Post about your games (that you made)

[EquALLity]

..Because it's on the internet?

? Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

A game I made?

Obviously not you personally.

"Games you've made" in this context means games people have made.

Plus, I didn't read it, you're just assuming. I was just skimming through it since it popped up in my notifications, and saw your name (which was odd, since you didn't post there much), and read it because it was short. I haven't read a post after page 5, except for yours and other short ones.

Even if you just read mine, you would've presumably read the part that I quoted, which was:
"Sounds like a cool game. Make a thread about it and post some pictures some time if you're up for it. I bet others will post some pictures of their own programming projects and games too."

Okay, first of all, I don't have a Facebook page.

Ok, the forum is not whatever personal accounts you might have, like prickmingle.com, or something.

Secondly, how can I form an opinion on something if I haven't experienced it for myself yet?

?

[Red]

Could you not be bothered to read the entire paragraph, or...?

I was responding to the part you put in bold, which you did for some reason....

Now you're being dishonest about that you called me dishonest.

Evidence?

You said: "That was an insult. Unless you're being sarcastic, but if you weren't now you're going to act as if you were."
That's not ambiguous.

Keyword, if.

I thought you didn't get offended.

That's not me getting offended, that's me getting back at you. 2 totally different things.

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.

It's uncalled for, and immature.

No, you should've actually made constructive criticism in the beginning. You can't just be like "ha ur game is stupid" and turn around and be like, "Oh, I would've given you constructive criticism if you asked! Just here to help!"

I didn't know I was obligated to give constructed criticism for a stupid game without someone who actually cared to know why have I have that opinion to elaborate.

[Red]

? Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

When you put something on the internet, you're putting content out towards the public for feedback.

Even if you just read mine, you would've presumably read the part that I quoted, which was:
"Sounds like a cool game. Make a thread about it and post some pictures some time if you're up for it. I bet others will post some pictures of their own programming projects and games too."

I didn't, I just clicked the link. Didn't really care all that much about everything else. And by read, I just meant click the link.

Ok, the forum is not whatever personal accounts you might have, like prickmingle.com, or something.

I don't take much interest in social media, so that's nothing I'd join you on.

?

Are you serious? You said "If you don't like it, don't play it", and I only played it once, so I had to have played it in order to form an opinion. I can't say something is shit if I don't actually play it.

[EquALLity]

I was responding to the part you put in bold, which you did for some reason....

Given the context, I thought it was pretty clear the part in bold was saying, "It doesn't matter if you've made games when it comes to critiquing them, because game value should be based on player enjoyment, which doesn't have anything to do with making games."

I was responding to that part saying I don't necessarily agree with that perspective.

Keyword, if.

Are you serious?
"That was an insult. Unless you're being sarcastic, but if you weren't now you're going to act as if you were."

First, that justification doesn't make sense. What do you mean, the key word is 'if'? I'm not saying you definitely said I was being sarcastic.

You said that if I wasn't being sarcastic, that I would act as if I was being sarcastic (be dishonest). Again, it's not ambiguous, so I'm not sure why you're saying that you weren't calling me dishonest. It seems like you're just not being honest about it.

That's not me getting offended, that's me getting back at you. 2 totally different things.

You were "getting back at me" because you weren't offended?

It's uncalled for, and immature.

It's not uncalled for if you're actually being a prick. I think being a prick is what's actually immature.

I didn't know I was obligated to give constructed criticism for a stupid game without someone who actually cared to know why have I have that opinion to elaborate.

You're not obligated, it's just the right thing.

I didn't, I just clicked the link. Didn't really care all that much about everything else. And by read, I just meant click the link.

If you clicked the link to my post you would see the part I quoted, because the quote is in my post.
Whatever, maybe you didn't bother to read the part I quoted. But then that's still your fault for not reading.

Are you serious? You said "If you don't like it, don't play it", and I only played it once, so I had to have played it in order to form an opinion. I can't say something is shit if I don't actually play it.

Nobody forced you to play it in the first place and have an opinion. I'm not saying you can't play it obviously, but you can't complain that I'm posting it either when nobody is forcing you to play it.

[Red]

thought it was pretty clear the part in bold was saying, "It doesn't matter if you've made games when it comes to critiquing them, because game value should be based on player enjoyment, which doesn't have anything to do with making games."

I was responding to that part saying I don't necessarily agree with that perspective.

Let's just say it's up to interpretation.

First, that justification doesn't make sense. What do you mean, the key word is 'if'? I'm not saying you definitely said I was being sarcastic.

That's not what I was getting out of it, I thought you were implying that I was calling you dishonest.

You said that if I wasn't being sarcastic, that I would act as if I was being sarcastic (be dishonest). Again, it's not ambiguous, so I'm not sure why you're saying that you weren't calling me dishonest. It seems like you're just not being honest about it.

What do you think I was calling you sarcastic for?

You were "getting back at me" because you weren't offended?

Because I wanted to get the last laugh. It didn't piss me off, but it irked me if I didn't throw one back.

It's not uncalled for if you're actually being a prick. I think being a prick is what's actually immature.

But I wasn't?

You're not obligated, it's just the right thing.

Says who?

If you clicked the link to my post you would see the part I quoted, because the quote is in my post.
Whatever, maybe you didn't bother to read the part I quoted. But then that's still your fault for not reading.

Was I obligated to?

Nobody forced you to play it in the first place and have an opinion. I'm not saying you can't play it obviously, but you can't complain that I'm posting it either when nobody is forcing you to play it.

So I should just say "Fuck my curiosity, even though I want to see what this game is like". That's kinda what you're implying.

[EquALLity]

Let's just say it's up to interpretation.

Except it isn't.

Again, you never made the argument that game value is entirely subjective, so why would brimstone say that was a correct point you made?
The rest of the post makes it pretty obvious what he was saying.

That's not what I was getting out of it, I thought you were implying that I was calling you dishonest.

You were calling me dishonest, and you seem to be being dishonest about that you called me dishonest.

Are you trying to use the 'loophole' that you didn't actually say I was definitely being sarcastic, so you weren't necessarily calling me dishonest, because if I was actually being sarcastic I would have nothing to lie about, or something? Is that what you're trying to say?

What do you think I was calling you sarcastic for?

You were calling me sarcastic about my saying "I know". It doesn't matter- you said that if I was not being sarcastic that I would lie about having been sarcastic.

Because I wanted to get the last laugh. It didn't piss me off, but it irked me if I didn't throw one back.

That's makes no sense, but even if it was consistent, that's probably one of the most immature responses ever.

But I wasn't?

Except you were.

But that's not really relevant, because seemed to be saying name-calling is always immature.

Says who?

Relevant answer: Because un-constructive often just makes it seem like you don't have any real constructive ideas, and you're just being obnoxious (especially given the other context).

Answer relevant to you: brimstone said so.

Was I obligated to?

You weren't obligated to read the post at all, but if you are confused because you chose not to read part of the post, that's on you.

I don't even understand how you were apparently confused. Did you not question why I brought up that I made a game in a topic about The Flat Earth Society? Did you not make the connection that someone probably brought up making games?

So I should just say "Fuck my curiosity, even though I want to see what this game is like". That's kinda what you're implying.

I never said you shouldn't play, I'm just saying it's a choice. This is a free forum, I'm not forcing you to click anything, so it's ridiculous to complain about me posting it.

[brimstoneSalad]

What did you two just argue about for four pages? This is getting a little silly, isn't it?

And nobody has commented on Teo's game. What do you guys think of it? Constructive criticism.

[Red]

What did you two just argue about for four pages? This is getting a little silly, isn't it?

I laughed after realizing how many pages we took. But I will not stop until I emerge as the victor, even if it tales me weeks.

And nobody has commented on Teo's game. What do you guys think of it? Constructive criticism.

Teo had a game?

[Red]

Except it isn't.

I love how you say that and not provide any evidence for it.

Again, you never made the argument that game value is entirely subjective, so why would brimstone say that was a correct point you made?

brimstone didn't say that?

The rest of the post makes it pretty obvious what he was saying.

Which ones?

You were calling me dishonest, and you seem to be being dishonest about that you called me dishonest.

Before you said I might be calling you dishonest, but now you're saying I am undoubtedly calling you dishonest?

Are you trying to use the 'loophole' that you didn't actually say I was definitely being sarcastic, so you weren't necessarily calling me dishonest, because if I was actually being sarcastic I would have nothing to lie about, or something? Is that what you're trying to say?

I have a feeling you're doing that right now.

You were calling me sarcastic about my saying "I know". It doesn't matter- you said that if I was not being sarcastic that I would lie about having been sarcastic.

I said you may be sarcastic if you were trying to piss me off. Go back and read the posts.

That's makes no sense, but even if it was consistent, that's probably one of the most immature responses ever.

Evidence?

Except you were.

But that's not really relevant, because seemed to be saying name-calling is always immature.

Evidence?

Relevant answer: Because un-constructive often just makes it seem like you don't have any real constructive ideas, and you're just being obnoxious (especially given the other context).

Answer relevant to you: brimstone said so.

I know, I'm not arguing that (even though I wasn't really being all that obnoxious). But was I obligated?

You weren't obligated to read the post at all, but if you are confused because you chose not to read part of the post, that's on you.

What if I didn't care to?

I don't even understand how you were apparently confused. Did you not question why I brought up that I made a game in a topic about The Flat Earth Society? Did you not make the connection that someone probably brought up making games?

I did, but just figured "Ah, maybe some fuckface made a reference to Trump, and EquALLity decided to post her game her for some arbitrary reason."

I never said you shouldn't play, I'm just saying it's a choice. This is a free forum, I'm not forcing you to click anything, so it's ridiculous to complain about me posting it.

Again, I was curious. Should I just resist? Plus, you wouldn't get any constructive criticism if I didn't play.

[EquALLity]

What did you two just argue about for four pages? This is getting a little silly, isn't it?

I laughed after realizing how many pages we took. But I will not stop until I emerge as the victor, even if it tales me weeks.

And nobody has commented on Teo's game. What do you guys think of it? Constructive criticism.

Teo had a game?

So, basically, you're closed-minded. You won't stop until you're the victor- AKA this is about your ego, not reaching a real conclusion. Obviously there's nothing I can do to convince you you're wrong about something if the discussion's goal for you is you being right, so there's no point in responding to you, especially when you just can't/don't want to understand my points, and keep saying things that have nothing to do with my points while ignoring the points, misrepresenting things etc. etc..

Ironically, you probably think this makes you "the winner".