I agree. Most of my favorite games seem to be pretty linear in nature. Oblivion didn't interest me because there was no sense of urgency or purpose in the story, which all took place in a very confined space, so there was eventually no sense of travel or adventure because you just kept bouncing between the same locations (that you could autotravel to). I also quickly got tired of the dungeons (I've recently been playing Twilight Princess, and the dungeons are really ingeniously designed and distinct).
I guess Oblivion had its charms. For instance I was wandering around in the woods and ran into two guards who were, as far as I can tell, trying to hunt deer or something (not sure). For some inexplicable reason, the guards started shooting at each other, and I watched them chase each other around, eventually dueling in the ruins of a tower. It took a pretty long time for one of them to die. So yeah, that was funny.
Usually high levels of non-linearity just lead to repetitive or mediocre content.
And once again you revert to arguing with yourself, using those elaborate strawmen that you've managed to construct. You're also still oblivious to the fact that terrorism exists outside the US, but I guess you're just unable to think on a larger scale.
Of course you were. You made an outrageous claim, you were asked to provide even one reputable citation to support what you said, and you did not. The onus is on the one making the claim to provide the evidence. All you did was offer a few more unsubstantiated claims and moved on.
Asking for citations is nothing but a clever trap because the sources will be automatically classified as extremist right-wing propaganda, or something similiar. It has happened so many times that I now refuse to provide any sources. So basically, if I don't provide sources I'm full of shit, but if I do provide sources I'm still full of shit. Apparently you guys can't win an argument without resorting to lame tactics like that.
Consider your claim refuted again.
Hmm? How did I you refute the claim?
It was fun doing a bit of troll-baiting, but I'm starting to lose interest here. You can have the last word if you want, but please - if you want to flame me again, make it an original one.
Thankfully calling someone a troll is not flaming at all, at least according to your bizarro logic.
Tell that to the thousands of people who have died since 9/11 in the hand of Muslim terrorists. The bodycount is somewhere around 7,000 at the moment. You seem to be forgetting that terrorist attacks are completely routine in Iraq, Afghanistan and southern Thailand, not to mention Israel. Do you have an ideological reason for downplaying terrorism?
Ah, now I get it. You aren't even arguing againts me. You're not even reading what I write. Instead, you're simply imagining my opinions and responses. You're essentially arguing with yourself. A split personality? In any case, you don't need my presence for that. Carry on.
Please go ahead and explain what makes me a racist. Go on.
When I read your words, I feel transported, away from this era of scary people with different-colored skin, and toward a better, perhaps even medieval, time.
Why do you assume that skin color has something to do with this? I never said anything about skin color. It's funny how often you guys accuse me of being racist even though for you everything always boil down to race or skin color. Multicultists and leftists are typically the biggest racists of them all, and they don't even know it.
This was apparently a longwinded way of expressing that you actually have nothing to say, although you like to throw around the cliched, misguided Nazi accusations that multicultists have become so fond of.
Yet you freely admitted that you never follow up on the more sensational stories to find out what really happened...
So? That's a drop in the ocean, and I'm not doing this as a job, so obviously I won't be tracking every bit of information on the net.
It certainly is. You committed that one when you claimed that there was a de-facto civil war going on in France, and were thoroughly refuted.
I was never refuted in any way whatsoever. Yet again you lie, just like you lied when you claimed that personal attacks are my primary method of argumentation. For someone who's so gung-ho about fallacies, you sure like to commit them yourself.
Typically they aren't, but I am willing to make an exception in your case: you have an extremely strong opinion about something you apparently do not understand, and cannot be bothered to learn more about.
That's interesting, considering that most people won't even think about the subject because they believe that they already know everything there is to know about it. I read about the subject on a daily basis.
There you go again, putting words in my mouth again. You not a troll because of your opinions - you are a troll because personal attacks are your primary method of argumentation.
1) You're also commiting logical fallacies. 2) Logical fallacies are almost unavoidable, so I really don't see why they're such a huge fucking deal to you.
I have no idea what your ultimate purpose in the universe is, but you are doing an excellent job of amusing me so far! Who knew that feeding the trolls could be so much fun?
Yes, clearly anyone who expresses opinions that aren't mainstream is a troll. Makes perfect sense.
Oh I see the problem now. This really isn't a debate.
It certainly isn't, because reciting logical fallacies does not constitute "debating." You have nothing to say about the subject itself, it seems as if you're only here to troll.
You could refute me, but can't be bothered?
That's correct. I don't exist on the Internet to amuse you, so I don't have to bother if I don't want to.
Mobs and players passing through each other is intentional. Creating defensive lines just isn't part of the gameplay. I'm assuming that the clipping and and collission issues in SL really are issues, and not intentional design choices.
You missed the point. Running a Quake server doesn't require nearly as much hardware and bandwidth as a MMORPG. Now of course you can run a game with just a couple of players, but what the hell is the point? Would WoW be fun if the server had a total of 500 players?
On the Internet, there are people who hysterically fear and loathe people who appear intelligent or educated. This is one end of the spectrum. On the opposite end we find people like you, people who are so impressed with their own perceived intelligence and sophistication that they end up being little more than obnoxious and pretentious idiots with severe delusions of grandeur.
Countering every sentence by reciting the name of a logical fallacy does not make you seem intelligent or educated. Anyone can look up a list of them at any time. This may come as a shock to you, but you aren't supposed to triumphantly shout "argumentum ad verecundiam!" in the middle of a debate. You're just supposed to know what logical fallacies are and how to deal with them. This is assuming, of course, that you aren't simply trying to "impress" everyone with your encyclopedic list of logical fallacies. It's also possible that you can't really come up with any real counter-arguments or you don't actually have an opinion on the subject, so all you can do is nitpick.
I invite you to review my posts for similar examples of rhetoric and fallacious argumentation. I don't think you will find much...
I don't think I want to lower myself to your level, although at a glance it appears that you made more than several, which is hardly suprising considering that you probably don't even possess in-depth knowledge of logical fallacies, you just consulted a list.
If you were to believe Internet experts, the US is far worse than every brutal, totalitarian or otherwise evil regime in the history of humanity. Also, the Americans are directly or indirectly responsible for all of them (yes, even the prehistoric ones). These guys would have an orgasm if they heard that Iran has just launched nukes at Washington DC.
I've always defined fanboy differently. To me, "fanboy" means a person, usually a teenager, who is aggressively and blindly obsessed with something to the point of going batshit crazy if somebody criticizes it. Usually their obsession is a movie, video game or band. They deflect criticism with flames and amazing leaps of logic (like "yeah, the game crashes every five minutes, but that only makes it more challenging and weeds out the noobs who aren't hardcore enough"). If the fanboy's target of obsession has some kind of competiton, they will irrationally attack it at every turn, just because it's a competitor.
Since you haven't listed a claim and asked for the citation you've got no business playing that card. But, when you can't even remember the contents from paragraph to paragraph in the message you quote from, it is pretty clear you don't even know what to ask for.
But you stick with that persecution complex about the liberal media and all that, facts, especially if they are more than a single post up the thread can't really matter more than what you "feel" can they? After all, they are known to have a liberal bias after all.
None of these quotes make any goddamn sense to me.
Remember it, however hard that might be for your ADD addled brain.
And the ad hominems continue. Since your posts no longer even make any coherent sense and you can't post without flaming, I think we're done here. You're just another typical multicultist drone, no different from dozens of others I've encountered. What a sad hive mind.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. Most of my favorite games seem to be pretty linear in nature. Oblivion didn't interest me because there was no sense of urgency or purpose in the story, which all took place in a very confined space, so there was eventually no sense of travel or adventure because you just kept bouncing between the same locations (that you could autotravel to). I also quickly got tired of the dungeons (I've recently been playing Twilight Princess, and the dungeons are really ingeniously designed and distinct).
I guess Oblivion had its charms. For instance I was wandering around in the woods and ran into two guards who were, as far as I can tell, trying to hunt deer or something (not sure). For some inexplicable reason, the guards started shooting at each other, and I watched them chase each other around, eventually dueling in the ruins of a tower. It took a pretty long time for one of them to die. So yeah, that was funny.
Usually high levels of non-linearity just lead to repetitive or mediocre content.
Jesus fucking Christ. You're actually denying the existence of terrorism. You're obviously batshit crazy. Goodbye.
And once again you revert to arguing with yourself, using those elaborate strawmen that you've managed to construct. You're also still oblivious to the fact that terrorism exists outside the US, but I guess you're just unable to think on a larger scale.
Asking for citations is nothing but a clever trap because the sources will be automatically classified as extremist right-wing propaganda, or something similiar. It has happened so many times that I now refuse to provide any sources. So basically, if I don't provide sources I'm full of shit, but if I do provide sources I'm still full of shit. Apparently you guys can't win an argument without resorting to lame tactics like that.
Hmm? How did I you refute the claim?
Thankfully calling someone a troll is not flaming at all, at least according to your bizarro logic.
That's the first thing that I thought of when I read "Gaming's Biggest Blunders of 2006."
Tell that to the thousands of people who have died since 9/11 in the hand of Muslim terrorists. The bodycount is somewhere around 7,000 at the moment. You seem to be forgetting that terrorist attacks are completely routine in Iraq, Afghanistan and southern Thailand, not to mention Israel. Do you have an ideological reason for downplaying terrorism?
Ah, now I get it. You aren't even arguing againts me. You're not even reading what I write. Instead, you're simply imagining my opinions and responses. You're essentially arguing with yourself. A split personality? In any case, you don't need my presence for that. Carry on.
It seems that you are evading the question, which is what I expected.
Please go ahead and explain what makes me a racist. Go on.
Why do you assume that skin color has something to do with this? I never said anything about skin color. It's funny how often you guys accuse me of being racist even though for you everything always boil down to race or skin color. Multicultists and leftists are typically the biggest racists of them all, and they don't even know it.
This was apparently a longwinded way of expressing that you actually have nothing to say, although you like to throw around the cliched, misguided Nazi accusations that multicultists have become so fond of.
So? That's a drop in the ocean, and I'm not doing this as a job, so obviously I won't be tracking every bit of information on the net.
I was never refuted in any way whatsoever. Yet again you lie, just like you lied when you claimed that personal attacks are my primary method of argumentation. For someone who's so gung-ho about fallacies, you sure like to commit them yourself.
Yes, we're all terribly sorry that we bypass your lame popups.
Nope. I believe in fair trials.
It has nothing to do with xenophobia. Going by your logic, people who opposed the Nazis were xenophobes.
That's interesting, considering that most people won't even think about the subject because they believe that they already know everything there is to know about it. I read about the subject on a daily basis.
Hah hah. Is "lying" a logical fallacy?
2) Logical fallacies are almost unavoidable, so I really don't see why they're such a huge fucking deal to you.
Yes, clearly anyone who expresses opinions that aren't mainstream is a troll. Makes perfect sense.
It certainly isn't, because reciting logical fallacies does not constitute "debating." You have nothing to say about the subject itself, it seems as if you're only here to troll.
That's correct. I don't exist on the Internet to amuse you, so I don't have to bother if I don't want to.
I'm not going to magically look up a random video, so you'd better link to it or describe what happens.
Mobs and players passing through each other is intentional. Creating defensive lines just isn't part of the gameplay. I'm assuming that the clipping and and collission issues in SL really are issues, and not intentional design choices.
I fail to understand why this was modded flamebait.
You missed the point. Running a Quake server doesn't require nearly as much hardware and bandwidth as a MMORPG. Now of course you can run a game with just a couple of players, but what the hell is the point? Would WoW be fun if the server had a total of 500 players?
Countering every sentence by reciting the name of a logical fallacy does not make you seem intelligent or educated. Anyone can look up a list of them at any time. This may come as a shock to you, but you aren't supposed to triumphantly shout "argumentum ad verecundiam!" in the middle of a debate. You're just supposed to know what logical fallacies are and how to deal with them. This is assuming, of course, that you aren't simply trying to "impress" everyone with your encyclopedic list of logical fallacies. It's also possible that you can't really come up with any real counter-arguments or you don't actually have an opinion on the subject, so all you can do is nitpick.
I don't think I want to lower myself to your level, although at a glance it appears that you made more than several, which is hardly suprising considering that you probably don't even possess in-depth knowledge of logical fallacies, you just consulted a list.
If you were to believe Internet experts, the US is far worse than every brutal, totalitarian or otherwise evil regime in the history of humanity. Also, the Americans are directly or indirectly responsible for all of them (yes, even the prehistoric ones). These guys would have an orgasm if they heard that Iran has just launched nukes at Washington DC.
Maybe in theory, but who has the money and interest to keep their own personal MMORPG running, and who will play it? Won't work.
I've always defined fanboy differently. To me, "fanboy" means a person, usually a teenager, who is aggressively and blindly obsessed with something to the point of going batshit crazy if somebody criticizes it. Usually their obsession is a movie, video game or band. They deflect criticism with flames and amazing leaps of logic (like "yeah, the game crashes every five minutes, but that only makes it more challenging and weeds out the noobs who aren't hardcore enough"). If the fanboy's target of obsession has some kind of competiton, they will irrationally attack it at every turn, just because it's a competitor.
Fanboys suck balls.
None of these quotes make any goddamn sense to me.
And the ad hominems continue. Since your posts no longer even make any coherent sense and you can't post without flaming, I think we're done here. You're just another typical multicultist drone, no different from dozens of others I've encountered. What a sad hive mind.