Where the next video game power fantasy is at, dawgs?!

What the fuck am I reading? Is this the bottom of all literature?

...

Off yourself, clickbait fag.

…..doesn't this retard know that all games are interactive?
They all have objective(s) they want the player to do or complete. "Beating a game" is just the commonly accepted way of saying a person completed a game's main objectives and saw the end credits.

To compare it to finishing a book or movie (non-interactive, linear forms of entertainment) is just plain retarded. Literature and film don't offer a variety of objectives/challenges for you to complete (or "beat") in the same way that video games do. It should have been immediately obvious from the get-go when all movies/books require you to do is to merely "spectate" their events, but for video games, the progression/participation is different because you're actually "actively involved" in the events unfolding. Requiring you to complete (or "beat") whatever objectives/challenges the devs might throw at you.

Why are journalists retarded? Besides the fact that software shit out by companies to make a buck off NEETs and children aren't comparable to timeless works of art, zim/zer didn't even name one; instead using a middling "classic" novel that's more popular than genuinely good, and a bit of kikewood holohoax fan fiction. He could have at least used romo and juliet as something that's both well known and a legitimately great work

I'm pretty sure that's all Ahab was concerned about.

...

lol

test

Winning is impossible for gay retarded faggots like him so he wants to remove the very concept of winning and losing from games. Which would result in them no longer being games, but that's fine, because (((game journalists))) hate games. And not in a cool way like Holla Forums.

You're on the right track here but it goes a little deeper.
These people are against agency. The idea that you can master your environment. The idea that you can be a hero (or a villain).
Look at what they're positing as the alternative to these "evil power fantasies". It's not comfy aimless walking sims. No, it's "powerlessness fantasies" deliberately made to make the player feel weak, disenfranchised and victimized.

These people worship powerlessness, dependence and victimhood. If you have power over yourself and your environment in even the most benign fashion you're the "oppressor".

Don't pick anything.

Books and movies aren't interactive you fucking faggot.

Also I don't even know what hes talking about I beat my white whale on the daily and would gladly beat to a bloody pulp every last person involved involved in shillers list

Spotted the marxist. Seriously, I get these people ought to be made fun of, but I'm getting really tired of seeing retarded article after retarded article getting posted on here. Once you've seen one you've seen them all.

But we already have games that can't be won. What the fuck else is Survival Mode?

Don't be a complete idiot. You can't compare active involved entertainment, like games, or sports to passive entertainment like reading a book, or watching a movie,

Okay, 1. Why specify Americans? What does that even mean?
2. You 'beat' a piece of literature by reading it. You 'beat' a movie by watching it. What this author is doing is being anal over terminology to imply that it's bad and immature to "play" a video game.

It's like that McIntosh tweet about how video games are bad because the word "controller" implies male dominance. It's pretty much the same damn thing.

Cultural marxism for the purpose of genocide.

I got a Moby Dick you can beat

Next, you're going to tell me that Sportsball Team A shouldn't talk about "beating" Sportsball Team B.

...

The entire book was about beating Moby Dick the whale though.

Where did these communists come from and why do they still feel invited to spout these moronic articles that have nothinh to do with video gamed?

A huge part of a really challenging video game is that it will make you fail. Your character will die, you will lose your progress, and you will feel pain. You don't just "explore" these things, you experience them in a way that a book or a movie can't replicate. Removing win conditions from video games takes away this unique aspect of the game, and it makes it no longer a video game. This is just another "journalist" complaining about video games being too hard. Clearly they are more suited to reading books and watching movies than playing video games.

Maybe they're from Holla Forums.

We've got that in every gameover
lol
For some people
Yeah we've got those in none shit games
What does this guy want?

:DDDDDDDD

He's a fucking casual, I've been beating books since I was a kid. Never heard of choose your own adventure books? One of these days I need to get a scan of one of those crappy Nintendo series ones to see how Holla Forums does.

That last time I be a game was because she burned the roast. If games didn't want to be beaten, they'd learn to cook properly. Besides, beatings are how I show my love.

Their ideal protagonist is a powerless virgin who follows the law, stays in their lane, and doesn't manipulate people.
Their ideal protagonist is me in highschool.

Those are called horror games with good writing.

This is also the second thing I've seen comparing westworld to video games, and the violent customers in the park to gamers. Did I miss this thing becoming a trend?

Excellent points and excellent digits.

Jesper Juul was a mistake. Just like Mark.

Just another failed journalist (a failure of a failure?) trying to brainwash uninformed people into thinking that video games are something else (much worse) than video games.
The liberals and shitborn leftists want to redefine the definition games, as they try (and fail) with everything, so they can push for anything that is made locked into their safe spaces and call it a game, when it will never be one.

Oh how the mighty has fallen.

author needs to die a painful death

The article is another cultural marxist bullshit trying to subvert and change games into worthless propaganda simulator. Distilling games into their most basic form of a challenge that can either be won or lost is asking too much for the average journo. It needs to be reduced to an interactive movie that servers as a preaching soapbox of leftwing orthodoxy.

Do you have source on the music from the gondalla webm? It is very good.

The really retarded thing is I tend to hear people say "completed" or "played" more often than "beat" regardless.

How the hell can you experience what real failure feels like when you aren't even allowed to win? If there's something artificially restricting, it would be just that.

I just beat Moby Dick though

Your wise councel belies your years

I beat my Moby Dick everyday.

t. Moby

Nope.
Video games are an activity first, and a medium second. The writer is fundamentally mistaken.

Is Pac-Man not a gaem?

Pseudointellectual reaches for low-hanging fruit, newsy hack frauds applaud and gleefully publish on their site for other pseudointellectual to share and masturbate because they are very smart: The Article

You win by being better than others or reaching the goal you set yourself (same thing really, your goal could be being better than others). Those people don't have any goal in life, they're empty shells.

That Is just semitic semantics.
It's a game if it has loose state.

Your mom is a game since she's always in a loose state and everyone plays her.

I beat my Moby dick on a regular basis, I like to challenge myself but its hard

Almost, user. It's the opposite for them in that case. Because wanting to follow the law requires a minimum understanding of why you want to follow the law, in addition to willing yourself to do so. Both things require effort to accomplish, and effort is a no no to the Liberal.

But a lose state is a failure of the game design.

Warning: original idea coming from an actual thinking person, and not some ruminated meme exchanged by NPCs.

There is no failure state in any of the games you've mentioned. Having to go back and retry just makes the game longer: you are being forced to git gud through an extended play session. That extension can be considered punishment (the irony of "having" to play more) but is not a failure, as failure implies a NET LOSS. A breaking point you can't go back from.

Only coin-ops had failure states, because dieing meant to lose your investment and becoming unable to play anymore.

oh yeah,huff it

Failure has more than just one definition, you know.

Why you don't sound pretentious at all!
Remember how popular Lisa episodes are, sure the thinking man's favorites

I'd say that failure to keep HP above 0 punishes you with having your sense of accomplishment snatched away, either when it was just within reach (in a boss fight) or when it was on the horizon (if you died before the boss fight) and you have to make your way towards it all over again, with no guarantee you'll ever get it until you git gud.

I AM GOING TO HATE YOU, TO DEATH!

You have to be a very well read academic to understand his genius

The entire book was about faggotry and a thinly veiled release for Melville's sexual tensions because Hawthorne wouldn't give him the D.

Squeeze! squeeze! squeeze! all the morning long; I squeezed that sperm till I myself almost melted into it; I squeezed that sperm till a strange sort of insanity came over me; and I found myself unwittingly squeezing my co-laborers’ hands in it, mistaking their hands for the gentle globules. Such an abounding, affectionate, friendly, loving feeling did this avocation beget; that at last I was continually squeezing their hands, and looking up into their eyes sentimentally; as much as to say,- Oh! my dear fellow beings, why should we longer cherish any social acerbities, or know the slightest ill-humor or envy! Come; let us squeeze hands all round; nay, let us all squeeze ourselves into each other; let us squeeze ourselves universally into the very milk and sperm of kindness. Would that I could keep squeezing that sperm for ever!

Any book worth reading will leave you with the feeling of having "beaten" it. conquered something, an idea or a system of thought. anything written in dense enough prose will do it, even if there's no great idea behind it. Most philosophy. any sort of classical litterature. anything written in a language that you are not fluent in.
these people simply want everything to be tv, because that's all they know, that's how they were raised. they are idiots. dont waste your time reading their bumbling attempts at thoughts. they are animals.

This.
Also, instead of rewarding accomplishments, punish failures. That is the right approach.
Games are for those that want to surppas a chalenge and nothing more. "Exeriences" in games are for emotional idiots that fail at life and want a game to "show some meaning".

Fart fetish VR games when?

now

That's part of the problem with nu-gamers: without hard failure states, they need to base their feelings of reward on ever more narcissistic goals. Higher kill score, shorter completion time, longest combo, least retries.

I challenge any faggot here to deny that last statement doesn't strike a nerve: games are so streamlined and one-way, it's no longer evident you are playing well or shit. And it's actually irritating not to know… you can't admit INDEPENDENTLY that you are content with the way you're progressing through the game. You NEED to check on the community for stats, the meta, self-imposed challenges that kindly inform you how good you are supposed to be.

You know I'm a faggot, but I'm also telling the truth among a bunch of memers who throw back and forth the same ideas you could have found on gamefaqs 20 years ago.

Everything about this thread is why I stopped browsing Holla Forums. You fuckfags know nothing about game theory, probably because you don't actually play videogames.

It's another "retarded marxist article" thread where we preach to the choir until bump limit. You're better off starting your own thread about those topics if you want to actually discuss them.

well you're doing it wrong so far

Back in the 90s, before 9/11, before the dark days of the Darkie King, we just called it "winning the game".

Stop giving attention to clickbaits.

Considering game theory has precisely fuck-all to do with video games, I'm going to suggest you to keep stopping browsing Holla Forums.

Stopped. Past simple. Certainly don't know why I thought it was a good idea to come back, though.

Any chance it won't devolve in the "muh loss state" Mark-sponsored forced meme
we made up to convince ourselves Gone Home and Depression Quest weren't games instead of coming up with a better, less ass-pulled definition?

Definition of posting. 1 : the act of transferring an entry or item from a book of original entry to the proper account in a ledger.

hahahaha your argument is invalid because posting means something in another context :^)

Where next for the sports power fantasy? Sports events are designed so that the only way to win is by defeating your opponents and this is achieved through a dominant display of power.

Spoted the butthurt orbiter.
Still mad that you failed game "journos" are being replaced?

Deal with it, virgin old timer. How is it to be near death by the second?

I guess reaching the end of the game in increasingly fewer quarters is also a narcissistic goal, and that you need to go to the game's forums to let you know you can feel good about completing your first single-quarter run.
Take this webum, you've earned it.

Pretty good tbqh. I grow wiser and more experienced, and become more capable of making better decisions and judgments. Like what to call winning a game.

hilarious, but im sick of seeing threads about fools, since there is no shortage of them.

And then comes the retard with zero reading comprehension. Gitting gud is a positive as in

What's narcissistic is having to use makeshift stats as proof, with increasingly weird conditions as time goes by. As you can't feel the satisfaction naturally, since the game mechanics are so automated.

It's not about stats being positive, it's relying on external scores that inform you of the goals. You might have a personality that likes the concept of being given a score, however: so here's an SSS, congratulations kid!

Khorne trips checked.

You are correct. These vermin fully embrace their godless religion of resentment, in fact, you might as well call Resentment and Misery their gods. They are unable to rid themselves of resentment of who they are and misery that arises because of being such flabby, weak, ineffectual wastes of flesh, therefore they try to tear down everything that is even remotely competent and successful and drag it down to their level of personal soy-based hell.

It is doubly amusing because they still live in a very veiled, protected, safe state of existence, where their own existential dread and the consequences of their inadequacies are about the most problems that they face. They have not even the slightest clue of cold, uncaring brutality that is kept away from them by the very structures they rail and wail against. Perhaps they should be left to their own devices and taste just what a total societal collapse means?

go away

wow, the lengths people will go through to jack themselves off

So it's finally come to this.

...

Good contributions

Worst form of eproctophilia tbh

And losing at life. also, admitted to being a virgin.

...

you wouldn't beat a womyn, so why would you beat a videogame?

I've won the game and there is nothing you can do about it.

and now you've just lost it.

needs even more powerless whining

To challenge that point though, I doubt the writer of this drivel has ever tried to finish a book in a foreign language they're interested in. Pic related is what I'm chipping away at.

This man has to be some kind of fucking schizoid if he really thinks it that way. Someone report him to the local asylum. :^)

Dude, when you get a game over and you have to play a level again, you permanently lose time. However, a coin can be obtained back, unlike time. Pseudo-intellectual faggots like yourself make me sick.

Last time I have heard his shit was getting fucked. Is it true?

And i thinking the expression was just popular used to say that someone finished a game.
Oh my, what inteligent bean, imagine with we made games that had lost, death, failure.

Man, our whole industry has not explored a lot of subjects because a popular expression, what genious thinking.

Dafuck.

He got triples, he surely won, sorrrrry egoanon.

speaking of triples

You should write games in a way that doesn't shit up gameplay.
what's bad with game being consistent and not doing shit like you roflstomping everything personally, then being assfucked by a mook in cutscene?
OR how about nu-lara either being a pussy ass bitch crying about talking a life in self-defense all the time OR a stone cold killer mowing down hordes of mercenaries with an automatic rifle feeling only recoil?

>>>/test/

says who?

Do you get tired of winning?

I love posts like this

Hey, I was making fun of the author, not OP.

And here we go, another cunt to boast about his degree in literature (Sindler's list lel) on a video game site. Those fucks are like a cold sore on the face of vidia "journalism". They're the most inadequate and out of place fucks i can think of. Time to fuck them with a retractable baton and call it a day.

Fair enough.
considering my experience with "ludo-narrative" is from one of the Gunpoint's ending where you kill a whole lot of people to prove your innocence (^:

In the strict sense you're mentioning you're right, but you really need to keep your fucking autism in check mate
They're basically the same thing in the end

Time is money, losing time is as much a failure state as losing money

It would be nice to see a game where dying before a boss changes the entire story, but I know the fag in OP just wants more cinematic bullshit.

...

You have wasted multiple years of your life and live savings on a scam, you should feel proud.

Six million isn't too much of a high score.

Bad games imitate other mediums (literature, film, etc.) to tell a story.
Good games present the story in a way that doesn't conflict with gameplay.
Great games use the gameplay itself to tell the stories.

The “high score” is only a few hundred (intentional) and a few thousand (unintentional as a result of work). Stop spreading lies.

then the nazis should've just kept up with workplace safety codes :^)

It's a combination of smell, sound, reaction of the woman farting and how good the ass looks.

SS Main Office of Economic Administration
Service Group D Concentration Camp
D III/Az.: 14 n (KL) 12.42 Lg/Wy

Oranienburg
28 December 1942

Regarding: Medical Activities in the Concentration Camps
Refence:… without
Enclosure: 1

SECRET

To the 1. Camp Doctors of the Concentration Camps Da., Sh. Bu., Neu., Au., Rav., Flo., Lu., Stu., Gr-Ro., Nied., Natz., Hinz., Mor., Herzog., Mau.,

Copy to Camp Commandants

In the inclosed a compilation of the current arrivals and departures in all the concentration camps is sent to you for your information. It discloses that out of the 136,000 arrivals about 70,000 died. With such a high rate of death the number of the prisoners can never be brought up to the figure as has been ordered by the Reichsführer of the SS. The 1. camp doctors must use all means at their disposal to reduce essentially this death rate in the various camps. The best doctor in a concentration camp is not the one, who believes that he must stand out for uncalled severity , but the one who by his supervision and exchange keeps the working capacity at the various labor commands at the highest possible level. The camp doctors must supervise more often than in the past the food of the prisoners and, with approval of the administration, submit improvement proposals to the camp commandants. These, however, must not only appear on paper, but must be controlled regularly by the camp doctors. Furthermore, the camp doctors are to see to it that the working conditions at the the various labor places are improved as much as possible. To this purpose it will be necessary that the camp doctors inspect the labor places on the ground and convince themselves about the conditions of work.

The SS Reichsführer has ordered that the death rate absolutely must be reduced.
For this reason the aforementioned has been ordered and a monthly report on this matter is to be submitted to the Chief of the Department D III. The first report to be submitted on 1 February 1943.

[Signature illegible]

Klueder [?]

SS Brigadeführer and Major General of the Arms

(Nuremberg Trial Document PS-2171, Annex 2. NC&A Red Series, Vol. 4, pp. 833-834.)
loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_Nazi_Vol-IV.pdf

Death rate reduction is actually code word for another 6 gorillon.
t. a (((psychoanalist)))
when you dream of a wardrobe is your mom's vagina, but if you dream of your mother's vagina it isn't wardrobe (^:

the article isn't wrong in entireity, but there's a decent selection of art games and interactive movies already.

I wish video games were other mediums that already exist. Frankly I wish everything was the same as other things that exist so I wouldn't have to remember so much stuff.

I'm pretty fucking sure I would tell my friends I finished Moby Dick. That's the same as fucking "beating" it. goddamn …

Yume Nikki does have a win/ending state though but it is arguably a failure depending on your interpretation

If that was true then why aren't they bigger fans of true stealth games or survival horror games, games where your vulnerability is central to the game's mechanics.

Say what you want about Total Biscuit, but at one point he gave a very concise definition of what a videogame is that I tend to think is accurate.
He goes on to specify that
But over all

Not to mention that Sindol's List is highschool reading material.

Also
CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE BOOKS EXIST
THEY CAN BE BEATEN, HIS POINT IS COMPLETE INVALIDATED

You guys want to hear a real good joke?
Germany has paid over 120 billion denmarks to "holocaust survivors". The only statistic I could find implied 80,000 jews are still collecting reparations, chances are there are more because many jews who were assumed deceased were found to be collecting reparations in Israel. These jews are collecting 2,500$ a month as reparations, for the rest of their lives, paid for by the german taxpayers.
There is a commercial circulating asking americans to help jewish holocaust survivors who are "cold and starving and cannot afford medicine" to donate $25, ten dollars more than the ASPCA asks, twenty more than charity organizations for african children ask.
It's not actually a joke.

Holocaust survivors either passed away or in retirement homes.

Knowing how sometimes a dead persons pension can be paid to his family, it wouldn't be surprising if their children are colllecting the money now. I sure hope those laws have an expiration date.

Oh, another source says that about 500,000 "holocaust survivors" were resettled to Israel. The 80,000 were in the soviet union. Who knows how many ended up in america, france, britain, turkey, hungary, etc, etc.

The only way to expire those laws is by removing the current German politicians by force. Good luck trying to win the "Democracy" game when the kikes are using all means to keep the based political party down, that is if there is even one.

Sage for off-topic.

Ambasador of Israel to Poland, Szewach Weiss invented a new way of milking holocauster cinematic universe forever.
Because since 6 gorillon died, imagine how many were not born because of it?
that allows for an exponential growth of reparations!

...

They don't even have to make it that stupid, they just say that the trauma from the holocaust was passed down through their genetics.
That was another real article by the way.

fucking kek

Welp I guess genocide doesn't actually work wonders after all if you lose a war and stuck with a huge penalty for the next generation, eh? ;)

But they already have.

I had this exact thought earlier today. Also worth noting that there are plenty of games that can't be "beaten", by design, such as sandbox games, but in that case, they still have objectives, whether game-defined or player-defined. What the author of this article seems to be calling for is the creation of more nongames that are basically narrations set in an interactive space.

Fucking hell and people will still gladly buy this shit, because of muh 600 millions. Yet the Holodomor victims doesn't enjoy the same amount of "PR" like they do.
They do it all the time actually, making up inane bullshit how the Jude got killed in the camps, like a rollercauster with fully automatic people to crematorium function, body parts that are jumping in a pot, masturbation torture machine, brain smashing pedal machine and more!

That's right goy. Genocide only works if we do it :^)

You can’t survive something that didn’t happen.

WRONG
that's the only way you can survive it

Holy shit, this pretty much encapsulates the Jewish mindset in one phrase.

muh David Irving.

TotalBiscuit parroted what was said around here during GG because he is a big sellout and thought that would bring him more followers.

As a thought experiment, imagine Tetris without upper row limit. Game still works as is, it just scrolls the matrix up whenever a block overflows the screen. Winning or losing is just a matter of what you think of your end score. Is not beating a record a loss? I wouldn't consider it son because you could still do bretty well and not beat that chink with the WR who shits on everyone else playing the game. Tetris now has no loss state; is it less of a game?
If your reasoning looks like this to defend the shitty "games are loss states" definition, maybe it's time to reconsider said definition.

As further food for thought, now the game has no time limit. You either keep breaking rows and summing points, or you don't. There is no win or loss state, there is just "doing well" and "doing nothing at all". You could argue doing well is winning, but it certainly is no state. You end the game by pressing a button, and it informs you of how many rows you broke, your combos and your time played. How do you decide who "wins" here? The guy with the most rows, most comboes? The guy with the biggest rows-time relation? Did it stop being a game?

First example is to show why "muh I II II L state xD" is a shitty meme that needs to die. Second one is food for thought. Whether these mods would be boring or not is not relevant, unless your new definition of game will be whether it's boring or not.

Reading is a constant tug-of-war with the author, just like any game is a tug-of-war with the designer, and only the dumb or dull treat books as dead things, the sort of people who would willingly write at Gamasutra.
Tom Pynchon is the easiest example. I'd even call Mason & Dixon the
DARK SOULS
of books n' shit. You are brought to task to read through a largely unfamiliar syntax and meandering storytelling, but the book is incredibly information dense under that thin veneer of quirk, and when you learn to 'play' it, it gets straight to the point. You have to anticipate potholes and misconceptions Pynchon threw in to try to throw you off the important information, and with careful sentence-by-sentence analysis you actually go faster than any speedreader because that's the whole damn point. Some concepts may seem unfairly hard to grasp, but usually there's a key detail or foreshadowing that will help you comprehend them, or at least it tries to warn you of the mindfuckery that's coming before it actually comes.

The satisfaction of beating a game is beating everything that it throws at you, overcoming every obstacle, solving every puzzle, and being able to say "yeah, I did that," because while the game was designed to be beatable (or even relatively accessible), the thing was designed to put something in your way, and it still took something from you to beat it. This can be more abstract, too. I remember competitive drawing maps on Brood War a decade ago, where you played to see who could represent an image the best on the minimap. Games can be about beating your own limitations, even broadening your imagination.
Different books have different challenges, but your goal is always to read it and try to comprehend its information, and eventually, formulate a real opinion on it. Authors aren't afraid to misdirect you for funsies or make things difficult with dense work because the information wouldn't be valuable offered up on an actual silver platter, devoid of detail or context. We have Wikipedia for that, and it'd be just as banal as "playing" games by looking up walkthroughs.

No one wants to play to lose, and no one wants to read and walk away without learning anything new.

Not the right thread I know but there was a minecraft thread up a few hours ago and I can't find it anymore. Does anyone know what the server name was?

Or immerse themselves in a different world. at the very least. I wouldn't be surprised if there were people that actually tried to play to lose, and not just to win at losing.

Right here.

*unzips dick*

It's just like how game journos and their followers dislike Cuphead.

You fucking nigger, it's not a game if you cannot lose.
It stops being a game when you remove the lose state and thus the tetris mods are not a game.

A video game is just a game in digital format. You cannot define a game without including lose states. Rubik cubes are not games but puzzles.

Third pic's seventh tweet should be a banner.

Reads like shitty game academia from a decade ago. Still playing the same broken record as ever. It's not even enough that we now have an active pretentious art game indie scene and shit like Life Is Strange to satisfy the tumblr audience, they want actual video games to not exist.

Is it a game if you cannot win? It is my opinion that Solitaire is not a game, but a timesink. There are impossible scenarios in it that don't depend on the player being an idiot and missing draw and placement opportunities.
To cover the rest of the topic, (((they))) are highly upset that the video game industry pulls in more eyes and dollars than the jewvie and talmudvision industries, and want everything to become bland, inoffensive propaganda to convince people to give more shekels for da poor jews dat hadda go tru da hall of costs with 17 centimeters of lamp poles up dere asses!

It's possible to win solitaire. Bad RNG doesn't disqualify something from being a game.

Also there are plenty of early games that are unwinnable. Unless you consider stack overflow "winning".

I'm legitimately anticipating this moment on the edge of my seat, user.

It's still a game if it has both a win and lose scenario despite the rules. Even if the rules depend on pure chance it can still count as game because it still puts the players in the sense of "play". Which is focus with all of the senses for a task for no reason then for the release of dopamine. And it's not long term but short term so that it won't be confused with exercise(I lose if I get fat but I win if I just do the task.) For a game, you can't just win by doing the task. The task itself must contain a win or lose scenario when you take it.

I was going to post this on the LOL thread but some fag mod deleted it so 'll just dump it here

translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.diarioextra.com/Noticia/detalle/304162/quinceanero-se-suicida-por-novia-imaginaria&edit-text=

Oranienburg/Sachsenhausen wasn't primarily a death camp though, they used prison labor for aircraft manufacturing and currency counterfiting in Operation Bernhard. Later in March of the same year commandant Anton Kaindl had gas chambers installed.

According to whom?

Wikipedia has one of the best definition of game I have seen, and it is defined as a "structured form of play". Because the game is the rules, not the goals, and what makes a game good is the rules, not how pretty the YOU DIED screen is, and no amount of people wanting to reaffirm how hardcore they are by masturbating over how the best part of a game is losing and not winning isn't gonna change that.

Games where you can only win can exist (time attacks, or "how many X can you do in Y time", literally the first Tetris example). Games where you can only lose DO exist (survival mode games, like Luftrausers). Games where you can't win nor lose could exist as some experimental shite and still be games, even if impractical or boring unless you have a really good idea; and people will still find ways to compete (Creative Minecraft, where the competition is in the metagame with the community over who can do the gaudiest shit). This doesn't mean shit like Gone Home has to be games because thst interactive diorama has no meaningful ways to alter the game state, so it is about as much of a game as a toaster, and it is still not as retarded as considering losing the essence of games. It's like if I said the essence of reading is in turning pages.

...

I don't get what the author is complaining about as everyone brags about their taste in media. People would laugh at you if you found 50 shades of grey to be the best literature for the same reason why you find Cuphead hard.

Nailed it.

I have the weird theory that it's probably owed to LGBTQIA+ culture where every braindead actions like sex has to be instant-gratifying and obtained with ease. I'm not saying that they all hate challenge, but when your dopamine level rises from doing an action so simple at a high frequency, you don't want to place the bare minimum of effort into anything anymore.

Those games are more challenging than a preachy walking sim. Stealth games require you to be patient and observe patterns/behavior that would help you progress in the game. That's a tough task for the OP journo.

Hold on there. Saying you can 'only win' a time attack is a bit like saying you can't lose at olympic diving, its only true if you pretend there aren't any other players/athletes doing the same thing because they aren't in the pool with you at that moment. The media itself might not have a gameover screen but that doesn't mean you can't lose to other people. Even if the win/loss competition is not in the frame of the game itself if there is competition you can still lose.

Ah yes, the ones that can be verified to not be death camps just weren't intended to be. But I'm sure those other death camps of the gaps were very real.

It's already done.

Using your faulty reasoning, it could be said that altering the game state doesn't actually matter because the game has imposed limitations, and you will end in a programmed ending no matter what you do

I would argue not winning is not the same as not losing. Anyway, when taking into account the metagame and the community, people will find ways to compete over the dumbest shit. Gone Home has a speedrun World Record (made as a joke, but it's still a speedrun), and that doesn't really make it a game.

What is winning anyway, if the game doesn't tell you you won? You can play time attacks split screen, and it is clear whoever made the highest score won, but when you play alone, what is winning? Beating your highest score? Beating the World Record? Is any run that didn't beat the record a loss? Can you retroactively lose when someone beats your record?

...

Honestly it's quite chocking how different the God from the Old Testament and the New Testament are

What's fun about that?

Anything involving conflict will have some loss and drama thrown in for cheap emotional shock, sometimes they do get it right.

In absolute standards yeah I guess you could say you always lose if you don't beat the world record, however you could say that you set your own win/loss conditions by having goals of your own. Its possible to be winning one competition while losing another.
I would use an example of a track meet. A kid can do well in discus, getting the gold in the competition but still fail to get a high enough score to set a school record let alone a world record. If you had your eyes set on school record you lost.
refer to the Olympic diving example, you can beat the guy before you and then still lose to the next

In the gone home example, gone home isn't really a game but speedrunning gone home is.

Thank you user.

You're welcome.

Not really. The Jews wouldn't fucking stop sacrificing their own children and trying to jew God no matter how many prophets, plagues, selling the entire nation into slavery, and genocides he threw at them. The entire Old Testament is a story of Jewish failure and their history a detailed guide on how not to follow God, and the Jewish religion is a clusterfuck of lovecraftian mental gymnastics trying to avoid this obvious interpretation of their own scripture.

When you have to paint milk blue and order your slave to make it so they milk their goat just to "relieve" the poor goat from pain because your religion says you are not supposed to work that day and suddenly there is blue cheese in the market you have to start to wonder what was the point of even pretending you care about the fucking rules, hell no wonder there are so many jewish lawyers.

Back on topic why do these "game journalist" keep pretending they actually care about games if they are so scared of not being taken seriously because they can't even play already extremely casualized modern shit? Who do they think they are fooling here?

...

Thats not mental gymnastics by any stretch, its also not really a christian belief to begin with.

???
I can't even find that shit online.

This is why I still consider christianity a death cult to this day. They're hell bent on the idea that the end of days is right around the corner and they can't fucking WAIT to see the non believers get put through the blender while they the pious get to float off to a magical land where they will be the willful slaves to god and sing hallelujahs and praises for all eternity. They just want to sit and pray until that happens instead of fucking doing the work required to make life better, nah fuck life it's too late just pray for god to wipe the slate clean.

being in eternal bliss for all eternity sounds tiring, wouldn't God eventually kill himself since there is no end, bringing an indefinite end forever?

Talmud m8

books.google.com.ar/books?id=avh6dkSop0EC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=blue saturday milk&source=bl&ots=Lx877wgf_n&sig=QRhPd_vvNq7FYOHOswOzhJwDyjk&hl=es-419&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrt4W29rzYAhUIfpAKHQy1AKEQ6AEINDAF#v=onepage&q=blue saturday milk&f=false

Holy shit what the fuck

thank god we have moral guardians to do incredible critical thinking like this to make sure our entertainment is safe for consumption; and to have them berate us when we like problematic elements due to bigoted biases which we must deprogram

Fuck off and go bitch about elevating the medium of football or checkers or some shit so you can have a slim chance of realizing how actually retarded you are.

Has everyone forgotten where the term video games comes from. You know, games you play through video. And what are games; skill based competitions or challenges you overcome, or fucking beat. It's a fucking term that's been brought over from the origin of the medium. It can be a statement of skill but if someone says they beat a VN or low skill game they're just saying they played it through to completion. Why does everything have to be read into when in such a fucking round-a-bout way?

There's nothing biblical about the Rapture. It doesn't even come up in Revelation, which is in and of itself not really a prophecy but a metaphor. All that Revelation really says is that one day the world will end and those who believe will join God in heaven. That's it.

Hell, anyone who actually tries to divine the future from the Bible is retarded. They've been doing that for over 2000 years now, ever since the original disciples figured that Jesus would be coming back next week. They didn't even bother to listen to what he said when he told them that not even he knew when the end times would come, so it's arrogant as fuck to assume that you could figure it out on your own. That's not even getting into shit like Jehovah's Witnesses, who literally interpret the 144,000 as being the only ones who will be saved, and tear each other down to make sure that they're high enough in the hierarchy to be chosen.

I'm gonna cut myself on all that edge, jeez. Do you seriously think that that's all Christians do, is sit around with their thumbs up their asses and wait for the Apocalypse to blow them all to heaven? Maybe some whackjob evangelicals do, but they're sorely misguided. Christianity is more about living a good life here and making this imperfect world as good as you possibly can. Not because you have to in order to get into heaven, but because it's the right thing to do.

t. Lutheran

Moby Dick was full of interracial homoerotism, so i guess is a must read for every liberal cuck

...

Because the point of those games is to succeed despite your vulnerabilities and being unable/too weak to fight. In the end you come up on top anyways. The fact that they hate that so much tells us a lot about them: they don't worship "empowerment of the weak" so much as they praise weakness itself.

I think that is more of Baptist thing or a Protestant thing in general. These assholes are literally excited the world will go to shit and they would be sent directly to heaven before it happens.

Yeah, these are the same people who (granted are a much smaller subset) are bending over backwards to court/fund the Jewish lobby and are donating millions of dollars into driving out the Palestinians and re-establishing Israel as an orthodox Jewish state.

The end result, they believe, will be that Jesus can't return until after the Jews rebuild the temple - and once it's done and Jesus returns, he'll either convert all the Jews to Christianity or outright kill the ones who don't believe.

It's a pretty round-about way of genociding.

I wonder who could be behind this doctrine?

>(((Christians))) believe jews are the chosen people and they deserve Israel
It's almost as if someone fed them fake propaganda knowing they didn't actually read the Bible, wonder who could be behind that?

So christians had not moved a single finger to take back Jerusalem in the modern age and when they could they only did to gift the place to (((them))) ?

The plot thickens

LOL

"Beat"… These people are the plague.
The plague I say.

I thought the writer was onto something, but then he goes into defeat, victory, and "dominant exercising of power." Actually, this article was bullshit even before that, I apparently glossed over the "Americans often talk about beating a video game" gaymur hitpiece introduction. I could write better slop than this; the reason why people often say they beat a "game" is because games take a certain amount of physical dexterity to complete, and the player is playing against a game's set of rules that they have to overcome. You build a mental process of how to play a game and the physical steps you take to complete the game follow. You overcome, surmount, challenge, and yes, beat the game. It's no shocking revelation that a word with a violent connotation like "beat" would be used to describe taking on a metaphorical opponent like a videogame; especially when you consider the level of difficulty of early generation videogames.

Don't be that surprised.

...

The Anglo strikes again

Enough of them to make it concerning. I know enough of the bible to be outright disgusted by even the concept of an afterlife.

This is another thing that really shrivels my dick, so many denominations that continue to put jews and israel up on a pedestal like a golden cow in spite of EVERYTHING.

Anyone can beat him.

And still, got ego hurt by an anime image eh, lefty? Hate anime, failed soyboy?
Still butthurt for being a literal virgin AND a failure that brags about "winning" to anonymous posters?

Well posted, fellow dick stroker

Fucking never heard that. No labour to be done on Kike Shabbos, so they add blue dye to the milk (see it's not milk) and then make cheese with it. Those Jews do everything to try and trick god, you think god wouldn't see through that shit? Goddamn fucking synagogue of satan

Anyway, just to state the obvious, games are not movies and hipsters need to kill themselves.

less implies there is still game. that's like saying something is less null, or that cutting a slice out of an apple makes it less of an orange.
Yes.
Tetris without an upper row limit is like those clicker "games". Your score just gets higher and higher until you walk away.
inb4 walking away is the fail state
Though I suppose how well someone played tetris could be broken down like this

...

Because those games try to point towards your weaknesses making you learn something about them in the process and grow as a person due to that. It's about conquering your weaknesses, putting you in an unpleasant situation, throwing you out of your comfort zone, making you become stronger or at least showing you where your limits lay and teaching you on how to control them.

>THERE IS NO NEED TO WASTE MONEY ON BLUE DYE

pick ticket to gulag

youtube.com/watch?v=yKIiUsbOO24

Games are interactive. Books and movies are not. Reading a book or watching a movie is a completely empty and pointless exercise compared to playing a game, which thrusts you into the narrative and makes it happen to you, rather than to a disconnected narrator or character.
You "beat" a game the same way you can "beat" life. It doesn't fucking matter what happens to Ahab - unless YOU ARE Ahab. Then suddenly you actually have a reason to give a fuck about that faggot whale.

Not only is his shit getting fucked, but the entire "le skeptic :^)" community is getting ass blasted because of that shitty discord.

Tip Top Kek.

I remember a long long long time ago when they actually wrote about useful industry shit like job hirings or people doing post-mortems on games they just finished making.

So, Marvel's gone so deep in the Kool-Aid, that they've somehow turned around and taken a sane and perfectly reasonable look at the migrant crisis and made it the fucking Red Skull's point of view?

I swear you retards need to hang yourself, for the longest time Jews and Christians have been enemies and still are
Also

I'm amazed that these people managed to make plaid, beards, and early 20th century mustaches into symbols of effeminate faggotry. Their faggotry is that powerful.

yes,the purest of (((coincidences)))

You sound like this homosexual soyboy I met on some socialist nation simulator.

reminder that gamasutra is owned by a company that puts on conferences for a living.
originally, they thought
but after a while they realized

this is 'i recognize that gay blowjob' levels of posting in terms of a self-own

They were being toxically manly ironically so they pretty much made every symbol of lumberjacks gay somehow, it is astounding.

Yes. And then on the following page they have the Red Skull's followers strap on suicide vests and start blowing up mosques, because Alinsky.

The retarded leftist view was always there.
Remember the whole "heroes don't kill" idiocy?
The goal was always to brainwash children into being pussies that don't kill their enemies.
Never let that happen.

Christ, what awful writing

Eh, I'm always torn on this. I think a hero can be moral and still kill, like Kenshiro, but I don't think there's anything wrong with individual heroes who consider killing against their moral code, especially when it lends to great stories like that episode of Batman TAS where Batman's robot clone copies him too well, and upon believing he's killed the real Bats snaps and redeems himself by destroying the evil AI it was trying to revive.

That was an episode? that sounds pretty awesome

Here's the climax of said episode. For context, the countdown is the robot clone installing the evil AI into the Batcomputer. Not included in this clip is Batman revealed to be alive, and going with Alfred to the robot clone's remains with a conversation along the lines of

"He chose to sacrifice himself rather than to let innocent people come to harm."
"Do you think he had a soul, Alfred? A soul of silicon, but a soul nonetheless?"

Where next for the algebraic power fantasy.
It's revealing that Mathematicians often talk about 'solving' an equation, in a way that nobody would talk about 'solving' Moby Dick, or Schindler's List. The inference is that equations are things to be proved, and victory is, in most spheres of life, won via a dominant exercising of logic. But the terminology isn't only clumsy, it also limits the medium, tying nerds to an idea that every np hard problem must be designed in such a way that it can be solved. This artificial narrowing confines the artistic imagination: what about equations that explore failure, death, loss, pain –the kinds of insurmountable challenge and set-back that are commonplace in existence.

8/10, should've worked in something like "You know who wanted to 'solve' things so bad he was going to make a final one? HITLER"

...

HH. Isn't this what Kaczynski also said, he had these fuckers figured out years ago. Is it no wonder cuckold porn, anti-(White)Male, deconstruction of the Hero's journey, etc are all being pushed. Fuck these sick rats.

The thing is: there is nothing amoral in killing those that harm you and your equals. The whole "moral for not killing" thing was fabricated by the comic books industry.
If before, in mythos or other fiction, "heroes" did not kill, usually it was done as a means to teach a lesson. Often, ending in the hero getting fucked for not killing his enemy.
When comic books (a jew industry, might i remind you) started, they pushed for the "heroes don't kill" as if it was the norm and the definition of a hero. And it never was. Only on their fabricated "mythos". And even them, they missed the point being "heroes that don't kill get fucked and NEVER recover from that" from ancient mythos and older fiction.

Everything can be solved. The world and reality itself are objectives.
A FINAL SOLUTION is achievable.
Subjectiveness only "work" on the heads of retarded ideologues.

>(((catholics)))

She's right about one thing, I love beating Moby Dick.

Oh I agree, I'm just making the allowance for individual heroes who consider it part of their own, personal moral code to not kill, because I've seen it used to create compelling characters and tell good stories in the past. I don't think that should be a blanket morality rule by any means though.

To me, the compelling part always falls flat when the basis is "the hero does not kill".
Even the "good" written stories, when i am reminded that "this happened because the hero does not kill" i can only laugh and can't take them seriously anymore.

LOL

If that's the base concept, then yeah, that's weak, but as part of a larger character concept I can see it working - the aforementioned Batman story being a good example.

I can imagine it now
Reminder that Holocaust erotica is popular with the jews

Man fuck that guy, he tried to pander so fucking hard to the mudslimes that he might as well be one of them. Not to mention that it baffled me how hard he tried to look 'progressive' and 'hip'.

Cease your bullshittery

They're rare, but I can agree with this. Trigun was an alright show, and part of what made it interesting is specifically that Vash refused to kill anyone and even tried to save the people he was fighting when possible - which made for some good tension when you're trying to figure out how he's going to resolve the scenarios that the writers put him in without breaking his oath. Balsa was another one, now that I think of it, that was a really good character specifically because she wouldn't allow herself to kill.

in canada we told our teachers to stop raping indians in the residential schools so its okay and proves they weren't that bad :^)

(reminds me that I finally need to read the manga) What made Trigun interesting usually had less to do with the physical conflict, and more to do with the moral conflicts that Vash was forced into. The physical conflicts work best whenever the protagonists aren't written as crazy OP, but the general pattern of the second act (Vash being put in mental anguish) is the main focus of the story.
Speaking of that, a Trigun game could theoretically work. Divide the levels up among the characters, with the Vash levels in particular involving you using a button that displays his knowledge of human anatomy (including arteries)+ adds slomo that you use as a means to diffuse situations non-fatally. You lose if you kill someone, fail to make sure they're properly treated after you shoot them, or (on hard mode) failing to prevent any possibly preventable death.

Argument invalidated.

To be honest, I consider Moby Dick a challenge. Probably one I'll never beat.

If it wasn't for the mustard gas I'd find that slightly kind of hot.

These retards ruined the movies industry. Now hollywood is dead, and they come over to talk about videogames. And of course, they try to ruin vydias as well, because that's what the jews and their goleS do, they ruin, they degenerate, they devolve everything they touch.
EVERYTIME SOME RETARD SAYS GAMES SHOULD BE ACCESSIBLE, IT'S YOUR DUTY AS A GAMER TO TELL THEM TO GTFO, IN THE MEANIEST, HARSHEST WAY POSSIBLE.

It really speaks to the state of games journalism/critique when you can post this sort of shit and still hold something resembling a position as a critic/journo.

Moby Dick is a challenging read. Aside from the wordcraft itself - 1/3 of the book is incredibly boring detailed asides describing the minutia of the whaling industry interjected mid-story. Another 1/3rd of it is incredibly gay shit - whether intentional or not. But it's that last third which has some great imagery and exciting story that makes it somewhat worth the read.

The spear Ahab has forged to kill the whale is epic. Twelve twisted rods (representing the 12 disciples), with a head barbed with straight razors, and it's cooled during the forging by dipping it in the blood of the pagan natives (who were his harpooners) as he performed a baptism in the name of Satan over it.

I heard Ahab was insane but I didn't think he would be that insane.

It says a lot about the West as a whole and how far it's fallen as a gaming power.

It's not just that - western society as a whole is at war. It's a war on human will, and until human willpower is respected properly, maybe even worshiped you will have transgender otherfolk, merchants selling pink vibrators and Islamic invaders hiding behind a bush just waiting to blow themselves up in a tightly-packed crowd of people.

RED SKULL DID NOTHING WRONG!

..14105340

The thing is: Vash could have easily solved everything by killing a small number of guys. Instead, a large number of peole died because he holded his retarded beliefs.
Legato's case (at least in the anime) also showed Vash that his beliefs could not be upholded. He failed at maintaining them. The whole point was lost and all the victims of Vash's innaction died for nothing.
The whole "the hero does not kill" only make things look stupid, as most of the problems could be solved by rational actions such as killing the guys causing trouble. All the tension from "what will Vash do to solve this" is made stupid by the fact that everything would be better if he just killed the bad guys.
And that does not even count the shitty ending. The true ending was the one where Knives killed everyone when he woke up after the end credits. There is no way that the false and forced happy ending happened.

Amen to that.
Inclusiveness is cancer and only lows the overall quality of any product or service.
Everything that is made to be acessible by inferiors (inferior races and/or inferior thoughts) will delude it's quality quickly. Nothing will change that.
If it is acessible to many, it will become shit.

As soon as the whole western industry is taken over by the japanese, things will improve.
If the chinese get it first, at least we will have the faggots, soyboys and other abominations thrown out.
Either is ok to me.
If we can't have the industry that we want, at least we will be able to (literally) take down the soyboys and co. along with it.

It's fine for a hero character to not kill if he finds the other character capable of redemption. You don't kill a criminal just for his past and present actions, but because you know he'll continue to be a criminal of such horrible crimes until he eventually dies. The problem is when the career criminals and chronic criminals are get treated as being redeemable. The only time such characters gain redemption without it being arbitrary and contrived is from their own realizations and faults, not because someone who could've killed them refused to kill them. Among other reasons, this is why a laid off food thief who only steals when he's run out of food isn't put on the chopping block while serial killers are.

Red Skull would shoot you.

And still be right about everything.

But allowing redemption is what enables criminals to keep committing crimes.
When you have zero tolerance for even the smallest crimes, you have an organized and fully functional society.
Whenever fictional histories show redemption for criminals, it never feels right. Always remember their past crimes and that is reason enough to kill them.

Look, user. The Catholics are heretics, and anyone who has actually read the Bible knows this, that much is true. But it's also true that you're being a cock-gobbling homosexual at the moment.

A criminal who is redeemed or reformed becomes a person who will no longer commit crimes, therefore the redemption is not an "enabling" of continued crime. Furthermore, If a society treats all crimes as being worthy of punishable by death, you will still have the issue of crime as either you have the criminals created by circumstance, while anyone already criminal will only have further incentive to commit crimes as there would be no reason then to stop if you are to be eventually caught and executed for a previous crime. If anything, it enables chronic criminals to remain chronic, and criminals or minor or even victimless crimes to become chronic and more extreme. This would have to be counterbalanced by giving people enough guaranteed social and financial security that the only reason then to commit a crime would be because you just really hate somebody.

Ironically speaking, it'd be more of a leftist notion to axe someone if a visible hair happens to drop and touch the floor outside the line. Look at the multiple times leftists and SJWs go on purity spirals against each other, look at when people got booty blasted at what Cenk said a little over two decades ago.

Yeah, but a parcel of the society would be able to live crime free, as a majority of criminals would be systematically killed.
The issue is not about eliminating crime completely or not. It is about making it so hard to commit, that it does not affect but a small percentage of society. And even them, those that still practice crimes, will be eliminated fast as to not drag on the problems that they can cause, or caused, when alive.
Redemption never is guaranteed to make someone leave a life of crime.
But killing a criminal ensures that he will never commit a crime against innocents ever again. That is a way better result than what redemption offers.

How strict and accountable then will be the legislators? The quality of a law is not based on principle, but its actual effect and its enforcers' ability to enforce it. Underneath a leftist government we would all be killed, even if all we did were to type words on the internet or pirate video games. How able will law enforcement be in avoiding a scenario that they will have to damage control with "Raising awareness" of crime upon killing someone whose criminal status is supposed or alleged at best or worse framed by another person, as leftists do to mitigate the fact that they've done anything against their ideals or universally wrong?

Killing criminals does not affect the difficulty in committing crime either. If I were to be either shot or arrested by officers for breaking into somebody's house, Killing or shooting me has only to do with the extremity of the punishment, as enforcement of the law is always reactionary in nature, and enforcing law is not as necessary when people have less or no incentive to commit crimes in relation to the gains they receive from crime. By establishing a punishment to criminals that is not only universal no matter the crime, but also extreme, you can only stand to gain sympathizers of criminals who commit minor crimes, especially if law enforcement is not extremely effective, accurate, and precise. With sympathizers you create people who are less willing to assist law enforcement and report crimes, more willing to either commit crimes, become complicit, and/or both legally and illegally act in opposition of the policies that turned criminals into martyrs, thus either causing society to rely on self-moderation or forcing the people in charge to dedicate law enforcement to addressing direct threats to itself. The only way to avoid this is to create a society where people would not want to commit crimes because they already have what they generally want, therefore the only crimes that could exist are out of passionate malice towards others.

You are talking about utopias.
There is no way to ensure how strict and accountable then will be the legislators.
But allowing for the killing of pretty much any criminal without the bureaucracy involved with formal judgement IS better solution.than than simply allowing criminals to run free while only a small parcel of then are convicted and still allowed to live.
Yo don't need formal prosecution to know that it is ok to kill the guy who is stealing a store in front of you. You go there and kill him and that is it for him.
Civil vigilantism and direct executions without proper judgement ARE a faster way to ensure that more criminals are eliminated.
And of course there will be innocents killed. That can't be helped. At least, for the living ones, society will be better simply for having less criminals alive and more of them afraid to even commit crimes, let alone be caught in doing so.
When we had lynching mobs and vigilantes, all criminals were afraid of everyone, and security was better for the common people, at the expense of some innocents that were wrongly killed. And that is ok. It is a small price to pay for better security for everyone else. No system is perfect, but this one at least ensures that criminals will be eliminated and not just punished, and it is a much better situation than letting criminals have rights, or allowing redemption or allowing them to live.

Damn.

I think you are letting your edge get the better of you.

Said scheme would not work out at all as there is no means to establish consensus on what is criminal or not. All it takes is, say, a property dispute between two neighbours. Both consider the other a criminal guilty of trespass and unlawful use of their rightful property and feel wholly justified in putting a bullet in their head. And if one is successful in doing so he would probably be seen as a murderer by all who disagree with his claim and that's a recipe for a localized civil war.
This thing was figured out a long time ago which is why you often see a sort of council appearing in tribal/clan-based societies with no real "state" such as the Althing of ancient Iceland. Here people could get together to decide on which grievances were legitimate and which were not. The alternative would have been endless clan wars which would decimate the populace.

Yes, there is.
The useful people are pt above the defective and given the right to eliminate the defective at will.
There are defective people in the world that should never be allowed to keep existing.
Everything in society works best when simplified.
The defective that harms FIRST the innocent for their own personal gains can be killed by anyone. That is enough of a crime to be used as a basis for all the others.
That is why the idea of not killing criminals is completely stupid.
You see a criminal attacking people and you kill him. That is all.
Being a murderer is not a bad thing when you kill criminals. and as i said before, killing some innocents by mistake is totally acceptable when the criminals are also killed.
Tribal and clan wars are also good things. It keeps the strongest and most functional members of society at the top. while eliminating the defective and weak. The notion that it would be "endless" is a completely mistaken one. One all defective and weak are dead, the survivors can thrive without being dragged or slowed down by those.

You may not be Coldsteel the Hegegeh edgy, but damn if you are trying.

This is a bullshit argument. Most games in the last two decades or so just end the same way a movie does, with a cutscene and credits. That's not exactly a "win condition" per se, and lots of games don't even have either.

If you like to have things stolen from you and the criminals set free and allowed to receive pensions, that is your problem.
Killing them, even if some innocent little girl is caught in the crossfire is the right thing to do.

This makes a heap of sense as to why cuckoldry is so popular with soyboys. Letting your woman take another in your steadfast could only be appreciated by someone who gets their rocks off to their own misfortune.

These people are lunatics.

And that is why it is ok to kill them.
Oppression against them is a good thing and must always be enforced.

You wouldn't BEAT A WHALE