Single-player Video Games Thread

Share and discuss.

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Oct 31, 2014 1:19 am

Atheris wrote:Literally anything can be called art. This thread is dedicated to a more casual talk and discussion about games though, rather than an attempt to evaluate their artistic value (or if they even possess it), but people are free of course to express themselves and write what they will.


The reason I said that is because I recently posted in another video game thread that was created in the art subforum, so when I left this thread I expected to be in the art subforum which is why I started looking for the music thread (which wasn't there, of course, since I was in the off-topic subforum.) That's all.

But if you want to discuss the "are games art?" topic I am all up for it. I've mastered that topic long time ago and have been through it like billions of times already.

Vanquish seems a little too futuristic and dynamic for me, almost like a cartoon. I'm more into gloomier type of shooters or at least a little more realistic.


I didn't find it to be cartoonish, but it's kinda arcadey, that's true.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3015
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby fuse » Fri Oct 31, 2014 1:49 am

Atheris wrote:Still butthurt about Last of Us being a console exclusive :evil: . I heard Destiny is pretty mediocre tho, though I'm not exactly sure this is a reliable review or a site altogether :lol:

http://www.videogamessuck.com/review531.html

Yeah, all the exclusivity is a pain. I don't buy many games so it sucks when the few games I want to play are spread out between 3 different platforms.

Destiny is mediocre.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:06 am

Literally anything can be called art.


This is literally wrong, but it is also literally right. Literally anything can be called anything because words are symbols and they can point to whatever the hell you want them to point to. Moreover, to make things even worse, in the universe that is interconnected, everything is a kind of everything else (which is to say, everything is related to everything else), meaning that, all concepts can be reduced to all other concepts, meaning that, strictly speaking, you ARE right. Everything is art, but also, which is something you didn't mention, everything is everything else e.g. everything is woman just as everything is man just as everything is vacuum cleaner just as everything is forum and so on and so forth. I was trying to explain to some guy on some other forum a while ago about how women are vacuum cleaners, that is to say, how women can be used as vacuum cleaners (by forcing them to lick the dirt), but he didn't believe me a word! Heraclitus and relationalism are too difficult for people (who are mostly platonists) to understand.

However -- and this is a BIG however -- just because everything is related to everything else does not mean that we can't determine when something starts to be something and when it stops to be that something. It does not mean we can't differentiate between things, it does not mean we can't separate that which is art from that which is not art, it does not mean we can't put things into their own categories (even though in reality everything belongs to every category.) It is a mistake to reach for such a conclusion for such a conclusion leads to nihilism, to inability to discriminate at all, to pure perception of flux (which is actually no perception at all.)

I'm pretty sure I've lost you by now, but don't worry, I can say other things as well.

Basically, you are wrong: some things are art and some are not.

For example, my monitor is NOT art, though I can certainly try to use it as such.

The thing is that the word "art" denotes a function, and functions can be applied to any objects. If functions can be applied to any objects, then any object can be considered to be an object of any function. However, not all objects perform equally well at any given function, and it is precisely this that ends up determining which objects should be associated with which functions and which objects shouldn't be associated with which functions.

Girls aren't vacuum cleaners -- they are terrible vacuum cleaners. Moreover, there are many other functions girls are far better at (e.g. giving birth to babies.)

My monitor performs terribly as a function of art and is pretty great as a function of monitor (which is why we call it monitor and not art.)

Function might be a wrong word. A more suitable word could be "a kind of becoming".

Anything a human finds aesthetically appealing can be called art


Yes, but that does not mean that what they call art is really art. Not to insult, but reality is reality, and what you're saying here is a pseudo-intellectual sort of thinking.

even a galaxy, and it's fun that you mention the galaxy because it really IS aesthetically appealing to me and inspires awe and wonder. That's exactly what art is about, is it not?


No, galaxies can never be art, unless you are connecting the stars in such a way so that they resemble various things that are not galaxies (but even in that case, that would be a really bad sort of art.)

Art is simulation. Galaxies aren't simulations, though as I've said, you can use them as such. But if you do, they will be very WEAK simulations.

Simulation is an illusion, it is something that is happening merely inside of one's head.

Simulation: that which appears to be something that it is not.

If you are staring at the stars, and seeing nothing but stars, that's no simulation, that's reality. However, as I've said earlier, if you're seeing something other than stars, an illusion of some sort, then we're speaking of artistic experience, which is, however, in all cases, very weak, and thus, not really an artistic experience.

There is a difference between a REAL galaxy and a galaxy painted on a canvas. A galaxy on a canvas is NOT a real galaxy, it's a simulated galaxy -- an illusion of galaxy (this is one of the reasons why architecture isn't art.)
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3015
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby AutSider » Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:51 pm

MagnusAnderson, I'll read and respond to that when I'm sober.

I'm playing this baby again.

http://cdn.akamai.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/41700/header.jpg?t=1386683457


With AtmosFear 3 and SMRTER mods. Perfect.
User avatar
AutSider
Truth seeker
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Nov 02, 2014 6:24 am

The only games I enjoy at the moment are 2D Super Mario platform games (including Super Luigi U), Retro Studios' Donkey Kong Country games, Zelda games playable with a traditional controller, Deus Ex-like games (Far Cry 3, Skyrim, Fallout 3), the Portal series, racing sims (really enjoying Forza Horizon 2 on Xbox 360 at the moment), the Tomb Raider series, and the occasional stand-alone 2D platformer. At work I'm biding the time with Super Mario World until my order of WRC 4 arrives next week.
Value Philosophy: First philosophy is the positing of the metaphysics one values the most.
Value Metaphysics: Being is essentially Self-Valuing: beings exist inasmuch as they value themselves.
Value Axiology: Valuation is a rational value, as the disvaluation of it would disvalue itself, too.
Value Logic: Logic's self-identical "A" is a value, and not necessarily a fact.
Value Ethics: It is just to consider things just, and unjust to consider things unjust.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7019
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby fuse » Sun Nov 02, 2014 8:19 am

What I'm playing right now:




I've had this mission to play through the Final Fantasy classics, or as much as I could stand, to see what the hype was all about. When I was growing up, some of my best friends used to talk highly of Final Fantasy and I always wondered what kind of games they were. That nagging curiosity to know what Final Fantasy was all about came back after I watched a short documentary on the history of the series. What l saw interested me so I decided to set about playing the first six games in order. What actually happened was I started with FFI, skipped to FFIV, then FFV, left FFVI uncompleted, same with FVII, now I'm trying the ninth game of the series (FFIX) and the last one I intend to try. It's been fun and I can certainly imagine why kids were obsessed with these games. I am enjoying IX a lot, and three things I have come to count on throughout this series are a solid challenge, an interesting evolution of design, and an always captivating original score.

Final Fantasy's origin story-

    Though often attributed to the company allegedly facing bankruptcy, Sakaguchi explained that the game was his personal last-ditch effort in the game industry and that its title, Final Fantasy, stemmed from his feelings at the time; had the game not sold well, he would have quit the business and gone back to university. The game indeed reversed Square's lagging fortunes, and it became the company's flagship franchise
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby AutSider » Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 pm

Literally anything can be called anything because words are symbols and they can point to whatever the hell you want them to point to.


If you really want to play semantics, you can call anything art and find justifications for it, you don't just call it art and leave it there, you can give reasons and arguments why something, anything is art.

Moreover, to make things even worse, in the universe that is interconnected, everything is a kind of everything else (which is to say, everything is related to everything else), meaning that, all concepts can be reduced to all other concepts


Ultimately we all may be made of identical matter but different arrangements of that matter in specific forms "give birth" to specific concepts matching those forms. So your claim that "everything is everything else" is false. A cat is not a dog. A woman can serve one of the possible functions of a vacuum cleaner but she can't serve some others, just like the vacuum cleaner can't give birth to children for example. I can agree that functions of some things can partially overlap, aka that some things are similar to other things in certain aspects. It doesn't follow from that that "everything is everything else"

Yes, but that does not mean that what they call art is really art. Not to insult, but reality is reality, and what you're saying here is a pseudo-intellectual sort of thinking.


It is art TO THEM, that is my opinion. Art is what is aesthetically appealing, but what is aesthetically appealing depends completely on the individual, therefore what is art also depends completely on the individual.

I may think the video 2 Girls 1 Cup is disgusting. Even most people may think it. To scatophiliacs however, it might be perfect art and they can give subjective reasons why just like the rest of us can give subjective reasons why not.

What standard do you propose for what is art and what isn't? Collective subjective opinions of majority (general populace)? Collective subjective opinions of majority of ARTISTS? Your own subjective opinion as an objective standard for what art is?

Simulation: that which appears to be something that it is not.


That's not the definition I found.

If you are staring at the stars, and seeing nothing but stars, that's no simulation, that's reality. However, as I've said earlier, if you're seeing something other than stars, an illusion of some sort, then we're speaking of artistic experience, which is, however, in all cases, very weak, and thus, not really an artistic experience.


So... an artistic experience isn't an artistic experience...

I stare at the stars and see stars. I may associate some other similar experiences/thoughts with that image of stars but I'm not being delusional, I don't see something other than stars when I stare at stars.

So basically, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS, architecture isn't art because it doesn't imitate reality, fine, according to some other person's subjective standards of what constitutes art it may be.

While I do agree we should strive towards having similar definitions of all words, people are just so different when it comes to what they find aesthetically appealing that it's impossible for any one particular definition of art to be adequate. That's why I propose the vague one I use as it includes every person's notion of what is art(every person I've communicated that definition to so far).


Stopped playing STALKER due to lack of time :( . At most I have half an hour/day of gaming and I mostly use that to fuck around in Prototype 2.
User avatar
AutSider
Truth seeker
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Nov 03, 2014 9:40 pm

If you really want to play semantics, you can call anything art and find justifications for it, you don't just call it art and leave it there, you can give reasons and arguments why something, anything is art.


It is you who are playing semantics here, not me.

Ultimately we all may be made of identical matter but different arrangements of that matter in specific forms "give birth" to specific concepts matching those forms. So your claim that "everything is everything else" is false.


It is true, it is just that you do not really comprehend what I am saying. You are simply not following me. What I am saying here is that everything is related to everything else, not that everything is equal to everything else.

A cat is not a dog.


It is not a dog, that is true, but it is a kind of dog i.e. it can be related to a dog.

It doesn't follow from that that "everything is everything else"


And I actually never said "everything is everything else" but "everything is a KIND of everything else" which simply means that everything is related to everything else not that everything is related to everything else IN THE SAME WAY.

It is art TO THEM, that is my opinion.


Just as cats are dogs to some people, right? It is amazing to me that you can go from "a cat is not a dog" to "art is whatever you want to be art". It is ridiculous.

Art is what is aesthetically appealing


Art is NOT what is aesthetically appealing. Aesthetical appeal may be a necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient condition. Girls are aesthetically pleasing, for example, but that does not make them art, even though I can convince myself they are, or relate them to art.

but what is aesthetically appealing depends completely on the individual, therefore what is art also depends completely on the individual.


This is a solipsistic way of thinking at work. The goal here is to disconnect from the world, to conceive the world not as fundamentally interconnected but as fundamentally fragmented, as if individuals or parts of the world are existing, or can exist, in a vacuum (as if anything can exist in a vacuum.)

Everything is relative to the individual, OF COURSE, because everything exists in relation to something else (everything else), never on its own. But that does not mean that individuals cannot be related to each other and that a rank cannot be established. It does not mean that the universe is fundamentally fragmented. Solipsits (i.e. "relativists") constantly yap relativism this and relativism that when in reality they are the main opponents of relativism (in the sense of relationalism.)

I may think the video 2 Girls 1 Cup is disgusting. Even most people may think it. To scatophiliacs however, it might be perfect art and they can give subjective reasons why just like the rest of us can give subjective reasons why not.

What standard do you propose for what is art and what isn't? Collective subjective opinions of majority (general populace)? Collective subjective opinions of majority of ARTISTS? Your own subjective opinion as an objective standard for what art is?


Just because you do not know what is better or worse DOES NOT MEAN that there is no better or worse. You are confusing your ignorance, your lack of knowledge, with non-existence of rank between tastes. It's an extremely annoying way of thinking. The sole purpose of such thinking is to simply BAN any sort of desire to seek truth about what is better and what is worse art, what is art and what is not art. Employed by the weaklings who do not want their illusions to be shattered. THERE SIMPLY IS NO RANK, JUST STOP TELLING ME THAT I MAY BE INFERIOR TO YOU BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS HIS OWN QUALITIES AND EVERYONE HAS HIS OWN DEFICITS, AND NO WE ARE NOT EQUAL, IT'S JUST THAT THERE IS NO RANK, SO WE ARE NEITHER EQUAL NOR UNEQUAL, WE JUST SIMPLY ARE, WHY CAN'T WE JUST FORGET ABOUT IT ALL AND SIMPLY GET ALONG!? THE WORLD WOULD BE A MUCH BETTER PLACE BLAH BLAH BLAH.

That's not the definition I found.


Who cares what you found, dude? My ancestors didn't find that Earth is round, so what!? Does that mean that Earth is not round? Aristotle thought that our heads contain sand and water for the purpose of cooling it. Does that mean that our heads really contain sand and water? The point is to pick your own position and pit it against mine. The trouble, however, is that you have no position. You fucking HATE positions and your position is that positions are stupid and that they should be annihilated -- that's your sole position and such a position, I am afraid, has nothing whatsoever to do with art theory or any theory (since theories are based on positions and anything that seeks to annihilate positions seeks to annihilate theorizing, thinking, intelligence, knowledge and all other mental goodness that separates humans from animals.)

So basically, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS, architecture isn't art because it doesn't imitate reality, fine, according to some other person's subjective standards of what constitutes art it may be.


According to my own "subjective standards" . . . for christsake, dude, just stop using that pretentious word that is nothing but a sheltering tactic, a way for weaklings to disconnect themselves from whatever thoughts they can't deal with. Here's an interesting trivia: we always access reality through our "subjective standards". WE DO NOT HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO REALITY. Our subjective models are maps of objective reality that is forever elusive (since knowing reality presupposes knowing the universe in its entirety, which is an impossibility.) A classic case of conflating map and territory. LOOK IT'S JUST YOUR MAP, YOU CREATED IT WITH YOUR HEAD, MEANING IT'S NOT A PERFECT MAP BUT AN IMPERFECT MAP, THAT SURELY MEANS I CAN EASILY IGNORE IT AND SIMPLY STICK TO MY OWN.

No desire to understand reality, no desire to build an all-encompassing model of reality, to consolidate all facts and all fragmented models into a unified model, no desire for fusion at all, only desire to separate oneself from the other, to run away and hide, somewhere, anywhere, as soon as possible, via any means whatsoever.

While I do agree we should strive towards having similar definitions of all words, people are just so different when it comes to what they find aesthetically appealing that it's impossible for any one particular definition of art to be adequate. That's why I propose the vague one I use as it includes every person's notion of what is art(every person I've communicated that definition to so far).


Nobody cares if people disagree. Just because people disagree does not mean they are all equally right, for christsake. ON THE CONTRARY, it SURELY means that a lot of them are dead wrong, for one reason or another.

Now, I did not want to be harsh to you, but that's the only way I can deal with "arguments" like this (i.e. you have no arguments, you are merely trying to annihilate all positions, all theorizing, you are located OUTSIDE of the process of theorizing, not within it.) You are a poison, a deadly poison, perhaps not intentionally so, but that's what you are with your ideas.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3015
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby AutSider » Tue Nov 04, 2014 8:40 pm

I'll respond to you when I catch some time, but just to let you know that I'm not offended in the least. Unlike some others here I'm not a delicate little flower that bitches and moans at every mean word he encounters. Feel free to express your emotions through whatever words and tone you want, I really don't mind.
User avatar
AutSider
Truth seeker
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Nov 06, 2014 11:48 pm

That's nice to hear.

To add some extra substance to my previous post, I will respond to a claim that I anticipate you will come back with.

The claim is basically that dogs are objective (i.e. that they exist OUTSIDE of mind) whereas art is subjective (i.e. it exists WITHIN mind.) I am pretty sure you will raise this point, so I will cover it in advance.

This is an easy one: subjective is a relative term (just like every other term.) What does this mean? This means that what is subjective to me (i.e. what is within MY mind) is objective to someone else (i.e. it is OUTSIDE of their mind.) So while art is indeed something that exists within one's mind, a neuronal process of some sort, this neuronal process is in itself objective (the fact that the person containing it is incapable of observing it, the fact that such a person lacks sufficiently high level of self-observation, is no argument against this.) So dog is a dog and a neuronal process associated with art is a neuronal process associated with art.

Now, not every neuronal process is art. Moreover, not every neuronal process that is pleasant is art. To say so is to associate word "art" with a very broad category of neuronal phenomena that is of no interest to us. What we want to do here is to see difference where there is and then put the sufficiently different neuronal processes in different categories.

Then take architecture, interior design, exterior design, fashion design, nail design and what else and compare it to paintings, sculpture, poems, novels, music, theater, films and videogames. There is a massive difference between the two categories, isn't there? Sure, they all share a parent category (i.e. they all give pleasure) but they are also different in many ways.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3015
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby AutSider » Fri Nov 07, 2014 8:08 pm

It is not a dog, that is true, but it is a kind of dog i.e. it can be related to a dog.


There's your error. A cat is not a kind of a dog; a doberman is a kind of a dog. A cat may be RELATED (in a vague sense) to a dog, but it's not a kind of a dog.

And I actually never said "everything is everything else"


Um, yeah, you did:
Everything is art, but also, which is something you didn't mention, everything is everything else e.g. everything is woman just as everything is man just as everything is vacuum cleaner just as everything is forum and so on and so forth.


Just as cats are dogs to some people, right? It is amazing to me that you can go from "a cat is not a dog" to "art is whatever you want to be art". It is ridiculous.

Art is NOT what is aesthetically appealing. Aesthetical appeal may be a necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient condition. Girls are aesthetically pleasing, for example, but that does not make them art, even though I can convince myself they are, or relate them to art.


The most specific definition of art I could accept is "that what is made by humans and aesthetically appealing", the underlined part is the new part I have considered adding. Then again, the feeling of aesthetic appreciation for me doesn't depend at all on whether something is made by humans or not, and it wouldn't make sense to me to call a pile of shit art and a beautiful landscape not art just because the pile of shit was made by a human. What I'm trying to say is that I don't aesthetically appreciate something just because it is made by humans and I do aesthetically appreciate things which aren't human-made, and since it doesn't make sense to me to not call something aesthetically appealing (a landscape f.e.) art and to call something aesthetically unappealing (pile of shit) not art I dropped the "that what is made by humans" part.

This is a solipsistic way of thinking at work. The goal here is to disconnect from the world, to conceive the world not as fundamentally interconnected but as fundamentally fragmented, as if individuals or parts of the world are existing, or can exist, in a vacuum (as if anything can exist in a vacuum.)

Everything is relative to the individual, OF COURSE, because everything exists in relation to something else (everything else), never on its own. But that does not mean that individuals cannot be related to each other and that a rank cannot be established. It does not mean that the universe is fundamentally fragmented. Solipsits (i.e. "relativists") constantly yap relativism this and relativism that when in reality they are the main opponents of relativism (in the sense of relationalism.)


I'm not a solipsist, I'm a truth seeker and honest enough to admit that some things we simply can't measure objectively.

Just because you do not know what is better or worse DOES NOT MEAN that there is no better or worse. You are confusing your ignorance, your lack of knowledge, with non-existence of rank between tastes. It's an extremely annoying way of thinking. The sole purpose of such thinking is to simply BAN any sort of desire to seek truth about what is better and what is worse art, what is art and what is not art. Employed by the weaklings who do not want their illusions to be shattered. THERE SIMPLY IS NO RANK, JUST STOP TELLING ME THAT I MAY BE INFERIOR TO YOU BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS HIS OWN QUALITIES AND EVERYONE HAS HIS OWN DEFICITS, AND NO WE ARE NOT EQUAL, IT'S JUST THAT THERE IS NO RANK, SO WE ARE NEITHER EQUAL NOR UNEQUAL, WE JUST SIMPLY ARE, WHY CAN'T WE JUST FORGET ABOUT IT ALL AND SIMPLY GET ALONG!? THE WORLD WOULD BE A MUCH BETTER PLACE BLAH BLAH BLAH.


That's a rant, not an argument. I asked you to propose a standard for objectively determining what is art and measuring the quality of it. And I'll get back to scatophilia later.

If you want to attempt to put people in categories there are things like statistical averages which show what kind of people prefer what kind of music on average, f.e. I remember reading one about music and IQ correlation. That however doesn't in any way refute my position and it's a pretty uncertain and fallible way to make judgments about an individual in most cases.

Who cares what you found, dude? My ancestors didn't find that Earth is round, so what!? Does that mean that Earth is not round? Aristotle thought that our heads contain sand and water for the purpose of cooling it. Does that mean that our heads really contain sand and water? The point is to pick your own position and pit it against mine. The trouble, however, is that you have no position. You fucking HATE positions and your position is that positions are stupid and that they should be annihilated -- that's your sole position and such a position, I am afraid, has nothing whatsoever to do with art theory or any theory (since theories are based on positions and anything that seeks to annihilate positions seeks to annihilate theorizing, thinking, intelligence, knowledge and all other mental goodness that separates humans from animals.)


Your definition is vague. "That which appears to be something that it is not." can also refer to other things, not exclusively simulation.

My position is that there is no objectively valid position when it comes to the question of "What is good art?" because when it comes to aesthetic appeal the term "good" itself is subjective and means different things to different people. Most art theory I know however merely describes art as opposed to prescribing what is good and should be listened to and what is bad and should be avoided. That decision is left for the individual to make.

No desire to understand reality, no desire to build an all-encompassing model of reality, to consolidate all facts and all fragmented models into a unified model


Hey, I agree that we can do that to a pretty certain extent when it comes to some other things, just not art.

Nobody cares if people disagree. Just because people disagree does not mean they are all equally right, for christsake. ON THE CONTRARY, it SURELY means that a lot of them are dead wrong, for one reason or another.


Right and wrong imply objectivity, so I don't use them at all (or at least try to avoid using them) when discussing art.

The claim is basically that dogs are objective (i.e. that they exist OUTSIDE of mind) whereas art is subjective (i.e. it exists WITHIN mind.) I am pretty sure you will raise this point, so I will cover it in advance.

This is an easy one: subjective is a relative term (just like every other term.) What does this mean? This means that what is subjective to me (i.e. what is within MY mind) is objective to someone else (i.e. it is OUTSIDE of their mind.) So while art is indeed something that exists within one's mind, a neuronal process of some sort, this neuronal process is in itself objective (the fact that the person containing it is incapable of observing it, the fact that such a person lacks sufficiently high level of self-observation, is no argument against this.) So dog is a dog and a neuronal process associated with art is a neuronal process associated with art.

Now, not every neuronal process is art. Moreover, not every neuronal process that is pleasant is art. To say so is to associate word "art" with a very broad category of neuronal phenomena that is of no interest to us. What we want to do here is to see difference where there is and then put the sufficiently different neuronal processes in different categories.


If neuronal processes are objective (occur in everybody the same way) as opposed to subjective (occurring different in different people), how come people have different artistic tastes?

If your and scatophiliac's brain have same neural processes happening inside how come the scatophiliac can consider shit art and you can't? How come people's views of what constitutes art are different in the slightest if the neuronal processes are objective?
User avatar
AutSider
Truth seeker
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Nov 08, 2014 12:59 am

There's your error. A cat is not a kind of a dog; a doberman is a kind of a dog. A cat may be RELATED (in a vague sense) to a dog, but it's not a kind of a dog.


You are fixating on my imprecise use of language.

Yes, it is true, in the popular use, "a kind of" relationship describes a containment relationship (i.e. subset/superset relationship) between two bivalent sets (i.e. sets with a membership that is binary: elements either belong to a set or they do not.) A category C1 is said to be "a kind of" category C2 if the definition of category C2 is a subset of the definition of category C1 (or if the set of objects belonging to the category C1 is a subset of the set of objects belonging to the category C2.) That said, cat is not a kind of dog since the definition of category dog is not a subset of the definition of category cat (e.g. cats don't bark.) That's as far as bivalent (i.e. true/false) logic is concerned.

But here I am talking about fuzzy logic with an open interval (0,1). A fuzzy set based on such a logic would contain ALL elements but with their degrees of membership varying between 0 and 1 (i.e. no element would be left out and no element would be fully contained.) This is a more precise way of modeling reality.

So a fuzzy set of dogs will also contain cats (and everything else in the world) but the degree of membership of these elements would be very very low. Now, since the degree of membership of these elements is very very low, and since the kind of fuzzy sets I am talking about here are very difficult, nay, impossible, to hold in mind, we can simplify the set without losing much power by converting it to a bivalent set that does not contain cats and all other elements that have a very low degree of membership. And that's how we arrive at the popular way of thinking that is based on two-valued logic.

So, yeah, you may as well say that I am wrong because I didn't end this sentence with a full stop

Um, yeah, you did:


Okay, I did, so what now? My point still remains. Replace "I did not say" with "I also said [..] and that's what I meant when I said [..] not what you think I said."

I'm not a solipsist, I'm a truth seeker and honest enough to admit that some things we simply can't measure objectively.


We can't measure ANYTHING objectively, if we use the word "objective" in the strict, absolute, sense of the word.

Again, this is because, like a true platonist, you think in terms of two-valued logic: things are either objective or subjective; they are either correct or incorrect. But in reality, everything is subjective and the word "objective" merely denotes a relation between perspectives (i.e. perspectives aren't equal, some are more objective and others are less objective), and in reality, everything is incorrect whereas the word "correct" merely denotes a relation between errors (i.e. some errors are less mistaken and other errors are more mistaken.)

So we can measure everything objectively. All you have to do is put some effort. If you have no time, and moreover, if you do not like the fact that everything can be measured objectively, you can put all the time you have in denying this fact, which isn't really thinking, but ad-hoc rationalizing, a sort of heuristic employed by people with no time to think but who nonetheless need quick answers, even if they aren't exactly right.

So the only thing you're admitting here, and that's only indirectly, is that you are ignorant of the fact that you're confusing your ignorance and lack of time with impossibility.

Your definition is vague. "That which appears to be something that it is not." can also refer to other things, not exclusively simulation.


It's actually pretty good definition of simulation.

If you want me to give you a quality response, though, you will have to provide me with a counter-example. Provide me with a single example that fits the definition but is not simulation.

My position is [..]


I know what your "position" is. There is no point in trying to remind me of it.

Your "position" is this: everything is art. That, and: you can't rank art. Both are based on nothing but wishful thinking.

How do you know you can't rank? This is how you know: "I don't know how to rank, therefore, there is no rank." That's all. If you think there is anything more to it, you are deluding yourself.

Hey, I agree that we can do that to a pretty certain extent when it comes to some other things, just not art.


I know. That's what I call "fragmented" sort of thinking. You can rank some things, but you can't rank other things lol.

If neuronal processes are objective (occur in everybody the same way) as opposed to subjective (occurring different in different people), how come people have different artistic tastes?


It is precisely because people have different tastes that there is a rank between tastes. If there were no different tastes, then all tastes would be equal. How do you manage to confuse yourself regarding such simple matters?

People have different muscular structures but that does not mean that their muscular structures are equal. ON THE CONTRARY, it IMPLIES that they are unequal. Similarly, the fact that people have different brains IMPLIES that their brains are unequal.

Objectivity does not mean that everyone AGREES, it simply means that there are RULES THAT APPLY to everyone. For example, being tall is better than being short. That's a rule that applies to everyone, no matter whether individuals agree or disagree with it, or whether they are tall or short. The point is that IF THEY COULD that's what they would value, that's what they would eventually become. A short person may convince himself that tallness is not better than shortness, say because he's incapable of accepting his reality (i.e. that he is short and less desirable than his taller peers.) Now, of course, there are special cases that he can use in order to fuel his delusion, e.g. supertall people are disordered and they die early, ignoring the fact that such people die early not because of their tallness but because of the relation between their size and the rest of the body i.e. because their tallness is not properly coordinated with the rest of their body. That's ad hoc rationalization: one starts with a conclusion and then seeks logic that appears to support it. Genuine thinking works the other way around: one starts with logic and then DISCOVERS the conclusion.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3015
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby Lev Muishkin » Sat Nov 08, 2014 1:17 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:That's nice to hear.

To add some extra substance to my previous post, I will respond to a claim that I anticipate you will come back with.

The claim is basically that dogs are objective (i.e. that they exist OUTSIDE of mind) whereas art is subjective (i.e. it exists WITHIN mind.) I am pretty sure you will raise this point, so I will cover it in advance.
.


Your language is very poor indeed.
Opinions are subjective. It is whether of not a piece of art is good or bad that makes it subjective. Not the object d'art itself. The Venus De Milo exists outside the mind, like my dog. By your reckoning Both would have to be objective.

If you extend this "dog" is actually inter-subjective. According to humans (most of them) dogs fulfil a set of criteria that humans like to think of as objective. From the objective point of view of some other thinking being; 'dog' might be meaningless and simply an idiosyncrasy of earth dwellers, as ridiculous a category as blue cars. All fleshy earth beings might just be "food".

Obviously objective and subjective are not as you conceiver them. They are not direct descriptors, but are only reasonable used as a relationship. Dogs and art are objective in relation to what...?

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Nov 08, 2014 1:23 am

Your language is very poor indeed.


I'd rather speak poorly than think poorly.

Opinions are subjective


The word "subjective" is retarded. It simply means "something existing merely within mind". And yes, opinions ARE subjective, they only exist within our minds.

Moreoever, if you followed my lesson properly, you'd understand that there is no opposition between subjective and objective. The opposition is invented by the retards to hide themselves from what might possibly be reality.

It is whether of not a piece of art is good or bad that makes it subjective. Not the object d'art itself.


They are both objective. Whether art is good or not is a neuronal/psychological process which is as objective as the object of art itself.

If you extend this "dog" is actually inter-subjective.


"Inter-subjective" is a term used by retards.

Obviously objective and subjective are not as you conceiver them.


Obviously you are fit to suck my dick.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3015
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Nov 08, 2014 1:53 am

Regarding your new definition:

Atheris wrote:The most specific definition of art I could accept is "that what is made by humans and aesthetically appealing", the underlined part is the new part I have considered adding.


It's worse than before because you're defining an object from the point of view of its creation rather than from the point of view of its use. This is a sloppy abstraction work -- you need to learn how to abstract properly. In order to make my post more effective, it would be desirable to explain the concept of abstraction and why we can only ever deal with abstractions (i.e. that nothing in reality is concrete in the strict sense of the word) but that's a lot of work for now, so I'll skip it.

When defining an object you want to define it from the point of view of its use, meaning that, you want to ignore all information that is irrelevant to its use (i.e. information that could take any form and would have absolutely no impact on how we use it.) The same object can be created and implemented in a billion of different ways. For example, a Mona Lisa would remain Mona Lisa no matter whether it was created by pure chance, by a man who wanted to have a photo of his girlfriend, a man who wanted to earn money, a man who wanted his paintings to be used as an educational tool, or by a brute-force algorithm that outputs every possible variation of a 1920x1080 bitmap. It also does not matter whether it was implemented as a painting on a canvas, a painting on a wall, a bitmap on a computer monitor, as a pill that makes you hallucinate standing in front of Mona Lisa, or as a chip that you insert inside your brain to process various digital data. The only thing that matters is THE WAY IT IS USED AND FOR WHAT PURPOSES IT IS USED. And as I've explained elsewhere, a work of art is a simulated world the purpose of which is to relax. Nothing else.

So we're back to your earlier definition which is "art is what is aesthetically appealing" which literally includes everything that is aesthetically appealing, including girls right?
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3015
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby Amorphos » Sat Nov 08, 2014 3:26 am

Anyone know of other games like skyrim?

Apparently the witcher 3 [or is it 4] is going to have a larger open world than skyrim.
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7025
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby AutSider » Sat Nov 08, 2014 11:51 am

Amorphos wrote:Anyone know of other games like skyrim?

Apparently the witcher 3 [or is it 4] is going to have a larger open world than skyrim.


TES IV Oblivion obviously. But IMO, Oblivion is like a shitty version of Skyrim.

The other 2 I can think of are Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning and Gothic 3. Kingdoms of Amalur is like Dragon Age with less interesting story but a better combat system and Gothic 3 features a large open world that you are free to explore. I enjoyed both games so I can provide further information and help you decide if you specify what exactly you're looking for.
User avatar
AutSider
Truth seeker
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby Arcturus Descending » Sat Nov 08, 2014 9:02 pm

Magnus Anderson,

And as I've explained elsewhere, a work of art is a simulated world the purpose of which is to relax. Nothing else.

I'll grant you that some art more than other art helps you to relax. But that's not all that art is about. Art inspires and opens our minds to other worlds.
It's also healing which goes beyond the bounds of simply relaxing.
It gives a sense of great qualia and allows the spirit to SOAR. Have you ever seen a work of art, Magnus Anderson, that gave you such a rush and made your spirit SOAR, or the moment you looked at it, your spine tingled? :evilfun:
Art can be contemplative. It can put you in a place which is out of time and space - there are no boundaries - there is only BEING. Or it can make you want to go to that place and if your imagination has wings, it will fly you there.
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14371
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby Amorphos » Sun Nov 09, 2014 4:50 am

Atheris

I have played TES since morrowind came out, and yea oblivion doesn’t do it after playing skyrim. I suppose I am looking for more skyrim’s.

Ps, have made an eye mod [photo-cloned eyes] for skyrim...

http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/51998/?

Some funky/punky hair colours

http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/56207/?
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7025
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby AutSider » Sun Nov 09, 2014 1:18 pm

I have played TES since morrowind came out, and yea oblivion doesn’t do it after playing skyrim. I suppose I am looking for more skyrim’s.


Yeah, I get what you mean, Oblivion's entire world seems generic and bland compared to Skyrim.

Gothic 3 is the closest thing to Skyrim after Oblivion. Thing is, it's also very different from the first 2 games and if you're like me, you won't be able to play the 3rd without playing the first 2 and the first 2 aren't that similar to Skyrim, although they're still great games. Admittedly, those are my favorite RPGs so I'm probably a little biased :D . Still, I'll at least try to be objective in my short summations.

The simpler choice would be to just go with Kingdoms of Amalur Reckoning, I doubt you can go wrong with it honestly. The main story is meh but the sidequests can be sort-of-interesting, nothing special. What the game truly is about is incredibly good-looking and dynamic combat and a sweet armor and weapons forging and enchanting system. Aside from combat but directly related to it, the best part of the game is that you can, at any time and a little cost in gold, change your character class. Yes, you heard me. You can play until f.e. level 10 as a warrior and then go to a fate-weaver (IIRC) and they'll make you a blank slate again and you'll be allowed to reassign all your points however you want them to and become a mage or an assassin. And yeah, another great thing, there are also mixed classes between the 3 main ones so you have warrior assassins, warrior mages and mage assassins. I wish more games implemented that, choosing a class is the hardest thing in every game for me and this way I got to try all classes in one playthrough for a tiny fee. Also what keeps the game from being monotonous is that every region is visually different and has some region specific enemies. All in all definitely a game I consider worth playing.

Now for Gothic 3. First of all, it's more like Skyrim in the sense that you're free to explore the world in whichever order you want without having to follow the main quest. The world in KoAR is a little generic, in Gothic 3 every inch of its beautiful detailed world is handcrafted. Second, even though it came out in the Oblivion era its graphics are on par with vanilla Skyrim, that coupled with a previously mentioned handcrafted world and a beautiful soundtrack makes the atmosphere and therefore the gaming experience extremely enjoyable. But honestly, I can't see anybody truly enjoying the 3rd game without knowing the story behind it from the previous 2 games.

If you look for the reviews of the game, you'll notice 2 things mentioned to ruin the game and the reason it scored mediocre: 1) bugs, 2) combat. I'll be honest - vanilla Gothic 3 is out of question. You'll only end up frustrating yourself cause of crashes and probably be unable to pass the game due to bugs. HOWEVER, the game has a fanbase which worked for years to fix the game, and they did an EXCELLENT job at it with an almost 2 gig large patch that fixes everything AND improves certain things without changing the original game.

What wasn't fixed though was the kind of lame melee combat, but I got used to it. The game is otherwise too immersive and interesting to be thrown away because of mediocre melee combat. Ranged combat is very decent though.


In conclusion, I suggest you to look at videos on YouTube and decide for yourself. I don't think you can go wrong either way.
User avatar
AutSider
Truth seeker
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby Amorphos » Wed Nov 12, 2014 1:41 am

Thanks mate, that’s very interesting and i think i would definitely try the game out and get the patch. I prefer ranged fighting anyhow.
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7025
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby AutSider » Wed Nov 12, 2014 10:06 pm

Amorphos wrote:Thanks mate, that’s very interesting and i think i would definitely try the game out and get the patch. I prefer ranged fighting anyhow.


No problem, have fun!

And if you have any questions about the game, you can ask me, I may still remember a thing or two :D
User avatar
AutSider
Truth seeker
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby AutSider » Tue Dec 23, 2014 6:09 pm

Playing Prototype 1. The main protagonist here is the guy I have as my avatar, this awesome sexy motherfucker.








Come to think of it, this game is better than Prototype 2 actually. More interesting story and main character, more powers and faster movement. If combat wasn't so freaking retarded sometimes it would be perfect. And by retarded I mean that you're attacked by shitloads of army and infected and that Strike Teams are called every couple of seconds. Whatever, the game still rules, too lazy to write more ATM.
User avatar
AutSider
Truth seeker
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby fuse » Fri Dec 26, 2014 7:39 pm

Atheris wrote:
I have played TES since morrowind came out, and yea oblivion doesn’t do it after playing skyrim. I suppose I am looking for more skyrim’s.


Yeah, I get what you mean, Oblivion's entire world seems generic and bland compared to Skyrim.

Gothic 3 is the closest thing to Skyrim after Oblivion. Thing is, it's also very different from the first 2 games and if you're like me, you won't be able to play the 3rd without playing the first 2 and the first 2 aren't that similar to Skyrim, although they're still great games. Admittedly, those are my favorite RPGs so I'm probably a little biased :D . Still, I'll at least try to be objective in my short summations.

Dragon Age Inquisition is incredibly similar to Skyrim in a lot of good ways: the scale and detail of its open world, the quest system, hours of lore to read and listen to, dragon fights, weapon/armor/equipment crafting, ability trees, etc. Basically, being new to the Dragon Age series, I am surprised how much DAI has followed the direction of Skyrim without becoming a clone and by shining brighter than the Elder Scrolls series in a few areas of its own. I have been noticing common elements between DAI, The Witcher, and even Dark Souls that all seem to be working fairly well in DAI. So far, I'll make this one simple judgment: Skyrim set a stronger atmosphere - though DAI's is pretty good - while DAI's combat mechanics make it the more compelling strategy game. Definitely check it out if you like Skyrim or any of the other games I mentioned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfgY9By_zt4
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Single-player Video Games Thread

Postby AutSider » Sun Dec 28, 2014 10:24 am

Finished Prototype 1, enjoyed it. Recommend to anybody who likes gore and is seeking to vent some anger as a superhumanly powerful character :evilfun:

Speaking of which, I feel like playing a similar game again so I picked up Saints Row IV. So far I'm liking it, they more or less copied Prototype when it comes to how the character moves (sprinting, gliding, wall running), but there's also a lot of new stuff they introduced, like blasts, telekinesis, frost and fire, though of course there are some stuff you can do in Prototype that you can't do in Saints Row too, such as morphing your arms into various melee weapons, have multiple types of seeing at your disposal (thermal, infected vision), disguise yourself as others etc.

I won't spoil the story, I'll just say it's lulzy as fuck, if you're looking for a serious story don't play this game, it's one of those games you just play for lulz. The best thing about this game is that you can play it however you want to, it offers more options than many other games blended together would. You can customize your looks and even gender and race whenever you want for a small price, you can use weapons to take down enemies, from melee weapons to shotguns to assault rifles and even alien weaponry or you can also choose to take down enemies in melee combat. You can move around by sprinting or you can upgrade cars and drive around, both are about equally fast. You can also buy clothes and make your character look however you want. The sheer amount of customization and freedom make this game very enjoyable as you can basically play it as a super hero game, a fps, a racing game, whatever you choose. Humor isn't terrible either, overall, I'm really enjoying it though I only played it for a few hours, but I assume it'll only get better and not worse.


fuse, my PC couldn't handle DAI, and even if it could that game requires me to dedicate much more time to it than I am capable. I loved the original DA Origins, it's my top 5 RPGs ever. If you have the time and the gaming rig to play DAI you should also check out Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor, especially if you're a LOTR fan. From what I've seen, it's the first well made LOTR RPG.
User avatar
AutSider
Truth seeker
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Art, Music, and Entertainment



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users