.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
random n00b
-
Posts
629 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by random n00b
-
-
That's assuming they will remove said things (as opposed to update), and assuming they will not replace them by equally good things.Ok, ruining a series means that they remove the things that made a series awesome/nice/fun/interesting from the next sequel. That way the series lose what made it nice, thus it's ruined.That's a lot of assumptions, and to me, it's blindly jumping in the hatewagon. Don't let that stop you from hating away at your leisure, though. Because it's the cool thing to do.
I don't know what most people believe. That's why I stick to what they post instead of building my arguments around some questionable leap of logic, or some arbitrary interpretation of their post. If he didn't mean that previous installments will be ruined by FO3 sucking, why did he ask that?EDIT: I don't really think there are many (if any) people that believe that Fo1 and 2 will be ruined by Fo3 and I fail to see, why that's the argument everybody uses against those who say that beth is "ruining the series". Do you really believe that anyone who says that thinks that the previous games will be ruined?It's the argument I'm using because it's the argument he posted.
-
Yes. Read the "movie/book ruined by sequels" quote I was specifically replying to before accusing me of putting up strawmen.
And better luck next time.
-
Eh, no. I really don't see how the quality of a sequel affects its predecessors. Will a poor Fallout 3 make Fallout 2 and 1 suck? What's this sense of holiness around everything Fallout that makes attempting a sequel something so neccesarily formulaic?Ever had a good book/movie/TV series ruined by sequels?LOLOLOgic.
Yeah. Because if you don't jump in the hatewagon, you are stupid.You're the one being stupid here. Yes you can form quite good picture about the game alreadyI find quality in that flamebait to be severely lacking, even when compared to what we're used from you. At least put some effort into it.
-
Yes! And then...And less people to manufacture and distribute it.That's why we work on using automated systems. If we have the tech of having a robot to vaccuum my floor or mow my lawn, in the next decade or two we may see the rise of automated farms.
And Mars colonies, and flying cars that run on recycled trash fuel, and all of the contries of the world working together in peace and harmony.
... And there were no more terrorists, and no more arguments and disputes, and we all went to live in the gingerbread house at the end of lollipop lane in the land of chocolate ...10/10
-
Yes. Again, what action are you referring to? Male PC gets none whatsoever.Try playing thru as fem Exile and note the differences. And I meant man/woman action.And no, "Force Sex" doesn't count either (who the hell came up with that name anyway, it's ****ing lame), it's just the glorified climax of a pathological obsession, and more creepy than romantic.
And, btw. Roughly half of my playthroughs have been as female. I found Atton's antics far more interesting and substantial than the unbelievably socially retarded Handmaiden's "advances". And the Disciple is a fairly good character, regardless of his lack of "badassness" that usually makes male characters appealing as love interests (to female gamers, apparently).
I really don't see where you're coming from.
You just won the thread.I can't quiet escape the suspicion that the exile was declared female simply for the purpose of LA not appearing sexist, given that both Revan and Jaden Korr (from Jedi Academy) were declared officially male. -
Well, that's obvious. Fallout 3 will not be a a game. It will be DOOOOOOOOMsday.
-
I don't get what's this "action" is that you're making references to, anyway...
EDIT: Ah yes. By "action", you probably mean sparring with the Handmaiden. Yes, that's more "action" than meditating with Disciple. Not much of a difference if you ask me...
-
**** yeah!In fact, why doesn't somebody make a Fallout Tactics game with some Jagged Alliance-style character overlays and just make the Greatest Game Evar?
Is DOOOOOOOOM preaching an adequate substitute for life?
There is no hope for Fallout 3. That game is in name only. The great Fallout series died after Fallout Tactics if not before. Just wondering.
-
Not just speculate.
Postulate!
-
"Over time" being the key here. And "most population projection models" don't attempt to make such far-flung predictions. So, yeah.You might want to actually check that out properly. Most population projection models account for immigration because it is a fairly predictable factor over time. Further, as I said generally the high and low projections account for lowest and highest possible immigration rates, while the middle projection uses current immigration trends.
Newsflash. Europe and the US are already receiving more immigrants than they can handle. I guess it's not that these models failed to predict that. No, that can't be. More likely, it's stupid politicians to blame.Any country that made health and economic policy based on population projections which omitted immigration rates would be up **** creek without a paddle.
So what? If the only means to achieve that is by stepping over the individual's rights (see HOW one child policy was enforced), you are effectively supporting that "the ends justify the means". It doesn't matter if you said it explicitly or not.I said nothing about the ends justifying the means. I said the one child policy is an example of how restricting reproduction alleviates resource pressure in the future and limits overpopulation. Less people is more sustainable when resources are scarce (see logistic curve), OK?
Yes. So, now with many governments actually encouraging couples to have babies (to the point of offering monetary bounuses), to stop the inversion of the population pyramid, the smart thing to do is actually encourage a whole generation to do the opposite. Yes, because you and some guys advocating "human voluntary extinction" say so.I didn't say it does. I said it could. An idea like VHEMT could easily be marketed favourably (for example by shifting focus from protecting the environment, which a lot of people don't like, to a better world for their children and to having only one child instead of none). You write it off far too easily.Um, good luck.
As per the logistic function, yes. So, again, the point of this silliness is?But I agree as a movement it likely won't see any real momentum, not least because population levels will stabilise and/or fall without its help.
The mistake is assuming that a (rather incomplete) model, that has been undergoing a constant state of fine-tuning and revision to produce its present results ever since its inception in the 40's, will be able to predict things in 200 years time. So, please, stop waving those extrapolations around as if they were fact.I am not making any such mistake. I am pointing out to you the fairly damn obvious fact that the world is and has been following the predictions of the demographic transition model. -
No, they don't consider migratory movements, as the causes behind those are too unpredictable to make the factor a constant. What the theory does in retrospective is a different matter.n00b: I make no claim those figures and projections are exact. But they are less hypothetical than you might think, as they do in fact consider immigration levels, and are typically based on high/low/middle projections which examine extremities.
No. Germany circumventing the Versailles Treaty served the purpose of turning post-WWI Germany into a solidly industrialized country. But that didn't end too well. That's usually the problem with "the ends justify the means" politics, they tend to get exploited quite a bit.Regardless of the ethical acceptability of China's communist government policies, the one child policy certainly served its purpose of lowering TFR and alleviating resource pressure. The politics of it are irrelevant; it is simply an example of the fact that such an idea has pragmatic use. Moreover, as a voluntary movement, VHEMT is capable of producing the same result whilst circumventing such ethics arguments.And no, VHEMT can't produce the same results as China's one child policy precisely because it lacks any means to enforce their ideas. Just read the reactions in this thread. Most people will at least scoff at the idea of not having children as a means to attain some goal species-wide. Unenforceability, in this case, means unfeasibility.
Smart thing, according to whom, and with what purpose? No species survives by not expanding. And the purpose of the human race is to survive, not to preserve some idea of natural balance or some equally arbitrary new-age ideal.And yes, I am saying that the smart thing to do is to lower breeding rates: to have 0% growth. That means we still breed, but we do so to replace, not to increase.
The mistake you are making is equating the theory itself with the models derived from it, and the predictions said models yield. I don't dispute the worth of the evolutionary system, but will take any predictions based on evolution, that in X years people will have wireless interfaces instead of ears, with a grain of salt.As for your dismissal (I think?) of demographic transitioning - sounds similar to dismissals of evolution "oh it's just a theory", regardless of high explanatory power and closeness of fit. It's a big picture theory, so wars, outbreaks, and revolutions cause perturbations only locally, being unlikely to change the overall end result (but making timeframe less certain).That's the practical difference between theory and law.
-
Yes, satire. I simply cannot help but guffaw when presented with a "movement" that identifies itself as "vehement" and whose stated goal is "voluntary human extinction". I'm also hard pressed to believe that is not their intended effect (laughs, not extinction).Satire hey?It seems far more plausible to me that this is an effort by anti-environmentalists seeking to discredit their opponents in a tongue-in-cheek manner, than actual environmental activists.
But what do I know, there are plenty of nutcases after all.
I don't know what exactly you're trying to get at with this, nor how is it exactly relevant to voluntary human extinction. Are you saying that educated people will agree that the smart thing to do as a species is to stop breeding? What?The funny thing is, the more developed and educated people get, the less they breed.
One child policy is deprecated enough that I'm not going to bother discussing it. And, at any rate, totalitarian practices aren't considered to be of much use when trying to support one's position, more like the opposite.places like China have used lesser forms of this movement to try and improve living conditions and resource availability (by decreasing population growth) - see one child policy.
That is a prediction model, and as with all models, it should not be taken as gospel. The more complex a system is and the further in time a prediction is made, the less reliable said prediction becomes. In this case, the farthest reaching predictions are of 200 years (it's a 40's theory), while disregarding important factors such as migratory movements, and changes in societal roles, which interestingly, ties in with your original statement of the tendencies of educated populations.You may not be aware of it, but by 2042, Europe's population will decrease by 10%. The West in general is experiencing a steady population growth decrease, and that extends to Asia (including China and India).[...]Asia (inc. India and China) will stabilise at around 0% growth rate for the 2050 to 2150 period.
Europe will fall below its population of 1950 by 2150.
Japan will fall to its 1970's level population by 2050.
Australia and Oceania will continue to increase at a modest growth rate, doubling in size by 2100
Latin America will experience just slightly above 0% growth rate for the 2050 to 2150 period.
Northern America (Canada and the USA) will stabilise at 0% growth for the 2050 to 2150 period.
Africa and the Middle East will continue to increase rapidly, albeit at a slower rate for the 2050 to 2150 period
Overall, it looks like Earth's population will peak at the 10 billion mark for the 2050-2150 period.
2050 world population: 9 billion.
2150 world population: 9.8 billion.
More information on demographic transition here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
-
If that was sarcasm, you need to work on it.
-
I'm tempted to reply to this with just "lol no", but that doesn't seem to sit well with moderation so I'll refrain.Even FO2 [...] generally had more interesting joinable NPCS than BG2, I thought.Now, how exactly are Sulik, Vic, or even Cassidy more interesting than even the worst of BG2 characters (Nalia, Anomen maybe)? Less dialogue, no interjections to speak of to NPCs along the game or other party members, no practical effects to having them in the party whatsoever?
Now, that'd be fine if by "more interesting" you mean, "silent, inconsequential, and deadly in a fight". But unfortunately, FO2 NPCs are only deadly to the player and/or themselves.
FO2 is one of my favorite games ever, but that doesn't make me blind to the fact that NPC development was most certainly not the game's forte.
-
Er... what do you mean?
As I said, it's a hotfix for a bug caused by a typo that prevented Dark Planetars from using their improved scripting, as per the SCSII subcomponent. This bug apparently caused some odd behavior in those creatures, such as picking the wrong targets for their Heal spells, for instance.
-
This is the kind of satire organization I would set up if I had lots of free time... and actually gave a ****.
10/10
-
A hotfix has been released for a bug with the Improved Celestials component of SCSII. I wonder why don't they fix it and upload the corrected version instead of this?
-
It's okay. You can cancel your preorder now.
-
I don't know. Ignore it? I'm not a PR guy, but being confrontational and defensive about it sure doesn't help.So, what exactly did you expect me to do?Originally the character system was a bit different. There was another "feature" that I really, really liked, but quite a few people didn't like it and didn't get it. After some discussions a well worded argument helped me realize that the feature is flawed and can't be fixed (it's a long story). I removed it immediately.Another example is the interface. Those who followed the game didn't like it, explained what they didn't like and why, made convincing arguments and suggestions, and it has been changed, reflecting the community's preferences. Same with the sound effects.
And here is the most convincing example. Start reading from this post:
http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index...msg4090#msg4090
A discussion on flavor vs meaningful choices, up to where I have read (not much, admittedly). Interesting, but not critical or deep-reaching by any means. How about a discussion on party-based vs single character?
As for your other examples, I don't have the time to research the boards enough to form an opinion.
And, at any rate, my original argument was not that you don't listen while pretending that you do, or whatever. I was in fact saying that I'm not fond of the idea of community feedback having sufficient weight to affect critical design elements. Maybe, MAYBE we can offer some interesting, useful, and feasible ideas, but does the marginally potential benefit make it worth the effort of sorting through all the trolling, flaming, and assorted other likewise worthless (albeit well-meaning) input? If so, then perhaps you have too much free time. Shouldn't you be, you know, working in the game?
As I said, if I was a competent game designer, I'd be designing games, not arguing here with you.
All I see there is a handful of quotes, without a context. I'm not going to pass judgement just yet, based on that.Care to explain? I put together this article when I was with the Codex. It's called The Wonderful World of Fallout 3. Can you honestly say that you don't see anything stupid there? Something that should have been tweaked or removed?Yeah, I'd wager the game will have some pretty dumb **** on it. I have yet to play a game which doesn't, however.
-
It's entirely possible that I'm being unfair to vd. But, seeing his reactions here, those are my impressions.
They changed the whole engine, you say? Well, I'll have to take your word for it. Was that decision prompted by fan input alone? No one can say.
-
Heh.I have just finished BG1, uninstalled Tutu, reinstalled BG2, installed Gibberlings Fixpack, Check the Bodies, Gibberlings Tweaks, Unfinished Business, Banter Pack and SCSII (in that order, because I forgot about scs, wonder how much it will break). First time I actually got an un-corrupted download of CtB, so that should be a fun experience for my imported assassin. Also look forward to playing through an entire game with SCS2 for the first time, after Tactis and Improved Battles. -
Installing now.The Tactics mod is outdated and its difficulty enhancing capabilities have since been surpassed by other mods which play fair and rely on highly advanced AI instead of using cheep methods such as taking the party's items and/or giving opponents absurd abilities/resistances. See SCSII for an example of a modern AI enhancing mod.Thanks for the heads up man!
-
O noes! Foiled again!
-
[quote name='H
There is no hope for Fallout 3. That game is in name only. The great Fallout series died after Fallout Tactics if not before. 
New Fallout 3 screens
in Computer and Console
Posted
Can you explain how this happens? Will any future playthroughs of FO1/2 be less enjoyable because of a lackluster FO3? I'm not being facetious, btw. I'm genuinely interested.