Jump to content

themanclaw

Members
  • Content Count

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

28 Excellent

About themanclaw

  • Rank
    (2) Evoker

Profile Information

  • Location
    California, USA
  • Interests
    -Games (Skyrim, KotOR 1&2, Half-Life 2, FEAR, Mass Effect, -STALKER, Dead Space)
    Movies (inception, dark knight series, the prestige, pandorum, no country for old men, girl with the dragon tattoo, Super, donnie darko...)
    -beer, guns and BBQ (no I am not a neocon/redneck, in case you were wondering)
    -Psychology (my field of study) also science in general (case in point about not being a red neck)
    -drawing and writing

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  1. You're the only one in this thread who agrees with Serdan, Ichthyic, and me on that first point. I'm pretty sure me and a couple other people did too, or you could just not acknowledge our existence since we disagree with the idea that the limerick should have been suppressed, so as to make all people who do hold such a perspective to be transphobic.
  2. So I'm seeing an argument with one side being apologetic for the idea of murdering half the species for the sex they're born with, and on the other side, a few people being transphobic. Well, I lean less toward the genocide apologist, but I'd also rather not be transphobic, and address people by th sex they identify with. However, it seems like nauance is often lost in these kinds of discussions.
  3. Pro-Tip: CEOs of a company will do PR and word things in beneficial ways. If you think it's plausible to change this practice, I've got a bridge leading nowhere I'd like to sell you. If you're so naive to not be on your toes about any statements a CEO, marketing director or PR guy gives you, then you're gonna be disappointed and confused quite a lot. You can gladly go be mad at Feargus for his statement being unclear or a "half-truth" in some ways, but I think you'll find you take issue with every CEO ever. Nah. I'm not mad about their PR statement. I'm just bringing it up because it casts doubt on the idea that they took it down because it alone wasn't vetted, rather than because of the ideological butthurt that ensued.
  4. Maybe I just missed it in this thread, but something I don't see having been brought up the fact that the update claims that every single other backer content addages had been thoroughly vetted. Every. Single. One... BUT this one particular memorial. Call me a tinfoil hatter, but that seems slightly implausible to me.
  5. Cool. My admission is that the guys from the Vailian Republic invoked images of Django when he was all dressed up in that outfit. That made me chuckle.
  6. In an ideal world, we'd all meet up and discuss the project over drinks. That would weed out the internet trolls and be more fun... if only. But, in all seriousness though, I once saw the subject of religion in the game come up and DIDN'T turn into a flame war, even after several replies. That must be some kind of record for civility on the internet. I like it here.
  7. It seems like people replying to my post are getting the wrong impression of what I was trying to say. Having differing opinions/likes/dislikes does not bother me in the slightest. It is a certain mentality which willfully rejects rational thinking that I find irritating. Obviously crude insults like "grow up" and such are only going to contribute to the general air of irrationality that surrounds any given discussion. All I'm trying to say that I don't think it is a good idea to find opinions that dismiss fact as valid as those which do not. If an assertion is unfounded, then it's inconsistencies should be addressed and dismissed; having an opinion doesn't make you unconditionally right-- all claims should be equally open to criticism and valued based upon their level of factual relativity. I don't blindly hate the game. It has good things and bad things about it. I tried it out, and simply did not find it up to the quality of the previous KoTOR's. At any rate, I don't think that one would argue with the notion that TOR at least diverged off into a different direction than the other KotORs, changing the way narrative was presented in away from what I found to be the most appealing aspect of KoTOR. This, in large part, is due to the profits that can be found in MMO's. I'm not trying to badger people who like it, merely point out that Lucas Arts doesn't just make decision for quality of their works, hence being an illustration of how a fanboy would disregard the fact that the entities which they so highly praise are prone to flaw.
  8. Indeed. Perhaps I should just point to the Lucas arts department in charge of that then because the novels were written for the promotion of the MMO. True that the remarks against Bioware were out of hand after the initial release, but after much the people who felt let down moved on, what's left nowadays consists about 80% of two groups: 1. The devotees. 'Biowares ending had no plot holes. It made sense. Shut up or you'll offend me!' 2. Conspiracy (Indoctination) Theorists. 'There's no way Bioware's writing could ever be bad like what we say in the ending. It MUST be an intentional ploy that I've heard about that picks and chooses evidence.' I feel like I'm in agreement with what the rest of y'all have said. I don't think that kind of thinking will plague the Obsidian community, as there is a strong sense of support between ourselves and the company.
  9. The kind of fanboy I'm referring to would be the following (answering your questions): 1. A special kind of fan that justifies everything about a particular work and refuses to listen to reason in arguments contrary to his or her beliefs. 2. They aren't always acting annoying, but the act of being badgered for bringing up alternate perspectives by somebody offended on a personal basis is annoying. 3. Yes and no about being critical. They cannot be or accept criticism that disturbs their personal ideals of the work, but can be critical of the characters' actions within the story. Think of it like .(acknowledged the above content differs from person to person)
  10. What I noticed about the factors that contribute to the decline in creative potential in fiction-loving communities is fanboyism. I'm not just talking about those who greatly enjoy a fictional universe, but those who think that the developers are infallible because they created something the fanboys like, therefor, any of your criticism is wrong. You see it with Lucas fans; the man did a lot to bring about the original star wars series, but did not do it without the essential production and criticism of others on the team; the story and universe were not his alone, yet he takes full credit for it and spends a bunch of money to create the prequels with a bunch of yes men and the intent of selling cheap thrills rather than develop a work which can be better appreciated with increasing examination of the various narratives and themes. In effect, Lucas' way devolved the series, and yet his fanboys still side with him unconditionally. You can then look at what has happened to star wars extended universe; most of it is merely exploitation and recycling of old star wars tropes rather than expanding and adding more depth an color to it. For example: think of the transition that happened with the transition from the thoughtful narrative of KotOR 2 and the shallow selling value of TOR MMO, which was subsequent to the Revan novels that Lucas arts used to essentially eliminate every aspect of depth and mystery in the other KotORs. And yet, Lucas fanboys will still think that devolving narrative is a good idea because they think Lucas perfect. Another example I needn't go into as much are Bioware fanboys. Just go onto BSN and look at the general consensus that it is taboo to acknowledge that Bioware f***** up hard in the production and writing. What I'm hoping is that this community will prove to be more rational in their assessments and outlooks on games when PE comes around.
  11. Are you telling me prayer isn't a substitute for medicine?! You've offended the beliefs of me and my ancestors who got by just fine with an average life span of 30 years. When I was 14, I prayed that my wife be cured of her common cold. Low and behold, 2 weeks later, my prayer was answer. Suck on that, science.
  12. My condolences to your liver. My ancestors are 90% Irish/German. My liver had fun
  13. (Batman voice) but it is a sacrifice that has to be made. The player character is the hero the Eternity universe needs, but not the one it deserves. He/she is an unrecognized savior, a bargainer of souls, a players actions! back to what I was saying... I understand if the player character isn't liked in terms of personality for these kind of actions, but I think that it should carry a certain amount respect, even if unspoken, if the player's actions have done overall good at the cost of making him/her look bad. And Maddas, I agree that your proposed moral dilemma is more practical in a video game. However, in terms of the idea of 'kill one to save many', I despise the comic book universe mentality about that. Think of it as a system of net consequences. For example, the superhero could detain the supervillain, and as a consequence, he is obviously going to escape at some point and continue to kill others (happens in every comic book), OR the superhero just ended the supervillain's life because he recognizes that the supervillain is too resourceful to be effectively contained. If the superhero let the supervillain go and enabled the deaths of hundreds, it is true that he is not responsible for those deaths, but however DID act irresponsibly in the situation by acting on the assumption that his arbitrary notions of his own 'pure character' are more important than the lives of hundreds. Not only is that egocentric, but also consequential to everybody else. Granted, you can't always know for sure the outcome, and it obviously is better to save everybody if possible, but, as I said before, its a system of net risks and consequences which you use to evaluate the probability that 'x' will occur if the situation is 'y', and from there, decide what is most likely to help everybody the most. If one is operating under the system of keeping one's 'pure character', he or she would be committing an act of negligence which basically amounts to the sentiment of "I'm to good for this, so its no my problem, tough s**t, guys" instead of facing the chance that, if he or she took the wrong action, he or she will have to live with the consequences of his or her actions, but that can be justified if he or she took the action that was most probable to minimize damage given the knowledge available. If my argument doesn't adequately explain why this action is superior to the alternative and hence why games should not penalize the player for them, please enlighten me. I personally liked how it all worked in KotOR 2. Whatever actions you took or justifications you had for taking them, the player needs to own up to them and stand firm when he or she knows that it was the best course of action, and how it works in your favor not to unwaveringly stick to light or dark sides for simple sake of allegiances. The best example of this would have been the Jedi who went to fight the Mandalorians in order to save the Republic, despite the fact that the council told them not to. This was a great example of making a hard choice: once it had become evident of the council was acting on arrogance and traditions rather than the guardians they are assigned to be, that their word is not to be taken as absolute law, even if they are wise in most other instances. It's all about context. I think that PE could also effectively employ instances that get to the player directly by means of either accepting an item of value or some other asset or prevent something bad from happening which, in turn, would grant you reputation. I like assets that help in plot progression rather than combat, because you can always reload your game if you die... unless you're playing Dark Souls, in which case, you're f***ed no matter what.
  14. There has been project updates telling us about the fact that on game choises will make, in paricular, the condundrum of "kill one to save many" conundrum. Personally, i like to take a utilitarian (neutral good) approach to it. This is often evaluated by rpg's as sort of evil, but i like to play the character that also acts in favor in helping others. Do you think moral utilitarianism will be detrimental to reputation for being considered not morally praiseworthy?
  15. Perhaps it was my playing of the Presidential Debate drinking game (and it's effects on me), but I realized that there are many RPG's that allow you to drink, but not get drunk and have all the fun consequences of it. Just a fun thought
×
×
  • Create New...