Post about your games (that you made)

[Red]

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.

Ok, what's your point?

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.

I didn't say subjective?

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 forgot.

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).

So what was this about again?

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.

I didn't say you were, you said I was accusing you, but I wasn't to sure.

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.

Not sure if that really addresses the argument.

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.

You called me a name, you're not getting away with that. And yes, I shouldn't have stooped to your level.

Way to not address anything in that paragraph.

It was mostly just nonsense.

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?"

Yeah, they're not obligated. I mean it's their own dumbass fault, but they aren't obligated to do the right thing.

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.

As I said, I didn't think it was so necessary.

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.

But I wanted to, and I did. The claim "Don't like it, don't play it" is stupid, since I have to play it to get an opinion on it.