thomasnash's forum posts

#1 Posted by thomasnash (528 posts) -

Holland seem really timid this game. Really contrasts with Argentina who are really pressing the defense even during quiet moments - a lot like Germany were last night, really.

#2 Posted by thomasnash (528 posts) -

@thomasnash said:

Sports aren't called sports because of some element of strategy or competitiveness; the dictionary definition specifies physical exertion.

But physical exertion itself is not sport, so sport cannot be physical exertion. Physical exertion could be exercise, it could be pure conflict. Sport is competition for the sake of competition. No matter what level of physical exertion or athleticism required, if you are competing for the sake of competition (as opposed to conflict, which is competing for survival), you are engaging in sport. This is why people can insult people 'in good sport'. Because sport and sportsmanship has more to do with competitive spirit and fair play than it does athleticism or physical exertion.

To clarify quickly, when I say that the dictionary definition specifies physical exertion, I didn't mean that it is the only condition. The definition in full is as follows:

"An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment" (OED)

So I think what I'm saying and what you're saying are compatible - I just left out the stuff about "competition" and "entertainment" largely because I felt that they carried over between Soccer and Dota - the element of physical exertion, if we go by the dictionary definition, is the distinguishing factor between a "sport" and a competitive game. As I said, I only really stuck with this because I think that definition would hold in common usage.

Further examination of my printed OED probably bears you out more than me, though. The above definition is from the Early 16th Century, whereas this definition from Late Middle English rather stamps on my point:

"Diversion, entertainment, fun [this is probably whither the phrase "in good sport"]; an activity providing this, a pastime."

The reason from the change, I would guess, is that in the intervening centuries spectator sports became more prevalent, and technology only really allowed for large, physical contests to be spectated. So where Backgammon might once have been described as a sport, its deficiencies as a watchable activity led to it being considered a game where soccer was a sport that could be spectated. In that case there probably isn't any reason not to call any game a sport as technology now allows us to spectate almost any activity.

#3 Posted by thomasnash (528 posts) -

I live in the home of Colman's mustard. There is a shop dedicated to it. They sell mustard chocolate for people who are insane/christmas stocking fillers.

I love mustard. Grainy dijon mustard on a ham sandwich! yellow mustard on hot dogs! Horseradish sauce (yeah I know not really mustard, but similar flavour) on roast beef! Mustard powder in marinades for slow cooked meats! English mustard with strong cheeses!

I love Mustard!!!

#4 Edited by thomasnash (528 posts) -

Sports aren't called sports because of some element of strategy or competitiveness; the dictionary definition specifies physical exertion. I wouldn't normally get all prescriptive like that but I think it's a definition that holds true for common usage as well. All sports are games, but not all games are sports, basically.

With that said, I think there are more specialised uses of the word which don't follow this rule, chess for example is a recognised "Olympic Sport." I don't know how to resolve this linguistically in terms of how to define sport, but I think it might suffice to say that in that case the "Olympic" part is probably a more important form of legitimating recognition than the "Sport" part.

(Edit: Also what @starvinggamer said about game being short for video game. Similar point from the other direction, I suppose!)

So basically don't worry about it?

#5 Edited by thomasnash (528 posts) -

@darkstalker: Thanks for linking to that study. It's interesting and I think it speaks to a negative trait about humans in general: we don't like to work for things. The article says that explaining why people in the study preferred the spoiled versions is beyond the scope of the study but posits that people can understand the story better if they know where it is going. However, I feel like that really means "when they don't have to think about or internalize what they are consuming because they already read the Cliff Notes". Your understanding or feeling about a story will be a lot different (and the study supports this, I think) depending on if you know the ending ahead of time, and I think that speaks to how much of an impact a spoiler can make. It's hard to talk about this in respect to video games though, because most games' have terrible, worthless stories that are just a series of "this happened then this happened then this happened". The real spoiler for video games seems to be explaining a puzzle to someone who hasn't solved it yet or telling them about a great setpiece; the moments that, when solved, give the player that dopamine release and satisfaction.

I find it more likely to be that not having to worry about where a story is going frees the mind up a bit so that you can think about thee details.

The process of reading anything in detail (novels, films, academic articles, whatever) tends to be that you read the thing once quickly, then one or more times at a more varied pace, paying close attention to things that seem relevant and glossing over things that don't seem relevant. Knowing the details in advance basically jumps the first part of the reading process - so it is a shortcut in one sense, but not quite the sense I think you meant it, because it's actually a short cut to allow for greater thought.

If spoilers allow greater enjoyment, I would say it's because it allows for greater understanding on one reading/viewing, and it's very satisfying to feel like you have "got" a book, or managed to understand it beyond it's plot (when I make this point I'm generally reminded of a Walt Whitman quote from Song of Myself - "Have you ever been o proud to get at the meaning of poems").

This is my totally unscientific, anecdotal and likely spurious reasoning anyway!

#6 Posted by thomasnash (528 posts) -

@truthtellah: Yeah, I'll leave allegations of corruption to others but there have definitely been a lot of dodgy decisions throughout.

#7 Posted by thomasnash (528 posts) -

I agree with the first post - mostly. By and large if spoilers are going to ruin your enjoyment of something, I feel like it probably isn't all that and a bag of chips to start with.

But someone brought up the Usual Suspects and I think that is a good argument that sometimes spoilers matter.

#8 Posted by thomasnash (528 posts) -

So... how much corruption had to go into Brazil getting to this point? Or did Germany really just go super saiyan to drub them?

Sadly, I don't find it hard to believe that FIFA might have colluded to help Brazil get further regardless of their inherent skills. This game was... hard to watch.

Good job to Germany though. I guess they're on their way to being the champions.

It's not really compare that to any of Brazil's previous games in the tournament. For starters Brazil are a far stronger team than any other team Brazil played up to that point. And they were missing two players that they just didn't have a replacement for. So it's not like their total meltdown tonight is good evidence of corruption.

#9 Edited by thomasnash (528 posts) -

@ares42 said:

Can't say I've had a great time with the game. There's a lot of things I enjoy, but the game seems a bit too into it's "role-playing" for my taste. After abit over 3 hours played I was getting too bored of running around town and decided to go kill some undead, exited the town and the first fight was just terrible.

The problem wasn't that the enemies were too hard or anything, but I just kept getting screwed over by finnicky controls. I don't know what changed since I had already done some fighting earlier, but it felt like I was constantly pixel-hunting or else my characters would do something stupid like moving two steps wasting action points, attacking the wrong target, picking up an item or getting themselves assaulted by attacks of opportunities.

I wanted to give the game it's chance, but the slow start has just killed all my interest.

Hmm, I've been having similar issues, but I'm playing on a laptop so assumed the issue was in the touch pad rather than the game. I also can't rotate the camera at all (no middle button, holding v changes the cursor but swiping the touch pad does nothing)

I also only just realised that the personality trait stuff gave you skill bonuses...

#10 Posted by thomasnash (528 posts) -

@gokaired said:

@razielcuts said:

@thomasnash said:

@gokaired said:

The German's wasn't even doing anything fancy, It was basic football (which they did well, efficient) and Brazil couldn't show them anything :(

to be fair to them though,, that kind of well-worked, efficient and unselfish football has been in quite short supply all tournament...

It's true though, it reminded me of playing FIFA or Pro Evo or something. You rarely see an international team get cut up so much from those kinds of through balls behind the defense.

Yeah, just tap X a few times in the box and hit circle. Man, kinda crazy some of those goals.

Way to bring it back to games, Guys ;)

The Defense of Brazil was Static at the best of times, may as well have played on easy mode.

Mind you, this world cup has had the best Goalkeepers i've seen.

It's funny that I agree with this, but it also looks set to be the most total goals in a world cup...