default header

Welcome

The internet reacts to Insomnia articles...

Moderator: JC Denton

Unread postby icycalm » 07 May 2009 20:58

User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 08 May 2009 18:35

http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1926#comment-22000

Rat wrote:But then you go and insult arcade games, compare competitive players to Enron criminals, and take shots at Halo. I find your suggestion that Mario creates better human beings to be laughable, but that is a probably a more deep-seated philosophical difference.

I like the layout of your site, though!


http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1926#comment-22021

Rat wrote:Anyway, of course my GSW comment was reactive–it’s a response. My criticisms are harsh but correct:

You do not understand that expert gamers are the only ones who can offer useful advice about how to improve a series. Who else COULD be qualified? What does it matter if newcomers can’t understand these deeper, more complex games? The old ones haven’t vanished; they can still go play those; they’re not being excluded from anything. Of course it matters to the developers, who want to make money–and this is understandable. But it is an unfortunate financial necessity that games have to retrogress and rehash and simplify in order to expand their audience. It’s not the way to make better games.

You claim that few games have a constant learning curve like Mario 64, but you’re confusing “learning curve” with “variety of actions.” Yes, Mario 64 introduces many new stages and obstacles–unlike, say a fighting game–but the fighting game have much more complex ruleset and greater room for improvement as a result of it.

There is nothing subtle about your Enron/chickens comparison. You make the ridiculous assertion that players want to improve their skill “regardless of whether or not [they] enjoy it,” which shows nothing but ignorance of how competitive players think. I wonder if you think the same about competitive basketball players or Chess players. Could it be that they derive pleasure from MASTERY OF THE GAME, considering that overcoming a CHALLENGE is the entire point of playing a game in the first place? No, they must all be secretly miserable on the inside. Furthermore, you conflate using cheating with programs outside the game with expert knowledge of tricks and exploits within the game. You denigrate all competitors as trash-talking sociopaths-in-training. If you had experience with high-level players in any tournment, you wouldn’t make such absurd claims.

Regardless of your age and the games you may have played, you have nothing but snide for arcade game design (Limited lives? Pah!) and players who would rather improve their skills and avoid filler, instead of backtracking through levels, enjoying the “immersion,” and having to design their own challenges.

You may know a lot about video game history, but your comments about design are way off the mark. Hopefully someone at GSW will read my comment and filter your presentation accordingly.

For starters, you should read this:

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/mini-game ... or_morons/
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 10 May 2009 16:29

Zero actual content, as usual from that site:

http://www.gamespite.net/talkingtime/sh ... php?t=7825

pence wrote:Don't do it! I got a thread about insomnia locked for starting it with a link.


http://www.gamespite.net/talkingtime/sh ... p?p=167927

It's the personal site of this guy called Jeremy Pariah, who writes for 1UP and seems to be among the gaming jurnolists the rabble respects.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 13 May 2009 19:57

User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 13 May 2009 20:02

User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 17 May 2009 17:11

User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 18 May 2009 21:50

User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 20 May 2009 20:22

User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 24 May 2009 21:40

User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 28 May 2009 17:44

User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 31 May 2009 16:20

Someone linked my "hardcore review" article on StumbleUpon, and it seems a couple thousand people clicked through to it. Only one response though (which is a about standard for this sort of site: about one response per one or two thousand views):

http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/insomnia ... or_no_one/

MrPopo wrote:This guys ego is so big it actually crashed my browser with an out of memory error. Does he seriously compare his video game reviews with the literary reviews of George Orwell? I've seen some "OH MY GOD! WHY CAN'T YOU FOOLS SEE MY GREATNESS!!" Rants before, but this one should win a prize.


Same old same old. One the one hand WE WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! On the other, WHOEVER TAKES HIMSELF SERIOUSLY IS A JOKE! No wonder no one takes them seriously, then.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 01 Jun 2009 14:25

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/05 ... papers-70/

SheC wrote:Videogame PR and news explained far better and earlier here.

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/the_video ... ws_racket/


Lewis wrote:Only it’s not good at all, is it? It’s immature, overly general, insubstantiated nonsense that tarrs everyone in the press with the same ugly brush. It also, on a basic level, simply regularly lies.

I agree that there is a problem with the current state of reporting within the videogame press. Absolutely. I think it has to acknowledge a real responsibility towards its readership first and foremost, and learn not to play up to the demands of publisher PR. It should certainly be more independent and analytical. But to accuse it - yet again - of corruption is terribly offensive to the people who dedicate their professional lives to this sort of stuff. And to attack reporters on a personal level, which the article does, is the worst possible reporting you can get.

It’s right about having game pages up even if there’s very little information available on the game, I’ll give it that much. I hardly think that’s the biggest problem, though.

EDIT: That guy’s most recent post refers to people who don’t like scores on reviews as “pseudo-intellectuals or artfags.” That’s the level we’re dealing with. Versus Leigh Alexander, one of the most highly respected - for a reason - videogame reporters in the world. Come on.


I don't have lols big enough.

James T wrote:Oh look, an “is it”…

He has some awful, infantile rhetorical habits, but he’s right. “Accusing it yet again of corruption”? He’s aptly describing the funding model of corporate gaming sites and the shallowness of Kotaku-scale blogs. It’s systemic corruption — it’s market failure, it’s system failure. There’s no “envelopes of cash are being exchanged under a table” here. (And the article’s not reportage. And “the worst possible reporting” is… well, the worst possible reporting is what he’s writing about, not what he’s written).


Lewis wrote:It accuses the press of corruption in a more systemic sense, like you said, but the implications are still there. “The press only care about readership figures and will do anything to increase them” is the basic argument, and it’s not one I like at all.


Oh, Lewis doesn't like the implication. Whatever in the world are we going to do about that?

Lewis wrote:And yeah, probably, what he’s writing about is pretty awful reporting. But he’s assuming that’s widespread, general practice, which from my experience it really, really is not. Even if it was, his infantile, personally-abusive manner immediately turns me against him. Not fond at all.


Oh, Lewis is not fond of me at all. Whatever in the world are we going to do about that?
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Bradford » 01 Jun 2009 22:14

Lewis wrote:to accuse [the games journalism industry] of corruption is terribly offensive to the people who dedicate their professional lives to this sort of stuff.

True story.


... and my favorite part was this:

Lewis wrote:And yeah, probably, what he’s writing about is pretty awful reporting. But he’s assuming that’s widespread, general practice, which from my experience it really, really is not. Even if it was, his infantile, personally-abusive manner immediately turns me against him.


So first he admits that at least some people practice games 'journalism' in the terrible manner described by Icy, but denies that the practice is widespread. But wait! It's the last sentence that's really the kicker. In the essay Icy says:

1. game news reporting is "a despicable racket, a disgusting scam . . . ."
2. game news publications "only stay in business by insidious manipulation . . . ."
3. the journalists are "cheap, malfunctioning, [and] worthless . . ." and are "leeches."
4. the relationship between developers and publications is like a "wretched dance . . . ."
and so on.

But in Lewis' last sentence, above, he is saying that even if everything Icy said above is absolutely widespread and pervasive within every gaming publication out there, Lewis would still argue with him because when Icy said it he was just too mean. That's the kind of thinking that fits my definition of infantile.
You know he knows just exactly what the facts is.
Bradford
 
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 18:11
Location: Orlando, Florida, USA

Unread postby icycalm » 01 Jun 2009 23:20

Maybe if we all held hands and said a prayer, the problems would go away.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 02 Jun 2009 19:04

User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 03 Jun 2009 14:27

User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 04 Jun 2009 19:20

The retard I mentioned before finally wrote something about me. Time to rip him a new one.

http://philosophywithpair.blogspot.com/ ... stein.html

but I will say that I lean towards the idea that the self is vague in space and time


Don't lean too far because you might fall down.

The idea of an online identity isn't new, of course, but it's philosophical implications have never been fully spelled out in realtion to Personal Identity, as far as I'm aware.


Which isn't saying much, considering that you seem to be aware of next to nothing.

After all, the blog is mine and no one is telling me I have to write it in any specific way. Still, I realize now that some people actually, occasionally read it, and on those grounds I feel I have some sort of obligation to my fellow humans to make it more coherent than I ordinarily make it.


Defense mechanisms running amok lol.

An ad hominem battle almost never gets people anywhere.


It gets them closer to a fistfight, which is a good place to be if you are physically stronger. And that's not even the end of it. Schopenhauer in his "The Art of Controversy" has an entire section on how useful ad hominems and direct insults can be when you are engaged in a controversy. But what would a retard like you know about fistfights or Schopenhauer? 'Nough said.

At first I thought that Alex Kierkegaard (AK) might be able to teach me something, but after reading his article on games and art I realize that he simply didn't do his research.


HA HA HA HA HA

It's not my intention to denigrate what others have done or written (despite the fact that AK specifically attacked what I'd written),


WHAT DOES THE ONE THING HAVE TO DO WITH THE OTHER YOU FUCKING RETARD? IN PHILOSOPHY WE DENIGRATE THINGS WE SEE AS WRONG AND STUPID -- PERSONAL CONSIDERATIONS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!

but I'm assuming Insomnia has a decent amount of readers. And if those readers haven't studied enough philosophy to understand AK's philosophical blunders concerning games and art, then I'm here to set them straight.


GO FOR IT! WE'VE ALREADY GOT THE POPCORN.

Here's just one example of a game journalist who fatuously praised AK. The journalist, Cole Stryker, even titled his article "People Who Get It." Now this is what scares me, and this is the main reason I'm writing this. AK's games and art article would have been ripped apart had he turned it in to any philosophy teacher, but it's apparently praiseworthy by an uninformed game journalist.

Again, I'm not attacking the journalist, I'm not attacking AK. I'm just writing this in the hopes that someone out there will be led to this blog, hopefully emerging with a deeper appreciation of the issues surrounding games and art.

AK makes heavy use of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus in AK's games and art article on Insomnia, quoting from it heavily. AK's main point seems to be that to ask whether games are art doesn't make sense. As he puts it: "The question 'Can games be art?' is nonsensical, and therefore any answer one might come up with for it will also be nonsensical. Put another way: the question is not a question and the answer is not an answer." AK goes on to discuss Wittgenstein himself:

"Now I have explained here the problem with the word 'art' in very plain and crude terms, but those of you who are still puzzled by it should realize that for many centuries it used to be a philosophical problem of the first order, until it was effectively dealt with by Ludwig Wittgenstein in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, one of the most important philosophical works of the twentieth century..."


CAN YOU PLEASE GET TO THE POINT ALREADY?

Anyone who's studied Wittgenstein in detail, or anyone who respects the philosophical tradition, will see problems with this right away. To say that Wittgenstein "solved" the problems with the term "art" is to ignore the natural disagreements among philosophers and to ignore Wittgenstein's own thoughts on the Tractatus later on in his life.


I am indeed ignoring all that chatter. And you know why? Because I am a philosopher, not a student of the HISTORY of philosophy like yourself and all the other hundreds of thousands of philosophy majors who will never write a single paragraph in their lives worth reading.

In his introduction to Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein writes "I have been forced to admit grave mistakes in what I wrote in that first book" (p. vi).


Yes, Stephen Poole quoted the same sentence to me a few months ago, without bothering to point out what those "grave mistakes" were supposed to be and what relevance they had to the matter at hand. And you know why? For the same reason YOU didn't do it -- because you haven't got a fucking clue. All you little rats do whenever someone brings up Wittgenstein is quote that sentence in order to avoid having to sit down and face in detail the implications of his teaching. HE SAID HE MADE SOME GRAVE MISTAKES -- WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE? WHO CARES? IT'S ALL ONE BIG MISTAKE AND THEREFORE NO ONE HAS TO WORRY ABOUT IT.

What AK doesn't appreciate about the Tractatus is that Wittgenstein was not just trying to condemn aesthetics and claims about "art" as nonsense; he was trying to condemn all of philosophy!


I appreciate everything about the Tractatus, you little retard. Wittgenstein was NOT trying to condemn all of philosophy -- only meaningless verbiage. It just so happens that MOST of philosophy (and especially everything connected with morality and aesthetics) happened to be meaningless verbiage. But understanding WHY that is so is STILL philosophy. That is what he explains right at the end of the book. BUT I GUESS YOU DIDN'T GET THAT FAR. OR IF YOU DID IT MUST HAVE SEEMED LIKE GREEK TO YOU!

As Bertrand Russell notes in his original introduction: "The inexpressible contains, according to Mr. Wittgenstein, the whole of logic and philosophy" (p. XXXII).


Russell was an idiot -- as Wittgenstein himself told him more or less when he presented the Tractatus as his dissertation. In any case, I have already explained this. Explaining WHY most of the old philosophy was nonsense IS STILL PHILOSOPHY.

What's worse, trying to discuss Wittgenstein's theory at all is meaningless according to the theory.


Here is where the little obscurantist rat betrays his intentions -- WE ARE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO DISCUSS WITTGENSTEIN NOW. BECAUSE THE LITTLE RAT CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE SAYING, NO ONE SHOULD SPEAK OF WITTGENSTEIN!

As Russell notes: "... the things that have to be said in leading the reader to understand Mr. Wittgenstein's theory are all of them things which that theory itself condemns as meaningless" (p. XXIII).


And that is indeed true. And you know why? Because EVERY sentence is ultimately meaningless, even the ones you are reading right now, even the ones you yourself have written. AND YET MOST OF THE TIME WE UNDERSTAND THEM JUST FINE and have no trouble using them to communicate. WHAT DEVIL'S WORK IS THIS? HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?

I guess they forgot to teach you this chapter of philosophy before they gave you your degree. Probably because it hasn't been written yet. And here it is in brief:

Every proposition, in itself, is nonsensical, because the words and concepts that it is made of are entirely fictional and non-existent. The task then is not to try to find meaning IN the proposition, because there is none (as Derrida showed time and again). The task is to use your brain to try and imagine what the person who wrote that proposition WANTED TO COMMUNICATE! This is where all the little braindead rats like you fail -- because for that feat one requires, first and above all -- a brain! You must delve into the other person's mind and try to see with his eyes what he saw -- for the thing, the thing that he saw and wanted to communicate -- that is the only real thing in the entire exercise. Words always fail to fully describe anything, concepts always fail -- but they do get you part of the way there, they can, if used properly and consistently, get you closer to the REALITY that the other person was trying to communicate -- BUT THE WORDS THEMSELVES ARE NEVER THE REALITY. THE REALITY WAS IN THE OTHER PERSON'S BRAIN -- IT WAS STARING AT HIM FROM OUTSIDE HIS EYES -- and it is THERE that you must place yourself if you want to understand him.

Meh, fucking rats. You are barely even human.

So, this is exactly what a clever philosophy professor would have written on AK's article had he turned it in as an assignment: "99% of this paper is nonsensical." Why? Because, according to Wittgenstein's theory, writing about why nonsensical things are nonsensical is itself nonsensical! And this is just what AK has done.


LOL, still thinking of papers and grades, I see. You have a bright future ahead of you, if your brain is still in school!

As for the rest of it, I've already answered it.

Furthermore, it might be worthwhile for AK to note that postmodernist writers like Jean Baudrillard take the cake for nonsensibility in a Wittgensteinian sense


ONLY IF YOU ARE A RAT AND THEREFORE INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THEM.

My advice for AK is to take a look at Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. In my view, it's a much more mature and practical book than the Tractatus.


Yes, his advice is to forget the great book and read the trash. Rats are drawn to trash by instinct -- the smell attracts them with reveries of home.

NOT TO MENTION HE MAKES NO ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN IN WHAT WAY THE "PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS" ARE MORE USEFUL TO THE TASK AT HAND THAN THE "TRACTATUS". HE SIMPLY IGNORES THE ISSUE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DEBUNKING ME ON AND THROWS A BOOK IN MY FACE! THAT'S HOW THE RATS DEBUNK EACH OTHER -- BY BOUNCING BOOKS BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THEM!

Moreover, one postmodernist (Lyotard) even uses Wittgenstein's idea of a "language game" (discussed in Philosophical Investigations) as a springboard for postmodernist thought.


TOO BAD LYOTARD WAS FULL OF SHIT. AND TOO BAD THAT YOU YOURSELF SEEM TO HAVE NOT THE FAINTEST IDEA WHAT THAT "POSTMODERNIST THOUGHT" IS SUPPOSED TO BE OR MEAN.

I haven't really studied Wittgenstein since my undergrad days and delving into his ideas again makes me realize why I found him so interesting then and now.


Yes, you find interesting the fact that you don't understand a word he is saying.

Also, despite the philosophical problems, AK has brought back to my consciousness one of my own criticisms of aesthetics when I first began to study it: what's the damn point? Why worry about whether this or that is or isn't art? What is art?


AND WE ARE HAPPILY BACK TO SQUARE ONE. AND IT GOES ON AND ON AND ON ALL DOWN THE CENTURIES! GOD BLESS OUR UNIVERSITIES AND OUR MEN OF LEARNING!

And then he keeps blabbering for a few paragraphs about what is art and related subjects.

So yes, someone tried to "set me straight". I think I am going to go puke a little now.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 04 Jun 2009 19:37

Oh and hey, here's the skull-numbingly vapid chatter of some random forumroids for a change:

http://forums.selectbutton.net/viewtopic.php?t=21415
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 08 Jun 2009 00:29

User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 09 Jun 2009 18:33

The dude with the philosophy degree I made fun of earlier read my reply, and went back and edited the fuck out of his post. I mean most of the stuff I replied to (and quoted) is not even there anymore, and has been replaced with entirely new comments (equally stupid, of course). What a fucking clown! IS THAT HOW THEY TAUGHT YOU TO REPLY TO YOUR CRITICS, LITTLE RAT? BY EDITING THE ORIGINAL TEXT SO AS TO MAKE IT UNRECOGNIZABLE?

Meh. I'll probably make fun of his new round of babbling eventually, but right now I have better things to do with my time. USE THE TIME PRODUCTIVELY, LITTLE RAT. EDIT, EDIT, EDIT AS IF YOUR LITTLE RAT LIFE DEPENDED ON IT.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 11 Jun 2009 19:47

Bunch of worthless links as usual from GSW, but the comments are mostly on my article (I WONDER WHY!):

http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2009/06/gam ... es_say.php

In fact everytime Simon has linked me in the past, pretty much all comments have been on my articles:

http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2007/04/why ... y_word.php
http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2007/09/why ... finiti.php
http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2008/01/gam ... r_says.php
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 12 Jun 2009 23:32

For everyone's information, the pseudo-philosopher got an account here, and our little altercation has been continued, and ended, here:

http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?t=2850
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 13 Jun 2009 00:02

The comments threads in the pseudo-philosopher's blog are maybe worth one or two lols:

http://philosophywithpair.blogspot.com/ ... stein.html
http://philosophywithpair.blogspot.com/ ... latan.html

Anonymous wrote:And I don't hate you at all, I simply love video games.


Well spoken, Anonymous.

Anonymous wrote:In any event, Alex Kierkegaard is the future of video-game philosophy, theory, and discussion, and if you can't see that then you don't deserve to.


I smiled at this. Arrogant or not, I am afraid to say that this is my intention. We shall see how well I will be able to accomplish it. And in any event, the arrogance, for those who have a problem with it, might be mitigated if one considers that NO ONE ELSE IS EVEN SO MUCH AS TRYING. I could just win BY DEFAULT if I wanted to.

Pseudo-philosopher wrote:So what am I saying? I'm saying, research things for yourself! When AK interprets Wittgenstein or Baudrillard, CHECK TO SEE IF HIS INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT. Check the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, check with other philosophers, read Wittgenstein or Baudrillard, have a discussion about it with friends!


This is what I am talking about. How can you be involved with philosophy in 2009 and not know that there is no such thing as a correct interpretation? Derrida wrote 30 books about this. How can this little rat be ignorant of this? Anyway, that's enough with him. I get more intellectual stimulation by reading Leigh Alexander's blog -- I get more intellectual stimulation by sleeping, actually, or watching paint dry.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 13 Jun 2009 17:40

User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby taub » 14 Jun 2009 13:29

taub
 
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 05:42

PreviousNext

Return to Welcome

cron