disposalist said:I didn't suggest that enterpretation of dictionary definitions will always vary wildly between different readers, but there is a HUGE difference between that and suggesting that dictionary definitions of a few words can establish some kind of undeniable or even meaningful logical 'truth' about a complex concept like 'fun'.
And, yes, of course it's a comple concept. When you are talking about something emotional like what an individual finds 'fun' it is definitely complex.
Let's get to the truth of what "fun" means by using the dictionary
Fun means...
Something that is amusing which means...
Something you find comical which means...
Something accepted as entertaining which means...
Something that is charming which means...
Engaging which means...
Interesting which means...
Enjoyable which means...
Fun... oh damn...So, yeah, by the time you gone through a long circle of definitions, you might think you're getting close to an understanding, but once things are this complex, how likely is it that your understanding exactly the same as someone elses? This isn't just about logic and truth, it's about interpretation, experience, linguistics, intelligence, empathy, even neurology!
To suggest dictionaries somehow house "the truth" is so simplistic when it comes to anything more than very simple nouns is just useless.
Even then, it doesn't work.
Chair: "A seat, especially for one person, usually having four legs for support and a rest for the back and often having rests for the arms."
Well, what if it has three legs, but a back and arm rests? What if it has four legs, but no back? Is that a stool? What if it has four legs but is tall and has a very small back? A chair? Or a bar stool?
All a dictionary does is suggest what might be accepted as a useful definition to assist us in communicating. There is no 'logically true' definition of even something like 'chair', but we think there is for something like 'game' or 'entertainment' or 'fun'?
Ok...
Dictionaries are now "suggestions" on meanings?
Ummm... Sorry disposalist, I have no clue what you are intending to say because I have chosen to interpret your words in a manner as I see fit so I can establish a meaning that best fits my expectations. Since the dictionary had no suggestions I felt were in my best interest of interpretation, I simply disregarded them, you know.. because they are only suggestions and all.
Doford said:Are you free to believe what you want or are your beliefs predetermined? Is that what this is about?
Nope.
It is about some people disliking what words mean because it conflicts with their expectations and so rather than accepting such and using words properly, they merely adjust meanings to fit their narrative.
It is denial taken to levels of insanity.
Tanix said:Doford said:Are you free to believe what you want or are your beliefs predetermined? Is that what this is about?
Nope.
It is about some people disliking what words mean because it conflicts with their expectations and so rather than accepting such and using words properly, they merely adjust meanings to fit their narrative.
It is denial taken to levels of insanity.
Nimryl said:Tanix said:Doford said:Are you free to believe what you want or are your beliefs predetermined? Is that what this is about?
Nope.
It is about some people disliking what words mean because it conflicts with their expectations and so rather than accepting such and using words properly, they merely adjust meanings to fit their narrative.
It is denial taken to levels of insanity.
Someone having an opinion or a different perspective on said words doesn't make them insane. Everyone took everything litterally (like a robot) it'd be a very harsh and dangerous world.
You are entitled to your own opinoins, not your own facts. Thinking you can have an opinon in the face of a fact IS insane.
What is truly a dangerous world is when reality is ignored to chase after idealism, for history has shown such pursuits leave massive body counts. You keep fighting the good fight though! /boggle
Tanix said:Nimryl said:Tanix said:Doford said:Are you free to believe what you want or are your beliefs predetermined? Is that what this is about?
Nope.
It is about some people disliking what words mean because it conflicts with their expectations and so rather than accepting such and using words properly, they merely adjust meanings to fit their narrative.
It is denial taken to levels of insanity.
Someone having an opinion or a different perspective on said words doesn't make them insane. Everyone took everything litterally (like a robot) it'd be a very harsh and dangerous world.
You are entitled to your own opinoins, not your own facts. Thinking you can have an opinon in the face of a fact IS insane.
Nimryl said:Tanix said:Nimryl said:Tanix said:Doford said:Are you free to believe what you want or are your beliefs predetermined? Is that what this is about?
Nope.
It is about some people disliking what words mean because it conflicts with their expectations and so rather than accepting such and using words properly, they merely adjust meanings to fit their narrative.
It is denial taken to levels of insanity.
Someone having an opinion or a different perspective on said words doesn't make them insane. Everyone took everything litterally (like a robot) it'd be a very harsh and dangerous world.
You are entitled to your own opinoins, not your own facts. Thinking you can have an opinon in the face of a fact IS insane.
Starting a thread and make a statement of fact without any point in discussion is also insane-- what's the point?
There is discusion. The point of the discussion was to note the differences between the expectations in play and through that maybe have a better understanding as to why people make the arguments they do.
You don't think that useful?
So, what is important about someone who wants entertainment and someone who wants a game? Do you see some of the conflict at times?
The person wanting to be entertained often will view key elements in a game (ie failure, penalties, difficulty, etc...) as not very entertaining, but those who love games understand these are integral aspects of play (ie why games are often entertaining).
So tell me, after understanding this, how can this help in the various discussions we have concerning this... game?
This thread was posted in the "General Pantheon Discussion" sub-forum incorrectly, in my opinion. I read the original post in it's entirety and while there is plenty there that I agree with, "Pantheon" doesn't come up a single time. By posting it in the general Pantheon sub-forum many players will assume an underlying premise that it's related to Pantheon. While I can appreciate the stance of defining "game" as objective and "fun / entertainment" as subjective, the underlying theme in this thread seems subjective as a whole. Where are the objective facts as they pertain to Pantheon? The thread is riddled in controversy because people are automatically associating the various stances as being objectively related to Pantheon. It seems more generalized and opinionated on what some people want Pantheon to be rather than an objective outlook on what it has actually been described to be. I think the quality of discussion would improve, potentially, if facts about Pantheon were being debated rather than opinions on what any given person thinks it should be. I don't think it's fair to try and invalidate an opinion on this thread when it's been clearly demonstrated that the definitions of "Fun/Entertainment" are subjective. We're all entitled to an opinion on what we hope Pantheon to be but unless those opinions are supported by fact, everybody is going to continue spinning their wheels.
disposalist said:All I'm saying is, definitions are not facts.
Huh?
What in the world are you trying to argue
oneADseven said:This thread was posted in the "General Pantheon Discussion" sub-forum incorrectly, in my opinion.
And in my opinion OP post is a very well written post that has everything to do with Pantheon in the Pantheon ‘general’ discusssion that it is posted in. Very well written indeed. For example, one may think a lot of what *you* (adseven) write does not belong in the general Pantheon discussion, but that is not for *me* to determine. #communitymatters
oneADseven said:This thread was posted in the "General Pantheon Discussion" sub-forum incorrectly, in my opinion. I read the original post in it's entirety and while there is plenty there that I agree with, "Pantheon" doesn't come up a single time. By posting it in the general Pantheon sub-forum many players will assume an underlying premise that it's related to Pantheon. While I can appreciate the stance of defining "game" as objective and "fun / entertainment" as subjective, the underlying theme in this thread seems subjective as a whole. Where are the objective facts as they pertain to Pantheon? The thread is riddled in controversy because people are automatically associating the various stances as being objectively related to Pantheon. It seems more generalized and opinionated on what some people want Pantheon to be rather than an objective outlook on what it has actually been described to be. I think the quality of discussion would improve, potentially, if facts about Pantheon were being debated rather than opinions on what any given person thinks it should be. I don't think it's fair to try and invalidate an opinion on this thread when it's been clearly demonstrated that the definitions of "Fun/Entertainment" are subjective. We're all entitled to an opinion on what we hope Pantheon to be but unless those opinions are supported by fact, everybody is going to continue spinning their wheels.
Unfortunately, the whole forum (not just this thread) has devolved into everyone arguing about what they think Pantheon should be, instead of what VR has stated it will be.
People seem to think that if they beat down or bully each other enough, they will win and VR will suddenly change their vision to meet the loudest/most posted voice' s opinion.
Syrif said:And in my opinion this is a very well written post that has everything to do with Pantheon in the Pantheon ‘general’ discusssion that it is posted in. Very well written indeed. For example, one may think a lot of what *you* (adseven) write does not belong in the general Pantheon discussion, but that is not for *me* to determine. #communitymatters
I'm not denying that it was well-written. I specifically mentioned that there is plenty to the post that I agree with. I still think that the "tone" of the thread is highly controversial. I'm not trying to be confrontational here but there is a lot of bickering going on that would probably be avoided if certain points were being made in the proper context. Some things are objective and some things are subjective. Again, I understand that and it's been clearly defined/established. I'm just pointing out that the majority of comments I see here are based on an opinion. If I wanted to I could go back and try to invalidate a bunch of opinions with actual facts that have been shared about Pantheon. How would that be productive, though? I'd prefer to see people trying to find common ground rather than sharing an opinion and then piggybacking off of Merriam Webster like it's the Pantheon Bible.
oneADseven said:Syrif said:And in my opinion this is a very well written post that has everything to do with Pantheon in the Pantheon ‘general’ discusssion that it is posted in. Very well written indeed. For example, one may think a lot of what *you* (adseven) write does not belong in the general Pantheon discussion, but that is not for *me* to determine. #communitymatters
I'm not denying that it was well-written. I specifically mentioned that there is plenty to the post that I agree with. I still think that the "tone" of the thread is highly controversial. I'm not trying to be confrontational here but there is a lot of bickering going on that would probably be avoided if certain points were being made in the proper context. Some things are objective and some things are subjective. Again, I understand that and it's been clearly defined/established. I'm just pointing out that the majority of comments I see here are based on an opinion. If I wanted to I could go back and try to invalidate a bunch of opinions with actual facts that have been shared about Pantheon. How would that be productive, though? I'd rather see people trying to find common ground rather than sharing an opinion and then piggybacking off of Merriam Webster like it's the Pantheon Bible.
i believe the original tone of the post was to be informative with the intent of being objective. i found it to be productive, but then again, that is subjective. you see conflict helps you find flaws with an idea. it'll either break down or reinforce that thought. how would i know something is good or bad if it goes unchallenged?
Please save me the droll of hash tagging "Community Matters" -- I certainly agree that it does, but this isn't a good representation of that. A lot of people feel that the underlying tone of this thread is toxic and that's not exactly the vibe that this community has been known for, or one that many people want to promote. Again ... it's my opinion that this thread was posted in the wrong sub-forum. There is nothing objective about Pantheon in that OP. I am never too shy to discuss game theory or player motivation but the recurring trend here is one mired in controversy. A different approach might deliver more favorable results. If anybody wants to debate a fact about Pantheon I am usually willing to engage in that sort of thing. Stating an opinion and then portraying part of it as fact based on a Merriam Webster definition comes off like intentional contextomy.
@adseven No offense meant, but I didn’t find OP ‘toxic‘ at all. Didn’t you just say that you also think it is written well. Anyway, I feel the ‘toxic’ term you mention is way over used and exaggerated in forums, but I’m not going to complain about it. You either participate and debate in a thread or you don’t. :)
#communitymatters
stellarmind said:@187 how would you convey the idea then? different people will have different approaches. we are talking about how VR should make a game and not entertainment or fun by definition right?
I would start by citing various facts that have been shared about Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen. Only then can we have a meaningful dialogue on what kind of game it is, or is meant to be. Here is an example of an opinion that has not been objectively substantiated, but is posed as such:
"Problem is, you can't appeal to everyone. In many cases to cater to one side or the other will result in one side getting the short end of the stick. This is why this game exists, and why people like me have been getting the short end of the stick with modern games. They are designed for entertainment, for fun, but since it is subjective the result usually ends with a "lowest common denominator" approach to the developement causing most people to be unhappy.
Pantheon can not succeed in its mission statement if it caters to everyone. They have to decide or the game will suffer for it."
Where is the mission statement that supports the idea of "This is why this game exists" -- the position is relying on the definition of "game" to support it rather than the mission statement that would objectively tie it to Pantheon.
Here is another example:
"VR doesn't need to reinvent the wheel, they don't need to cater to modern designs as such. They need to hold to their vision and people who claim they hate it will play it anyway and if they won't this is all a waste of time. I don't think people are too much different than they were back then, they just haven't been given the oppurtunity to experience a system as such (even P1999 isnt really old EQ). Those who want a game, will play, those seeking entertainment, well... it depends. Rememeber though, before WoW, most of the people playing MMOs were gamers, not people just seeking entertainment. I think there is plenty of a market, more so these days for a game like this."
Is there a specific part of the vision that is being alluded to here? The vision is grand and all encompassing. What "modern design" is in conflict with "their vision?" When he says "Those who want a game, will play, those seeking entertainment, well... it depends" -- while it's true that we have the Merriam Webster definition of game fully established here, how is that helpful in this context? I feel confident that the vast majority of people who have pledged for Pantheon did so because they "want the game" -- why they want the game is relegated to their personal opinion. Clearly there is something there, right? And then to end it ... again, "game like this." We know the definition of "game" according to Merriam Webster but it would be helpful to substantiate "like this" with objective facts about Pantheon. These are the issues I see with this thread. The definitions have been laid out, as have opinions, but there is very little to no substance that attaches anything to Pantheon in an objective way.
stellarmind said:@187 so you agree with tanix then? just not the way it's presented i assume? i just read somewhere brad mcquaid said he ain't makin a game he makin a world.
I agree with a lot of what he is saying in the OP because it was pretty straight forward and literal. There isn't much room to argue. As the thread progresses it spirals out of control. We see a lot of opinions exchanged but they aren't inherently tied to Pantheon. I'm personally not all that interested in discussing the definitions of "game" -- if we can form a correlation to facts about Pantheon then it is much more likely that we will find common ground, identify a conflict, or reinforce the thought being presented. You mentioned all of those things as having the potential to be productive and while I agree with that sentiment I'm just not seeing it here.