alanschu

Camera glitches were bad for the game getting confused where your mouse was clicking (and it'd think you were moving to a different floor). Aside from that it was really the only issue that I had.

I just started from the beginning because the assumption I make is that the future games iterate on the previous ones.

Stepping back I find can be good for gaining some perspective too. I'd like to see some longitudinal studies to that one study mentioned in the Boston Globe. I agree that "facts don't matter" when it comes to changing opinions, but I'm curious if, once the argument is over, they sink in a bit more (at least for some people) and people's opinions do actually change. So while their study may have shown "Despite being presented facts, people steadfastly held to their beliefs" in the short term, I'm curious if it is still the case in the long term.

I am the Paladin too. Dumping points into the skill that gives more xp and more gold haha.

HAHA I don't think it's an alcohol thing (I'm not really a big drinker), but I have noticed age affecting me

I am planning on going in order. My army right now is priests, archers, knights, griffons, and guardsmen.

I haven't been following South Park at all. Have a link for that? Sounds interesting.

Sooo, spin off from the what are you playing now. What are your strategies for level ups and the like? I have been playing with a heavy leadership bias (more troops = more killing), but I imagine at some level there is critical mass because the supply of truly elite troops is limited and you just have enough of them that an extra one or two don't mean a whole lot.

The issue I have is more that the units of value are in so limited supply, so I rarely try to use them. I lost 1 (of 4) archmages and was like "this isn't really worth it" haha

I can get Archmages and knights too. (though they are few in number), so I tend to not risk losing them. I did get the 45k to buy that dragonslaying sword though (it had +6 attack on top of it)

I loaded this up yesterday too! Much farther along this game than I was. I played it way too late last night. I think I'm close to beating it, but I need a better army. My guy does best with mages in his army, but I'm super far away from any of those. Still, I love the black dragons, not only do they simply rock, they give me the first initiative and I can throw a couple spells and use my book to devastate on the first turn. Haven't gotten anywhere near that far yet. My army lately typically consists of peasants, priests, bears, archers, and thorn warriors. My issue with the game, I am finding, is that I seem to not have much confidence to look beyond "weak" fights to ensure I am not blowing my money on reinforcements, and that reinforcements appear to be finite (which is why I still use peasants).

Haha I remember Penn and Teller had an episode of Bull**** that pointed at the myth that life was better in the good old days

Actually I find these threads very informative, and I try to stay open minded and listen to all the viewpoints. In fact I would say I have become more interested in libertarian candidates because of Guard Dog and Ron Swanson. This response really resonated with me. In particular, I was definitely far too sweeping with my generalization (perhaps I was in some sort of rant mode haha), so in that sense I was wrong and too hasty. I actually consider you a pretty level headed poster in general. How do you rate yourself in knowledge of particular politics? You say you're open minded (which probably helps), and I'd also say you're decidedly less... intense (the only time I remember seeing you particularly opinionated was about a police officer father arresting his daughter's boyfriend one time) than the majority of people I interact with online. I'm curious if there's something to do with the standpoint of your open mindedness is a reflection of you acknowledging that other posters may have something constructive to say, while also perhaps coming into this thread with a less strong opinion about the topics? As I have gotten older (and in my own mind, matured), I have definitely tried to open up more to the idea that I may be wrong especially about politics, sociology, psychology, and so forth. You know, those nasty "human created" elements haha. There was comment here that equated moderates with compromise. I actually disagree that I "compromise." I don't say "I'm okay with this policy" as a form of negotiation to get something else that I want. My political leanings and preferences is because the data I have acquired and deductions I have made lead to "this is better (within this sociocultural context) for the country than alternatives." Hence my pragmatism. I think that if someone comes into a discussion of this sort of stuff completely unwavering in the correctness of their beliefs (and especially if it pays little concern to sociocultural context), they're undermining themselves (and as that Boston Globe article put forth, undermining the idea of an "informed population" that democracy needs) by failing to give credit to all alternatives. I was actually thinking it might be interesting to have a discussion where people point out the flaws in the political/economical/whatever perspective that they most identify with. Though it might lead to caricature responses haha. Still, thanks for putting me in my place Hurlshot

I loaded this up yesterday too! Much farther along this game than I was.

I have been playing MOM a lot lately too.

I endure Gorth's bad jokes. And in enduring I grow strong.

Thanks. Curious what the breakdown is like. IMO the second is a much better game, so I wouldn't be surprised if it moved more copies.

Are there any sales numbers? The only estimates I have ever heard were musings about the first one due to the licensing of the Aurora engine.

Fair enough.

I'm 32 (as of yesterday!). Weakness takes me with every passing moment. It is inevitable!

I was talking some more with a friend of mine about the Wisconsin article, and due to some strange happenstance (which actually spawned from a Cracked article lol) I stumbled upon this article. It was both cognitive dissonance inducing, while also a perspective that wasn't entirely surprising when I think back to how I can be (let alone others), since I know I've certainly done it. I'm curious if ideas like this are what helps feed into the hypothesis behind Wisconsin's findings. It actually spawned from this article. It's written from a Cracked perspective (where humor is a bit more focus, and I think the situation is presented as a bit too absolute). I bring this up because in following this thread I have seen Chaz mention a few times that it's like I'm not even reading his posts. To be clear, I haven't been, and the first point in the Cracked article helped me illustrate why (rambly part of post): Further discussion was aggravating me, and I was more inclined on arguing just to win rather than any other more noble goal like attempting to educate and promote discussion. It'd only serve to polarize the discussion and make it even more hostile, so I changed my mind. In the past I've even continued to argue even when I actually had a realization that I was probably wrong (thankfully, despite my stupid antics on the internet, I was later able to admit to myself that I was wrong, even though publicly acknowledging it probably wasn't going to happen), similar to how that Boston Globe article describes (I think this is a potential issue with that study, although they weren't discussing arguments and it was more self-assessment - the possibility of experiment error is still present). Those who have known me on this forum have known that I was often not the type of person to back down (probability thread or the biological determinism of women liking pink, anyone?). Fortunately I feel like I'm a bit less of a curmudgeon in this regard (no more Tireless Rebutter!!). Probably just in large part because I can't be arsed to do it, since I typically try to support my position with links. #3 can hit me too. I'm not a fan of The Amazing Atheist, so it put him on a challenging perspective for me to agree with his perspective (I still don't think that the points he had - Anita shelters herself from criticism and that the comments would also show that there are crazy misandrists out there - are actually relevant, but at least I went back to watch the whole video). #1 has even burned me (though I am not sure about recently. Note that #1 is about facts, not perspectives. Stating a contrary perspective to mine isn't typically stating facts). At any point, however, I try to not get too emotional since my ability to try to make sure stuff like this doesn't happen goes down dramatically once I get hostile, and if hostility helps polarize things then maybe I should put in an effort not to? I'm curious how the peer reviews of gone for that Wisconsin article. If I feel myself starting to get angry or hostile, I have a preclusion to disengage now. So yes, Chaz, I have not been reading your posts lately (haven't been for a few days). I actually stated a disinclination to continue discussing this with you in Post 92 of this thread. I elaborated a bit more on it in Post 123 so I'm a bit surprised that you seem surprised. I could go into the whole host of reasons as to why I put you on ignore, but I don't think it'll be productive. The synopsis is I found our interactions unproductive and as a result, not interesting. Feel free to use the Cracked article to break down this post about how I am shielding myself from criticism, and closing myself down to other view points to reaffirm my own confirmation biases to prevent cognitive dissonance. I will conclude by stating I do realize that some of the studies I have cited may not actually be relevant just like I am open to the idea that my conclusions on this entire discussion and the various tangents may be wrong. I have acknowledged I'm not able to comment on comic books and deferred to someone more familiar about their representation of women and conceded the point. I've also pointed out that social sciences have challenges that the physical sciences do not have, and to be clear those potential shortcomings apply to studies such as the Wisconsin one and the ones referenced in that Boston Globe article at the start of this point. Prior to being made aware of the Wisconsin study, I would have argued in KaineParker's camp as to the usefulness of comments. That examination Wisconsin did made me realize "maybe my assumptions of the world are wrong." Frankly, I find the idea being put forth that comments could be bad just interesting, simply because it may be providing some insight into how human beings work.

Axecop's gun bill is really high.

As to why I am pragmatic, look here. This isn't a criticism of others, it's a criticism of myself. It's also why I took a timeout from this thread. I find it exceptionally interesting that the presentation of facts does not weaken an opponent's belief in his position. It actually typically strengthens it. So I suppose this makes me a moderate or conservative lite. I try to embrace cognitive dissonance more, because I think it's important to recognize that just because I believe strongly in something, doesn't mean I'm right. Lets be honest, is anyone in this thread truly arguing from the standpoint of educating other people, and willing to be educated themselves? I could continue responding to criticisms of my perspective, but I realize I'm not so much arguing to educate, but arguing to win. The heated discussion doesn't come across as informative, but rather alienating and polarizing, in a paradoxical way. It pushes people away from the perspective that is being argued. Even if it contains facts that go against my perspective. I'm trying to be more willing to recognize that I may, in fact, be wrong. I'm sure this will be construed as a position of weakness, however. If you bother to read the link, take note of how many times you innately resist what is being said. I found it an pretty interesting exercise.

RE: BioWare being intimidated. That article is old and manufactured. Many people at BioWare are fans of The Witcher. We're indifferent towards when The Witcher 3 releases. I will straight up deny the allegation, for what it's worth. Maybe in some part of EA that isn't BioWare there were people panicking, but most of the reaction to the announcement was "OOOO!"

Haha at this point they should just merge studios.