Well that's just great. Who here has two thumbs and has to take a trip to Micro-Center tonight because his trackball broke? And now I'm stuck having to navigate via keyboard. Ask me if I enjoy having to press F just to select what link I want to view.
The answer: [sp]Come to think of it, it's not bad.[/sp] Good thing I installed the [url=https://github.com/akhodakivskiy/VimFx#shortcuts]right add-on[/url] in hindsight.
Kevin Bacon is one seriously goofy lookin' mother fucker.
I'm kinda bored and wanna try something new. Think I'm gonna try playing with linux since I've never touched it before.
[editline]9th August 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=laurencedgreat;45637912]Glory to Arstotzka[/QUOTE]
greatest country
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/n5SQpwq.jpg[/IMG]
i ordered a new desk from Ikea
there's going to be over 7 square feet of desk space when it's all connected and put together
i also ordered some cable management racks to hang under it
Fuck I did it again. I didn't get to sleep until 4:00 or something in the morning and I woke up at 12:30 in the afternoon
I need to stop ignoring my alarm. You would think the sound of a motorcycle going off above your head would be enough to wake you up, but sadly that's not the case
i really want doughnuts
that was a fun week. now it's time for boring work stuff again
[editline]9th August 2014[/editline]
[t]http://puu.sh/aLsc2/e285492bee.png[/t]
[editline]9th August 2014[/editline]
a water spider i caught
The whole "Spec Ops the line is SUPPOSED to play like a boring shitty third person shooter" because it's trying to "parody modern shooters" reeks of bullshit to me.
It's a good story, but that justification always seems too convenient. I really really doubt it was intentional.
lol no it is 100% correct the game is a deconstruction of the shooter genre and it is also the best shooter to come out in years. Its clunky gameplay works as delivering player frustration and also an allegory for how war is not fun (who decided video games can only be fun, btw? cos whoever it was is wrong)
its one of my favourite games it is a 9/10 at least. so so good.
[editline]9th August 2014[/editline]
Spec Ops The Line goes beyond the story as well, it is as mentioned a deconstruction of shooter and a criticism of them, and on an abstract level is an interesting perspective of video games as a medium (what makes a good game, why do we put barriers on genre and what games can be or are allowed to do/express, etc). The game also works as a good look at PTSD and the nightmare of war (something we as a player experience as well, being forced to do things and also the twists at the end revealing [sp]literally everything that happens is Walker's fault and, through player-control proxy, yours, and it was all preventable if you just did your mission as you were told. You literally finish your mission within the first couple minutes of gameplay. Anything past that is your fault and didn't need to happen for any reason other than enjoyment[/sp] this is why the game cannot be "fun" in the conventional sense. If it was, it's be a hypocritical game and a liar and it'd be undoing anything it was trying to do with its mechanics and story outside of core gameplay. It'd be like if Funny Games, a deconstruction and critique of horror and horror fans, was exploitative and gory. It'd literally ruin the entire point of the film and reduce it to exactly what it's demonising. That's why Spec Ops: The Line's mechanics aren't loads of fun and cool and badass. You're never meant to really enjoy what you're doing.
you're kidding right, because that's complete BS
[editline]banana[/editline]
I mean, it is good, and it is more serious and realistic in terms of story, I'll give it that, but all the other shit is just 3deep5u /v/ conspiracy shit that the community has made up to explain its short comings, none of that is true
Whether intentional or not, I feel like the generic and uninspired gameplay actually works to the advantage of the themes and ideas that Spec Ops is trying to convey.
I really want to make a Jerma Rumble type show when Smash 4 comes out, where I just watch and commentate Mii fighters who represent real people/characters not in the game, and watch them in 15 minute rounds where the first round is a Free-for-all and the gold and silver move into a team battle against the defending champs. But I would need a 3ds capture card for that, and a microphone, and yeah. dang. If you are wondering what Jerma Rumble is, prepare for 30 minutes of hilarity. also if you don't know some of the characters that's because you probably haven't watched his videos, so yeah.
[video=youtube;bs2c94cHcdI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs2c94cHcdI[/video]
[QUOTE=Pretty Obscure;45641694]you're kidding right, because that's complete BS
[editline]banana[/editline]
I mean, it is good, and it is more serious and realistic in terms of story, I'll give it that, but all the other shit is just 3deep5u /v/ conspiracy shit that the community has made up to explain its short comings, none of that is true[/QUOTE]
It's hardly "conspiracy shit", it's just looking at the depth the game provides using its narrative and gameplay. Why can it [I]not[/I] be what I just explained? literally why not?? Give me reasons video games cannot be expressive pieces of art that are not meant to be enjoyed but experienced, making a statement beyond, for example, "war is cool"? Cinema does it. Novels do it. Painting does it. Sculpture does it. Even architecture does it! [I]All artforms do it![/I] So why can a video game not do the same?
Why can't a game be a critique of its own medium, not be made to be enjoyable in the conventional sense, make a philosophical point, use its own medium as a unique way to forward its message or function as allegory (in videogames, its interactivity and player control)? I can't see any reason. Every artform does it. Spec Ops The Line just happens to be a video game that does it. But video games are young and mostly viewed as just a way of fun or cool graphics or multiplayer or whatever (even by gamers themselves). It's an artform barely considered an artform, but Spec Ops: The Line takes its medium totally seriously and understands what it can do with it.
It's not like it's the only game to do it either... MGS2 is this post-modern, fourth-wall breaking masterpiece that condemns the player, criticising and making fun of him and his expectations, uses rehashed gameplay, deliberately bad design at parts, an unlikeable player character, etc as a way to deliver its point. That was in 2001. Spec Ops The Line is over a decade later and is actually significantly less ambitious and far more simple in its goals. It's a very impressive and intelligent game but it's not breaking ground that is too far ahead of its time to be comprehended or anything. It is really not a very out-there game in the bigger scale of things. As a video game it's out there but as a piece of art looking at other mediums as well it's hardly saying anything so new it can't be comprehended. I don't mean this to criticise, more to justify that it should really be very easy to accept that a video game is able to do what Spec Ops: The Line does and it's unfair to shut it down just because it isn't "fun". (and I think simply saying "it isn't true" in reference to analysing the game like that as if you know what it inherently is, as if it can't be more than one thing to you or others, is pretty close-minded) Spec Ops is deliberately an unenjoyable game because by being unenjoyable you're able to really understand what the game is about. Games don't have to be fun.
Plus even ignoring all that the game has an amazing story with a great leading character whose arc is brilliantly handled and really memorable. Also a great retelling of the novel Heart Of Darkness. (Apocalypse Now was based off of it too)
I thought Spec Ops: The Line was a fantastic game in every sense of the word - of course leaving gameplay out. The story was riveting and the way it put choice up to you was executed perfectly. At the part where [sp]you're forced to make a decision on how to exit the crowd of civilians, I shot up in the air and they all dispersed.[/sp] I felt really boggled when I saw that the [sp]two men hanging from the overpass were actually Walker's visions.[/sp] I felt like it could've done a way better job though at making you feel like everything was your fault and you caused the deaths of many innocent civilians beside stating out the obvious [sp]deprivation of water, etc. etc.[/sp]
I also felt like the game story would've sufficed better if Walker had [sp]died in the helicopter crash and everything up to it was just him reliving.[/sp]
I'm not going to play Spec ops, at least for now. I don't feel like blowing someone's brains out to end their misery.
I'm assuming you're talking about that specific part of the game and part of the beauty of Spec Ops The Line is that you actually don't have to :~)
[QUOTE=mikeyt493;45642091]I'm assuming you're talking about that specific part of the game and part of the beauty of Spec Ops The Line is that you actually don't have to :~)[/QUOTE]
well, I wouldn't want them to die slowly, either. I love dark stuff, I FUCKING LOVE dark stuff, I love the Macabre. But for now, I'll pass.
[QUOTE=mikeyt493;45642004]It's hardly "conspiracy shit", it's just looking at the depth the game provides using its narrative and gameplay. Why can it [I]not[/I] be what I just explained? literally why not?? Give me reasons video games cannot be expressive pieces of art that are not meant to be enjoyed but experienced, making a statement beyond, for example, "war is cool"? Cinema does it. Novels do it. Painting does it. Sculpture does it. Even architecture does it! [I]All artforms do it![/I] So why can a video game not do the same?
Why can't a game be a critique of its own medium, not be made to be enjoyable in the conventional sense, make a philosophical point, use its own medium as a unique way to forward its message or function as allegory (in videogames, its interactivity and player control)? I can't see any reason. Every artform does it. Spec Ops The Line just happens to be a video game that does it. But video games are young and mostly viewed as just a way of fun or cool graphics or multiplayer or whatever (even by gamers themselves). It's an artform barely considered an artform, but Spec Ops: The Line takes its medium totally seriously and understands what it can do with it.
It's not like it's the only game to do it either... MGS2 is this post-modern, fourth-wall breaking masterpiece that condemns the player, criticising and making fun of him and his expectations, uses rehashed gameplay, deliberately bad design at parts, an unlikeable player character, etc as a way to deliver its point. That was in 2001. Spec Ops The Line is over a decade later. It's a very impressive and intelligent game but it's not breaking ground that is too far ahead of its time to be comprehended or anything. It is really not a very out-there game in the bigger scale of things. As a video game it's out there but as a piece of art looking at other mediums as well it's hardly saying anything so new it can't be comprehended. I don't mean this to criticise, more to justify that it should really be very easy to accept that a video game is able to do what Spec Ops: The Line does and it's unfair to shut it down just because it isn't "fun". (and I think simply saying "it isn't true" in reference to analysing the game like that as if you know what it inherently is, as if it can't be more than one thing to you or others, is pretty close-minded) Spec Ops is deliberately an unenjoyable game because by being unenjoyable you're able to really understand what the game is about. Games don't have to be fun.
Plus even ignoring all that the game has an amazing story with a great leading character whose arc is brilliantly handled and really memorable. Also a great retelling of the novel Heart Of Darkness. (Apocalypse Now was based off of it too)[/QUOTE]
Nobody said that a game can't be as you described, but I am saying that Spec Ops: The Line isn't.
Devs never said it was, only fans and critics.
It's made up shit to explain its short comings.
None of it is intentional, it's just shit people made up. Simple as that.
STALKER is really a social experiment that uses its clunky mechanics and dark imagery to convey the message of how difficult modern life is in eastern europe. The Zone symbolizes man's ill effects on the environment and the need for change. The major groups of the Zone sumbolize man's inability to cohabitate and pention for conflict. The creatures of the zone sumbolize man's inner demons.
The poor AI is a symbol for inferiority, the numerous bugs symbolize the unexpected randomness of life...
Hint; this is all BS I made up, in real life it's just a fun spooky post-apocalyptic shooter that happens to be kinda clunky too, same shit with Spec Ops.
[editline]banan[/editline]
and don't forget, we're talking about gameplay mechanics here, not the story.
the story is pretty deep, well written, and smart, I'm not denying that, I agree completely that it is
but this crap about the gameplay mechanics being purposefully clunky is just plain bunk, that's where this started
[QUOTE=Pretty Obscure;45642107]
[QUOTE=mikeyt493;45642004]-wall of text-[/QUOTE]
-more text-[/QUOTE]
Stop fighting, it's okay, you can both be pretty.
Katatonic! Oh thank god, we need some raccoons or Guardians of the Galaxy statues shirts and/or swag! I have no idea what is going on here!
Ask and you shall receive
[t]http://d1df5tpemqge08.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/raccoon-opposable-thumbs.jpg[/t]
I don't see it as any less valid of an interpretation of Spec Ops just because the developers didn't intend for it to end up like that. Art is just as much about how the one experiencing it takes it, as it is how the creator feels about it.
While I really doubt the developers didn't intend for any of themes or messages people took from the game, the fact that so many people took so much from the game really speaks volumes about the game itself.
[QUOTE=Katatonic717;45642146]Ask and you shall receive
[t]http://d1df5tpemqge08.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/raccoon-opposable-thumbs.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
Do you have a whole folder of raccoon pictures purely for reaction images
Also this is coming in the mail in September
[t]http://cdn3.volusion.com/owxfh.rekky/v/vspfiles/photos/80404-2.jpg?1404811753[/t]
Excitement!
[QUOTE=Kurahk;45642166]Do you have a whole folder of raccoon pictures purely for reaction images[/QUOTE]
Actually no, but I do have a folder of Smeargle reaction images.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/uUi2X19.png[/img]
-snoop-
[QUOTE=Yin;45642159]I don't see it as any less valid of an interpretation of Spec Ops just because the developers didn't intend for it to end up like that. Art is just as much about how the one experiencing it takes it, as it is how the creator feels about it.
While I really doubt the developers didn't intend for any of themes or messages people took from the game, the fact that so many people took so much from the game really speaks volumes about the game itself.[/QUOTE]
People can interpret that way if they so choose, there's nothing wrong with that.
The thing is though, there's a big difference between saying "the clunky mechanics of this game clash very well with the tone of the game and make the story seem deeper" and "OMG IT'S NOT CLUNKY YEAGER DID IT ON PURPOSE AS A PARODY!"
[editline]9th August 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Katatonic717;45642168]Also this is coming in the mail in September
[t]http://cdn3.volusion.com/owxfh.rekky/v/vspfiles/photos/80404-2.jpg?1404811753[/t]
Excitement![/QUOTE]
what is it, just a mini bust?
[QUOTE=Pretty Obscure;45642192]
what is it, just a mini bust?[/QUOTE]
No it's a container of nuclear waste- Yes it's a minibust.
What else would it be?
[QUOTE=Pretty Obscure;45642107]Nobody said that a game can't be as you described, but I am saying that Spec Ops: The Line isn't.
Devs never said it was, only fans and critics.
It's made up shit to explain its short comings.
None of it is intentional, it's just shit people made up. Simple as that.
STALKER is really a social experiment that uses its clunky mechanics and dark imagery to convey the message of how difficult modern life is in eastern europe. The Zone symbolizes man's ill effects on the environment and the need for change. The major groups of the Zone sumbolize man's inability to cohabitate and pention for conflict. The creatures of the zone sumbolize man's inner demons.
The poor AI is a symbol for inferiority, the numerous bugs symbolize the unexpected randomness of life...
Hint; this is all BS I made up, in real life it's just a fun spooky post-apocalyptic shooter that happens to be kinda clunky too, same shit with Spec Ops.
[editline]banan[/editline]
and don't forget, we're talking about gameplay mechanics here, not the story.
the story is pretty deep, well written, and smart, I'm not denying that, I agree completely that it is
but this crap about the gameplay mechanics being purposefully clunky is just plain bunk, that's where this started[/QUOTE]
Dude u literally think the same thing as me but with a different game that I've not played enough to agree or disagree with, which kinda confuses me in that you then call me wrong about Spec Ops. Just because it's not confirmed by the makers or whatever doesn't make it "bullshit" or "not true". It's just your interpretation of the game, which is just as legitimate as the devs' or anyone else's.
this is something I say with films but it applies just the same to games- [I]director's intent means nothing unless you want it to.[/I] Whether the devs intended Spec Ops The Line to be what I think of or not is totally irrelevant. It literally means nothing. (worth noting that I'm pretty sure they've not disagreed with this stuff, either, though) I interpret Spec Ops: The Line is a critique, so to me it is a critique. You interpret STALKER's controls as allegory for the difficult life of East Europe and the setting as a warning to man, etc. That is totally legit (and sounds like I'd agree with it) whether GSC intended it or not. STALKER's controls work to tell the story of the game just as Spec Ops' controls work the same way. Games are a new medium with unique traits that can be exploited and manipulated to express the point of the game in the bigger sense. Spec Ops' controls are boring and a bit clunky, but to me they work because of context. STALKER's controls are clunky as well, I remember noticing that, but your explanation makes sense, it's not an inherent flaw in the game because you can justify why it's like that.
This might sound a little bit condescending but I don't really know how else to phrase it so I apologise but- I think it's a bit of a shame you're thinking like that, since you're clearly looking at things from your own perspective and coming to your own conclusions but then disregarding them just because it's maybe not what the makers were thinking. Don't disregard your own opinions of art just because it's maybe not the intention of the creator. They're just some person/people the same as you. Maybe Spec Ops: The Line just failed at having interesting and enjoyable gameplay. Totally possible and maybe even likely. But then, if you ask me, looking at the context it makes sense for the gameplay to be what it is because it allows it to enforce its concept and project the harshness of war onto the player as it forces them to experience it for themselves (to an extent, at least)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
