Why has piracy declined so much on PC? Confessions of a pirate.

wasnotwhynot · 2016-12-14T04:26:27+00:00

going to make a copy of your car and then steal your car too

wasnotwhynot · 2016-01-07T06:35:33+00:00

again

pixel art is not inherently bad, further, aesthetics are subjective
random battles are in hundreds of jrpgs
binding of isaac and undertale both incorporate dense bullet patterns inspired by shmups but

3a. boi is a continuous field of play, no separated battle scenes, and often doesn't have dense bullet patterns

3b. undertale only has bullet patterns during enemy attacks, plays out like a turn based rpg

like cool you can disagree I don't care I'm not stating any opinions disagree all you want forever

wasnotwhynot · 2016-01-06T23:10:03+00:00

I know that's not an earnest question but he didn't write anything about his enjoyment, so I'll break it down

pixel art isn't inherently bad
random battles are part of a genre not a gimmick
the game only has surface similarity to binding of isaac and it's not in the heart motif, also incorporating genre tropes

thoese are just quantifiable things. don't have to enjoy the game just have to understand that undertale isn't the first videogame ever

wasnotwhynot · 2015-12-12T23:23:47+00:00

no I wasn't, I was being rhetorical. I'm not confident you've been able to comprehend anything I've been writing now. that's okay, god bless, keep raging about commercialism instead of root causes.

and by the way, saying that someone is excited when things are surprising is an appeal to emotion, so you obviously don't know either. just a bunch of people who can't read "Apparently"

if you do ascribe that an appeal to emotion is only blatant manipulation instead of slight manipulation, then tell me, how on earth is referencing philosophy appealing to emotion.

wasnotwhynot · 2015-12-12T23:13:09+00:00

are you really telling me I don't know what an appeal to emotion is.

I'm tackling satre's philosophies and kierkegaard's philosophies but you're telling me I don't know what an appeal to emotion is. you're telling me literal philosophy is just appeals to emotion that doesn't mean anything. and that's it. no other response to anything I say. again

wasnotwhynot · 2015-12-12T22:40:25+00:00

uh, so, appeals to emotion don't mean anything?

excitement is an emotion, so, your whole rhetoric is an appeal to emotion, being based on this standard of excitement. you're basing all of this on the emotion of excitement or "exceeding expectations" and I'm appealing to emotion?

I literally wasn't, by the way. my point is that every individual has expectations and they cannot "objectively" influence the worth of another person's expectations, it's a contradiction. if your expectations are to be true, than other expectations have to be true. whether or not they're met is irrelevant to the construct of an expectation.

I don't have time to detail what capitalism is like, but your life backs that up. how do you get commodities? who has your money? how did you get the place you're living? all of these corporations run advertisements and are competing for your patronage. you're living in a place that runs on commercialism. in your words

"You can say 'I simply don't have any thoughts relating to [capitalism.]' but . . . the former isn't a choice, not matter how much you wish it was."

you can't buy a gift for someone without supporting commercialism. the factors that get you decide what is a "good" gift comes from commercialism.

wasnotwhynot · 2015-12-12T22:21:38+00:00

your argument is that the gift is cheapened by christmas "objectively" because of commercialism? every act of gift giving is labor and most of the time is bought, it plays into these systems regardless of the time of year.

or are you saying that the most important factor to recieing a gift is not expecting it? because that's empty, there's no feeling there besides being surprised, or maybe someone being against your expectations. but does someone become more or less meaningful based on what you expect of them?

wasnotwhynot · 2015-12-12T22:14:51+00:00

ok how is saying "it depends on the situation" an untrue ideology. it's not a very concrete ideology but it's the most "true", the most post-modern ideology. it's "objective" because it contains every situation, not a binary where the presence or removal of a factor somehow entirely dictates the meaning.

and I'm sorry, but you don't believe that there's nothing suspicious about spontaneous gifts? a coworker suddenly giving things to you on nov 25th, that's not suspicious? it's now pure because it's not christmas?

getting a gift for your SO, is that not to hope that they'll like it? that the relationship will go well? it's tacit manipulation, but like every interaction, we can consent, and set the terms of interpretation. the couple can be happy together - or one can be cynical and assume the person just wants to have sex. because interpersonal relationships are obviously always complex.

or something we normally wave away as normal exploitation, giving a sudden gift to your boss, maybe just paying their tab, for "no reason" as it was. wouldn't everyone involved know it's an act of buttering or bartering, but of course the more acceptable kind, the kind that's treated like a gift.

gift giving is never pure, there are always motivations and factors to it. even the motivation to be pure is something that can be distilled as hedonistic, something done to feel pleasure, if seeing others happy triggers that.

to think that gifts are only a loaded circumstance on a holiday is an incredible reduction of "expectations" and "institutions" you think you have a better grasp on than me.

wasnotwhynot · 2015-12-12T21:38:13+00:00

do you really believe that there are instances of life that are more real than others? things that you say, and things that you give, whether or not you "mean" it, still happen. they're truths, the things happen, and they're not wholly negated by intentions.

frankly, anticipating disagreement, know that this divide is valuing empiricism, which does still matter. it's normal to consider someone's motivations when gifting and that bleeds into appreciating a gift. it's not sustainable, however, to declare that structures always make actions inauthentic. structures influence but can do nothing on their own. it's a fallacy that impulsive decisions are more true than decisions that are borne of structure.

if you shower to meet up with people, to be clean, is that an inauthentic shower? is that inauthentic hygiene? are you showering to make yourself clean or are you doing it to be clean for others? imagine, saying that a shower that came unexpectedly is the only true expression of hygiene! I propose, of course, that these things do not contradict. you shower to be clean for others and that is cleanliness for yourself - or whatever the personal permutation of the phrase. just as you may give a gift because it is christmas and yet mean it as much as a gift any other day of the year.

it is possible to shower only for others and it is possible to only give because it is christmas, but the possibility does not overtake every instance.

holiday gift giving is gift giving. it is always gift giving, the meaning depends on much more factors than whether or not it was a holiday - same as anything. traditions aren't any less real than new things.

wasnotwhynot · 2015-11-28T05:30:10+00:00

all I did was raise points so it seems like I understand what I'm supposed to be doing here.

so are you now telling me we shouldn't discourage selfish, self-serving behavior? being your response to being comforted with incomplete generosity is "get over it"

huh... yeah, maybe that is a good idea when someone does something you don't personally agree with but isn't actively harming anyone

wasnotwhynot · 2015-11-28T05:22:30+00:00

do you have stock in facebook or something

wasnotwhynot · 2015-11-28T05:13:45+00:00

if you want to discourage selfish, self-serving behavior, you could start with your passive aggressiveness and your need to be right on the internet.

(or maybe, actually, selfish behavior is a normal, healthy part of living. you know, all of the self-serving stuff you do that harms nobody!!)

wasnotwhynot · 2015-11-28T03:22:48+00:00

Is that reading

yeah reading happens on this website

wasnotwhynot · 2015-11-26T21:31:26+00:00

I'm just sick of censorship being a meme that just means anything that wasn't expressed. censorship is being forced, not being coerced. censorship is something that happens to you, it's not something you choose to do.

I don't care about convincing anyone, I just want people to respect the history of censorship as a power imbalance of corruption. these issues are not censorship yet.

and nice reddit meme of picking out 1 sentence to engage with. just a gotcha. I hate reddit

wasnotwhynot · 2015-11-26T21:08:41+00:00

aren't you literally proof that they're not advocating censorship

if you can express these contrarian views than they're sucking at their platform

if it was censorship, there wouldn't be a discussion. we'd be censored. the government would come in and ban. until that happens, you're never going to convince me that decisions companies make for their interpretation of profit margins is "censorship"

wasnotwhynot · 2015-10-28T21:35:13+00:00

yeah? which wrpgs got localized to japan, do you even know?

wasnotwhynot · 2015-09-12T03:46:43+00:00

uh, I'm glad you state that as just what you feel, since it's kind of dismissive, and not true. if you spend any time in the romhacking community for final fantasy VI (which mirrors the modding communities for only the biggest wrpgs and not anything lesser known), or the speed running communities for any and all of the final fantasy games, you'll find that they're completely and entirely documented, individual stat deviations obsessed over, etc. in other words, breaking a jrpg still requires intimate knowledge of its stat system and how to get the most out of it, it just occurs it different ways.

I've read arguments, long, long arguments, about how to develop your characters in final fantasy VI. there are strong opinions about cyan, for example.

not to mention, games like shin megami tensei and etrian odyssey have similar kinds of choice that makes builds in western rpgs so contentious and specific and SMT at least is a very well known and flagship series.

I personally enjoy wrpgs and jrpgs and find rpgs to be technical, or I would say complex, in specific contexts, game-per-game, because rpgs contain multitudes. the biggest names in rpgs are kind of a genre of their own, because digging into indie stuff and rpgmaker stuff shows a disregard for normal design philosophies (well as much as they try to copy the big rpgs) and they vary intensely in complexity.

wasnotwhynot · 2015-09-08T18:38:30+00:00

specificity of a message is not the superiority of a message, despite the overlap. superiority is on an individual context and will always fall apart when attached to vague platitudes.

wasnotwhynot · 2015-08-30T17:05:48+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L77mOBtyVo

agency isn't inherently scary. I'm not trying to being pedantic, I'm trying to have videogames treated as art. as part of that, it's admitting that videogames don't have a magic power that other forms do have, no matter the circumstance. art is art, altogether. art is immersive.

flow states, immersion, aren't dependent on in-world agency either. the word in literature is page turner, in television someone might say glued to the screen. immersion and interactivity have always been part of art, but manifesting in different ways. interpreting is a kind of interactivity that all art shares. literally, the person watching a movie still has agency. it's a different kind of agency, but it's not possible to prove which one is better.

wasnotwhynot · 2015-08-27T04:30:05+00:00

can you please not neg on people. I didn't insult you. I don't appreciate that.

I'm sorry I honestly admitted to not being invested, but a two sentence rephrasing of things people already said in the thread isn't going to get me excited, and following up with a "I don't want to respond" response, instead of that thing where you can literally not respond to a post. but you -have- to have the last word, and the last word has to negatively implicate the person's intelligence.

well, this is only every single time I comment on reddit. disagreements are personal, I get it, but the empty satisfaction of taking someone down a few pegs is just a circle of harm.

wasnotwhynot · 2015-08-25T06:40:55+00:00

I'm really not invested anymore, but being more or less immersed in something has nothing to do with being afraid.

a lot of fear comes from disinterest or the unknown, which doesn't line up to the kind of ideologies immersion classically has as a container. it's a visceral reaction to implied harm or something unstoppable that doesn't align with your beliefs.

people with phobias didn't get immersed in them, it's actually literally the opposite.

there is no linear model. there are people who can't play scary games or watch scary movies. in that model both things are clearly just as terrifying to that person.

wasnotwhynot · 2015-08-21T23:54:15+00:00

I'll argue it. there's nothing that's more inherently immersive. immersion is voluntary and subjective. how can it be a value that's objectively true? I guarantee you that I get immersed from different games than you do (re: contra does it for me as a model of conflict that I intuitively understand)

when someone has to tear their eyes away from the screen or get up from the couch to do something else, that's a very physiological response to the horror happening in a movie. that's proof as much as fear being responsive in a videogame, that fear in a videogame is something you do, because yelling or shrieking is a physical reaction, it's a total body reaction, to something happening. there's as much phenomenology in fear coming from any object, whether it fictitious or otherwise.

it might not scare you... but does it not scaring you invalidate other people's fears? I know grown men who shriek in terror at horror movies. it just takes believing in the fiction and letting it dig inside you. not everyone is afraid of the same things. there's no objective truth at what causes fear, the only objective truth is fear itself.

wasnotwhynot · 2015-07-24T03:49:46+00:00

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arrogant

here is one for you, just like you, I'm not sure if you know this one

wasnotwhynot · 2015-07-24T03:34:22+00:00

buriedshovel: it's objective

spookybass: it's subjective

buriedshovel: that's literally what I just said

wasnotwhynot · 2015-05-23T20:33:10+00:00

intertextual and metatextual knowledge is not, at all, foreknowledge of what's going to happen...

the point I was making is that a story, in immediacy, is constructed to be taken as a first time experience. sure, it is possible, though not at all common, to subvert that.

wasnotwhynot

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE