Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - The Mechanical Man

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Other Games / Re: Gaming Pet Peeves
« on: June 19, 2013, 05:56:46 am »
Quote from: itisnotlogical on June 19, 2013, 05:23:36 am
Experience the world of [franchise] as this random nobody!

When was the last time we had a Star Wars game where a main character from the films was the player character? Other than the most recent Lego Star Wars, I'm hard pressed to think of any. We've had some great games with other people, like KOTOR and Jedi Knight, but after twenty to thirty years you have to wonder what Luke, Han, Chewie and Leia have been up to.

That is actually the opposite of one of my pet peeves, where the player is the "chosen one" and is the only one who can save the world/galaxy/whatever. Why can't I just be a random nobody?

2
General Discussion / Re: Disney buys Lucasfilm
« on: October 30, 2012, 08:55:47 pm »
Remember, Disney owns studios like Marvel that make movies like Iron Man and The Avengers, so this new Star Wars isn't necessarily going to target 12 year olds like the animated Clone Wars. It can be a bit more mature than that.

3
Other Games / Re: Cataclysm: A Zombie-Survival Roguelike
« on: October 21, 2012, 06:29:22 am »
Quote from: Robsoie on October 21, 2012, 03:21:48 am
Encountered a bug regarding vehicles...

After a while of easy riding on the road, suddenly my character found himself walking behind the moto , while the vehicle was continuing in its own direction.

More annoying, starting from there, every turn a debug message about "empty passenger" followed by coordinates (of the moto i assume) were appearing on screen.

As i see the bug tracker is requiring registration even if it is just to see the list, is that a reported bug ?

Not sure if it is reported or not, but this has happened to me, too, on several different occasions. It wouldn't be a major problem for me except when this occurs the 'seat' in the vehicle gets bugged and it won't let me use it again.

4
General Discussion / Re: Mispronunciation
« on: September 04, 2012, 07:11:52 am »
Essentially everyone I know pronounces the word "because" be-cuz and not be-cause.

5
Other Games / Re: Day Z
« on: August 28, 2012, 08:20:18 am »
As the creator of the group... we don't really do anything.  :P

It's nice to have everybody that plays DayZ in the same place, though. I haven't played lately because I haven't been able to get the newest versions to work, although I've recently been thinking about trying to get it to work again.

Feel free to organize group sessions between yourselves.

6
General Discussion / Re: Amazingly Stupid Things You've Heard People Say
« on: August 11, 2012, 09:22:41 pm »
I believe it is scientifically proven that Africans have, on average, a center of gravity higher than Caucasians. This means that they are better sprinters by nature. On the flip side however, the higher center of gravity means that Africans are not as naturally good at swimming. This is why you see Africans dominating the track, but you don't see them at all in Olympic swimming events. 

7
Other Games / Re: The War Z
« on: August 10, 2012, 08:39:21 pm »
I can't believe I'm chiming in on this issue, but... here I am.


I personally don't like the title "The War Z" simply because of the awkward existence of the word "the". If it was just War Z, I would like it better. And if DayZ was actually The DayZ, then I wouldn't like that title. I don't like the "the", and that's that.

8
Other Games / Re: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
« on: August 07, 2012, 08:45:18 am »
Quote from: bukitodinos on August 07, 2012, 08:44:10 am
anyone else have a hard time for witch side they should go with?

imperials are spineless, elf worshiping snobs

stormcloacks are arrogant,racist idiots....

I went with the Imperials just because I like their architecture, armor, and obvious references to the Roman Empire. And they aren't really elf worshipping. I didn't go with the Stormcloaks because their armor is ugly. It wasn't a hard decision for me.

9
Other Games / Re: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
« on: August 07, 2012, 08:43:44 am »
Quote from: Briggsy16 on July 28, 2012, 10:42:43 am
What are the best mods to use then? Just installing this on my new PC and wanna start it modded straight away. Thanks guys :D

As mentioned, SkyRe seems to be a good mod although I've never tried it myself.

I use a lot of texture mods that just generally improve the textures of the game. I'm not a fan of the complete texture overhauls myself, but I have a mod that improve rock textures, another that improves furniture textures, food textures, etc.

There are a few combat mods like ACE, Deadly Combat, and Duke Patrick's. There's a good explanation of the combat mods here: http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1401728-cant-decide-which-combat-mod/

There are a few camping mods I've seen, with deploy-able beds and fires for cooking. Going along with cooking, there are some good mods that add new recipes and things to make.

I've seen a wide variety of armor and weapon mods. Most of them have new models that you craft at a forge, which I am not so much of a fan of (I'd rather have the new models integrated in the game or replace vanilla models). Half of the armor/clothing mods are just skimpy anime junk (if I wanted to look at that stuff, I wouldn't be playing Skyrim) but there are some good lore-friendly armor mods out there as well.

Ultimately, just search around and you'll find some good mods that make little changes or add little things. Not all mods have to be huge overhauls, most of mods I download are a bit random. I have a mod for playable instruments, faster walking/slower running, horse riding tweaks, improved animal loot (meats and pelts), etc.

10
Other Games / Re: Steam Sales
« on: August 06, 2012, 01:40:20 pm »
I don't know, Two Worlds has pretty bad voice acting...

EDIT: Spellforce has worse.

11
Other Games / Re: EU Rules in favour of reselling digital downloads.
« on: August 06, 2012, 01:29:59 pm »
Quote from: G-Flex on August 06, 2012, 01:09:17 pm
This is kind of suspect. The probability of a new game disc getting scratched up or otherwise damaged in shipment, and still making it to the shelf, despite being packaged beforehand, is incredibly low compared to the probability of someone scratching their disc through use prior to selling it to a game shop for resale. Granted, that's why any decent store will offer a refund on such a product, but it does happen, because people are rather good at getting discs scratched up over a period of months or years.

Fenrif is talking about a scratch on the case of the game, not on the disc itself.

12
General Discussion / Re: Atheism/Theology Discussion
« on: July 21, 2012, 07:14:57 am »
I said I wouldn't post anymore, but I'm back! I can't help it, I apologize.

Quote from: cerapa on July 21, 2012, 03:10:03 am
Yes, that is called "mutually exclusive options", and works in just the way you described. If you replace "lack of belief" with "belief in a lack". Might seem like stupid wordplay, but its a very, very, very important distinction. The two are completely seperate, and I think peoples brains work differently somehow that they dont catch the distinction, its a common enough sight for that. Do you honestly think people have an opinion about and belief in(or against) everything?

Lets play by your terms too, since you threw agnosticism/gnosticism and atheism/theism into the same pile, then pure agnosticism is in fact the middle of both. By your own definitions, not mine.

Yes, perhaps I do have a failing to understand the concept you describe. Because I do think everyone has a belief in or against everything. I do not believe pure agnosticism is a middle ground of belief. I have never met a person who, when asked "Do you believe in God?" says "I don't know". Wouldn't that mean that they still do or don't, but just don't know it? You could argue they still have an opinion on it, but don't know what it is yet. I suppose it depends on the wording of the question, for example, the question "Do I look fat in this dress?" is different than "Do you think I look fat in this dress?". Of course, those are exactly like the questions "Does god exist?" and "Do you believe god exists?".

From Wikipedia:
Quote
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable.

Atheism/theism is about belief.
Agnosticism/gnosticism is about certainty in knowledge.

So I've been under the impression so far that an "atheist" is really a gnostic atheist, and a "theist" is a gnostic theist. This is because they believe one thing, and have certainty of it/believe it to be knowable. An agnostic atheist/theist, then, would believe one thing, and have uncertainty/believe it to be unknowable. For me, agnostic/gnostic are more or less modifiers to the way in which someone believes- they cannot be independent of the atheist and theist terms. I don't think a person can be just a gnostic or just an agnostic- they must also be either an atheist or theist. You won't find a theist who is neither agnostic nor gnostic.

So, just to recap:
- Answering the question "Does god exist?" makes you either a gnostic or agnostic. The gnostic would say "yes" or "no", the agnostic would say "I don't know". This question is about knowledge and certainty. Gnostics would claim certainty, agnostics would claim uncertainty.
- Answering the question "Do you believe god exists?" makes you either a theist or atheist. The theist would say yes, the atheist would say no. (agnosticism has nothing to do with this question. Saying "I don't know" to this question does not make you agnostic, because agnosticism has to do with certainty in knowledge rather than belief)

Maybe my views are a personal failing of mine to understand certain concepts of logic, but I believe what I describe is correct.
And now that I feel I have finally come up with a clear way for you to see how I understand things, I officially declare myself done with this thread.

13
General Discussion / Re: Atheism/Theology Discussion
« on: July 20, 2012, 11:07:53 pm »
Quote from: Leafsnail on July 20, 2012, 10:44:39 pm
Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 20, 2012, 10:14:45 pm
And in this case, lack of belief is belief in the opposite direction.

To simplify this, let's distill this to the question "Is A true or false?". If you do not believe A is true, you automatically believe A is false. This is because of the binary nature of the question- it only has 2 possible answers with no in-between. So naturally, if you think one answer is incorrect then the only remaining answer must be correct in conclusion. "A is not true" is logically equivalent to "A is false".
You are wrong.  Can you not see there is a middle ground where you don't believe that A is true and you don't believe that A false?  Let's say there are two doors, A and B.  One of them has a coin behind it.

Do you believe that the coin is behind door A?
Do you believe that there is no coin behind door A?

I've given you no information either way, so unless you take a gut feeling you can't hold either belief.

My argument is not about that. My argument is that if I believe the coin is behind door A, I can not believe that the coin is behind door B. Or if I believe there is no coin behind door A, I must then believe the coin is behind door B. Thus, lack of belief is belief in the opposite direction due to the binary nature of the circumstances. Only 2 answers and 1 is right, so not believing one answer is right automatically means you believe the other is.

Quick edit: I think I understand better what you are talking about. From what I gather, you believe that the middle ground is agnosticism, correct? But I think agnosticism is a middle ground in certainty rather than belief. See below.

Quote
Quote from: The Mechanical Man on July 20, 2012, 10:33:48 pm
Maybe the world just doesn't accept my definitions of atheism, agnosticism, and theism, because under my definitions the majority of peoples would be agnostic atheists/theists and only those of irrational nature would be true atheists/theists. But I believe that my way of defining the terms is most accurate.
How can a definition be more or less "accurate"?  It's only a matter of whether the word as you're using it fits what people understand it to mean (unless you're talking about the actual roots of the word, in which case I don't see how your definitions fit any better).  You've just made up arbitrary definitions for three words (and also twisted the idea of belief a lot - it doesn't in any way imply certainty) and decided that everyone else is wrong for not using them.

Maybe not so much "accurate" as "precise". It is more precise in that it is easier to identify which category a person would belong to. Mostly this is because there is some overlap and confusion with agnosticism and how it is related to atheism and theism. But I think that in my definitions, I have included both belief and certainty into them. My definitions (as on page 10) were based on answering these two questions: "Do you believe in god?" and "Does god exist?"

I defined the terms in this manner:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

In this way, you see I have mixed belief and certainty, but I do not think I confused them.

An atheist and theist both have belief and certainty. Their belief causes their certainty, and their certainty is part of their belief. When an atheist says "God does not exist" it is their belief, but they are certain it is true.
An agnostic then has belief but not certainty. An agnostic can believe gods exist or not, but is not certain that their belief is correct.


I'm seriously tired (I've been up for a few hours in this thread trying to reply to too many posts). Either I suck at logic, am too tired to comprehend logic logically, or a mix of both. I give up and go to sleep! No more posts for me!

14
General Discussion / Re: Atheism/Theology Discussion
« on: July 20, 2012, 10:33:48 pm »
Quote from: MrWiggles on July 20, 2012, 10:25:18 pm
Why does it matter?

Intellectual Honest forbids me form stating there is a 100% chance of no gods, but I'm stil l pretty damn confident there isn't.

But why is the wiggle room important? The important part is acceptance of the claim. Either yes or no. Possibly more important if it effects and/or impacts your life.

And also this whole 'true XXX' just smells of the true scott's man fallacy for some reason.

I'm not quite sure what point you are arguing about/trying to prove. Could you rephrase your argument? Why does what matter?

Quote from: MrWiggles on July 20, 2012, 10:25:18 pm
Intellectual Honest forbids me form stating there is a 100% chance of no gods, but I'm still l pretty damn confident there isn't.

Maybe the world just doesn't accept my definitions of atheism, agnosticism, and theism, because under my definitions the majority of peoples would be agnostic atheists/theists and only those of irrational nature would be true atheists/theists. But I believe that my way of defining the terms is most accurate.

Let me put it this way: for me, admitting that you don't know for sure one way or the other means you are some type of agnostic.

15
General Discussion / Re: Atheism/Theology Discussion
« on: July 20, 2012, 10:21:57 pm »
Quote from: TCM on July 20, 2012, 10:17:55 pm
And what if I say I'm completely Athiest, nothing else like Agnostic, but I don't have a 100% certainty in the non-existence of a deity(ies)?

Then you are not truly an atheist. You are an agnostic atheist. A true atheist must believe that a God does absolutely, with 100% certainty, not exist. Anything less than that is agnostic atheism.

Quote from: TCM on July 20, 2012, 10:17:55 pm
If I think there is a 99.99999999% a car will strike me when I cross the road, do you think I am not completely firm in my decision to not cross it?

It is acceptable to make the assumption that you would be hit by the car, but you would still know that there is a chance -regardless of how extremely slight it is- that you would not be. Because of this, you can't say with 100% certainty that you will be hit, but it is acceptable to act as if you would.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10