Eedo Baba

Anamanaguchi Mermaid

From Gabe Newell: I'd say this is a *hint hint nudge nudge* confirmation that the next Half Life installment is at least being worked on in some form. Though that was pretty much a sure thing in my eyes.

Bioshock, anyone? The first one that is, the second one did have multi-player and that sadly wasn't such a good thing. Then again the BS2 was developed by a different company than BS1. The reason I personally wasn't taking into account Bioshock is because I think it's pretty overrated. But that's a discussion for another time. Anyway, Bioshock is a good example of what I'm talking about. The first was a well received single player game, but for the second one, likely the publisher requested it's sequel to have a multiplayer component. I read an article once about how a publisher executive thought Dead Space was a bad game because it "lacked multiplayer". Guess what he had the developer do for the sequel? (though to be honest I'm not knocking Dead Space 2's single player. It was better than the original imo, and worth the 50~ dollars I paid for it. My point is that it's an example of the publisher's shifting focus, not the developers.) Also, I may have badly stated my point in the original post. I'm not saying that no great single player games come out. I'm saying that these changes are just starting to happen.

In the past ten or so years, gaming has been going through some changes that I don't like. Publishers and developers are forgoing a lengthy and well made single player game, to make a mostly multiplayer based game instead. These changes I'll admit are still only beginning. We still have some great single player games out there. But the changes in publishers recognition of multiplayer as being more profitable are turning the tables. Games like Call of Duty show that lots of people will shell out 60 dollars yearly for a repackaged game built around online multiplayer. This disturbs me. I don't enjoy online multiplayer in general. I like to play through an engaging storyline and be immersed in a world that feels real, and feel that I fill an important place in this world through my role as the main character. Now, if this online multiplayer movement wasn't affecting single player games, then I would be fine. They'd play what they do and I'd play what I do. But it's not. Publishers choose to fund multiplayer based games because they're faster and cheaper to make, and they reel in different consumers who are willing to pay for a repackaged game yearly. A great single player game is less likely to be funded when pitted against a multiplayer game, in the eyes of a publisher executive. Think about it. When, since around Half Life 2, have we seen a single player only game with such a lengthy campaign, which not only kept the gameplay going, but kept it engaging and evolving as the player progressed? As I said, this movement disturbs me. Even Valve has said that they probably won't release a solely single player game again. I'm starting to fear for the state of my favorite type of game.

I'd suggest renting AC 2. It improved a great deal on the first game. I played 2 and brotherhood, but never even beat AC1, it was so unplayable (it didn't help that the audio quality for dialog in the ps3 version was horrible.)

I don't believe in beliefs. Would I be considered an atheist? I always thought atheism was the belief that deities do not exist, but apparently atheism is a blanket term for many different systems of thought. Some may just lack belief in deities, in which case I find labeling such a category to be a bit excessive, kind of like inventing a word to describe people who aren't lawyers.

I loved AC2. Great game. I bought Brotherhood, and it felt to much like an expansion for my taste. The gameplay and visuals were identical, and the story was less engaging than AC2. I'm really annoyed to hear that they're going to recycle the AC2 format once again with Revelations. I mean really, three games starring Ezio in the renaissance era? The first and second games changed main characters and locales completely, so having three sequels in a row with the same formula seems very cheap to me. I'll probably only rent Revelations.

It's been this for the past two or three years: http://www.gogaminggiant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Video-Game-Shadow-of-the-Colossus-37265.jpg

Yeah, I was going to leave this thread (and still am), but you're misrepresenting my opinion. I wasn't saying that people are getting smarter. I was saying that using the fact that they haven't in 2000 years as an argument is idiotic. Ok, bye all!

The "arguments" that some of you are proposing, just baffle me. How the hell could anyone think that this logic makes any sense at all? If your theory is that people aren't getting any smarter, then you yourself are exhibit A. This thread has become like a group of people trying to restrain a few babbling idiots who escaped from their straitjackets. I'M OUT

The teacher had nothing to do with it, that is the only curriculum allowed in public schools here in the USA. You ask people to back up what they say, then you make these broad sweeping statements with nothing to back them up. Give me some sort of reason to take your word for that.

Well, actually it's about what's true. If you were taught in school what you've been telling us, then that's the fault of your science teacher.

@BTG Some of what your saying is wrong, and you're leaving out key points. That's not part of evolution. That sounds like your not so correct version of one of the theories of abiogenesis. Sounds like the primordial soup theory. This is irrelevant to the subject of evolution. Evolution is the study of how species change, not their origin, as you seem to think. You're leaving out the key point that makes beneficial evolution possible, natural selection. These mutations are random, but the few that are beneficial make it slightly more likely for an organism to reproduce, thus proliferating the mutation. Also the mutations don't "eventually make new species". As said above, every species is a transitional species. There's no point when one species births the new species. Changes happen gradually, and there is no one generational changing point.

It's not a funny moment, but the feeling of delving into the old Aperture was great, where you're walking past so many locked doors and gates saying that the place was closed off. Also, the moment where you walk up to the first test sphere and you see the diagram showing the actual scale of the place, to be comprised of huge vertical cylinders filled with like TWENTY test spheres each. Really impressive.

That tends to happen when people repeat the same nonsense a thousand times hoping that it will eventually indoctrinate me. You say that you don't believe in evolution, but then you expect people to give you credit somehow. You would have to be an uneducated moron to not understand that evolution has been proven miles more than you'll admit. You'll likely ask why I don't give any facts to support this. Because it's already been done, like 50 times in this thread! Do you get some sort of sick pleasure from infuriating people who only want to discuss something rationally? This almost seems more likely to me than you actually being this criminally stupid.

Yes, you've yet to hear these arguments because you tend to cover your ears.

I was going through the dialog files, and there were a few Carolyn voice clips I definitely don't recognize. One is her going "Mr Johnson!" like she's scared, one saying "Sir!" also scared. "Mr Johnson, I don't want this!", kind of concerned. "I don't want this!" and "No, listen to me. Sir, I do not want this." Is this just a part of the game I'm forgetting? I played through twice now, and I don't recall anything like this at all.

You stretch to find flaws in the abundant proof towards accepted science, and seem to think these flaws are important, but what are you defending? Something with absolutely no proof whatsoever, which you don't seem to think is so bad.

Nope, you've just set such an extremely low standard for intelligence and sanity in your posts, I had to assume you were being serious.

*sigh* fine. You seem very very intent on refusing every level of argument I can offer, then throwing back absolute falsehoods that you seem to actually think are true. Things like: Um, no. This is either a lie, or you really don't understand how science is conducted. Science is based off of facts. There are NO accepted facts that contradict natural selection. It's a law of nature. Give me one fact you can think of that does. Well, no, at least not those that actually believe in atheism. If a kid puts on that he doesn't believe in god just to rebel, then that's not a real atheist. When a person makes a philisophical decision to no longer believe in god, they do it after introspection, and gaining understanding. Anyway, atheism isn't the only alternative to theism. I'm a noncommittist, which means I don't believe in beliefs. No once again, you're on a roll. "Evolutionists" do not exist. There are just reasonable people. Scientific method is founded on questioning what you see and understanding it. A child raised by a (healthy) nonreligious person would likely be encouraged to question and understand the world for themselves, weather that means joining a religion or not. You weren't even listening to what I was saying, were you? I was talking about a person raised to believe in god. God as you think it exists is unlikely and foolish. What your referring to is an innate disposition in humans to be constantly fearful of authority, which in religion takes the form of a god. Tricked by what exactly? Facts? Science? You think it's more reasonable to be tricked by a 2000 year old book with no backing evidence and numerous logical contradictions? This is seriously just sad. You realize your doing exactly what I described in my above post. You're disregarding logic in the case of philosophical questions because your religion tells you that this makes you more righteous. You still have yet to contradict what I say with any solid argument, and this is because you can't. Your response to this post will be that of course you can, and you will give inane examples that are easily disproved. You will reject every argument I make vehemently, because your faith tells you if you agree you are unrighteous. You are giving into the innate disposition I described above, to fear authority. You fear authority that isn't there and call it god. It's this fear that causes you to reject reality. You fear for your soul, and you feel proud that you are defending your faith. You feel you have defended this authority, and for this he may show you mercy or kindness. But as I said, this authority you feel must be there is an illusion. It's sad. I do not hate religious people. I pity them. I pity you.

Religion in general disregards facts in favor of faith. Faith is just a romantic idea that people love to believe in. They convince themselves that believing in something without proof makes them more righteous. They think that they are a more spiritually enlightened person, when in fact this romantic "faith" is only helping to obscure the truth, by proliferating in a person the idea that solid proof isn't necessary with regards to the big questions, like "where did we come from?". This idea is backwards, and is a plague in modern society. Staunchly religious people tend to reject any idea that goes against their faith, because they believe that going against their faith would be unrighteous. It starts from childhood of course. Parents teach their children that the Bible or the Koran or the Rig Vedas or the Torah is the word of God (or Gods). Children are raised in an environment where they are not encouraged to question, but to accept without thought. Over the years, the healthy curiosity and questioning part of a person is killed, in a way, replaced by the overbearing plague of faith, stubbornly refusing anything that isn't what mom and dad kept telling them is true. This process repeats every generation, and it's the reason these outdated and idiotic religions still exist today. Why do these people allow themselves to be tricked? They believe so surely in these religious teachings, letting this faith cloud all reasonable judgement. Say what you will, religion is a poison.

I'd say Cave Johnson. I don't laugh out loud a lot, but some of his lines had me cracking up. "What do these people buy? Tattered hats? Beer? Dirt?" "We don't want old newspapers and sticks cluttering up the testing area." "They said I couldn't fire a man for being in a wheelchair! Did it anyway! Ramps are expensive!" "You may know us as playing a key role in the senate hearings on missing astronauts!" Oh, and the lemon rant of course.

Diamond is very rare and valuable, but it's price is increased greatly by the DeBeers cartel, which has the international diamond monopoly. Totally off topic, but true.

I think both should be taught in school, and we as sentient beings should be allowed to choose for ourselves what to believe and respect each other's philosophies. Peace comes from mutual understanding, and I think having a good moral compass is what keeps us from going to war with each other. I'm not going to write too much more in this topic though, I've shared my opinion and that's all I can do. I'm not here to convert anyone or force my views on others. Ha, I have a paradox for you. Do you respect my belief that we should not all respect each other's beliefs? lol, that's not entirely what I believe, but it's an interesting question.

^I agree.