miffy495

Whereabouts? I'd like to pick up a copy, but have been too lazy to go to any actual stores to find one, and the internet has strangely not been kind in this instance.

Dang, I just played through 301 tonight and was going to mention that. Oh well. For posterity's sake, it was behind the pawn shop though.

Yeah, I was mostly kidding when I said "Hey, let's screw with everyone and have next week's game on PC" but truth be told, I wouldn't mind giving it a shot sometime. I want to check out the record feature, as I've never done so. I would say we should just load up the free roam multiplayer mode and try to record some cool shit. Though doing so during regular GTA hours on Tuesday wouldn't be my first choice.

Sounds like an incompatibilist thought process to me. That's pretty much how I think about free will. People who demand that their choices be outside a determined system (ie: libertarian free will) never really struck me as coherent. There's compatibilist free will, which pretty much says that if a choice is unrestrained but still determined we may as well call it free, but that's not a satisfying answer to me. Seems more like we're just redefining the terms so that we don't have to say something we don't like. Personally, I call what the compatibilists call free will "agency," and have no trouble accepting that we all have agency. In my mind though, an agent would still have made the same choice in a given situation no matter how many times you wanted to give it a do-over, so I'm not willing to call it free will. I ended up coming to the conclusion that the concept of free will and my view of the world are just not compatible with one another. As for why I chose determinism, I'm willing to admit that it's mostly that I'm more comfortable with that than the randomness that the alternative seems to imply. What I ended up writing turned out to be less an argument for incompatibilism as it was a response to the most convincing compatibilist arguments I'd seen, which came from Peter Strawson's work. Still, for an undergrad thesis, I'm proud of what I did. If you're interested, I'd be happy to PM you and 'blix a copy. I'm on my desktop right now, and my writing is on my laptop, but next time I'm forum-hopping from the lappy, I'll send it along.

Thanks very much, all! Kingz, unfortunately the promiscuous realism thing is from philosophy of science, which I find interesting but am only marginally good at. What I wrote about was an attempt to patch an ethical hole in determinist theory. One of the common beliefs is that if you are an incompatible determinsit (believe that determinism and free will can't possibly coexist), as I iincidentally am, you would be commited to believing in a pure form of ethical consequentialism, which I find troubling. So my efforts were devoted to finding a way that one could justify a punishment or reward on a basis of more than simply efficacy while still not having to concede a belief in free will. As I said, originality got me pretty far, and my panel believes my solution to both be effective and totally new. I'm very happy. I may try and polish it even further for eventual publication one day.

Yeah, I read everything as well, which means that back in the day when 2 threads got updated every 12 hours or so it was easy. Now I'm considering only following specific things, and that makes me sad.

Tonight is nice civil dinner with girlfriend and champagne (as for why I'm not with her, she's writing an exam of her own for the next hour and a half). This weekend, crazy times.

Yeah, so what if there's a clown that posts on our forums? Stop asking for pix, guyz. Srusly, u need to grow up and get some maturity.

I'mdoneI'mdoneI'mdoneI'mdoneI'mdone! And now, strangely sad. It bums me out a bit that I'm not going to be going back to school in September. Weird.

I just finished my BA-Honours in Philosophy. My thesis defence was today. Afterward the deliberations with the rest of my panel, my supervisor came out and said "We've decided. There were some concerns about clarity but in the end the originality of your ideas trumped them. You're getting an A. And I'm going to give you a hug." Then I hugged my supervisor and all of my schoo work to this point melted off of me and it hit me that I'm finished. Not just finished, but with an A on my final thesis. I'm so bloody relieved and happy right now. WHOOOO!

It's just the way our convention is. Honestly, I think it's because Calgary doesn't have the market to sustain a convention that would actually be dedicated to comics rather than just geek culture.

At least as far as movies go, you aren't imagining things. Speaking from the projection/presentation side of things, people who make trailers tend to rely on the fact that most projectionists will just start shit and walk away. My theater not being automated, I need to stay in the booth until after the advertisements end, and this means that I'm there to tweak the volume for both. There are at least 2 units on the volume knob between trailers and the actual movie in order to keep the two sounding about the same in the theater. If you don't have somebody hovering over the volume knob, the advertisements are much louder than the movie. Anyway, Sam and Max. Enough of me being

I met Malcolm McDowell on Friday night. He was at my theater for a screening of A Clockwork Orange which was happening in conjunction with the local comic convention. He was chilling in our green room before the Q & A with Sid Haig (from the recent Rob Zombie movies, but much more loved by me for his work in crazy 70's exploitation movies, such as Coffy) and my girlfriend and I walked in to get some beer unaware that they were in there. We ended up having a bit of a chat with them, which was amazing. I got a picture taken with McDowell as well, which is extra sweet. I look kind of like a tool in the photo, but I'm only really in it to prove that I met him, so that's ok. Went to the comic convention the rest of the weekend, which was making a big deal over the fact that Leonard Nimoy and Brent Spiner were in attendance, but I'd already gotten all I needed out of the weekend. I just bought some dorky merch and called it a good time.

Sombre, your essay topics are of interest to me. What is your degree in? I defend my thesis at 1pm tomorrow. That is exactly 12 hours from when I am typing this. I'm nervous as shit, but once it's done, I graduate. I am experiencing a mixture of happiness and absolute dread such as I did not know existed before. At the very least then, I'm able to say that uni is causing me to experience new things.

That would be pretty awesome, but unfortunately I am just a 22 year old dude. I don't even play the drums... If we're talking video games themed halloween costumes, do I get points for two halloweens ago when my girlfriend, our mutual friend, and I all went pokemon-themed? I was a trainer (based off the costume from Smash Bros), the girl was pikachu, and our friend was psyduck. Pictures unfortunately do not exist, because none of us cared enough to take our own. Other people did take pictures, but it was at a big public party so none of us knew the people who did. I really regret not having evidence of that night.

It seem like every time someone adds a PSN id in the thread we have for it, they say something along the lines of Let's stop all those shenanigans. I haven't busted out the LBP disk since 'blix's level went live all those months ago, and would be happy to partake of another game with any thumb takers. I played once with n0wak a long time ago, and think there may have been a game with 'blix and his sister (although it might have been a game with n0wak and his sister and another one with just 'blix. Like I said, a long time ago) but that's the extent of my online PSN multiplayer. I bought a bluetooth headset just for the purpose of thumbing it up in LBP, but never used the damn thing. I think voice chat would be a go for those of us who set up a game here, as we'd have some common points of discussion and don't need to fear the jerks of the interwebs as much. So, after reading Fuzzylobster's PSN introduction, I figured that she's only the latest in a long line of people who would wish to get in on a thumbs game. Let's start scheduling some four-person meet-ups and explore the world of created levels that I still haven't bothered to look that far into!

Oh shit, Jon too? Cheers to you, man.

Perfect Dark Zero is not as good as the early reviews made it out to be, but not half as shit as the fan reaction says it was either. I enjoyed it for what it was, but then I also got it for free from a friend who had the aforementioned fan reaction and never wanted to see it again. I'd say if you can get it for the $15 range, you'll have a pretty good time with it. Never tried the multiplayer, but as someone who was looking for a shooter to play in the early days of the 360 (There was a time when my library of 360 games was just Project Gotham 3, Dead Rising, and PDZ) I liked it just fine. Don't expect revolution, but a solid shooter from Rare certainly ain't a bad thing. Of course, if you have a system capable of playing Timesplitters: Future Perfect, I'd just say go for that and forget any other console FPS that's come out since.

All I've really checked is Amazon, so I may take a look around brick and mortar things in Calgary first. I'm interested in trying it for myself though, so I may take you up on that if I can't find it. Oddly, watching it get played through twice on GB is making me more interested in it, seeing how divergent their plays have become after the 15 sessions they've done now. The narrative seems weird and oddly enthralling, and I'd like to try it out for real.

Happy birthday, Nach! I expect stories of adventure that will regale the GTA group this week!

Hey, I'm 22. I don't get curmudgeon status until at least my mid-30's. I tried to be as nice about it as I could. I really don't mind direct control. If I were the kind of person that would be turned off by it entirely, I would have missed Grim Fandango. To anyone who missed Grim Fandango for that reason, fuck you. Seriously. Still, I do feel that the click and drag analog stick that Telltale uses is irritating, and the WASD keys keep getting me stuck on geometry, as I mentioned. I'm still playing the game, and I really do understand why the controls are the way they are, but I would still like to have an option somewhere for click-to-move. I'm sure that it's probably just the case that it would be too time-consuming to add it in, and I'd accept that as a reason, but it can't stop me from wishing I could control it the way that feels natural to me, can it?

Dear whoever is in charge of this at Telltale: I respect that you need controls that work on consoles. Really, they work very nicely. But on PC, I'd like to just use my mouse. I feel tempted to plug my 360 controller into my laptop in order to play Sam and Max. I shouldn't feel that way. I know that broadening the appeal is important, and using WASD for movement and click for interaction is ok, I guess, but I just don't understand why "move where I click" isn't even an option for those of us who want it. I love that you're progressing the adventure genre, and I love what you're doing with it for the most part, but 1:1 controls are not what I want for a character in an adventure game. With the way the camera and geometry work, more often than not I find myself stuck on an in-game object and breaking the flow anyway. I figured that with MI it was a temporary thing and that though the controls would carry over to Sam and Max, it would be a choice we could make. It just frustrates me is all. I love everything about the games, but the way they control destroys the immersion for me. Clicking and seeing my character adeptly navigate the scenery in order to get to the point I clicked at keeps me involved. Holding W and D while my character is caught on a table in the diner, trying to navigate my way around and getting frustrated does not have the same effect. Please, just in a menu somewhere for us old-timers, click to move? It doesn't seem like anything in the game depends on how Sam gets around the world. If puzzles depended on it, it'd be another thing entirely and I'd understand. As it is, I'm just frustrated. Had to get that off my chest. Sorry. Sincerely; A longtime fan who has bought all your games and has no intention of stopping.

Well, to be fair, I did sort of mean in general. This thread is doing a decent job of staying fairly level-headed. In that respect, good job to all involved. I think you're misunderstanding what I meant. I'm not saying that your list is personal, and the last thing I would accuse it of being is arbitrary. Subjective, maybe, but only in a specific sense. It is not subjective to you as subject, but to the group of people who share or approximately share your views on art. What I'm saying is that to people in your circles, who share your interests, and who work in the same mediums that you do, you are providing the most objective account of art possible. The problem is that there are multiple, equally real, definitions of art that other people could propose. (I feel bad putting words in Rodi's mouth here, so keep in mind he is only being used as an example of a general view) I think that people sho make statements like Rodi's are looking for a more general view. One that all types of people could accept. The lack of this is what I think is leading him to the claim that no real definition of art can exist. It is not that he is interested in a different definition of art, as I understand it, it is that he is looking for someone to give him the only definition of art. This does make the promiscuous realism thing relevant, I believe. What I was trying to say is that the problem isn't that we have no real definition of art, but that we have a wealth of definitions and that conflict arises when one person is arguing in terms of, say "critic's art" against another who is arguing in "sculptor's art." They talk past each other because they are really not arguing on the same terms. In that respect, I believe you to be providing a general, non-arbitrary, and objective account of what art is, as much as objectivity is possible in any situation. The conflict with Rodi is coming from the fact that what you are giving is not the account, which I think would be impossible. EDIT: Added a clarificatory sentence and separated the wall o' text into paragraphs for easier consumption.

My first input in this thread, as I try to avoid debate of this nature and find them generally a futile waste of time. Just going to throw this out here though: Why can't we just say that art has a kind of "promiscuous realism," as John Dupre said about the concept of natural kind? Let me lay out the rationale really quickly through one of Dupre's examples. What do an onion, a clove of garlic, asparagus, and a lily have in common? They are all, by scientific standards, classed as members of the family "lilies." These things all being lilies has its uses in botany but if you were to bring this to the attention of a chef or a person running a flower shop, they would be incredibly far out of the range of things that person would care about. Dupre used this to make the claim that species are a kind, but not a natural kind. There is no such thing, to him, as a natural kind. Only a lot of different, equally valid, types of kinds. I wonder if half of the problem with what people are arguing about here is of a similar nature. Rodi wants there to be a natural definition of art, something that is a universal quality which can be used to distinguish between "art" and "not art." Kingz is trying to give the definition as he sees it, and as is relevant to him, but this is unsatisfying to Rodi as he does not see it as a natural "art" separation. Rodi takes that "art" is subjective and differs by discipline to mean that "art" is nonexistent. I wonder if instead we could say that "art" is promiscuously real, and its reality in one area is not undermined by its non-existence in another. After all, the chef would not deny that onions and asparagus are lilies, they simply would not care. I would like to agree with Rodi that art is a nebulous and likely impossible to pin down term, but not make the leap to say that it does not exist. Rather, what is art changes its definition depending upon the discipline the term is used in, but remains real in every possible sense despite this. Kingz definition is then very real and very correct, but nonetheless irrelevant to those who do not share his interests. On the surface, that may just seem like a "art is in the eye of the beholder" statement with a lot of wanky follow-up, but I do think it's something a bit more than that. "Art is in the eye of the beholder" is most often used as a premise against the realism of art, not for it, so hopefully I've provided something to think about? Also, Forbin I was going to say that that story was really cool and worth posting, but then you edited it into oblivion while I was writing. Oh well. Good story, anyway.

Oh man, it can never return from its walk. It can never return from its walk. That's just so bleak. I hate you for making me sad.