12857 réponses à ce sujet

[ejoslin]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I was planning on waiting befor I get it too, but it was mostly this and this that sold me.

Yea I know, weak on my part...but I have no regrets! (unlike another game...grrr).

Ok, I think you sold me.  I was going to wait for the price drop, but this looks amazing.  I love the whole concept.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Guess which one I'd go with.

I'm guessing either pro-aug, or tell the truth. I can't see you doing anything as honorable or altruistic as letting the rabble decide, and committing suicide in the process. And I can't see you really supporting siding with technophobes, either.

The Illuminati are not technophobes. They support regulation, not banning. I sided with them.
I am a technophile, but not without guidelines and regulation.

The technophobic choice is telling the truth.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 septembre 2011 - 04:33 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Guess which one I'd go with.

I'm guessing either pro-aug, or tell the truth. I can't see you doing anything as honorable or altruistic as letting the rabble decide, and committing suicide in the process. And I can't see you really supporting siding with technophobes, either.

The Illuminati are not technophobes. They support regulation, not banning. I sided with them.
I am a technophile, but not without guidelines and regulation.

The technophobic choice is telling the truth.

Pheh. regulation=technophobia in my book, lol. I are a techno-anarchist:devil: Though yeah, thinking about it, yeah, you would side with the Illuminati, lol. Tell the truth didn't strike me as very technophobic, though, but I only saw that little bit.

Still, pretty cool though, the different endings. Just looking at the graphics level, it didn't look too severe.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Pheh. regulation=technophobia in my book, lol. I are a techno-anarchist:devil: Though yeah, thinking about it, yeah, you would side with the Illuminati, lol. Tell the truth didn't strike me as very technophobic, though, but I only saw that little bit.

Yea, you need to speak with and understand Hugh Darrow, to see how that chocie is technophobic.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Well, it certainly looks worth it, from the looks of it, though again, I'm not to keen on shooters on a PC. Console wouldn't bother me as much. I hear you can go through much of the game avoiding combat.

[KnightofPhoenix]

It's on console actually.
And yea, other than boss fights, combat can be avoided.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

That's an element of RPGs that is fundemental for them to be even remotely interesting to me. The ability to work my way out of situations that do not involve fighting. Bluffing, stealing, sneaking about, using non-combat magic or other metaphysical ability in a non-combative application, ect.

That's one of the reasons that, despite the very high fantasy, generic, and general simplistic representations in Dungeons and Dragons games, I still love playing them. because they are very individual character heavy games that involve alot of non-lethal skills and abilities, and almost always have several events and quests that are best solved with a combination of many factors dependant upon the character's skill or proficiency in a certain area.

Combat is only a portion of a proper RPG, there should be alot of other things involved in gameplay as well. If given the opportunity, I usually choose to slime or sneak my way through situations, because doing so is far more intellectually rewarding than killing everything in my path.

[Costin_Razvan]

Pheh. regulation=technophobia in my book, lol. I are a techno-anarchist Though yeah, thinking about it, yeah, you would side with the Illuminati, lol. Tell the truth didn't strike me as very technophobic, though, but I only saw that little bit.

Still, pretty cool though, the different endings. Just looking at the graphics level, it didn't look too severe.

Though would you allow corporations free reign?

I personally told the truth. It's quite naive from me...but eh I hopped humanity would learn something for a ****ing change from that message and all that happened before it rather then rely on the Illumanity or Corporations to shape the future.

As for your PC not even running DA:O on Max all I can say is: OUCH....eh sadly I don't think TW2 is for you. Maybe on minimum...but eh.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 13 septembre 2011 - 03:02 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Though would you allow corporations free reign?

Depends on the scenario. Coorporations do serve a useful purpose, simply because they generate so much money that they can fund and push development like few entities can. While in reality in the current world, I'd not be keen on the mega corps running amok, it might be interesting to play with in a fictional scenario. Shadowrun actually did a pretty good job in creating such a scenario.

As for your PC not even running DA:O on Max all I can say is: OUCH....eh sadly I don't think TW2 is for you. Maybe on minimum...but eh.

it will run it, but the lag and hangup gets pretty bad if I do. hell its one of the reasons I hate the brecellian forest, because the delay and lag on combat there is pain in the ass on high resolution. Highest, don't even try.

[Costin_Razvan]

Which is what the choice would be imply: Full power to corporations..mega ones. Not really something I would to see.

Hell I am against the pro choice since I wouldn't want to force people to become augs, which what is already happening during the events of the game...and suffice to say it's not pretty. ( There's a drug involved in the whole process and if you stop taking it you die ).

P.S. Wanna chat on Skype.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Though would you allow corporations free reign?

Depends on the scenario. Coorporations do serve a useful purpose, simply because they generate so much money that they can fund and push development like few entities can. While in reality in the current world, I'd not be keen on the mega corps running amok, it might be interesting to play with in a fictional scenario. Shadowrun actually did a pretty good job in creating such a scenario.

They could, question is, would they?

It is my opinion that corporations, in their quest for profit which is ultimately their raison d'etre, could impede on progress to get said profit. In my opinion, there are a lot of sectors we have today that are not being developped precisely because it's not profitable for corporations to do so (one example could be pharmaceuticals and the energy sector).

I mean let's face it, crap can sometimes can be much more profitable than genuine progress that takes a lot of resources, without a clear demand for it. My impression today is that they are very very few risk takers who like to experiment with new ideas these days, at least corporations.


And I just borrowed a book about Cardinal Richelieu. Since we talk about everything in this thread on an intellectual level (which makes me want to hug it and the people in it), I might share some of the stuff I read

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 13 septembre 2011 - 05:50 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Which book Knight? What's the name.?

Personally still going through Napoleon's memoirs. Heh the guy was really a ruthless bastard.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 13 septembre 2011 - 05:51 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Rise of Richelieu, by Joseph Bergin

I have a natural leaning towards people like him, more than say Napoleon.
I think Richelieu's impact on Europe and by proxy the world, while subtler, was more substantial, for one could argue that he is one of the founders (if not the main one) of the "modern state", something most of us live under.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 13 septembre 2011 - 06:38 .

[billy the squid]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Though would you allow corporations free reign?

Depends on the scenario. Coorporations do serve a useful purpose, simply because they generate so much money that they can fund and push development like few entities can. While in reality in the current world, I'd not be keen on the mega corps running amok, it might be interesting to play with in a fictional scenario. Shadowrun actually did a pretty good job in creating such a scenario.

They could, question is, would they?

It is my opinion that corporations, in their quest for profit which is ultimately their raison d'etre, could impede on progress to get said profit. In my opinion, there are a lot of sectors we have today that are not being developped precisely because it's not profitable for corporations to do so (one example could be pharmaceuticals and the energy sector).

I mean let's face it, crap can sometimes can be much more profitable than genuine progress that takes a lot of resources, without a clear demand for it. My impression today is that they are very very few risk takers who like to experiment with new ideas these days, at least corporations.
....

I think that becomes more of an issue within the mass consumption markets, not all corporations per se. Companies differ in their approach to product development. What one segment wants, needs or desires is inherently different from another, not only on a level of affordability, but on a psychological level. The association of an item with certain themes, social acceptance or superiority, quality of design are all used when selling and affect the economics of the product. Even in consumer markets, over research facilities this happens.

For instance, the current competition between Nvidia and ATI, both target the same segment, but sub divisions within the market are catered to on a more specific level. Nvidia seems to be the undoubted technological leader in this area, at least for the moment, but the cost tends to be higher, yet the association of the product with performance and quality is ingrained within the psychology of how it is marketed, cutting edge consumer technology, but for a price. And it must continue that advancement, its competition, ATI, tends to favour affordability over the higher tech products of Nvidia, yet itself continues to push forward when advancing technologically. Thus the competition drives that advancement.

The issue with the energy sector is that there is still sufficient, materials to prevent a niche market develop. Although there has already been a gradual shift to nuclear power in Europe, in France at least and the UK, due to our geo political reliance on foreign nations for resources, with development of fussion, being done, to make it affordable on a mass scale. Whilst pharmaecuticals, the patents of certain drugs only last a limited period, where by after expirey any  company can use the formulae and produce rival products, thus why companies within the sector seem to be looking for the new treatment or cure for aillments.

However, the problem is obviously that obviously this requires the more simple consumerist products to fund, which is why so many companies have a huge range of cheap products to sell on, yet the market leaders also have some very well funded research and development departments. Both privately and government funded. But, they are obviously far smaller than other sectors.

It is not a perfect system by any means, monopolies cause stagnation and tend to be guilty of the most shallow development, simply as they don't require it. Oligopalies are also a problem, yet it relies upon the parties agreeing, without trying to backstab one another.

Modifié par billy the squid, 13 septembre 2011 - 09:50 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Though would you allow corporations free reign?

Depends on the scenario. Coorporations do serve a useful purpose, simply because they generate so much money that they can fund and push development like few entities can. While in reality in the current world, I'd not be keen on the mega corps running amok, it might be interesting to play with in a fictional scenario. Shadowrun actually did a pretty good job in creating such a scenario.

They could, question is, would they?

It is my opinion that corporations, in their quest for profit which is ultimately their raison d'etre, could impede on progress to get said profit. In my opinion, there are a lot of sectors we have today that are not being developped precisely because it's not profitable for corporations to do so (one example could be pharmaceuticals and the energy sector).

I mean let's face it, crap can sometimes can be much more profitable than genuine progress that takes a lot of resources, without a clear demand for it. My impression today is that they are very very few risk takers who like to experiment with new ideas these days, at least corporations.

Which is why I said, fictionally, because it would be interesting to see how such a possible scenario would play out in a fictional universe. Corporations evolving beyond just large financial and mercantile enterprises. It was done quite interestingly in the Shadowrun universe. Would be interesting to see how it would develop elsewhere.

In the real world, however, it is one of the few things I think govornments should spend more money on, and that's research and development, beyond military ventures. As much as a minimalist I tend to be when it comes to govornment, one thing I think should remain primarily nationalized is the Space program. I think it needs far better management to be more efficient and cost effective, but I still believe it should be actively pursued, even though there is no "market" per se, for space exploration at the moment. Eventually, in the future, private enterprise will eventually end up in space, but for now, I prefer it remain a govornmental affair. Corporations already hold govornments to ransom in most things currently anyway, so I can't see how big a difference it would be.

[KnightofPhoenix]

billy the squid wrote...
For instance, the current competition between Nvidia and ATI, both target the same segment, but sub divisions within the market are catered to on a more specific level. Nvidia seems to be the undoubted technological leader in this area, at least for the moment, but the cost tends to be higher, yet the association of the product with performance and quality is ingrained within the psychology of how it is marketed, cutting edge consumer technology, but for a price. And it must continue that advancement, its competition, ATI, tends to favour affordability over the higher tech products of Nvidia, yet itself continues to push forward when advancing technologically. Thus the competition drives that advancement.

But these cartels (agreements between oligopolies), are specifically tailored to maintain the status quo and do not give room for a *major* breakthrough. This is the same situation between Apple and Microsoft. It's true that competition might have led to more incentive to develop and experiment. But what we must realize is that our societies do not operate on "Free and Fair competition", in large part due to cartels between oligopolies that are there to maintain a certain balance and status quo (in other, due to the power of brand that often ends up substituting for quality). Advancements are there, but it's more or less slow and not the kind of breakthrough that would alter humanity's future.

I argue that oligopolies tend to agree more than compete (and if they do compete, they do so in underhanded ways, and not freely and fairly). And that's what impedes progress, imo.

The issue with the energy sector is that there is still sufficient, materials to prevent a niche market develop. Although there has already been a gradual shift to nuclear power in Europe, in France at least and the UK, due to our geo political reliance on foreign nations for resources, with development of fussion, being done, to make it affordable on a mass scale. Whilst pharmaecuticals, the patents of certain drugs only last a limited period, where by after expirey any  company can use the formulae and produce rival products, thus why companies within the sector seem to be looking for the new treatment or cure for aillments.

That's exactly short term thinking that impedes progress, and the kind of thinking the vast majority of corporations, in this case the energy sector, are guilty of. France's nuclear project is state driven / initiated (De Gaulle specifically kickstarted it and it was an important question in the recent French elections. It's heavily political). I would argue that corporations would not have done such a thing out of their own volition, at least not before a few decades.

I am not as knowledgeable on pharmaecuticals than the energy or other sectors. But it was my impression medical research is not being funded as well as it should be. In part because it might compromise current medications, in other part because the results are far from beign certain and there is no guarantee that this research could result in a lucrative product. Which is not to say that advancement and research are not being made, just that I think it's being limited. And were it not for states who fund research and development, I doubt corporations would until the very last moment, and they would end up establishing cartels to create another status quo.

However, the problem is obviously that obviously this requires the more simple consumerist products to fund, which is why so many companies have a huge range of cheap products to sell on, yet the market leaders also have some very well funded research and development departments. Both privately and government funded. But, they are obviously far smaller than other sectors.

Yes, and that imo is a problem, and that's why I am skeptical with the idea that corporations can speardhead progress on a massive scale. Examples of that happening is far in between, and they would be lacking the context of states being weakened and corporations having free rein, which would not make them very pertinente examples.
  

It is not a perfect system by any means, monopolies cause stagnation and tend to be guilty of the most shallow development, simply as they don't require it. Oligopalies are also a problem, yet it relies upon the parties agreeing, without trying to backstab one another.

Yes and it is that agreement that I think could very well end up impeding progress.
And in Deus Ex, of course they backstab each other, Tai Yong Medical being the prime example. That is also a risk. That their competition ends up being focused more on backstabbing than actual rise of quality in product. With the decline of states and the rise of PMCs, competition between oligopolies could become much more violent.

I agree that monopolies are dangerous unless controlled by an actual visionary (in fact, the lack of competition might encourage the monopoly to take mucch more risks). But imo, oligopolies could be as dangerous.

Of course states are not immune of that problem either.

I think the Illuminati (power behind the throne kind of organization), is immune to a lot of these weaknesses, but is of course mired with problems of its own. Hence me saying that all endings in Deus Ex are far from being optimal.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
In the real world, however, it is one of the few things I think govornments should spend more money on, and that's research and development, beyond military ventures. As much as a minimalist I tend to be when it comes to govornment, one thing I think should remain primarily nationalized is the Space program. I think it needs far better management to be more efficient and cost effective, but I still believe it should be actively pursued, even though there is no "market" per se, for space exploration at the moment. Eventually, in the future, private enterprise will eventually end up in space, but for now, I prefer it remain a govornmental affair. Corporations already hold govornments to ransom in most things currently anyway, so I can't see how big a difference it would be.

Indeed, that is a great example.

To add on my point: China's project.

This is not something I can see any corporation doing out of its own volition, even in a context where states are weak and they are supreme. Because it's a huge risk with virtually no guaranteed return of investment. It might turn out to be a net loss.

But for China, it doesn't matter, because it doesn't think in terms of net profit only.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 13 septembre 2011 - 11:49 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Indeed, that is a great example.

To add on my point: China's project.

This is not something I can see any corporation doing out of its own volition, even in a context where states are weak and they are supreme. Because it's a huge risk with virtually no guaranteed return of investment. It might turn out to be a net loss.

But for China, it doesn't matter, because it doesn't think in terms of net profit only.

Yeah. Nor would a corporations invest in concepts such as general purpose lunar research bases, because such things would mostly be of long term investment interest. Long term is not a word in the vocabulary of many corporations. Most prefer shorter term returns and shorter term investments, because many like to keep fluid and adaptable to changes in markets and financial trends. They are good at generating the necessary money for investment, but governments tend to be better at applying it towards the pursuit of greater knowledge and understanding for its own sake. In terms of things such as acedemic prestige and national pride, things that are more long term benefits for long term investments.

I am glad to see the Chinese are actively investigating and pusuing space exploration. This bodes well as far as I'm concerned, because it means that even when the US wanes, space is still going to get explored and hopefully, in the far future, settled by humanity.

And if they are amped up, cybernetically, genetically, or chemicaly enhanced humans, all the better.

[Addai]

greengoron89 wrote...
Some of the party banter for him was fantastic - especially between him and Wynne. He pwns her pretty hard when they start arguing - so much that Wynne even admits to being mistaken about him after a while.

Yes, yes he does.  

[KnightofPhoenix]

I wouldn't be surprised if China sought to find ways to weaponize that asteroid. To give it the capacity to drop it anywhere it wants to cause massive damage.

I know I would weaponize it, as a deterrent.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 14 septembre 2011 - 12:26 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

greengoron89 wrote...
Some of the party banter for him was fantastic - especially between him and Wynne. He pwns her pretty hard when they start arguing - so much that Wynne even admits to being mistaken about him after a while.

Yes, yes he does.  

Out of curiosity, greengoron, did you take Loghain and Wynne to Return to Ostagar?

If not, then you should. If you thought Loghain pwned her in ordinary banter, wait till you hear what he has to say to her in RtO.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I wouldn't be surprised if China sought to find ways to weaponize that asteroid. To give it the capacity to drop it anywhere it wants to cause massive damage.

I know I would weaponize it, as a deterrent.

I certainly wouldn't doubt it. Given that it will be about another 30+ years before the Asteroid in question is even close enough to consider doing anything with it, technological progress should be advanced enough for it to be feasible, if possible. Of course, the world on the socio-political front could change drastically in those 30 years, so who knows.

I'm just glad space is still being looked at more and more. Eventual colonization of space I believe is essential to our survival and development as a spiecies.