NSFW Best Thread Ever [No SJW-related posts allowed]

[FeelTheRads]

I loved those shitty things. Of course, if I remember correctly I only played "Tiger" ones from other people... I only had the poor man's versions of these, no name and even shittier.

Edit: lolol now I want a game.com. Also I remember seeing R-Zone commercials on TV. Ahahaha.

 

[evdk]

Another example is vanilla DooM, that becomes almost irrelevant once brutal DooM got released.

Ok, so why should i get back to vanilla DooM, even tough i appreciatte Brutal Doom much more? Do you have an objective argument stating why vanilla doom is superior to the modded version?

Broken balance compared to the original. Flashy and cool, but nowhere near as much replay value.

And why do you think the shitty shotting in original Doom have some replay value? The base game is the same, only with improved graphix and some changes in shotting mechanics.

I am afraid there is a fundamental difference in our tastes and leave it at that.

 

[dnf]

And why do you think the shitty shotting in original Doom have some replay value? The base game is the same, only with improved graphix and some changes in shotting mechanics.

I am afraid there is a fundamental difference in our tastes and leave it at that.

Your tastes are blinded by nostalgia, that's the reason. Next, you will tell me that Betrayal at Krondor have good graphix or something. There is tons of shotters with better gunplay than Doom. Good things stay good, like the level design.

 

[evdk]

And why do you think the shitty shotting in original Doom have some replay value? The base game is the same, only with improved graphix and some changes in shotting mechanics.

I am afraid there is a fundamental difference in our tastes and leave it at that.

Your tastes are blinded by nostalgia, that's the reason. Next, you will tell me that Betrayal at Krondor have good graphix or something. There is tons of shotters with better gunplay than Doom. Good things stay good, like the level design.

I played Doom for the first time in 2012. What nostalgia?

 

[dnf]

I played Doom for the first time in 2012. What nostalgia?

You can't even defend the outdated gunplay of Doom(or explain why Brutal Doom is shit), so why are you derping around again? Ok, so nostalgia is not the reason, but it's worth remembering that the Codex has a huge positive bias towards old games, just look at yourself trying to defend the gunplay of doom for example. Some oldie games without mods still manages to put some good gunplay, like Blood.

 

[evdk]

I am not some FPS expert to start derping about feel and impact or whatever. I played vanilla and Brutal and didn't like the latter. Sure, it's positive bias if it helps you sleep better. I prefer to think about it as good taste.

PS The over the top gore is try hard.

 

[dnf]

Good taste? more like irrelevant taste since you can't even bother to back it up. 90's shotters were also over the top for their time, so no issue for me adding more gore to the formula. I'd say it makes DooM more like the first Blood in terms of violence.

 

[Luzur]

Good god, these things were horrible: http://cinemassacre.com/2013/09/06/avgn-tiger-electronic/

i have 14 Game&Watches.

And why do you think the shitty shotting in original Doom have some replay value? The base game is the same, only with improved graphix and some changes in shotting mechanics.

I am afraid there is a fundamental difference in our tastes and leave it at that.

Your tastes are blinded by nostalgia, that's the reason. Next, you will tell me that Betrayal at Krondor have good graphix or something. There is tons of shotters with better gunplay than Doom. Good things stay good, like the level design.

I played Doom for the first time in 2012. What nostalgia?

 

[Sodafish]

I actually like their idea - they've just executed it badly. In an action game, it makes sense to have the choice of a female character modeled on, say, a champion shotputter or discus thrower. Watch those events in the Olympics next time it's on - you'll see plenty of women that size (and they're fitter than you'd think - a guy I went to school with was the under-18 national shotput champion, and apparently it was standard for the shotputters and discus throwers to train with the sprinters 3-5 times a week, both to improve their muscle-to-fat ratio and because it would improve that little '3 step hop' you see them do before they throw the shotput/discuss).

The problem is the proportions. A female shotput/discuss champion has a lot less bulk around her midriff (not much muscle there), with it instead being spread around her thighs, shoulders and arms with a thick-but-not-fat core (technique-wise, they want to get as much of the power coming from their legs/core instead of their arms as they possibly can - just like in boxing). THAT would be a healthy and realistic representation of a woman with exceptional physical strength, without reducing her to eye-candy.

Basically the artist fails at biology. If they kept in mind where the major muscle groups are located, which muscle groups actually increase in size with use (not all muscles 'bulk' when trained), and which muscle groups are most useful for a strength-based athlete, it would work a lot better.

Talking about muscle groups and fat distribution as an indicator of poor character design when her legs are about half the length they need to be

 

[Machocruz]

Art is where definitions become meaningless.

The cry of the modern art school charlatan, who seeks to rationalize their lack of technical ability, or a thought process, or observational powers of the external or internal. They can don it like teflon armor, to which no criticism, judgment, or questioning can stick. And it helps run a nice little racket where people without any discernible ability can earn an income, and even tenure, as a 'teacher.'

But they go against hundreds of thousands of years of history where art has had defiiniton, and art-works, no matter the movement or medium, share a common thread.

Edit: And historically, when you go beyond art and talk about 'artist,' you're talking about a profession. And in a profession, one needs to know what they do and what the outcome is likely to be.

 

[Azrael the cat]

I actually like their idea - they've just executed it badly. In an action game, it makes sense to have the choice of a female character modeled on, say, a champion shotputter or discus thrower. Watch those events in the Olympics next time it's on - you'll see plenty of women that size (and they're fitter than you'd think - a guy I went to school with was the under-18 national shotput champion, and apparently it was standard for the shotputters and discus throwers to train with the sprinters 3-5 times a week, both to improve their muscle-to-fat ratio and because it would improve that little '3 step hop' you see them do before they throw the shotput/discuss).

The problem is the proportions. A female shotput/discuss champion has a lot less bulk around her midriff (not much muscle there), with it instead being spread around her thighs, shoulders and arms with a thick-but-not-fat core (technique-wise, they want to get as much of the power coming from their legs/core instead of their arms as they possibly can - just like in boxing). THAT would be a healthy and realistic representation of a woman with exceptional physical strength, without reducing her to eye-candy.

Basically the artist fails at biology. If they kept in mind where the major muscle groups are located, which muscle groups actually increase in size with use (not all muscles 'bulk' when trained), and which muscle groups are most useful for a strength-based athlete, it would work a lot better.

Talking about muscle groups and fat distribution as an indicator of poor character design when her legs are about half the length they need to be

It wasn't intended to be a comprehensive list of errors. My point was that as an attempt at drawing the kind of build that female shotput/discuss/weightlifting champions have, it was a major biology fail.

 

[Delterius]

Good god, these things were horrible: http://cinemassacre.com/2013/09/06/avgn-tiger-electronic/

The handhelds or AVGN?

 

[Infinitron]

Good god, these things were horrible: http://cinemassacre.com/2013/09/06/avgn-tiger-electronic/

The handhelds or AVGN?

Aww, too bad I didn't say "this was horrible" so that would have worked.

 

[Tehdagah]

Hard Doom is better than Brutal Doom.

 

[Jashiin]

Art is where definitions become meaningless.

The cry of the modern art school charlatan, who seeks to rationalize their lack of technical ability, or a thought process, or observational powers of the external or internal. They can don it like teflon armor, to which no criticism, judgment, or questioning can stick. And it helps run a nice little racket where people without any discernible ability can earn an income, and even tenure, as a 'teacher.'

But they go against hundreds of thousands of years of history where art has had defiiniton, and art-works, no matter the movement or medium, share a common thread.

Edit: And historically, when you go beyond art and talk about 'artist,' you're talking about a profession. And in a profession, one needs to know what they do and what the outcome is likely to be.

To you art obviously has a definition, and needs to be confined within certain parameters for you to enjoy it as art, that's fine but I feel no need to restrict myself that way looking at creation proces, intent and result.

 

[Lorica]

Something about this inane drivel makes sense. Some games do need more graphics than others to be better. I find pretty lame nowadays to fire up an 3d PSX action game for example. Another example is vanilla DooM, that becomes almost irrelevant once brutal DooM got released.

To build on what you say, what does make sense about this inane drivel is that the graphics engine in most computer games is very important. Where the rules and outcomes are handled externally from the players, there needs to be a way of communicating them to the player. "Graphics" generally speaking are necessary to games in the genres mentioned. cRPGs (and adventure games) can work very well in text format, too, but it's not always the most efficient means of communicating information. I think that the Codex in general doesn't often make good distinctions between "graphics aren't aesthetically pleasing" and "graphics don't serve the game well" types of criticisms... Usually I just hear "graphicswhores lol."

That said, I think the original is just a great troll post.

 

[Machocruz]

To you art obviously has a definition, and needs to be confined within certain parameters for you to enjoy it as art, that's fine but I feel no need to restrict myself that way looking at creation proces, intent and result.

Words have meanings. You don't get to make up your own just because you feel a certain way about something. I mean you can, but it's just play pretend at that point.

 

[Ninja Destroyer]

Prosper mods and plays Half Life

 

[Baron Dupek]

Nah, this is better. Nothing can beat Hartman cockroaches.

 

[Ninja Destroyer]

at "Nazi Germany"

 

[Tehdagah]

What if there is no message?

Message is too strong of a term. An artist should be aware of the effect his work will have on the audience and try to achieve the effect he or she wants.

I'm pretty sure that Hotline Miami's devs are pleasing their target audience.

Clearly the Hotline devs were not getting the desired effect and thus changed their work.

This has nothing to do with "desired effect". Feminists are trying to have control over what a game developer can do (purely for political reasons). Naturally, this includes conditioning of consumers and threats against the producers.

That's what it means to be a good artist. Just doing stuff at random and seeing what happens isn't artistry.

Like?

If an artist doesn't know what they are doing and can't control the outcome when they so choose or understand how they can manipulate their medium to get a desired response from, or communicate a certain idea or feeling to, the audience, they're likely not an artist, and definitely not a good one. They're a dilettante at play. Even Pollock had control of the form and his tools.

Good luck trying to create 'art' when you have a bunch of sheeps and lunatics trying to sabotage your work.

 

[tuluse]

This has nothing to do with "desired effect". Feminists are trying to have control over what a game developer can do (purely for political reasons). Naturally, this includes conditioning of consumers and threats against the producers.

They could easily ignore them if they wanted. Clearly *some* people were more upset about the content than the creators intended. Then they probably asked themselves, "what is this scene adding to the experience?" Their answer was "not enough," and they cut it.

I can't say that I particularly want to play a game where I go around raping or witnessing rapes personally.

 

[Tehdagah]

They could easily ignore them if they wanted.

No, they were facing the risk of losing their jobs due to political backlash.

Clearly *some* people were more upset about the content than the creators intended.

Yes, some morons.

Then they probably asked themselves, "what is this scene adding to the experience?" Their answer was "not enough," and they cut it.

More like: "we need to remove this scene to save our jobs"

I can't say that I particularly want to play a game where I go around raping or witnessing rapes personally.

Me neither, but I don't see why these games should be banned.

 

[tuluse]

No, they were facing the risk of losing their jobs due to political backlash.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

Art is where definitions become meaningless.

The cry of the modern art school charlatan, who seeks to rationalize their lack of technical ability, or a thought process, or observational powers of the external or internal. They can don it like teflon armor, to which no criticism, judgment, or questioning can stick. And it helps run a nice little racket where people without any discernible ability can earn an income, and even tenure, as a 'teacher.'

But they go against hundreds of thousands of years of history where art has had defiiniton, and art-works, no matter the movement or medium, share a common thread.

Edit: And historically, when you go beyond art and talk about 'artist,' you're talking about a profession. And in a profession, one needs to know what they do and what the outcome is likely to be.

I agree with this generally, but I would say an artist can do something intentionally without being able to articulate why they are doing it - it's intentional, but its an expression of something that may be happening at an emotional level and, consequently, isn't totally amenable to the application of logic-based criticism or judgment.

But, as per the ridiculous custom of contemporary art, the artist will be obligated to write a blurb for the gallery wall trying to explain what they are trying to accomplish. This will inevitably make them sound retarded because what they are trying to explain can't be explained. If it could be, then they wouldn't have needed to making the painting, they could have just written the blurb.

So I think there are at least a few artists who come off as charlatans because they can't really articulate what they are trying to do and, when forced to do so, fall back into the language they think they are supposed to use.

Although, art school is pretty rigorous on the technical side so I would wager that there are also quite a few actual charlatans with the technical capacity to make good art, but who lack the creative ability.