Elerond
-
Posts
2620 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Elerond
-
-
Looking through my physics and bio texts, not seeing a list of good things and evil things. Science and the cold dumb universe doesn't care about race based slavery, pedophilia, etc. In fact, along with its many wonders it has also delivered us chemical, biological, and atomic weapons. Science don't care, so to speak.
So, for instance, if we were to say the american slave trade was an evil, we're stepping outside of science. Saying this practice was wrong is superstitious. You have to have faith in its wrongness (its wrongness) as you can't measure its wrongness with scientific instruments.
You could say, well, I subjectively opine that the american slave trade was wrong/evil. But that's like telling us your favorite color. I like red, you like blue, neither of us can be right or wrong in reality since this is subjective. You like the american slave trade, I don't, neither of us can actually be right or wrong since it's all subjective.
You should check your psychology, social psychology, behavioral science and philosophy books for example, before you make such claims.
-
Not movie related but your post reminded me...they can now say the word "sh*t" on the SyFy channel. I hear it frequently in Dark Matter and Killjoys
In my understanding they are allowed to use profanities as much they want, but they have opted out from using them because they want as big audience as possible. Also Dark Matter and Killjoys are Canadian shows, so they may get special privileges.
-
1
-
-
It seems that Incest is way to go in CW's version of DC universe
-
4
-
-
Full view picture of that Omaha thing.
But it seems that 50 people thing (meaning that there was only 50 people there overall) has become fact that can't be overrode by anything for some people in internet (not here but for example in comment sections of articles about the thing)
-
2
-
-
You know that for sure? Right now, this move it's just a big "**** you" to their backers and supporters who donated their money after the promise of delivering a solid PC old-school rpg. Also, there's no way of knowing whose money goes in this useless port, so it would've been better and more honest to deliver the PC version and use the money you received (and the ones the devs poured out of their pocket) to stand to your word and deliver the best game you can.
Instead, they did this, which in the best scenario will not affect the game and the PC version and will just be a waste of money that could've been used on making it better/longer/with more branching storylines/etc.
To make it worse, while other devs are honest from the start with their intentions, Fargo tried to sell himself as the champion and saviour of true CRPGs when it was useful to gain money on Kickstarter, but is yet again proving that it was just a facade.
Without seeing their bank statements I of course can't say for sure that they don't use money from backers to make those ports, but they made publishing contracts for those ports and I don't see any financial reasons to give control over those ports to publishing companies if said companies don't pay for them to make said ports.
In scenario where those ports are paid by publishers, which is the most likely scenario because reasons that I mentioned above, they don't waste any money to make those ports, because they would not have that money if they didn't make said ports.
Effects on PC version is of course difficult to estimate (although in case of Wasteland 2 there probably was none, because they had to port game to new engine and change how its systems work to make it possible that it works on consoles and backers received this new version of W2 addition to original version). In case of TToN it is harder to say if they planned console version from beginning or after their signing contract with Techland. But any case TToN is simpler to port to consoles than what Wasteland 2 was because it is already made for Unity 5, which is cross platform engine that is able to compile projects so that they run on PS4 and XB1.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMQ4JnmyZRg
Crowd at Hillary Clinton's Omaha rally exceeded 3,300 with overflow
Can't say how many people there was really in Clinton's Omaha rally, but I think 50 people maybe bit underestimating actual number.
-
UK sales charts registered both at the bottom of top 30.
And after a single week they were gone.
IIRC Divinity barely broke 1 million units on PC around launch.
900k on consoles would be huge.
So where did you get yours?
VGChartz lists that D:OS sold about 300k copies on consoles most on PS4 and that Wasteland 2 sold about 130k copies on consoles. VGChartz numbers of course aren't always that accurate and they don't list digital sales (which are significantly higher on PS4 and XB1 than they were on previous generation's consoles).
-
Where did you get that information? These games don't need to sell a huge amount of units to make it profitable, they just need to cover the costs of porting.
Just getting even isn't enough, companies want to make profits, otherwise the investment is not worth it.
By the way, another slap on the backers' face by Fargo (after the terrible handling of the beta). Sure, there's been a lot of bad signs on this project since Saunders' strange departure.
Also, Fargo in 2013:
Fargo's relationship with EA goes back to 1985, when he made the original Bard's Tale for the then fledgling publisher. 28 years on, he's still making innovative games for the PC market; but does he have any plans to bring his latest games to current or next-generation consoles? After all, Torment won't release until 2015. "It’s certainly possible and technically feasible," he says. "However, we’ve gone to the crowd and they’ve given us money for a very specific purpose, which is to put our games on the PC, Mac and Linux. So that’s where we’re expending 100% of our efforts. We don’t spend any of our time wondering whether it can or can’t be done on consoles, because that isn’t our charter. Our charter is to deliver these first versions".
GG.
Even though I am not pleased about their decision to put their resources to port these games to consoles (because I would like them put those resources to make more PC games), but at least they don't put money the got from backers to make those ports. In other words backers paid development of PC version and publishers paid porting said games to consoles.
-
All designs should start with a good concept.
Concepts help greatly in creating design, but point was that you tittled this thread as "Design for Final Fantasy Style Game", but you offered only bit detailed concept of an idea for a game.
The concept is so finely tuned, that the final design would be easy to imagine.
I have not filled in each and every small detail, but doing so would be like colouring in a picture.
Think of it as a masterpiece; it's a work of art, and it's very influential.
You haven't done anything that comes even close to that. It is even hard to tell what is your actual concept for the game as whole. There is general sense of idea like red house, but that is quite little to go forward in building actual house.
-
1
-
-
All designs should start with a good concept.
Concepts help greatly in creating design, but point was that you tittled this thread as "Design for Final Fantasy Style Game", but you offered only bit detailed concept of an idea for a game.
-
1
-
-
That isn't design, but a bit detailed concept of an idea. To make that to actual design one needs still put probably hundreds of hours in.
-
Suicide Squad was watchable movie, I would rank it fresh instead of rotten.
I liked how Margot Robbie portrayed Harley Quinn, even though movie didn't do best job in explaining her character. But Robbie's performance is stellar
Will Smith did good job as Deadshot even though I found character to be bit boring.
Action sequences relied too heavily people standing still and shooting CGI monsters to them to be exciting.
But overall tone of movie is funny, which is improvement to super seriousness of BvS.
Sadly other members of Suicide Squad are left quite unfleshed.
Villain is sadly again generic, they would have made movie much more interesting if Amanda Waller (Viola Davis), person who assembles the squad , had been the villain of the story.
-
Only review I've skimmed complained about elements taken from the comics so...still looking forward to it myself.
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/08/suicide-squad-review
This is particularly harsh
"Suicide Squad is bad. Not fun bad. Not redeemable bad. Not the kind of bad that is the unfortunate result of artists honorably striving for something ambitious and falling short. Suicide Squad is just bad. It’s ugly and boring, a toxic combination that means the film’s highly fetishized violence doesn’t even have the exciting tingle of the wicked or the taboo. (Oh, how the movie wants to be both of those things.) It’s simply a dull chore steeped in flaccid machismo, a shapeless, poorly edited trudge that adds some mildly appalling sexism and even a soupçon of racism to its abundant, hideously timed gun worship. But, perhaps worst of all, Suicide Squad is ultimately too shoddy and forgettable to even register as revolting. At least revolting would have been something."
-
Going to see Suicide Squad tomorrow, hopefully it isn't as bad as reviews say it is.
-
The contrast in this video is pretty stark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs448eq1k9M
Hypocrisy indeed... better strike now since we all know that Assad has stockpiles of WMD's! (I wonder if anyone is going to buy that argument a second time?)
That speech was after WMD (chemical weapon, rockets containing sarin) were provably used in Ghouta, Syria against civilian population. Although it has been under disputation was strike done by Assad's regime or opposition, but eventually Assad's regime eventually decided to give up their chemical weapons to be destroyed.
-
Clinton has long political career, track record that she is able drive through things that her voters want. She also understands how US legal system works thanks to her career as lawyer. And so on. She has quite lot of qualities that one most likely wants from politician if they like things as they are or mostly as they are now. She is that conservative option for democrats who isn't campaigning for big changes.
I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with.
Yes it can used against her, same is true for all career politicians. But for some people it is also positive trait.
Beg your pardon, but this whole argument is rather worthless for me and for many others that are practically asking to be convinced to vote for Hillary. One moment the argument is "because Trump is bad," which fails to objectively review the proposed alternative at all, the next argument is "some people would like the status quo." I'm not some people, and the status quo is quite literally in danger of killing us, either economically or on a global scale if we severely underestimate the threats of climate change.
What are your arguments then for voting Trump?
That's completely besides the point, and that is exactly the problem with this election: both candidates point the finger at one another and argue why that other candidate shouldn't be elected.
If I own a restaurant and I need a new manager for the dayshift, then two applicants come in and can't show any meaningful credentials or past work experience referrals, but they gladly spend the entire interview telling me how the person that came before/after them is a coke addict and a registered sex offender, guess what I'm doing? I'm considering maybe the dayshift would be better off on autopilot, or maybe I'll find the time to do it myself.
Now you may sit here and argue for the sake of the analogy, these are the only two applicants and I'm desperate for a manager, but that is besides the point: you should be capable of motivating people to leave their own homes, take time out of their day and cast a vote for you. That neither Trump nor Hillary can manage anything beyond "I'm not the other guy" as justification...? They may as well flip a god damned coin on election day, because neither are proving themselves competent in ANY capacity, and who wins is really gonna come down to which party is feeling less suicidal on election day.
Then you have your answer, look for third party candidate that actually offers you something that you like.
When our discussion was initially about Hillary and winds up being about how I should vote third party, that speaks volumes about her. Never in the past has it been so difficult to defend the two major party candidates to the point such a discussion reliably results in someone conceding that third parties are the answer.
You asked positive redeemable qualities about her I listed some, you dismissed them as worthless to you, so I asked if you have reason to vote Trump and you indicate that you aren't any more willing to vote for him and you think that both Clinton and Trump have done bad job to explain why you should vote them, so there really isn't any other logical conclusion than that you should look for third party candidate that you think is worth of your vote.
-
Clinton has long political career, track record that she is able drive through things that her voters want. She also understands how US legal system works thanks to her career as lawyer. And so on. She has quite lot of qualities that one most likely wants from politician if they like things as they are or mostly as they are now. She is that conservative option for democrats who isn't campaigning for big changes.
I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with.
Yes it can used against her, same is true for all career politicians. But for some people it is also positive trait.
Beg your pardon, but this whole argument is rather worthless for me and for many others that are practically asking to be convinced to vote for Hillary. One moment the argument is "because Trump is bad," which fails to objectively review the proposed alternative at all, the next argument is "some people would like the status quo." I'm not some people, and the status quo is quite literally in danger of killing us, either economically or on a global scale if we severely underestimate the threats of climate change.
What are your arguments then for voting Trump?
That's completely besides the point, and that is exactly the problem with this election: both candidates point the finger at one another and argue why that other candidate shouldn't be elected.
If I own a restaurant and I need a new manager for the dayshift, then two applicants come in and can't show any meaningful credentials or past work experience referrals, but they gladly spend the entire interview telling me how the person that came before/after them is a coke addict and a registered sex offender, guess what I'm doing? I'm considering maybe the dayshift would be better off on autopilot, or maybe I'll find the time to do it myself.
Now you may sit here and argue for the sake of the analogy, these are the only two applicants and I'm desperate for a manager, but that is besides the point: you should be capable of motivating people to leave their own homes, take time out of their day and cast a vote for you. That neither Trump nor Hillary can manage anything beyond "I'm not the other guy" as justification...? They may as well flip a god damned coin on election day, because neither are proving themselves competent in ANY capacity, and who wins is really gonna come down to which party is feeling less suicidal on election day.
Then you have your answer, look for third party candidate that actually offers you something that you like.
-
Who will be more aggressive against Putin and his predictions? Or who can ease tension and make a good deal? Hillary or Trump?
Neither understands Putin, so I would not bet on good deal in either case.
Clinton - Obama dynasty
-
I did go see new Ghostbusters, I was surprised that it was actually watchable movie after all the negativity that I have heard and read. I don't think it will be similar cult classic like original, but decent and somewhat funny. Compared to other block busters that I have watched this year, it is better than Batman vs. Superman, but far from Captain America 3 and Deadpool.
Elerond how are things in Finland? Have you guys had anymore issue around the immigrants ?
There hasn't been notable issues.
-
Huh.
Clinton took $100k cash from & was director of company that gave money to ISISIt seem that Clinton worked for said company in 80s and 90s and said company gives money to charity in Clinton's name (Bill not Hilary). And said company has done business in Syria and seems to have paid taxes and bought oil from ISIS.
-
Clinton has long political career, track record that she is able drive through things that her voters want. She also understands how US legal system works thanks to her career as lawyer. And so on. She has quite lot of qualities that one most likely wants from politician if they like things as they are or mostly as they are now. She is that conservative option for democrats who isn't campaigning for big changes.
I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with.
Yes it can used against her, same is true for all career politicians. But for some people it is also positive trait.
Beg your pardon, but this whole argument is rather worthless for me and for many others that are practically asking to be convinced to vote for Hillary. One moment the argument is "because Trump is bad," which fails to objectively review the proposed alternative at all, the next argument is "some people would like the status quo." I'm not some people, and the status quo is quite literally in danger of killing us, either economically or on a global scale if we severely underestimate the threats of climate change.
What are your arguments then for voting Trump?
-
Pretty sure that Germany has way more than 4 million people between 17 and 35.
Yep, i had to check OECD again. It's 6 million ethnic german men in that very important demographic, and 1.6 millions immigrants (2nd and 3rd generation turks mostly, those foreign statistics were before the immigrant crisis). It just means that that it takes 2 years longer to cross the demographic rubicon of Germany if the wave is the same as before.
One can make the assessment that Europe is rich and stable because they aren't controlled by extremists, be it of the Islamist, nationalist, Christian, communist or any other variety.of course one could make the 'bigoted' assessment that Europe is 'rich and stable' BECAUSE they aren't controlled by extremist Islamists like elsewhere so accept all these refugees en masse who, quite clearly, still love their book - could, in the long run, destroy that stability.
Also, yes, numbers can be your friend. The EU has more than 500 million people, in 2015 there were 1 - 1.5 million migrants. Not all of them were Muslim, only a small minority of Muslims are "extremist Islamists". You can work out the percentages and stuff for yourself.
1-1.5 million to Germany alone, where over 70% of them were men in the age of 17-35. In a country where the amount of people in the same demographic age is about 4 million.
I see a great conflict brewing.
Germany has bit less than million and about 60% of those are in age group 17-35 including both men and women.
At least that is what Germany officially says
Last year over 90% of final verdicts in asylum applications in Germany were rejections. Which necessary don't tell anything about future.
I seriously doubt that the german authorities have to capabilities to enact them. They don't even have the full picture of how there are to begin with.
Your demographics is for 2016 if you look at the raw data from UNCHR, the older ones back in september for the really big wave was 70% men.
My stats are from from Eurostats for 2015
Distribution by age of (non-EU) first time asylum applicants in the EU and EFTA Member States, 2015
-
One can make the assessment that Europe is rich and stable because they aren't controlled by extremists, be it of the Islamist, nationalist, Christian, communist or any other variety.of course one could make the 'bigoted' assessment that Europe is 'rich and stable' BECAUSE they aren't controlled by extremist Islamists like elsewhere so accept all these refugees en masse who, quite clearly, still love their book - could, in the long run, destroy that stability.
Also, yes, numbers can be your friend. The EU has more than 500 million people, in 2015 there were 1 - 1.5 million migrants. Not all of them were Muslim, only a small minority of Muslims are "extremist Islamists". You can work out the percentages and stuff for yourself.
1-1.5 million to Germany alone, where over 70% of them were men in the age of 17-35. In a country where the amount of people in the same demographic age is about 4 million.
I see a great conflict brewing.
Germany has bit less than million and about 60% of those are in age group 17-35 including both men and women.
At least that is what Germany officially says
Last year over 90% of final verdicts in asylum applications in Germany were rejections. Which necessary don't tell anything about future.
-
Clinton has long political career, track record that she is able drive through things that her voters want. She also understands how US legal system works thanks to her career as lawyer. And so on. She has quite lot of qualities that one most likely wants from politician if they like things as they are or mostly as they are now. She is that conservative option for democrats who isn't campaigning for big changes.
I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with.
Yes it can used against her, same is true for all career politicians. But for some people it is also positive trait.
Main Story, an atheist cliche?
in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Posted
Thaos is willing to commit genocide and even worse things just to keep his religion only religion in world, by preventing people questioning it.