Sir Xsarus wrote:
you don't see how insisting that something other people value isn't worth valuing, while at the same time asserting it's something that you have in abundance isn't arrogant or pompous?
Interesting. I guess it makes sense as long as you maintain that arrogance is strictly a self evaluation. It's not though.
Then I think all of you are arrogant and some of you surely think as much about one another. There, now we're even.
And no, I really don't if there's no actual
meaningful value in it. That might be the way you see it. The way I see it is having more of something than is useful or necessary. If we are all approaching a point of diminishing returns regarding intellect, then having an excess is of no value. This is discussed in one of Grady's other articles, by the way, should anyone care to read it. At some point, even to, for example, a basketball player, being taller is not an advantage. At an absurd point, it becomes a detriment.
It's like Prussian marks. If I tell you that I have millions of Prussian marks, those who don't know better might think, "Wow, what a wealthy tool." And if I mentioned, "Oh, they're completely worthless in today's economy," you would think, "Oh, uh, nevermind, I guess."
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...
Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.
Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.