Messages

676

Off Topic / Re: national lgbtq+ month (again)

« on: June 10, 2017, 12:10:02 AM »

can someone gayify my avatar

677

Off Topic / Re: Anyone have any tips for the act test?

« on: June 09, 2017, 08:23:10 PM »

The advice I post every time this thread comes up:

Good advice. Remember to keep in mind that the essay has nothing to do with your composite score - its a separate score that lots of institutions don't even give a stuff about. Don't freak out about it unless you want to get into a school that values the essay score.

678

Off Topic / Re: Anyone have any tips for the act test?

« on: June 09, 2017, 06:40:26 PM »

I remember literally nothing about tan, cos, and sine. I also don't know radians (I've been told there's calc questions like this).

I can't remember if there's actually trigonometry on the ACT. There's almost certainly not calculus though, that'd be loving crazy. Most peopledon't even get to calculus before college.

Radians are just a different way of expressing an angle. Instead of degrees, which are arbitrarily cut up into 360 degrees, radians are cut up based on the ratio of ratio to the circumference. Here's a good intuitive visual

679

Off Topic / Re: Anyone have any tips for the act test?

« on: June 09, 2017, 05:05:58 PM »

Brush up on your algebra and whatnot

On the science section if you read the entire passage you'll almost run out of time. Just read the questions and then backtrack to the graphs/charts that look relevant.

It's not a big deal if you don't do that good the first time lots of people do it more than once

680

Games / Re: runescape FpArGiGdOeT event

« on: June 09, 2017, 03:09:41 PM »

if you're close to reaching the character limit i think a good enough reason to not say anything at all

What's the character limit?

Often in the middle of these big argument things I get exasperated and just want to not keep going but I want to show that I can back up what I say. In this instance in particular I feel like McJob called me out and so I didn't want to just not reply because it'd seem like my thoughts had no rhetorical backbone

681

Games / Re: runescape FpArGiGdOeT event

« on: June 09, 2017, 02:44:32 PM »

You can be a very snarky, condescending cunt during debates, to be perfectly blunt.

I'd honestly like to see some examples

edit: This isn't meant to be a "challenge" I legitimately don't want people to perceive me in that way

682

Games / Re: runescape FpArGiGdOeT event

« on: June 09, 2017, 01:40:12 PM »

it would be interesting to have a more chilled out discussion about this kind of stuff tho. i wonder if a thread where a particular design decision or concept or smth were presented for debate would be viable here. kinda seems like it's hard to avoid things getting heated when you get people who are really into the subject talkin, but i could see it being fun if somehow people were able to keep it constructive. seems like it gets most heated when people start talking about games really broadly, but focused discussion on how a particular thing could have been done differently may be better

I'd like to think I don't personally escalate anything in these kinds of situations. I really don't like how assholish a lot of people get in these sorts of situations

Yeah, plenty of times. I'm not gonna dig through our thousands of posts to find an example but I'm 100% certain you're on the list.

Just using the Blockland search function you've only quoted me in like two different threads, and one of them is this one.

683

Games / Re: runescape FpArGiGdOeT event

« on: June 09, 2017, 01:50:04 AM »

It's that time of the month where me and ultimamax have another go at each other. Frequent enough occurrence, and it always ends with me realising it's a complete waste of time because the arguments are circling the drain and neither of us are going to change our viewpoints, so I just stop posting.

Have we ever argued with eachother before? Like more than once?

684

Off Topic / Re: UK Election 2017 - ELECTION NIGHT

« on: June 09, 2017, 12:37:24 AM »

yeah venezuela exploding probably has nothing to do with their entire economy being based on one (1) non-renewable resource

685

Off Topic / Re: UK Election 2017 - ELECTION NIGHT

« on: June 09, 2017, 12:29:36 AM »

whatever arguments you make against a conservative-led coalition, those arguments are 10 times worse for labour

S O C I A L I S M

686

Games / Re: runescape FpArGiGdOeT event

« on: June 09, 2017, 12:13:57 AM »

How is that any different? A person goes to employ a service because they have an expectation of what that service will provide, and then the service doesn't provide in the manner which had been implicitly agreed upon.

Games, unlike the other two examples, have SIGNIFICANT promotional media, demos/betas, reviews etc. The information about what a player should expect is there, and if the marketing is deceptive, that is something the gaming community will happily scream about. As is this case exactly.
The only factor that I've been contesting this on is intent. I wouldn't consider bad craftsmanship immoral if the creator made it in good faith.

Why, in your tiny mind, do you think the word "harm" only relates to physical or mental distress? I would take a look at this Wikipedia article, where harm can very clearly come when somebody interferes with or intrudes upon a person's interests.

I treat game design as seriously as it should be; AAA Dev can involve 300+ people (in just the dev studio, not counting the publisher office or anybody else related) selling to millions of people globally. If you fail, hundreds of families may not get the cashflow they need to sustain themselves, and millions of people will have wasted their time and cash which they could have put to any number of better uses.

I give a stuff. You don't, apparently.
The harm you're describing is failure to deliver a product that will keep the company's employees financially stable. I was talking about delivering a game and not meeting a person's expectations not being harm. We were talking about respecting the player and enhancing their lifetime. You have not harmed a player by not fully realizing the potential of a game.

A lot of psychopaths and sociopaths believe that when they commit a criminal act, they're doing it in the benefit of those they harmed.
Yes but unintentionally making a nonperfect game is not harm towards a player as I've attempted to explain

Expectation. You don't expect the beginner to do as well, so you can tolerate more mistakes. Runescape has existed for years now; you expect these people to know and understand their community very well.
I was arguing moreso against the principle of your argument than its application to Runescape.

And this is why you won't ever agree with my arguments. I recommend you read A Theory of Fun and I recommend you give psychology classes a go.
It seems to me like this "dopamine maximization" mindset can lead to actually addictive experiences like WoW/certain mobile games which prey on firing off your reward centers in the cheapest way possible. That's part of why I prefer my definition of "game". Another is that it seems like too many lines get drawn for reasons I find to be too arbitrary (see Gone Home)

I've also taken a psychology class but I won't pretend to be an expert or whatever, it was PSYCH 101

You're lacking the sense of scale and context. The client in this case is a very large, connected group with very clear interests and methodologies. They are a known element.
Sure but I've no reason to think this is against the client's wishes in this instance. I'm not just going to take it on faith because you say so.

The problem here is that you're new to witnessing this community, but I am not. I can't point to any proof or throw any names about, but I've definitely seen what kind of people exemplify this group. You're focusing on a small minority, and I promise that they are not giving you the full truth.
See above statement

Normalisation is what the desired affect is, though. And that example was intended as just one solution, not the be-all-end-all perfect stopgap. The point is that you need to adjust the way you communicate the message so that it works within the context of the work and benefits the community, not marginalises them for complaining that somebody in power had enough freedom to manipulate the game in a way that sets a bad precedent.
I mean normalisation is the ideal but it's not realizable within our lifetime so it seems silly to ignore the actual tangible differences between groups of people. And again that "bad precedent" had already been set more than once (by other irrelevant events)

Are you genuinely believing that everybody trolling for the sake of trolling are real, bodafide family men who are playing this seriously and trying to take a stand against the gays ruining their favourite toy?

These are trolls, acting beyond their personal beliefs, becoming a part of a bigger whole. It's a subcommunity forming within a community. This is exactly the same as the "Pool's Closed" drama back with Habbo Hotel.
The "troll" defense is a common way for bigots to hide their bigotry with playfulness. It's just a convenient cover for forgeted up people to have an alibi for their words. They can fall back on the "I didn't mean it" card. Regardless of whether their speech is backed by actual hatred it still normalizes family values within the community.

Why should being gay affect the way in which you play Runescape? Does the game ask about your loveuality? Are you forced to tell people about it? Is it such a big problem that people just being intentionally stupid for comedic effect (prior to PRIDE) are saying stupid things? I don't get why people feel the need to have segregated rooms simply because they have a different opinion on one issue of a million, especially when it comes to virtual worlds so removed from reality that there's no contextual link between characters and homoloveuality.
Well being gay certainly affects the way in which you grow up and experience the world. If being gay just meant you preferred the same love then there wouldn't be a need for pride. It's the cultural and societal consequences of being gay (basically weathering family values) that become part of one's identity. It's sort of explained well in this Tyrion Lannister quote:

Let me give you some advice bastard. Never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you.

Given that a lot of the fun of MMOs is interacting with other people it would sort of suck to have to hide something that shaped the person you are.

You've completely misunderstood my point.
The brown townogy may or may not be apt, it's not the keystone of how I understand the issue

I'm fine with games having deep, important messages to provide. That's critical to the learning experience, and social issues are a good place to touch. I'm making the point, however, that a game must never sacrifice its ability to teach and provide "fun" (in the sense of the chemical release) for the sake of a moral which isn't tied into what the player is learning to do inside the game. Papers Please is a fantastic example where fun isn't scarified; it's a sad, depressing game and has a big social message, yet it makes sure that its messages are tied into the mechanics and the player's time is never wasted. You get a dopamine shot as you feel you've done well, and it's taken away by the game's atmosphere. That works.

This event is completely unrelated to the core game experience, and doesn't offer anything to enhance or improve the learning/fun process, outside of some stupid item at the end of the event quest.
But what did RS sacrifice if it's just an eyesore? And what if Runescape players find being able to wear the scarf/whatever else the event adds fun?

687

Off Topic / Re: UK Election 2017 - ELECTION NIGHT

« on: June 08, 2017, 10:53:42 PM »

What are you on about?
America is probably the only country that has their party colours flipped on the political spectrum

it's probably some red scare stuff or smthn

leftist twitter is memeing very hard about labour lol

688

Games / Re: runescape FpArGiGdOeT event

« on: June 08, 2017, 10:43:19 PM »

I don't know Mother 3, I can't talk about that, but generally when a game subverts expectations, it does such still within the scope of the title. It's not making incredible, irrelevant leaps beyond the goals and values of what the story/gameplay teaches; it's just that you needed a different perspective to view that new idea.
The point I was making is that a player can't agree to the means with which you espouse a message if the communication of that message is a surprise.

In the same way that failing to produce a working chair as a carpenter or double-scanning items at the checkout as a cashier is irresponsible and indicates a lack of respect, not designing with respect to the player and producing work that actually enhances their lifetime should be seen as directly against the goals of gaming.
Games are different in that in general the buyer can't know whether a game is worth their time until they've already spent money on it. A carpenter can't sell a non-working chair and a cashier isn't wasting someone's time so much as they're being incompetent in a way that causes harm to someone. (by taking their property)
Not being good at game design does not cause harm. I think Mighty No. 9 is a good case to demonstrate my thoughts. Keiji Inafune is meant to be a good game designer, so the fact that the game turned out so garbage is indicative of the possibility that he just forgeted off with the money or something. It would be a legit reason to be mad if that's what he did. Beyond that, I think you accept the risk that a game might not be well-suited for you when you buy it/support it on Kickstarter. I don't think gamers should accept the notion that a game designer would be maliciously incompetent or neglectful, but I think gamers should accept the notion that game designers are fallible and make bad decisions sometimes.

Wasting someone's time with your game is a bad thing, but if your intention is to make your game good, you've not committed an evil act. If it is an evil act I think that opens all kinds of weird doors (like considering a beginner artist a bad person for doing a commission for someone who had accurate information about the capabilities of the artist)

Games are about the education process and teaching; we're not building simulations or poetry.
I don't define games in that way. Games are just interactive art IMO. They don't have to teach or employ these educational methods, though those are good methods to employ.

Every person has X amount of hours before they die. I don't think it's at all moral for me to waste a person's time, which is why it's courteous to say sorry if you get in somebody's way, and it's also courteous to make a game that's worth the cash a designer asks for.
I think if you make a product that your client doesn't like, (or get in someone's way) apologizing doesn't mean you've committed an evil act. The line between evil and "at fault"
 is intent.

Absolutely not. RuneScape (especially OSRS) is not just some single player experience where you can pick and choose what you're subject too; this is a community-driven multiplayer experience. Half the game is the metagame, where this content is taking up a significant amount of discussion and visibility.

MMOs go beyond the physical application. The ideal for any MMO Designer is that these titles actually have a significant impact on a person's development and livelihood; they become connected with others and participate in the community. That's why it's absolutely critical that the way in which you handle the experience and the out-of-game experience is with respect to what's best for everybody. This is not for the best, as the manner in which the message was presented has completely poisoned any potential the message had for being accepted.

It seems to me like the way the message was presented was fine, and the problem was that a bunch of people freaked out about it. This is not Jagex's fault.

Do you see me commending those moments? They probably weren't blasted to death because neither of those are as contentious or political as gay rights. I don't agree with their application in the game, but ultimately they are subjects with far less intense debates.
No, but if the reaction was purely to do with development philosophy then obviously those other lore-unfriendly events would have had just as much backlash. I don't think I really needed to demonstrate that though, it doesn't seem like you disagree that there are also lots of family men yelling about this. (see the screenshot) That was just a side comment.
The point I was trying to make was that people have an amount of control to push things into the game without community consent, and that is the true issue here. This isn't like Destiny or World of Warcraft, where that's an expectation. OSRS has a much stronger tie between what the community wants and what they get, and so for a certain individual to abuse their power in this manner and essentially spit on everybody's face? I believe that to be completely disrespectful to the fans of the game and those who support gay rights discussion, as this is a terrible way to push forward the message.
Again I've yet to be convinced this was one individual spitting on EVERYBODY's face. I definitely get the impression that the whole community isn't swayed in any particular direction (just based on their subreddit)

The hell are you on about? There's a big loving difference between a show of solidarity and pushing morals, and all of this comes back to everything said and done by the moderator in question. Read those tweets. Look at their reddit comments. It's very clear the way they interpret this scenario is they believe players need to be taught this lesson.
Why don't you just show me the tweets/comments that make you feel that way?

Having a gay NPC give you a quest? That's a sign of solidarity. It's subtle, it's respectful to the game's mechanics an atmosphere and so long as the dialogue is written well (and they don't blurt it out like Mass Effect: Andromeda), it's ultimately a tasteful way to incorporate a healthy moral into the world. Having an obnoxious loving event and turning on your community is what I would consider "pushing morals".
I don't see what about this is "turning on your community". There are Runescape players who have no problem with this - I've seen many on reddit claim that most of the guys freaking out about this aren't even regular OSRS players so much as they're trolls from 4chan.

Also having a character who happens to be gay but it literally affects nothing isn't particularly brave or progressive. It is nice normalization but that doesn't mean its the only way something like this can fit in a game like OSRS.


Which is why it's not called "Game Art", it's called "Game Design". It is to the benefit of the others; we teach, we enhance and we give people a good experience they'll want to share with others. Runescape's goals as being a world away from home to enjoy with others were clear. It is, if you'll excuse me, a "safe space" away from the bullstuff that drags down real life, where you don't have to worry about these issues and can instead focus on problems you can (and are expected to as a part of the design) solve.
Runescape is a place where cis/straight people can be away from the bullstuff that drags down real life. Runescape, like lots of gaming communities, is still plagued by family values (even if it's by a vocal minority, they are still tolerated) and LGBT people cannot reliably turn to Runescape and expect a 'safe space' away from where their loveuality/gender identity means that they're inferior, to the point where the word "gay" is still blacklisted in chat because it'd otherwise be used in a pejorative way.

An explicit show of support is one way for the Runescape devs to make LGBT people feel welcome to play Runescape without having to hide a part of their identity.

You're one of those standard "games can be whatever they want" people who don't seem to quite grasp the reason why some games sell millions and are universally loved and why some games are left in the dust and forgotten forever. The basic psychology of fun is that dopamine (the happiness chemical) is released as a reward by the brain for learning or enhancing skill over something. People come to games for that feeling, and the responsibility of a designer is to maximise on that. Fun doesn't come from intellectual debate; that is another chemical (serotonin) which is responsible for a general feeling of wellness and satisfaction that comes when you feel all is right. We target Dopamine for a couple reasons, hence why we need to stick to doing things that trigger the release of dopamine.
Yeah I just don't agree with this mindset. In the same way that games don't have to be exclusively about "fun" in the way you've defined it, movies don't have to be exclusively about spectacle. (which is something, like "fun", that is unique to movies) Similarly I don't think the value of art (which games are) is in how much it sells/it's popularity/the legacy it leaves.

I don't think having a Pride event is an attempt to spark any kind of intellectual debate. It's just a show of solidarity done by the devs within the community of the game, and as you said, in MMOs the way people have fun is within the community. Putting it in the game is just an attempt for people to have fun within that context.

Clearly, as you seem to have this warped perspective that time exists to be wasted. Then again, here I am refuting your bullstuff...
Are you saying that being a bad game designer makes you an evil person or are we fundamentally misunderstanding eachother?

We're on different levels, it appears, and I'm so loving glad I'm thirty steps above yours.
Dr. Big richard Digipen over here

I actually want to make games for other people so that they enjoy their time and take away lessons and skills they can use and be proud of, and everything I've talked about is acting in a manner with respect to others. I'm sorry you don't see that.
It seems like you're trying to swing this to be about my "warped perspective" or my lack of concern for the people playing the games, when in reality most of your argument is based on tenets you treat as concrete even though I disagree with them for reasons that are not insane to arrive at

689

Games / Re: runescape FpArGiGdOeT event

« on: June 08, 2017, 08:04:23 PM »

Did ultima just ignore my argument because it made too much sense or? Let's try this again...

You didn't indicate at all that you were talking to me in your first post, you stuffstain.

Whether you believe in it or not, game designers do actually have an ethical responsibility that if somebody is going to invest time (and/or money) in our experience, that we need to make it worth the time, resources and effort they spend, in a manner which has been agreed upon. A good example of this is that if you are making a 3D Platformer and you decided to add in a First Person Shooter bit as a mini-game, it is considered bad practice if you are to make that mini-game difficult as it is not what the player had signed up for and goes against the grain of the experience you are trying to teach.

I disagree with that bolded part - there can be value in subverting the player's expectations. For example, I didn't expect Mother 3 to have any sort of political message, but I was delighted that it did, as it gave it more substance as a piece of art than I expected.

I would also not call what you're describing an "ethical responsibility" - making bad game design choices doesn't make you a bad person.

In a similar sense, when a player signs up for an interactive experience, they also have an expectation that there is a consistency in the way things are managed, and that if the experience is not designed as a means to push political agendas, then it shouldn't be used for that purpose at all.

I don't think this is apt - there's a difference between being forced to play some sequence that the game didn't prepare you for, and being subject to political content that you can completely ignore. I think you could make the argument that it just doesn't fit into Runescape, but given that there's also been a mental health awareness event and a world wildlife foundation charity event, and that both events received nowhere near as much negative attention as this, I think the real reason people are pissed off is pretty clear.

I feel like by your argument it'd be okay to get mad at Metal Gear because its political messages (like MGSV and nuclear proliferation) aren't written on the box.

What you've witnessed is a single moderator acting without any authority or permission, essentially breaking the implicit rules that had been laid out between those in charge and the players (the idea of polling for big decisions that affect the world).

Is this a big decision that affects the world? Again, it occupies 7 tiles, and you can do an event that lets you get a cosmetic item. I'm not really tuned into this community but I'm distrustful of the claims people are making about this moderator and other members of the OSRS team.

How would you feel if this moderator made a Annoying Orange Rally inside the game? Or a Leukaemia walk? What if the mod was less moral, and organised a kool kids klub March? This mod apparently had the power to push whatever morals they wanted to on everybody else, in a manner that is not diplomatic or respectful to the playerbase, gameplay or game atmosphere.

I would probably personally be upset because Annoying Orange rallies/kool kids klub marches represent things that are against my personal morals. Something akin to a "leukemia walk" has already occurred in OSRS via the mental health awareness event which I mentioned earlier. (leukemia walks are also a way to spread awareness/raise funding)

Putting a political event in Runescape doesn't "push morals" on anyone. A Pride event existing in a virtual space does not presume a player's morals or even challenge them - its just a show of solidarity. (either by the developers or by some in-lore force, in this case the former)

If you want to tackle a big issue in a video game, you must do it in a game where the environment is designed so that the player is aware the game is about talking heavy issues, and you must do it in a manner that is tasteful within the mechanics and atmosphere. That is the only way to allow your message to get the regard it deserves.

Or maybe there's value in art making people uncomfortable. Not every video game has to relax you or placate you - there's nothing inherent to the medium that requires that. I think people have come to expect Runescape to be relaxing/politically innocuous and I don't think that that expectation is misguided.
But I don't think what the Runescape devs did was immoral or whatever point you're trying to make.

What's become painfully clear is that you have no respect or understanding for the goals of the industry and the best practices our medium of expression.

I think most of my argument comes from careful consideration about the nature of art and the nature of video games.

You only give a stuff about the political implications of a message applying to you, and don't even consider the fact that your message has better times and places to be shared, if it even need be shared in this manner at all (Presumably, Martis Gras is not a serious debate but rather a festival for those who want to participate, so why would you produce this event in a world that doesn't want this? It just makes people who were already negative about your means and your messages dislike them even more as you're now interrupting their time).

The message doesn't apply to me, I'm cis and straight.
Runescape is definitely a weird place to have a Pride event and I never argued this was the best place for that to occur - just that there's nothing wrong with it occurring.
I don't know what you mean by Mardi Gras? I think Mardi Gras is different from Pride. Either way, they didn't produce the event in a world that "doesn't want it", in the same way that throwing an actual Pride event isn't producing that in a world that doesn't want it. There are lots of OSRS players who like the event or don't care about its inclusion in the world. You also called it "interrupting their time" when it seems to be completely optional - at most you're forced to look at it.

I can't wait to see how you break this all down to "it's just a video game it's not serious" and "gamers are evil because they're family men".

The end goal of my political activism is the complete and utter annihilation of the games industry. I will spermjack my way to the top of games journalism with my evil feminational socialist cohorts and manipulate the games market until the only games available for purchase are Gone Home and Depression Quest.

690

Games / Re: runescape FpArGiGdOeT event

« on: June 08, 2017, 04:11:29 PM »

like what the forget is wrong with runescape
they know they are dealing with a bunch of neckbeards playing a loving fantasy game
1. why host a pride event just to get publicity
2. why permaban users who just wear desert robes

1. you can host a pride event for more than just publicity
2. according to a jagex employee on the subreddit they only banned 15 such people and they all were also saying horrible stuff in chat

because christmas is literally every companies chance to market off of it. you dont see video games celebrating black history month or presidents day.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/6ft4um/runescape_is_having_a_pride_event_and_players/dikyzxn/

runescape isn't art, it's runescape. The issue isn't because it isn't gay pride, it's that literally nobody wanted this

it literally takes up 7 tiles on the map. it doesnt get in your way at all

2 - probably because they look like the kool kids klub and because of the stuff they are saying. however, some people just wear white and stand in falador without saying a single word but still get banned.

https://www.reddit.com/r/2007scape/comments/6fqnk1/fally_massacre_662017_jmod_takes_out_swarms_of/dikv6r2/