Which of the FF games are objectively the best three?

#331Pizza22Posted 8/17/2014 5:51:35 PM
FF6
FF7
FF Tactics

It is known
#332sawploPosted 8/19/2014 3:10:58 AM(edited)
Sorry but games aren't the same as video games. Stop saying they are.


Now you are just flat wrong. A video game is a type of game. It always has been. It always will be. As such, it must adhere to the definition of a game.

It shows the consumers purpose for the game. Showing that multiple purposes exist depending on the individual or group....

Also you've yet to disprove multiple purposes...


First, based on the first quote, make sure you change all your "game" references to "video game" since you seem to want to imply there is a difference. Unless you agree that when we say "game" we are talking about video games...

You are wrong here as well. A consumer's purpose for a game does not make a game a game. Neither does a game developer's purpose. So they are not "multiple purposes".

You are intentionally bringing in external factors in identifying the meaning of a game.

A game by itself is called a game because of its inherent unchanging purpose. An activity that provides amusement/entertainment. If the activity does not provide amusement or entertainment, then it is not a game.

This is the only reason (there are no others) that something is called a game. That is it. It never changes. There is no other purpose.

Except it isn't. It is fluid, changing upon perspective, etc. All the things that are in subjectivity


There is no perspective that changes a game's purpose. The purpose is to entertain. If it does not entertain, then it isn't a game.

Functionality is a part of quality. Note: glitches and the like.


No. You can certainly determine the "quality" of "functionality". But quality is just one aspect of functionality. For example, whether a character jumps when you press the jump button has nothing to do with whether the jump is effective. It could still be a poor quality jump (not able to move far enough to cross a standard platform), but function perfectly well.

I did so in post #320


Saying a game is an activity to engage in does not tell someone what a game is. A chore is an activity to engage in. Are you saying a game and a chore are the same thing?

There is a difference. It is how we know what a game is and what a chore is. That difference is defined by its purpose. This never changes.

Your other "purposes" are actually not "purposes". They have to do with a person's perspective/usage of a game, as opposed to what a game is. They dont define a game. A game is not defined by a game developers intent to make money. (Look it up, not in the dictionary). A game is not defined by a consumer's purpose in buying the game, for example, to play with his friends online (look it up, not in the dictionary).

A game is one thing only and has one purpose only. It is an activity that provides entertainment. This never changes. Your external "purposes" are not related to what a game is. They do not define a game, nor are they multiple "purposes" of a game.

I am educated in these matters, and it certainly seems you are not.
#333FireMage7777Posted 8/19/2014 3:31:30 AM
"Now you are just flat wrong. A video game is a type of game. It always has been. It always will be. As such, it must adhere to the definition of a game."

Video games are a form of media. Next

"First, based on the first quote, make sure you change all your "game" references to "video game" since you seem to want to imply there is a difference. Unless you agree that when we say "game" we are talking about video games...

You are wrong here as well. A consumer's purpose for a game does not make a game a game. Neither does a game developer's purpose. So they are not "multiple purposes".

You are intentionally bringing in external factors in identifying the meaning of a game.

A game by itself is called a game because of its inherent unchanging purpose. An activity that provides amusement/entertainment. If the activity does not provide amusement or entertainment, then it is not a game.

This is the only reason (there are no others) that something is called a game. That is it. It never changes. There is no other purpose."

Whether it brings amusement or entertainment is subjective. Whether a sword is used to kill or for decoration is based on the individual. See the comparison? Next

"There is no perspective that changes a game's purpose. The purpose is to entertain. If it does not entertain, then it isn't a game."

Then apparently to all the people that didn't like XIII, it's not a video game. I guess Superman 64 isn't a video game. Oh...wait...it is and it has nothing to do with purpose. Next

"No. You can certainly determine the "quality" of "functionality". But quality is just one aspect of functionality. For example, whether a character jumps when you press the jump button has nothing to do with whether the jump is effective. It could still be a poor quality jump (not able to move far enough to cross a standard platform), but function perfectly well."

Yes, you can. I already gave an example. Try again. Next

"Saying a game is an activity to engage in does not tell someone what a game is. A chore is an activity to engage in. Are you saying a game and a chore are the same thing?

There is a difference. It is how we know what a game is and what a chore is. That difference is defined by its purpose. This never changes.

Your other "purposes" are actually not "purposes". They have to do with a person's perspective/usage of a game, as opposed to what a game is. They dont define a game. A game is not defined by a game developers intent to make money. (Look it up, not in the dictionary). A game is not defined by a consumer's purpose in buying the game, for example, to play with his friends online (look it up, not in the dictionary).

A game is one thing only and has one purpose only. It is an activity that provides entertainment. This never changes. Your external "purposes" are not related to what a game is. They do not define a game, nor are they multiple "purposes" of a game."

Yeah, no. A game is different from a chore based upon certain key concepts. It doesn't change the fact that purpose is subjective. Next

"I am educated in these matters, and it certainly seems you are not."

No, you are not. You are massively uneducated in matters of objectivity if you think that purpose has anything to do with objectivity. But please do continue spouting your subjective bulls***
---
I'm so awesome Gavirulax uses alts and forged PMs to try and troll me
Licensed troll slayer
#334Noctis___CaelumPosted 8/19/2014 3:37:42 AM
damn...
---
F.N.G!
#335Bastard_SwordPosted 8/19/2014 7:21:15 AM
Who thought making this topic was a good idea?
#336Kou-NurasakaPosted 8/19/2014 6:35:10 PM
Looking at the sum total of what did each iteration do for the franchise?

VI- because you know, it is still well remembered and loved, plus, anyone who joined before VII is a VI fan. I don't really like this one per say, but it is still really important.

VII- It cemented Square as a dominant force in the gaming industry. You can hate the compilation if you want, but VII is still a good game, especially without nostalgia.

X- In my opinion, X was where we really saw Square come into its own with storylines and world building.
---
I who stand in the full light of the Heavens command thee who opens the gates of Hell! Come forth divine lighting! This ends now! Indignation!
#337the_InsatiablePosted 8/19/2014 6:56:40 PM
Pizza22 posted...
FF6
FF7
FF Tactics

It is known


agreed
#338raineleePosted 8/19/2014 7:37:09 PM
FFVIII
FFX
FFVI
---
http://i.imgur.com/cyLVoMD.gif
#339Shockna(Topic Creator)Posted 8/19/2014 10:00:53 PM
sawplo posted...
An object's purpose is defined and objective. It is its meaning. An object cannot have a subjective purpose because this purpose is its meaning. An object's purpose is how we, as human's, know, for example, what a game is as compared to what a chore is.


Definitions are ultimately circular (i.e. define a term, and define the words used in the definition, and you'll eventually end up back where you start), and are defined entirely on social perspective and agreement. The things or phenomena they refer to aren't, but the thing itself isn't the same thing as its meaning.

Since determining the meaning of something doesn't make sense without involving perspective, it seems inappropriate to call it objective, given that objectivity requires something to be true independent of perspective. For example, as the first random fact I could think of, the phenomenon we call Hydrogen Alpha emission/absorption at 0 redshift will occur at 6562.8 angstroms, and the phenomenon occurs, regardless of how we choose to define it or not. The only way I can see you deny this would be if you subscribe to some form of anti-realism, and I don't think I've ever met an anti-realist who specialized in philosophy of science.
---
PSN: Shockna-
BBCP: Relius/Arakune/Mu-12
#340sawploPosted 8/21/2014 9:14:22 AM
Video games are a form of media. Next


Being a form of media doesn't make it "not a game". A video game is a type of game in the form of media.

Whether it brings amusement or entertainment is subjective. Whether a sword is used to kill or for decoration is based on the individual. See the comparison? Next


See, here is where you are not being objective about purpose. One can objectively identify the purpose (ie meaning) without examining if it succeeds in that purpose.

Whether a video game actually provides amusement or entertainment to an individual or even a collective group has nothing do to with its purpose of providing amusement or entertainment.

A video game has the purpose of providing entertainment. This is objective. Whether it actually does provide entertainment is subjective.

That is the point, and one you apparently cant comprehend.

Then apparently to all the people that didn't like XIII, it's not a video game. I guess Superman 64 isn't a video game. Oh...wait...it is and it has nothing to do with purpose. Next


I will repeat this again. What people think doesn't matter. This is subjective. The game is a game because its (objective) purpose is to entertain. Whether it entertains one individual compared to the next is irrelevant in assessing this objective purpose. You genuinely display confusion in differentiating between objectivity and subjectivity once again.

Yeah, no. A game is different from a chore based upon certain key concepts.


Explain the concepts.

No, you are not. You are massively uneducated in matters of objectivity if you think that purpose has anything to do with objectivity. But please do continue spouting your subjective bulls***


And you close once again with your inability to understand the difference between an objective (defined) purpose versus an individual's perspective on "how well" the purpose is achieved.

A video game's purpose is to entertain/amuse. This is objective. Whether you or I personally find it entertaining/amusing is subjective.

I am educated in these matters. I have explained my degree in this matter. I have read countless works on objective quality and objective value.

I will say it again. You don't display your own education well because you constantly confuse the difference between identifying an objective purpose versus an individual's personal assessment of "how well" this purpose is achieved.