Triforceowner

"I personally hope we don't live in a simulated world because if we find out we do the consequences would be horrible.

You listed off two such consequences, that feel more like conclusions to which you have jumped. They are still possible, but not necessary consequences. i.e. There are easy examples of other consequences that do not fall under these conclusions and would deny these conclusions' validity.

"For one it would mean we are victims of an amoral system that doesn't care about personal suffering."

It does not follow that the universe makers or their simulation are amoral and do not care for suffering. For instance, what if along with a universe simulation, there is also a heaven and hell simulation. If you cause harm to other humans in the universe simulation, then you go to the hell simulation for a much longer amount of time. If you suffer in the universe simulation, then you go to heaven. Thus, the system is neither amoral nor uncaring of suffering.

More generally, where does this conclusion come from? Are you posing that if there is suffering in the universe, then the universe maker does not care? Religion and theology have answered this question. You would be right that it is a strong argument that a good God or maker does not exist if the universe allows suffering, but there are many reasons why a good God or maker may have made the universe while allowing suffering. I'd say the same could be said about a good programmer/civilization.

For more info, read this, and replace "god" with whatever you think might have programmed the universe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

"Also it would rule out any chance of us ever finding the true nature of reality."

That's an interesting question. I wonder if theoretical computer science has an answer: namely, can a software confined entity gain knowledge of the outside world. I'm thinking stuff like: "Well, we figured out the software logic behind our universe, hence the computer it is running on must have this type of architecture." This would actually be fucking amazing for science. It's like understanding something about what made the big bang and possibly other universes.

Or if we are just interested in concocting one scenario that dismisses this conclusion, then we might consider that in our "heaven and hell" simulation example above, when a human from the universe simulation gets to the heaven simulation they are granted a download of the full schematic of the real universe and the simulations place inside it. So it is not a necessary conclusion that there would be no way of learning of the outside universe.

My main point here is that we can't jump to a lot of conclusion about this stuff. You don't know that everything is futile just because you are in a simulation.

It really troubled me this year when Austin Walker said something to the extent of: Again I can criticize a game, and still like it. He felt the need to defend his right to say something negative about a game he otherwise enjoyed without being told off by the internet. Yet, to have to say this multiple times marks a trend I dislike. Ryan Davis used to say: “It's easy to complain about the bad part of this game, but can you describe what makes this game good?” If we focus on the negative aspects in our criticism, then we will lose opportunity to focus on the good aspects. If we lose enough of the opportunities to focus on the good, then we will not give the good due recognition.

The Giant Bombcast has not spent enough time discussing in detail what makes good games good. Take the podcast following the release of Undertale for example. The cast spent ten or twenty minutes complaining about the poor quality of the new Tony Hawk game. Then, approximately five minutes were dedicated to describing Undertale with a recommendation to play the game afterward. In an earlier episode following the release of Grow Home, there was a fantastic and lengthy discussion of car firmware and Chinese Call of Duty, but again, only about five minutes dedicated to describing Grow Home and briefly recommending everyone play it.

As a listener, how am I supposed to discern that you really meant these were some of the best games of the year from just those two five minute segments? I knew Mario Maker, MGSV, Rocket League, and Witcher 3, might appear on the GOTY list, because the podcast dedicated lengthy discussion to each game if not on the podcast following release, then on subsequent episodes. Giving good games their due recognition more often might help relieve the disconnect between the weekly Bombcast and the GOTY content.

It might be the case that those segments on Grow Home and Undertale were short, because the games are short and not heavily marketed prior to release. Lengthier games receive more coverage in subsequent weeks, and more marketed games apply some pressure to be discussed in further detail. It's easy to not emphasize a small independent release that can be described in a few minutes. Yet, if we are to rank these games on the same list as their competitors, then we must be able to say something about them on the level of their competitors. Some games are inherently easier to discuss then others, and it is easier to describe what makes them good, but discussing what makes a good game must be recognized regardless of the a games length, marketing, or any other factor. That is the game writer's challenge.

The issue disappears if you have watched the quick looks and unprofessional Fridays that have also featured these games. Often this is what I end up doing after game of the year anyway. A lack of coverage in the Bombcast and surprise games in the game of the year is possibly good for the site: more need for viewing all the content on Giant Bomb and not just the Bombcast will drive “clicks”. Yet, I do not think “clicks” are the goal of this oversight of the Bombcast. It is simply a fault that can be addressed. Spend a little more time discussing games like Grow Home and Undertale upon release, and the Bombcast will become a more seamless and fulfilling show to follow. This services the listeners, and will facilitate a stronger fan base.

For many game of the year awards now I have noticed a disconnect between the discussion of a game on the Bombcast and its appearance in the game of the year awards. Spending more time discussing what makes good games good on the weekly Bombcast could fix this disconnect. Frequently, games that have barely been discussed densely populate the game of the year awards. It is confusing for a listener to hear five minutes of Grow Home or Undertale discussion out of approximately one-hundred fifty hours of Bombcast annually, and then see these games on the GOTY top ten. I would appreciate hearing more about what makes these games good on the weekly podcast. Otherwise, I end up playing a bit of catch up at the end of the year instead. There are certain times during the year when a little more attention on the Giant Bombcast for game of the year quality games would be appreciated.

Hi, um...

As much as I loved the character stories in inquisition, at some point they just seemed to analogous to common problems of people today. I find it much more powerful for fantasy to contain stories from which we learn some lessons but can't quite pin down exactly what the author eludes to. For example, the lord of the rings conflict teaches us about war in general, but the one ring isn't quite analogous to the atomic bomb.

Listening to the submarine talk on this week's show got me here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5-ijBs8iJA

This article highlights how this E3 functioned more toward broadcasting company policies than innovative game mechanics. What a disappointing E3.

Games that are fun are previewing poorly. Highly anticipated games that are previewed do not contain new game mechanics. Does anyone else think that in recent years there have been less enticing previews for announced games and more games, that once released, win critical acclaim out of nowhere? This E3, not many previews have highlighted new game mechanics or fun games, and some of the biggest games of last year previewed terribly. Take Far Cry 3 for example. The game was previewed poorly for the pandering nudity. Yet, it was one of the highest rated AAA titles of last year. This year, nothing has caught my interest at E3, but I've grown to expect this. Instead I'm anticipating fun AAA titles with new game mechanics to come out of nowhere. It's not entirely new to anticipate hits out of nowhere, but has anyone else felt this way especially in recent years? Has anyone felt this is happening more often or has been becoming the norm?

I think Microsoft said a developer can require always online for their game if they want to do something like cloud computing. It is the same as requiring an MMO to be always online. The requirement is nothing new. We will see if any developer actually goes through with it. Most likely it will be an added feature this generation, so if you are online, your Forza 5 drivatar will sync with the server. If you are not, you play the game without that feature.

I bought two used 360 games last generation. One from game stop and one from ebay. I can easily live without the game stop purchase. I think I got extra credit on a trade-in by trading in for a used game. I started to get into ebay purchasing recently. This is fun and can save you a lot of money, if you want to buy a used game one week after launch. You have to watch the market and bid at the right time. You can get near mint copies for $40 shipped. If you don't want to keep the game you can sell it on ebay for near that price or trade-in to game stop for $20-$25. I think game stop will be selling and buying used games next generation. I will miss the ebay auctions if they are done.

If either Ryse or Dead Rising 3 receive consistently excellent reviews, then I'll pick up an Xbox One. Below looked good as well. I already have a WiiU, so I'll pick up Wind Waker and X when I feel the need. At this point, a 3DS would probably be a better purchase than an Xbox One or a PS4. PS3 had an awesome E3 as well.

Can anyone confirm that the 3770k should be replaced by a 3770 if over clocking isn't of interest? I would recommend 16 GB of RAM at 1600 Mhz. If you're upgrading in four years, you may get away with a GTX660 or 670 if you want to save.