Post about your games (that you made)

[EquALLity]

The most recent, and probably the most beautiful, thing I've made is flying tetrahedron whose speed and direction of rotation you can control with arrow keys. I've made it in C using OpenGL and GLUT, entirely in code, even the clouds, and it's 142 lines long. Not bad as a first animation in OpenGL, right?
http://tinypic.com/r/2q9yuzk/9

I don't really know anything about OpenGL, but pictures of it make it look pretty complicated, so nice job. What do the words say?

Have you made any games?

[Red]

"I know you are but what am I?!?!111"

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

It's so obvious what you meant that I really don't know what to say.

You never were able to understand it, judging by the context.

[EquALLity]

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

??? What point?

You never were able to understand it, judging by the context.

I'm going to change a few words in your sentence. If you're really serious, please explain how the sentences are different:

Your sentence: "That was an insult. Unless you're being sarcastic, but if you weren't now you're going to act as if you were."
Revised: "That was an insult. Unless you're being sarcastic, but if you weren't being sarcastic now you're going to lie and pretend that you were being sarcastic when you weren't being sarcastic."

[Red]

Except I did, and you literally quoted it right below that.

I looked at it again, and brimstone said:
In fact, making games gives no insight into criticism, because a game's value is defined exclusively from the perspective of the player in terms of player experience.
You're right, it isn't up to interpretation. But what it is saying is that the value and quality of a game is in the eye of the beholder.

No idea what this means.

Brimstone wrote a paragraph about what you got right. Why, in that paragraph, would he say you were right about a point that you never made?

I said that's what brimstone said.

Like I said before, read the first sentence of his paragraph.

Can you please show me it? Not sure which one you're referring to.

I didn't change my opinion about this; I always thought you were calling me dishonest. Not 'undoubtedly', but it's what I think based on what you said.

Make up your fucking mind. In the last post you that you know I wasn't exactly calling you "dishonest", but you kept saying I was. Go back and read.

So, basically, you have no idea what I meant in that section.

Not sure how else to explain it.

Good, wasn't interested.

I know. It's completely irrelevant.

You said that if I wasn't being sarcastic that I would lie about being sarcastic. What is confusing about whether or not this is calling me dishonest?

If you know this isn't relevant, why the fuck are you making such a big deal about it? And I didn't know sarcasm was synonymous with dishonest.

It's not consistent because there's no reason to "get the last laugh" if you weren't offended by something.
It's immature because it's "getting the last laugh".

I wasn;t offended, I just didn't want you getting away Scott free. I don't think it's immature. But you can't prove that it is, so why bother?

I said: "What is with this idea that name calling is so bad anyway? If you're being a prick, and I call you a prick, it's worse that you were being a prick than it is that I called you one."
You responded: "It's uncalled for, and immature."

When you say a certain action is uncalled for and immature, and don't clarify that you only mean in a specific case, it seems like you're saying it's always immature.
You're original point was also that I was being immature because I called you names first, before you called me any, which doesn't take into consideration the other context.

But I wasn't?

...Wait, so you know you should've given constructive criticism now? That's not what you were saying before.

And now that you understand that, your response is that even though you should've, you aren't obligated? *facepalm*

Yes, I'm not obligated. Plus the game obviously sucked, so I didn't think it needed any.

That's on you for being too lazy to understand something completely before you comment on it, when all you had to do was read some sentences.

You mean lazy to read?

Ok, so you were curious. That's irrelevant; the point is that nobody forced you to play, so it doesn't make sense to complain about that I was posting it on a free forum.

But you're saying I didn't have to play it; I didn't know anything about it, so I should just not play because you say I don't have to? I wanted to play it, and I thought it sucked.

[Red]

??? What point?

That you're dense?

I'm going to change a few words in your sentence. If you're really serious, please explain how the sentences are different:

Your sentence: "That was an insult. Unless you're being sarcastic, but if you weren't now you're going to act as if you were."
Revised: "That was an insult. Unless you're being sarcastic, but if you weren't being sarcastic now you're going to lie and pretend that you were being sarcastic when you weren't being sarcastic."

sure whatever (i didn't bother to read it)

[brimstoneSalad]

Red was not obligated to provide constructive criticism, but providing useless criticism was being a prick. It's like posting "first!" in a comment section. It's spammy. That was not appropriate or conducive to conversation.
Red should not have said that EquALLity would pretend to have been sarcastic even if she wasn't; he has no way of knowing this.
And complaining about EquALLity posting the game was kind of being a little bitch.

EquALLity was wrong to respond to the useless criticism in the way she did, mentioning how he hadn't made a game, etc. which is irrelevant. It was defensive. Red was right that you don't have to have made a game, and that the value of a game is subjective relative to the player (and yes, I do think he implied both of these). The only thing I added to that was that actually having made a game can create biases and make somebody a worse critic due to undervaluing the game play experience of easy things, and overvaluing things just because they are hard to do; this compares well to any art or engineering feat. The true value of a product is in the utility or user experience, which is subjective (but to many, many people, which becomes objective when we look at statistics). You'd have to do a survey of the target audience to determine if the game is good or bad.

You were both partly wrong and partly right.

Can we talk about Teo's demo now? The plugin wouldn't load for me.

[EquALLity]

I looked at it again, and brimstone said:
In fact, making games gives no insight into criticism, because a game's value is defined exclusively from the perspective of the player in terms of player experience.
You're right, it isn't up to interpretation. But what it is saying is that the value and quality of a game is in the eye of the beholder.

If you look at it without any context whatsoever, then I can see what you're saying.

But you're not factoring in the rest of the paragraph, and the fact that the paragraph was about things you were right on, and you never made the point that game value is subjective.

I said that's what brimstone said.

Um, yeah, this is about what brimstone said. I'm not sure what your point is.

You ignored again in that quote that you never made the point that game value is subjective.

Can you please show me it? Not sure which one you're referring to.

If you don't even know what paragraph we're talking about, then how can you say you know what this sentence meant? *facepalm*
And how could you have "looked at what he wrote again" if you didn't know what paragraph he wrote the sentence in?

I already quoted him before, but here's the full paragraph:

Red is right that you don't have to make games to criticize them. In fact, making games gives no insight into criticism, because a game's value is defined exclusively from the perspective of the player in terms of player experience. Having made games can even cloud the judgement of a critic (e.g. valuing less something which is easy to do, and valuing more something hard to do, regardless of how fun it is; this creates an inherent bias), just like making a movie doesn't make somebody a better movie critic (although it can make you more sympathetic to the makers of the movie, and thus less of an asshole when you criticize). It doesn't go the other way either, good movie critics can make famously bad movies *cough* valley of the dolls *cough*. Two pretty much non-overlapping skills (making and criticizing).

Make up your fucking mind. In the last post you that you know I wasn't exactly calling you "dishonest", but you kept saying I was. Go back and read.

I never said I "knew you weren't calling me dishonest", because that's not what I believed. You misunderstood. If you think I said that, you should give me a specific sentence in which I did.

If you know this isn't relevant, why the fuck are you making such a big deal about it? And I didn't know sarcasm was synonymous with dishonest.

Oh my god. You don't understand anything I'm saying. It's amazing.

I know it isn't relevant that you were also talking about sarcasm (your response to my argument was irrelevant); I'm not saying I don't think it's relevant that you were calling me dishonest.

I wasn;t offended, I just didn't want you getting away Scott free. I don't think it's immature. But you can't prove that it is, so why bother?

What am I getting away with if you weren't offended?

You agreed before that it was immature. *facepalm*
You said that you "shouldn't have followed my footsteps" in name-calling, because it was immature.

But I wasn't?

Way to not address anything in that paragraph.

Yes, I'm not obligated. Plus the game obviously sucked, so I didn't think it needed any.

You're not obligated. Ok. So?

This is just as ridiculous as a meat-eater saying, "I know eating meat is wrong, but I'm not obligated to go vegan, so wtf are you complaining about?"

If you know something isn't a good idea (which again, before you were defending your lack of constructive criticism), you shouldn't do it, regardless of whether or not you are obligated not to.

You mean lazy to read?

Basically.

But you're saying I didn't have to play it; I didn't know anything about it, so I should just not play because you say I don't have to? I wanted to play it, and I thought it sucked.

I'm not saying you shouldn't have played it, I'm saying you have no basis to complain I posted it when you didn't have to play it.

[Red]

You know what? I'm just gonna go to the mall. I have my cell on me, okay? If anything interesting happens, hit me on the cell.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

How do you guys have the motivation to bicker about something so ridiculous for so many pages?

I used to make shitty video games in PowerPoint. Unfortunately, I don't think I have any of them saved because I made them on a computer that belonged to my school.

[EquALLity]

How do you guys have the motivation to bicker about something so ridiculous for so many pages?

I used to make shitty video games in PowerPoint. Unfortunately, I don't think I have any of them saved because I made them on a computer that belonged to my school.

I'm just going to take that as a compliment.

Aw, that's too bad. Have you ever used Scratch?
https://scratch.mit.edu/