16/08/10 Perceived Reality, My Dad, RTS Counter Systems.

I’m back after about two months or so… I’d like to say I was busy (which I was, but not *too* busy) but to be honest I simply didn’t think of this blog. Or when I did, I didn’t feel like writing anything for it. But to make up, I have three, yes three subjects to rant about!

Firstly: I have won The Game!
And you all just lost it. ๐Ÿ˜‰ But now that the 30-minute rule is running, best read on, because I’ll mention it a few times in the following paragraphs.

In all seriousness, though, I’m out of The Game. I am no longer going to cringe, sigh, and/or swear when it is mentioned or when it pops up randomly. Why not? Because I see no reason to. I refuse to believe that being reminded of the words ‘the game’ is reason enough to feel bad. In fact, I’m going to start a new game, called ‘the Gamble’. Every time you are reminded of the words ‘the gamble’ you win!
Ok, not really, but it does open up the question: ‘if you won the game every time you were reminded of it, instead of lose it, would it have been as popular’? Would people randomly shout ‘the Game!’ or post it on fora or on Facebook if they knew it would bringย  joy to those around them, rather than annoyance? Would The Game be grafitied on walls of buildings if it would cheer people up?
Somehow I doubt it. The success of The Game thrives on the fact it annoys people. Making people lose The Game is a form of trolling much like Rickrolling. This worries me, because it means that our generation, as well as the next draws a large part of our entertainment from the misery of others. If you’re younger than 12, that should be natural. However, after that, there really should be some maturing happening.
Then again, I’m not really much into pranks. Like anyone, I don’t like being pranked, but I don’t enjoy much pranking others, either, so maybe I’m a little biased in all this. And, when you get down to it, The Game is a form of pranking. It does, however, require everyone (including (especially) the prankee) to play along. And this is what I chose to no longer do.

It’s called perceived reality. When you tell yourself that something is true, and you believe it, then you will perceive that as being true. Opinions find their basis in perceived reality. Religion works that way: the religious believe that God exists, so for them God becomes a reality. Most often when someone’s perceived reality is very different from ‘the norm’ it is chalked up to physical or mental conditions. Someone who perceives the sky to be red is either colourblind or crazy. And yes, I just compared religion to schizophrenia.

If you approach things very rationally, you can choose how you perceive your reality. And I’m not talking about things like ‘I believe I’m rich’ or ‘I believe I’m (fe)male’. Nor am I talking about things like ‘I’m beautiful’ or ‘I’m popular’. Believing the former couple could be dangerous, believing the latter couple is arrogant narcissism. No, I’m talking about things like what makes you feel bad. A short while before my girlfriend (one and a half year ago) broke up with me, she put quite a bit of music on my computer. After the break-up, this music made me sad, until I said ‘damn it, this music is too good, I’m not going to avoid it because of her’. I no longer perceived that music as something that was intricately linked to her, and I could again enjoy the music for the music’s sake.
Another example is one I did ages ago, entirely subconciously: at one point I ceased judging people on their appearance, and purely on what they say and what they do.
And finally, the Game. While most people I know percieve The Game to be real, with real rules you have to abide to (you lose it when you remember it, and the 30 minute rule) I chose to percieve The Game as something that was invented. Something made up. Something that should have no greater hold on my life than, say, pixies. And so it doesn’t.
Now, if you want to step out of The Game like I did, that’s your choice. This isn’t meant to be an anti-Game rally. I’m just pointing out the futility of playing and the fact that there’s a way out.

Here’s a link to a site about perceived reality
And this one’s pretty interesting too.

Right, that’s one. Secondly: my father’s a dick.

As most of you might know, my parents are divorced and my dad lives on the other side of town. I live with my mother, or rather I live in a room in my mother’s house, and I occasionally come down to eat or relieve myself. A few days ago, my father came over to ‘discuss my future’ with my mother first and then with me. Some of the things he said were simply infuriating. Not the things he said to my face. He still wants me to waste two times two hours a week visiting him. No, it were mainly the things I heard when I was eavesdropping on him and my mother. (Yes, I eavesdrop on my parents when they talk about me). The most striking example was the following (I’m using a name for ease of use. This is not the person’s real name)
Dad: “…and he only makes virtual friends. He can’t meet real people.”
Mom: “Actually, he did meet someone a while ago. Sophia, and he went out with him a few times.”
Dad: “Him? This Sohpia is a guy?”
Mom: “Well, yes…”
Dad: “That’s ofcourse an influence…”
To recap here: In five lines he went from ‘he can’t make friends’ to ‘his friends (which he at one point made) are a bad influence’. And yes, he really does believe all my friends are excentric. This isn’t me assuming he assumes this, he actually said so later on. And yes, if I met you on the internet, you’re not real, apparently, because I don’t meet real people on the internet.
Anyway, later that evening, I had a few lovely insights in how his thoughts pattern works. A few examples:
-I have some excentric friends -> I hang out with excentric people -> I don’t have normal friends. (at this point I asked him to define ‘normal friends’. I’m still waiting for the answer)
-I don’t say much when I’m over at his place -> I don’t say much -> I’m socially inept.
-I spend a lot of time in front of a computer -> I spend all my time in front of a computer -> I am wasting my youth with games where I shoot people’s heads off (I never play shooters, by the way, but shhh)
-I didn’t do that thing he asked me to do I never did before -> I am incapable of figuring out stuff on my own.
Coupled with
-I went to the psych on my own to deal with my gender -> I’m doing this gender stuff behind his back -> I’m going to get a sex change without telling him -> I’m going to get a sex change tomorrow without telling him.
-I went to the psych to deal with my gender -> I’m too focused on my gender issues -> I failed this year because I’m only focused on my gender issues.
-I made up my gender issues either to spite him or to ‘feel special’
-I like fantasy -> I dislike anything that isn’t fantasy -> Anyone I know who likes fantasy is reinforcing this feeling of disliking anything non-fantasy -> Anyone I know who doesn’t hate fantasy is a bad influence
-I also apparently chose to study history because it’s related to fantasy
-I didn’t like reading books 10 years ago -> I don’t like reading the books he gives me -> I still don’t like reading books

So yeah… my dad…
He means well, I’m sure, but that doesn’t mean he has to be a dick about it. Because he is. A dick, that is.
Did I mention I don’t get along well with my father?

During the ‘conversation’ (monologue) I wasn’t sure if I should beat him, run away crying or start laughing. I’m still not sure, really.

Thirdly, games.

For a while now, I’ve been running around with ideas for what I would think would be a great RTS game. Depending on the reactions on this I might share more ideas in future posts (y0u know, in half a year) but this time I’d like to discuss the counter system. Why the counter system? Because setting up a proper counter system is the very basis of building a balanced RTS. If you have a counter system in place that works, you can dress up the game any way you want without skewing the balance too much. There’s still things to keep in mind like cost-to-effectiveness ratios, but if we forego the math for a moment and only talk about the concept, counters are the basis.

Those among you who play RTS games are no doubt familiar with the rock-paper-scissors system that they use to decide which unit counters which. The archer counters the infantry counters the cavalry counters the archer. This system, while simple, is flawed in that infantry used various types of weapons on the battlefield, their role changing based on which one. It basically boiled down to the polearm versus the close-quarter weapon (usually a sword). Battle for Middle Earth II solved this by splitting up the infantry into swordsmen and pikemen, in a ‘archers counter swordsmen counter pikemen counter cavalry counter archers’ cycle. However, this cycle is also skewed, because there are two couples where theoretically neither counters the other: the archers vs pikeman couple and the cavalry vs swordsman couple. However, it is safe to assume that the archers beat the pikemen because they could be mowed down from long range and the cavalry beat the swordsmen because cavalry could trample foot soldiers in that game, skewing the balance in favour of massed archers and cavalry (making mounted archers imbalanced to the extreme. I remember being nigh-invincible with only Rohirrim equiped with bows, spider-riders equiped with bows and whatever the elven horse-archers were called).
Age of Mythology did a pretty awesome job of balancing an on-paper complicated-looking system: The game had three cycles (four if you include ships) overlapping and criss-crossing. I’ll try to explain with just words here: the first cycle catagorized each military unit (bar siege units and ships) into one of three groups: human soldiers, heroes and myth units. Heroes worked differently for each of the three factions: the Greek had up to four heroes who were insanely powerful compared to other units (but not invincible), the Egyptians could mass weak priests as heroes and the Norse had the Hersir unit which could also be massed in theory, but was expensive. The heroes counter myth units. If a group of myth units faced a group of heroes with the same population and/or resource cost, the heroes would always win… always. The same was true for myth units versus human soldiers in favour of the myth units. Human soldiers versus heroes would also go in favour of the soldiers, but for various reasons: Greek heroes are in theory superior to regular soldiers of the same tier, but are limited in number, and thus could be overwhelmed. Egyptian priests are just weak withou their damage bonus to myth units. Norse Hersir are classified as infantry and fall into that cycle.
That cycle, by the way, only includes human soldiers, and is the classic archers > infantry > cavalry > archers cycle, with the addition of so called counter-units. Rather than splitting up infantry into swordsmen and pikeman, like BfMEII, the game takes the heavy infantry as the mainline infantry and designates certain types of units as so called counter-units. These units still belong to their own class of infantry, archers of cavalry, but instead of having a damage bonus against the unit type they usually counter, they have a damge bonus against another type, usually their own (all greek counter units counter their own type, just like most Egyptian counter units), though there are exceptions: Egyptian camel riders counter both archers AND cavalry, norse raiding cavalry counter archers extra hardly and their huskarls counter archers as well, making them weak only to counter-infantry units. (the Norse, by the way, seem to hate archers, as they have two counter-archer units and no archer units of their own). These counter units do more damage to the units they counter than regular units, but take more damage from units they don’t counter, especially units that counter them.
The third cycle is looser: siege units counter buildings like towers and fortresses, who counter human soldiers and some myth units who counter siege units. Some myth units, however, like the Scarab are designed to be building killers, and can eat a whole town if it’s not brought down with other units.
This system, while awesome, has plenty of room for improvement. For example, I think it’d be awesome if myth units represented powerful versions of non-myth units. The centaur, for example, could make a great cavalry archer unit, but isn’t classified as such, thus doesn’t receive the bonusses and penalties of either. I think it would be great if the centaur did have his myth unit bonus, but could be threatened by counter-cavalry units, like the camel rider. The aforementioned scarab does this already, by being really powerful against buildings, but useless against human units.

I remember a really old game called Knights and Merchants. I’m still not sure if that’s an RTS overly focused on economy or a city-builder-ish game with a deep focus on combat. It played a bit like cultures (for those who know that game) but much more structured. It had four unit types: swordsmen, pikemen, archers and cavalry, and two tiers: wooden weapons and leather armour being tier one and metal weapons and armour tier two. Swordsmen countered pikemen countered cavalry countered swordsmen. Archers had insane damage against everything but had almost zero health so fell over when you peed on them. Keep in mind this game is ancient and slow as hell. It took several hours to get an effective fighting force and when you lost an attack, it would take several more hours to build that force up again. But the idea seems solid.

Now, for the game I had in mind. The setting would be Shades of Light, which is a fantasy world I invented and am currently writing stories in. (mainly why I discussed only fantasy/medieval games, and not, say, Starcraft) The world has three major factions and includes both magic as well as different levels of technology. The factions are: The Federation of Light, which would be the standard fantasy ‘human-elf-dwarf’ faction (one thing to note: Shades of Light is not a world with various races, but with one dominant species with several cultures). The faction would rely on heavy infantry supported by archers and cavalry; The Union of Stars, which is a conglomeration of tribes. They would mainly have a large, very large number of light units; and the Empire of the Sun and Moon, which is a Steampunk-inspired faction that uses heavy machinery as well as telekinetic magic. I have pondered several ways a counter system could work here. One is to have the type of attack counter the type of armour, but that would put the Empire in a favourable position, as their machines of war would be strong to anything but magic users. Another one, one that I like on paper, is one that vastly reduced the health of human units, vastly increases the damage they do, and vastly reduces their chance to hit. I could also give soldiers the ability to overwhelm machines, break into them and kill everyone in side, if they have sufficient numbers, though that wouldn’t give a non-magic answer to the flying ships and unmanned creations the Empire wields. This would also mean that, say, an archer is stronger than an infantry unit because the archer has the chance to attack the infantry unit several times before the latter closes in, and not because the former has an attack bonus.
I could also look at Warcraft III’s counter system, where every attack type does extra damage to a number of armour types and reduced damage to several others and where every armour type is strong against several attack types and weak against several others.

And that was it for this time. As always, if you have comments or feedback, do not hesitate to post them or to otherwise share them with me. I have reexams coming up in the next few weeks, but after that, I’ll try to put more rants up. I can’t promise if they’ll be as long as this one, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad think.


15 thoughts on “16/08/10 Perceived Reality, My Dad, RTS Counter Systems.

  1. Christian says:

    Personally I’ve always favored Warcraft III’s counter system to the system employed in classic RTS games such as Age of Empires, which tend to suffer from the exact issues that you highlighted. By detailing weapon and armor types rather than unit types, you can overcome the inherent weakness of the archer beats infantry beats cavalry beats archer system. Furthermore, balance can be augmented through accuracy multipliers, attack speed, splash damage, etc.

    In particular, with a magic-heavy, steampunk-styled faction, you might want to skip the counter system entirely, and instead look at other options such as units enhancing eachother, the faction placing heavy emphasis on combined-arms, something that game creators often try to emphasize, but fail to realise. Far harder to balance, but with the potential to be very fluid if done right. Have a look at how the Tau Empire works in Warhammer 40k for inspiration – infantry units providing markerlights for larger, mechanical units is my favorite. Your UoS faction might be outclassed by the heavy machinery of your EoSM, but this need not matter if they can render the machinery useless by taking out the infantry spotters.

  2. Mycroft says:

    Indeed, longpost is loooong.

    First of all, while I like your rts-counter system, I think there are LOADS of other qualms you can have with modern-day rts-es. (scale is one of them). But the big problem I have is how every unit has HIT POINTS. This has only made sense to me as a gameplay aspect.
    When a soldier stabs an archer, they should stop firing and die, instead of shooting till their hitpoints run out.
    Yes, I get how this is supposed to be dodging and parrying and stuff, but it’s always looked ridiculous.
    It might make more sense to have your Empire be the one to create units who can take a punishment, since they’re mostly machines.
    The Union would make sense as a swarm-race, with few tactics, squads and formations, and the Federation of light as the romans to counter the “barbarian horde”, so to speak.

    Still, having airships in an rts is a game-breaker anyway, considering none of the other races have access to either magic or that kind of technology.

    There, rant finished :p

    also: I’m a bad influence ๐Ÿ˜€ I like fantasy.

  3. Astranova says:

    Well, what do you know: I have actually made it on to your blog, I have read every single word of your entry and I’m even posting a comment. Can I get a gold star for this? (I assume that, by now, you have figured out who I am. If not, that makes me mysterious. I like that.)

    First of all, I am not going to say anything about the whole game concept you have in mind. Except that it sounds good to me. I’m not an RTS game type of girl (I do happen to play shooters and fighting games, so watch out for my bad influence), but if you’d fully develop this game and bring it to market, I would definitely buy it. I love the storyline and I’m looking forward to reading more about the concept. But enough on the game related part of your blog. Let’s get all serious and emotional.

    I must say your dad is one hell of an asshole and I don’t care whether he means well and his only excuse is that he doesn’t know better. I mean, seriously, he should stop overgeneralizing about every bloody thing. If he would find out about me, I’m sure he would put me in the ‘bad influence’ category right away. I’m open-minded about pretty much everything. I spend a considerable amount of time on YouTube. I like fantasy. I like history. I’m into cosplay. I dyed my hair a very dark shade of redish brown and occasionally use nail polish. I don’t have any gender related issues, but I do have issues and there happens to be a whole lot of those. I know a lot of people that could be considered “eccentric”. I prefer watching anime and reading mangas to living in the real world. The same thing goes for gaming. I read books, but probably not the ones he considers being the “right” type of books. Not that I care. Obviously. Wow, I guess that makes me a horrible person to be around. I should probably go and find myself a loaded shotgun and shoot my bloody head off. But guess what, I won’t. I’m tired of people being so narrow minded. I have spent most of my life trying to get other people to like me for who I am. But there will always be people who notice how different I am compared to them and won’t like that one bit. But it’s their problem. If they cannot handle me and start being tolerant towards the world… Well, screw them.

    The problem here is that you cannot exactly tell your dad to go fuck himself (I am sorry about all the swearing by the way. It’s just the way I roll. Today. I guess). After all, he is still your dad and I’m sure he loves you in his own little short-sighted way. But since he’s not my dad, I have the right to be as angry at him as I want. (instead of being pissed off at my own father for a change). I guess the only thing I can say here is that I sincerely hope he will be able to change his way of thinking some day and be more considerate towards you. Or that he will try his best to understand you. Unfortunately the fact remains that, how older a person gets, how more unlikely it is they will change their view on the world. I’m not that big a fan of the whole “people can change” idea. But then again, I never stated being an optimist and I will never become one.

    Oh and one last thing: I am familiar with the The Game concept, but I have never really participated. Are there still a lot of people who (waste their time) play(ing) it? Fortunately, none of the people I know ever comes up to me, telling me that he or she has lost The Game. I’m sure I would find it quite hard not to mock them. This somehow reminds me of that movie with Jim Carrey “The Number 23”. Have you ever seen it? If not, I highly recommend it. Oh, and if you have not done so yet: please make sure to go see Inception. It’s brilliant.

    I guess this is all I have to say for today. Now all is well.

    Great blog! Keep writing, even if you only blog every six months. I think I can keep up with a pace like that and read your entries and even post comments on them.

  4. RaGe says:

    I must confess before this post I hadn’t even heared of “the game”. So I went to check on wikipedia, the source of all information ๐Ÿ™‚ and found out what the hell you were talking about.
    So yeah, a worldwide game that supposedly everyone plays, with a quite ridiculous rule
    “don’t think of the game or you lose”
    It sounds probably as basic as it is. A game you can’t win, and the only fun about it, to make another lose before you do.
    As you said, the fun of it, is the misery of others. Somehow this sort of thing allways attracted people. It’s worrying, yes, but also human.
    In the old days people went to the arenas, to enjoy the suffering of others.

    I suppose the game is so attractive, because it gives people the feeling of superiority over others (if they win). A shallow thing, this human need to be dominant. I guess its our primal instinct that causes this.

    It’s weird to me to imagine someone percieving the game as a real (and perhaps important) aspect of life. It’s clearly invented, rationally it’s based on the idea around “Donโ€™t think of a pink elephant”
    Our mind works backwards. When we think of the former sentence, we first see the command “think of a pink elephant”. It’s only after the command registered, that we add the “don’t”.

  5. Mycroft says:

    Seriously? Did you just compare a bloodsport to “the game”? Also, how can you not know of the game? :p
    Anyways: it seems everyone here is missing the point of the game. It’s not about making other people feel miserable. There are far more practical ways of doing this (because of the point you made: you can CHOOSE too participate. Participants are volunteers). The point isn’t feeling superior, the point is the same as it is with many other games: to have fun (no, not to win. That’s just incentive. As monopoly shows us: winning does not equal fun). the way to have fun in the game is to actively NOT THINK ABOUT IT. Something you can achieve, but with difficulty. The more difficult a task, the more fun it gets to fulfill it.

    This has little to do with the human nature of “enjoying each others’ suffering”.

  6. Verixea says:

    For those of you who say you know of The Game but are not participating, you lie. The first rule of The Game (which you should know if you at least read the wikipedia article) is that everyone who knows of The Game is playing The Game. You can’t not play The Game. And by simply not announcing that you lost Tthe Game when you lost it, you are not winning, you are breaking a rule, the one stating that you have to announce when you lose, to everyone within hearing range.

    “I suppose the game is so attractive, because it gives people the feeling of superiority over others (if they win). A shallow thing, this human need to be dominant. I guess its our primal instinct that causes this.” –RaGe
    Do you play any games to win? In that case, those game are just as much of a means to make yourself feel superior, aren’t they?

    So, as those of you who are complaining about this just sound like you’re sore because you’re not winning. Let me give you a hint. It’s not about winning, it’s about not losing, and the best you can do is not to lose. That’s the reason to why your “Gamble” wouldn’t be interesting, it’s not a challenge at all. It has nothing to do with feeling superior or not.

    Not losing does not equal not announcing a loss. It equals not thinking about The Game. Which does not equal not playing The Game. Everyone plays it.
    You’re stuck.
    Make your time…

  7. RaGe says:


    Well, I may be exaggerating a whee bit there, true.
    But still, the point of the game evades me somewhat, as it is a game that can’t be won.
    You can’t win the game, and the only fun about it is to make another lose first. So the enjoyment comes from where?

    Another thing that I find weird. Why should I have to know about the game?
    Is it that special? To me it seems kinda stupid even, no offense intended to any who play it though.
    I mean, you play a game, of which you can’t think or you lose. So in fact you don’t know that you’re playing a game, because you’re not thinking of it.
    In that way I would’ve been playing the game all my life till now :p


    As you pointed out, if you are carefull, you can choose how to percieve your reality.
    I call this simply insight.
    Though this is a far too complex matter to discuss widely, it is quite interesting to think about how your dad seems to percieve reality.

    I feel sorry for the man, for his narrowmindedness.
    According to what I understood from your explanation, he seems to think you strayed from “the path” and has such a need to find explanations in everything, why you didn’t become like he wished you would.
    No child ever becomes exactly what the parents wish for really, but most parents accept their child for who they are and respect them.
    If he could shift his vision of reality from “my child is gone wrong” to “my child is different than I expected, but i care about him just the same” the whole situation would be different.

    About games I can’t say all that much.
    I do know its very complex and almost impossible to have a perfect balance.
    Simply because there are so many factors that have to be taken into account.
    Weaponprofiency (a conscripted swordsman isn’t half as good as a trained swordsman), Armor(a spearman with a big shield can hold a whole army at bay => Movie: 300), surroundings play a big part, flanking or no flanking, troopmorale, speed, highground (for archers), range of sight, possibly changed because of the weather or the surroundings, …

    The one thing about rts that i dislike, is that you build a barracks and seemingly create warriors out of nothing. As if the warrior is not a person, but a clone, and the barracks a cloningmachine ๐Ÿ™‚

    Why not have a village with X amount of people to recruit from. You can conscript these villagers in immediatly ready yet untrained soldiers.
    Or you can train them, which costs some expenses.
    from recruit, to archer, to mounted archer (with horse training)
    Instead of creating archetypes among the different soldiers, just train them into individual skills. That way you can choose to create either a group of fast moving horse archers, who can even dismount and take up swords.
    Depending on the need of the situation you create the kind of army you need.
    If you need to fight in caves or fortresses, horses are not in the question. Better to train dwarves into warriors, as they got darksight after all, or whatever its called that they can see in the dark.
    Outnumbered? Take a group of stealthy skilled archers into the forests, and fight a guerillawar in there, with traps, ambushes and everything.

    The reason for the village is to make sure you have both an income and a limited amount of recruits. The more you recruit however, the more your income will shrink.
    Of course, this can be helped by conquering a neutral town, or finding a dragons hoard… the first needs a big yet lesser trained army to defeat the defenders of the neutral town, where the second needs a smaller group of hightly trained warriors to defeat a dragon. You can’t after all send a whole army inside the corridors of a dragoncave, nor can you send a small group of highly trained warriors to besiege a neutral town. (though in theory its possible, if they got some stealthtactics and take down half of the city defences mission impossible style.

    Just ideas running wildly ๐Ÿ™‚

    Of course, this still doesn’t give you a balanced system, because somewhere in there there would have to be the perfect winning warrior-mage-tank-… combination

  8. Tyranna says:

    Verixea: That is how YOU perceive the reality surrounding The Game. I perceive it differently. Is it a natural law of physics that the rules of The Game are real? No. Is it a law in my country (or indeed ANY country) that the rules of The Game must be followed? No. The only thing that tries to keep me playing it is the wish of other people who hold no moral, legal or natural authority over me. The subject of The Game was merely a stepping stone to the subject of perceived reality, and in this game, we each perceive the reality of The Game differently: You perceive it as absolute while I perceive it as non-existant and silly. A bit like how people can perceive God.
    Now, you can demand I play the game, at which point I might tilt my head sideways and smile coyly, maybe blinking slowly once or twice before carrying on with whatever I was doing, or you can ask me kindly. In which case I’ll kindly say ‘no, sorry, but no’. But on the whole, you simply cannot expect people to abide by a made-up set of rules if they don’t have a good reason to abide by them. Take the rules of a proper game, like Magic: The Gathering. When I play Magic, I abide by those rules because they give me a fair and enjoyable experience. I don’t get the same bang for my buck with The Game, so there is no reason for me to follow the rules. Back to perceived reality: in mine I’m not playing The Game at all. In yours I’m blatantly disregarding the rules. However, claiming that your reality is The Only True Reality And There Can Be No Other is arrogant. Again, I make a comparison to believing in God.

    As for The Game being about not thinking of it, I disagree, and I speak out of personal experience. Regardless of what you think, or even what the original creators of The Game had envisioned, it has grown out of that. Somehow I don’t think that people who put ‘The Game’ as their Facebook status, who write ‘The Game’ on walls, benches in a university hall, doors of toilet cabins etc. or who make youtube videos of Rick Astley’s Never Gonna Give You Up with tags saying ‘The Game’ popping up every now and again were trying not to think of The Game at the time. These people had one goal and one goal only: to make as many people as possible lose The Game as much as possible. They don’t care if they lose themselves or not, as long as a lot of other people lose as well.
    At least, that’s how I perceived the reality surrounding those cases. ๐Ÿ˜‰
    Now, I’m going to click the second link I posted because I like the damn song.

  9. RaGe says:

    >> Verixea

    “You canโ€™t not play The Game”
    Really? Thats rather absolute

    I know now of the game, so apparently i’m participating. Yet, i did not choose to play or participate.
    Even if I’d think of it, I’d still wouldn’t see “the game” as a real game.
    I see it as a mindtrick, and you seem to have fallen for it hard.
    No offense, there are plenty of people who start believing in the most insane things and see them as absolute truths, just because they live in a group of people that pushed the belief upon them.

    It’s like Ty says, very much like belief in god

    I could force a belief on you, just like you trying to push the idea of the game
    I’d say some pure nonsense like :
    “Everytime you think of “the game” you do that because some god named baazlebeeb made you think of it”

    It wouldn’t work of course. Except if hundreds of people started to say the same thing to you, as I did.
    And eventually you might even believe it, especially if those people were from your inner circle.

  10. Mycroft says:

    Neither of us ‘believe’ in the game. We CHOOSE to participate in what is in fact a sort of… altered reality game, in which we pretend that, yes, the entire world is a participant of a silly game. The added layer of the whole idea of the game being a game within that other game is too difficult to grasp for some people.
    After all, I am well aware that the game is only played by choice, and that saying “everyone participates” is therefor a blatant untruth, it’s part of the make-believe. I don’t go walking around a larp-site in my jeans, calling on my cell and telling everyone that their foam swords aren’t real. It’s just their “perceived reality”.

    Basically, you don’t HAVE to participate in the game, but it doesn’t take any extra effort not to ruin it for anyone else.

  11. Verixea says:

    What he said…

    Also, are you guys comparing The Game to religion? I mean… wow.. that’s like putting it on a pedestal… thanks!

    • Tyranna says:

      It’s only putting it on a pedestal if you don’t believe religion is the worst thing that happened to humanity since ever. ๐Ÿ˜‰

      • Mycroft says:

        Great does not exclude evil or horrible. It just means great.

      • Tyranna says:

        However, ‘putting it on a pedestal’ does exclude evil and horrible.

        Besides, it’s a comparison, an analogy. That doesn’t mean I see The Game as a religion. The important part of an analogy is that it and the thing it’s being compared to have at least one thing in common. This does not have to mean the two have to be identical.

        If I really wanted to say The Game is a religion, I’d have compared it to Catholicism.

  12. RaGe says:

    Even though its all pretent, some make it sound a helluvalot like they’re really believing its all real,, that everyone really does participate, etcetera.
    I don’t really care about how others see the game, I do care if those people take offense if I don’t see it like they do.

    I almost start to feel the same way as when I was at primary school, and so many people were trying to force the idea of christianity and all that crap on me.
    Some were appalled I didn’t see it like they saw it, I don’t believe it to be real like they did and to them I was “being ignorant”, even once been called a heretic.
    I laughed of course, not realising how serious the person was about that, and I was shocked to notice that the person saw me as some evil person, and took offense to all I said.

    Understand this, I’m not comparing the game with christianity, I’m comparing the reactions on my opinions about them.

Leave a Reply to RaGe Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s