tberton Posted July 10, 2015 Yeah, the galaxy/universe thing annoyed me too. The universe has about 170 billion galaxies, so it makes a big difference in the scale of the game if you're talking about one or the other. I had a long drunken conversation about "meta" last night. "Meta" classicly means "over" or "above" but people often using it today just to mean "self-referential." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deadpan Posted July 10, 2015 But even for shows or games that take place on a single planet we sometimes talk about their settings as universes. I'm misusing this thread by not caring about these things, ain't I? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bjorn Posted July 10, 2015 On 7/10/2015 at 2:48 PM, Deadpan said: I'm misusing this thread by not caring about these things, ain't I? Not at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mangela Lansbury Posted July 10, 2015 On 7/10/2015 at 2:32 PM, tberton said: Yeah, the galaxy/universe thing annoyed me too. The universe has about 170 billion galaxies, so it makes a big difference in the scale of the game if you're talking about one or the other. I had a long drunken conversation about "meta" last night. "Meta" classicly means "over" or "above" but people often using it today just to mean "self-referential." I think people use more in a self-reflexive sense -- not necessarily referring to itself, but speaking in a way that arcs out of the narrative and back onto the medium or genre. A meta-narrative in a film doesn't necessarily mean that the narrative refers to itself, but rather to film (or the genre of the film) at large. For instance, Jurassic World has a meta-narrative about consumerism. That is self-referential in a way because of the way the message is presented, but it's more a reflexive statement on the state of Hollywood. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tberton Posted July 10, 2015 On 7/10/2015 at 2:48 PM, Deadpan said: But even for shows or games that take place on a single planet we sometimes talk about their settings as universes. I'm misusing this thread by not caring about these things, ain't I? I think "universe" in that general sense is fine, because it's implied that you're talking about about the fictional reality of the work, rather than the vast expanse of all known space. But when the game is set in space and sells itself on its scale, the distinction is pretty important. It was especially relevant in that discussion, since Jake was talking about his awe at how far everything zoomed out. "Galaxy" and "Universe" in that sense are several orders of magnitude different, so using one rather than the other gives a very different sense of the game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badfinger Posted July 10, 2015 I think the game in question matters in the context of using "meta". This is more a "random thought" post, but in this case, is the goal of No Man's Sky actually to reach the center of the galaxy? That is to say, if you reach the center of the (galaxy/universe), do you win? Or to approach it from the other angle, if you do not reach the center of the galaxy, do you not win? Is there another way to win? In this context, the meta game of getting to the center of the galaxy is HOW it's done. Just jump to the next closest planet as fast as you can, vs upgrading and taking large jumps, etc. I'm probably too tired to be coherent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ben X Posted July 10, 2015 See, this is the problem with "meta"! Everyone's using it in different ways! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mangela Lansbury Posted July 10, 2015 would call this a meta-problem Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ben X Posted July 10, 2015 A problem above all others, I agree! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ben X Posted July 10, 2015 Or were you using meta to mean "sexy"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mangela Lansbury Posted July 10, 2015 I was using meta to mean sexy above all others. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bjorn Posted July 10, 2015 I'm too sexy for my meta, too sexy for my meta, above all your other metas. I'm too meta for this thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badfinger Posted July 10, 2015 On 7/10/2015 at 5:47 PM, Mangela Lansbury said: I was using meta to mean sexy above all others. That's how I like my Fridays. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ben X Posted July 10, 2015 Okay, enough of the love-in, let's get back to picking at each other: On 7/10/2015 at 10:36 PM, feelthedarkness said: If the proverbial yous haven't I would totally recommend reading Film Crit Hulk's essay on it! http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/05/11/film-crit-hulk-smash-ex-machina-and-the-art-of-character-identification I have not heard of this proverb "yous haven't read something"... (NB: if you go to read that full post, you'll get Ex Machina spoilers) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperBiasedMan Posted July 11, 2015 On 7/10/2015 at 11:07 PM, Ben X said: I have not heard of this proverb "yous haven't read something"... 'Yous' is a favoured expression among inner city Dubliners here, for you plural, similar to 'ye'. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ben X Posted July 11, 2015 It's not a proverb, though! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperBiasedMan Posted July 11, 2015 It is 'round these parts. (probably?) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ben X Posted July 11, 2015 No it's not! No more than "you" is a proverb! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperBiasedMan Posted July 11, 2015 I forgot that you don't just assume I'm joking when I try to make clearly ludicrous statements. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ben X Posted July 11, 2015 I was starting to suspect I was being trolled, but you're far too subtle, man! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miffy495 Posted July 11, 2015 I believe you meant the "pronounial yous", not "proverbial". Reveal hidden contents I'm sorry Reveal hidden contents No I'm not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eot Posted July 12, 2015 Averse / adverse, why does everyone get it wrong? Not here, just in general. I mean, you'd think by random chance it would be at least 50/50, but I almost never see the correct word used. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ninety-Three Posted July 12, 2015 On 7/12/2015 at 8:43 PM, eot said: Averse / adverse, why does everyone get it wrong?Not here, just in general.I mean, you'd think by random chance it would be at least 50/50, but I almost never see the correct word used. Really? I've never seen people get it wrong. While we're complaining about common mistakes: "try and". It's "try to". If you say "I'm going to try and jump over that", you're making two separate statements "I'm going to try" and "I'm going to jump over that" (success is implied to be certain), when what you almost always mean to communicate is "I'm going to try to jump over that". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badfinger Posted July 13, 2015 It's funny you should mention that! I started listening to Lexicon Valley last week and one of the episodes I downloaded deals precisely with "try and" vs "try to". Very enlightening. Lexicon Valley - And Infinitum Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
osmosisch Posted July 14, 2015 On 7/11/2015 at 6:33 PM, miffy495 said: I believe you meant the "pronounial yous", not "proverbial". As I believe it says in Pronouns 3:14... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
