Aegeri

:angry: I dunno, I'm from New Zealand as well, what exactly would I be expected to do?

No, I just think it delightful that those who decided to fire a development studio right before Christmas are about to face their Karma. You really do reap what you sow.

Burn ****, I expect the debt collectors to have a nice feast on your festering corpse.

A cardboard box would cost too much, they would live in a shoebox in the gutter.

I thought it was a bit clunky as well. Then again, I think all RT combat systems are clunky, it is a function of the whole twitch factor.

The game got such a bad reaction and sold poorly in responce to that reaction. FO:PoS2 has to the best of my knowledge been completely canned and is now dead. What they are doing however is making a *new* fallout action game (because they are retarded you see, like Bart in that episode of the Simpsons where Lisa puts the electrode on the cupcake) that does not have the PoS name and is entirely new. Will it have the same level of suck, boring mechanics and utterly dull gameplay? Who knows, but maybe if they put in a special effort this time, it can have real time bouncing boobs.

Well...not sure about the holy part... But I do burn, because I set myself on fire. Trendy thing to do these days I hear.

No, there IS only one God in Christianity. That is kind of the entire point. The other things are NOT Gods, and when even the bible expressly points out there is only one God (The God in the bible), it would be silly to think there are multiple Gods in the Christian mythology. However, in say, the Greek or Egyptian mythologies, there are multiple gods, hence they are polytheistic. So they have a God of Death, Love bla bla.

Mono=One or singular Poly=Multiple or many. So Christianity is a monotheastic religion as it only has one god.

Well they have managed to confuse things somewhat if nothing else.

Ho ho ho Gorth. Ho ho ho.

Non spammable force powers would be a brilliant start. Force wave makes the game a joke :/

If they fix the flaws in Knights I will be fairly happy. I'm expecting more of the same however, and yeah, I feel a bit sorry for Obsidian, never good to start your first game off from a hand me down.

Sort of, it kind of works like this. You start off with an idea or question that you want answered. Usually this is very general, for example, you see someone dying of some unknown disease. You then attempt to answer this by posing a question called a hypothesis. For example, it could be that you think the causitive agent is a small, single celled organism that are previously unknown to science. So you try and answer your own question by designing an experiment that either proves or disproves your hypothesis. If you are proven right, for example you find some odd looking thing that doesn't resemble the human cells around it, you ask further questions. So in this sense a hypothesis is simply a question that you have posed to answer (by doing an experiment/experiments) and then prove/disprove. Now lets say that you start finding that many other diseases are caused by small single celled organisms. For example, you look at the lungs of patients suffering from tuberculosis, or the joints of those suffering from leprosy, and you find an odd trend=More little single celled organisms. So you pose a further hypothesis that perhaps other diseases are caused by other little single celled organisms, and inevitably you find things that seem to cause typhus, diphtheria and other diseases. Now you have a large set of data, with some common features=That many human diseases appear to be caused by unknown little single celled organisms. So now you propose, based on the evidence on hand a theory that explains why you see these particular trends. Now note that theories are used to explain a large group of data or observations. For example, the theory of evolution is based on a lot of evidence such as molecular biology, particularly in the use of comparative genomics and using molecular clocks. It also uses the fossil record, animal physiology, animal behaviour, population genetics and a wide variety of other data. Gravity isn't just based on the fact things fall to the ground either, but a larger number of observations. So hypotheses are just questions posed that you intend to answer by your experiments. A theory is something that is used to explain or put a common theme over a wide range of observations (In this case, small organisms that appear to cause disease). This is why chiles example is still completely irrelevant, because it isn't in any way scientific nor is it a proper theory. Clarification: To make things easier here is an example from my above. Firstly, I'd start (knowing nothing about bacteria or viruses etc) by proposing the hypothesis that these unusual looking cells are somehow responsible for causing the observed disease. I would then design an experiment that answers that question, by determining if people with that disease have the same cells compared against those who do not have a disease. If this is the case, I still have not proven my hypothesis, just supported it. Even if the fact that those cells are not present in healthy people, I have yet to establish that they are not a result of the disease, or they have nothing to do with it. So I design further experiments that give me more and more knowledge. Inevitably I have enough evidence to support or refute my hypothesis. If I find a wide range of these organisms, and a trend in organisms like the one I first discovered that cause diseases, I might make a theory to explain those observations. You could call it disease theory, or whatever you felt like at the time. One current theory is that many things we ascribe to genetic problems or environmental problems, heart disease, various cancers or mental illnesses are actually caused by infectious microorganisms [somehow*]. This is called Germ Theory and is largely out of the scope of this thread. But I hope you can clearly see the distinction. *IE They manipulate the host into damaging itself to make colonisation easier.

A theory is something that is created to explain the given evidence we have (Evolution, Gravity, Relativity, Pathogenicity (IE Germ Theory) etc) on hand. If a theory gains enough evidence or support, then we then term it a law. Hence why we have the "Law" of Gravity, instead of the "theory" of gravity. It is best to understand what is meant by theory first, before making an irrelevant analogy.

Obviously not you initially :D So are you denying that, for example, how gravity functions or how bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance? Oh wait, I forgot, these things aren't actually true, they are all part of the smurf conspiracy. I can put things in your mouth too (shock horror!)! Well no, actually it does a lot more than that I'm afraid. It also tells us a lot about the world around us and why things happen. Now some of that is through models, but some of it is just through the fact that it IS EXACTLY WHAT WE SEE. Observation is another key part of science. Of course, the point you've actually made is exactly what I was trying to get across, science can never prove something like a God, because you cannot test/observe God. Therefore you must accept God based on faith. If there is evidnce that proves God (what someone is saying in this thread), I want it presented. Somewhere along the line you've come in and completely missed that subtlety. Now we're having this little conversation Ahhh putting words in my mouth, is this what your entire argument is based on? Try arguing against what I wrote thanks. I actually haven't said if I do or not, I've just said you can't prove God exists, hence why we need faith. It's given me the technology to have this silly conversation with you right now hasn't it :D Or does it work on the smurf conspiracy too? If someone says, there is a pink elephant in my backyard, should I believe them right away, based on the fact I haven't seen a pink elephant before? Yes (bet that surprised you), because I can indeed go to their house and attempt to photograph it. If no such pink elephant eventuates, or if they never provide any tangible proof there is such a pink elephant, then it is very safe to assume there probably isn't a pink elephant. Evidence would in fact suggest that. Now, if there ARE pink elephants is not immediately discounted, there could be one in some random place on the planet. The thing is, we can say with 99.99% certainty that there is indeed no pink elephants on earth. Sounds like Gravity doesn't it? Now with God, it gets more complicated, because you cannot say that he ISN'T there with any certainty, nor can you say he is. Therefore, the decision comes down simply to faith and has nothing to do with science or tangible evidence. Like? If you mean metaphysically, it is irrelevant anyway, science only deals with what can be tested and observed. For someone who claims they know about science themselves, you are grossly deficient in understanding the basic ideas of it. Also very good at putting words in my mouth again. Ahhh yes, that are based on evidence. I think we've missed that part somewhere haven't we? And you haven't seen a cell? Tsk tsk. Indeed. Again, would you like 100 or 1000 papers to prove cells exist? Would you like to prove a cell doesn't exist? Really, you're falling into a catch-22 soon. Do you have evidence to suggest that cells don't exist, contrary to well over a hundred years of seeing such structures? Care to disprove cell fracturing experiments that have aptly split the cell wall apart revealing it to be a phospholipid bilayer? Well? This is like saying "I can see Zebras with my eyes, but maybe they don't exist, it could be that smurf conspiracy again". O_o I've think you've got yourself confused, I know what I asked for. No, I just said "present solid factual evidence that directly proves the existance of God". As you cannot the question is irrelevant (my point) and you must accept it on the basis on faith. An entirely different thing from proving that bacteria have type III secretion systems. And are cells (Though those smurfs again...) Good, when you've got your nobel prize for disproving that microscopes work, then you may have a point. Incidently, this is again, your words and not mine. I said that you base something on experiments which can themselves be repeated and validated. Obviously we haven't got any further in this discussion yet. You keep making up what you want to reply too though. Not really. You see, when you discover something in science we immediately ask, what MORE can we know. So of course, when you find one thing, it leads to another, and then to another until you build up a more complete picture. The thing is, you build up that picture by establishing through experimentation exactly how everything works. You build models on how you think things work from your observations (Theories) and then these theories are tested, revised or thrown out based on further experimentation. Your initial misinterpretation is the problem here. No. Because of the fact that I can do it for myself, I can see exactly what they did and maybe even see something new by expanding their experiment. Not really, I suggest you understand the basic tenants of what we're discussing first You try and use a lot of big words to hide the fact your argument is utterly baseless. It is interesting to note that I'd like to know where I said that anything I believe is set in stone or is impossible to dispute. However, what I did say is that I accept what is based on experimental evidence, that which can be repeated and verified. This is a logical process, I take nothing on faith really, because the established facts are there. If I wanted to, I could prove older experiments to myself because I could follow their methodology, again, REPEATING what they did. Does this mean these aren't actually up for review constantly? Of course not, that is your daft ideas being put in my mouth and has nothing to do with anything I've said. I've had to constantly move with a very rapidly changing science, and things are constantly being revised in the age of genetics. But, your logic has one gaping flaw that you really can't refute: Gravity still works. It might be the case that gravitational theory is revised in the future to accomodate a better understanding, but that it holds objects onto the Earth is almost certainly 99.99% fact. Unless you care to prove otherwise, the scientific understanding of gravity is MORE relevant than your ideas of how it would work. If you were to tell people that what holds people to the earth is a giant hamster gyrating in a cage in the core, they would regard you as an idiot. Unless you could experimentally prove such a thing, nobody would take you seriously. Hence gravity, with its established laws and proven formulae, would still be the accepted model. Now someone could come up with a better model (who knows), but they would do so by presenting testable evidence. Not by having a discussion like this where arguments are made without even the slightest backing of empiracle evidence. Think about that one for a while. My point is, that you cannot make an argument based on faith to people who do not believe the way you do to begin with. This is where the realms of science and logic come in. If you can prove something, with tangible facts, like walking up to their house and introducing God to them, that is pretty hard to ignore. When you go on about philosophy, the occasional bit of poor pseudoscience and other arguments which actually offer no conclusive 'proof' that makes things impossible to convince anyone who doesn't think like you. On the other hand, if I am arguing with someone that I can make a pathogenic strain of E. coli, I can prove that based on evidence. Very hard to refute that after you've been on the toilet for a few hours

You've missed a key point, science is REPEATABLE. If someone claims that their E. coli strain can do this under x conditions, then I can repeat their experiment and establish that they are correct/or simply talking out of their rear end. For example I can say with 99.99% certainty that tommorow I can let go of an apple above the ground and it will fall downwards due to gravity. Simple repetition would indicate this is the case. Because it is repeatable. REPEATABLE. Wonder no more. Because it is what I do for a living, and I find an argument based on actual facts actually has some meaning. Simple, a repeatable experiment or observations based on actual tangible evidence. What on earth are you actually trying to (ham fistedly) argue? They aren't evidence nor are they scientific facts. Ever looked down a microscope, more importantly, ever looked down an electron microscope. I know they exist, would you like a picture of one? Would you like 1000+ journal articles explaining cells? Do you know what you're talking about (the more important question here). The answer is probably no. Yep, and when I can see a cell for myself, well you just shot yourself through the foot anyway didn't you? Indeed. You're not saying overly much. I see he's missed the point You are aware that the entire reason for that is so that someone can REPEAT the experiment and establish that the initial experiment was correct. Don't try to argue something you haven't understood to begin with. But I haven't, it is the main way of proving something. You made the point that how do I know cells exist, simple because I can look down an electron microscope and directly see them. I know ribosomes exist because they too can be seen, plus we can inhibit them using specific chemicals to demonstrate they do exist and what their function is. My incredibly complex point (not really, but clearly to you) that you missed is that we can do no such experiment to prove God, or some of the other general rubbish Craftsman has pointed out as 'facts'. Therefore these are not 'irrefutable proofs', because they aren't actually able to be experimentally proved or disproved. Therefore you ONLY accept it on faith. Actually, no. Nice try though. Sadly, you've failed to demonstrate otherwise here. Indeed, this is about the only sensible thing you said in your entire post. Thank you for completely missing the point.

Nice dodge. When there is something factual to respond to, I respond to it. When it is just a bunch of baseless arguments strung along to sound intelligent, I don't bother. I only accept evidence based on experimentation (IE Scientific evidence). This is mostly because I am actually a scientist (Microbiologist) and as far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as an experiment that can prove God. As no such experimental evidence has been presented, but a lot of largely meaningless and generally baseless philosophy has, then it isn't worth replying too. Unless you have hard, EXPERIMENTAL evidence that proves either of those two ideas, then it isn't worth replying too (For me, someone who does philosophy might however). It just falls into the same thing as faith, you either take it at first hand and believe it, or you don't. As there is no evidence that supports or refutes it, there is no point in bothering to discuss it for me. I'll never look for evidence to prove God incidently, as that is impossible and defeats the entire point of having any faith to begin with. When you can show experiments that even remotely support either statement I ignored (The Journal of British Psychological Medicine would be a great start, or the American Journal of Psychology) your "evidence" will be worth more than a grain of salt

No, crappy logic is pretty much crappy logic. If whoever is writing the particular thing doesn't actually know everything about what they are talking about, it rather makes their logic invalid. Indeed, so you should have already determined why the initial statement is full of rubbish then. Of course, you probably think it is non random for an irrelevant reason, and not the correct biochemical and genetic mechanisms. Like you? You haven't responded to a single thing that has been bought up in this entire thread. Instead just liberally using your copy and paste. The remanining stuff isn't worth replying too. Try hard provable evidence by repeatable experimentation, and not some random philosophers meanderings while he was reading the newspaper on the toilet.

Aha, so we have changed our tune now haven't we? You're a delightful mass of giggling contradictions.

The fact that all through this thread you've had trucks driven through all your logic? Not really, depends on if he exists or not in the first place. As you cannot prove this, it is irrelevant to the discussion. For example, you presented some babble as evidence that we cannot measure the mass of fire, this is incorrect and any chemistry or physics textbook answers this question very well. As such, your logic has been proven to be flawed, and therefore has been proved to be factually incorrect.

I think you got owned Craftsman. This is about the time you should give up I think.

Opinions are worthless if not backed up by anything substantial. Except that in both games, the three endings are not decided by any of your 'roleplaying' throughout the game because you can do either/any of them without any problem at the end of the game. Deus Ex is especially guilty of this because you can do all three endings very simply with just the one character. This makes all that character generation and any 'roleplaying' (or what you probably want to think is roleplaying) utterly irrelevant. This argument falls to bits pretty fast.

Yes, as you've asserted several times with no actually valid examples or arguments being put forth. Not very convincing.