TheMightyEthan

Yeah, the GT review described the ending as "weird". I've heard that the game doesn't do a good job of letting you know why you should care what happens to Hawke.

I think George W. Bush's plans for NASA were like the only things I ever agreed with him on.

So because something's openly sexist it's not okay to criticize it for being sexist?

I've seen that list before and find it hilarious, but not due to any hostility toward JRPGs. I just thought it was funny. No need to get so upset Sindo.

And religious people can certainly be good scientists. It's a theoretical thing, more than a practical problem. It's intellectually inconsistent.

A belief in god is not directly at odds with science except in as much as an affirmative belief in the existence of god requires the kind of magical thinking that is directly at odds with the scientific mindset.

I cannot do it.

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how science works. Sure, the big bang theory could very well be wrong (and probably is at least somewhat inaccurate, even if the core of it is correct), but it's not just "made up", it's a conclusion that was arrived at based on theories that work very well to explain the nature of the universe as we are capable of observing it today. Those theories predict a big bang. Since the theories are correct to the extent we're capable of measuring, we conclude that the other predictions are correct as well, until such time as we find evidence to disprove the theory. As someone who is dating a scientist, and worked in a lab, I think you shouldn't jump to conclusions so fast. If you don't want me to conclude that you don't understand how science works then don't make statements that show a lack of understanding of how science works.

Which goes right back to the "intentional" point I was making. There's a reason why Bolo Santosi's voice/accent is a meme. Every voice/accent in this game is exaggerated, and when those voices say satirical quips it's extremely obvious it was intentional. I just realized how hard it is to explain "satire" to people. I get satire, what I was saying is that just because it was satirical doesn't make it good. The fact that I didn't like it, and criticize the way they used it, doesn't mean that I missed the fact that it was intended to be satirical, it just means I didn't like it.

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how science works. Sure, the big bang theory could very well be wrong (and probably is at least somewhat inaccurate, even if the core of it is correct), but it's not just "made up", it's a conclusion that was arrived at based on theories that work very well to explain the nature of the universe as we are capable of observing it today. Those theories predict a big bang. Since the theories are correct to the extent we're capable of measuring, we conclude that the other predictions are correct as well, until such time as we find evidence to disprove the theory.

Well for determining the number of intelligent civilizations extant in the galaxy at any given time we can use the Drake Equation (or a slightly modified version): N = R * fp * np * fe * fl * fi N = the number of intelligent civilizations at any given time R = the average rate of star formation in the galaxy fp = the fraction of stars that have planets np = the average number of planets per star that actually has planets fe = the fraction of planets capable of supporting life fl = the fraction of planets which are capable of supporting life that in fact develop life fi = the fraction of planets that develop life on which the life goes on to develop intelligence. We have a pretty good idea of R, we're getting close to figuring out what fp and np are, but for fe, fl, and fi we just have to guess and really we have nothing to base those guesses on. For all we know the number could be practically zero and the Earth is the only planet with life in the galaxy, or the Solar system is actually strange in that it only has one planet with intelligent life. We really have no way to know.

Well, the similarities are there. But I played Darksiders looking for a Zelda-like experience and was kinda disappointed on that aspect. That's funny, I played it looking for a Zelda-like experience too and got exactly what I wanted. No accounting for taste, I guess.

Not necessarily, sometimes you start with the conclusion (hypothesis), but if so then you try to DISPROVE your hypothesis, not support it. Nitpicky I know, and it doesn't undermine the core of your point.

I was commenting on the bad VA specifically.

I actually accept as a core tenet that I have no way to know that my senses give me accurate information about the world, however I simply act on the assumption that they do because there's no other way to... be...

I missed them because I didn't get far enough because the game wasn't fun.

@withoutphallus: I disagree with your assessment of the probabilities. Sure it's (probably) unlikely on any given planet, but the universe is a really damn big place. Even if the chance of any given planet having life was 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 there would still be billions and billions of planets with life on them in the visible universe (though probably not in our galaxy).

Just because it's supposed to be bad doesn't make it enjoyable, it just makes it bad. It doesn't go far enough to get into "so bad it's good" territory.

When I was a kid I really really believed in alien abductions and other paranormal things (distinguishing "paranormal" from "supernatural"). Now, however, while I still think it ridiculously improbable that Earth is the only planet in the universe with intelligent life, I doubt any of it has ever visited us.

True story: I stopped believing in the Christian God (my parents are Episcopal) around the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus.

You sound like somewhere between an Ignostic and an Agnostic really. Well as I said I'm technically agnostic in that I take no stance on what the actual nature of the universe is (in as much as whether there is any kind of deity or not), but in practice I'm an atheist because my operating assumption is that there is no deity or supernatural of any kind. That is my operating assumption because my core outlook is very scientific: in the absence of evidence supporting the existence of a thing I will assume that thing does not exist. So in practice I'm an atheist but in actuality I'm an agnostic.

I haven't played God of War (well I played the GoW3 demo, but that's the extent of my exposure), but Darksiders was screaming "Zelda!" at me the whole time. I loved it.

You must be confusing me with someone else. Or confusing Just Cause 2 with a different game.

Mass Effect.

Yeah, I bought it used on Glyde, played it for about an hour, then sold it on Glyde. I should have trusted my instincts from playing the demo, but everyone raved about it so much I caved in.