sanchopanza

@LordXavierBritish said:

@sanchopanza: You didn't play Dragon Age.

No? Must be false memories in my head then, I guess I've just had this PS3 collectors edition since release so I could take it out and look at the shiny disk now and then.

Seriously guy, how many times must it be stated, just say you don't like the game, thats fine. Why though must you keep going in circles trying to justify some bullshit argument? That hole of yours is so deep you must be half-way to China by now.

@BelligerentEngine said:

Dragon Age and Mass Effect have very limited divergent paths, I can't understand why people are bringing these up as stalwart examples of player choice. In the end the only divergence is arbitrary moral decisions that get ret-conned out of existence, because the developers didn't have time to devote the resources to account for those decisions in a meaningful way in the follow up games.

Similar complaints could be levied against the Witcher, you can take kind of widely straying paths, but end up in pretty similar spots at the end either way. Whilst it certain does a much better job than it's cohorts, it's not as dynamic as some people are claiming.

Exactly, fool complains about freedom and then brings up these games. Oh and decisions in Skyrim do have an impact, e.g. choosing sides in the civil war can lead to certain towns getting f'd up. What is better: that, or getting a sentence in a power point at the end of the game about how you are the great hero of the land and party member XY went on to live a happy life? You decide.

@SpencerTucksen said:

With the comments, the original post, etc.

Really? Read the original post again, then the comments others people have posted about how it makes no sense. If you still agree with it, I fear for your ability to think.

@Turambar said:

@LordXavierBritish said:

@sanchopanza said:

@LordXavierBritish said:

@RollingZeppelin:You can pick a direction and go in most games, there just isn't much to do if you chose that route and most don't even understand they are choosing the alternative because the idea of progression is so engrained in the gaming psyche.

Do you even know what you are saying at this point? Never heard so much drivel in a single sentence.

Yes, you can go anywhere you want within the confined space a game intially introduces to you, there just isn't much to do there and the real meat of the content is in following the objectives the game has laid out for you.

In Skyrim you have a really big space with nothing especially interesting to do in it, so in that respect it is quite different from a game like Mass Effect.

That is complete and utter bullshit if we're actually talking about anything off the main storyline for both games.

Indeed.

@LordXavierBritish: Uh...what? So in Sonic 2 I'm free to go where I want, within the confined space of the game and this=freedom. So its just as 'free' as Skyrim... I think you are a few corn flakes short of a full bowl of cereal.

RE: Skyrim not having anything to do...again what are you talking about?

Something about holes and not digging deeper comes to mind, I repeat what I said before: you should have just said you don't like Skyrim instead of going on a nonsensical rant and then trying to come up with all kinds of bullshit reasons to justify it.

@LordXavierBritish said:

@RollingZeppelin:You can pick a direction and go in most games, there just isn't much to do if you chose that route and most don't even understand they are choosing the alternative because the idea of progression is so engrained in the gaming psyche.

Do you even know what you are saying at this point? Never heard so much drivel in a single sentence.

@LordXavierBritish: Wait, what? I'm so confused, and I think you are too. You complain about Skyrim not letting you kill key NPCs (silly complaint if you ask me) and then brinp up Mass Effect and DA:O, where you can't even pull out your weapons around NPCs...whatttt? In fact, all of your complaints apply to those games...what was your point again? Those games are linear as all hell.

I would really like to know how those games are more 'free' than Skyrim. You make no sense at all, you would have save a whole load of time by just saying 'I don't think Skyrim is all that'

@Pezen: Lol, oh one of those people are you? Well, good luck with that vega crystal ball that lets you see XXXX years into the future. Globalization is largely the result of trade and inter-dependence, not political union. I'm not against globalization (well, maybe against some of the not so well know abuses that is has created), a one-world government on the other hand is a bad idea. I do no, in fact, have a hilariously stereotypical view of Germany, or any other nation, it was a very simple example, you are the naive one for your reductio ad absurdum conclusions. The basic point still stands, how do you account for massive cultural differences when trying to integrate different nations: go to Uganda and try to convince them about the benefits of homosexuality, or go to the USA and try to tell them that sharia law is a good idea.

I said nothing about immigration or integration, and I think you are an example of why we are 'not ready', give the general lack of awareness of history, human nature, and a general lack of critical thinking. Please, do not be offended, I'm not trying to be an ass just for the sake of it, but your arguments sound incredibly silly. For example: what does a 'more moral' world look like? What is morality, why is your idea of it more relevant than another persons? How did you come to this idea of a more moral world, why is it so great? Do we have moral obligation outside of laws? If so, why do many people ignore these obligation, even within a framework of laws? How would you enforce these morals? Would people just accept them? Is that even viable? All food for thought.

@AlmostSwedish: Yeh most of micro has a solid theoretical basis, its when you just try to scale that up and slap a macro label on the result (which is what most macro models tend to be) that you get issues.

The ideology problem you mention is too true, you have Austrians and neo and post and new Keynesians (all different by the way), recently heard Skidelsky say 'economists don't agree on anything' and its all too true. Thats not really a problem though, the problem comes about when some hog the mainstream literature and don't give anyone else a voice.

@Yagami: You still have not really answered the question, 'automatically' and 'lets all agree' and 'try' are not good enough responses. Can you fly? No?...oh you haven't tried? How about you try by jumping off a very tall building, once you try you can't fail. (I'm not being a dick by the way, just trying to demonstrate why your point is silly).

I'm glad that you are full of optimism and have faith in man and all that, but most people are only concerned about them and theirs. Most people find it hard anough to get along with their neighbours, and you want them to get along with the whole planet just cos' its nice? Man, I personally know people who would happily shank a guy over £20, good luck trying to get them to play nice.

@AlmostSwedish said:

@Villageidiot9411:I understand your concern, and it is one I used to share. I hope I didn't offend you when I used the term sad misconception. I typing this pretty quickly since I really should be studiying right now :)

Now, I don't study economics (unless you count my casual interest in the subject), but from what I understand the models are usually pretty good predictions. Unfortunately, in times of financial crisis they work less well (which is a bummer since that is when you need them the most, right?).

And regarding economics seemingly not being about people; It's just what happens when things become more complicated. Take me for example. I study theoretical chemisty. I havn't been in an actual chemistry lab in years! All I do is perfom calculations, and as such I have to use word and concepts from mathematics and quantum mechanics. Seemingly, it has very little to do with chemistry, while in reality it is the fastest growing branch of chenistry since you can model thing without having to purchase and use expensive and potentially dangerous chemicals.

I don't know if thats the perfect analogy, but yeah. :)

Sadly, many economic models are not very useful in good or bad time, they work perfectly well as models but are not necessarily isomorphic between the model and the real world. These models have some assumption that do not really hold up very well (quantity theory, Say's law, representitive individual etc.), you touched on an important point with the calculus: its the same problem that economics suffers from, at least yours is a real science, economists use calculus and pretend that it makes the field a science. Economics is still dominated by these 'classical' ideas and its very hard to push something different through, to paraphrase J. Stiglitz: monopoly of the mind is more dangerous than market monopoly.

@Yagami said:

@sanchopanza said:

Geez I worry knowing that people like this actually exist, he tries to deflect every and any good point/argument with 'can't we all just get along maaaannn'.

I would say this stupidity is related to age, but I think most 17 year olds would be offended at that.

I don't see how getting along would be a bad thing. Explain to me how it is a bad thing. I seriously do not see the harm in peace.

...your post are one face-palm moment after another. Ok, I will pose a simple question to you: how do you propose we get to this global government utopia? A question others have posed in one way or another and you've dodged for some 7 pages.

The rest of your responses to other people are also incredibly childish and show either your mental capacity or age. They are not all being deliberately hostile (some people are yes) they are posing valid questions and pointing out flaws in your argument and you just respond with some silly or childish comment, or worse some remedial level philosophy.