Theory

[icycalm]

One of the many complicated concepts the artfags are incapable of grasping is abstraction. They basically have no idea what the word 'abstract' means. However, because it sounds artfagotry, they try to stick in as many sentences as possible. This can be clearly observed in pretty much every abortive attempt at a theoretical discussion on Select Button, the internet's premier bastion of videogame artfagotry. Here are a couple of examples out of thousands:

Many early CRPGs had grid-based combat systems that bear a passing resemblance to later SRPGS - the SSI Gold Box games, Ultima III-VI (although VI and the two Worlds of games removed the abstract overworld and made everything take place in the same kid of map, including combat, which was pretty unique for the time). Not many of them really stand up today though.

WHAT THE FUCK IS SUPPOSED TO BE "ABSTRACT" ABOUT THE GODDAMNED OVERWORLD?!! IT'S A FUCKING OVERWORLD -- YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY GET ANY MORE CONCRETE THAN THAT YOU FUCKING RETARD!

...

And an entire thread about FUCKING SOUND EFFECTS, titled "abstraction in video games, sound effects, yoshi":

http://forums.selectbutton.net/viewtopic.php?t=18399

...

For (lots and lots) of extra lols, simply type "abstract" in the forum's search tool and spend a few weeks marvelling with the shenanigans of apes who look like men:

http://forums.selectbutton.net/search.php

[icycalm]

The benefit of a model is not only that we can abstract away all the unnecessary details and concentrate on what we deem as important,

http://forums.selectbutton.net/viewtopi ... 802#518802

"Abstract away", lol. The simple verb "remove" is replaced with "abstract away", rendering the entire sentence meaningless. And all for what? To gain artfagotry points.

And what's the purpose of those points? What can you redeem them for? Do they get people laid or something? Is this a new development in the States? Last time I was over there was around 2001, so perhaps things have changed?

[icycalm]

i mean that while i prefer games don't have a strong plot they should have an interesting context
which i define as the theme of all the enemies and levels and worlds

like Harry Hatsworth's story is 'Indiana Jones ripoff' but its context is 'cartoonish steampunk'
its not very interesting, and the enemies don't follow that, but its there

or 'generic space shooter' vs 'underwater shooter'. it can be the same game, but the second is more interesting 'cause its more rare

This sounds like a really thin layer of abstraction to base attraction on.

http://forums.selectbutton.net/viewtopi ... 602#524602

[milkycha]

Oh man that last post was the clincher! I raged a little.

[DeadAurum]

The art of not knowing what the fuck anyone is actually saying–most forums have dissolved into this too long ago. Some humans can't get enough of their own piss-poor vocabulary, I suppose.

[evnvnv]

I just happened on this site today, and because this post mentions a thread I created (in the Axe originally, if that makes any difference) I figured I might as well comment on this.

I understand your ire with the overuse or misuse of the word "abstract." But for what its worth I was using the word in this sense: "something that concentrates in itself the essential qualities of anything more extensive or more general, or of several things; essence." I was interested in the way sound effects convey information without necessarily being realistic. I don't really know what other word would be more appropriate. In general it seems like the word is used to refer to aesthetic choices made in things that are representational of the "essence" of some other thing without directly reproducing them in great realistic detail. Even though it may be done to death as a topic of conversation I don't see anything wrong with the use of the word 'abstract' to refer to that concept.

Obviously you are free to disagree with the validity of the entire conversation. I'm kind of irritated by your use of the word "artfag," but whatever. I understand and respect the kinds of things that are discussed on this website, but for whatever reason I am more interested in talking about the aesthetics of video games rather than playing them. Now, I'm not targeting you guys specifically with this (because I haven't read many articles on this site), but one thing that irritates me about this kind of thing is that anyone who is interested in talking about aesthetic and thematic choices in video games is not taken seriously by the other half of the 'community' that is more interested in talking about the competitive aspect of games or just the physical activity of playing a game. It usually ends with someone making a claim that none of these choices matter, what is important is the activity of playing the game, so who cares what it looks like? But what would a game be without these things? If this was really the case then we'd all be content to just look at, I don't know, colored squares moving around on a screen. What would games be like without sound effects? Obviously they contribute something to the game, I don't see why it is worthless to talk about that.

Anyway, I see now that you've posted this interesting John Kricfalusi article about animation. What he's talking about is kind of similar to things I've noticed about how the way video games look and sound is changing. Video games borrow a lot of 'tricks' from cartoons in terms of how ideas are expressed in non-realistic ways (is that better than 'abstract?) and it's interesting to think about how the two forms have developed/declined over time. One element that affects video games is the constant pressure to update technology. I think it's great that video games now have "better" graphics, but sometimes I wonder if using all of this extra hardware just to make things in video games resemble 'real life' more closely isn't just a boring waste of time. This is kind of echoed in Kricfalusi's issue with "quality" over "fun" in the animation article. I'm certain whatever I said was nowhere near as cogent as this article (because I'm not John Kricfalusi), but I don't really see how that validates making an entire post on a different website just to be insulting. If that conversation was worthless and invalid, where's the validity in taking up more time to 'respond' to it (in a pretty juvenile way, to be honest).

I'm not sure if I clarified anything with this, but I never assume that anything I write on selectbutton is going to be noticed by anybody outside that site (especially since the axe autoprunes--I guess that got moved to the permanent forum though). So I figured I might as well chime in. In a weird way it's kind of flattering, someone is paying attention!

[icycalm]

and because this post mentions a thread I created (in the Axe originally, if that makes any difference)

It doesn't.

I understand your ire with the overuse or misuse of the word "abstract."

I doubt it. After all, you still keep abusing the hell out of it in your latest post.

But for what its worth I was using the word in this sense: "something that concentrates in itself the essential qualities of anything more extensive or more general, or of several things; essence."

Even assuming that the above sense... makes sense, you are still better off using less ambiguous terms: 'essence', for example. Reading your OP in that thread is painful; every other sentence it's "abstract this" and "abstract that" whilst most of the time the use of the word is highly inappropriate or obviously gratuitous. Clarity is lacking -- worse, the very notion of clarity is treated with disdain. But that's a characteristic feature of all SB -- and artfag in general -- discourse: it makes as much noise as possible on the basis of the tiniest, most insignificant ideas -- and hence requires murkiness, obscurity of expression in order to appear learned and profound.

The sound effects in the mario games are all like this--so ubiquitous that they seem logical and "realistic," but actually almost completely abstract.

WTF IS AN "ABSTRACT" SOUND EFFECT SUPPOSED TO BE? Even calling them "unrealistic" is kind of dumb, since most of the situations in the game have nothing to do with reality. And I am not even going to touch the first part of the above sentence!

I was interested in the way sound effects convey information without necessarily being realistic.

Then talk about that.

I don't really know what other word would be more appropriate.

The one you used in the previous sentence.

In general it seems like the word is used to refer to aesthetic choices made in things that are representational of the "essence" of some other thing without directly reproducing them in great realistic detail. Even though it may be done to death as a topic of conversation I don't see anything wrong with the use of the word 'abstract' to refer to that concept.

That's because you don't really pay attention to the words you use -- leading to such absurdities as "The sound effects in the mario games are all like this--so ubiquitous that they seem logical", etc. etc.

There's nothing that anyone can do to help you with this (or maybe Schopenhauer can help...). You will either start to have more respect for language, or you will be forever doomed to occupy yourself with childish nonsense like this:

have video game sound effects changed the way we imagine reality?

The internet does not have lols big enough to adequately ridicule this question.

Obviously you are free to disagree with the validity of the entire conversation. I'm kind of irritated by your use of the word "artfag," but whatever.

Good. That's why I use it: to irritate people like you.

I understand and respect the kinds of things that are discussed on this website, but for whatever reason I am more interested in talking about the aesthetics of video games rather than playing them.

Without playing them, you will understand fuck-all about the aesthetics of videogames -- and not only because aesthetics and mechanics are ultimately one and the same thing.

Now, I'm not targeting you guys specifically with this (because I haven't read many articles on this site), but one thing that irritates me about this kind of thing is that anyone who is interested in talking about aesthetic and thematic choices in video games is not taken seriously by the other half of the 'community' that is more interested in talking about the competitive aspect of games or just the physical activity of playing a game. It usually ends with someone making a claim that none of these choices matter, what is important is the activity of playing the game, so who cares what it looks like? But what would a game be without these things? If this was really the case then we'd all be content to just look at, I don't know, colored squares moving around on a screen. What would games be like without sound effects? Obviously they contribute something to the game, I don't see why it is worthless to talk about that.

It is indeed worthless to talk about that on its own. If you want to talk about sound effects on their own, or graphics on their own, then you should do it in some musician's or artist's forum -- not in a forum about videogames. Graphics and sound effects in games are part of a whole, and, generally speaking, a part of relatively minor importance -- for a great game can still be great with crap graphics and sound, but no amount of cool graphics and sounds will make a crap game good.

Anyway, I see now that you've posted this interesting John Kricfalusi article about animation. What he's talking about is kind of similar to things I've noticed about how the way video games look and sound is changing. Video games borrow a lot of 'tricks' from cartoons in terms of how ideas are expressed in non-realistic ways (is that better than 'abstract?)

Yes.

and it's interesting to think about how the two forms have developed/declined over time. One element that affects video games is the constant pressure to update technology. I think it's great that video games now have "better" graphics, but sometimes I wonder if using all of this extra hardware just to make things in video games resemble 'real life' more closely isn't just a boring waste of time.

It's not a boring waste of time. It is the ultimate aim of videogames: to produce a double of the world, including our own doubles to inhabit it.

This is kind of echoed in Kricfalusi's issue with "quality" over "fun" in the animation article. I'm certain whatever I said was nowhere near as cogent as this article (because I'm not John Kricfalusi), but I don't really see how that validates making an entire post on a different website just to be insulting.

I wasn't "just" being insulting. I was making an example out of you and the other artfags -- an example useful to the readers of this website, who now know a little better what they must avoid degenerating into.

If that conversation was worthless and invalid, where's the validity in taking up more time to 'respond' to it (in a pretty juvenile way, to be honest).

I already explained the reason. And no need to use inverted commas to refer to my response -- it was indeed a response, and 100 times more mature than the juvenile shenanigans I was responding to. You are simply making the error of confusing the form of the reply with its content. The form was juvenile, because that is what is most appealing, more fun to me and more closely related to my temperament -- but the content could not possibly have been more mature. This is compared to your original thread, which had the FORM of maturity (or at any rate the clumsy aping of that form) so as to better hide the juvenility of the content.

I'm not sure if I clarified anything with this, but I never assume that anything I write on selectbutton is going to be noticed by anybody outside that site (especially since the axe autoprunes--I guess that got moved to the permanent forum though). So I figured I might as well chime in. In a weird way it's kind of flattering, someone is paying attention!

Yes, any attention is good attention if you are an idiot.

[icycalm]

I'll give an example that will hopefully make the absurdity of the entire business obvious.

Take an FPS -- Halo, say. Remove the standard sound effect of the pistol, and replace it with a fart.

Now you have made the sound effect abstract.

Before it was concrete, now it is abstract.

lol, etc.

[evnvnv]

Thanks for the response. This part of it was interesting to me:

It's not a boring waste of time. It is the ultimate aim of videogames: to produce a double of the world, including our own doubles to inhabit it.

I agree with this--what I find boring is when aesthetic choices are made that are just meticulous attempts to recreate reality via mimicry. What interests me is the way that completely imaginary situations can be designed with enough care to make a certain kind of sense.

WTF IS AN "ABSTRACT" SOUND EFFECT SUPPOSED TO BE? Even calling them "unrealistic" is kind of dumb, since most of the situations in the game have nothing to do with reality. And I am not even going to touch the first part of the above sentence!

Right--they have nothing to do with reality, yet within the game they work together to produce an experience that still seems like a simulation of something. So what do you call that? Perhaps 'surreal' would be better. But surreal is another word so often abused that when someone uses it, it's easy to assume they don't actually mean it! Your example of replacing a gunshot with a fart is actually exactly what I'm talking about. If the sound of a fart somehow conveyed the 'essence' of a gunshot, that is. I don't think it would. But there are plenty of other sounds that are not the actual sound of a gunshot that can still be used to represent a gunshot.

By talking about the ubiquity of sound effects in video games like super mario brothers all I was trying to do was suggest that these surreal sound effects have become so common that you almost expect them to be part of the real world. This is obviously only half serious, of course when I jump I don't really expect to hear the noise of a spring or slide flute. But it does become part of what you expect when you are dealing with a certain kind of fantasy world, and the construction of those kinds of 'vocabularies' is something that I find interesting.

It is indeed worthless to talk about that on its own. If you want to talk about sound effects on their own, or graphics on their own, then you should do it in some musician's or artist's forum -- not in a forum about videogames. Graphics and sound effects in games are part of a whole, and, generally speaking, a part of relatively minor importance -- for a great game can still be great with crap graphics and sound, but no amount of cool graphics and sounds will make a crap game good.

I agree with the last part of this sentence, but I don't understand why that makes conversation about these things in the context of video games irrelevant. I'm not interested in making judgments about the 'quality' of a game based on how 'good' the sound effects or graphics are, merely in the experience that is produced by them.

Anyway, I don't know how it would be possible to address the "whole" of a video game every time I sat down to write about one. The discussion of sound effects that is going on is not about sound effects "on their own," I don't even know what that would look like. It is about how sound effects are chosen and paired with certain actions, and what effect that has on people playing the game.

From what I've read of the link you provided, it seems like a discussion of sound effects would be one semi-important aspect of the 'aesthetics are mechanics' idea that you brought up. I'm sorry I wasn't able to phrase it in a way that made any sense in the first place. But if the sound effect paired with some activity in the game was one that was really grating and unpleasant, I assume the player would refrain from performing that action. This is still in the realm of choices that are too simplistic for the discussion--in that sense I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at.

Going back to the farts-for-gunshots suggestion, if every sound effect in a game was replaced with sounds that were impossible to derive meaning from, or if only one sound effect was used in the entire game, it would certainly be disorienting and difficult to play. So what determines the 'acceptability' of a sound effect? It's pretty easy to distinguish pleasing from unpleasing, so when sound effects are used for positive/negative reinforcement it seems logical enough. And I suppose in a video game you could condense every aesthetic choice into positive or negative reinforcement--I'm not sure whether or not that is oversimplifying things, though. So when it comes to all of the little details, I would rather see developers that focus on the 'fun' of making sound effects that are imaginative and surreal yet still create a believable and understandable system, rather than simply try as hard as possible to mimic the sounds that are present in every day life.


And by now you should know that selectbutton is only marginally a forum about video games :). I'd be surprised if any of this ended up satisfying your criteria for responsible posting, but it has been interesting for me to actually have to return to some mindless comment I made months ago and try to figure out what the hell I was trying to say in the first place. I do admire that you have a such high standards and a rigorous agenda in your approach to writing about games, even though that's not what I do at all. I've read a little bit more Nietzsche and Schopenhauer than you think I have, but I certainly haven't made any effort to make that part of the way I write on the internet. So, I can live with your desire to make an example out of bad writing in the context of this website. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on what effect these lessons have had on your fellow insomniacs.

I'll admit, I had a pretty sour impression of you based on ic/sb antics, but now that I've spent some time here I think I'm beginning to understand what you're doing with this website. I know you've no interest in making allies, but I do find it hard to believe that all of this scorn (whether it is genuine or affected) is really beneficial to the overall project. You're not nearly as effective when you're venting your anger through name calling and petty vendettas as you are when you're actually writing about things you find interesting. On the other hand, you did manage to get my attention for awhile.

[icycalm]

What interests me is the way that completely imaginary situations can be designed with enough care to make a certain kind of sense.

All situations in videogames are completely imaginary. And all of them make a certain kind of sense. You are not saying anything here -- you are just yapping for the sake of yapping, as is customary on SB, I guess, but frowned upon here.

Your example of replacing a gunshot with a fart is actually exactly what I'm talking about. If the sound of a fart somehow conveyed the 'essence' of a gunshot, that is. I don't think it would.

The "essence" of a gunshot, lol. More artfagottry nonsense. WHAT THE FUCK IS THE ESSENCE OF A GUNSHOT SUPPOSED TO BE? IT'S A FUCKING GUNSHOT FOR FUCK'S SAKE! THAT IS IT'S A ESSENCE -- TO BE A FUCKING GUNSHOT.

But there are plenty of other sounds that are not the actual sound of a gunshot that can still be used to represent a gunshot.

Yes, like, for example: ALL OF THEM.

I agree with the last part of this sentence, but I don't understand why that makes conversation about these things in the context of video games irrelevant. I'm not interested in making judgments about the 'quality' of a game based on how 'good' the sound effects or graphics are, merely in the experience that is produced by them.

And the experience that is produced by them is fundamentally linked to the mechanics of the game.

From what I've read of the link you provided, it seems like a discussion of sound effects would be one semi-important aspect of the 'aesthetics are mechanics' idea that you brought up. I'm sorry I wasn't able to phrase it in a way that made any sense in the first place.

You should be.

Going back to the farts-for-gunshots suggestion, if every sound effect in a game was replaced with sounds that were impossible to derive meaning from,

"Impossible to derive meaning from", lol. More artfagottry nonsense.

And I suppose in a video game you could condense every aesthetic choice into positive or negative reinforcement--I'm not sure whether or not that is oversimplifying things, though.

More pointless blabbering.

So when it comes to all of the little details, I would rather see developers that focus on the 'fun' of making sound effects that are imaginative and surreal yet still create a believable and understandable system, rather than simply try as hard as possible to mimic the sounds that are present in every day life.

It always comes down to one of two things for the artfags: either the nebulous, vague concept of FUN, or the ludicrous concept of MESSAGES.

And by now you should know that selectbutton is only marginally a forum about video games :).

You can stick your smilie up your ass, retard. You are so retarded you can't even figure out the chief subject matter of the goddamn forum you post in.

I'd be surprised if any of this ended up satisfying your criteria for responsible posting, but it has been interesting for me to actually have to return to some mindless comment I made months ago and try to figure out what the hell I was trying to say in the first place.

I am sure it was. These are the kinds of exercises I imagine the nurses give to kids in retard homes.

I do admire that you have a such high standards and a rigorous agenda in your approach to writing about games, even though that's not what I do at all.

Yes, I would imagine it would be kind of hard to have high standards when you are retarded, and barely capable of stringing along five words that make any kind of sense to anyone, including yourself.

I've read a little bit more Nietzsche and Schopenhauer than you think I have, but I certainly haven't made any effort to make that part of the way I write on the internet.

Yes, I imagine you have made an effort to make that part of the way you write in literary and philosophical journals. Not on the internet, but in literary and philosophical journals.

So, I can live with your desire to make an example out of bad writing in the context of this website. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on what effect these lessons have had on your fellow insomniacs.

The effect of the lessons is clear: this is the only videogame forum on the internet not populated with retards like you.

I'll admit, I had a pretty sour impression of you based on ic/sb antics, but now that I've spent some time here I think I'm beginning to understand what you're doing with this website. I know you've no interest in making allies, but I do find it hard to believe that all of this scorn (whether it is genuine or affected) is really beneficial to the overall project.

As if you would ever be capable of acquiring the slightest notion of what the "overall project" might be about.

You're not nearly as effective when you're venting your anger through name calling and petty vendettas as you are when you're actually writing about things you find interesting.

Why would I EVER write about things I DON'T find interesting? I am not an artfag. I don't write to score artfag points. I have never written a single word in my (post-university) life on a subject I did not find interesting.

On the other hand, you did manage to get my attention for awhile.

And now that I have lost it I guess I might as well ban you, since, well, what would be the point of you having an account here if we do not have your attention anymore?

So it's back to the abstract artfag- and retard-land for you now, my friend! Say hello from me to all my good friends there.

[Doctor Fugue]

Pardon my ignorance, icycalm, I didn’t realize these people actually DO exist! Having never read anything at Select Button, I thought perhaps you might be exaggerating.

I am more interested in talking about the aesthetics of video games rather than playing them. Now, I'm not targeting you guys specifically with this (because I haven't read many articles on this site), but one thing that irritates me about this kind of thing is that anyone who is interested in talking about aesthetic and thematic choices in video games is not taken seriously by the other half of the 'community' that is more interested in talking about the competitive aspect of games or just the physical activity of playing a game.

I propose new axioms for an enlightened lifestyle, where knowledge of a thing is reached by ignoring its only purpose:

Instead of looking at a painting, you must smell it.
Instead of reading a book, you must taste it.
Instead of listening to music, you must see it.
*Laughing*

Games are games. There is no deciphering of any kind to be done. LOL at “messages” and “abstraction.” Sorry if this is old bullshit to everyone else, but man I’ve had a great laugh.

Things are only complicated to idiots. I’d suggest they get over it and play some OutRun.

[icycalm]

A clarification:

Today abstraction is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror or the concept.

http://insomnia.ac/essays/simulations/

The map whose loss Baudrillard laments is a very different beast to the overworld map of videogames. Baudrillard's map was an abstraction, as are all maps which are different from the territories they describe. The overworld maps in videogames are NOT abstractions -- these maps ARE the territories -- they are identical with them: indeed, they define them.

Videogames in general are the end of abstraction, a fact which makes the artfags' abuse of the term all the more ludicrous.

[Scriabin]

Discussing the degree of abstraction in videogames is a futile argument. Videogames, by their nature, are entirely abstract. The artfags need a new term to vent their diarrhea (as I'm sure they'll come to once "abstract" is as commonplace as "unique" and "multi-layered" in a paint-by-numbers, artfag analysis).

Pardon my ignorance, icycalm, I didn’t realize these people actually DO exist! Having never read anything at Select Button, I thought perhaps you might be exaggerating.

They are not only existent, they are the staple of elitism in the videogame community. Behind every blog, BB or webcomic (entirely, on another dimension of fail) is always at least one priggish artfag, ready to prove his or her own worth to the 'uncultured' masses. Attempting to engage in a coherent conversation will undoubtedly result in nausea.

[icycalm]

They are not only existent, they are the staple of elitism in the videogame community.

Bullshit. The artfags are the exact opposite of elitists, with their calls for dumbing down, "complex simplicity" lol, and other such retardations. The center of elitism in gaming is this website.


P.S. The phrase "staple of elitism" makes no sense, especially when applied to people. And your other phrase, "they are not only existent", is extremely awkward. What you meant to say was "not only do they exist".

Tone down your ambition when composing sentences, and your writing will come off far more natural.

[Choking]

http://forums.selectbutton.net/viewtopic.php?t=25858&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=164

This is what I get for posting on Select Button. That was my first, and last, post.

If you consult a dictionary or two, I believe you'll find that "abstract" (and often derived words such as "abstraction") has a variety of different definitions, even within different parts of speech. However, the word (and it's children) has a general connotation that implies one item or concept is less explicitly representing another item or concept of a more detailed, compex nature. Most English-speaking individuals familiar with the word understand it more by the connotation than any individual definition, but that connotation allows them to more quickly grasp the nature of most individual definitions by placing them in context.

I don't know about anyone else here, but when I use words like "abstract", I'm relying on others to determine my specific meaning through the connotation of the word. In the quoted reference to the early Ultima games, I am alluding to how Ultima I-V use a tile-based worldmap where towns and dungeons are represented as single-tile icons of buildings and cave entrances (similar to early JRPGs), and moving on to these icons takes you to seperate maps where structures are "to scale". The Ultima VI engine, however, has a continuous (sp?) overworld with towns, dungeons and wilderness all on the same scale.

I feel justified in labeling the way Ultima I-V handle overworlds (and displaying the towns and dungeons on them) as an act of abstraction, especially in the context of Ultima VI.

Icycalm rather naturally loathes such fluidity of language. His ideas are unoriginal if not outright worthless, and he's proven unable to maintain a discussion in an environment he does not control. He has a definite command of words, but if he can't control what they mean, he's essentially impotent.

[Nybble]

But the question for videogames is, when do we get to chess, where the mechanics are so complex so as to both be simple, yet ultimately impossible, to master? It's a question about the complexity of mechanics coming to a point where there's no ultimate end and no ultimate right answer. Put it into the context of a story and part of the question becomes how do you make an interactive experience that complex?

I hope that's not too confusing, but it's where the original question sprang from in my mind

What the fuck are these guys on?

And it appears that they have embraced the artfag name. So I repeat, What the fuck are these guys on?

[icycalm]

What the fuck are these guys on?

If you change the second u to an a everything becomes clear.