Entradas

List of patterns.

Imagen
List of patterns between Krtek (4chan guy with some pretty stupid opinions who was exposed not long ago) and bimbimbiuuu ( new player with pretty stupid and way too similar opinions...). Tendency to use autist  as insult. Using le  to mock, as if it supported his nonsensical and resentful points in some way. Ackhually... Kinda using DMC1 to support his dumb views regarding efficiency and other DMC that clearly have a different focus (I know this one is weak). Literally tho. Ive ... (yes, I know some write it like this, but it's yet another pattern, and it's frequent). Very similar ignorant and stupid opinions, many times with a Dunning-Kruger attitude. Not being able to grasp (or refusing to) how hitbox variety, inertia and gravity actually make 4 less limited and offer the highest complexity in terms of positioning (being average execution harder a side-effect). In other circumstances I would be skeptical with the discord comment being hostile. Just lack of eloquence and tact.
Publicar un comentario
Leer más

Nuances.

RE: Casual Players 1) Casual is a term that should refer to attitude more than frequency. Why? When people who are really good at some game start playing it less frequently, they don't become casuals. What's more... You could play a game daily during years while having a casual  mindset/attitude. It's obvious that there is more to it than frequency/invested hours. The point is that what's relevant is how you approach a game, not so much how frequently you play (regarding this term). There are mechanics that can be mastered to optimize performance, and one can apply learning strategies to master them or at least progress towards subobjectives . Some players will have more time, others won't. You can play a game only 1 time/week and still apply said strategies. 2) Said strategies optimize fun in the long term (and even short term). I am tired of countering this false dichotomy:  You play for fun vs You play to be a pro We all play for fun . At most we could consider
Publicar un comentario
Leer más

Reply to dDx.

I don't know how the analogy would  fall apart  when it's simply an addition to very concrete arguments. That I used for one person. If I was talking to all the people who don't get the point of DMC at the same time it would be the same. The analogy would  fall apart if people were robots unable to adjust their perception, and wouldn't know what's a piano or the point of music. The analogy doesn't hold well in a vacuum, but in the context of the indirect benefits from such a complex design as our organism. It comes precisely from the biggest picture: Instruments and art overall have existed much before video games. Even if other types of games have existed before them as well. The tendency to express ourselves is psychobiological, and the evidence that supports this is how common is art in past societies, and among different cultures. Unlike a much more local (historically more than geographically) tendency about video games. Also subordinate to an industry, i
Publicar un comentario
Leer más

Explicit Challenge vs Implicit Challenge.

Imagen
This is a reply to this video. More specifically the part related to DMC, even if it's focused on 5: Part about DMC5 . Even though I would recommend to watch the entire video to understand his view. ____ Please, don't take anything from this reply as an attack towards you. I am only attacking a specific part of your arguments. ____ In broad terms, we could consider almost every single player video game a type of Simon Says sequence or system of tasks. The differences can be found in interactive variables like: - How hard or complex is to execute what Simon says (headshots, reactions to very quick attacks, intricate inputs with high APM). - How hard is to understand what Simon wants you to do (puzzles). - How much variety there is in what Simon wants you to do (optional exploration, combo systems, multiple paths to reach a goal). - How deceptive is Simon (intentionally unnatural movement from enemies to make them harder to parry, traps and ambushes in first playthroughs). - How
Publicar un comentario
Leer más

Why people overgeneralize...

  Original Thread. I consider that the most probable explanation is our propensity to reduce anxiety from not knowing  the solution of a complex (relevant) problem. We simply tend to prefer quick idiotic answers to complex issues than living with another ? in our minds. This could apply to our tendency to Manichaeism. Why did this tragedy happen? -> That person was just evil , an idiot , etc. And same for positive choices or even performance. -> That person is just good , talented , etc. The cause and context of many choices or phenomena is probably very complex. Not even psychology can consistently explain many of them. Hell, there are theories in psychology and even schools that are very inconsistent with each other. Yet many people tend to be quick in giving some answer. More than avoiding the  not knowing , it's about closing a system in a cognitive structure as fast as possible, avoiding and removing any potential cognitive dissonance: There is a problem  or riddle re
Publicar un comentario
Leer más

Antinatalism 2.

Since we already exist and we are conscious about it, we are forced to either try to bring others to existence or not. You say we  force  others to exist, and I say you want to  force  others to not exist. Again, we can't ask someone who doesn't exist if he/she wants to exist, as the reply would imply existence in some form. We need other criteria. You say we risk bringing someone to life who may have a shitty life, and I say we risk not bringing someone to life who may have an awesome life. You made a counter-example with 2 lives, a good one vs bad one, neutralizing each other. And I countered it with a gradient, affected by variables like knowledge, technology, resources, education, etc. We can increase the likelihood to have more humans with good lives than humans with bad lives. Now you say that one single bad life would be enough. I say this is a claim, not an argument. But maybe you consider it an axiom: suffering outclasses any amount of pleasure => suffering should b
Publicar un comentario
Leer más

Antinatalism (reply).

Imagen
Original Thread. I didn't mean that total control doesn't matter. I meant that it's impossible to achieve, and we irremediably make many decisions in our lives in probabilistic terms. Including decisions that affect others. Something as simple as being brutally honest with someone and not expecting an aggressive reaction that could hurt us or others; or the decisions any boss has to make and affect the lives of employees, and their families; or even the choices of a president. Total control and absolute responsibility in your terms would also imply to decide for your own children until they die, which would mess up freedom past a reasonable age. Let alone even deciding for the children of your children. You can say there would be implicit consent in my examples, but: 1) It's only to some degree. An abstract range. And in some cases it's not consent, but rather not having any alternative (including social contract... because the alternative is to go to the forest and
Publicar un comentario
Leer más