174 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Luc0s wrote...

I certainly know what the law of excluded middle means. However, YOU need to realize that sometimes THERE IS a middle.

That's my point.  There's a middle.  You keep assuming there isn't.

If there isn't enough evidence to support a conclusion that A is true, you then insist that we must believe that A is not true.  And that's nonsense.

We could instead not draw a conclusion regarding the truth value of A.

This is how you're misusing Occam's Razor.  You're using Occam's Razor correctly in selecting the simpler of the available conclusions, but there's no reason for you to have gone as far as selecting a conclusion at all.

There is no middle in being gay. You're either gay or you aren't. There is no middle. I know this and I fully understand this.

But there is a middle regarding your belief of another's gay or straight status.  You don't need to believe that someone is gay or straight.  You could simply not hold an opinion.  That's the middle, and you're discounting it throughout this discussion.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Luc0s wrote...

QUESTION TO EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD!

Just out of curiosity, but does anyone here play pens-n-paper roleplaying games?

I used to.

I played GURPS, MERP, AD&D, Star Wars (the old d6 rules, not the new d20 rules), Mythus, Shadowrun, Battletech.  Lots of different systems.

[mesmerizedish]

There's a difference between not believing x is true and believing x isn't true. It's kind of the fundamental difference between atheism and agnosticism.

[AlanC9]

Luc0s wrote...

Agnosticism is a lie. It's not a belief on it's own. It can go together with atheism or theism, but it's nothing on it's own.

You can be an agnostic atheist. You can be an agnostic theist. You can even be an agnostic pantheist or agnostic "somethingist".


Agnosticism is not the middleground between atheism and theism. Agnosticism is in fact the opposite of gnosticism.

theism v.s atheism
gnosticism v.s agnosticism


I'm an agnostic atheist (actually I'm a pantheist, but I'm atheist towards any creator-god).
I don't know if God exists, but I believe he doesn't exist.

I don't know anything about Udina's sexuality (in other words, I'm agnostic about Udina's sexuality), but I believe he's straight.


Anyway, this is completely offtopic.

I don't quite see where "agnosticism is a lie" fits in with the rest of this.

[mesmerizedish]

It's not at all off-topic. You're denying that there's a middle ground when it comes to belief in faeries. I just substituted God for faeries.

Belief is not a binary. I can believe something is true, I can believe something is not true, or I can abstain from holding a belief at all. That's theism, atheism, and agnosticism.

[mesmerizedish]

If you believe God doesn't exist, then you're not an agnostic.

You seem to have a misunderstanding as to what agnosticism means. Knowledge of its etymological ancestry doesn't make you able to dictate its meaning. Agnosticism is an English word that means not holding a belief as to the existence of a deity. It's like salsa. It's Spanish for sauce, just like agnostic is Greek for without knowledge. But in English, salsa has a specific meaning distinct from its root, just like agnosticism does.

[mesmerizedish]

Luc0s wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't quite see where "agnosticism is a lie" fits in with the rest of this.

With that I mean all the self-proclaimed "agnostics" who claim they're actual fence-sitters and don't believe one way or the other.

People who say "I don't believe God exists, but I also don't believe God doesn't exist."

Those people are only fooling themselves and simply don't care to actually open their heart and see what they really believe.

Everyone believes on way or the other. This is where the law of exclusive middle comes in. There is no middle in belief. Either you believe X is true, or you believe X is not true.

That is entirely incorrect.

[jlb524]

Some just don't care. I have no beliefs relating to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Lenimph]

jlb524 wrote...

Some just don't care. I have no beliefs relating to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

How dare you! You either believe or don't believe in his holynoodle-ness!!! 

Modifié par Lenimph, 23 juillet 2011 - 01:17 .

[MightySword]

Gatt9 wrote...
Um,  no.

An RPG has a fundamental basis in several concepts,  Character based skill.  You cannot eliminate the fundamental basis of the genre without shifting it into another genre.  You cannot have a Turn-based RTS,  you cannot have a
top-down FPS,  and you cannot have a characterless RPG.

That's why a guide line is needed, that's why The Sims 3 is not a RPG. The original RPG concept can have a list of 10 things that are done in it, but for a game to be considered a subclass of RPG it doesn't neccessary to satisfy all 10 things, or prohibited it from have feature of its own.

The most variety?  Play Gears of War with a different name is more variety?  RPG is the most stagnant of genres as it tries to ape the latest trends rather than continuing to make great games.

Well, too bad you don't enjoy it. But if you don't enjoy it doesn't mean the gerne is dying. This comment is too typical to squeeze a discussion out of it.

"Hybrid" is a marketing buzzword.  It's invariably used to describe a FPS or TPS where the UI was intentionally crippled to implement a "Leveling" system that does nothing more than progress the gameplay to full Shooter.  It's never actually a hybridization of the features of the two genres,  because such a fusion is impossible.  Shooters are player based skill,  RPG's are character based skill,  and now we're back to making a turn-based RTS,  cannot do it.

No, it just means you refuses to acknowledge the possibility.  ME is neither the first game or only game ever try to combine the two. As for a turn-based RTS ... isn't there are a lot of them on the market already? The Total War series might want to have a word or two with you.


And in the hope of enlighten you a bit and show you the light of possibility, there is another game this generation that sweeten that turn-base & real time relationship more than total war. It's called Valkyria Chronicle. At the core, it's a TBS, however the combat have a kick of real time shooter in it. You move your unit on the map, position them, using terran. Each unit have its turn than have to be moved one by one, and the two side take turns of moving just like a TBS. But once the is unit engage, then it turns into real time control. You move your unit in real time, suffering crossfire just like a shooter, and whether you can aim and shoot before getting shot is a matter of reflex. The game was welcomed by most TBS gamers as blowing a fresh air into the gerne, and it does. These are the same people who spent countless hours crunching on hardcore TBS like Diseaga or Fire Emblems.


So, impossible? Apprently not to those who can think about innovation. And that is the core problem here. No matter what you say, in the end you're just inflexible of the original definition of RPG, and that shut your eyes on its possibilities. :innocent:

I've a pet peeve too,  people who toss around marketing buzzwords but fail to properly analyze and catagorize the actual gameplay.

Nice assumption, and one that shows you have as a limited knowledge as the person I mentioned in my pet-peeve. Action RPG is not a new word, neither it's a new type of game. JRPG actually have fielded "ton" of action RPG in the PS2 era. Star Ocean 3,  Radiata Stories, Grandia 3, Growlanser Generation ...etc... these games all combine character state and player reflex for a effective gameplay outcome. These games were never marketed as "action JRPG", it's just a classification the players give them to seperate them from the traditional turn base RPG like that of Final Fantasy. So no, I wasn't using it as a Buzzwords, because I already use it years before ME came out. I use the word Action RPG for any RPG that depends on my real time input for a character performance, not because BIoware said so.

Modifié par MightySword, 23 juillet 2011 - 01:18 .

[mesmerizedish]

Luc0s wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't quite see where "agnosticism is a lie" fits in with the rest of this.

With that I mean all the self-proclaimed "agnostics" who claim they're actual fence-sitters and don't believe one way or the other.

People who say "I don't believe God exists, but I also don't believe God doesn't exist."

Those people are only fooling themselves and simply don't care to actually open their heart and see what they really believe.

Everyone believes on way or the other. This is where the law of exclusive middle comes in. There is no middle in belief. Either you believe X is true, or you believe X is not true.

That is entirely incorrect.

It's entirely correct. But feel free to demonstrate how it isn't correct.

Prove to me that I have a belief as to the existence of a deity. You can't, because you're not me. Maybe you can't genuinely remove yourself from the question entirely, but I can.

You're also misunderstanding atheism. As I demonstrated above, a word's meaning is not the sum of its etymology. Atheism means believing that God does not exist. If you use atheist to mean something other than that, you're just inventing a new definition (or old one, given its linguistic roots) to suit your argument.

[MightySword]

the_one_54321 wrote...
World building in NWN does not happen while the game is actually being played. Buying a house and furnature could be done in character.

Neither building the world in The Sims 3,  you don't play The Sims when you editing the world, because the game is in a different state. The only difference between the sim and NWN is that the latter if you want to add a house you launch the toolset while the former you launch an ingame editor. BTW, Dark Cloud 2, White Knight Chronicle ...etc... you build the world in those game, but you're not god.

the_one_54321 wrote...
I disagree. A hard clear line that
distinctly distinguishes RPG from not-RPG is exactly what I want. I want
definition not this "it's all subjective and we're all right in our own
way *hugs* " claptrap.

Yes you can, but this requires the parties involves to move "forward" in classifying the gerne which no one seems to be doing, at least not the present companies. I am not calling for "let give up on a definition of RPG", but you can't hope to define something when you refuse to acknowledge its existence to begin with. Use the original definition of RPG as a guide line, but at the same time you have to open up to new possibilities.

Modifié par MightySword, 23 juillet 2011 - 01:39 .

[mesmerizedish]

MightySword wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
World building in NWN does not happen while the game is actually being played. Buying a house and furnature could be done in character.

Neither building the world in The Sims 3,  you don't play The Sims when you editing the world, because the game is in a different state. The only difference between the sim and NWN is that the latter if you want to add a house you launch the toolset while the former you launch an ingame editor.

If it's in-game, then you're playing the game. I think they call it Build Mode in TS3? You're still playing the game in Build Mode.

[AlanC9]

Luc0s wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't quite see where "agnosticism is a lie" fits in with the rest of this.

With that I mean all the self-proclaimed "agnostics" who claim they're actual fence-sitters and don't believe one way or the other.

People who say "I don't believe God exists, but I also don't believe God doesn't exist."

Those people are only fooling themselves and simply don't care to actually open their heart and see what they really believe.

Everyone believes on way or the other. This is where the law of exclusive middle comes in. There is no middle in belief. Either you believe X is true, or you believe X is not true.

That's just silly. I can have no position on whether X is true or not true. For instance, I have absolutely no idea whether the Yankees are going to the World Series this year. As a Mets fan, I don't even have an estimate of the probability.

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 juillet 2011 - 01:27 .

[jlb524]

This is the definition of 'belief' I was taught in my philosophy class:

Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true.

If you take no attitude towards a proposition, you have no belief in it.

Atheists think that the proposition "God does not exist" is true.

Religious folk think that the proposition "God does exist" is true.

Agnostics have no opinion on either propositions.

[MightySword]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
If it's in-game, then you're playing the game. I think they call it Build Mode in TS3? You're still playing the game in Build Mode.

But it's a different "state" of the game and completely seperated from playing "your character". The argument here is that the character you playing is not the one altering the world, you are. Meaning it's the same as NWN, when you put down a castle in NWN, it wasn't your character doing it.

A counter example of this would be a game like Dark Cloud 2, in that game it's specifically "your" character who putting down a shop, dig a well, build a castle.