alanschu

Only in your mind. Probably because it lets you avoid cognitive dissonance. If your point was purely about letting him know that you disagreed, you would have simply stated your point and left it at that. Lets look at your original quote: "You don't get to disallow and villify a symbol jsut because you don't like it. Hitler was a bad man. Yes." Someone behaved in a way that you feel is inappropriate. As such, you're not simply voicing your displeasure... you've stated that he straight up is not allowed to disallow and vilify a symbol simply because he doesn't like it. In other words, you're telling him how to behave... the very thing that you tell other people that they can't do to you or anyone else. Or, by the contrary, there's a difference between actively "forcing" (your words) someone to behave in a certain way and another person suggesting that attempting to "take back" the swastika isn't something worth the trouble. After all, you snapped on Hurlshot. I will, however, gladly recant my position that you are doing the very thing you dislike, if you acknowledge that people on this thread are behaving the same way as you. We both know that's not how human beings work. You state your perspective for the hopes of convincing other people to adopt your perspective. I say mine to have you reign it in a little. You say yours because you think that that is an ideal. I say mine because I consider my perspective to be ideal. The same goes for everyone else in this thread. You believe in those ideals, and want others to share them, because you consider them the best ideals. At best you tolerate ideals that don't directly infringe on your own, but ultimately get defensive against ideals when they conflict with the things you hold dear. This is being human. I say that if you are saying that you genuinely don't care what other ideals (ideals... not ideas or things) people believe in, then you're not being entirely honest with yourself. Because if you didn't care what other people idealized, you wouldn't have bothered sharing your perspective. Stating that it's just because you enjoy discussion is a way to avoid cognitive dissonance, as there are fundamental paradoxes associated with your ideal (most do, as ideals don't reflect reality). You speak out against the ideals you don't believe in, because you want yours (which you feel are the best, by virtue of choosing to believe in those ones over others) to become more common. Why? Because you consider them the better ideals? If you didn't, you'd believe in something else. See point #5. This is why we take part "just to enjoy discussions." That said, as I'm less inclined to argue simply for the sake of winning as I once was, I'll let the issue die with this post.

HAHA nice. I am curious if it was made by THE Chris Cornell. I'm guessing no, however

Rock Paper Shotgun had an interesting write up here: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/05/30/wot-i-think-save-the-date/ Has some spoilers, but if you don't care to play, I do recommend reading up on it. I was able to find a way to "win." Not sure if it's what I was hoping for though... >.>

My friend showed me this. It starts out hilarious, and ends up being quite deep. I really enjoyed it. Free download. http://paperdino.com/games/save-the-date/

This is the way I see it too. At the risk of being a buzzkill (not that my opinion would stop the discussion), I find RPG to be a rather large catch all bucket, and I'm okay with that. For some, RPGs are about the gameplay mechanics. For others, stories, choice, and reactivity. RPG elements usually involve some level of character progression elements and the like. But I have come to loathe the "nuh uh, that's not really an RPG" types of discussions that come up, because it's a lot like console wars. People that identify as RPG fans will have a predisposition to consider the elements they like to be vital to an RPG experience. The arguments go in circles and ultimately I have come to the conclusion that "RPG" can be a very personal thing. I think there's enough consistencies that people will usually be able to understand a game that has been labeled as an "RPG" and what some common aspects of those games may be.

More feedbacks!

Eh. I'm well aware of the biases that exist. You're right that there's a lot of maybes. They're all potentially very valid. It was more intended to be a thought experiment on stuff like this until: You're right. I thought I had been clear on this, as it was never the intent of this thread. I state in the OP that I don't believe this to be valid in any way. I don't believe the poll is conclusive at all regarding who actually plays Battlefield, but that seems to have been missed. The thread was more about "online polls and what people take from them" rather than "is this online poll in anyway representative of Battlefield's install base." For instance, I disagree with Bruce's assessment that most people will play BF4 on the PC. Most people did not play BF3 on the PC. So what does this say about this as an online poll and the people that vote in them and people that listen to them? What would influence this online poll giving results like this, and would a game like COD still get the same? Would console players still not feel the need to vote? Would they still have missed the poll? Are they waiting for the best system as well. But anyways, I don't think I'm communicating what I actually wanted to discuss very well, since people seem to be stating things that are already quite obvious to me (i.e. There's biases in the poll. Yes, I know....).

i'm not suggesting it's scientific at all. Thing is, I do disagree with the notion "people savvy enough about gaming will likely have PCs powerful enough to handle BF4." You don't need a powerful PC to vote in a poll. I do find it interesting, however, that a game that did sell more on consoles typically only has PC fans that knew about this poll. Would it still be the same with a game like COD (which certainly has a weaker PC legacy than Battlefield).

By the same account, you don't get to tell people what associations they make when they see symbols. Feel free to plaster up a whole bunch of Swastikas on your home exterior, however. State to all that walk by that you're "taking it back" from the Nazis. You can "**** the modern world" all you want, but symbols are very important to humanity (we're using them right now). I'm not in the buisses of telling people they aren't allowed to do or think X. Unfortunately, that is all people really do in reality. Force their oppinions on eachother if they can. I don't get to tell them what associations they make, but I don't want their association (singular) to be forced on me. But you are in the business of telling people what they are allowed to do or think. You do so by telling those people that they "don't get to disallow and vilify a symbol just because [they] don't like it." Saying that you don't want the association "forced on you" is irrelevant. Decorating your house with Swastikas is more than likely going to illicit a reaction. People may even tell you what that reaction is, just as you're sharing your reaction to people doing things that you disagree with. Symbols exist within a context. As Zoraptor points out, it's less of an issue in Asia than it is in Europe and North America. You can choose to ignore that context if you like, but you're effectively telling other people that they can't share their displeasure towards your thoughts and intents, all the while you share your own displeasure at their thoughts. What this is, is a logical hypothesis. It might very well have not been beneficial to not ban it.

I'm not sure it actually does! Haha. I'm more (not very scientifically) curious if this online breakdown applies to other games, or if there's something about Battlefield (and it's PC lineage) that influences it. PC gaming itself also has a stronger lineage of being online in general too. More just random musings. I definitely do not expect 70% of all BF4 players to play on the PC.

DICE had put forth a survey asking people what platform they expect to play BF4 on Now, I don't expect the actual sales to reflect this in the slightest (though BF3 on PC was still a huge seller, it shipped mountains of units for the consoles as well). This was a poll on Facebook, so the people likely already have a PC. I just find it interesting because a lot of people make reference to online polls and online news in general to ground their opinions on popularity and so forth.

By the same account, you don't get to tell people what associations they make when they see symbols. Feel free to plaster up a whole bunch of Swastikas on your home exterior, however. State to all that walk by that you're "taking it back" from the Nazis. You can "**** the modern world" all you want, but symbols are very important to humanity (we're using them right now). I can agree that it's unnecessary for "****" to even be censored on this board, but it is. I can understand why that word specifically is chosen, given the sociohistorical context.

What worries people about the gameplay?

I told myself the same. Fortunately I had the resolve to not give in. As for what I'm playing: Cybots (lol) GalCiv II CK2 (House Schumacher leading the Venetian Republic! Well. Not anymore, I was voted out.... but am favourite to win the next election and am a count of two states still).

Knowing how to use Office is still pretty useful. My Excel-Fu has leveled up several levels the past 5 or so months during my time in QA.

Detroit's consistency never ceases to amaze me.

Yeah the first one was console exclusive. Although that price does seem high. I don't know if the deluxe edition's weapons really warrant the bonus weapons (since you can get BFBC2 and Vietnam expansion for $35 individually). But yeah, wait for a sale haha.

Make it a super merger and toss in a "Battlefield" in front of it!

Flintlock pistols and rapiers for all.

Get up, run into no man's land, die? I think CoD games and the modern setting as an appeal from a "gun porn" perspective too. People go "Oh yeah I just twinked out my M4 Carbine" and the like. I don't know if they get that feeling from twinking out their Mauser Kar '98 haha.

I think the ghost dog was just about sharing the tech ideas (i.e. actually mocapping a dog) and whatnot, for their attention to details. As huge as Modern Warfare is for multiplayer, I wouldn't be surprised if there are actually groups that enjoy the single player a lot too.

I don't think the features you describe are tied to AAA (or even big budget) games, however.

Ironically I don't find the replay value of Torment to be very interesting for me. Yet I consider it the best RPG I have ever played, despite the fact that I typically only play through it the same way.

Fair enough. Though not many games had the backing of, say, Half-Life 2 and Diablo II back then either. It was the usual suspects. Even then, going back I'd wager that the console titles were still the biggest movers of units in general, whether discussing SNES/NES/Genesis etc.

I enjoy the "don't count the really bad parts of this one, because we made another piece of literature. Pay attention to that one! Nothing to see here, nothing to see here..."