Statements and topics that get old real fast

[Carbonyl]

My most hated thread topic is the ever-popular: "I don't believe real love exists because I am cynical, angry, and have not ever fallen in love/had a bad breakup yesterday/just got out of my first philosophy class and believe in BIOLOGY (tm)."
You are provoking the same argument that just went on in the identical thread that someone started twenty minutes ago and there will always be the same two diametrically opposed opinions, the point is moot.
Kids, I don't care that you are convinced that everything is meaningless and horrible because you want to act worldly and knowledgeable and are lonely.
You are the kid in class that quotes Nietzsche when we talk about Herodotus, and Plato when we talk about integers. No one likes that kid, don't be that kid, stop posting about your "shattered illusions", go snuggle a puppy and get over it.


Another one of my personal favorites is the: "I found this in the news aren't you guys upset over this travesty about sex/drugs/floods/celebrities/baby-eating/kittens" thread.
This really isn't the place for that type of discussion, the stories are unrelated to any site content, and are ridiculously sensationalized.

I know the news in the real world is important, but there is a reason that news websites have their own places for discussion. I don't come to the Escapist to hear about celebrity scandals.

 

[Thaius]

I love discussing video games as an art form, so that topic will never get old. But unfortunately, their status as such is pretty solid fact at this point, and people very rarely have anything new to bring to that discussion. If someone has an actual, interesting argument against it, one that contributes to our understanding of the medium's place in the wide spectrum of art forms, I love discussing it. But I'm tired of people using the same tired "games are games, not art," or "games are entertainment, not art" or "games have art in them, but aren't art themselves," etc. They've all been said a million times before, and they've all been definitively proven to have absolutely no ground on which to stand. It's annoying that so many people still try to convince others of things that simply make no sense.

 

[Danceofmasks]

I love discussing video games as an art form, so that topic will never get old. But unfortunately, their status as such is pretty solid fact at this point, and people very rarely have anything new to bring to that discussion. If someone has an actual, interesting argument against it, one that contributes to our understanding of the medium's place in the wide spectrum of art forms, I love discussing it. But I'm tired of people using the same tired "games are games, not art," or "games are entertainment, not art" or "games have art in them, but aren't art themselves," etc. They've all been said a million times before, and they've all been definitively proven to have absolutely no ground on which to stand. It's annoying that so many people still try to convince others of things that simply make no sense.

Huh.

How about my "games can be art in the same way painting can be art. Call of Duty is like painting ... a house."

 

[Torrasque]

"I don't get X," "Why is Y good," "I think Z is really average," or any variation thereof. Listen: no one cares about your opinion. You don't need to make a thread to announce to the world your slightly unpopular opinion.

"The last -whatever- is now/is going to/will -do something moronic" (about the most general way I can do this). What do these threads accomplish really? That was rhetorical by the way-- I already know the answer. Hell, does anyone actually READ these or do they just post how Solid Snake is going to be their new roommate or something like this?

Anything about FOX. Given the shifty and less than stellar journalistic practices and integrity on the Escapist, anyone (especially contributors) bashing FOX news comes across a bit like the kettle is calling the pot black. You know, FOX and the Escapist would make a kind of cute couple...

Oh, and any thread revolving heavily around the use of statistics. Take a fucking basic probability and statistics course before you projectile-vomit through your keyboard and butcher the use of statistics, would you?

lol, you literally stole everything I had to say.
Thank you sir for saving me the trouble of posting

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Im sick of seeing people defend shooters as mindless fun or call them stupid. Shooters arent mindless, when Im playing a shooter I:

A)Try to predict where the enemy will be

B)Try to predict what the enemy will have and what I should be armed with.

C)Try to work as a team with my buddies.

D)Try to find a good position to either flank the enemy or make sure Im not flanked myself.

If you play shooters mindlessly, your probably not very good at them.

 

[Zeema]

Anything involving the Zombie Doomsday

OR

STOP HATING WHAT I LIKE threads or STOP LIKING WHAT I HATE threads

 

[Thaius]

I love discussing video games as an art form, so that topic will never get old. But unfortunately, their status as such is pretty solid fact at this point, and people very rarely have anything new to bring to that discussion. If someone has an actual, interesting argument against it, one that contributes to our understanding of the medium's place in the wide spectrum of art forms, I love discussing it. But I'm tired of people using the same tired "games are games, not art," or "games are entertainment, not art" or "games have art in them, but aren't art themselves," etc. They've all been said a million times before, and they've all been definitively proven to have absolutely no ground on which to stand. It's annoying that so many people still try to convince others of things that simply make no sense.

Huh.

How about my "games can be art in the same way painting can be art. Call of Duty is like painting ... a house."

Is that an argument against games as art in the first place? You do compare Call of Duty to a painting, meaning you are comparing it to an artwork. A relatively uncreative and simple one, but an artwork nonetheless. You may also be coming from the perspective that art is not based on the medium but on the individual work, which is a very subjective idea I don't personally agree with, but is a valid aesthetic philosophy nonetheless. But you just said games can be art, then said one of them wasn't good. Am I missing something?

 

[Danceofmasks]

I love discussing video games as an art form, so that topic will never get old. But unfortunately, their status as such is pretty solid fact at this point, and people very rarely have anything new to bring to that discussion. If someone has an actual, interesting argument against it, one that contributes to our understanding of the medium's place in the wide spectrum of art forms, I love discussing it. But I'm tired of people using the same tired "games are games, not art," or "games are entertainment, not art" or "games have art in them, but aren't art themselves," etc. They've all been said a million times before, and they've all been definitively proven to have absolutely no ground on which to stand. It's annoying that so many people still try to convince others of things that simply make no sense.

Huh.

How about my "games can be art in the same way painting can be art. Call of Duty is like painting ... a house."

Is that an argument against games as art in the first place? You do compare Call of Duty to a painting, meaning you are comparing it to an artwork. A relatively uncreative and simple one, but an artwork nonetheless. You may also be coming from the perspective that art is not based on the medium but on the individual work, which is a very subjective idea I don't personally agree with, but is a valid aesthetic philosophy nonetheless. But you just said games can be art, then said one of them wasn't good. Am I missing something?

Yeah, you missed something.

I didn't say CoD is like a painting of a house.
I said CoD is like painting a house. As in, that thing most every homeowner does every 20 years or so.

 

[Thaius]

I love discussing video games as an art form, so that topic will never get old. But unfortunately, their status as such is pretty solid fact at this point, and people very rarely have anything new to bring to that discussion. If someone has an actual, interesting argument against it, one that contributes to our understanding of the medium's place in the wide spectrum of art forms, I love discussing it. But I'm tired of people using the same tired "games are games, not art," or "games are entertainment, not art" or "games have art in them, but aren't art themselves," etc. They've all been said a million times before, and they've all been definitively proven to have absolutely no ground on which to stand. It's annoying that so many people still try to convince others of things that simply make no sense.

Huh.

How about my "games can be art in the same way painting can be art. Call of Duty is like painting ... a house."

Is that an argument against games as art in the first place? You do compare Call of Duty to a painting, meaning you are comparing it to an artwork. A relatively uncreative and simple one, but an artwork nonetheless. You may also be coming from the perspective that art is not based on the medium but on the individual work, which is a very subjective idea I don't personally agree with, but is a valid aesthetic philosophy nonetheless. But you just said games can be art, then said one of them wasn't good. Am I missing something?

Yeah, you missed something.

I didn't say CoD is like a painting of a house.
I said CoD is like painting a house. As in, that thing most every homeowner does every 20 years or so.

Ah, okay. My bad. But I still don't see that as an argument against games as art.

Correct me if I'm wrong again, but with the painting comparison you seem to be saying that video games are capable of being art, but can also be made with little artistic or creative effort, simply built artlessly based on industry standards (thus the "Call of Duty is like painting a house" example). But if that disqualifies the entire medium from being art, you're also disqualifying every other artistic medium from being art. The only other option is that you're saying that some are art and some are not, in which case you are, as I said, basing artistic status on the individual work rather than the medium as a whole, something I cannot argue with as it is a valid artistic philosophy, if not my own. But even then, it is not an argument against video games being an art form, because you are admitting potential within the medium for art, which basically translates into "art form" outside of artistic subjectivity philosophies. So...

 

[Danceofmasks]

I love discussing video games as an art form, so that topic will never get old. But unfortunately, their status as such is pretty solid fact at this point, and people very rarely have anything new to bring to that discussion. If someone has an actual, interesting argument against it, one that contributes to our understanding of the medium's place in the wide spectrum of art forms, I love discussing it. But I'm tired of people using the same tired "games are games, not art," or "games are entertainment, not art" or "games have art in them, but aren't art themselves," etc. They've all been said a million times before, and they've all been definitively proven to have absolutely no ground on which to stand. It's annoying that so many people still try to convince others of things that simply make no sense.

Huh.

How about my "games can be art in the same way painting can be art. Call of Duty is like painting ... a house."

Is that an argument against games as art in the first place? You do compare Call of Duty to a painting, meaning you are comparing it to an artwork. A relatively uncreative and simple one, but an artwork nonetheless. You may also be coming from the perspective that art is not based on the medium but on the individual work, which is a very subjective idea I don't personally agree with, but is a valid aesthetic philosophy nonetheless. But you just said games can be art, then said one of them wasn't good. Am I missing something?

Yeah, you missed something.

I didn't say CoD is like a painting of a house.
I said CoD is like painting a house. As in, that thing most every homeowner does every 20 years or so.

Ah, okay. My bad. But I still don't see that as an argument against games as art.

Correct me if I'm wrong again, but with the painting comparison you seem to be saying that video games are capable of being art, but can also be made with little artistic or creative effort, simply built artlessly based on industry standards (thus the "Call of Duty is like painting a house" example). But if that disqualifies the entire medium from being art, you're also disqualifying every other artistic medium from being art. The only other option is that you're saying that some are art and some are not, in which case you are, as I said, basing artistic status on the individual work rather than the medium as a whole, something I cannot argue with as it is a valid artistic philosophy, if not my own. But even then, it is not an argument against video games being an art form, because you are admitting potential within the medium for art, which basically translates into "art form" outside of artistic subjectivity philosophies. So...

You misunderstand the purpose of the analogy.

See, half the arguments out there tend to be phrased in the form of "take a look at this game. It's clearly not art."
Well duh .. people consider different things art.

Painting your house is not art. Most of the time. There are some awesome exceptions, but even in these cases a bunch of people are just going to call it an eyesore.

A canvas painted black with a yellow circle in the corner? Is that art? Or just some pretentious jacking off?
Well, there are a few games out there that are clearly just pretentious surreal nonsense that only has a "you need to be a tosser to understand" to defend its worth.

In that manner, games are clearly on the exact same footing as painting insofar as being art goes.
As in, from an artistic standpoint, 90% of it is rubbish.

Also, from a gameplay standpoint, 90% of all games are also rubbish, but not the same 90% above ... so in order to come across a good game that is also good art, well, I put maybe 2 games out of the thousands I own in that category.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

I find this thread incredibly... funny somehow, is it just me or is it hilarious that someone posted a thread complaining mainly about other people posting threads to complain about stuff...?

Not saying I don't agree with the OT on several of his points(because I do) just saying I find the irony of it rather delicious...

 

[Bluntman1138]

"It's JUST a Theory"

This statement just proves peoples ignorance of Science.

I also think it should be a law, that on TV and Movies, we replace the detectives use of the word Theory with Hypothesis.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Holy crap somebody actually gets it. I'm not in any way trying to change a person's opinion about those subjects and neither am I stating my opinion is right or wrong. I'm merely expressing how I feel about those things and nothing more. I've always wondered why people do that so much here.....my opinion is right and your opinion is wrong and here's why. It's retarded everytime I see statements like that....

People "do that here" because this is a public forum, which exists to foster both the sharing of ideas and friendly debate about those ideas. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having your opinion challenged, or even rebuked. I honestly cannot comprehend the mentality that states "this is only my opinion, and therefore it cannot be challenged or attacked!". Don't want your opinions challenged? Don't air them in a public forum. Problem solved.

 

[SidingWithTheEnemy]

What about threads where users don't grasp using or naming the stylistic devices correctly.

And what about those threads that are geographically bound to specific societies like having a national context where someone not having that context (because he is not from that country) is unable to follow the discussion because he doesn't know what the people are talking about

Specifically I don't like threads that try to be aware of gender but utterly fail and become a feminist breeding ground.

And I don't like long threads because with each new comment there is a new kind of morontype reader who either isn't capaple of reading or just skips through all the other comments and just post something for the 15x flocking time again while others said that already in better english and with minced words.

Oh and I don't like threads that only exist because someone wants to start ranting without offering room for solution. Like ehm this entire thread here...

Ahhw that was fun. But only because I don't like it doesn't mean I don't write something in those threads...

 

[Thaius]

I love discussing video games as an art form, so that topic will never get old. But unfortunately, their status as such is pretty solid fact at this point, and people very rarely have anything new to bring to that discussion. If someone has an actual, interesting argument against it, one that contributes to our understanding of the medium's place in the wide spectrum of art forms, I love discussing it. But I'm tired of people using the same tired "games are games, not art," or "games are entertainment, not art" or "games have art in them, but aren't art themselves," etc. They've all been said a million times before, and they've all been definitively proven to have absolutely no ground on which to stand. It's annoying that so many people still try to convince others of things that simply make no sense.

Huh.

How about my "games can be art in the same way painting can be art. Call of Duty is like painting ... a house."

Is that an argument against games as art in the first place? You do compare Call of Duty to a painting, meaning you are comparing it to an artwork. A relatively uncreative and simple one, but an artwork nonetheless. You may also be coming from the perspective that art is not based on the medium but on the individual work, which is a very subjective idea I don't personally agree with, but is a valid aesthetic philosophy nonetheless. But you just said games can be art, then said one of them wasn't good. Am I missing something?

Yeah, you missed something.

I didn't say CoD is like a painting of a house.
I said CoD is like painting a house. As in, that thing most every homeowner does every 20 years or so.

Ah, okay. My bad. But I still don't see that as an argument against games as art.

Correct me if I'm wrong again, but with the painting comparison you seem to be saying that video games are capable of being art, but can also be made with little artistic or creative effort, simply built artlessly based on industry standards (thus the "Call of Duty is like painting a house" example). But if that disqualifies the entire medium from being art, you're also disqualifying every other artistic medium from being art. The only other option is that you're saying that some are art and some are not, in which case you are, as I said, basing artistic status on the individual work rather than the medium as a whole, something I cannot argue with as it is a valid artistic philosophy, if not my own. But even then, it is not an argument against video games being an art form, because you are admitting potential within the medium for art, which basically translates into "art form" outside of artistic subjectivity philosophies. So...

You misunderstand the purpose of the analogy.

See, half the arguments out there tend to be phrased in the form of "take a look at this game. It's clearly not art."
Well duh .. people consider different things art.

Painting your house is not art. Most of the time. There are some awesome exceptions, but even in these cases a bunch of people are just going to call it an eyesore.

A canvas painted black with a yellow circle in the corner? Is that art? Or just some pretentious jacking off?
Well, there are a few games out there that are clearly just pretentious surreal nonsense that only has a "you need to be a tosser to understand" to defend its worth.

In that manner, games are clearly on the exact same footing as painting insofar as being art goes.
As in, from an artistic standpoint, 90% of it is rubbish.

Also, from a gameplay standpoint, 90% of all games are also rubbish, but not the same 90% above ... so in order to come across a good game that is also good art, well, I put maybe 2 games out of the thousands I own in that category.

So this is not an argument that games are not art so much as an argument for Sturgeon's Law, just adjusted for a medium that essentially doubles its meaning. I would agree with that to an extent, though I don't understand how you could possibly claim that only two games are both good art and good games; I could name far more than that, and I can't claim to own thousands of games. For that matter, I would say that the term "game" is simply what the medium started with, and not necessarily what it has and will become; there are plenty of great interactive artworks that perhaps couldn't be considered "games," but nonetheless use the interactivity of the medium to create an artwork that simply could not exist in another medium. As much as I value good gameplay, I think it's important not to get hung up on the term "game" at the exclusion of all other forms of interaction with an artwork.

 

[Wandering_Demon888]

Holy crap somebody actually gets it. I'm not in any way trying to change a person's opinion about those subjects and neither am I stating my opinion is right or wrong. I'm merely expressing how I feel about those things and nothing more. I've always wondered why people do that so much here.....my opinion is right and your opinion is wrong and here's why. It's retarded everytime I see statements like that....

People "do that here" because this is a public forum, which exists to foster both the sharing of ideas and friendly debate about those ideas. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having your opinion challenged, or even rebuked. I honestly cannot comprehend the mentality that states "this is only my opinion, and therefore it cannot be challenged or attacked!". Don't want your opinions challenged? Don't air them in a public forum. Problem solved.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Pump your brakes there buddy. You got it all twisted. I never once implied that my statements could never be challenged or rebuked. Challenge away I say. But, attacking someone's statement is different. Attacking a statement is the same as insulting someone in my opinion. There's nothing constructive about a statement for example like someone saying,"Hey you're a jackass!". That's not really contributing to a discussion....

 

[diamount]

These topics get old fast

 

[Canadamus Prime]

8. There's nothing wrong with an intelligent console war.

Unfortunately there's no such thing as an "intelligent console war"

OT: Anything and everything related to zombies and zombie apocalypses.