Humor + Positive Support?

PittShkr

loneworg

I think anyone that comes this forum and tries to be funny should be shot. With bacon.

myofibril

I demand a refund!

gchutson

I've never even gotten a damn warning. I feel so unloved.

TeachTheGirl

Food is fuel and therefore should not be enjoyed.

Humor fuels the brain...we probably shouldn't enjoy that either.

_Elemenopee_

I've never even gotten a damn warning. I feel so unloved.

Would you like help with that? I can support you and be funny about it....oh wait..NEVERMIND

aliciagetshealthy

Laughter burns calories and stress kills...take away the fun and I may as well be working <ugh>

Run4Health66

Fun is over rated. :ohwell:

myers0machine

For far too long, players of games have tended to describe games they like as fun. This may not strike you immediately as a huge problem. “What’s wrong with fun?” I can hear people saying. Answer: Nothing, necessarily. There are many many things in the world that are fun, and for a thing to be fun is completely acceptable and a fine thing to desire. I know I’m treading on thin ice here, as there’s certainly credible arguments to be made about how rehabilitating the term “fun” is desperately needed. So be it – quite frankly I agree.

However, the derivative nature of describing games as “fun”, or using questions like “how fun is this game?”, ultimately hurts the quality of future games. Not only does it maintain the societal discourse wherein games are perceived as adolescent (because criticism is patently useless) but it also severely hampers the ability of games to do more than entertain. I, however, think that games ought to be about more than fun, or fleeting pleasure. Rather, as they hold the potential to open us up to a myriad of experiences, we ought to value games as connecting us in these wide-ranging possibilities. In other words, fun is only one of multiple ways for us to experience games, and should not be used as a way to overdetermine the entire experience.

BAMFMeredith

For far too long, players of games have tended to describe games they like as fun. This may not strike you immediately as a huge problem. “What’s wrong with fun?” I can hear people saying. Answer: Nothing, necessarily. There are many many things in the world that are fun, and for a thing to be fun is completely acceptable and a fine thing to desire. I know I’m treading on thin ice here, as there’s certainly credible arguments to be made about how rehabilitating the term “fun” is desperately needed. So be it – quite frankly I agree.

However, the derivative nature of describing games as “fun”, or using questions like “how fun is this game?”, ultimately hurts the quality of future games. Not only does it maintain the societal discourse wherein games are perceived as adolescent (because criticism is patently useless) but it also severely hampers the ability of games to do more than entertain. I, however, think that games ought to be about more than fun, or fleeting pleasure. Rather, as they hold the potential to open us up to a myriad of experiences, we ought to value games as connecting us in these wide-ranging possibilities. In other words, fun is only one of multiple ways for us to experience games, and should not be used as a way to overdetermine the entire experience.

TL;DR

Aperture_Science

You can spice up boring threads by reading them in funny accents.

BeeElMarvin

anybody else tired of the "popcorn memes"?

Kitten2629

I think anyone that comes this forum and tries to be funny should be shot. With bacon.

Say ahhhhhhhhh :yawn:

JoolieW68

I've never even gotten a damn warning. I feel so unloved.

I have And I'm an angel!

Jules2Be

For far too long, players of games have tended to describe games they like as fun. This may not strike you immediately as a huge problem. “What’s wrong with fun?” I can hear people saying. Answer: Nothing, necessarily. There are many many things in the world that are fun, and for a thing to be fun is completely acceptable and a fine thing to desire. I know I’m treading on thin ice here, as there’s certainly credible arguments to be made about how rehabilitating the term “fun” is desperately needed. So be it – quite frankly I agree.

However, the derivative nature of describing games as “fun”, or using questions like “how fun is this game?”, ultimately hurts the quality of future games. Not only does it maintain the societal discourse wherein games are perceived as adolescent (because criticism is patently useless) but it also severely hampers the ability of games to do more than entertain. I, however, think that games ought to be about more than fun, or fleeting pleasure. Rather, as they hold the potential to open us up to a myriad of experiences, we ought to value games as connecting us in these wide-ranging possibilities. In other words, fun is only one of multiple ways for us to experience games, and should not be used as a way to overdetermine the entire experience.

TL;DR

made my eyes cross

Mr_Cape219

For far too long, players of games have tended to describe games they like as fun. This may not strike you immediately as a huge problem. “What’s wrong with fun?” I can hear people saying. Answer: Nothing, necessarily. There are many many things in the world that are fun, and for a thing to be fun is completely acceptable and a fine thing to desire. I know I’m treading on thin ice here, as there’s certainly credible arguments to be made about how rehabilitating the term “fun” is desperately needed. So be it – quite frankly I agree.

However, the derivative nature of describing games as “fun”, or using questions like “how fun is this game?”, ultimately hurts the quality of future games. Not only does it maintain the societal discourse wherein games are perceived as adolescent (because criticism is patently useless) but it also severely hampers the ability of games to do more than entertain. I, however, think that games ought to be about more than fun, or fleeting pleasure. Rather, as they hold the potential to open us up to a myriad of experiences, we ought to value games as connecting us in these wide-ranging possibilities. In other words, fun is only one of multiple ways for us to experience games, and should not be used as a way to overdetermine the entire experience.

TL;DR

made my eyes cross

I did as Apature_Science suggested and I had a blast!

BAMFMeredith

You can spice up boring threads by reading them in funny accents.

Well, I know what I'm doing for the rest of the afternoon!

doorki

What a happy thread!

Not very supportive! REPORTED!

CoryIda

Are you smart?
Do you have helpful feedback to offer?
Do you offer said feedback while maintaining a sense of humor?
Do you speak sarcasm (that's my Love Language)?

If so, then please MOOve along. We don't want your kind here.

AllTehBeers

For far too long, players of games have tended to describe games they like as fun. This may not strike you immediately as a huge problem. “What’s wrong with fun?” I can hear people saying. Answer: Nothing, necessarily. There are many many things in the world that are fun, and for a thing to be fun is completely acceptable and a fine thing to desire. I know I’m treading on thin ice here, as there’s certainly credible arguments to be made about how rehabilitating the term “fun” is desperately needed. So be it – quite frankly I agree.

However, the derivative nature of describing games as “fun”, or using questions like “how fun is this game?”, ultimately hurts the quality of future games. Not only does it maintain the societal discourse wherein games are perceived as adolescent (because criticism is patently useless) but it also severely hampers the ability of games to do more than entertain. I, however, think that games ought to be about more than fun, or fleeting pleasure. Rather, as they hold the potential to open us up to a myriad of experiences, we ought to value games as connecting us in these wide-ranging possibilities. In other words, fun is only one of multiple ways for us to experience games, and should not be used as a way to overdetermine the entire experience.

TL;DR

made my eyes cross

What they said.