Objective reality doesn't exist, and that's a good thing, because it means our entire universe is subjective, and therefore, malleable to our perceptions. It means that with a big enough idea and a mind on which to balance it, we can move the earth.
exocrinous
joined 9 months ago
all of the language, terms and concepts which form the simulation argument are based on the sensory experience that the argument would effectively dismiss
Nah, this is bullshit. What sensory experience is love? What sensory experience is honour? And more to the point, what sensory experience is money? Is law? Is a home? Is a mother? If Moore were correct to say that we do not live in a constructed material reality, we would still live in a constructed social reality. And if social reality can be constructed without the aid of the senses, then it must also be true that material reality can be constructed without the senses.
Moore is clearly a simpleton.
As usual, the only persuasive argument in favour of realism is "might makes right", accompanied by persecution of the antirealists.
I disagree with Moore's first point. Hands are a social construct and are not imbued with inherent reality. They gain reality only when observed by a conscious agent.
If I'm an experienced D&D player, will I need to worry about knowing how to build a class? I didn't have any problems understanding KOTOR's character creation, and I actually prefer Mass Effect 1's combat and levelling over 2. I love crpgs.
Assassin's Creed 1 and 2. I've also heard good things about Morrowind but haven't played it.
Tyranny doesn't stick the landing. They ran out of time and couldn't write a good second half of the story
But it's a video game. You can just reload a save until you get it right and get the XP for completing the quest. If you don't save the goblin, you won't be as powerful at the end of the game. It's ludonarrative dissonance.
Nah that game boofs it so bad.
Five words: you can't kill the baby.
Designers don't have to program in every evil thing to make an evil path. They just have to program in one evil path that's fun. Making games fun is their job. If playing an evil character isn't fun, they failed. If they can't find it in themselves to write an evil main character, they shouldn't be including the option.
I loved the first half of Tyranny. You get to play as a bad guy. You're encouraged to be clever, calculating, to make important decisions that will affect the rest of the game. There's mysteries about, and power to be had, and though you have superficial allegiances, your actual boss is an enigmatic figure who wants you to vie for power. Your mentors warn you that others will try to control you, and that you should always be looking out for number one.
Unfortunately, halfway through there's a moment where you don't get to do that. A moment where the obvious decision to make in order to gain power, is blocked off. Where you cannot make the smart play. Where you have to act not in your own interest, not with cunning, nor deception, nor brute force, though any of those options were easily possible. The game simply doesn't give you those choices. Your only option is to do what a guy you allied with at the start of the game says. No double cross, no clever lie, no action and rationalisation of the thing you want, the thing that will give you power. You simply give up power that is nearly in the palm of your hands because a guy who thinks he's your boss but isn't, says so.
And now I hate that game.
There's no kind of water that tastes better cold unless you're exhausted, and then all water does. But if you're at a comfortable level of temperature, hydration, and exertion, all water tastes better at room temperature.