There is far more respect in understanding the underlying reality and thought process of the other person than there is in saying "ok, you like X, I like Y, whatever". This is a fundamentally dismissive view of others and their opinions - and reality. To that end, yes, who you are on your deathbed is indeed your true self. Every thing you choose is an expression of your deepest held values, so even if you change tastes - say, ketchup turns to mustard - this is an expression of the things you find most important in the realm of condiments. There is no escaping this.
You are wrong, because no game is 50/50. Hell considering it's an asymmetric map Guardian has always been legendary for its bullshit starting spawns. One team spawns elbow and is GIVEN the Sniper Rifle, OS, the Sniper Tower, and a much GREATER chance at Camo. In other words, everything on the map except what, a shotgun? The other team spawning below Blue is given nothing, besides a lift that shoots them into a fresh OS player with invincibility frames. The idea that, 'well I like playing this role on the map but not this other role' is completely and utterly invald for a few reasons. 1: Changes in map leadership happens. The role to achieve leadership, lose it, and then regain it, NEEDS to make sense. The only difference between a map that promotes aggression (I'll self promote and say Legion), and Lockout/Guardian is that the team being aggressive on Legion is the team that is doing something correct. The team that is being aggressive on Guardian/Lockout is doing something incorrect, meaning to say that they are the losing team and HAVE to push because they need to retake the tower. If you're playing the map correctly, you won't be proactive. You won't think, you won't problem solve. You will actually do less than anyone else on the opposing team and that's the problem. The team on these tower defense style maps that is being punished are the ones enforcing the play styles and principles worth enforcing. You are wrong for doing them. 2: If you like defending but not attacking, then you don't like the map. You like 50%(ish, still an oversimplification) of the experience. And what's even more integral to understanding is that one team is always losing. Just like one team is always winning. If you're having a 'good time' then another team isn't, and that's quite literally the mandate on Guardian/Lockout. That is bad design. And listen carefully, I'm not telling you that every game on a map needs to be fun for it to be good because that's completely nonsense and actually feeds into this dilemma I'm trying to dispel. But when you are having a bad time (read, a losing time) it needs to be because of choices made and enforced by the enemy player. Not getting ****ed over by shitty level/game design. I would akin these Tower Defense/Cod 3-Lane style maps of destination points to cheap shitty pop music like the Ariana Grande one posted here the other day. Ask a random college student what they think of it, they'll claim to love it. Show them Motzard/and Beethoven, they'll claim to hate it. But do they really? Follow up in 2 weeks, in a month, in 3 months, in a year. What is that shitty pop song to them but old, overplayed, generic, irrelevant. By that same stroke, masterpieces in music hold their place in time despite what your initial reaction might be. You might not give a **** about it, I know I didn't the first time I listened to classical music, but everyone - and I mean everyone's - brain is wired to look for the intricacies and patterns that you're not even aware your brain is hearing. It's trying to rewatch a shitty transformers movie and realizing it has no substance. It's playing titanfall and realizing the game is nothing but self-aiming self-playing AAA Hollywood moments and explosions that you didn't actually do anything to work for, there is no REAL sanctification in playing that game. Hence, the population plummets. It's why Spartan Abilities probably "FEEL COOL" during short stints of testing at 343, and probably feel cool to the public release at the launch of the game, and then provide ZERO staying power for Halo 5. It's why the simple rhythmic formula of classic Halo despite lacking any flair or pizzazz compared to every modern shooter is still a more addicting, better designed game that everyone comes back to for explainable reasons. We all crave the same thing. And that goes all the way down to design, into enjoyment, into level design and WHY we enjoy some maps versus others. It's why the people who claim to LOVE Halo 5's ability direction are the quickest to abandon it, come back after a year of not playing, and then say they love it again. It's why the casual mechanics forced into Reach/4 didn't help build the game up but tear it down despite 95% of the buyers being labeled as "casual". That does't make sense, and it never has in any market, in every product ever. People crave legitimacy, integrity, skill, a fair playing field, and most of all mental depth.
Not to be rude, because I do consider you my friend in some weird way, but the reasoning in this response is so far below the threshold of what I've been trying to explain that I honestly don't know how to address it. My views don't come out of disrespect for other's opinions, it comes out of realization that everyone strives for the same principles without realizing it. Some people just learn this sooner, and develop towards those play styles more and more. While others are still building towers because they're "fun to hold." It's like someone saying they like Bloom because they enjoy the shot cadence and the suspense between trigger pulls. You don't like bloom, you like a side effect of it. Which could be achieved through slower ROF or an overheat mechanic that doesn't just randomize the shots, yet it's confused for Bloom. I like to feel warm, therefore I like the sun. That is a fallacy (I'm using that word non ironically). The sun makes me warm, I do not like the sun. I like being warm. There are other ways of achieving warmth. I don't like warmth, I like comfortability. I don't like comfortability, I like peace of mind. Therefore I must achieve peace of mind. And yet there are still people out here staring into the sun to feel warm because they claim to like the sun. No, you don't.
You know ****'s going down when you see this... Edit - This is actually a pretty interesting topic though, through designing a lot I've also felt that difference between "thinking" I like something on a surface level, and through looking more deeply finding the core of what I actually love about something.
@icyhotspartin I dont agree. Theres more respect in accepting another opinion, even when it doesnt fall in line with what you believe according to your thought process. I also dont agree with that. Who you are on your deathbed is no more ‘true’ than who you were at any age of your life. Just a phase in life that, if you grew to be older, would pass as well. @MultiLockOn I feel like you view life like this: And i view it like this: You feel that things are more of a progression to a single point, and that everyone eventually gets to that single point of being their true self at different times and from different starting points. I feel that the destination isnt what makes a person their true self as much as the series of paths they take to get there.
I enjoy it. Sorry dude I just like defending and attacking snipe tower. I also enjoy controlling hallways on the pit. It’s my favorite type of gameplay in halo.
I meant consensus as in what everyone really wants, which I spelled out right after saying that. I should've been more specific, because I know full well that people say all sorts of crazy **** that they don't actually believe because they don't act it out. I also suggested that everyone can do this for themselves. Like I said in literally the first post, this process was never meant to be tapped into stone as some sort of axiomatic rule. It's just a process by which anyone can derive a rank order for themselves because it can be useful. I agree with Multi that most people don't know **** about level design, so the conclusions on average aren't going to be as helpful as they could be, but that wasn't the point. I started this conversation talking to goat, one of the most competent designers I know. Also, I sort of checked out after reading "In Peterson's world"... because if you haven't noticed, we're not the same person. I'm not sure what you're on about after that.
This discussion makes me remember wanting to make a horror movie where everyone does everything they should, instead of forwarding the plot. It makes for about a 20 minute movie and ends up basically being a fictional documentary on how to escape a horror situation. The only enjoyable thing about the movie for me would be the apparent satire between this film and normal horror flicks. I can still feel enjoyment, but it's not the kind the genre was designed for. With that said the overall experience of the movie, even though it is clearly a horror film, is terrible. Even though everything is working as it should (as far as the plot goes), it's still terrible.
Perhaps, but everything I've ever come to witness in any medium is screaming in my ears otherwise. I've yet to find someone who practices design who starts off principled and focused, only then to open up and expand their viewpoints into radical, radical ideologies. It has never worked like that. I don't mean that in the sense of sculpting stranger and more abstract geometry, because that I do. But when a forger begins, what do we do. We love to build bunkers, skyscrapers with turrets on them and unbreakable defenses. We build ridiculous infection maps and core maps flooded with insane sniper towers - fact is that enjoyment doesn't last. It's non sustainable because it's cheap thrills, it's not fulfilling. It's not what your brain actually craves. Why shouldn't I build every hallway 2 feet wide to promote spartan charging? It's what I find fun? I enjoy it, it makes me laugh? But it doesn't, not really. Anyone can say they enjoy anything but human psychology will always point out the truth. Not to make this political, and I post this in fear of getting torn apart by reddit SJW's just like the 343 debacle, but the soundest argument I've heard out of the conservative left-wing against transgenderism is that the suicide rate is above 50%. That suicide rate is higher than any group of humans in recorded history including Jews in concentration camps under **** Germany. The statistic also holds true with it is pre-op or post-op, meaning to say it makes no difference whether society accepts that transgender person for who they are, but as Ben Shapiro puts it - there's an extremely strong comorbidity between suicidality and transgenderism, whatever state of mind that is. Meaning to say, it is not in our best interest as a society to allow people to do such a thing. That is the argument from the right-wing party. Whether or not you agree with that decision is irrelevant as my point is there are a LOT of things that people will swear on their lives by. That make them happy, that give them fulfillment, joy. And on a surface level that might be true, but in the end game are actually very harmful to someone's psyche. Most heavy drug users would tell you that drugs make them happy and give them peace. Many people with open relationships will tell you that it's freeing and a great experience. And many Halo players will claim that Halo 5 is their favorite multiplayer game of all time and then drop it after 5 months. I believe that you believe that you have some enjoyment out of playing defense on Guardian/Lockout. I don't believe that enjoyment is what your brain is actually craving, nor is it sustainable or true. I think there's something better.
I just like to run and gun with 7 other noobs on those maps but being pinned down by people who know what they're doing is the opposite of fun in Halo imo. But dude, suicide in concentration camps? Really? That's how you try to make a point on transgenders? I really fail to see the slightest thing to compare the two.
Drugs, or otherwise, are only good for a person if they are using it as a means of pure pleasure. Most bandaid (or surface level as multi put it) fixes involve escaping from something. If that something is conquered by mind, body, and soul, this frees the individual from most negative aspects of the psyche, or rather the norm of the psyche. I used to have a problem with drinking. So now, to get around how I'm personally wired VS how I'm normally wired, each drink I take is a ritual in and of itself. I am reminded by my choices, the choices of other people, what I can and cannot do, etc etc. I guess my point of all of this is that it is possible to overcome how we are genetically programmed to act, but it takes a lot more than what most are accustomed to experiencing. As such, most of the commitment people make (while in full willingness to do so) is only half baked.
There is a suicide epidemic in the Transgender community. Concentration camps were pretty bad, but Transgendered people still kill themselves more than the people in concentration camps. That's when you know something is deeply wrong below the surface. That's the point.
I didn't missed the point. I'm merely asking if you can compare the two. Or is it just to try to make the argument stronger?
Dude the guy is like a verbal machinegun. He can take any side of an argument and make the unprepared look stupid.
Good debate is about convincing others of your point of view. Doesn't mean your point of view is right.
In the simplest most straightforward line of reasoning: >Transgenders swear their life choices bring them joy and happiness. >Higher suicide rate than Jews under **** Germany >One of these two cannot be true. And yet one is very much cemented in fact. I'm not asking you to become conservative just under my point is that it is very easy to believe something is helpful when it is harmful. It is very easy to claim to enjoy something only to drop it after a week once your brain realizes it was a cheap thrill. It is also very common that sometimes the greatest works of art, either in music, in cinema, in writing, do not stick at first. They can come off as unimpressive, tedious, or in most cases offensive. And yet in the end that's what all humans circle back to without realizing it.
It's a simple if-then logic statement. No group of people should be killing themselves that much, and if they are, then something is wrong. I really don't understand what part of this you're objecting to.