174 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Luc0s wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

That's just silly. I can have no position on whether X is true or not true. For instance, I have absolutely no idea whetyher the Yankees are going to the World Series this year.

I have no idea either. But you can still believe one way or the other if you give it some thought.

Can? Sure. But you said that I must believe one way or another. That's nonsense

Besides, a belief (or non-belief) in God or anyhing supernatural is completely different from mundane things such as baseball. I think every adult has given the question "does god exist?" some thought at least once.

Sure, we've all thought about it. But that simply does not mean that we all ended up either believing or not believing. Some of us decided there wasn't any evidence one way or the other.

And yeah, it's all OT. When you stop posting nonsense about this topic I'll stop calling you on it.

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 juillet 2011 - 01:58 .

[AlanC9]

Luc0s wrote...
Just like the question "Are the rooms in your wall black?" can only be answered with a binary.

Either the walls in your room are black, or they are a different color, which would mean they aren't black.

So either the answer to the question is "yes" or the answer to the question is "no".

Or my answer is that I have no idea. Maybe I'm blind and can't see the walls.

You muddled up "the answer" with "my answer."

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 juillet 2011 - 02:00 .

[mesmerizedish]

Luc0s wrote...

I already know that image and I can say you misunderstand the image.

Either you believe X or you don't believe X.

If you believe X, it's possible for X not to be true. However:

If you believe X and X is true (and there is evidence that X is true), then you can speak about knowledge.

Belief = thinking X is true without evidence that X is true.
Knowledge = thinking X is true with evidence that X is true.

All you're doing is giving yourself an escape route. "Belief" is not saying "I think it's true, but I could be wrong." Belief is saying "it's true." If you acknowledge that you could be wrong, you don't believe it's true. Maybe you believe it's likely, but you do not believe it's true.

And I'm out, because when the exact same argument defeats everything you say, it's not fun anymore.

[jlb524]

Luc0s wrote...

We can't know anything about the existence of a deity, so it's irrelevant to ask ourselves if a deity exits or not, because we don't know. Hoever, we can still ask ourselves if we BELIEVE a deity exists or not, despise our knowledge (or lack thereof).

Who's 'we'?  What if someone avoids the question and refuses to form a belief on a diety's existence?

[mesmerizedish]

jlb524 wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

We can't know anything about the existence of a deity, so it's irrelevant to ask ourselves if a deity exits or not, because we don't know. Hoever, we can still ask ourselves if we BELIEVE a deity exists or not, despise our knowledge (or lack thereof).

Who's 'we'?  What if someone avoids the question and refuses to form a belief on a diety's existence?

What he's saying is that that's impossible.

Interestingly, he's claiming to know the capabilities of 7 billion people he's never met.

[mousestalker]

Luc0s wrote...
Come on, this isn't rocket science.

No, it's brain surgery.

[jlb524]

Luc0s wrote...

We = humanity.

Sure, you can avoid the question and stick your head into the sand. if you feel comfortable with that. But that doesn't give you a very solid basis to argue from whenever you're going to have a debate about god(s).

In order to speak and debate about a subject, you first need to make up your own beliefs regarding the subject. Else there you don't have a point to argue from.

You assume that everyone even wants to debate about god(s).

Sure, those that do it have a belief, but not everyone does.

Also, did you miss this point?

AlanC9 wrote...

Luc0s wrote...
Just like the question "Are the rooms in your wall black?" can only be answered with a binary.

Either the walls in your room are black, or they are a different color, which would mean they aren't black.

So either the answer to the question is "yes" or the answer to the question is "no".

Or my answer is that I have no idea. Maybe I'm blind and can't see the walls.

You muddled up "the answer" with "my answer."

A blind person would have no belief relating to the color of the walls as it's not something they try to form a belief on, not being able to see them.

[jlb524]

Luc0s wrote...

I did not assume that.

Well you debate aboutt is now so I guess you must have a belief on it?


Shall we get back on-topic now or are you only here to debate god(s)?

If not, then let us PLEASE go back ON TOPIC now before this thread get's locked. 

I personally have a belief on the issue (I believe god things don't exist) but that doesn't mean everyone does.  We weren't debating god anyway, but agnosticism. 

[Gatt9]

Someone PM me if this thread gets back on topic, not even I'm touching it's current topic.

[the_one_54321]

MightySword wrote...
Use the original definition of RPG as a guide line, but at the same time you have to open up to new possibilities.

No. The arbitrary (or popular) recreation of definition is a bane on meaningful communication.

..........................

A reasonable assumption is absolutely possible so long as one has a sound reason to make an assumption. If one does have a sound reason, then there you have the very definition of a reasonable assumption.

Though the world may exist in binary, perception is limited by what information is and is not available. Making reasonable assumptions is statistically varifiable as effective. In fact, everyone does this every day. You set your alarm to wake you up in the morning because you assume that the sun will rise instead of implode and that you will still have a job to go to that you will not want to be late for. All reasonable assumptions based on sound reasons.

Furthermore, all the structures and machines you work with were designed and built with their own assumptions in place. It's called the degree of certainty. An acceptance that complete certainty is not attainable but that a sufficiently verifiably small level of risk is acceptable. An assumption. A reasonable assumption that works every day all over the world.

[Gatt9]

the_one_54321 wrote...

MightySword wrote...
Use the original definition of RPG as a guide line, but at the same time you have to open up to new possibilities.

No. The arbitrary (or popular) recreation of definition is a bane on meaningful communication.

I agree.

(Not directed at the_one)

"I like Shooters",  "I like Stories",  isn't a valid reason to redefine what constitutes an RPG.  Adding an essentially needless "Leveling system" to a Shooter,  or to a game with a story doesn't mean that we've redefined what an RPG is.  It means we've added an unnecessary system to a game that performs no function,  and fails to generate the "intended" type of game.

Meaning,  ME2 is a TPS.  You kill a YMIR at level 2,  and you'll be killing it at level 30.  It'll kill you faster than a collector,  it is harder than the Terminator.  The leveling system itself performs no real function,  you can already kill everything in the game without it.  This makes it a fully redundant system that should not be in place.

How does this more fully realize the goal of implementing an RPG?  How does implementing a fully redundant system to give the illusion of containing RPG elements improve RPG's?

It doesn't,  it's bad design,  bad use of resources.  In any other,  every other,  Industry implementing fully redundant systems would result in the termination of a number of staff.*

Yet here we are,  with RPG's,  claiming that we should redefine the term RPG to mean "TPS with fully redundant systems" rather than to mean RPG.  This is not redefinition.

Redefinition would be when D&D evolved from one-dimensional classes with no real abilities to multi-role classes with varied customizable abilities.  Redefinition of CRPG's occurred when Bioware realized NPC's with personalities that could,  and did,  conflict with the PC's Role.

Redefinition isn't releasing a TPS with the illusionary RPG components,  that do not actually perform any real function.  Nor does it mean scrapping the entire evolution of CRPG's having NPC's with personalities in favor of a system that fails to react to conflicts with the PC's actions. 

There have been many times of the past 30-40 years where RPG's definition expanded or evolved,  but switching genres is not,  and never will be,  one of those times.

Because in essence,  all you're doing is declaring that RPG = TPS and RPG = Adventure game,  which we already know to be false,  because if that were true the genre distinctions never would've existed.

As I said earlier,  analyze the system,  identify the primary gameplay components,  examine the "RPG elements" identify the ones that are transient and perform no real function.  At the completion all you'll have with ME2,  and to a great extent Bethseda games,  is a completely different genre.

Because their RPG elements are actually completely illusionary,  which doesn't constitute a redefinition.

*I'm using "Fully redundant to mean "Performs no real function",  I realize in some industries fully redundant means a system in place as a failsafe,  and in those industries it would be necessary,  regardless,  in any industry wasting resources to implement something that does nothing would lead to terminations,  except maybe government."

Modifié par Gatt9, 23 juillet 2011 - 06:40 .

[MightySword]

the_one_54321 wrote...

MightySword wrote...
Use the original definition of RPG as a guide line, but at the same time you have to open up to new possibilities.

No. The arbitrary (or popular) recreation of definition is a bane on meaningful communication.

Define "meaningful" communication. Language is created by human and it can be changed by human as long as it serves the "mass". A "few" individual can declare themselves languistists but if their facility is not accepted by the mass, then they're still wrong. Criticize populist all that you want, but language and communication base on populist, not elitist because it's not physical laws. In a society of 100 person, even if only one person believe in Gravity while the other 99 don't, that one person is still correct because human can't change that. However if 99 person some how all manage to mis-use a word in a certain way and only one person actually use the word correctly arcording to its original meaning, then for all intend and purpose that one person is wrong, and the other 99 is right. Because it doesn't matter if they used it wrong (comparign to the original definition), if the idea is successfully transfer from one person to the next than the result is a "meaningful communication". The other one person, by using the correct but isolated meaning, can fail to communicate with the rest of the community which result in a meaningless communication. And bottom line is, the problem I believe here is people hold on to RPG as a an absolute law while it is nothing more but a product created by human, and thus are subjected to change per the will of majority.  You might not like the change, doesn't mean it's invalid.

With that's said, I don't call The Sims 3 a RPG, and I am as sure hell don't call GoW a RPG so no I don't call for an albitrary approach. But you are trying to find a one bill fit all for all the RPG type on the market. RPG was created as a PnP games that directly involves the players without a medium. Than it was adapated into Computer Games where you need to have an interface and limited possibilities. Then who knows, maybe in the future you can have the kind of RPG on Holydeck like the kind you see in Startrek. Trying to fit all of that in one package is a meaningless afford.

Gatt9 wrote...
"I like Shooters",  "I like Stories",  isn't a
valid reason to redefine what constitutes an RPG.  Adding an essentially
needless "Leveling system" to a Shooter,  or to a game with a story
doesn't mean that we've redefined what an RPG is.  It means we've added
an unnecessary system to a game that performs no function,  and fails to
generate the "intended" type of game
......

Correction, it doesn't generate the kind of game that you wanted to see, doesn't mean the developers didn't generate the type of game they intended. Last time I check, they never advertist ME as a "classic RPG" but as an "action RPG". But you claim Turn Base and Real Time games can't be mixed but the fact there did and enjoy success, however I imagine if you're a TBS fan, you probably will be declaring those game are blashpemy. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/smilie]


It just shows that greatness can come from flexibility and innovation. In term of possibility: action RPG = 1 and you = 0.

Modifié par MightySword, 23 juillet 2011 - 07:43 .

[Stanley Woo]

No longer even remotely on topic.

End of line.