Introduce yourself to game

"

http://www.romulation.net/PSX

Ya i stopped replying. It fun to sit back and listen to the argument.

"

Skivverus wrote:

"

Septile wrote:

If text on a monitor can stop people from thinking clearly, they lack intelligence. A face-to-face confrontation is completely different, apparently that's a concept that nobody can get through their thick head.

Next question: how did you feel while you were writing this?

Indifferent.

"

Skivverus wrote:

Text (on a monitor or in a book) is a different form of communication than verbal and body language, but nevertheless can carry emotional "punch", so to speak.

Read any good books lately? Case in point.

All books I've ever read have never gotten an emotional response from me, books perceived as good or otherwise.

"

Skivverus wrote:

"

Septile wrote:

None of those examples are intellectually stimulating. If I can play through a video game without actively thinking about every decision I'm making, it's not intellectually stimulating. If those examples are intellectually stimulating, then you're intellectually disabled.

It seems to me that you have never actually "played through" those games, as if you had, your blanket dismissal could have been replaced by individual critiques I might in theory be convinced by.

Well one of the perks, or detriments, of the internet is that due to my total indifference to other people on the internet, I really don't give enough of a shit about you to bother trying to convince you of anything.

"

Skivverus wrote:

"

Septile wrote:

Once again, face-to-face confrontation is completely different than when you can't see who you're communicating with. I don't understand why nobody thinks about this, it just shows how little they understand about communication and how they just love stroking themselves.

There are significant differences, yes (emotes, for example, showed up shortly after instant messaging for a reason), but there are also noticeable similarities you're (quite possibly deliberately) ignoring.

Hey I'm going to use your logic and say that if there actually were differences I was ignoring you would have pointed out the differences rather than just pointing out that there are differences derp derp.

Hi! I was told that this game is somewhat similar to D2 :P

"

tina wrote:

Hi! I was told that this game is somewhat similar to D2 :P

no this is actually the new farmville you grow zombies from graves and crop their heads off :P yes this is "like" D2 but hopefully much better.

"

Septile wrote:

Hey I'm going to use your logic and say that if there actually were differences I was ignoring you would have pointed out the differences rather than just pointing out that there are differences derp derp.

I'm assuming you meant "similarities" there, on the theory that you intended to use my logic against me. But I'll take your point about pointing out specifics. So:

Example 1: Emotes.
You and I might not use them, but they do possess a recognizable visual similarity to facial expressions, as well as a similarity in effect (i.e.: to convey emotion). The fact that they appear in conversations which are entirely text-based suggests, therefore, that such conversations can and do elicit emotional responses among people with at least enough intelligence to operate a keyboard and/or phone.

Example 2: Letters.
Y'know, those things people wrote to each other way back before the internet. If we toss out all the love letters, political correspondence, and generally "non-intellectual" stuff (which I'd hardly call idiotic, but for the sake of argument), we're left with arguments between philosophers, monks, and (later on) scientists which almost invariably included some sort of expressed emotional response, whether it was to the theory under discussion or to arguments for or against it.

This actually brings up a mildly interesting point: said philosophers/monks/etc. were having emotional reactions not only to written letters, but to ideas, which I think we can say are neither spoken nor written.

Example 3: The fact that you responded.
Fairly simple logic here: if you didn't care, you wouldn't bother to post.

And now for the useful portion of this post.

Yes, the game's got quite a few similarities to D2; overall, I think they're aiming for something a little more desolate than Diablo II's "Epic (and profitable) Crusade Against Evil" feel - hence the title, the visuals, the reliance on skill gems for combat prowess, and the somewhat depressing (but well-written) extant lore.

"

tpapp157 wrote:

This thread is amusing.

no shit

"

Skivverus wrote:

"

Septile wrote:

Hey I'm going to use your logic and say that if there actually were differences I was ignoring you would have pointed out the differences rather than just pointing out that there are differences derp derp.

I'm assuming you meant "similarities" there, on the theory that you intended to use my logic against me. But I'll take your point about pointing out specifics. So:

Example 1: Emotes.
You and I might not use them, but they do possess a recognizable visual similarity to facial expressions, as well as a similarity in effect (i.e.: to convey emotion). The fact that they appear in conversations which are entirely text-based suggests, therefore, that such conversations can and do elicit emotional responses among people with at least enough intelligence to operate a keyboard and/or phone.

Emotes don't mean a damn thing. I've seen people who weren't sad using sad faces and people who are sad using smiley faces. It's stupid bullshit, people love stupid bullshit, and so you have emotes.

"

Skivverus wrote:

Example 2: Letters.
Y'know, those things people wrote to each other way back before the internet. If we toss out all the love letters, political correspondence, and generally "non-intellectual" stuff (which I'd hardly call idiotic, but for the sake of argument), we're left with arguments between philosophers, monks, and (later on) scientists which almost invariably included some sort of expressed emotional response, whether it was to the theory under discussion or to arguments for or against it.

This actually brings up a mildly interesting point: said philosophers/monks/etc. were having emotional reactions not only to written letters, but to ideas, which I think we can say are neither spoken nor written.

Ok, people communicated with letters back before the internet. Who gives a shit? People respond to ideas? Gee fucking whiz, what a revelation.
If any of you actually knew anything about communication, you'd know that 88% of communication is nonverbal. That means not spoken or written. You can easily go back in time and ask the people dealing with the shitty form of communication that is letters and ask them if they wish there was a better alternative and 100% of them would say yes because letters are a last resort when it comes to communication, they wouldn't even exist if there was an easy way to communicate long distances from the get go.
And yet, my position that people who get baffled by text on a monitor are idiots still stands.

"

Skivverus wrote:

Example 3: The fact that you responded.
Fairly simple logic here: if you didn't care, you wouldn't bother to post.

That's idiotic, so called 'logic.'
Real logic is that I have too much time on my hands, so I waste my time trying to get across simple concepts to thick headed morons.

Septile your a fucking troll GTFO

Someone on here is a little bit too proud of themselves.

Start your own rant thread, preferably in the Off Topic forum, where it belongs.

Come on guys, dont pick on septile this is all he got.