h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Okay I'm totally lost now... that question wasn't stupid or something 'creative people' do. It was just... human... that great spirit of enquiry that makes us so special as a species.

When I said 'creative' I meant to do with that list Mrs Zen gave. And my idea of creative is very wide ranging. People who have flexible minds and think in all sorts of ways about things. Not just literally. And yes you're right...it is human...I so often feel like I'm on the defensive..I mean it was intimated I was trolling possibly earlier. anhaga had that flung at him the other day as well.

You're a cool dude Mr. D...always polite and quick to diffuse situations with humour rather than intensify them into unpleasantness...that's creative.

I wish I could be more creative when I have a bass in my hands!

@ Mr.D
Please don't take offense, because I heartily support
and endorse your defense of Effers from the madness of
Hoo, but I do want you to learn the true definition of
ignorant.

>> Does this lack of knowledge make me ignorant or stupid? <<

The words are not synonymous, although most people ignorantly
think so. At some level you appear to actually know better because
unconsciously you actually defined ignorance in your next sentence:

>> It just means I don't know about something that I thus far
have had no reason to know about. <<

Yes! Ignorance is simply not knowing. And there is no value
judgment involved and no need to explain or excuse it.

Now ya know.


~jwf~

Which reminds me of another great thing that's common in computer games these days: 'modding'. From simple levels made with the software that nowadays is often provided by the studios themselves, to complex new games created using the original as the basis, never before has there been so many options for the public to make their mark on the world of computer games.

Of course there are those who just use such knowledge to make naked ladies appear in the games, which I've never quite understood as you play the game to play the game and if you want to play with something else there's a whole 'nother section of computerland you can visit. So I'm told.

Well yes, Squiggles. I was referring to 'ignorance' in the pejorative sense, where somehow the lack of knowledge is seen as an affront. Turns out as well as being creative I know a bit about my native tongue.

>> Turns out as well as being creative
I know a bit about my native tongue. <<

Well I must admonish you for perpetuating the ignorance
of others by using the word as synonymous for stupid.
If I take the trouble to make sure you know better then
you might like to contribute to the general elevation
of the hoi-poloi.


~jwf~

Actually I found Effers' question quite reasonable and interesting. There are now quite a few games with sad endings but not so many with tragic endings. Without spoiling the plot, I think I can safely say that Braid, an independent game from a 2 man team, is the only example that I know that really pulls it off. To say why it pulls it off, and how it does it in such an ingenious way would annoyingly require spoilers though. A game well worth playing, and not just for that final sequence.

One other thing worth saying is that games offer a unique new element that isn't available to books and films: interactivity. This offers so many new possibilities. For traditional storytelling it can bring the player in to the story by making them feel part of it. Less traditionally, it can let people make their own story. But it can also be something much more radical, it can be the focus itself. An example outside computers is chess. Is it just a game? I think we have to say that it's more than that. I don't play chess, so I can't follow a game between experts, but doesn't the combination of skill and creativity they use have qualities of art? And isn't chess itself a beautiful creation, even though there is no plot? Related example, "The Master of Go" is a novel by Nobel prize for Literature winner Kawabata. I haven't read it yet, it's waiting on my shelf, but as I understand it the story revolves around a game of Go, and there are as many pages with a Go board diagrams on them as pages of text. To truly understand the book you need to follow the game, and to do that you need to understand the game of Go (which is why it's still waiting on the shelf).

I am sorry that I even took the time to reply to the first post, now.

My reply almost seems off-topic.

"in fairness I never have this problem in real life"

It's a start that you recognise that it's a problem you have.

"Really Mrs Zen its completely normal for creative people."

Ah, you see the problem Mrs. Z! We're not "creative people". How to win friends and influence people and not come across as remotely up yourself or twuntish.

"Asking questions is nothing to be ashamed of"

Indeed. And despite our differences, you might spot that I've responded perfectly civilly to EtB's original post, because his question spoke of someone who
(a) had given the question some thought and
(b) wasn't conveying contempt for the medium.

Your question was the opposite on both counts. Also, a small problem you have (and I have it too) is that people here know what you're like. Neither you nor I have particularly good reputations here, for different reasons. One difference is, I don't whine about it. Whining about the reputation you've built up by your own actions, and moaning that people don't come to each of your posts afresh but are prejudiced by your name at the top of them, reminds of someone. You're not Della in disguise...?

Another thread all about Effers?

Life's too short.

I see my playing games in a similar way as I see my reading or watching films. I like stories, I want to see how things go on. Additionally I like just walking around and explore and find the nice places the designers built for those people who don't stay on the straight path to the end of the game. I like games that are well designed, I like the art. And I like the challenges and the riddles. These are things a book or a movie can't give me. They only have one direction, unless you read one of those 'if you want to pick up the sword go on readig on page 134' kinds of books.

For me the real start was discovering MMOs and my first one was Anarchy Online. A game where you need an excel spreadsheet to put on your armor if you do it properly.

I don't play a lot of games, I'm picky. I'm equally picky with books. There's not a lot that I like, but if I really like something you can be sure that I try to get into the details.

At the moment I'm waiting for Guild Wars 2. I read almost every bit of information about it that I can find. It will be a great game.

Every now and then I also watch youtube videos of other people playing games and read stuff about games like other people may read stuff about celebreties. I even read stuff about games that I don't like so I can shake my head about them (did you know that WoW will get martial arts pandas?!)

On the other hand I don't watch sports, it gives me nothing. A lot of people spend a lot of time watching sports. I don't go out on weekends. I don't smoke, I don't drink, I don't even really listen to music.

I'd really love to make a game myself some day. Unfortunately I'm lacking the skills, the tools and the money.

btw...

This thread was inspired by a recent R4 'Front Row' programme which made the case for the artistic complexity of computer games.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01c7xfd#synopsis

(SorB: Don't listen to it! It's provocatively stating the obvious.)

Rod>>I prefer to spend some time in real life and some with my own imagination

Computer games can involves your imagination just as much as anything else. It is possible to take the game, and make up your own game from it. For example, on wii sports resort, there is a game where you get involved in a dogfight with your opponent. My kids subverted that game into a chase game, with one flyer trying to escape and possibly conceal themselves from the other for the duration. They are being just as creative as if they picked up a pencil and drew a fantasy landscape (something which they are equally as happy doing).


Ed>>To get anything out of a cutting edge game, my impression is that I'd have to devote some time to it. Possibly I'd even have to come to it via a few other games. With opera I can just attend a production, with poetry just pick up a book.

You pick up a book, after having spent *years* learning to read. Computer games can be far more immediate; you get the hang after a few minutes.

No-one else has mentioned this yet, so maybe it's just me, but I try to avoid computer games now because I get far too easily addicted to them.

I have to say I didn't expect this thread to have *quite* such an overwhelming self selection bias towards gamers. In RL I know plenty of people who don't play them.




About 2% of the population get 'cyber sickness' when they play games - severe headaches and nausea because of perceived motion effects in VR. I've heard of people having to abandon simulator based training courses.

Funnily, I think playing Wolfenstein 3D (A36353009) cured me of sea sickness

Oh, and one amazing game I have played was The Fool's Errand:
http://www.thefoolandhismoney.com/01-the-fools-errand/

It is full of language and visual puzzles, allowing one to uncover piece by piece a larger meta-puzzle. I was quite addicted.

And the sequel is due any moment now*



* Insider joke. It's been due any moment now for 10 years next September.

>>In RL I know plenty of people who don't play them.

How many of them are under 40?

>>How many of them are under 40?

Fewer than are over, admittedly - but still a reasonable number.

Are they technophobic?