random n00b

Thought we were done? Think again! Sure is. So what? It makes sense that the more in-depth you go into any subject, the less people will be able to discuss that subject from an informed position. And again, being informed is the fundamental requirement to form an opinion. What does this have to do with what I said? Did you even read the part where I explained why I'm not using reviews and other means of outsourcing opinions as a valid means of gauging the worth of an idea? No, it doesn't. "Good" can mean virtually anything you want, depending on an infinity of factors and circumstances. A Big Mac can be "good". But it's not especially healthy, so in that respect is not "good". <insert any number of similar examples here> "Superiority", however, is a meaningless concept when applied to a single element, evaluated in isolation from those which, due to their attributes, would make it superior or not, over a set of well-defined parameters. It is an inherently comparative concept. It doesn't matter who's making the assessment. It's still based on personal preferences rather than an objective consideration of that game's elements. Your accusing me of an ad hominem argument on that paragraph is way off the mark. I didn't ask for a connection, I asked for an explanation to a statement you made that I think holds no water. The "connection" doesn't go beyond the game being "Sim"-something, something I already noted. Look up the difference between "explanation" and "connection", in one of those online dictionaries you are so fond of, if in doubt. (how was that for sarcasm?)

Ooh, quote war! I can play that game, too. Yeah, but unfortunately, that's how (constructive) conversations work. If I ask about the weather and you answer that my tie is lovely, we might as well do something else. Aside, the fact that you are still struggling over semantics, with online dictionary definitions as the underlying foundations for your arguments proves what I said before - you are constantly sidestepping the point. That you believe your arguments or the way you convey them is appropriate does not necessarily make them so. Keep your apples and oranges arguments coming if you want... but they don't really add anything relevant to the discussion. Wow, "incorrect"? Is that your opinion, or is it fact? Nice job at taking a shot at your own discourse. That's what you say. However, being so categorical when expressing whimsical, uninformed, and otherwise irrational (as you have been defending your right to so far) thoughts, will lead to confusion. Because, you see, people will expect you to explain why this is so, according to you. "I think X sucks", is unequivocally an expression of personal belief, and will not necessarily be put under scrutiny in the same way. Really. How many times do I have to explain this? It's beginning to leave a bad taste. Consensus has nothing to do with it. Consensus is merely a number of people agreeing on something. People agreeing on something do not define reality. I thought my Beethoven example would have made it clear, but obviously I was mistaken. Rembrandt had a better technique that many artists before or after him. He was self-taught as well. Those two things make him a genius, regardless of whether you feel moved by his paintings or not. Simply because most people (and most artists as well) cannot perform comparably. Therefore, the statement "Rembrandt is a crap artist" is objectively wrong, simply because there aren't many able to outperform him. It's a matter of comparison. You are wrong. The formal study of music isn't a subjective discipline, and music itself has a deep connection to mathematics. Therefore, it can be proven objectively (to the extent this has any meaning), that his compositions were of superior quality, as well as his superior mastery of music as a system, overall. Again, simply by comparison. That "grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty" is fairly important, because it's the difference between valid, perhaps even very certain assumption and fact. Opinion are never factual, and thus there can be no way to "prove" them correct. But it also follows from that, then, that they can neither be "proven" wrong, because if they could, then would be misconceptions, delusions, lies or similar rather than opinions. This is wrong on two accounts. First, because you are making the assumption that some expressed opinion is not openly, clearly nonsensical or contradictive of observable truth ("Earth is flat"). So, if a statement is made in that vein, it is not even an opinion, it's nonsense and the defense "it's my opinion!" doesn't apply. That's what I said in my first post in this discussion, in case you have lost track. Second, because you are abusing the uncertainty aspect of the definition. Being "uncertain" doesn't equal not being subject to scrutiny or discussion. It doesn't mean that a feeble or unsupported argument is valid simply because empirical evidence doesn't exist to disprove it. Keep exploiting the uncertainty idea, and you get to the extreme of epistemological skepticism, where nobody can be sure of anything and everything is potentially a figment of your imagination. Nice loophole, and a potentially unassailable stance in a debate indeed. But rather silly nonetheless. This contradicts what I said... how? You used Galileo to show how prevalent opinions aren't necessarily correct, a counter to an argument that nobody had made. I remarked that the example works against what you said, because it proves that some opinions are objectively wrong. And now you are saying that some people still don't accept (or didn't until recently) things for which an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence exists, to illustrate... what exactly? What point are you trying to make by using the Church's cognitive immobilism? I think you are confused. Too much quote/reply. The Vatican promoting patently wrong beliefs as true only proves they are out of sync with the times. If anyone is more informed and has a superior understanding and experience in any subject than you, they will probably be better suited to provide more accurate assessments than you are. By more accurate, I mean closer to the truth (as far as can reasonably be desired). That does not mean they will always be right and you will always be wrong. But in those instances, for those people, the credibility of their opinions rests on their baggage. The credibility of yours rests on the strength of the reasons you can come up with that contradict their opinions.

Why when there's an interesting discussion, somebody always shouts "OMG derailment!". Linear thought is boring. Not only are you not quite addressing my point, you are also relying increasingly on semantic minutiae to build your arguments - you are effectively grasping at straws. Indeed, opinions are belief. Nowhere have I disputed that. However, belief, when dealing with something related to the physical world, needs to be based on reasons, which are in turn subject to criticism. If those reasons can't withstand the test of peer review, the opinion is baseless and therefore is utter nonsense. The problem is how opinions are expressed. "Rembrandt is a crap artist" is not opinion, it is a statement of fact. That sort of statements are either right or wrong, because they deal with empirical aspects of the physical world. Beethoven's mastery of music alone is objectively superior to that of other musicians, regardless of whether it's your cup of tea or not. "I don't like Beethoven", however, is a perfectly respectable opinion. Yes, to your shock and dismay, opinions can very well be wrong - scientific theories that lack formal proof are often confined to the realm of opinion, and those opinions are often proven wrong when proof is provided that makes theory into law, or refutes it altogether. That is why your Galileo analogy is not just "extreme", it also works against what you said. It was *proven* that those whose "opinion" was contrary to Galileo's were simply wrong. Sure, you are entitled to thinking that the Sun revolves around Earth... but you are wrong (and irrational). Again, read what I said before. The worth of an idea is not related in any way to the number of people supporting it. That's why I have not brought up sales numbers, reviews, or supported my arguments with what is "widely considered", so please stop using that as an argument because it's demagogical. Critical thought goes beyond holding fast to an opinion regardless of the amount of reasons or proof provided to dispute it. The weak point in that is the jump you make between the concepts of "superiority" and "good and bad". "Good and bad" are very vague and circumstantial concepts, and therefore are not used when defining standards. "Superiority", however, is a fairly easy attribute to assess when comparing two similar elements. I thought I had already made it clear we are not discussing your personal tastes? Or are you utterly unable to put those aside and make an objective evaluation of the elements of the game? I already said I HATE The Sims. But that's irrelevant when discussing the game's premises and how those are realized. Is that what you think passes for reasoned explanation? You'd make a great teacher, for sure. I see your and raise you a

Translation: LALALA I'm not listening. Nobody's taking it personally. Expect your opinions to be questioned when you make them public, though.

No, that was a general introductory statement, I wasn't seeking to apply that this to this particular case. I dealt with particularities later. Since you are so fond of quoting online dictionaries: For instance, "Rembrandt was a crap painter". Sure, that's an opinion. But it is poorly sustained if at all. Or are you suggesting that opinions don't need to be subject to reason or criticism? 1. Quality is *not* subjective. It is an attribute measured, in this case, against the rest of computer games. It is a standard. A consensually agreed measure (albeit not necessarily expressed in a formal fashion) that is used to establish a hierarchy between the elements of a given set. 2. The Sims provides an innovative concept of game that, regardless of your tastes, is well implemented and executed. Again, you are taking refuge behind something that is not numerically measurable to construct your entire discourse. Do try and find something more substantial than semantics. 3. Please explain how The Sims is "highly derivative" of Sim City, Sim Earth, or Sim Copter to name a few. HINT: "Sim" is not a proprietary term. It's an abbreviation of "simulation" - the similarities end there. Which has nothing to do with the actual quality of the game itself. I may prefer to travel on car, but that does not mean that the materials used in aircraft frame construction are lacking quality. This is the concept you obviously fail to grasp - quality is not defined by you or affected by your preferences in any way. The Battlefield series offers fast-paced combat combined with simple to learn basic game mechanics which make it easy for new players to get into. But at the same time it allows for complex coordination between players for great effect, which rewards teamplay and effort, giving long-time players something to work for. It also invariably features broad choice of maps which represent different scenarios combined with fairly good graphics and sensible game balance. There aren't many MP-oriented shooters that offer all that. "But FPS games don't appeal to me!" - Apples and oranges. Please come up with relevant arguments. We aren't discussing your tastes. Are you misrepresenting what I said out of ignorance, or is it a conscious effort of demagoguery? The worth of an opinion only goes as far as one is capable of defending it against others. That's how the strength of ideas is measured and proven. I'm going to repeat myself here, because you either didn't read it, or just couldn't deal with it. Having different opinions is fine. Holding fast to those opinions regardless of evidence or reason has nothing to do with prevalent opinions.

They know how to deal with uncomfortable questions before they even get asked.

Yes, taking refuge behind "but it's my opinion!", is always a good defense when making statements that cannot be formally (as in, with mathematical rigour) disproven, but that are otherwise... unsound. However, some opinions do have more worth than others based simply on things like how well informed its author is, and what is commonly regarded as truth, as well as what objective reality one is referring to (as opposed to the subjective terms in which "opionions" are usually expressed). Saying that EA is only good for sports games is as close to being an objectively wrong statement as it can get, simply by analysing the games published by EA, and the quality of the games it competes directly with. You may not like The Sims (I hate it myself), but it's an excellent, innovative game. The Battlefield series is also great. I haven't played the MoH series, but it's another critically acclaimed franchise, etc. It's possible to argue that everyone is wrong and that one's own opinion is the one that counts, and that has some merit. But having radically divergent opinions, by itself and regardless of one's ability to sustain them, only makes you a crank.

That, like many of the comments here, is not entirely fair. BIO got to keep a lot of their creative freedom after the takeover, I think, and there's no reason to believe they'll go the way of Origin or Westwood. Lol... You're probably too young to know some of the games in that list, but really, that's one quite clueless comment.

Fortunately, Obsidz' clientele extends beyond the handful of jaded regulars here.

The simple fact that it never takes longer than a week or two after release for a functional fix to appear for any given game should be the only argument necessary for publishers to drop DRM. Instead, they come up with genius setups like online activations, which have zero effect on piracy, but greatly inconvenience paying customers. Does it get any more absurd? I've bought every Obsidz game so far, but then again, I had been a loyal BIO customer until Mass Effect. I don't install malware on my computer or pay full retail price for rental rights.

Frankly, I'm not holding my breath. If it was one of the strong points of the game, they'd have given it more screen time.

It's just another feature. One that tends to become a meme quickly because society is sex-obsessed, simple as that. But from that to think that it's enough of a selling point to warrant focus in the PR campaign... perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems like quite a leap to me. "Sexualisation of the medium"? Because you can bed certain NPCs? It's not like the focus of the game is doing them all, I think you're overreacting. There are games whose focus and only theme IS sex, and thanks to digital distribution, anyone can get those anonymously - but still those only enjoy marginal success if at all. Not all films have gradually become porn flicks either, so I think we're safe from a "sexualisation of the medium". The problem is the glass through which this thing is considered. Try to suppress the "ZOMG SEKS!" knee-jerk response, and suddenly the whole debate seems much much sillier.

You mean we gonna see shotgun weddings in AP?

Not only have I read the full post, but also many others - on this forum and others. That's why I replied. If I quoted that particular part of the post it was merely for convenience; I could just as easily have quoted the whole post. The holier-than-thou attitude that drips from your posts whenever the discussion is on how sexuality is portrayed in games isn't just anecdotal. You do it every time you get a chance, seemingly. As I said, you are perfectly welcome to have your opinions and voice them. But refrain from making moral judgements and spicing up your posts with patronizing drivel in the vein of "I'm sure males will be thrilled by it" and "it's clearly targeted for teenagers". How about if, instead of readily jumping into your victim routine, you try to be a wee bit less condescending and judgmental?

They are portrayed in a less than flattering manner because they take a liberal approach to their sexuality? Heh, okay. As ever, if the roles were reversed, this debate would be meaningless because it's "expected" from males to behave like that. Hell, I haven't seen you object to the game featuring the possibility of playing Thorton as a chauvinist pig. No, instead you take offense at women being portrayed as "easy". While you are entitled to your right to feel insulted by that (sad as it is), please don't extend that alleged offense to "most" women. Let each decide on their own. And while you're at it, lay off the patronizing remarks, m'kay?

Huh? That's not what I meant. Companies patch their SP games so that bugs don't force people to dump their games early - which would hurt company image and future sales. So? You are not forced to do what you describe in MMOs - just like you are not forced to rank #1 at the CS killboard. If you "feel" you have to, you need to find another hobby. Really, how many MMOs have you played recently? When players are forced to "grind", it's not necessarily because the game is designed that way (some are), but because "hardcore" players cut through content at insane rates. KotOR 2 was what, 40 hours? How long do you think the game would last for some guy that puts in 6 hours daily, 6-7 days a week? More casual players will hardly be forced to "grind" because "there's nothing else to do". So, stop making stuff up.

No, but they'd be worried if people couldn't bring themselves to finish their game. Different intended lifespans for different games. The developers hope to get your money in exchange for a certain amount of game content among other things, be it a MMO or not. In the case of MMOs, this is addressed by releasing new content to keep the playerbase interested. In the case of non-MMOs, the more time you spend playing and replaying a game, the higher the chances you'll be interested in that developer's next project (or retail expansions for that game). That's why purely SP games get patches too, you know. Nice. "Grind" is then, for all intents and purposes a buzz word without any actual meaning, to be used when attacking MMOs. I understand now.

Um, you mean you had no significant contact or otherwise interacted with other players outside of PvP? Wow, no wonder you are so bitter. That statement can apply to anything you can think of, including (but not limited to) posting here.

Lol, PalpaTANG is back! What, lost the password to your old account? He does make a good point though. Dismissing the game at the present level of available info is plain retarded. That's all there's to it, really. I see. So, non-MMOs are designed not to keep people playing, then? Also, I'm thinking that Battlefield, Counter-Strike, C&C3, and numerous other non-MMOs are a "grind" as well, no? Yeah. Because before WoW was released, there were ten million MMO players, waiting for it to be released. Only... they didn't know it. Keep 'em coming. The more you talk about this, the more evident it becomes that your only real beef with MMOs are the monthly fees, which are perfectly justified. Throwing a fit isn't going to make them go away.

Yeah, there was an in-house LA team, that got the shaft when LA enacted their mass layoffs a few years ago. It wasn't a MMO that killed K3... it was LA's own lack of interest on it. Good thing I said that it wasn't cancelled specifically to make room for a MMO (the only thing that would lend support to your assumptions)... but you managed to miss the emphasis placed in the italics. Oh well.

Sure. Because they did cancel K3 to make room for KotOR online, right? Only... they didn't. K3 wasn't being developed whatsoever (unless it's that other Bio secret project, in which case, this changes nothing), and any hopes it would be are just wishful thinking.

I am doomed to be outstanding.

No idea. But these boards aren't the place to show off, that's for sure. I mean, I've been gracing you guys with random outbursts of mental diarrhea for the past four years, and I have yet to see a penny from Feargie!

"But C&C alone doesn't make a RPG!" et al Heh. I actually liked how PKM kinda dismantled the "conventional" RPG definition in the other thread, even if he wasn't playing completely fair. Seriously, after (re-re-re)re-playing Deus Ex and reading a bit about AP, I'm starting to get rather hyped about this baby.