The One Thousand Most Annoying Things Ever!!

[Darunia]

863 ~ The fact that everyone's posts are behind one number.

[OB1]

862- The fact that even when proven to be completely wrong about something, ABF still refuses to admit defeat. It's very sad, really.

[A Black Falcon]

But I wasn't proven to be completely wrong! I was not!

[Darunia]

862- The fact that even when proven to be completely wrong about something, ABF still refuses to admit defeat. It's very sad, really.

Look who's talking there buddy.

861 ~ The Duke of Wellington.

[OB1]

Okat, this is what we proved:

-ABF thinks that "mental images" counts as the kind of images that the definition of "video games" refers to.

-ABF thinks that an electronic version of a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book could also be classified as a video game.

-ABF is as crazy as Darunia, and that they should get married or something.

[Great Rumbler]

-ABF thinks that an electronic version of a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book could also be classified as a video game.

Actually he said it wouldn't be.

[OB1]

Read a few posts up, he finally admitted that it would be.

[A Black Falcon]

I said it might be in the right circumstances. Ie NOT if its just a PDF or something, but if it was a text-adventure setting -- text on screen, choosable options. Not if its presented as a book... which, I think, is really the only way Powerpoint could do it. So probably not that either.

And even if it was like a game it'd still be pretty doubtful that it is one... its probably below the bare minimum for interactivity, but you could make a case that it counts. Just not for much...

[OB1]

It either is or isn't a video game.

And who says that pdf files of CYOA books can't be games? You're playing it on a computer screen and you're interacting with the "game". By your inane definition it would have to be considered a game.

Try to be consistant with your views, ABF. If you take one viewpoint then you better stick with it until you admit that you're wrong.

[A Black Falcon]

Flipping through pages isn't exactly my idea of interaction...

[Private Hudson]

I guess you could consider the text itself to be an image.

A vivid description or representation.
A figure of speech, especially a metaphor or simile.
A concrete representation, as in art, literature, or music, that is expressive or evocative of something

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=image

I mean, I'd consider the start of each Star Wars episode (scrolling text) to be a part of the movie.

[Darunia]

860 ~ Terrorists.

[A Black Falcon]

I guess you could consider the text itself to be an image.

That is exactly my position. OB1 seems to think that there is no such thing as a text description being an image and that that text is only a "mental image", which is identical to something you dream up in your head...

That idea is really stupid. There is a huge difference here! One actually is basing your view on something you see, like any other kind of image... the other isn't a visual image, obviously, just one in your mind. Very different.

[OB1]

There's no such thing as a text image. There's text which decribes an image that you form in your mind. Get it right for once!

The SW scroll is the same kind of thing that happens at the end of all movies: credits scroll.

[A Black Falcon]

Uhh... NO. The opening scroll is just as much a part of the movie as anything else in the film. How in the world can you say that its not?

And it just makes no sense at all to say that a description of a picture isn't a description of a picture, but something that has nothing to do with a picture visually! That's crazy!

The text describes the image. You could then imagine what it looks like, but its not necessary to go beyond what the description is... just like how you could imagine what the back of a 2d sprite looks like but you don't have to, or you could imagine what a 2d image looks like in polygons but that doesn't mean the 2d image isn't an image just like the '3d' one...

[OB1]

Did I say the opening scroll isn't a part of the movie?? No, I didn't! Do I have to bring out of the sign language again for you?

And what you're saying makes no sense at all. Your (completely inane) stance is that a description of a picture is identical to the actual picture, which is just such an incredibly stupid thing to say that I don't even know how to reply to it.

"Hey fellas, let's tear down these Picasso's from the museum and just put up descriptions of what they look like! It's all the same!"

It's very sad that you cannot tell the difference between a real image and text that describes something.

[A Black Falcon]

Exact same thing? No, that's not what I have been saying. Just that its a different form of the same thing... like a drawn apple vs a polygonal apple vs a holographic apple vs a real apple...

[OB1]

Yes, and those would all be actual images. When I see a painting of an apple I don't imagine a real apple, I see it for what it is: a painting of an apple. Saying that some text describing an apple is as much of an image as a drawing of one is a ridiculously stupid idea.

[A Black Falcon]

But that painting describes an apple, like text does, just in a different form that requires less imagination...

[Great Rumbler]

The difference is that the painting deals more with sight, while the description deals more with the mind.

[OB1]

A painting is an actual visual thing and that is the biggest point that you are completely ignoraing, ABF. Everyone sees the same thing on the surface when they are looking at a painting, while reading a description of something places a very unique mental image into each person's mind.

The difference is so large yet you still don't understand it. I am simply flabbergasted by that.

[A Black Falcon]

I really don't see why that rules it out. Everyone reads the same description, after all... the amount of imagination required depends wholly on the detail level of the description. More detailed ones require less imagining... but I don't see why that makes it so different from a picture. Sure, its a different format... but not totally, radically different like you say!

[OB1]

:bang:

You know what? You're absolutely nuts. Not just a tiny bit, not even a Darunia bit. I mean completely nuts.

I can't believe I'm even having this debate with you. You can't tell the different between a picture and a mental image!!

You deal with him, GR.

[A Black Falcon]

I give up. I'll just say "but text describing something isn't just a mental image" one more time... :bang:

Oh, and Hudson kinda agreed with me... :)

[Great Rumbler]

You deal with him, GR.

No thanks.

I'll just say "but text describing something isn't just a mental image" one more time...

And I'll say one more time that describing to you a unicorn flying on a rainbow in space is a lot different from showing you a picture of it.

[A Black Falcon]

Not that different.

[OB1]

Not that different??!! Are you really that dumb??! I mean really!

[A Black Falcon]

No, its really not all that different... I'd try to explain it again but I know you will ignore me.

[Great Rumbler]

I talked with my brother about this and he agrees with me that your position is insane, but just for the sake of appearing like I care that this debate continues I'll listen to your explanation of how they aren't really that different.

[A Black Falcon]

But I've done that like ten times now... you just weren't here.

[OB1]

You've made your positive very clear, and it makes less and less sense the more I think about it.

So a painting is the same thing as a bunch of text describing the painting, because "in our minds we all look at 2D Mario as a real man"???

I mean... how does someone respond to such insanity? I'm at a loss for words.

[A Black Falcon]

NO, not exactly the same thing! As I said all along the two are clearly different! However, they are both ways of representing that image. Different forms? Of course. But both are forms of the image.

[OB1]

That's insane! One is an actual picture and the other is a written description of something! How can you actually compare the two?? What's wrong with you, ABF? Have you gone completely nuts??

[A Black Falcon]

I don't see how you can deny that they are both a form of expressing an image! Its so obvious...

[Great Rumbler]

Description - Mind

Paiting - Sight

[OB1]

I think we're gonna have to make a play or write a children's book for ABF to understand that concept, GR.

[A Black Falcon]

Yeah, to show you people how descriptions involve sight too and how paintings involve some mind. :)

Oh, and to change the subject... Skies of Arcadia is more fun than Zelda - Wind Waker.

[OB1]

How long can you keep this up? I honestly believe that the only reason you're sticking to this insane opinion is because you hate to admit defeat, especially for a debate that has latest this long. But who are you trying to kid? I'm pretty sure that everyone here thinks your claims are ridiculous.

And Skies is a cool game, but you like it better than WW? Wow, I'm surprised! I couldn't even finish the game because of the incredibly simple, repetitive, and tedious battle system, and I have a greater tolerance for that sort of thing than you do. Very strange....

*eyes narrow*

Hmm, that does support my theory that you've been replaced by a doppelganger. The old ABF despised RPGs with random, turn-based battle systems. He also didn't say too many stupid things, like that a painting is the same thing as a book...

I'm on to you, King Doppelpopolous!

[Private Hudson]

If he was a doppelganger, wouldn't his personality still be the same as original ABF?

[Great Rumbler]

Mmmm...not necessarily.

Very strange....

Indeed it is. I remember past thread where ABF would refuse to play an RPG just because it was turn-based and would always complain about random battles that came up every few steps, which Skies is well known for. Very strange indeed.

Yeah, to show you people how descriptions involve sight too and how paintings involve some mind

"Some" as in "VERY little".

[qoute]I'm on to you, King Doppelpopolous![/quote]

It's QUEEN Doppelpopolous! QUEEN!!

[OB1]

So... you're married then?

[A Black Falcon]

I'm 24 hours into Skies, and still loving it... well, except when I get stuck... :)

Oh, and most of the comments I made several years ago weren't exactly based on many facts. I mean... two hours of FFVII's demo, half an hour of the demo of FFVIII, and a half hour of Pokemon and maybe a little Final Fantasy ten years ago isn't exactly a good sample of the random-battles Japanese-style menubased RPG... :)

And I really don't know why I find it more tolerable in some games than others...

Oh, and from more play menubased combat seems to grow on you. I still definitely don't think that its as good as strategic combat (like BG), but its not too bad...

I don't know, I definitely find the random combat in the game irritating, but it seems tolerable to me... I like the battle engine and how the characters move around, I love how you can actually see enemy health bars (a big improvement over FF's lack of those things!)... and its quick paced so battles don't take long. Also, you don't run into a absurdly large number of battles... at least not in the N64 version... its not nearly as bad as any FF game I've played, I'd say.

And finally... I am not sure if Skies is actually a BETTER game than Wind Waker. I just know that I'm having more fun playing Skies than I did playing Wind Waker.

Oh, and I got over halfway through Golden Sun playing it in emulation. For some reason I found that one fun too... that, Skies, and Lunar 2. And not FF6... though maybe it'd change if I tried it again, but I'm not so sure... I don't know.

How long can you keep this up? I honestly believe that the only reason you're sticking to this insane opinion is because you hate to admit defeat, especially for a debate that has latest this long. But who are you trying to kid? I'm pretty sure that everyone here thinks your claims are ridiculous.

On some of the other things... yeah. But not about the point about text descriptions being images, that I think is true.

[OB1]

Jeez, I should have figured that you made those comments about turn-based RPGs without having played them for more than a couple of hours. Typical ABF.

The last random, turn-based RPG I beat was FFVII. I've played a million RPGs since then but never managed to beat them because I always got sick of the battle systems. Or the music, as was the case with Chrono Cross. I liked the combat system but the battle music annoyed me to the point where I couldn't play it for another second. It gets really annoying after ten hours or so. I dunno, I just don't care for slow, repetitive games that much. Well, not for more than twenty hours per game, at least.

[A Black Falcon]

Hey, I haven't made those comments in a long time... in the past few years I have mostly just commented on what I've played -- which in the last year is a lot more because of roms.

I think I've explained how I feel now several times before.

Oh... and the only RPGs of any kind that I have beaten are Diablo 2 (and expansion, in normal difficulty), Planescape Torment, and Paper Mario... unless, of course, either Zelda (I've beaten LA and OoT) or Final Fantasy Adventure count, which they probably do not.

[OB1]

You never mentioned that before.

[A Black Falcon]

Mentioned what, which RPGs I've finished? I'm sure I've said that before... I did get over halfway in Baldur's Gate, but it was just too long for me to get through...

Oh, and I think I have said that random combat is quite annoying but in some cases tolerable if I don't stick around... its very frusterating when you don't know where to go, though... I somehow doubt I'll be wandering around Skies of Arcadia trying to find all the discovery items. Its barely tolerable enough when I DO know where I'm going... aimless wandering I just can't take... and forced levelling-up to beat bosses? Someone shoot whoever thought that one up...

[OB1]

You never mentioned that you didn't mind random, turn-based RPG battle systems.

[Great Rumbler]

We've really gone over a lot of stuff over the course of this thread. We debated the meaning of the word "videogame", we discussed the viablility of a CYOA game as a videogame, we did art vs. description, and now we've settled into RPGs.

[OB1]

Don't forget "just how crazy is ABF?".

[Laser Link]

I think I would say that Skies is better than Wind Waker. But both are very, very good in my opinion.