Print

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

This only gave grief

3 (6.1%)

Grakelin is not stupid

6 (12.2%)

Are you happier now?

1 (2%)

------ Haiku, the encore -----

17 (34.7%)

Disagreeing, Fine

0 (0%)

Why you make a fuzz 'bout it?

3 (6.1%)

Lets just be happy

19 (38.8%)

Total Members Voted: 48

[Frajic]

Thanks, I'll put it on my list.

Ex of a anti-hero I liked: Altair from Assassin's Creed.

He's an asshole. That's....that's just it. He's rude, sniping, condescending....and none of that has to do with his in-game motivations. That's just who he is. And yet over the course of the game, he keeps getting confronted by situations that force him to address the humanity of it all, the cost of the conflict he's involved in. As he starts to care more, the dickishness and need to undercut everyone around him starts to go away. It's one of the more believable anti-hero, and anti-hero story arcs, I've run into in a game.

'Nother book on your list: Retribution Falls. A steampunk retro-modern pirate novel, it does pretty much everything right: the characters, the setting, the plot, the relentless pace... check out some reviews, I wholeheartedly recommend it.

[The Architect]

I'm going to disagree with that statement. I personally agree with the belief that good and evil do not exist, but the statement above, that definitions of good and evil are either constant or subjective, is incorrect.

Take, for example, the average age of people in a country. That is not subjective, but it changes. You can define ages as 'old' or 'very old' depending on how they compare with the average. Even if the average age changes later on, the original definition that someone was old was correct when applied to that time.

You have certainly taken the core, fundamental premise of the discussion to examine, which is always a good place to start. However: Good and Evil are not comparative statements, as "old" is. They are universal, blanket categories for every action in the human dynamic. Thus they either have a specific definition or none at all. What you have stated is that they are, rather, comparative or in flux, which is to take the side of the argument that no actual definition exists --and thus to state that Good and Evil as such do not exist. It is merely a point of view.

Those are the two possible views: Either it has a specific meaning and standard (which may be unknown, and which we do not need to philosophically agree on), or it is merely a matter of point of view, and Good and Evil do not exist.

[The Architect]

Anyway, the concept of an "antihero" only exists so long as an archetype of the hero exists. The concept of Evil exists only where there is Good to compare it to. Blurring the lines between good and bad has little meaning to this generation because we have no common understanding of the two, and thus the concept of the antihero is much less potent to us.

It's lost its great power as a story element because it has been used exhaustively, and because most people don't really believe in right and wrong anymore
That was the relevance of bringing in the philosophical analysis. Sorry for not clarifying immediately.

[ed boy]

However: Good and Evil are not comparative statements, as "old" is. They are universal, blanket categories for every action in the human dynamic. Thus they either have a specific definition or none at all. What you have stated is that they are, rather, comparative or in flux, which is to take the side of the argument that no actual definition exists --and thus to state that Good and Evil as such do not exist. It is merely a point of view.

Those are the two possible views: Either it has a specific meaning and standard (which may be unknown, and which we do not need to philosophically agree on), or it is merely a matter of point of view, and Good and Evil do not exist.

Good and evil may be categories (in that an action can be classified into good or evil), but they can still exist in different magnitudes. Killing one person and killing ten are both considered bad things to do, but one is considered a lot worse than the other. They are indeed comparative statements (or, they may be, depending on how you define them).

I must also disagree with your statement that if something is in flux, then it cannot have an actual definition.

However, a lot of it seems to come down to how people define good and evil in different ways. They are words that are bandied around a lot, with vague meanings that can be interpreted in other ways, and yet they are used to form the basis for morality systems.

[MouzurX]

No progress in new games in terms of gameplay.

I mean god what is different about CodMW2 than Cod1 in the FPS perspective? almost nothing.
The only really good part is being able to shoot through things.

If you look at that new red orchestra game ... it should be like that 3 years ago already.
Realism gameplay aspects.

[MouzurX]

And whats the deal with shooters still not having proper health systems?

Sitting still for 5 sec and then being okay? really? I mean really?
If i get shot in the leg i should drop to the ground and hardly be able to get up.

[Siquo]

If i get shot in the leg i should drop to the ground and hardly be able to get up.

One-bullet-kills are very realistic, but not fun to play in a game.

[MouzurX]

If i get shot in the leg i should drop to the ground and hardly be able to get up.

One-bullet-kills are very realistic, but not fun to play in a game.

I play battleground europe and its fun there.
Operation flashpoint it was fun.

At least think up something better than "sit for 5 sec and you're 100% full" then the whole healthpack +25% thing was better.

[Siquo]

Well, I play both the hard damage and "instaheal" types of fps, and both have their pros and cons. I like that I can concentrate on the action instead of having to look for healthpacks every 10 seconds (and how realistic are those anyway). Something for everyone, I guess.

[Virtz]

I'd rather look around for health packs than sit behind a wall for 5 seconds every 10 seconds doing nothing.

[MouzurX]

Health packs actually made you manage your health, do i take the healthpak now? Darn where was that healthpack? .. now its just sit behind a wall.

Aka dumbed down

[Siquo]

Dumbed down can be good. Too much micromanagement can be a pain. I like DF, or a good story RPG, but sometimes I want uncomplicated violence without too much thinking, just getting into that FPS trance. I do agree there's too much of the dumbed down variety and a lot less pickings in the interesting variety, and that sequels of games I liked are usually getting worse (settlers 3+, civ 5).

[Draco18s]

Good and evil may be categories (in that an action can be classified into good or evil), but they can still exist in different magnitudes. Killing one person and killing ten are both considered bad things to do, but one is considered a lot worse than the other. They are indeed comparative statements (or, they may be, depending on how you define them).

Ah, but what if those people are evil people?

[TolyK]

*TolyK cancels think: interrupted by computer.*
*The head hits the computer, fracturing the skull. A tendon in the brain has been torn!*

[ed boy]

Good and evil may be categories (in that an action can be classified into good or evil), but they can still exist in different magnitudes. Killing one person and killing ten are both considered bad things to do, but one is considered a lot worse than the other. They are indeed comparative statements (or, they may be, depending on how you define them).

Ah, but what if those people are evil people?

I used the example of killing people because, in almost every situation killing people is regarded as a bad thing, and killing ten people is regarded as a worse thing than killing one person.

THat brings up the question of whether terms like good and evil can be applied to people. I personally see it as somewhat of a failing of the english language that "evil person" and "evil action" do not have independent words to describe them.