," dilute the meaning and apply it to define something that... isnt realistic at all... that's a breach of proper confucian conduct, and you are fostering social enmity instead of harmony
https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=realistic
having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected. https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=possible
that may exist or happen, but that is not certain or probable. ya dun goof'd m9
We done with this semantics war, or are you going to continue to debate definitions and scientific fact?
you're very stubborn.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/realistic
realism:
concern for fact or reality and rejection of the impractical and visionary;
the theory or practice of fidelity in art and literature to nature or to real life and to accurate representation without idealization
from Merriam-Webster. do you have a more credible dictionary source than that? i doubt it. please stop. you're embarrassing yourself.
"This online source isn't credible because it's online, but this OTHER online source is!"
Holy fuck lol, the logic.
merriam-webster has been the most reputable dictionary source in america for a very long time. are you daft or just trolling?
5449
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:30:50 PM »
mordo, since you keep repeating the same thing over and over, i thought id take the liberty to repost something i said earlier in the thread that you might have missed.
here, let me clue you in on some #relevanthistoricalinformation
the confucians have long believed in a concept called "the rectification of names," which encourages proper nomenclature of things so as to catalyze social harmony. so, when you take words like "realism," dilute the meaning and apply it to define something that... isnt realistic at all... that's a breach of proper confucian conduct, and you are fostering social enmity instead of harmony
I'm not sure why you're bringing out ancient Chinese philosophy to debate microbiology, but eh. Whatever. I'm done with this inflammatory thread.
inflammatory? oh, friend, you have it all wrong... you pulled out the autist card, i simply played the game you started.
le funy reaction face ex dee dee
Really though, what are you guys even arguing at this point? I asked a question then I get a torrent of sperglords trying to debate semantics and contest basic biology.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/realistic
You're changing the meaning of realistic to possible.
Possible != realistic.
Which is why Azu said:
here, let me clue you in on some #relevanthistoricalinformation
the confucians have long believed in a concept called "the rectification of names," which encourages proper nomenclature of things so as to catalyze social harmony. so, when you take words like "realism," dilute the meaning and apply it to define something that... isnt realistic at all... that's a breach of proper confucian conduct, and you are fostering social enmity instead of harmony
https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=realistic
having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected. https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=possible
that may exist or happen, but that is not certain or probable. ya dun goof'd m9
We done with this semantics war, or are you going to continue to debate definitions and scientific fact?
>Using google to define words instead of a dictionary
Yes, we are done.
By all means, refer to a paper dictionary.
I'm sure you'll find the same definition.
lucky for us, i have a pocket dictionary handy. from The New Webster's Dictionary, 1990: realism: an attitude based on facts and reality as opposed to emotions; (pay close attention here- in art/literature) fidelity to life as experienced and perceived
5450
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:25:17 PM »
im arguing that The Last of Us isnt a realistic game. it's only realistic in the sense that it takes place on our earth and has human characters who use guns and stuff. the non-realistic story elements, such as the fungus zombies, comprise the overarching theme and therefore it is inherently based in non-reality. so, it's a very bad example of a "realistic game."
sure, if you ignore all the unrealistic elements of the game, then it becomes realistic... but the fundamental idea of The Last of Us isnt realistic at all.
And if you actually read my post, I never stated it was outright grounded in realism either. I said it was as close as any videogame has ever gotten to the post apocalyptic setting due it's attention to grit, and the fact that it uses actual real life viral pathogens.
Christ, this forum really needs a crash course in basic literacy.
oh hey shit we've gotten to the backtracking stage of losing an argument good golly god damn kid you're a goldmine of impotent rhetoric
5451
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:24:15 PM »
mordo, since you keep repeating the same thing over and over, i thought id take the liberty to repost something i said earlier in the thread that you might have missed.
here, let me clue you in on some #relevanthistoricalinformation
the confucians have long believed in a concept called "the rectification of names," which encourages proper nomenclature of things so as to catalyze social harmony. so, when you take words like "realism," dilute the meaning and apply it to define something that... isnt realistic at all... that's a breach of proper confucian conduct, and you are fostering social enmity instead of harmony
I'm not sure why you're bringing out ancient Chinese philosophy to debate microbiology, but eh. Whatever. I'm done with this inflammatory thread.
inflammatory? oh, friend, you have it all wrong... you pulled out the autist card, i simply played the game you started.
le funy reaction face ex dee dee
Really though, what are you guys even arguing at this point? I asked a question then I get a torrent of sperglords trying to debate semantics and contest basic biology.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/realistic
You're changing the meaning of realistic to possible.
Possible != realistic.
Which is why Azu said:
here, let me clue you in on some #relevanthistoricalinformation
the confucians have long believed in a concept called "the rectification of names," which encourages proper nomenclature of things so as to catalyze social harmony. so, when you take words like "realism," dilute the meaning and apply it to define something that... isnt realistic at all... that's a breach of proper confucian conduct, and you are fostering social enmity instead of harmony
https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=realistic
having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected. https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=possible
that may exist or happen, but that is not certain or probable. ya dun goof'd m9
We done with this semantics war, or are you going to continue to debate definitions and scientific fact?
you're very stubborn. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/realisticrealism: concern for fact or reality and rejection of the impractical and visionary; the theory or practice of fidelity in art and literature to nature or to real life and to accurate representation without idealization from Merriam-Webster. do you have a more credible dictionary source than that? i doubt it. please stop. you're embarrassing yourself.
5452
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:17:15 PM »
im arguing that The Last of Us isnt a realistic game. it's only realistic in the sense that it takes place on our earth and has human characters who use guns and stuff. the non-realistic story elements, such as the fungus zombies, comprise the overarching theme and therefore it is inherently based in non-reality. so, it's a very bad example of a "realistic game."
sure, if you ignore all the unrealistic elements of the game, then it becomes realistic... but the fundamental idea of The Last of Us isnt realistic at all.
5453
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:06:51 PM »
i use it but i hate it
5454
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:05:01 PM »
inflammatory? oh, friend, you have it all wrong... you pulled out the autist card, i simply played the game you started.
5455
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:02:00 PM »
5456
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:59:59 PM »
mordo, since you keep repeating the same thing over and over, i thought id take the liberty to repost something i said earlier in the thread that you might have missed. here, let me clue you in on some #relevanthistoricalinformation
the confucians have long believed in a concept called "the rectification of names," which encourages proper nomenclature of things so as to catalyze social harmony. so, when you take words like "realism," dilute the meaning and apply it to define something that... isnt realistic at all... that's a breach of proper confucian conduct, and you are fostering social enmity instead of harmony
5457
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:47:14 PM »
no mordo i just think your entire argument is flat out retarded
5458
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:25:58 PM »
im not sure what any of this means but statistics are cool so i chose option 1
5459
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:24:53 PM »
DO WE HAVE A NEW QUEEN OF BOOTY WE DOOOOOOO
5460
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:24:25 PM »
i dont think completely annihilating the human race would be the best idea.. i mean, we are really fucking insane, but intelligent life is such a rare thing in the universe, it'd be a shame to throw this all away... we just need to cut the population down to size over the next few generations. we cant let the baby boom happen again. we have to encourage single-child or no-child families.
Pages: 1 ... 180181182 183184 ... 255
|
Show Posts
