Of-freaking-course you can. That’s what a freaking swimming pool is. Otherwise it’s just a concrete pond. If an action has a place (literally every action has a place) then it is contained somewhere. Or if I felt like kissing your douchey pedantic ass, I’d concede that a swimming pool contains people swimming, and thus contains both the person and the action. But I don’t respect you enough to even offer you that much. A place can contain an action, because no-freaking-duh, I’m pretty sure that’s pre-school level crap.
1 Like
From Wiktionary:
Noun
thing ( plural things )
- That which is considered to exist as a separate entity, object, quality or concept. quotations ▼
- A word, symbol, sign, or other referent that can be used to refer to any entity.
- An individual object or distinct entity.
- (informal) Something that is existent or generally recognised. quotations ▼
Bacon pie? Is that a thing ?
What do you mean you don’t twerk, Stacy? It’s the latest thing !
- (in the plural) Clothes, possessions or equipment.
Hold on, let me just grab my things .
- (informal) A unit or container, usually containing edible goods.
get me a thing of apple juice at the store; I just ate a whole thing of jelly beans
- (informal) A problem, dilemma, or complicating factor.
The car looks cheap, but the thing is, I have doubts about its safety.
you poor thing ; she’s a funny old thing , but her heart’s in the right place; I met a pretty blond thing at the bar
- That which matters; the crux.
that’s the thing : we don’t know where he went; the thing is, I don’t have any money
- Used after a noun to refer dismissively to the situation surrounding the noun’s referent. quotations ▼
Oh yeah, I’m supposed to promote that vision thing .
- (informal) That which is favoured; personal preference. (Used in possessive constructions.)
- (chiefly historical) A public assembly or judicial council in a Germanic country.
So. A “thing” can even be a quality or a concept. A Battle is a thing. A gank is a thing. A gatecamp is a thing. All things contained in the game. And all things made by players.
Only #10 counts. If it’s not a #10, then it’s not content.
2 Likes
Yes. Content creators are those who make dicks out of Mobile Depots.
2 Likes
Ok, because OP insists on not understanding the same concepts the average 4 year old can, hijack time:
I think it’s kinda interesting that a big part of EVE’s culture insists that most of the content is what the players do, where other games don’t emphasize the player influence. They call it the vague term “community” (which I call BS on, because as soon as you have more than a couple hundred people, the group is too big to accurately be an actual community.) But I guess that’s tied into the difference between sandbox and theme park, and whether or not that distinction is nonsense or not.
edit: I guess my point there is why don’t other games emphasize “player content”? I mean, other games have guilds and stuff, and player interaction… even a basic PVP FPS, the other players are the actual content, but they still don’t use it as a selling point?
That’s obviously not an exhaustive list, but those things are examples of what content is.
The first six of those are examples of what content is not. Those are things we do WITH the content. But they themselves are not content. When the server reboots, they do not exist any longer.
However, I should correct my original post when I said that NOTHING a user does can create content. Obviously, Corporations, Alliances and Coalitions (and starbases, ore belts, etc.) are tangible and persistent. Because they are tangible and persistent, they would count as content. But again, those things are not what I am objecting to as being called content. It is specifically player actions (which do not result in the creation of a persistent entity).
As in, “I flew around last night trying to get content but everyone ran away”. Or, “The Imperium farms people for content”. A player battle is not content. It’s there, and then it’s gone.
Further supporting my point is the Wikipedia entry on user-generated content - video games: “Video games can have fan-made content in the form of mods, fan patches, fan translations or server emulators. Some games come with level editor programs to aid in their creation. A few massively multiplayer online role-playing games including Star Trek Online and EverQuest 2 have UGC systems integrated into the game itself. A metaverse can be a user-generated world, such as Second Life”.
All of these things generate persistent, tangible assets in the game. There is no mention of user ACTIONS being classified as content. That’s because the idea is ludicrous.
Other games do this as well, but I concur: They are generally “sandbox” type games. But that’s what makes a sandbox after all.
Funny enough, when I started playing MMOGs, players providing the content was the big idea behind them. In a singleplayer game, the idea was, that the game provides all the content, and the player just consumes it. But then MUDs happened, and all of the sudden, the content baked into the game from scratch was really not that important anymore. The players and their actions became the content of the game. Early MMOGs such as Ultima Online still only worked because of this. Even World of Warcraft initially used to have this, at least to a degree, thanks to City Raids, open world PvP in the Alterac Mountains and at the dungeon entrances inside Blackrock Mountain. And really, that’s how MMOGs used to be advertised: “PLAY WITH THOUSANDS OF OTHER PLAYERS”. The players were seen as the content.
These days, MMOGs are usually just singleplayer games, that are being played alongside other players on the same server, as opposed to being played with them, or against them. I find this rather weird, as for me that begs the question: Why does it need to be an MMOG in the first place, if the majority of the content is predetermined by the game and can be done without interacting with other players whatsoever?
You have yet to show that content needs to be persistent. The list in your Wikipedia entry on user-generated content in video games is “obviously not an exhaustive list”. Just because something isn’t listed there, does not mean that it does not count as content.
We have established so far, that a battle is a thing, that it is contained in the game and that things that are contained in the game are a games content. Your turn: Where does it say that said thing needs to be persistent? And how long does it need to persist? A day? A Year? A Century?
The list establishes a clear pattern, which does not include anything close to what you are suggesting.
No, we have not established that. If the battle is “contained in the game”, then I should be able to see it. I should be able to fly there and observe it and interact with it. But I cannot because it is gone. It is ephemeral. In contrast, the things in the dictionary definition of content are all tangible and can be observed by players.
I appreciate the humour of the poster above, but of course he is just being silly. You cannot contain an action within a box.
I really can’t understand how people don’t get this. The content of the game is what is there when you turn it on. What we do with that content, how we interact with it, the scenarios we create, is play.
EVE is still a game. Think of a board game, like Monopoly. You open the box, and there are items in it. There are little figures, hotels, money, properties, dice and a game board. These items are the content of that game. We do not create content. We interact with the content. We PLAY the game, and when we are done, everything goes back in the box. When the box is opened again, none of our previous interactions are contained within. Our play is not in the box. It is not contained in the box. It is not content.
Now, if you pull out a recipe card and make a new property, and stuck it in the box, THAT would be content. But a big party at Marvin Gardens? No. Sorry.
And the responses in this thread by everyone else but you establish a clear pattern as well. Why do you accept one pattern, but not the other?
We can maybe agree that a battle that has passed is not content anymore, and that future battles aren’t content yet. But while a battle lasts it is content. You can fly there, observe it and interact with it. If you opt to not do that, that doesn’t make it not content. Content doesn’t need to be observed by you in particular to qualify as such. When players form a fleet and roam enemy territory “looking for content”, then they obviously aren’t looking for a battle that has ended. They are looking for a battle to fight right now. And they are looking to create that battle. Hence they are “content creators”. I am certain there are battles being fought right now that you could observe and interact with, if you can muster the effort to login and undock. These battles are content.
By the way, here’s an example of an action “contained” in something: What does a standup comedians act contain? Them dropping silly jokes aright. But these jokes don’t persist. The comedian tells a joke, people laugh (or not) and it’s gone. But you wouldn’t claim that a standup comedians programme is by definition devoid of content, would you? (maybe you would, but then you’d be pretty much alone with that opinion)
What is the content of a soda can? Soda, right? Yet it doesn’t persist. I drink it, and it’s gone. Now the can is empty, sure. But that doesn’t change the fact that soda generally is a soda cans content. This particular volume of soda I just consumed is not the content of the can anymore, sure. But it used to be the cans content.
What is a TV stations content? The shows running there, obviously. But they run, they end, and then they are gone. You surely wouldn’t claim that a TV station cannot provide any content?
Another one: Have you ever observed and interacted with an Apocalypse Imperial Issue or Tempest Tribal issue? Look them up, if you don’t know what I mean. They are special edition ships given out in small numbers some 15 years ago. We don’t know for sure if some of them still exist - they may very well all be gone. Yet, when they came out - would you have argued that they are not content, because they may all be gone at some point?
And for your mods: Let’s say someone creates a Mod for a game, and uploads it to the steam workshop. They have then created content for that game, and are therefore a content creator. Let’s say that mod gets deleted for whatever reason. You can now not observe it anymore or interact with it. Do we now have to retrospectively classify the mod as “not content” and the creator of that mod as “not a content creator”?
Someone didn’t have a sandbox as a kid
I’m genuinely curious what is the goal of the OP?
4 Likes
To aggrevate. 
Now don’t be going and asking what my goal is.
I’m guessing it has something to do with constructing bulk ammounts of procs
Me, but this is actually something that is quite common for people who have a finer appreciation of the English language. I can see by the fact that you posted that incorrect suggestion, that it indicates that you are pretty obsessed with me, lol…
…
I don’t appreciate passive aggression.
Do you?
Just so you know…, though you do need to read it all the way through, then you will understand just how I use it.
It was a typo.
Corrected.
You did not answer my question.
I did answer your question. That you are unable to understand the answer is not my problem.