Istima Loke

Forsaken by the Fallen gods I don't know why I choose a nickname like that, especially for playing css... The best part about steam community is adding non-steam games to steam. I hated searching through the files to find the games and I never bothered to create a "games" folder because of that strange "games explorer" thingie vista has.

I just installed planescape:torment. It seems to work better on vista than xp (at least till now)... It's my fourth attempt to finish the game, not because I don't like it but because I had problems with the visual effects of spells and (mainly) because after fighting Ravel the game was just crashing at my attempt to leave the maze. I hope vista will do the trick or something...

This whole thread being about evolution reminds me of two points (which I have heard) about whether religion is important/crucial to the existence of society. One point is that religion should seize to exist, because it brings division in people, leading to results as the Crusades and the Jihad, because religions (unfortunately) tend to "brainwash" people to stop thinking (while reason is clearly one of the most important human abilities) and just follow "divine orders", and because even if god exists he wouldn't want us to spent our precious time worshipping him but do other stuff (to make the world a better place). Thus we will have a religious-free ideal world, theoretically. Now what has evolution to do with that? Well, the other (point) is that nature doesn't search for the best solution but for the most stable one. That is what evolution is trying to achieve, a solution that has the higher possibility for the continuation of a species and not a solution to create a species with the most capabilities which will eventually extinct. Therefore, maybe, religion is a natural protection for our species, that set us back, but makes the society more solid, and thus gives human race a higher chance of surviving. Or, in other words, religion is a part of our nature. (I got a bit repetitive... )

Last night I finished Resident Evil 4 (for the wii). It was decent... I also started, last night, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines. It looks good so far...

I would definitely like to see a low-magic fantasy RPG (from Middle Earth, even though I am not sure if it would work in such a world, to some kind of dark witch-hunt theme)... Edit: I don't care about the mechanic's system as long as it's decent...

Exams are over (finally) and so I just bought Resident Evil 4 for the wii. I tried it out and it looks nice. I am also starting Ocarina of Time on an emulator and possibly continue NWN2 (from where I left it before the exams) and I will try Icewind Dale (HotW) tomorrow (let's see if it runs on vista). So many games to play, so little time...

For 4 straight days I haven't seen a cloud in the sky. Yesterday we had 42C degrees. But they say during the weekend the temperature will drop...

i was going to try tonight. same problem with IWD, btw. text blocks that come up on the screen are ginormous black boxes with the text on the top. it is almost unbearable. taks I think I had the same problems with my IWD1, IWD2 and BG1 and it was fixed by changing the colour depth to 16 bit. I am not sure though and I cannot check it, cause for some strange reason my game won't start... (I have a gts 8800 graphic card and windows xp sp2) I hope that helped...

In an attempt to stop this misunderstanding, I will say: "Circularity" IS a logical fallacy. The question is what is "circularity". I will give an example (because it is what I can do) to explain myself: Circular proofs (or whatever they are called, proofs that contain "circularities" and therefore are false) were used, for example, in some theorems of Euclid's "Elements". Hypothetically, Euclid wanted to prove that A stands. He then said: Let A stand --> ...yadayadageometrythingiesyada... --> A stands. Therefore I have proven that A stands. This is a logical fallacy, it is called circularity and that is what metadigital was talking about at least as far as I understood. EDIT: On the other hand saying that if A stands then A stands (is called a tautology if I am not mistaken) is logically correct. P.S.: I hope that was helpful

I think I get what you say. But I never said that A stands. I said that if A stands and someone asks me: "Hey, does A stand?" I would say: "Why yes, yes it stands". It is a principal of logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Identity No? Reason for edit: Grammar... and stuff

Considering what you assumed to be correct as correct is not a logical fallacy. Or as Parmenides said (in his poem "On Nature"):

Well I tend to drift away from conversations and I am afraid I am doing so right now... But, I will try to explain what I meant. If the current theories of physics say it is a matter of probabilities what is to happen (and not some reason we fail to see), then: We cannot say that science is incapable of providing us with knowledge of what is to come, because this knowledge does not exist until the event happens. It is not the incapability of science to present such information neither it is the human nature and the way we as a being understand things. It is the nature of the universe that future is not determined before it actually takes place. Knowing all doesn't include a knowledge that does not exist. And to further explain my opinion, I will give an example. If I am not eating an ice-cream, then you cannot answer the question "What is the flavour of the ice-cream I am eating?" and that is not because it is an information that you cannot find out or comprehend but it does not exist as an information because I am not eating. That is why I said "Nobody said that to understand the world you have to know what is to happen" Now, I do agree that science cannot tell how things should be, or how we should act (some whys are answered through science though). So I am not really sure how could science speak to faith, or if it should do so, but I think that people should slowly start seeing with more scepticism the Bible and admit that at least some of those things in there are not correct. Maybe religion should start caring more about morality and less about how the world or humans were created... P.S.: I hope what I write makes sense, and is not totally irrelevant with the subject. P.S.2: It wasn't that cryptic

Trying to decipher your cryptic answer, I suppose that you are referring to this: There is a more theoretical example that shows the contradiction: If one knows all, then the knowledge that comes from his knowing everything, is already known to him as if it wasn't he wouldn't know everything. But furthermore, even probabilities have laws. If I know the probabilities of things to happen, and I know that these facts are true, then I know the laws that govern the world. Nobody said that to understand the world you have to know what is to happen. If the latest theories about physics are correct we actually know for certain that we are not capable of knowing what is to come, with certainty. And that is by itself a law of the universe as it provides us with a certain knowledge of how the universe works. Also I believe that calling science amoral is as wrong as calling it moral (if I understand the use of the word amoral right). Morality is a characteristic of beings with conscious. Therefore science is irrelevant to morality, meaning that science neither promotes morality nor promotes the lack of morality and that is why we can find moral and amoral scientists (even though I have heard numerous logical explanations of why we should be moral).

I think there is another perspective that is (or at least I believe it is) more accurate than this one. Say that in fact we understand the laws that govern our universe. According to your saying one could gain more knowledge from this fact. That is a contradiction. There is nothing to know about our universe beyond that, since that provides all knowledge in the universe. And to ask why these are the laws of the universe and not some other set of rules, is not a question that can provide knowledge. It is like asking why you were born as yourself. The answer is obvious, you couldn't have born as someone else because you were born as yourself. In a manner, the laws of the universe make the universe.

Is it just me or does it look too much like the intro of Fallout 1? If it really does then I consider it not a good thing, as that means lack of creativity. I think that they can "capture the appropriate feel" without doing the same thing as FL1. Something like what Fallout 2 did with its intro. But I guess it's just a teaser so one cannot really tell what is to come...

I read it quite fast. The point is that there can be no game that would satisfy everyone. A developer cannot think of all the possible tasks one may wish to make, therefore by default there can be no game that has actual roleplaying but just an illusion of it. That leads to my next point that says that to roleplay you must pretend the world exists more than it actually does.

I didn't read it all (it's too big to read in front of a computer screen), so if I say something irrelevant, please ignore me. He seems to believe that role-playing and storytelling are contradictory while I think that are in basis the same thing. If there is no story in a game (and I believe that it is the most important aspect of an RPG) then there exists no reason to role-play. Why go and talk to that guy in order to steal his purse if I don't need the money to pay the shadow thieves and save Imoen? (I think the example makes clear what I am trying to say). Without a story the game gives you no reason to interact with characters in a game while you can go out and talk to your friend. Another thing he doesn't appear to understand (even though he mentions it) is that we are talking about a video game. There is no actual GM to hear what the player wants to do and create the story so that it affects the player in a way he wants to. When a designer makes a video game he is bound (in order to make something interesting for me to play) to have a story (before he releases the game). The designer cannot read our minds and create things what we would personally like to do in a game. They have to make one thing for everyone. And let's face it, if we really want to role-play we must pretend. While playing a game we can find a harlot and we kill her while screaming "I am Jack the Ripper!", but that is not role-playing. That is, doing something stupid in a hypothetical life that we wouldn't do in the world we experience as real. To role-play means that you will think the consequences of your actions. For example: In a DnD session while I was GMing the players were interrogating a crazy mage who was in prison and would also be interrogated by the city guard. One of my players said: "I go and kill him because he is driving me crazy with his stupid answers". I told him that his character wouldn't do that because he knew that he would be killed for crimes against the city (as that man was crucial to a series of murders). But, again, in a video game there is no GM to stop you from doing things. If you have a paladin in your party you can't blame the designer of the game if you put him to kill a kid. You can't role-play if you don't want to role-play. I don't even think that implementing a whole world in a game, with every NPC having a unique story and living a unique life with intelligence comparable to a human, where things happen with the passing of time, would stop players from doing things they are not supposed to do, because they have the freedom of loading. In the end the only thing that would stop them would be a law system that uninstalls the game from your computer and never allow you to play again if you die once.

Just finished Neverwinter Nights 2. I found it good (maybe better than my expectations, which were based on what I had read). Now maybe I will start Torment or Fallout 2...

Did you notice that not a single soul on this board has debated having Xcom as number 1 on the list? I mean, you would think that the number one spot would be the most controversial. But it's not, it's just common sense that Xcom is there. I would reconsider your purpose in life, if I were you. *starts reconsidering his purpose in life and tries to search for it's true meaning* Well, actually I think that younger gamers, who didn't play "X-COM: UFO Defense" in it's age, wouldn't consider it as good as it may be for those who did. Anyway I don't really like strategy games. They bore me easily.

Hmm, I played "X-COM: UFO Defense" some time in the distant past and I remember it being unbearably boring...

after Icewind Dale not working on my PC I started Neverwinter Nights (the OC). After seeing Aribeth becoming a blackguard it has began to be boring...

I voted Fantasy even though I like both types of CRPGs and I did so because I am more of a fantasy fan rather than sci-fi (which I also like a lot). I would like to see more RPGs like call of cthulu, based on a historical setting or even like fallout, but I think I will always feel better knowing that there is also a nice fantasy RPG to try. Star Wars could be a work of "science fantasy"

Just finished Baldur's Gate 2 (again) and now I think I 'll try Icewind Dale...

Hello, I have read some of the things you have written so please forgive me if I say something irrelevant to the current conversation or something that has already been said. I won't talk about the existence of evil or it's definition because it's rather complex and has a lot to do with free will, so I will only speak about the alignment in the games (specifically DnD). The alignment in DnD is actually a game mechanic, it's a way of achievement and a means of measurement. To explain this I will use an example. If alignments didn't exist in the game then a paladin could destroy a temple of the god of justice and still be a paladin. Also it's a way to measure the deeds of the PCs and it is used to give access to some classes and prestige classes. It has no other meaning in the game whatsoever. Good and evil in alignment are defined by the players as what they consider as an act of good or an act of evil. Therefore it is well defined and there is no question if something is evil or not. On the other hand in the world of the game there are a lot of civilizations and societies with different perspective of good and evil. If in a city there is a guilt of thieves that doesn't accept good people because they are afraid that they may betray them then even if you are evil aligned, if, inside the city, you pretend to be good they won't accept you. So if you kill someone who is going to die from a disease then if you have in your party a warrior from the northern lands who considers killing the diseased one as an act of mercy then he will consider you a good guy but if you have a healer with you that has grown in the houses of healing and his father, who was a great therapist, always said to him that one should never give up when trying to save someone then he will consider you evil (except, maybe, if he has a certain hate for this being). P.S.: We have done that, but we kidnapped someone's kid and saved it in order for him to trust us... (we are a pretty naughty party)