Wolfenstein sticks out.
GERALTITUDE's forum posts
ME3 multiplayer was outstanding, so I'm more than happpy to reserve judgement until I play it. Could be cool!
I am going to do my best to format this in a way that makes sense... Hold fast duder!
No problem. I don't run away. If I don't respond it's generally because a conversation is beginning to go in circles and I am not trying to prove anything to anyone. I don't need to have the last word, and I don't need to "win" a conversation. It's not in my nature to expect others to agree with me. So, I show respect by not responding further. Usually it wouldn't really be good for anyone for the conversation to continue anyway. (Just so you have insight on why I often stop responding haha)
G: Makes sense! Circular internet arguments are about as exhausting as digital life can get. Note me down as feeling the same.
Popular doesn't necessarily mean proper. I don't think devolving language works like that. General "popular" language is slang. There isn't anything wrong with slang, most of the time, until it changes the meaning of a word. This is, for example, why gay is now apparently a derogatory term when it's actual meaning is happy. But as you are saying language evolves (because humans would rather give words away to bad people who misuse them and turn them into "bad words" now) so using the word for it's proper meaning is no longer acceptable because everyone else understands it for it's slang usage.
G: Hmmmm. I need to think about all this for some time I think, but my gut feeling: if we understand a word for it's slang usage, couldn't we just say its meaning is no longer slang? I guess where I would take your line of thought to is this: can words change meanings in Appropriate and Inappropriate ways? Or is all meaning change "wrong" so to speak. Curious where you stand on that. For me, all change is change, regardless if some I disagree with or if some comes from a negative place ("Gay" for example, or the British word for cigarettes). And because change is natural, all change is "right".
I don't do this to mock you, so I hope you don't take it that way, but proper means: "truly what something is said or regarded to be; genuine." So when I say proper I am speaking in terms of "legitimately" or "basically" not in terms of "popular speech" which again "popular speech" tends to be slang not proper. This is why they had schools for being a proper lady or proper gentlemen at some point in history (and, who knows, that may still exist somewhere) because proper isn't necessarily popular. Or at least that's how I have always understood it to mean.
G: No confusion about your tone, so no worries. But ok, to start, it seems we are thinking about slang differently. For me, slang is the first step in a word's rise to becoming part of the language. "Fuck" is slang but it's 100% as much a word as "Closet". "Yo" is a slang word that hasn't reached the "official" level of "Fuck" in my head. A better example may be "Duder". Right now it is Giant Bomb slang. But it's possible (small chance) that it catches on in a big way and ultimately replaces the word "dude". Thus, a slang word became a real word. Kind of like when they put Homer's "D'Oh" in the dictionary and English professors everywhere started crying. I realize know when you say "Proper" there is a combo of "Common Morality + Correctness" at play here, whereas I was thinking strictly "Proper = Right/Correct".
This is a common fallacy. I am not imposing grammar on people. I am fine with people using whatever grammar they want if it's understandable (and so often it's not and I still say nothing because it's not my place), but when you start changing the meaning of words I 100% . Because when we start doing that then words don't mean anything anymore.
G: This is true but I wonder how often it is true. It's easy to get a little..hm.. what's the word.. general? when it comes to something like this but here's what I want to say: I can understand what you mean even when you use a word that I don't know. A good example is understanding statements about science words you don't know the definition of. The flip side is that I can also understand what you mean when you use a word I do know in a way I'm not familiar with. Very often I think context helps us understand the meaning behind statements even if we don't understand each piece of the statement.
That's a poor example. People who say "axe" aren't actually saying "axe" that's just how they speak (intonation of their voice). Small aside to enlighten on this point- I grew up in a ghetto and that's the experience I base this knowledge off of. Mileage could vary, I'm sure.
G: Lol yeah ok, bad example! I see here another big difference for you and me. I am lumping in a few things here: Pronunciation, Word Choice and Grammar. I think you are strictly about Word Choice in this thread. For whatever reason I tend to say Ask like Axe (more of a cross of the two really) and people look at me a wee bit funny for that but that's just how it sits in my throat I guess. Here I am fighting against rules of pronunciation, not so much the meaning of the word Ask or Axe. Soooo maybe I veered a little off t there.
It's a little strange for me to read them being thought of as rules, as for me it has always just been proper (as opposed to slang), but ya I guess technically they are rules to proper usage. To that point I do think the rules matter because again without "proper" definitions words no longer mean anything. Slang is what causes them to evolve in the popular mindset. . Gay still means happy, but people don't use that word anymore they use the slang word now.
G: Yes for me everything is a rule. And all rules were decided by somebody. And all decisions can be questioned. This is my general existence :P . At some point, it seems to me, there are good reasons that a rule should change. I think the big issue with language is "When is a good time to change?" You're right that without proper definitions words no longer mean anything, but English in particular is rife words that have a many, many meanings, so I feel there is far more flex in language than we tend to give it credit for. I feel I could spend a lifetime thinking about "Words actual definitions never change" and I'd never escape the mind circle.
I disagree for multiple reasons. This part is opinion of course so we don't have to agree on this. Your theory here presumes that the correction is to hold it over people's heads that they are using it wrong. What I combat is the devolution of the word into slang. When that happens (the example again: the word gay) it becomes slang and the original definition is no longer used. "I hate "gamers"- they're so crass and live in their moms basement, but talk shit and play COD. I'm not a gamer even though I purchase games. That would imply I'm a terrible person." That's what people are doing with it.
G: I can agree on those points! And I suppose all I could really say is that Gay is an unfortunate casualty of the ebbs and flows of language. It's not impossible to imagine that in another decade or more we come back around on the word Gay and are open to using it in a positive manner again. In fact, Gay is a great word to look at for this topic. I have made a lot of friends in the last four years who are gay and they use the word with a much more playful attitude than any of my straight friends - if regular, straight white men were using Gay the way they do I think many other SWM would be raising eyebrows and going "Hey that's not cool". So there is something very important again about groups and communities and what words mean to them. Definitions I think are much more local than first meets the eye, which I think is why I get into so much trouble online (well that and no one can hear my tone).
You are truly fun to discuss things with =)
If you have the time to read all of this response you're a champ. I can be long winded, I know.
G: Well hey, if you're gonna drop hundreds of words of text on a duder you should be willing to read the response! Plus, us long winded folk need to stick together. Gave me lots to think about as usual CornBREDX - always enjoy the conversation, genuinely!
Emulated games can be ok if it's simple but anything actiony (re: Mega Man styles) is probably best avoided.
I have an Android phone but I could play through all of Megaman X1 perfectly after I connected a controller.
Anyway I have no clue what's on Windows Phones. Sorry.
hahaha come on man! That ain't playing fair. I could play SF2 on my phone after I connected a fighting stick as well :P
I thought the OP would just be looking for standard ass phone games, but fair enough. If he's gonna use a controller, that's a whole new world.
I just want to add something. Lot of people here are looking seem to be searching for "objective reportage". It is important to remember that videogames are a creative medium. There's no way to be objective about a creative medium. It is to be treated subjectively, as it should.
I don't get it. You can get news everywhere by yourself. If you're on GiantBomb, are you really expecting journalists to be objective? We're on a personality based website.
If we want the medium to grow, we need critical analysis and yes, sometimes, it does imply having a direct relationship with the developpers.
I'm just not sure I'm following everybody here.
There is a way to be objective about video games, and that is to report objectively on the creative process by the teams and other relevant issues around the team. But I do find that particularly boring for most cases. And really not that newsworthy to be honest.
Critical analysis of the process that created the game, or the game itself? Just curious.
This is getting in to the weeds but this argument reminds me of what you learn about History.
By virtue of even opening your mouth or putting pen to paper you are no longer objective. Game over man.
You have chosen to include some details, and you have chosen to omit others. Or, you subconsciously chose/forgot - it's all the same. Never mind word choice colouring the shit out of everything.. "The team had an argument ; the team had a discussion ; the team had a heated debate ". Objectivity exists in only the most theoretical sense whenever we apply it to anything that isn't raw science. About the only thing we can say objectively when it comes to games is "MARIO 64 was working software upon its release and if you inserted it into the proper console the software had a high chance of loading. Therein were levels and game objects known as enemies and coins etc so on".
You said "relevant issues" in your post. What's a relevant issue? Says who? Like finance issues? The personal issues of each member of the team during development? If anything that might be an issue is excluded, or if one issue receives more attention than another... well.. you guessed! No more objectivity!
TLDR - I appreciate that this level of "taking it literally" is a little useless, but what the hell, why not? Ain't no objectivity in this life duders. Should those who claim to be reporters have some integrity as regards the ideal of the truth? Sure. But I'm not sure I can name any game reporters. They are media personalities, and I mean that in the absolute best way. Vinny isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread because he is objective, but because he is Vinny.
Ain't got much to add since I don't really like using my phone for games. Find turn based stuff works pretty well though.
Everyone and their mom will come in to suggest Threes! I'm sure and there are a lot of other games in that vein.
What are your mobile gaming habits? That probably matters most.
Emulated games can be ok if it's simple but anything actiony (re: Mega Man styles) is probably best avoided.
I 100% agree.
People who try to change the meaning of words are weird to me.
Apparently that makes me old and stupid, but I like to use words for their meaning and not perceptions of words. I don't know, maybe I'm the weird one for using words properly.
Yo cornbred! Let's talk words again! (if you run away I don't blame you).
Last time we talked (still need a better word to refer to internet talking I realize) I said that word usage dictates word meanings, for better or for worse, and not the other way around. So the idea that words can be used "properly" is thin I think. Is proper what is written in the dictionary? Whose dictionary? Usually when we say "using words properly" we mean "using words within their most popular definition". Popular may = proper, but is right?
Your stance doesn't make you Old and Stupid, but have your ever looked at / thought about Prescriptivism? I think that's what it's called. Basically it is this very idea:
1) we apply a meaning to a word
2) usage outside that meaning is wrong
The problem is that in real life, here is what happens:
1) someone says something or uses a word outside its most popular meaning
2) You still understand exactly what they are saying
Damn! If you understood, then what's the point of the rule? (this is like correcting people who say axe instead of ask - you know what they mean, so why the correction? So your ears feel better?) Rules are for clarity. But if the clarity is there.. does the "proper" use matter?
Prescriptivist attitudes are great for teaching English but they don't hold up in small communities and groups (gamers maybe?) where they develop their own lexicon, pronunciations, etc. And when you take one of those groups and combat it with a more popular general group... well.. you get hoighty toighty people who feel like urban speak is for the dogs and slang is uncultured.
That said, it does make sense for sane people like you to somewhat disregard / despise people like me, who would basically be happy to watch all grammar / pronunciation / usage rules burn to the ground.
:D (I am partially kidding, but only god knows where).