[Request] North Pole Glory Hole

[handofdoz]

Re: [Request] North Pole Glory Hole

I can't believe this was even a worthy discussion topic. :3

worthy?

 

[Eskella]

Re: [Request] North Pole Glory Hole

The entire "this is/isn't a game" debate. Are the semantics really that important? They wouldn't be to me. :3

 

[silentone]

Re: [Request] North Pole Glory Hole

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be Master - that's all."

Humpty Dumpty is wrong about words, but right about power. If the meaning of words were up to every individual's decision, communication would be impossible. We are given language, and we must use it appropriately in order to community our intentions. But who gives us language? Society, history, and people. You said yourself than language changes over time. This is because societies change, and with them meanings. Nor is society uniform in its understanding of meaning; words that appear in one subculture may not appear in another, or may have an altogether different meaning.

The important thing to grasp, if you are not to be a slave, is that you are not "bound" to any definition; you can only choose to be bound, to be subject to the authority of dictionary-makers and their power to standardize meaning. The meaning of words can be contested: to struggle over language is to struggle over values.

I'm with moomoo; VNs shouldn't be considered, games - at least not primarily. However, I can't beat JohnDoe's definition in terms of succinctness, so this isn't an argument I can win. At the same time, it isn't a very good definition, because it's broad enough to include things that most of us would not consider to be games.

Is a debate or an argument a game? We speak of "winning" arguments. We use formal rules in debates, and informal rules in arguments (we try to be logical, we make arguments rather than physical attacks, we try to be objective, we make an effort to convince or persuade). And arguments are definitely challenging. Despite these features, the concept we have of games does not include things like arguments. The definition needs to be tightened in some way. I get the feeling that doing so will remove things like VNs from the definition as well, but again, I do not have a better definition.

Oh man, this post will be huge... Concerning the discussion of communication, I already know the ways it can be interpreted based upon those various factors mentioned. In truth, my post does not reflect my true feelings on the definition of words as concrete. Instead, I do believe argumentation is a game. Because no precedent was set, I chose the aformentioned definition of "game" as the basis of my rules for the argument. The object is to find flaws in an argument using established logic and proving the validity of another.

Like I said, if a visual novel were just a series of dots, it would be a game (albeit horrendously unengaging). The clicking of dots is just interspersed with text in a VN. It's much how a "JRPG" is styled. The game is the combat. Interspersed is the reward: text or story.

Looked at the way used before, the only "game" part of a JRPG is the combat. As such, a JRPG as a whole is not a game since it is like a VN: Game is separate from story.

In a way, It's not bad to look at it that way. A videogame with a story that cannot change dynamically with gameplay is just that: a videogame with an adjunct story. Together, the package is not a game, but individual elements of it are.

The entire "this is/isn't a game" debate. Are the semantics really that important? They wouldn't be to me. :3

This goes beyond semantics. If a common definition is used, the basis for argumentation is the definition i.e. what is challenge? What is a goal? What is input?

Also, why am I typing this in a thread ultimately about a game where a girl...?

Edit: Wait a minute... isn't that the definition of semantics? God it is late...

 

[Alias]

Re: [Request] North Pole Glory Hole

So.... not to bother your deep-as-a-well discussion, but has anybody actually found the full version to this so we can see whatever the final scene is?

 

[Eiri666]

Re: [Request] North Pole Glory Hole

So.... not to bother your deep-as-a-well discussion, but has anybody actually found the full version to this so we can see whatever the final scene is?

I decompiled the swf file and... the ending is not worth seeing...just your basic meet & fuck, doggy style, anal or vaginal...

 

[handofdoz]

Re: [Request] North Pole Glory Hole

I decompiled the swf file and... the ending is not worth seeing...just your basic meet & fuck, doggy style, anal or vaginal...

really? thought it was bukake.....

 

[Adra]

Re: [Request] North Pole Glory Hole

I decompiled the swf file and... the ending is not worth seeing...just your basic meet & fuck, doggy style, anal or vaginal...

Can you share it, even if it's not that worth seeing ?

 

[JohnDoe]

Re: [Request] North Pole Glory Hole

The entire "this is/isn't a game" debate. Are the semantics really that important? They wouldn't be to me. :3

Who cares if it's important or not, where do you think you are?
It's fun.

 

[Eiri666]

Re: [Request] North Pole Glory Hole

Can you share it, even if it's not that worth seeing ?

Can't.
I just opened the file with Sothink SWF decompiler wich allows me to see all the animations separately...
Here's a screenshot.

 

[StrykerX]

Re: [Request] North Pole Glory Hole

Whoa, that's definitely worth seeing, imo

You decompiled the demo file? How do you look at the animations?

Edit: Oh, never mind, I got it. Yea, Eiri's right; it's not that worth seeing. That screenshot is pretty much all it is...

 

[silentone]

Re: [Request] North Pole Glory Hole

That's rather... anticlimactic. The game itself is much more appealing than that. That ending seems really generic.

 

[JohnDoe]

Re: [Request] North Pole Glory Hole

I think the ending doesn't matter, it's not like this game has much of a story, the game has it's best part in the gameplay.

 

[Adra]

Re: [Request] North Pole Glory Hole

I think the ending doesn't matter, it's not like this game has much of a story, the game has it's best part in the gameplay.

Agreeing.

 

[StrykerX]

Re: [Request] North Pole Glory Hole

I think the ending doesn't matter, it's not like this game has much of a story, the game has it's best part in the gameplay.

I agree as well. Personally, I was just wondering if there was more content

 

[Cappy]

Re: [Request] North Pole Glory Hole

Different logics take people to different results, but don't let the logic of conventional minds discourage your unconventional one from trying to make an unconventional process into a convention.

It's fairly clear that in a lot of cases information will be in the various pages of a thread about a subject. Generally, it would be best to read through these pages before asking about (x), and inconveniencing somebody to answer as opposed to them just finding out themselves.

I mean, the scenario has been seen by your truly too many times. For you to say that my logic is unconventional can only mean that you're insinuating that most people are ignorant, or that I'm wrong. Seeing as I'm obviously not wrong, you must be calling these poor dearies who ask questions that have already been answered the public, and in turn insinuate that the public will generally be like them.

So I guess the public is ignorant of the less redundant way of accessing information without being annoying? Is that what you're trying to say? Because honestly, I think you're just trying to say that I'm being illogical. If so, fuck you very much sir, honestly, reading a thread before posting is a common theme of forum courtesy, and I have full right to bring it up however I want.

 

[JohnDoe]

Re: [Request] North Pole Glory Hole

It's fairly clear that in a lot of cases information will be in the various pages of a thread about a subject. Generally, it would be best to read through these pages before asking about (x), and inconveniencing somebody to answer as opposed to them just finding out themselves.

I mean, the scenario has been seen by your truly too many times. For you to say that my logic is unconventional can only mean that you're insinuating that most people are ignorant, or that I'm wrong. Seeing as I'm obviously not wrong, you must be calling these poor dearies who ask questions that have already been answered the public, and in turn insinuate that the public will generally be like them.

So I guess the public is ignorant of the less redundant way of accessing information without being annoying? Is that what you're trying to say? Because honestly, I think you're just trying to say that I'm being illogical. If so, fuck you very much sir, honestly, reading a thread before posting is a common theme of forum courtesy, and I have full right to bring it up however I want.

Awww, you're such a cute little troll, i can so imagine you in front of your computer, bored as hell, checking evey recent post by people like me that like arguing, trying to find a way to build up a discussion to kill the boredom of your days.
Oh well, i'll try to bite, just cause i'm a nice guy.

First and foremost, the word "illogic" has absolutely no meaning to me, everything done or said has a logic behind it, simply because the brain builds up a thought by association of ideas, which is bound to cause and effect, thus, be them aware of it or not, escaping from the realm of logic is not possible, at least for a human mind.

Second, it must be really hard looking at other people's post and only see hostility and insults, it's such a sad thing when you look at the world in this negative way, try to be more positive, try to see a joke for what it is, try to enjoy it, it'll make you feel better. Don't be so full of rage, nothing good comes out of it.
Anyway, let's take this in steps and start with this:

And I thought people would go back and read the thread, well I guess that serves me right for expecting people to do the logical thing.

A post filled with irony, you express shame in your theoretical(cause i can't be sure if it's really what you think or not, since i'm not in your mind) belief that people would be using logical behaviors. To this i answer:

Different logics take people to different results, but don't let the logic of conventional minds discourage your unconventional one from trying to make an unconventional process into a convention.

The actual point of my post comes before the comma, and it means exactly what it says, as much as you can consider their behavior incorrect, it doesn't mean it has no logic, and this logic is:
In the land of Wu...ahem, wrong one, sorry...
PosterA(PA) decides he want's an information of link that might be present along the thread, but actually reading the whole thread(for as small as it may be) it's too much of a pain. PA is the typical lazy guy who doesn't like to do his own work, so PA has the bright idead of posting to ask for what he needs, firstly because it's easier and faster, secondly because the worst thing that could happen is that a PosterB, C or D, will pull a tantrum and PA couldn't care less, worst case scenario he will have to do his work anyway or have some fun by trolling the thread.
Now, PA is obviously an asshole and PB, PC or PD have good reasons be angry and post against him/her/it, but you can't deny that there is a logic behind PA's behavior.
This is semantic, if you don't like it you shouldn't have pulled a tantrum about it in the first place.

Anyone who isn't really trying hard to miss it, would see the playful use of the word "convention", and most of what comes after the first comma could be considered a joke, although it still bear meaning, since usually the majority of people don't try to do the right thing or the best thing, but prefer to do what is easier or best for them, thus the conventional behavior in this case is doing what is more convenient for them(depending on what is that you care about).
You expressed in your post that you think the right thing to do is to "go back and read the thread", and doing the right thing is an unconventional behavior, although it's thought to children otherwise, funny how everything brings us back to hypocrisy, but let's not derail too much, unconventional is good(geniuses are considered unconventional minds too), while conventional is bad, meaning me calling you unconventional was a praise, ahhh, the irony.

Am i such an unlikable person on the net, that every time i say something you have to answer with rage and disapproval?
I guess it can't be helped, let the neg repping begin.

Your friendly neighbourhood JohnDoe.

 

[Mamono Assault Force]

Re: [Request] North Pole Glory Hole

Cappy's a troll? I thought he was a furry. I've seen that there are differences between these two forces.

 

[JohnDoe]

Re: [Request] North Pole Glory Hole

Btw, how do you edit the title under your name?

 

[Cappy]

Re: [Request] North Pole Glory Hole

Blah blah blah I'm a cunt, please fuck me up the ass with a million dildos Yes, I'm very mature today aren't I :-D

Pretty much all you've done is masked an insult behind a wall of words, and now that I've called you up on it, you respond with another large wall of pointless words, I can see that reading this will get me nowhere so let me just get to the point.

You're a cunt. Stop intentionally speaking in a verbose manner, technically if there's a simpler word in English that fits the glove, it's good English to use it above the other, more complex word.

Secondly , you make assumption after assumption about me and who I am, what I do, etc.... You say I'm looking out specifically for your posts, but you're the one who responded to my post first, and it took me what, like two weeks to get back to you? Yes, I'm totally watching your every move, just waiting to argue with you. SARCASM

Maybe if you stopped trying to be unreasonably verbose your points would be more clear, and you wouldn't come off as unnecessarily arrogant. But seeing as I sometimes draw the occasional long word out of my own backend, I'll try to cut some slack on that point, for risk of looking like more of a hypocrite than I would like to openly admit.

Whatever it was your point was, calling my method of speaking unconventional (Read: Unusual) , the context could have been a whole lot of things, given that you were speaking down to me (Read: Being a cunt) I took it as a derogatory intention.

I really don't want to waste the effort negrepping you, if I spent all day everyday negrepping people I disliked on ULMF, I'm half-certain that Alias and Pale would be in red by now, or something like that. But to be more to the point, your pretense of intelligence is unappreciated by yours truly, speak to me in a normal manner next time around (Read: Being tactful) then maybe there won't be a risk of taking you the wrong (*cough* right_ way.

There are a few people on this forum who take the guise of the intellectual, but usually they can pull it off. Alias, Pale, Incubus, and a few others can talk in a civil, (when they want to) intelligent, (At least that's how it reads out) And over-all LEGIBLE (AKA, with clear meaning) manner.

To pull off the guise of the intellectual, you not only have to have a broad vocabulary, and know how to use it, but you also need to know how to use it well. So yeah. You're a cunt. Please die. Ini: Hate and Don't list update. JohnDoe; 5.5 c-o-m

-Cappy

 

[Hentaispider]

Re: [Request] North Pole Glory Hole

Cappy's a troll? I thought he was a furry. I've seen that there are differences between these two forces.

He's not. JohnDoe is.