Messages

Oh, and just to confirm; yes, it's supposed to be sarcastic. Is that obvious enough, guise?

Now let me share a basic fact of my reality:
That anyone, if they try hard, can be well-off, like me.
Yes, it would matter not if you were born to poverty . . .
If only you were willing to work quite as hard as me.

And I don't care if you just cannot focus mentally:
You still should be able to tell speed from velocity.
And understand the principles of trigonometry . . .
And if you can't, then you must not be thinking hard, like me.

Also! You should become far more aware politically,
Attain a detailed knowledge of moral philosophy,
Attempt to keep your mind and land and soul and heart all free . . .
It shouldn't be too hard if you apply yourself, like me.

Indulge, before you go, good sir, a favourite pet theory,
That it would be the final end of strife and misery,
That every little problem in the world would cease to be,
The lame would walk, the mute would talk, and all the blind would see . . .
If only everyone would just try quite as hard as me!

About some people in my class whom I usually regard as sane and respectable human beings:

They thought she was weird.
So they threw a chair at her.
Then they laughed. The fuck?

Anyway. Time to use this thread for it's actual purpose.

IMMORTAL DEFENSE



It's a fun game I played through, which eventually turns into a very well-executed mindfuck during the later campaigns. The first third of the game is free; after that, you have to pay. Which is sad, because it only really gets good in story terms after the half-way mark; its creators seem to have failed to grasp the concept that selling MORE games is a GOOD THING.

[spambot]

After the two free campaigns, you're likely to be underwhelmed. After playing them, I think I really only bought the full thing to support the indie market, because of the rave reviews it got, and because of my pathological desire to find out What Happens Next. What did Happen Next, however, took my breath away.

Let me just say this: If you can make me feel for a Little Sister, using top-notch graphics and voice acting, you're competent. If you can make me feel for a box with pink hearts painted on, using just a creepy robot voice and some reverse psychology, then you're clever. But if you can make me feel for some dots on a line - if you can make my eyes all watery near the end in a way that has nothing to do with the glare of my computer monitor - using mediocre pixel-art, addicting gameplay and some text, then, well, you are a genius.

[/spambot]

Oh, and one last thing . . . do NOT watch the trailer. It's spoiler-tastic to the extreme. Don't even look at it. 4 srs.

LINK: http://studioeres.com/immortal/

[flow-breaking]

.Gamers dislike tutorial levels.
.Gamers dislike long, flow-breaking cutscences.
.Gamers dislike FPS games that rely on agility.

.Sombunal gamers like tutorial levels, if they are well designed and move smoothly into the game.

.MSG4's cutscenes did well at keeping the player immersed in the game, they played a key role in it being so well received, and are part of the style of the series. Rather than being "long flow-breaking" cutscenes, the game flowed better for them.

.Sombunal gamers dislike FPS games that rely on agility.

Source: Being a gamer who doesn't fit the 'Gamers dislike X' model.

Well, I got pwned. I was using, as a model, most of the videogame rants I've read/heard on the net, and my own experience (I actually like tutorial levels for some reason, but I'm not a big fan of the other two).

Oy, gamer-spags. Help me understand this phenomenon:

.Gamers dislike tutorial levels. Psychonauts is one-half tutorial level. It got good reviews and I liked it.

.Gamers dislike long, flow-breaking cutscences. MGS 4, from what I hear, was little but. It got good reviews.

.Gamers dislike FPS games that rely on agility, for the very sane reason that you can't see your fucking feet. Mirror's Edge is all agility. It got good reviews.

.The kicker: Portal is three-quarters tutorial level, and technically one big FPS jumping puzzle. I liked it, and it got such good reviews that it has become synonymous with good game design. WTF?

The only solution I can think of is that, oh my Goddess, the Bush administration were right in their unspoken assumption that if you did enough of something stupid, it stopped being stupid. Help?

"But what of all the innocents that have suffered?"

"There are no innocents. It is all of us, together, through action and inaction, that make the world what it is."

-Eldred and Mithras having a friendly chat in Sacrifice

Also, it seems that I'm incapable of communicating with my own species and I should be learning seagull-language about now. ITT, I stupidly used the idea "expose a meme to someone" when I meant "actually, successfully infect someone with a meme". Even more stupidly, I kept on seeing it in that light and using it thus. Sorry. My brain gets weird wire-crosses like that sometimes.

I'll just leave this here:

---

They say there's a fine line between madness and genius. When you get as high up as I am, that line becomes a tightrope. Lean too far left, and you will become deluded, overconfident, deranged. And then you will fall, and feel the hellish burn of too much madness with too little intelligence to back it up and control it. Lean too far right, though, and you will become overly-meticulous, small-minded, unimaginative. And then you will fall, and feel the icy chill of too much intelligence with too little madness to give it life and flavour.

And thus, as I walk this tightrope of mine, I lean just a little to the left: for I know that keeping your soul but losing your mind is greatly preferable to keeping your mind but losing your soul. Most madmen, at least, know that they are mad; but every soulless drone I have met is utterly convinced that there is nothing wrong with them.

-Saris

"Small groups of young, intelligent people can make any society, creed or idea function. Communists, sadomasochists, anarchists, greifers, pornographers, Furries, trollers, crank callers and even Discordians have been able to create communities that are not merely functional, but stylish and even somehow honourable. Therefore, the true test of any meme or theory is how well it fares when exposed to large quantities of 'normal' people."

Rather, wouldn't it be the test of intelligence to see what happens when you expose it to a 'normal' meme?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

Also, give me one example of a 'normal' meme.

I took your original statement to imply something like the below table:

Good meme + intelligent people -> good results
Good meme + mediocre people -> good results
Mediocre meme + intelligent people -> good results
Mediocre meme + mediocre people -> mediocre results

This implies that you can test a meme by exposing it to mediocre people (as you pointed out.)  If you get mediocre results, it was a mediocre meme; if you get good results, it must have been a good meme.  I was just pointing out that you could also take a known mediocre meme and expose it to a person of unknown intelligence.  If the results are good, the person must have been intelligent; if mediocre, than the person's intelligence must have been been mediocre to start with.

And I'll show you a normal meme when you can produce a normal person.

Ahhh. Sorry, I thought that "it" meant the meme, not the intelligent person/group of intelligent people.

There is no such thing as a normal person; 'normal' people, however, are less rare.

One last point: intelligent people tend to get angry when you try to expose memes to them. That's why the internet hates Jack Chick.

Approximately, what percentage of 'Furries' with suits have suits made of real fur?

It's the bestiality component that makes it too fucked up for me.

hm.... i must've misread something somewhere. i thought it was the child nature of cartoon animals that made it unpalatable for you....

It's the two combined that really piss him off. Vodka is okay. Fire is okay. The two together can scar people (physically, in my example) in a way that neither can alone.

"Small groups of young, intelligent people can make any society, creed or idea function. Communists, sadomasochists, anarchists, greifers, pornographers, Furries, trollers, crank callers and even Discordians have been able to create communities that are not merely functional, but stylish and even somehow honourable. Therefore, the true test of any meme or theory is how well it fares when exposed to large quantities of 'normal' people."

Rather, wouldn't it be the test of intelligence to see what happens when you expose it to a 'normal' meme?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

Also, give me one example of a 'normal' meme.

Then a rain of the burning bugs should be sprayed out the ass onto someone's face.

more so if they were abused as a child it might help them redirect into adult actions instead of creating more victims

It appears I've gone insane, because I can't stop laughing at that.

aren't most fetishes based on embarrassment and power

I don't know, are they?

Hm....
only the ones that are, i guess?
let's seeeeee, where did i put my 'comprehensive list of fetishes'?
srsly, i would say that many are not.

You know having one of those is impossible, right?

Gotta admit Furries strike me more as just plain wierd. Most fetishes do, tho.

You are a hyper-evolved squishy monkey-thing with a mind made of meat living on a spinning ball that's called "Earth" despite the fact that it's mostly covered in water which is orbiting a gigantic fusion reactor and moving at incredible speeds that you can't feel and are communicating impossibly quickly with someone on another continent using a bunch of lines and dots which your meat-brain somehow interprets as meaning things relevant to you via a non-physical connection between two glowing boxes. *Takes a deep breath* At the risk of sounding rude, I'm curious to know what your definition of 'weird' is, and why you think it's a bad thing.

I have no definition of weird, I just slap the label on, on a case by case basis.

I also by no means equate weird with bad. Bad is a separate label that bears no relation to weird.

Some weird things cause my lunch to defy gravity. Furries, scat, amputee pron and Ann Widdecombe spring immediately to mind.

Fair play.