Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About KnightNine

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator

Profile Information

  • Interests
    playing games and making games

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. thearmourofGod is entitled to his opinion that opinions can be true or false and to think otherwise is to be illogical. Though stating "to think that ones opinions cant be incorrect is a basic lack of logic" leaves no room for debate and reflects badly on thearmourofGod's willingness to try and comprehend the reasoning behind opposing views even if he could be correct. I don't blame him since this never started out as a respectful debate but rather just trying to "1up" each other on who is "correct". Ommamar is entitled to his opinion that thearmourofGod is being egotistical through stating his opinion and that opinions are not provably true or false. I don't really expect anyone to want to dive into a real discussion at this point among all the baseless insults between two people who barely know each other on the internet, but it gives me a chance to look into this more due to my personal interest. I might've been mistaken in separating "false statements" from being classified as opinions after considering this though it's overall just semantics: https://medium.com/@jason.richardsonwhite/why-opinions-can-be-true-or-false-and-why-it-matters-8180e4b16017 I could accept that some opinions can be proven true or false as opposed to my previous post where I wasn't considering them as opinions but rather as false statements since they can be objectively and directly quantified ("2+2 = 5" and so on). I think I found the root of the misunderstanding: the definition of an opinion is different between O and T T believes opinions can be proven true or false O, if he agrees with my initial assumption, believes that statements that can be objectively quantified as true or false do not qualify as opinions. To see if O's opinion is an opinion that can be proven true or false we'd have to deconstruct the qualities of this opinion that are relevant. The article considers that the "relevant considerations have an independent, objective existence" that are not "made up by the person" will make a vague opinion as a whole (i.e. "Lincoln was the best president.") be proven true or false if these relevant objective qualities are present and accounted for. The issue with this is that the qualities that anyone considers relevant are biased, not necessarily universally agreed upon, and therefore subjective and it doesn't matter how many people are of the same opinion. Despite this, If O is still here and is able to describe the individual objective qualities of his opinion, perhaps a better understanding would be reached even if the initial statement would still technically be subjective at the time it was made, if not then the opinion is subjective and not based on anything but emotion and would be in fact illogical though not objectively false. Subjectivity is illogical thearmourofGod.
  2. It wasn't an opinion in the first place, it was O's interpretation of how T came across of which was to be condescending. Though I didn't feel the same way about T's post, I understand that it isn't that outrageous to assume that some hardcore gamer on a message board has a superiority complex but I would advise O that rushing to negative conclusions about peoples' "tone" just starts arguments over literally nothing as is happening currently. If O were to continue with assuming that his interpretation was correct then that would become an opinion. An opinion is based on beliefs and can't be proven true or false even if the result of that opinion has a negative or positive outcome. One's opinions can get in the way of objective reality (e.g. believing the sky is red) but usually these are extreme cases. They usually come with a layer of abstraction for it to remain an opinion. Since no one here can quantify T's thoughts and intentions scientifically, the "truth" will remain abstract whether O were to ultimately agree with T on his intent or not. I assume that most people tend to see things in terms of True or False, Moral or Immoral, and Good or Bad but that's just not how the world works from what I've seen, anyhow I personally am indifferent towards what anyone's opinion towards this is as it is my own experience. I could delve deeper about how reality itself is potentially also abstract but for for the purpose of this post, I wont.
  3. I ended up maxing out my science to get the best value out of tinkering but before that i only tinkered as long as the cost was below a thousand, it was more efficient to just wait until the next tier of gear to show up and it's not like i really needed the extra damage at that point due to the op perks and such. I didn't use any companions after the engineer companion died so i didn't spend any bits on companion gear. companions seemed way to fragile on supernova and I liked not micromanaging my companions' health pool to make sure they don't die rather than actually shooting the enemy. Maybe there should be a way to revive them at the cost of bits but it wouldn't make much of a difference in my decision. Due to doing all the side-quests and killing every enemy between me and my objective, I always tended to be way over-leveled for the unique gear that i found and just ended up throwing unique weapons in storage instead of spending the 20-30k bits or so that it would take to get it up to my level assuming that the cost is consistently increasing exponentially and doesn't slow down after a certain point. Unique headgear was still relevant for their stat & damage bonuses so I upgraded and used those. Though i haven't tried it myself, i don't think self imposed restrictions wouldn't make all these "sandbox sims" more fun as much as it would just artificially slow down progress in a game about progression and eventually becoming a power fantasy. That might even be the devs' intention to let the player become OP but since the world doesn't react to almost having enough bits to buy a space ship and being able to level every colony in the solar system, the game loses it's difficulty as a consequence. I'm overall more a fan of games that use player progression/skill and not character progression but there aren't any games I've seen that provide an interactive branching story while not relying so heavily on rpg mechanics and character progression to the point that a difficulty setting is meaningless once your character exceeds a certain level.
  4. I've accumulated 80,000+ bits throughout my playthrough and there's nothing to spend it on. No end game weapon of mass destruction, No golden hat of +10 to all personality attributes, No Purchasable Ship decor or Paint, No horse armor... needless to say, I'm a bit disappointed that I wasted all that time compulsively selling and scrapping everything I find just in case. I could've just ignored collecting a majority of the loot in this game and would have been just as well off. Maybe in the dlc there'll be something...
  5. In order from most to least severe: - Are the Factions that the player has assisted throughout the game supposed to infiltrate Tartarus on the final mission even while you are disguised? Unsure if this is intended or not but i found it strange that the triggers for the factions (Groundbreaker , MSI, and the Iconoclasts in my case) to come and shoot up the place activate even while I was disguised and hadn't started any combat. So there i was, walking around the resulting fight that was taking place. My immersion was somewhat broken at this event so I assume that this was an oversight on the devs' part. Maybe the disguise system was implemented after these flags on the final mission were set and were forgotten about? - there's a typo in one of the player responses when talking to the iconoclasts standing outside the raptidon infested printing building. It's a missing word, something like "Glad you ok." rather than "Glad you are ok.", though the details elude me and I'm not gonna go back to check. - The ash pile that formed from killing a Mantisaur Queen appeared on top of the "pre-placed corpse" (meaning a corpse already present in the world) it was feasting on and it became inaccessible despite the pile being visible over the corpse. I never encountered this event again. The second time an ash pile landed on top of a corpse (unsure if it was pre-placed that time); it didn't have this issue. Literally unplayable.
  • Create New...