Messages

Could there be a reason for that perhaps?.... maybe how much more content you'd have to make to create less fortunate but not severe circumstances for everything the player might try and fail at?

If not giving the man bread meant he fails to safe your life and you later have no choice but to die, then I'd think that was bad design. If by not giving him the bread it makes the game harder in some way because you don't get his help, then I'd think that was good design.

Agree

haha undersmart

SSH: the groupies.

Are couples who have children feeding their egos with their child's adoration?

Partly. I don't know if you know, but people are not perfect, nor do they claim to be. They fail all the time. GOD DOESN'T HAVE FAILINGS. GOD IS PERFECT. GOD IS FOREVER. Please understand what I am saying, I can't make it any plainer.

So, perhaps God doesn't do this simulation exercise on things unless he needs to,

what is this strange limitation of need you place on your God here? This is such a stupid cop-out. It's like answering 'He doesn't create it 'cause he doesn't feel like it' to the God-destroying question :" can your all-powerful god create a stone he cannot lift?". Potential omnipotence? What the hell are you talking about? Either god KNOWS ALL, or he doesn't. No middle ground, no gray area. We are talking about the ultimate being. If you're so willing to cut down on his 'potential' ultimate skillsets then present me a modest god, that is failable, not all-powerful, not existing before time, not forever, and I will tell you, that's a god more likely to exist.

For example, you need to give some bread to a homeless man, in order for him to save your life near the end of the game.

no offense, I know you were just providing an example but god-damn if what you describe isn't the worst game-design ever. Give the food if you think that is the moral or role-playing decision you desire, and reap the rewards later. Similarly, die a bitter death because you didn't feed him otherwise.

From a design-standpoint this is putting an ethical situation in a game, good. Ethical choices are good. FORCING them just so the game doesn't break later on: awful.

-Do you want to help the Princess? Y / N
-No
-Come on now, are you sure? Y/N
-Yes
-Come on now, are you sure? Y/N
-Yes
-Come on now, are you sure? Y/N
-Yes
-Come on now, are you sure? Y/N
-Yes
-Come on now, are you sure? Y/N
-Yes
-Come on now, are you sure? Y/N
-Yes
-Come on now, are you sure? Y/N
-Yes

No concept of 'fairness' enters the picture when a machine does as it is ment to do. When you use your toaster, you are not conducting an ethical experiment, you are making toast. This is scary because then you start to consider what our purpose is as machines. Are we here to keep this god of yours company? To feed is ego with our adoration? Are we just a passing plaything?

There is no free will when God knows all, has designed all, knows past, present and future down to the fucking bitter end of the apocalypse (there's no Free Will sans god of course, but that's a different discussion). The difference is that god made us little machines with self-awareness and the capability to SUFFER and then he punishes us for doing as we're ment to do. THAT is unfair by my petty human standard, and I spit at him and curse him, as he has designed me to do. Your God is a cruel master.

I know you were going at rmullen, Helm, but one point is, if God says "here are some laws, stick to them" and then immediately says "Nah, you'll never manage it, I know I'll have to do something else in the end..." then it would hardly seem fair. Part of the Old Testament's purpose is as a "testament" of the fallibility of human nature.

You are a smart man, SSH. It won't take you more than a few seconds of further pondering to realize the unfairness of 'testing' that which you know fully well will fail.

I'd be very glad to discuss this further with you if you want, down the linear path towards the model of the cruel god playing with the will-less toys that are men, but also I'd like to see what our resident apologist has to say on the subject, so lets not scare him off.

The really scary thing is this 'you are my destiny' aspect. The kids I could take or leave, the abusive or not boyfriend would definately have to go, but the psycho God sent you romance I would never be able to deal with. I think that was the best clue you had to get the hell outta dodge. And you're not out of there yet, play it cool.

heh probably all the games I really love have walking deads.

Wow I go to a comics festival for 4 days and this is what you do behind my back.

Lots of slabs of interesting, thanks for posting, Yak, Vince. I'd like our current resident christian apologist to reply to my original question:

why did God change his methods after the events of the old testament? What could this change signify? Remember, God knows all, sees all, makes no mistakes. Please answer this succintly if possible. I aim to destroy your faith. Thank you.

Seriously, I was 16 and much worse than Skyfire.

Ad hominem! Diverting from argument! bzzt bzzt!

I'm not unhappy, I'd say I'm pretty ok, it's just that God owes me money. YOU OWE ME MONEEEEY

Anyway, let's not drag this to an age debate. Maybe Skyfire would like to elaborate on how Nintento has gotten lazy instead. That seems more interesting.

I have a question: why did god change his methodology?

Someone here needs a lesson in mathematics.

Will you be giving me the lesson? Please do. Please help me with my math, Skyfire. I am in need of a tutor, will you do me this favour?

Some of you are acting like 10 year old boys

keep in mind that Skyfire is closer to 10 than he is to 20, Yufster...

I don't see your point, Nacho. Are you talking to us, or to some other, theoretical conspiracy theorists that have yet to enter this discussion? And if you'd rather they didn't, why call them out like that?

But when a country violates international treaty, throws weapon inspectors out of their country, makes belligerent remarks about destroying another country, and is implicated in smuggling black-market nuclear technology,

Wait, you mean like the US? Are you disarming your WMDS? Are you not on an ill-defined WAR ON TERROR? Are you not selling arms?

surely the international community should take notice and use reasonable steps to prevent said country from acquiring dangerous technologies? And use incentives and rewards to encourage them to embrace peaceful means? Iraq, if nothing else, has shown us why we shouldn't invade countries based on what we think we know. But history has certainly shown us that we shouldn't just sit idle and let threatening nations arm themselves to the teeth.

Yes definately! Apply diplomatic pressure, use foreign aid as leverage, play the political game. I am saying, in the end, I don't see the reason for an agressive military step like oh... going to war, over intentions, suspicions and lies. That's what the US have been doing for the last decade. If you ask yourself why, would you be able to answer truthfully: because in each case there was an understandable world threat that needed to be adressed, or would you answer: because the US seize the opening to solidify geopolitical footholds in an one-super-power powerplay?

And yes, please say it again. Say it clearly and like you believe it: Your country's goverment has deliberately misled the american people, it has fabricated evidence, spun falsehoods into useful propaganda in order to establish footholds outside it's own soil for want of power as an end in itself. Not because a nasty dictator is scary, but because it desires control and power. Say it. You'll feel better.

She's pretty I guess, yeah.

Your favourite band is a group of women who don't seem to be playing their instruments in the audio track, and a sophisticated reverb module?