Uhh no. Simply put no. You can't just say something belongs to a given class without actually defining what that class is, that is why B is factually untrue because of A. A. is a classification, you can't say something belongs to a given classification without ever saying what it is or why this is the case. Not when there is already a class for those given items. Your assertion doesn't become relevant until you actually define what is, nor does it solve the problem of C. If C is left unanswered then B. cannot be said to be the first to do anything. (B is the given genre that DMC belongs to. DMC already has a genre and you have to explain what makes it distinct from it's given genre. Which you have done now.)geldonyetich said:
Zero Punctuation: Dante's Inferno
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Not true.
You can say something belongs to any class. When you define the rules of that class, you define the class, true. However, the arbitrary definition of the rules is why you can include anything you want.
For example, when I used the word "genre" originally [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.176837.5110383], the context in which I used the word only included one defined rule:
A) Include God of War, Devil May Cry, and (via the thread topic) Dante's Inferno.
There is no rule suggesting any other game is included. At least until I added an edit, which even better defined it was being specifically A and only A.
The genre's name was undefined. It is assumed the reader isn't so thick as to require a concept has a label to conceptualize it. You can call it "temporary genre A" if you prefer.
This is the power, and the uselessness, of a mere label - of which "genre" in terms how you're using it certainly is.
You decided I was implying "Beat'Em'Ups." I said no such thing. Thus, you tricked yourself. Though I've been opening my mouth, all I was doing was clarifying. There was no argument to be had except for the argument you created when you misinterpreted the use of a word. All I've been is a sounding board for the argument you've been having with yourself.
Granted, I have been a rather relentless sounding board. >:] Out of my own frustration with my failure to communicate to you the madness you've been propagating, I lost my temper more than once, and no doubt this fueled the fire.
Funny how human nature works.
I said this a whole page ago that saying you are bored of the DMC formula is not the same thing as saying you are bored with the genre itself. I also said later on that you shouldn't start belittling people while changing your argument from a very specific type of boredom to a more general one.
Furthermore you are trying to say now rather magically that you can make up a new class and not tell anyone you did and somehow everyone else is supposed to simply ignore the given classification that is already accepted. If you say DMC did the genre first, it is not in any way the same as saying that DMC created a new genre which these games are all a part of. Doing the genre first implies that it was the first to do what it does which it simply is not the case given the known category to which DMC belongs. If DMC didn't already have a known category the first statement would be perfectly fine by the way.
The two statements and the two arguments are markedly different from one another.
If you are going to be putting down people whether it be on the internet or elsewhere you should make sure what you say actually makes sense. Consider your words more carefully. The definition and how a word may be used is not the same as the logical construction created with a word.
Very good! Now would you like to go and re-read the replies to those statements you made?
Perhaps you will understand why both passages you've just quoted are so mind-bogglingly deluded.
I'm going to continue to put you down while you frustrate me with your inability to communicate because this inability is, as far as I'm concerned, the initial put down.
Basically, that last post of yours made me think, "oh, God, I thought I was making progress -- now, it seems he's regressing."
Maybe repetition will help:
I dearly suspect this conversation of ours is a preview of a circle of Hell I'm destined for. Though, considering it tends to make up the majority of human interaction on forums, that seems sort of redundant.
I'm not worried you know you seem to only be capable of belittling people and inventing rules that nobody else knows about that make it safe for you to ignore whatever else is going on in the world outside of your own mind. While you ***** and moan about other people being deluded you demonstrate an inability to understand why it doesn't look good to go around making fun of people while your arguments change into forms that make no more sense than the previous one. You seem to think that if you just invent a genre in your head don't explain it until a page and a half after being asked on multiple occasions to actually define the elements that make all of these things a new genre that you have any business telling anyone to get perspective on anything.
Ah, the irony that this should come from a fellow who's largely been arguing with the phantoms of his mind the whole time.shadow skill said:
It's true I may have been behaving overtly belittling at times, but your youthful self-delusion runs so deep that you're subtly belittling the entire world with the certainty you apply in defining the undefinable. I like to think that my approach is, at least, honest.
Congratulations, you're a modern thinker. A modern thinker of the worst type, perhaps - one who is only capable of seeing what he wants to see and who then actively insists on the truth of what he is imagining - but your certainty establishes you as a modern thinker nonetheless.
Get back to me when you've reached postmodern thinking. I'm certain you'll reach there eventually. This little chat of ours has been much like speaking to a younger self of mine, eager to build a life interface of pure intellectualism and absolute right - long before understanding such a thing is little more than a cage that distances one from the truth. Life does not operate by the rules of a single perspective.
Your immaturity remains your undoing in this conversation, but it's an easily solved problem: you will age and, provided you do actively seek truth where you can find it, undoubtedly wisdom will come. So, what's my excuse for holding up this end of this fruitless waste of time that has been our conversation? Perhaps I too am still a bit immature, but I suspect I have no good excuse, just an irrational compulsion to try to correct those who misunderstand me.
Less a circle jerk and more pounding my head against concrete for lack adequate motivations to find a better way to spend the day, I'm afraid.Lord Frunkamunch said:
You're right that the only way to win is not to play.
Did anyone else find the graphic for the 'Sunday clock' funny?
I mean, he totally forgot to put 'Church' on it! How embarrassing!
I mean, he totally forgot to put 'Church' on it! How embarrassing!
Maybe it's because I've never played GoW but I loved Dantes Inferno. I hope it sells well, their marketing scheme alone warranted my buy and the game was worth it.
You answered your own question: EABig-T said:
Here's my 2 cents.
Geldon was simply generalizing specific attributes of said games, because they have indeed become a staple of what is loosely defined as said genre. Or atleast, said elements play a heavy role in said titles (combos, chains, upgrading, etc.) Thus, said elements are becoming boring and said genre (or atleast, what the next-gen era has decided is the said genre based on these attributes) needs to step it up and integrate more into said genre, to make it seem less like other games in the same said genre.
Just because something is tried, tested, and proven, does not mean it will not eventually get boring and repetitive.
More elements mean more to do other than the tried and tested. Thus, he generalizes that said genre is getting boring because it refuses to integrate more than what already "works" and is "perfected". Perhaps the DMC comment was made because DMC popularized these elements, did come first when it comes to the generalized criteria, and now everyone who makes said genre game, usually follows rather the DMC or the GoW criteria without doing much else with it.
Geldon was simply generalizing specific attributes of said games, because they have indeed become a staple of what is loosely defined as said genre. Or atleast, said elements play a heavy role in said titles (combos, chains, upgrading, etc.) Thus, said elements are becoming boring and said genre (or atleast, what the next-gen era has decided is the said genre based on these attributes) needs to step it up and integrate more into said genre, to make it seem less like other games in the same said genre.
Just because something is tried, tested, and proven, does not mean it will not eventually get boring and repetitive.
More elements mean more to do other than the tried and tested. Thus, he generalizes that said genre is getting boring because it refuses to integrate more than what already "works" and is "perfected". Perhaps the DMC comment was made because DMC popularized these elements, did come first when it comes to the generalized criteria, and now everyone who makes said genre game, usually follows rather the DMC or the GoW criteria without doing much else with it.
So why is it then, that even out of the most popular games they are all mechanically different from one another? Also where does Onimusha fall into this whole thing since it was popular for it's day and according to wikipedia is Capcom's fifth biggest franchise, released months before DMC. It also has a different director. DMC can't be the origin of anything. It's just the first game alot of people heard of. One is certainly free to have that opinion, one isn't free to base that opinion on their own facts.incognito_me said:
I happen to think that shooters have this sort of problem in spades but I'm not going to say that all of these games are copying Halo because Halo did the whole thing first when games like Goldeneye and Perfect Dark clearly predate it. Hell Halo wasn't even the first game to do online multiplayer on consoles, the SNES had a modem attachment (I'm talking about Xband specifically.) back in the mid to late 90's. When people claim that something is copying another thing so loosely, when the time comes to point out the real copies, the point being made gets covered up in this sort of silly stuff. DI isn't a GOW clone because it is in the same genre as perhaps hundreds of other games, it is a clone because whole animations that have no real business being lifted, have been.
It's like the whole mess with Nick Simmons' Incarnate, (Check the forums for threads on this.) there is a difference between emulating artists you like and tracing their panels while trying pass off your traces as original work.
Well, I'm sure it's been said but never let it be said that I'm not enough of a wanker to want to hear myself speak (type?)
The lustful being swept away by a tornado or whatever, at least according to my High School english teacher, was supposed to be kind of ironic. You see, the lustful were swept away by the "winds of their passion" in life and as such in Hell they get tossed around by literal wind.
Eh? Eh?
The lustful being swept away by a tornado or whatever, at least according to my High School english teacher, was supposed to be kind of ironic. You see, the lustful were swept away by the "winds of their passion" in life and as such in Hell they get tossed around by literal wind.
Eh? Eh?
Rampant Cocks- a Michael Bay Film. Oh dear god, i lol'd so hard i thought i was gonna puke up my dinner.
I've played both god of war games and I have to say Dante's Inferno is way better,ultimasupersaiyan said:
Both god of war games got boring before it was half way done and Dante's Inferno did not.
Also if you are wondering way I played god of war 2 when I didn't like the first one, it's because I thought it would have improved over the original, .. but it diddn't.