Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sirian]

Yea I find the game weird in how you have to collect ideas to counter argument. And the way you have to ask specific questions about specific things to unlock the discussion... I don't know, it felt unnatural. For the first guy, my own counter argument would have been "there is no proof of the existence of any god", but it wasn't even an option. I had to follow a walkthrough every step of the way except for the tutorial salesmen...

[Pnx]

Yea I find the game weird in how you have to collect ideas to counter argument. And the way you have to ask specific questions about specific things to unlock the discussion... I don't know, it felt unnatural. For the first guy, my own counter argument would have been "there is no proof of the existence of any god", but it wasn't even an option. I had to follow a walkthrough every step of the way except for the tutorial salesmen...

This sort of thing was what I meant by "Standard Phoenix Wright Issues", the way the statement/response system works can sometimes feel natural, but most of the time it's just sort of awkward.

[scrdest]

I found arguing against Kant rather difficult. While I could identify the logical issues of his argument early on, it took me ages to figure out just where to use the challenge button. I lost nearly all my credibility in the search to find the correct argument/response combination, even though I already had the basic idea of what that combination was.

That aside, I did enjoy the game, it's a neat, mildly thought-provoking, and comedic little piece.

That's probably the biggest issue with the whole game. It wasn't that hard to find many of the fallacies, but once you did, you would then have to play guess-the-page.

[Seriyu]

I could definitely agree with that, finding the fallacy is easy, but finding the specific statement that it counts for is hard. It didn't occur too often to me, but I admit there was rarely a mental thread between the fallacy and "this is the one", and was usually just more that I got lucky with my pick a few times.

Kant was also very confusing and I think he was one of the two that I got a legit loss on. (the first guy who's name I forget, and Kant)

Also yes, the Arbiter's happy face is fantastic.

[Vector]

I didn't lose against anyone, and had no walkthrough.  On the other hand I did use a few pieces of data in ways that the game really didn't like, and basically got this kind of training in college.  It was still tense, though!

I dunno, I thought it was really awesome.  I liked all the shout-outs, the different personalities, and how they did a good job of clarifying each philosopher's school of thought and breaking it down into manageable chunks.  Suuuper-cool.

[Sensei]

Pretty sure the aforementioned debate-against-a-computer issues have never been avoided by anybody.

[Moghjubar]

Beat it, no deaths (only a few odd 'where do I challenge?' moments).

Go go philosophy courses in college!

[Lectorog]

I'm stuck on Mill. His reasoning is similar to some of my own. Coincidence? _{Probably not.}
Either way, I'll be brute-forcing my way to a revelation tomorrow. Tonight I need to sleep for my philosophy class in the morning. Our homework tonight was to read Euthyphro; I kid you not.

[Android]

I found arguing against Kant rather difficult. While I could identify the logical issues of his argument early on, it took me ages to figure out just where to use the challenge button. I lost nearly all my credibility in the search to find the correct argument/response combination, even though I already had the basic idea of what that combination was.

That aside, I did enjoy the game, it's a neat, mildly thought-provoking, and comedic little piece.

Same, but with Mill instead. I enjoyed the game as well. I also really liked the music the game has.

[Geneoce]

Just finished!

I fully endorse this product.

[Blargityblarg]

Spoiler: Final opponent (click to show/hide)

Socrates' analogy showing that an infinite number of possibilities implies a match is very similar to my own; he says that there are an infinite number of numbers between zero and one, none of which is two. I'd say that there are an infinite number of positive integers, not one of which is a fish.

[Sensei]

I would have used prime numbers but maybe I'm just boring.

[scrdest]

I'm stuck on Mill. His reasoning is similar to some of my own. Coincidence? _{Probably not.}
Either way, I'll be brute-forcing my way to a revelation tomorrow. Tonight I need to sleep for my philosophy class in the morning. Our homework tonight was to read Euthyphro; I kid you not.

I only died once at the final boss, and only because fucking 'where do I challenge' thing was at work. Although I admit that it was very hard for me to fight the boss since Jones' reasoning was pretty weird for me.

Anyway, Mill assumes that happiness = not unhappiness, which is very similar to what Kant does with lying and saving a dying man (so that lying is always bad, and saving always good, and you cannot use one to achieve the other).

I'm trying not to explicitly spell that out for you here, so read spoiler if you want to know.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Act utilitarianism: assumes that in the worst case scenario, happiness would be a zero-sum game (happiness gained from someone's suffering is equal to unhappiness caused by it). In any scenario in which someone gains more happiness from your suffering than you lose from it, it is moral to torture you.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Rule utilitarianism: since rules that increase happiness are replaced if they are inefficient (as they are, since they limit maximum happiness gain due to minimizing suffering gain), perfectly efficient rules boil down to Act utilitarianism with all the initial flaws.

[freeformschooler]

Hahahaha oh man. I'm at the Protagorus dialogue. This game is so funny. It really captures the beauty of Phoenix Wright with its own flair.

[mainiac]

I must confess that I gave up and looked at a walkthrough towards the end.  I had to leave for work in a while and I already knew the answer (yay college!), I just didn't know what the game route to take.  Very good story though.  I particularly liked the part with the hypothetical world where innocent until proven guilty is not accepted.  Given the ending I'm kind of surprised that Descartes never made an appearance and my fanboy hopes of Rawls were dashed by them mentioning his name and then stopping the story before Socrates got to him.