That's fine, I wasn't exactly aiming for conversation. Your input isn't required.

Sure, but sorting and reading/socializing that way also identifies you as subversive. How convenient indeed!

Nah, you dumb fuck. You're projecting.

Games like yours are like Solitaire and Minesweeper and such...

And that's bad, why? [..] Casual games seem to be the focus of the topic at hand....

Because, if a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well. Stuff like this and your game is simply a waste of space and unnecessary clutter.

The orginal poster said "but it's just casual, not good enough". The point wasn't "it's mediocre for a casual game" (so what? it's fine for 4 weeks of hobby time, wtf is wrong with people, I'm tempted to say "show me YOUR games then before we continue the conversation"), but "it's a casual game period".

If you want to make a separate point how mediocre games add clutter, do that. But don't just dive in arguing for something the OP didn't even say, and then talk about non-sequiturs.

Now to your shitty "point".

What "clutter" does a hobbyist game add? Do you have some kind of library in your head of everything anyone ever made or said? If you cannot navigate around things you don't like, blame yourself, but don't try to stifle others doing something they like in their free time. Critics like you are like the comic book guy in the Simpsons, you can't do shit other than moan, and you can fuck right off. I smell your impotence.

The point of the poster was, he couldn't have made it without free graphics, and is grateful they exist because hey, it's fun to make a little game -- doing this or working in your garage, who the fuck cares. You're basically saying someone who painted their car should have instead let an artist do it, or simply leave it as it is, because that's just "clutter". Nobody asked you to play the game, nobody claimed it's the shit, surely not the author. So WTF? Just remove your eyes and ears, that will cut the clutter right out at the source. You're welcome, too.

Also, put your money where your mouth is. If you imperfect games piss your petty, pitiful self off so much, offer constructive criticism. I guess you're too fucking stupid to even do that. Gamers. Gah.

"I seem to recall" == "I wish it was true"?

They know what happens, it's just that they also know what would happen if governments weren't run by greedy tools.

"Solidarity is the tenderness of the peoples."

Because if real people have better things to do with their own little lives, how much more so on larger scales. And people pay for this stuff -- so they have a right to be "shocked". And it's not like they're not being deceived in small and big ways 24/7, too. Way to be ironic, being shocked that the public is shocked and all that. How do you DO think that public affairs, shady criminal organizations and citizens, the souvereign king, are connected? Is it just hurr-di-durr, or also a bit of lalala? The trash always acts so shocked when it's taken out. My my.

ORLY. So if you turn Minesweeper or Solitaire into a failed abortion of a movie that takes 20 hours to sit through, that's "doing the job right"? Heh.

"HURR DURR YOU MAED A MISTAEK SO I CANNOT RESPOND TO ANYTHING ELSE". If you cannot fill the void with an actual response, let the void be there, and the parent be correctly identified as not responded to yet. Easy, no? But some people just get itchy and dumb, they can't do that. So they get slapped, and then someone like you gets itchy and stands up for them, and so on.

But being social (both good and bad, loving and manipulative) IS a career. The list is endless, one example being the President (not related to any skills other than riding crowds and obeying skilled handlers).

Actually, IMHO, people do need to know who they are and what they want first and foremost, not "what society needs". The latter is only good for making Nazis, or to say it more hiply, Chinese. Of course, if society were made up of people who know who they are, then what an individual wants and what makes them and their surroundings better, would probably be very close to each other. But right now, we need people who go against the grain, not people who work on the noose. IMHO we don't need girls to make the same mistakes of men and bend over.

Not that I disagree with both your initial point that "playing with toy guns" is hardly as cognitive as "playing family" (hand-eye coordination is nice, but not cognition, right?), or that girls could do with being less encouraged for *merely* being cute, and ultimately toys themselves. But on the other hand, I've never poked around with computers because I thought there's money in it, and even in my twenties I thought I'd become photographer, musician, ANYTHING but computer stuff really. I always enjoyed computers, since I'm 6, and if anyone would have told me it's the sensible thing to do, I probably wouldn't have. It was *my* thing. Now I suddenly find myself in a world where I'm a half-eyed king among the blind, just because I can look deeper than the icons on the screen, or know what a fucking URL bar is -- while others pay through their nose for not having much clue. I didn't plan this at all, but I'm not complaining.

Because they're not mindless, lazy, untalented go-alongs?

Are you really saying "non-geeks" would be put off by content that adapts to screen size, and text that reformats, because they resize their browser window all the time and get confused? That people don't make static sites because it's easier and quicker, and satisfies pointy-haired bosses, but because of usability testing ... ??? AHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You're a coward, but at least you make up for it by being hilariously stupid ^^

That's also a strawman. Walls and paper are "unfiltered", too -- you never know when someone might draw or write something on them, but hey, you'll deal with that when it happens. We do the same with websites. So much for you cynicsm about family-friendlyness -- nobody has got their knickers in a twist other than you guys. Not wanting to show mutilated dicks to children, or being able to educate within the law, doesn't require mental feebleness, even people with nerves made of steel can do it.

No, that "random things can happen" is not the issue with Wikipedia. Those disputed materials are there because they fit in *somewhere* (otherwise they'd just be deleted, after all) --- it's just that it's the adult section where they fit, and that it is mixed with non-adult stuff, i.e. there isn't even a lousy bit to mark them. That both adult and non-adult sections have walls and paper on which random stuff can be written, is unrelated, and would still be the case if there was such a filtering bit.

How would such a filtering bit "ruin it for the rest"? You just make that claim, with nothing to back it up. I say it's the opposite, *not* doing that ruins it for large areas of use, with *zero* added benefit for anyone else. Doing it would mean *no* drawback to anyone else (it would actually make things like "only show the stuff marked as adult" possible haha), and make wikipedia usable in schools. Maybe not for little kids, and it doesn't need to be. But ffs, why shut out teenagers? Just to passive-aggressively get back at what you consider to be pointless prudery?

Everything just in one bucket hampers real education efforts. What real education efforts would be hampered by marking adult content as such? Your total lack of arguments is kinda weak. "Just download it and filter it" (will you pay the taxes for it, and/or accept less teaching time?), vs. "simply don't request filtered content from wikipedia" (the real costs for wikipedia here are "making a decision and a few engineering choices", once that's done the worker bees will basically implement it for free in the medium term), and with a straight face? No. Not even a nice try.