Gunther pissed me off to no end. I spent a lot of time fighting him only to eventually read from a walkthrough that I can't win. Every time I died I immediately quickloaded so I didn't realize that I'm supposed to let myself die. Really embarrasing game design.
That reminds me of a scene in FEAR where a guy pops up in front of you and hits you in the face with a piece of wood, incapacitating you long enough for him to make a speech and leave the area. As soon as the guy appeared I shot him in the head several times as a reflex, but the cutscene was pre-destined to occur regardless of what I did.
I would argue that Half-Life doesn't have a story, only a setting. Unless you consider, "our magical device exploded and now aliens teleport all over and kill people, oh also there's a guy in a suit" a story.
Well if that's your logic, then no game, book or movie has a story, since any story can be simplified like that (Lord of the Rings doesn't have a story, it's just some midget running around with a magic ring!).
That said, one of the things I hated about Half-Life 2 was the loooong stretch of time in Barney's hideout where you can't do anything but dink around while the characters are all running their mouths. If they're going to talk about something I don't care about for a long time, making me retain control of my character only makes it seem like a longer time. The other risk with the Half-Life approach is that you might not be looking at the relevant point in the environment while the cut-scene occurs.
First you complain that HL doesn't have a story, but then you say that cutscenes and dialogue are boring? Sounds to me like you don't even want a story.
System Shock, System Shock 2 and BioShock have few cutscenes, as most of the story is told through audio logs and messages. And yes, Half-Life does have a story, whether you like it or not.
You sre beinh drawn into this environment for hours, days or even weeks, at a stretch. Not the ninety minutes of a theatrical feature. This takes you into territory where even the clinical psychiatrist treads cautiously.
I don't like Steam because the games are tied to it, and I'm not interested in any of the services offered by Steam (I don't really use Xbox Live either).
I know I'm missing your point, that Islam is the root of all evil and nothing the west has done has anything to do with any of it. It's not hard to miss that point, since there is no substance to it at all, unless you are completely ignorant to reality.
That's not my point.
You aren't just part of the problem, you're a perfect example of the entire problem. Instantly dehumanizing people different than you BEYOND any reason is exactly what allows suicide bombers to blow up civilians... and for our military to do the same (blow up civilians) and shrug it off as "collateral damage". We think it's acceptable as a part of fighting "the problem". And so do they.
Terrorism and collateral damage aren't the same thing. This is that moral equivalence that I was talking about earlier.
And even a bigot could see that, if said bigot had half a brain and the mental fortitude to face reality when it is more complicated than "they are all bad, and we are all good".
Bigot. There's that magic leftist-liberal catchphrase. I assume I'm also a nazi, fascist, racist and xenophobe as well. Right?
So Please, go fuck yourself. I'm quite clear on why you and other simple minded people like you are in fact the entire problem, not just part of it. Because people JUST LIKE YOU exist on both sides of every problem in history, stamping their feet in moral outrage at those other people doing those horrible things and using that to justify the "good guys" doing their horrible things.
And more moral equivalence. No, I'm afraid I'm still not part of the problem, but I can imagine it's difficult for you to accurately assess who is and isn't a part of the problem when you don't know what the actual problem is and have little if any knowledge about the subject. But yeah, I'm sure we're all equally guilty and equally evil and equally part of the problem. That's what the Theory of Universal Moral Equivalence dictates. When you simply believe that everyone is equally evil and guilty you don't actually have to bother with moral principles or really think about anything. Much easier that way.
Go ahead; find a single "golden age" of any civilization that didn't arise because of rapid expansion through conquest, prior to the modern age where rapid developement of travel technology allowed for massive change to how trade and ideas spread. If you can't find one, and you won't, negating the achievements of an Islamic empire without also negating the achievements of other civilizations that did the same thing is quite simply hypocrisy, something even christian values denounce. Hyprocisy usually covers a character defect such as unreasoning racism, unwillingness to admit wrongdoing, or other such unreasoning and basically evil standpoints.
You're missing the point completely.
Whether humans are biased or not is not the point. Shrugging your shoulders and acting like a cock simply shows you have no strength of character and no desire to build any.
It is the point because you accused me of doing something that every human being on the planet does. Everyone is biased. You're just trying to change the subject.
Since many Fundamentalist Muslims have very similar attitudes to you and others like you, it's no wonder we all have to fight. Thanks!
Oh, go fuck yourself. I'm not part of the problem, unless you believe I fucking time traveled to circa 600 AD and founded Islam.
"Golden Ages" of history are ALL almagations of smaller areas having their ideas stolen. ALL of them.
Or more likely you're just applying the Theory of Universal Moral Equivalence which posits that everything in the universe is perfectly balanced (every religion is equally violent, every nation is equally advanced, and so on). In any case, it doesn't negate my point.
Nothing different here, except your obviously anti-Islamic bias.
Every human being on the planet is biased so don't even try that shit.
As it is, if I were a moderator, I'd either not give you any points or would mod you flamebait, because you're pretty clearly ignorant of Medieval Islamic civilization.
Ahahahaha. Anyone who disagrees with you about history is flamebaiting? Nice one.
Spain, under the Moorish rule, was by far the most advanced state in western Europe, and its medical, mathematical and scholarly abilities were greater than that of Rome that had existed centuries before.
Even if this was true (unlikely), it doesn't negate my original point.
It was via Muslim scholars that a great deal of Classical Greek learning and philosophy was saved.
I know you say you don't care about losing or winning, but this only happens AT THE END OF THE GAME. That would be to say: WHEN THE GAME IS OVER. In other words: WHEN NOTHING MATTERS AT ALL.
I know. I believe I already mentioned it's identical to DoD.
It IS a victory lap you fucking moron. NOTHING that happens in that 15 seconds matters to THAT GAME, or THE NEXT GAME, except for morons like you jumping up and down screaming about something that doesn't matter one whit.
Of course it matters. Otherwise I wouldn't be bothered by it.
Now, I've gone back and noticed that you HAVEN'T EVEN PLAYED, and thus have NEVER EVEN EXPERIENCED this feature to which you are so vehemently opposed.
If we follow your logic to its inevitable conclusion, nobody has ever invented anything, anywhere. But that's obviously impossible.
masquerading racism as history is a little disengenuous.
Uh... what? When did this become a race issue? I wasn't aware that Muslims even constitute a race.
So if Islamic empires do it, suddenly it doesn't count, because they were Islamic?
It doesn't count because people always claim that the Golden Age was all because of Islam, when it really wasn't. The short-lived period occured in spite of Islam, not because of it, and was largely engineered by non-Muslims, unorthodox Muslims and heretics. I believe this historical revisionism is a result of the West's suicidal self-hatred.
Your statement doesn't actually refute anything that I said, though.
Actually it does, since you're guilty of the fallacy I just described. Islam isn't going through some sort of temporary problem, and the problem isn't with the organization. In fact, there isn't really any "problem" at all. Because you assume Islam and Christianity to be essentially identical, you also expect that eventually Islam will become just like Christianity. But that won't happen, because Islam isn't Christianity.
If you had read what I wrote, you would have noticed the part where I said I don't care about losing, and the part where I pointed out that I've played Team Fortress for a decade.
Much of that "past greatness" is just historical revisionism. Islam's "Golden Age" was just a fading echo of the cultures Muslims had conquered, and the scientific achievements were mostly done by non-Muslims, heretics and unorthodox Muslims. The Golden Age existed in spite of Islam, not because of it.
That same historical revisionism also means that anything good in Europe's history is downplayed or ignored (while Islamic culture is glorified to no end).
Christianity != Islam. Just because something is true for Islam doesn't mean it's true for Christianity, and vice versa. You can't make statements about Islam based on Christianity. And vice versa.
A rule of thumb in debates related to Islam: personal experiences are only valid when they support the dogma that the Vast Majority of Muslims (who follow The Religion of Peace) are, by Western standards, completely normal and ordinary people who are no different from us. Also, such a personal experience only requires that you know one Muslim. Someone who has completely opposite personal experiences is always a xenophobic fascist nazi racist genocider asshole fuckhead, regardless of how many experiences they've had.
Meeting or knowing a couple of Muslims is hardly meaningful when there are a billion of them. And it's not even necessary in this day and age, thanks to things like the Internet. Just beucause you didn't personally witness a Jihadist behead a person in Thailand doesn't mean it didn't happen. Personal experiences are limited to what you can immediately see and hear in your immediate vicinity, so they're not a very good tool for evaluating something on a global scale.
Much of that "past greatness" is just historical revisionism. Islam's "Golden Age" was just a fading echo of the cultures Muslims had conquered, and the scientific achievements were mostly done by non-Muslims, heretics and unorthodox Muslims. The Golden Age existed in spite of Islam, not because of it. The poverty of science in the Islamic world is probably permanent, because Islam doesn't really allow free thinking, which is essential for science and philosophy. The only innovation Muslims seem to be doing these days is finding new and better ways of murdering people.
--- An unfortunately necessary note to any moderators: no, I'm not fucking "trolling" or "flamebaiting." As amazing as this sounds, the Internet is full of people who disagree with you and hold unpopular opinions, and just because they do that doesn't mean they're all flamebaiting trolls. If you disagree with me then either post a reply or shut the fuck up. The only thing you prove by downmodding me is that I'm right and you can't come up with a response.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree about HL2's storyline, but your first post was contradictory without this clarification. HL2 has a story, it just isn't a very good one.
Gunther pissed me off to no end. I spent a lot of time fighting him only to eventually read from a walkthrough that I can't win. Every time I died I immediately quickloaded so I didn't realize that I'm supposed to let myself die. Really embarrasing game design.
That reminds me of a scene in FEAR where a guy pops up in front of you and hits you in the face with a piece of wood, incapacitating you long enough for him to make a speech and leave the area. As soon as the guy appeared I shot him in the head several times as a reflex, but the cutscene was pre-destined to occur regardless of what I did.
Well if that's your logic, then no game, book or movie has a story, since any story can be simplified like that (Lord of the Rings doesn't have a story, it's just some midget running around with a magic ring!).
First you complain that HL doesn't have a story, but then you say that cutscenes and dialogue are boring? Sounds to me like you don't even want a story.
System Shock, System Shock 2 and BioShock have few cutscenes, as most of the story is told through audio logs and messages. And yes, Half-Life does have a story, whether you like it or not.
Oh, the drama.
I don't like Steam because the games are tied to it, and I'm not interested in any of the services offered by Steam (I don't really use Xbox Live either).
Stem cells change man's DNA? Someone should ask him if he's recently visited a secret underwater city.
tl;dr
That's not my point.
Terrorism and collateral damage aren't the same thing. This is that moral equivalence that I was talking about earlier.
Bigot. There's that magic leftist-liberal catchphrase. I assume I'm also a nazi, fascist, racist and xenophobe as well. Right?
And more moral equivalence. No, I'm afraid I'm still not part of the problem, but I can imagine it's difficult for you to accurately assess who is and isn't a part of the problem when you don't know what the actual problem is and have little if any knowledge about the subject. But yeah, I'm sure we're all equally guilty and equally evil and equally part of the problem. That's what the Theory of Universal Moral Equivalence dictates. When you simply believe that everyone is equally evil and guilty you don't actually have to bother with moral principles or really think about anything. Much easier that way.
You're missing the point completely.
It is the point because you accused me of doing something that every human being on the planet does. Everyone is biased. You're just trying to change the subject.
Oh, go fuck yourself. I'm not part of the problem, unless you believe I fucking time traveled to circa 600 AD and founded Islam.
What does it matter that they're anti-islamic?
Or more likely you're just applying the Theory of Universal Moral Equivalence which posits that everything in the universe is perfectly balanced (every religion is equally violent, every nation is equally advanced, and so on). In any case, it doesn't negate my point.
Every human being on the planet is biased so don't even try that shit.
What's wrong in one religion isn't necessary wrong in another. What's manipulation in one religion could be standard procedure in another.
Islam doesn't have separation of church and state. Islam is a total regulation of life and extends to all spheres of society.
It is unique, actually. I'm aware of no religion similiar to it.
Ahahahaha. Anyone who disagrees with you about history is flamebaiting? Nice one.
Even if this was true (unlikely), it doesn't negate my original point.
Myth.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/07/hyping_islam_s_role_in_the_his.html
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2370
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/018190.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/018278.php
I know. I believe I already mentioned it's identical to DoD.
Of course it matters. Otherwise I wouldn't be bothered by it.
Identical to DoD.
And you have none. Why else would you suddenly bring out the troll card? Go away.
Uh... what? When did this become a race issue? I wasn't aware that Muslims even constitute a race.
It doesn't count because people always claim that the Golden Age was all because of Islam, when it really wasn't. The short-lived period occured in spite of Islam, not because of it, and was largely engineered by non-Muslims, unorthodox Muslims and heretics. I believe this historical revisionism is a result of the West's suicidal self-hatred.
Actually it does, since you're guilty of the fallacy I just described. Islam isn't going through some sort of temporary problem, and the problem isn't with the organization. In fact, there isn't really any "problem" at all. Because you assume Islam and Christianity to be essentially identical, you also expect that eventually Islam will become just like Christianity. But that won't happen, because Islam isn't Christianity.
Point not found. I already said I don't care about losing or winning. This has nothing to do with losing or winning.
Taking a victory lap isn't even remotely the same thing.
Clearly anyone who opposes an unnecessary and irritating feature is a "whiny bitch."
If you had read what I wrote, you would have noticed the part where I said I don't care about losing, and the part where I pointed out that I've played Team Fortress for a decade.
That same historical revisionism also means that anything good in Europe's history is downplayed or ignored (while Islamic culture is glorified to no end).
Christianity != Islam. Just because something is true for Islam doesn't mean it's true for Christianity, and vice versa. You can't make statements about Islam based on Christianity. And vice versa.
A rule of thumb in debates related to Islam: personal experiences are only valid when they support the dogma that the Vast Majority of Muslims (who follow The Religion of Peace) are, by Western standards, completely normal and ordinary people who are no different from us. Also, such a personal experience only requires that you know one Muslim. Someone who has completely opposite personal experiences is always a xenophobic fascist nazi racist genocider asshole fuckhead, regardless of how many experiences they've had.
Meeting or knowing a couple of Muslims is hardly meaningful when there are a billion of them. And it's not even necessary in this day and age, thanks to things like the Internet. Just beucause you didn't personally witness a Jihadist behead a person in Thailand doesn't mean it didn't happen. Personal experiences are limited to what you can immediately see and hear in your immediate vicinity, so they're not a very good tool for evaluating something on a global scale.
Much of that "past greatness" is just historical revisionism. Islam's "Golden Age" was just a fading echo of the cultures Muslims had conquered, and the scientific achievements were mostly done by non-Muslims, heretics and unorthodox Muslims. The Golden Age existed in spite of Islam, not because of it. The poverty of science in the Islamic world is probably permanent, because Islam doesn't really allow free thinking, which is essential for science and philosophy. The only innovation Muslims seem to be doing these days is finding new and better ways of murdering people.
---
An unfortunately necessary note to any moderators: no, I'm not fucking "trolling" or "flamebaiting." As amazing as this sounds, the Internet is full of people who disagree with you and hold unpopular opinions, and just because they do that doesn't mean they're all flamebaiting trolls. If you disagree with me then either post a reply or shut the fuck up. The only thing you prove by downmodding me is that I'm right and you can't come up with a response.