Talk about anything: Page 65 - Godot Community Forums

Talk about anything

OpinionatedGamer

I played Elite Dangerous for 152 hours and honestly it's not a very good game. I eventually realized that I could spend an hour on that game and accomplish nothing because you spend so much time on boring travel. The only thing I did was grind for better ships, and then I realized that the general gameplay was grinding for better ships so that it'll be easier to grind for better ships.

It did have some really cool stuff tho. The ships are very cool, and there's a lot of customizable modules you can install. You can trade, or pirate or mine and it's got some fun stuff. If only traveling wasn't so boring/didn't take up the majority of your time I'd probably still play it today. =)

Megalomaniak

@OpinionatedGamer said: accomplish nothing because you spend so much time on boring travel.

But that's the best part! Well, kinda. I usually alt tab out to a program like blender open on another screen.

Audiobellum

Does language shape our perception of reality? I think that it's reality that shapes our perception of language but, what do you guys think? I think this question is important, as through out history (and to this present day), they're many people who've been obsessed with controlling language on the basis that they think it determines perception. A perfect example of the obsession that I'm trying to describe is the heated exchanges between people in regards to the meaning of art; more specially, the controversy that surrounded Marcel Duchamp's Fountain. Now perhaps we could all agree that words do have connotations but, I think words gain their connotations through what they describe as oppose to anything else. Even though I find the obsession with controlling language as an annoyance, I don't see it as an indirect attempt at controlling my mind or even the minds of others. If anything else, it's a mere indication of who has acquired enough power to compel speech. I don't see semantic debates as some sort of logical puzzle, that needs solving and that it's participates are impartially trying to solve it. Instead, it has always been emotional or about acquiring power. Sometimes it's important to look past the semantic debates, and focus on the power struggle or at least on a material level. Unless I've been mislead or confused, I'm less concerned about what things are called. Instead, I'm more concerned about what things are, regardless of what language is being used to describe these things. In this context, it seems that the desire to rebel, is as misguided as the desire for control. To my mind, I'm less concerned about whether or not the Fountain is art. Even if I totally hated( which I don't), I don't see how calling it art( or even insisting that it isn't art) would change anything. Instead, I think it's more important to discuss what it's important to call anything art in the first place. To see how what I'm talking about is relevant to videogames, you can check out Errant Signal's Youtube videos entitled "There is no game" and "An Aimless Diatribe On Fun":

cybereality

So yes, language certainly determines perception. You can only think in the words you have available. But there other potential thoughts that are possible (for example of theories and concepts that have yet to be invented) that you cannot even imagine, since there is not adequate language to express them.

In terms of Duchamp, the point wasn't that it was art. I do believe it was art, but the point was to have a discussion. Not in saying for sure if it was or was not art. Just the idea that art is ambiguous or nebulous and ill-defined. So the controversy of the exhibit was the actual art. It was performance art.

I really like the Dada movement, and I consider my life to be a work of Dada art. Not in the things I produce, I mean my life itself is performance art. Once you have this mindset, everything becomes fun and easy.

Bimbam

Isn't that mostly just the narrative/writing tho? I guess quest design as well, but largely limited by the same engine and it's issues?

It is, and I could talk for ages about how I feel they've been narratively bankrupt since Morrowind as well, but this is a whole point unto itself and far more subjective imo.

Thinking back on Fallout 3, I remember on release how all my friends raved about it while I was day 1 complaining about the horrendous FPS mechanics and comically bad AI.

Audiobellum

@cybereality said: So yes, language certainly determines perception. You can only think in the words you have available. But there other potential thoughts that are possible (for example of theories and concepts that have yet to be invented) that you cannot even imagine, since there is not adequate language to express them.

I'm probably presupposing a very limited and even wrong idea of what constitutes language but, I'm tempted to ask about non-human animals or early humans that didn't have language yet. Did they think or have any type of perception?

In terms of Duchamp, the point wasn't that it was art. I do believe it was art, but the point was to have a discussion. Not in saying for sure if it was or was not art. Just the idea that art is ambiguous or nebulous and ill-defined. So the controversy of the exhibit was the actual art. It was performance art.

True. It seems that most attempts at defining art strictly, are probably post-hoc and will always have some sort of revisionism involved. At art school, I remember someone senior student asserting that one of my assignments wasn't art and was craft instead. I didn't feel like arguing with him about it, because it really didn't matter to me either way. I think the reason why people think it's important to debate what is or isn't art, is probably because they see the word art as merit-worthy or a value endowing descriptor. Though I don't think people will necessarily see things that way or at least not in all circumstances. Funnily enough, there was a fellow student I knew, who used his understanding of Dadaism/readymades to justify picking up a random object and presenting it as his assignment. The lecturer was impressed but, no one else was allowed to get away with it. :/

Audiobellum

@cybereality

I think you might enjoy this.

cybereality

So we are literally in the dark ages of understanding language and intelligence and consciousness. It came out a few weeks ago that mushrooms can talk to one another, and have a language of about 50 words. But I tell people this and they act like I'm on drugs, and they are not even willing to read the legitimate published scientific papers the information comes from. Crows, for example, are very smart and have an elaborate language. And many animals (maybe all) do, as well as plants. Trees can communicate through their roots and have conversations with each other. This is all documented, you can look it up. But people want to stay in their bubble and not even accept science. And all these animals and plants were doing this probably millions of years before humans existed. It's just unfortunate people aren't willing to educate themselves.

cybereality

When I was in art school, there was a project for doing art I think about current events. This was right after 9/11 in NYC, and one of my classmates got a cardboard box and painted the word FEAR in black paint and planted it in the NYC subway by the school. Needless to say, the police and bomb squad came and it was a huge deal. Not sure the grade he got, but that was definitely art if I ever saw it.

duane

@Audiobellum said: Does language shape our perception of reality?

Only at the point when communication is necessary. When I see a book fall off of a shelf, my brain recognizes what happened without the need for English. Seeing objects fall was something my ancestors had to deal with, even back when the height of their ability to communicate was, "I'm ready for sex."

There are a lot of events and impulses that every vertebrate's brain can deal with, without any sort of communication skill. I seem to recall that some neuroscientists do research on what observations touch the linguistic regions of the brain -- the upshot being that some don't require that sort of processing.

On the other hand, when I try to explain, to someone else in the house, what that thump was, I switch automatically to thinking in English. I can tell there's a significant switch in my mode of thought, because I may have trouble relaying what I saw, specifically because I'm now having to convert perception to words.

When I get up to pick the book up, I don't have to use language. It may not even occur to me to that I'm thinking about what I'm doing, but I am.

Think about the last time you had to describe what the sky looked like at sunset, without taking time to rehearse the conversation. Did it take you several attempts to get it right? Did you come away thinking, "That still doesn't really capture it"? But you didn't have any difficulty appreciating it before you started talking.

Then again, if I'm trying to imagine what someone else is thinking, I use English in my mind. If I'm trying to plan some sequence of complicated actions, I use English. If I'm trying to appreciate something beyond the range of my evolution, like quantum mechanics, I have to use English at the very least (and I'd be better off with math).

Complex thoughts may require language, and looking deeper than what you can actually see or hear may, but language doesn't always affect us. Although there are differences between cultures, the most important human behaviors are universal -- if language was a major issue, how could that be?

I've met people on five continents (still haven't made it to Australia or Antarctica, but who counts them? :) ), and what struck me the most was how much we're all alike, despite our differences.

cybereality

There is also some interesting literature about the delay of higher level brain functions. There is some debate about the exact number, but it could be around 3 seconds from when events actually happen (in time) to when you think they happen. So if you think you see the book fall, but the time you see it in the air, it has actually already hit the floor. A good example is when you touch a hot stove. Your hand moves away automatically (this is real-time) but it takes several seconds for you to feel the pain. So lots of actions are not even done by conscious thought (though we may rationalize after the fact that we chose to do something that was automatic or on another level of awareness). I mean, I have driven home from work, 30 minutes of driving, and had no recollection of the drive. I recall leaving the office parking lot, next thing I was in my garage. So who was driving?

DaveTheCoder

there are many people who've been obsessed with controlling language on the basis that they think it determines perception.

Part of this is forcing people to use euphemisms for some words or phrases, which makes it difficult to express certain ideas or points of view. I can't think of a non-political example, but that's probably because it's mainly done for political reasons.

Another part of it is power. If you can control what people can say, you gain power over them.

Audiobellum

@DaveTheCoder said: Part of this is forcing people to use euphemisms for some words or phrases, which makes it difficult to express certain ideas or points of view. I can't think of a non-political example, but that's probably because it's mainly done for political reasons.

Another part of it is power. If you can control what people can say, you gain power over them.

I can't really say whether or not I'm in favor of controlling language but, that's mainly because I question to what extend it would be effective. I don't think that well-meaning attempts at controlling language addresses the underlining issues that lead to prejudice. To me, the best evidence which proves that language doesn't shapes perception, is that they’re seems to be things that are outside of language shaping how language is perceived. The linguistic Karen Stollznow has an article on the subject of the "euphemism treadmill" and I do agree with her. Now her article is filled with political examples. However, she did bring up one example that wouldn't be considered "political" today. In the article she writes:

“The so-called ‘Euphemism Treadmill’ is when a word becomes pejorative because of its reference to offensive concepts, and so a polite word is introduced to replace it. As an example, latrine became water closet, which became toilet, which became bathroom, which became restroom. All related words will eventually stigmatize because the very subject matter is taboo. Over time, a euphemism becomes tainted by association and is also replaced. In the well-meaning search to find a stigma-free term, this cycle repeats itself. No matter how benign the euphemism appears at first, it will become offensive and be replaced by another word that in due course will also undergo the same process. However, relabeling a concept does not necessarily reduce its stigma or improve people’s attitudes.”

I don't think that controlling what people can say, means that you can gain power over them. Instead, it seems that one's ability to control what people says is indicative of the power that person already has over people more than anything else. However, I think that power is all that it's indicative of and nothing else; I don't think that language control is mind-control.

cybereality

Well this is the topic of the book 1984. I would suggest reading it again, because it makes a lot more sense today. Also the film (the one made in 1984) is amazing, and they just released a graphic novel a few months ago which I am reading now. Very relevant.

Megalomaniak

WRT controlling language, you could inquire with the French Academy. The French language in it's official format is controlled, what that has or has not managed to achieve I'm not sure tho.

OpinionatedGamer

I personally dislike the term "tryhard" when people are talking about gaming. I'm a competetive gamer, by which I mean that when I'm playing a game, I try to do my best. I try to get better at the mechanics, learn good tactics, I try to win. However on the internet people often complain that their fun is being ruined by "tryhards" who destroy them when they are just trying to have a fun "casual" experience. Maybe it's just me, but this makes no sense. If a game has an obvious goal, it seems silly to complain that some people have worked to get good at completing it efficiently.

What I will agree with tho, is it is annoying when people are so focused on winning they do it with broken or annoying means, like camping in a chokepoint, or constantly using a mechanic which the whole community agrees is broken and needs a patch.

Maybe it's just me tho, what do you guys think?

cybereality

I don't play multiplayer anymore for those reasons and others.

Audiobellum

@OpinionatedGamer

I don't play a lot of multiplayer games but, I don't see why it makes sense for them to call you a "tryhard". I'd only call someone a try hard, if they keep losing despite obviously trying hard. B) I'd also call someone a tryhard if they put an unnecessary amount of effort into a thing, which ends up wasting time and resources( though that one was nothing to do with gaming ).

Megalomaniak

@cybereality said: I don't play multiplayer anymore for those reasons and others.

PVE & Co-op can still be fine, but competitive multiplayer I do not invest my time into anymore.

cybereality

I used to play CS a lot, but I got fed up with it. Besides the racist trolls, no one played with any strategy. I was pretty good and knew what I was doing, but no one would listen. So we would die every round, cause all these guys wanted to run around like John Rambo and not do the mission.

« Previous Page Next Page »