You think they won't do KotOR 3, also? There's enough room in the market for MMORPGs and single player RPGs. Hell, they are finishing up Mass Effect 2, now.
The camera in this game often made it difficult to see what was going on. From the top down 3rd person view, You can't see far. You also can't control all your characters if they are spread out very easily.
From the first person view, you can't see all directions.
I rarely see all the cool graphics, because it's usually tactically better to watch the situation top-down.
I had occasionally problems with the Neverwinter Nights 2 graphics engine, but not as often as with Dragon Age.
I occasionally had problems with not seeing far enough in the games based on the Baldur's Gate engine(and that style of graphics, with no true 3d), but none of the other problems. As an RPG, I only see two benefits of a movable camera. One benefit is it looks nicer. The other is the rare large boss, like the Dragon. That dragon would not have fit on the screen with all the characters. But, I had problems with that, too.
Overall, I've seen more problems come out of the 3d engines than benefits.
I'm very interested in religion. And, the Sid Meier Civ series has been a favorite for a long time. So, when I found that Civ4 was going to have a religious component, I was looking forward to it. I was very disappointed, though. I'd hoped for something like the factions from Alpha Centauri, but they religions were completely generic. I assumed they didn't give them actual TRAITS to avoid offending anyone. I think it lost a possibility for another dimension because of it.
Some people might be dismissive of the fictional religions that occur in LOTS of games, but these can often be used to discuss topics from non-fictional religions. Dragon Age has a woman making quotes from her religious text. Only she does it badly, completely changing the meaning.
In republics, leaders are elected, or in some other way affect the government. And, the leader is not a monarch. The title of the top ruler varies. The standard one for modern republics is president.
It's not a dialect problem. It's an American education problem. Americans often think we(I'm an American) have a democracy. We don't-they don't vote on most of the laws. They have democratic republic-we vote on our leaders.
Saying opposite is a silly simplification. Would that mean that in a monarchy, the king elects the people to be subjects?
Science Fiction has had the easy answer to this for a long time. Dirt, water, paint, anything solid or liquid that can spread out. I don't see how a particle beam can beat that. Why carry around a special weapon, when you can just get a firehose? Or pick up a handful of dirt? The main problem would be knowing that there's an invisible man in front of you.
The one case it might be useful is like a security camera, if you don't want invisible people sneaking into a building. But, the beam would have to be cheap enough to be on a LOT more often than necessary-an assassin could sneak in two days early.
The world is deep, and the interaction between the characters is great. Beautiful graphics. The story is good, so far.
My main problems with the game have been because it's 3d. It seems that all the RPGs these days must be 3d, even if the only benefit is beauty. The set of games based on the Baldur's Gate engine were the last games that I played that didn't have problems seeing the characters. But, because all games must be 3d(and the camera rotatable), I frequently can't see my characters from the overhead view-no matter which way I rotate it. There is also a first person view, but it's not as effective for controlling 4 characters. Also, the overhead view is not as good as in Baldur's Gate, because you can't get as high. So, you can't see as much of the battle.
It's the first game I've had to put on the easy setting in a while. Before that, I was getting killed at almost every battle. I had to replay almost every battle, with foreknowledge to win. This was on the normal setting. It's hard to imagine how hard the highest setting would be.
Lack of free will doesn't make everything pointless. What's the difference between "free will" and "no free will and an ILLUSION of free will"? If I were a deity, maybe I could tell the difference. Unfortunately, I'm not. For the rest of you mortals, maybe it's fortunate, though.;)
I certainly don't have the other option-"no free will and NO illusion of free will". That would require me to be one of the aforementioned deities.
I guess a truth table would allow a fourth option-"free will and no illusion of free will". I don't know what that would mean. Maybe we have free will and have no false illusions about it? Maybe it would mean we know that we have free will?
Personally, I've never found it to be that easy. I've tried for a long time. I've always sports found sports too boring to be interested in, and too embarrassed to dance publicly without knowing how. But, even though other social skills have gotten better over the years, most of my friends consider me weirder than average. Of course, I'm not a software developer anymore.
1) None of those claims is part of Christianity. Biblical literalism rejected by theologians of the early church (e.g. St Augustine in the 4th century)
no one has ever disproved any of the essential teaching of Christianity (and some, like original sin, appear to have been proved).
1. Just because the early theologians rejected it doesn't mean it's not a part of Christianity. Christianity is not a monolithic belief system. I imagine the early theologians accepted plenty of things that both you and Christian Fundamentalists would reject. 2. That word "essential" is pretty important to your claim. And, what people have called "essential" has changed a LOT of the past ~2000 years. 3. It's been proven that God cursed everyone for a single action that a guy named Adam did 6000 years ago(or whenever you believe it happened)? I missed the scientific paper where God announced this. Or, do you mean that a symbolic version of the story has been proven?
I think it was Frank Herbert who said "if you can imagine that a sentient ball of energy is a person, it's not very difficult to imagine that a black guy is."(from memory, so paraphrased)
Evidence of something with no definition can't be proven. But, what you say after that is not that people don't have a definition of God/gods. You say that LOTS of people have LOTS of definitions. And, WITHIN religions, there are plenty of people who do define things by consensus.
There were usually a few books at the library at the last school I went to. But, they weren't used because of lack of availability to buy books. They were largely used by students to avoid BUYING the books. There were only a few, if any. So, students often raced to check out the book right after class.
I worked on a project, where one of our clients had to replace all the computers running our software. Otherwise our software would creep for some reason(I didn't look at why--replacement was decided before I got there). That was 50 PCs, I believe. I don't recall whether other projects had similar problems. These problems were just reporting problems, but they handled millions of dollars.
Yeah, I'm in pretty much the same situation. Also, concerned about the billpay stuff I've got set up. I don't know if I know all the addresses, and hope I don't have anything scheduled to be paid.
It's more time than it used to be, too. I've been watching some 80's shows lately(guess why--too much crap on TV). The shows used to be more like 45 minutes of show to 15 minutes of commercial--sometimes even a little MORE show.
I agree with what you're saying, however "race" does have some degree of scientific validity. Certain genetic markers are strongly more prominent among groups (defined by SOME cultures as races), based on their geographic ancestry. Of course, these markers aren't strong enough to do things like "determine" race. Probably because people have screwed around with other races a lot over the years(a good thing).
So does that mean that all these people who started all these denominations weren't reading the Bible or God's spirit correctly?
Plenty of those denominations are not opposed to abortion, either. Interestingly, the Southern Baptist Convention supported Roe v. Wade in 1973 because it enhanced separation of Church and State. I just learned that, so I'm currently amazed by it.
That brings to mind another question. Denominations that change their minds on issues. Does that mean the earlier leaders weren't reading the Bible or God's spirit correctly? And, the current leaders are?
A lot of Christians were opposed to invitro fertilization when it started like 20 years ago, because it was "creating life", too. And, when vaccines and prosthetics started people were worried about "making people not human". Given that peg-legged pirates;) have apparently existed for a while, I don't see the concern about prosthetics.
I'm 28 and I've never heard any complaints about invitro fertilization "creating life". And, certainly not the others--as far as "making people not human".
As far as your post goes, you start your post with a "warning: I'm a Christian", but then the only thing you do regarding Christianity and stem cell research is counter the usual Christian arguments. Because of that, the warning sounds a bit superfluous.
I don't think Christians are upset about non-reproductive stem cell research because of the "playing God" argument, though. It seems to be related to the abortion situation. The "killing babies" argument is usually not connected to "playing God", since humans kill in plenty of ways that are acceptable to most of those opposed to abortion(self-defense, war, capital punishment).
Slashdot Mirror
You think they won't do KotOR 3, also? There's enough room in the market for MMORPGs and single player RPGs. Hell, they are finishing up Mass Effect 2, now.
The camera in this game often made it difficult to see what was going on. From the top down 3rd person view, You can't see far. You also can't control all your characters if they are spread out very easily.
From the first person view, you can't see all directions.
I rarely see all the cool graphics, because it's usually tactically better to watch the situation top-down.
I had occasionally problems with the Neverwinter Nights 2 graphics engine, but not as often as with Dragon Age.
I occasionally had problems with not seeing far enough in the games based on the Baldur's Gate engine(and that style of graphics, with no true 3d), but none of the other problems. As an RPG, I only see two benefits of a movable camera. One benefit is it looks nicer. The other is the rare large boss, like the Dragon. That dragon would not have fit on the screen with all the characters. But, I had problems with that, too.
Overall, I've seen more problems come out of the 3d engines than benefits.
I'm very interested in religion. And, the Sid Meier Civ series has been a favorite for a long time. So, when I found that Civ4 was going to have a religious component, I was looking forward to it. I was very disappointed, though. I'd hoped for something like the factions from Alpha Centauri, but they religions were completely generic. I assumed they didn't give them actual TRAITS to avoid offending anyone. I think it lost a possibility for another dimension because of it.
Some people might be dismissive of the fictional religions that occur in LOTS of games, but these can often be used to discuss topics from non-fictional religions. Dragon Age has a woman making quotes from her religious text. Only she does it badly, completely changing the meaning.
In republics, leaders are elected, or in some other way affect the government. And, the leader is not a monarch. The title of the top ruler varies. The standard one for modern republics is president.
It's not a dialect problem. It's an American education problem. Americans often think we(I'm an American) have a democracy. We don't-they don't vote on most of the laws. They have democratic republic-we vote on our leaders.
Saying opposite is a silly simplification. Would that mean that in a monarchy, the king elects the people to be subjects?
Yeah, it makes me laugh whenever I here communists talk about there not being any deities. Then, they start talking about "the Dialectic".
Science Fiction has had the easy answer to this for a long time. Dirt, water, paint, anything solid or liquid that can spread out. I don't see how a particle beam can beat that. Why carry around a special weapon, when you can just get a firehose? Or pick up a handful of dirt? The main problem would be knowing that there's an invisible man in front of you.
The one case it might be useful is like a security camera, if you don't want invisible people sneaking into a building. But, the beam would have to be cheap enough to be on a LOT more often than necessary-an assassin could sneak in two days early.
The world is deep, and the interaction between the characters is great. Beautiful graphics. The story is good, so far.
My main problems with the game have been because it's 3d. It seems that all the RPGs these days must be 3d, even if the only benefit is beauty. The set of games based on the Baldur's Gate engine were the last games that I played that didn't have problems seeing the characters. But, because all games must be 3d(and the camera rotatable), I frequently can't see my characters from the overhead view-no matter which way I rotate it. There is also a first person view, but it's not as effective for controlling 4 characters. Also, the overhead view is not as good as in Baldur's Gate, because you can't get as high. So, you can't see as much of the battle.
It's the first game I've had to put on the easy setting in a while. Before that, I was getting killed at almost every battle. I had to replay almost every battle, with foreknowledge to win. This was on the normal setting. It's hard to imagine how hard the highest setting would be.
Lack of free will doesn't make everything pointless. What's the difference between "free will" and "no free will and an ILLUSION of free will"? If I were a deity, maybe I could tell the difference. Unfortunately, I'm not. For the rest of you mortals, maybe it's fortunate, though. ;)
I certainly don't have the other option-"no free will and NO illusion of free will". That would require me to be one of the aforementioned deities.
I guess a truth table would allow a fourth option-"free will and no illusion of free will". I don't know what that would mean. Maybe we have free will and have no false illusions about it? Maybe it would mean we know that we have free will?
And, lots of ORANGE. Shelves, carpet.
Personally, I've never found it to be that easy. I've tried for a long time. I've always sports found sports too boring to be interested in, and too embarrassed to dance publicly without knowing how. But, even though other social skills have gotten better over the years, most of my friends consider me weirder than average. Of course, I'm not a software developer anymore.
1) None of those claims is part of Christianity. Biblical literalism rejected by theologians of the early church (e.g. St Augustine in the 4th century)
no one has ever disproved any of the essential teaching of Christianity (and some, like original sin, appear to have been proved).
1. Just because the early theologians rejected it doesn't mean it's not a part of Christianity. Christianity is not a monolithic belief system. I imagine the early theologians accepted plenty of things that both you and Christian Fundamentalists would reject.
2. That word "essential" is pretty important to your claim. And, what people have called "essential" has changed a LOT of the past ~2000 years.
3. It's been proven that God cursed everyone for a single action that a guy named Adam did 6000 years ago(or whenever you believe it happened)? I missed the scientific paper where God announced this. Or, do you mean that a symbolic version of the story has been proven?
I think it was Frank Herbert who said "if you can imagine that a sentient ball of energy is a person, it's not very difficult to imagine that a black guy is."(from memory, so paraphrased)
Before you talk about how badly the children today spell because of spell checkers, you might want to check your own writing.
Evidence of something with no definition can't be proven. But, what you say after that is not that people don't have a definition of God/gods. You say that LOTS of people have LOTS of definitions. And, WITHIN religions, there are plenty of people who do define things by consensus.
There were usually a few books at the library at the last school I went to. But, they weren't used because of lack of availability to buy books. They were largely used by students to avoid BUYING the books. There were only a few, if any. So, students often raced to check out the book right after class.
And who would THAT be?
I worked on a project, where one of our clients had to replace all the computers running our software. Otherwise our software would creep for some reason(I didn't look at why--replacement was decided before I got there). That was 50 PCs, I believe. I don't recall whether other projects had similar problems. These problems were just reporting problems, but they handled millions of dollars.
Yeah, I'm in pretty much the same situation. Also, concerned about the billpay stuff I've got set up. I don't know if I know all the addresses, and hope I don't have anything scheduled to be paid.
I'd say that's exactly what US "reality" shows are.
It's more time than it used to be, too. I've been watching some 80's shows lately(guess why--too much crap on TV). The shows used to be more like 45 minutes of show to 15 minutes of commercial--sometimes even a little MORE show.
No, they've just created NEW ghosts. Now there are lots of haunted games!
That's only original in driving games. It's pretty common in RPGs.
I agree with what you're saying, however "race" does have some degree of scientific validity. Certain genetic markers are strongly more prominent among groups (defined by SOME cultures as races), based on their geographic ancestry. Of course, these markers aren't strong enough to do things like "determine" race. Probably because people have screwed around with other races a lot over the years(a good thing).
So does that mean that all these people who started all these denominations weren't reading the Bible or God's spirit correctly?
Plenty of those denominations are not opposed to abortion, either. Interestingly, the Southern Baptist Convention supported Roe v. Wade in 1973 because it enhanced separation of Church and State. I just learned that, so I'm currently amazed by it.
That brings to mind another question. Denominations that change their minds on issues. Does that mean the earlier leaders weren't reading the Bible or God's spirit correctly? And, the current leaders are?
A lot of Christians were opposed to invitro fertilization when it started like 20 years ago, because it was "creating life", too. And, when vaccines and prosthetics started people were worried about "making people not human". Given that peg-legged pirates ;) have apparently existed for a while, I don't see the concern about prosthetics.
I'm 28 and I've never heard any complaints about invitro fertilization "creating life". And, certainly not the others--as far as "making people not human".
As far as your post goes, you start your post with a "warning: I'm a Christian", but then the only thing you do regarding Christianity and stem cell research is counter the usual Christian arguments. Because of that, the warning sounds a bit superfluous.
I don't think Christians are upset about non-reproductive stem cell research because of the "playing God" argument, though. It seems to be related to the abortion situation. The "killing babies" argument is usually not connected to "playing God", since humans kill in plenty of ways that are acceptable to most of those opposed to abortion(self-defense, war, capital punishment).