OmarBradley

2 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Hopefully you are more satisfied with these responses.

Not really, but I am satisfied with your effort! 

Seriously though, thanks for responding. 

2 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Anyways, I'm happy to answer any questions you might have, but if you get TOO deep, I dont want to respond until tomorrow, lol. But I have to answer @OmarBradley first 😉

You don't have to... but if you're offering yourself to answer questions, I'd be curious about the answers. 

On 11/14/2018 at 2:13 PM, OmarBradley said:

Either this deity is all knowing, or they aren't. It can't be both. When reading your long post, I had the exact same thought as SM. 

God is all knowing you say. He knows Outcomes A, B, and C are possible, but he doesn't know which will occur? That means he's not all knowing. 

Societal structure gives humanity morality. I'd like to believe there is a tiny bit of innate morality too, but that's difficult to prove. But the bible is just part of said structure. If your only and/or chief source of morality is the Bible, that is incredibly problematic. Moral and immoral shouldn't need religious support in their definitions.

I am a nonbeliever. I've never read the Bible in full and I've never learned the deep mechanics of any religion. Where is my sense of morality coming from?

And aren't there bible passages that condone slavery and stoning people? How can the text be trusted as an definitive source of morality?

 

9 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Are there any other topics that anyone might want my take on?

I wasn't satisfied with your response to the above post. I deleted the tongue in cheek lines and the questions you said you wanted to avoid, so it's all serious now. Now I have more questions though.

Why is God doing all of this for us? Does he ever elaborate on why he created humanity, the universe, etc.? And if he's all knowing, why doesn't he go ahead and stop things like 9/11 or Nazi gas chambers? Why didn't he smite Hitler in 1933? I Googled this out of curiosity, and checked out the top two results. The top one was a cop-out answer and the second one was a frankly moronic, disgusting reply. At least your ideology is inclusively-thinking, even toward nonbelievers/other religions Mikey, I thank you for that.

And here's an interesting passage from that first link:

Quote

The Bible clearly indicates that at present the Devil, not God, rules the world. (Luke 4:1, 2, 6; John 12:31)

Is this true? If so, that's convenient explanation for suffering, but this is the first I'm hearing Satan has defeated God.

10 minutes ago, soon said:

Realy made an ass of your self there: suggesting erroneously a second time I wasn't participated a minute before I post at length about the topics being discussed!

I guess a meaningful participation is lost on you.

Unfortunately, god didn't bestow upon me the ability of premonition. 

6 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I cant agree with this. God was going to send Jesus to humanity with or without Lucifer or Adam and Eves fall from Grace. 

As stated in the creed, Jesus was born of the father BEFORE all ages. God from God, light from light, true God from true God. 

So basically what I'm saying is that Jesus came WAY before Lucifer even did. Humanity's true purpose is to love and serve Jesus Christ as our Lord and savior. We were created for him. It didnt matter what anyone (Lucifer, etc) did or didnt do, Jesus would STILL have come to this world through Mary. THAT was the divine plan. Lucifer's fall was of his own doing, which in turn caused the fall of humanity. 

Had that never happened, Jesus would still have come, but he wouldn't be known as the "redeemer." He would have just been known as God/Son/Christ/etc. Humanity wouldn't of needed a redeemer, we would of been in perfect harmony with God in the Garden of Eden. He wouldn't of needed to die on the cross, etc. Nor would his "Godhood" been disputed, it would have been a given. 

So I cant agree that Lucifers or mans fall was part of Gods plan. Did he know it would happen? Yes. But I would say there have probably been Outcome A, Outcome B, Outcome C for humanity. The only thing that is the same in those outcomes is the beginning and end. The middle is what's different. 

Either this deity is all knowing, or they aren't. It can't be both. When reading your long post, I had the exact same thought as SM. 

God is all knowing you say. He knows Outcomes A, B, and C are possible, but he doesn't know which will occur? That means he's not all knowing. 

Another question, why is a being that "exists outside of time" gendered? God is a "he." Does he have a penis? I did some quick Googling and found this:

Quote

In Exodus 33:20 God says, "You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." 

Alright, so we at least know god has a face. And that he's a total badass who kills anyone who sees it. 

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

Did you know that certain chemicals will induce "spiritual experiences" and that other will suppress them? This has led some psychiatrists to consider spiritual experiences, including the belief that one communicates with god, as "benign forms of psychoses".

I have heard this as well. The "god voice" people hear is demonstrably biochemically induced.

43 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

It depends on what you call "morals." I would argue that mankind has VERY much been trying to redefine morals the last century or so. Which it's really gotten out of hand the last 20 years or so. 

It begs the question whether morals are a human invention or a divine revelation? The earliest form of "morals" that I'm aware of is Hamarabis code "eye for an eye, etc." But how moral is that code really? So if someone kills your wife, you can kill theirs? That sounds more like revenge than morality to me. 

So I would argue that morality was ACTUALLY a divine revalation. Which the OT and NT are some of the oldest (and most trustworthy) form of moral laws. So that kinda lends creedence to divine revalation imo. Plus it's not like people still practice "eye for an eye" or any other early forms of morality that someone could point out (I'm sure DD could provide some). Or if they do practice "eye for an eye" human laws will punish them, so those morals were deemed unacceptable. Yet the bible is STILL being quoted for its moral compass. 

So to answer your question, I would say morals are from God to humanity. So acting outside of those morals will only lead to Lucifer. Does God "need" those morals? No. He doesnt need anything from humanity. He loves us, so he gives us this opportunity to obey. He also respects our decision to not. 

Can you expand on the bold text? Piqued my curiosity.

Societal structure gives humanity morality. I'd like to believe there is a tiny bit of innate morality too, but that's difficult to prove. But the bible is just part of said structure. If your only and/or chief source of morality is the Bible, that is incredibly problematic. Moral and immoral shouldn't need religious support in their definitions.

I am a nonbeliever. I've never read the Bible in full and I've never learned the deep mechanics of any religion. Where is my sense of morality coming from?

And aren't there bible passages that condone slavery and stoning people? How can the text be trusted as an definitive source of morality?

Also as an aside: although I probably sound confrontational, I am greatly enjoying this and reading your responses @Iron MikeyJ. Would be nice for you to have a buddy helping you fend off the constant attacks , but @soon doesn't seem to want to participate in a meaningful way. 

So cool they did this, even though I've been pretty hard on Slash recently. Sounds decent for what are supposed to be phone recordings. Unless the audio is soundboard (I think this is more likely) and just the video is fan-recorded. Either way, pretty cool.

5 hours ago, soon said:

An honest assessment of the exchange is that I was happily responding and trying to add substance to a vapid and prefabricated line of uninformed questions. I was happy to continue but he wasn't. He was unable or unwilling to continue so he tapped out with humour.

And then here you come in the typical tag team fashion that you new atheists depend on.

You are free to think this. I dont think you actually do though. I think you try and make up for your inability to discuss real world Christian thought by using aggression.

I would like to hear your elaboration on the supernatural elements. Your answers have been evasive so far. Given the quality of your writing, I can tell there is indeed a brain in your head. I'd like to know how it reconciles the supernatural. You certainly don't owe me that, but I'm asking anyway.

12 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

@Dazey your daughter is so cute lol. Reminds me of my little nieces.

Someone told the older of the two about the devil and hell but I do my best to convince her that it's untrue. People make heaven or hell within themselves and on this Earth.

This is the only Heaven & Hell anyone should ever care about.

If there ever was a god in this world, it was Ronnie James Dio. 

On 11/9/2018 at 5:14 PM, wasted said:

Is it available on xbox 360?

I don't think so.

7 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

@OmarBradley,

History and science has stated that they were "mythology." I dont know for certain what the church's stance on anchient Greeks religion is specifically. But what I do know is all of those religions fall under the spectrum of paganism. Which the church DOES have teaching on that. All one would have to do is spend some time reading the bible and you will come across LOTS of stories regarding Paganism. 

This next statements are my personal understanding (not neccesarily church teaching), but I always look for church teaching in order to make sure I am not falling outside of the boundaries of the church. Having said that, the book of Enoch explains all of this with extreme clarity. To summarize, the fallen Angels have been deceiving man since the beginning. They are the source of all of these pagan religions. To put it bluntly, they were demonic. Which it doesnt matter if its the Greeks, Roman's or the Egyptians, they were all following teachings of fallen Angels pretending to be "gods" in order to lead humanity away from the TRUE God. 

I know that may sound like a bit of a stretch to many of you, but if you do a quick Google search you will find the CURRENT Church of Satan worships the Egyptian god Set. Crowley, Hitler, and MANY more modern figures all worshipped these Egyptian "gods" to some form or another. Honestly, it's in Freemasonry, Bohemian Grove, etc. There are reasons why the term "mythology" was added to these pagan religions. The devils greatest trick my friend...

Gotcha. So demons led pre-Christian societies to "paganism" - a term created by Christians for the sole purpose of criticizing non-Christians and making Christianity seem unique and superior to other religions. What a convenient story your bible tells.  

The adoption of paganus by the Latin Christians as an all-embracing, pejorative term for polytheists represents an unforeseen and singularly long-lasting victory, within a religious group, of a word of Latin slang originally devoid of religious meaning. The evolution occurred only in the Latin west, and in connection with the Latin church. Elsewhere, Hellene or gentile (ethnikos) remained the word for pagan; and paganos continued as a purely secular term, with overtones of the inferior and the commonplace. Src

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Buddhism which believes in cyclical reincarnation, and Hinduism, possessing a Shiva and a Vishnu as deities? 

Broadly however I agree. Eastern religions are less dogmatic and militant, more inquisitive, than the three monotheistic religions of the Mediterranean world. There are various historical explanations for this difference between east and west.

My comment on fantasticality was restricted to Buddhism. And I said less fantastical, not lacking any fantastical elements. Semantics are important because I was careful to phrase it knowing I don't have enough knowledge about these religions to make wholly definitive statements on them. But I've seen/read enough to get a feel.

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't know. To me, Catholicism is a fairly distant denomination of Christianity. If I were to criticize a denomination it would in many ways be more natural to choose Lutheranism, since I was grown up in a Lutheran Church and we don't have many Catholics here in Norway. But I try to make any criticism against Christianity of a more general nature so it pertains to all denominations. More likely I criticize theism and not Christianity or any particular forms of theism, both because I don't really feel like singling any one out and because I tend to view all specific theisms and denominations and cults as just symptoms of an underlying breach of logic which is the real problem here. This acceptance of a supernatural agent without any proper evidence. This need to conclude on the basis of nothing but childhood beliefs, scriptural evidence, and a desire to have some kind of protection and false sense of meaning. This need to get answers to questions that are either unanswerable or shouldn't be asked. I find it dismaying that humans fall into that intellectual trap again and again. And then it doesn't really matter whether it manifests itself in a belief in, say, Allah, prayer or homeopathy, or whether it results in the rejection of evolutionary theory, the round earth, or the beneficial effect of vaccines --- it is equally irrational.

So in a strictly intellectual sense all irrational beliefs are equally bad. To me, believing that Jesus died for our sins is as ridiculous as believing in resurrection. I mean, there is just as much evidence for either, zero, so they are equally improbably. But then many of these irrational beliefs tend to envelope themselves in various trappings, like the dogmas and rituals of religions, and then, of course, they are not equally bad because then they tend to affect human behavior in many more ways. And if I were to single any one religion out, then hands down Islam is the worst we have today. It by far has the most negative effect on human kind today when we look at how easily it becomes an impediment to progress, both socially and scientifically, when taken its size into account. But the reason why we aren't discussing Islam here is of course that no one brings it up. What is the point of lots of guys agreeing that we don't believe in Allah? I am not particularly fond of such echo chambers. So I will keep on criticizing theism in general, because there are plenty of theists here, and then, I guess, Diesel will keep on thinking I talk about Catholicism. Or soon will think I talk about Christianity. I guess that's where the shoe hurts.

With ya until the Islam bit. How are you quantifying impediments to social and cultural progress? Admittedly, I'm not well read on the workings of any major religion (as it's all hogwash). I don't feel like educating myself on fantasy for the purpose of arguing in support of reality.

But radicalization is radicalization regardless of religion. And as far as I'm aware, there's nothing intrinsically unique about Islam that makes it promote violence, anti-intellectualism, or human progress any more than Christianity does.The issues we see in the Middle East today have roots throughout history, but some of those biggest roots stem from the Allies' poor job of managing the Middle East at the conclusion of both WWs. These are geopolitical issues that Muslim leaders have transformed into religious fervor. 

I don't know that I'd agree Islam is the biggest impediment to social and cultural progress. Christianity in the US is a pretty scary thing too right now. 

5 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

In Mygnr atheist terms, for ''atheism'' read ''anti-Christian'' and for ''anti-Christian'' (for a large part) read ''anti-Catholic''. You never see much aggression - or even interest - shown towards Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam, and only slightly more vehemence shown in the direction of the Protestant denominations.

Buddhism has a philosophical tint and tends to be less rigid and less fantastical in its teachings and practices. And Hinduism promotes open mindedness in belief are rarely makes dogmatic proclamations. While I'm a fan of no religion, of the four major ones it seems these two are less burdensome to society. As I said above, this is my rudimentary understanding, but I believe it's accurate. 

@Iron MikeyJ

I have a question about Christianity, since you offered to answer any. Any others may chime in to answer as well. This has actually been on my mind for some time and it even relates to our Atlantis discussion, indirectly.

What makes your worship different than the Greeks who worshiped Zeus 2.500 years ago? Why is their religion deemed mythology, but yours is valid?

1 minute ago, soon said:

Oh, I see. Another case of an uniformed new atheist asking a Christian to take on the New Atheists own deeply flawed understanding of Christian thought, and defend it as if it was the Christians own perspective. What boring and unreasonable folly.

Please enlighten those of us who are misunderstanding Christian thought.

8 hours ago, ZoSoRose said:

Yeah lol. We talked about it a few months ago. There should be a pic a few pages back. Its a Burny MG145s YH. Awesome guitar. Actually had my first public gig with it tonight and it sounded really good. Much higher output pickups than my Les Paul but it surprisingly doesnt get as saturated. 

I'm not that technically adept, but I have been told comparing pickup output only makes sense when comparing the same model/type of pickup. So it theoretically makes sense a higher output pickup by manufacturer X may actually get less distorted/saturated than a mid output pickup by manufacturer Y.

My guess is this is due to the variety of components that can be used in constructing a pickup, like different types of magnets, different wiring patterns/tightness, etc.

Also I didn't realize that was your guitar. Cool.

Guitar was out of tune and Slash shredded a bit mindlessly. That combination does lead to a less than excellent guitar solo. He should have spent the time to learn Randy's properly.

That being said, I don't think a 9 minute video is justified. I skimmed through it and didn't really listen to the commentary, but I can't imagine this YouTube guy has valid criticism past the two things I mentioned.

13 hours ago, wasted said:

I’ve played 2 Metro games, is there another one coming?

is Dishonored 2 out?

Dishonored 2 came out in late 2016 and it is AMAZING. One of my top 3 games I've ever played.

Played a bit of the beta for Fallout 76.

Overall, it's not for me. I didn't play with any people, and although the game can be played solo, it's more intended for group play. That being said, I don't think group play would entice me enough to buy this, given the issues.

PC performance is awful. This is the worst performing game I've played in the last 3-4 years. Not only is performance pretty poor, the game just doesn't look that amazing. It looks like a tuned up Fallout 4, which wasn't amazing looking itself. 

I found a lot of the new mechanics kind of interesting actually and I like what they did with some of the standard mechanics in terms of revamping them for multiplayer and generally innovating/improving.

However, the biggest issue for me is the lack of human NPCs. I'm not the kind of player who likes to sit and read those green computers or read holotapes to get all of my lore. Some of it, sure. But, not a majority of it. And nothing against anyone who enjoys that, but it's just not for me. The second biggest issue is the engine. It's really showing its age. I know game engines are complicated, multifaceted instruments, but I really don't know how much further Bethesda can go with gaming by continuously modifying this engine. I luckily didn't encounter many bugs in my two hours of play, but a lot of people are noting bugs and crashes (a lot of standard engine bugs). Also, game speed is tied to client FPS, so the higher your FPS... the faster you run, walk, crawl, jump, attack etc.. Once you get above 120 FPS, the speed up starts. I imagine they'll lock FPS to 90 or 120 or perhaps 60.

Perhaps multiplayer integration is the cause for a lot of the mechanical/performance issues, since the engine was not built with multiplayer in mind. Either way, this does worry me a bit for Starfield. 

Also, I'm also not the biggest Fallout fan to begin with - much prefer the high fantasy setting of ES. So don't be dissuaded from trying the game if you think you'll like it.

1 hour ago, AtariLegend said:

If you're reliant on PC, have you never played Personsa 5 btw? One of the best RPGs I've ever played, that I can't critize till the end. Better than any Final Fantasy ect game in years.

Not a big JRPG fan on modern PC/console. Handheld/Gameboy, different story, huge JRPG fan there. But for PC, the western RPGs usually have more of what I'm looking for.

I wanted to get it on release. Then I heard my processor wouldn't be able to play it due to the game requiring some newer protocol from Intel. Then I heard people say they've played on i7 3820s without issue. But Assassin's Creed Odyssey was coming out two days later, so I just waited for that.

I'll probably go through Monster Hunter at some point. But the vibe I get from gameplay videos is what you're saying: game looks good and fun, but feels over-hyped for what it is.

13 hours ago, DeadSlash said:

1. I was really let down by Destiny.  There was sooooo much hype for that game, and it had pretty nice graphics, but it lacks a soul, or something.  It was just a big pointless grind.  Run here, shoot that for a better weapon, then run there and shoot that for a new helmet, then run there and ...

2. If you think unfinished games are a problem on the Xbox, I'm sure you would really love all of this "early access" bullshit on Steam.  It's literally unfinished games that openly admit they are unfinished, but will allow you to spend money to play the incomplete game as they develop it.  This has become a "legit" way to make money off of a tech demo and leave town with the cash.

3. The closest I ever came to liking Halo was this:

 

My experience with early access has been mostly positive. I followed Divinity OS2's early access (though I didn't play it) and it was very well received, and the game got rave reviews. I bought early access for World War 3, and despite an awful first two days of launch with overloaded servers, I've had no issues since yesterday afternoon - and the game is pretty fun. I was actually surprised by how fleshed out it was for early access. And they charged $28, but when the full game is released it will cost more and early access participants won't have to pay further. Early access and Kickstarter have become pretty widespread within independent game development. There are some cases of mismanaged money and/or inability to deliver products, but I don't see that being a norm. Anything that allows indie devs to more easily develop/deliver products is overall good for gaming IMO.

I will not pre-order an EA or Ubisoft game (generally), but I have no problem giving an indie studio a small bit of cash to help them along the process. Kingdom Come turned out to be amazing (never had early access, just Kickstarter) and I'm enjoying WW3 quite a bit. This is the Battlefield we all wanted BFV to be.

I believe Age of Conan was (is?) early access and a lot of people play that. I'm sure there are other examples.

Agreed re: Halo. Love that track. I played through Halo 2 and thought it was fine. I downloaded a Halo 1 trial on PC around when it came out, I was pretty young and don't remember why I didn't just buy it, but I do recall the even though the trial only let you play through 1 single player mission, it allowed unlimited multiplayer play. Really cool, but of course that sort of trial set up wouldn't happen today.

On 10/21/2018 at 3:34 PM, Iron MikeyJ said:

Ok, so a lot to unpack in this post, lol. Let me just start by saying, are my thoughts offensive to you? You seem to be a little hostile over this issue. Which if that's the case, it's just games man. Perhaps I'm reading more into this, which I hope is the case. 😃

Anyways, as for this first part, there are a couple of MAJOR differences between gaming and music or movies. For one, when you buy a game, it becomes YOUR property, just like a movie does. Are there some limitations, yes. But having said that, a movie will ALWAYS work the same on day 1 as it does 20 years later (as long as it is taken care of). You can't say the same for these newer games. They keep patching and modifying the games until they are "perfect". Which is fine, but shouldn't these issues have already been addressed? Game companies are PURPOSLY releasing unfinished games in order to reach deadlines, because they know they can just patch them later. This is just a fact man, it can't really be argued. That doesn't mean games NEVER get pushed back from release dates, but even when they do, they still are not quite finished. Which when you compare that to games of old (heck even 10 years ago), it becomes quite shocking. Sure you can say "why does it matter, they fix the issues." Which you are entitled to that opinion, but I'm also entitled to say "I wish games DIDNT need patches, instead came perfect from the get go." Which when you compare this process to that of music or movies, I'm sure you can see the glaring difference.

Another point I can make in regards to games vs movies or music is that movies and music are actually FURTHER a head as far as rights issues than games are. Think about it like this, when you buy a physical copy of a movie, they often come with a digital download. So NOT ONLY can you watch the movie on your player, but you can watch the digital copy on multiple platforms. But you can also LEGALLY make a copy of that original if you so choose (not sure why you would with a film, but it's quite common with music). You just can't sell, redistribute, or put on a site like YouTube without permission. 

Now compare that with games. You can ONLY play a Playstation 4 game on a playstation 4. By comparison that would be like CDs or DVDs made by Sony would ONLY work on Sony players. So you would have to buy a Sony player in order to play a Sony movie, etc. Yes Xbox IS starting to become cross play friendly (letting you have a xbox version and PC version of the games you buy), but why? Because Microsoft ALSO owns the PC industry, so technically speaking they are both their devices. 

Obviously, giving gaming's history, its ALWAYS been like this, so expecting a change now isn't really realistic. So I'm ok with companies doing this with their CURRENT generation, it's the older stuff I disagree with. For example, I disagree with what Nintendo is doing with their back catalogue. They dont want you playing Mario 3 (for example) on ANYTHING other than official Nintendo hardware. I have BOUGHT that game 3 times now (original NES, Super Mario Allstars on SNES, and again on the Nintendo Switch online service). So I have supported Nintendos right to have that game. Yet they are shutting down emulation sites because they want people to buy the Nintendo Classic, not play it on your PC. That makes me feel like the LAW is wrong and needs to be changed. I own Purple Rain on Vinyl, I have actually NEVER owned it on any other platform. I downloaded the MP3's for it, but didnt pay for them. Why? Because I ALREADY own that album. Legally speaking I didnt do anything wrong, I already paid for that album once. Why is it ok for music/movies, but wrong for games. That doesn't make sense to me.

Ok, here is the deal... It's all about MONEY. The deal Nintendo had to use Mike Tysons likeness expired back in like 1990 or something. But the game Punch Out was STILL extremely popular. So instead of paying Tyson to make NEW copies of that game, they instead made a "new" Punchout. The "new" Punchout is EXACTLY like the original, just minus Mike Tyson. Which in Tysons place they did a Sprite swap, and created a new final boss called Mr. DREAM. He plays EXACTLY like Tyson, same moves, etc. Everytime Nintendo rereleases that game, its ALWAYS the version without Tyson, because they dont want to pay to use his likeness... Still. Honestly the original Mike Tysons Punchout will ONLY ever be available on the NES or through emulation. So this game is an example of a game that can (and will) get lost to time. Except by those with the original game or those that have emulated versions. 

007 Golden Eye is another game that WILL get lost to time, but this one might have a bigger effects felt. In order for Nintendo to rerelease that game, they would have to pay the film company and actor likenesses for reusing them (similar to the issues with Punchout). So IF or when Ninendo does a N64 classic, this game WILL NOT be on it. Which is a real shame considering it's the father of multiplayer first person shooters. Instead Nintendo will release the game Perfect Dark (its similar to golden eye, but Nintendo owns the rights to it, so it's a "cheaper" release). 

My point in all of this, is these are examples of games that are CLASSICS that WILL get lost to time, all because Nintendo doesn't want to give the fans EXACTLY what they want (because it costs them extra money). So when we look back at Playstation (1, 2, 3, 4) or Xbox days, we will see similar issues, plus MORE with games that require online services in order to play. I've already heard that the Playstaion classic that's coming is having problems getting games that the fans want (again they dont want to pay for them), although I can't remember the games off hand. I already have problems with the Xbox 1 backwards compatibility to the OG Xbox. Yes they give you Halo, but where is Gauntlet Legends? Where is Godzilla Destroy all monsters? If they can do Halo, they can do these other games. It's a matter of desire or lack there of. 

 

I could respond to more of your post, but I've already written a WALL, lol. As I said earlier, these are just games. We might have some differences of opinions, and that's ok. I'm not trying to sway your opinion, just trying to explain my take on this issue (as well as I can without writing a book). At the end of the day though, it's all good man 👍 game on.

I just did some Googling and it seems there are a slight mix of viewpoints on the "do you own a game?" question, but what I'm seeing is mostly saying varying degrees of "no."

Quote

Typically, and I can't stress that word enough, what you get in layman's terms is a license to use the software on the disc for personal use in the privacy of your own home and a guarantee that the hardware disc is free from defects in workmanship.

Quote

 

What do you own? Looking through my possessions, I feel fairly comfortable that the food in my fridge belongs to me. And I have an odd confidence that the hardware in my PC is mine. But the books on my shelves? I seem to have very little rights over them. The CDs stacked up in a cupboard (remember CDs?) certainly aren't my property. And the software on my computer may as well be tied to a long piece of elastic, just waiting for the publishers to give it a tug. You own a license.

 

I'm not a lawyer and I couldn't easily find 100% reputable sources for this, but I'm pretty sure you don't own games. If you buy a physical copy, you own a disc and some packaging, but not the software on said disc.

I don't agree that developers/publishers malevolently release broken products with the intention of fixing them post-release. Until you provide reputable sources that say otherwise, I absolutely will argue this point. Admittedly, I can think of two cases recently where this sort of happened. No Man's Sky and Kingdom Come. With the former, apparently the developers either lied or over-hyped the state of the game on release - this resulted in monumental backlash and lots of refunds. The latter was released in what was basically a beta state because the developer ran out of cash. Both developers patched their games significantly after release, and both are still working on further content/patching. But most importantly, both developers were small independent studios. This is not excusing the behavior (although Kingdom Come's developers were in a tight spot, hard to criticize them too much), but it is to highlight this phenomenon is rare in the industry, and when it does happen it's rarely a AAA studio.

Yes and no, in regards to will a movie work 20 years later. If you bought a VHS tape 20 years ago, you're going to need a VHS player to watch it. If you bought Goldeneye on N64, your Wii won't play it. If you downloaded a movie on iTunes, I don't know that it's a guarantee you'll be able to watch it in 20 years. Currently, most major video players can play older file types, but will it be that way 20 years from now? Maybe, I'm not familiar enough with the gritty details of the tech to present an opinion either way. But I will anyway, and say yes you probably can. Because it's seemingly fairly reasonable and doable to make new digital players play old formats. The same cannot be said for gaming consoles. It is not easy to get Halo 1 to run on an XBONE because of how these systems are built. Here is why:

Quote

 

Because backwards compatibility requires the actual hardware of the previous console to be present in the console. It makes it much more expensive to include an Xbox 360 inside the Xbox One, so it's wiser to leave it out. Console innards are vastly different than getting a new video card. This is one reason why people called the Wii "two GameCubes taped together." Its innards are pretty much a souped up GameCube, so hardware emulation was easily feasible. 
Software emulation is another option for backwards compatibility, but emulating the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 is literally impossible with current hardware. Not even the highest-end consumer PC has the capability to emulate them at this point. I think the general rule is that 10 times the amount of processing power is required to emulate the device, and then that doesn't even account for having to actually get it working in the first place. The Xbox 360 tried to do software emulation with the original Xbox, and we all know how that went.

So it's both a technical and an economic limitation.

 

 

 

Quote

 

Its because consoles are not like the PC. Consoles are specialized hardware and a game tries to use every inch of the system in order to get a good looking result. So they try to push every special feature and component (cpu, gpu, bus speed memory speed and size) to their maximal limit. The result is that your highly optimized game is very dependent on the components in your system.

When you want to be backward compatible you can either include all those components (thus include a seperate onboard 360 in your new xone) or you try to emulate the exact behavior of these components with software. The problem with option 1 is that it adds to your system cost, bulk and increases power consumption. On the other hand software emulation of hardware is in general very slow. The more the systems differ the harder its gets to emulate one with the other. So when your old system has a different cpu architecture for example (360 has powerpc and xone has x86) it results in a heavy slowdown. Its essentially like they talk two different languages that you would need to translate on the fly. The new xbox would probably have to be 100-1000 times as fast as the old system, which it isn't.

When you upgrade your pc you basically buy faster components with the same architecture so you don't have to emulate anything. Also PC games are not as highly optimized for a specific configuration, because the PC operating system does not allow a similar lowlevel access as in the console world and more importantly every PC is a little different from the other. You dont have a fixed platform.

 

It's not a matter of taking the game's code and changing variables from "PS4" to "PS1." You make it sound like it's simple and the companies aren't doing it just to be mean to you. As you can see, it's a technically intensive task that is not really worth it on the macro level from both an economic and consumer standpoint. 

Okay, I just did some quick research on Punchout. It was not because Nintendo didn't want to pay to use his likeness. It was because he lost the title.

Quote

Since he had lost the title to James "Buster" Douglas by that point, Nintendo made no attempt to negotiate a new contract with him. Tyson was however, slated to appear in a sequel of his own (Power Punch II) where he would be the protagonist, but as a result of his imprisonment, Nintendo lost interest and instead used a generic boxer named Mark Tyler.

And lots of games get lost by time. Many books, films, and albums get lost to time as well. Due to the architecture of gaming consoles though, it is likely games get lost to time at a much higher rate than other media.

As for GoldenEye: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoldenEye_007_(2010_video_game)

What's your issue? (I know that sounds rude, but I'm genuinely asking). They did an HD remake and many emulators play original Goldeneye and you can buy an original N64 - there are many options. But you're worried that they won't re-release the stock version of the N64 game for a console that doesn't exist? I'm not understanding the problem.

Gauntlet Legends? Godzilla Destroy All Monsters? I've never heard of these games. You should not expect every single game ever created to be re-released and maintained for all of eternity. Are those games "EXACTLY what fans want?" Maybe you want them, maybe even 20,000 other people who played them in the 90s want them, but do fans on a general level (the millions of people who play console games) want them? I doubt it. Like I said in both this and my previous post, if it were easy the console companies would do it. It is not easy and it doesn't make fiscal or artistic sense to appease you.

As far as PS Classic and issues you've heard of, you can provide me links to sources on what's going on if you'd like. I've spent enough time Googling factual evidence for this post. 

On 10/21/2018 at 5:02 PM, ZoSoRose said:

You can play all the Halo games still with Master Chief Collection. I was just playing Halo 2 and 4

Also I think games as a whole are lame currently (except Witcher 3). Way too much focus on bullshit and multiplayer aspects (Fuck Destiny) and games dont even get finished when released. Then again, I'm speaking as an XBox owner. Xbox has nothing but Halo, it seems like PS4 has a ton of awesome stuff so maybe I just have the wrong system

I think about the while nostalgia thing sometimes. For example, Planetside 2 is my favorite multiplayer game ever, but it'll be gone one day. Then again, I'll have put many hours into it to reminisce on and there will surely be something else out.

3 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

Isn't it the simple principle of being able to own what you buy? You should be less complacent and more upset. 

I believe when you purchase a game (online or not), you are actually buying the right to play the game, like a license. I believe movies and music work the same way. I'm sure these corporations have had their lawyers consider every possible case and have crafted meticulous legal documentation (Terms of Service, etc.) that allow them to be flexible in how they handle the future and duration of a game/live service. 

3 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Clearly backwards compatibility is a possibility, and it seems that most manufactures are starting to understand the desire for this many gamers have. Having said that, can you play Halo 1, 2, or 3 online these days on xbox 1? I honestly dont know the answer to this question. I want to say I did hear somewhere that halo 1 and 2 (because they were OG Xbox games) are only playable offline. But again, I'm not betting the farm on that, it's just something I heard. 

Obviously as years pass, games fall out of favor and hence lose their following. So ya 5-6 years from now, I'm sure games like Fortnite will no longer have the following they currently have. So if they no longer have the fan base, it would make sense (financially) to pull the plug on them. But eventually nostalgia sets in, the current trend towards backwards compatibility and "mini" systems is proof. Will games like Fortnite still have servers 20 years from now, that's the question. Maybe they will, nobody knows for sure. But then again, I honestly wouldn't bet on it. Why? The big 3 companies (Microsoft, Sony, and nintendo) want you to buy the CURRENT system and current games. Sure they might throw you a few bones (the OG xbox backwards compatibility is lacking, as is the the games Nintendo is releasing on their classic systems and Nintendo online). Yes it's better than nothing. But if they dont always provide players with the games they want, instead the games that are most convenient for them. 

Which that's what leads me to my worry (as well as others within the gaming community that know a lot more than I do). Nintendo will give its fans Mario 3 (it's easy for them at this point). They will also give us Punchout, but NOT Mike Tysons Punchout (which is the one everyone really wants), they also wont give fans Golden Eye for N64 (if the rumored N64 classic is true). They will instead give fans Perfect Dark, because again its easier. So if they are unwilling to jump through hoops for games like Mike Tysons Punchout or Golden Eye (that are super easy to emulate), can we REALLY count on them for games that are online only that require dedicated servers to be active or rebooted 20/30 years from now? 

Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I'm not counting on it.

Just dont get me wrong here folks, I'm NOT against online play in any way shape or form. I'm just saying this trend that is developing, could have a real negative effect on the future viability of many of these games, and a whole generation of gamers could have their favorite games from their youth lost to time. That's why we should hold our system and game developers to higher standards. NO GAME should be online only. Plus EVERY game should also come with physical media (within reason of course, major releases). 

I don't think Halo 1 or 2 have official servers up. From a quick Google search, it looks like you can do workarounds to play unofficial servers, but the population is very small. And it wouldn't be possible on XB1; original or 360 would be my guess. But this is not really my area so if you're genuinely interested, you may want to look into it.

It's not just the companies that want you buying the new stuff, it's the consumer wanting to buy it too. For every 1 person wanting to play Halo 1 online on their original Xbox, there are 10 people wanting a new Halo game on the next Xbox generation (made up statistics, but you get my point). It's no surprise the smaller population who want to play 15-20 year old games get less attention from the gaming companies. Just from a business standpoint, it costs them a lot money/resources to keep those games alive and they get pretty much nothing in return for it. In order to innovate and push gaming further, they need revenue coming in. And new games/systems bring that, 20 year old games don't. It's not really a matter of "convenience," but what makes the most sense from a business/technology standpoint. Old tech becomes costly to keep alive over time, like old code becomes difficult to manage (this is part of why 20 year old games don't easily work on newer hardware, the protocols of the systems/hardware change over time). I see what you mean by convenience, but I feel that word is really misplaced for what we're talking about. It's about what makes sense vs. what doesn't make sense from both a business and artistic/development standpoint.

I'm not too familiar with issues surrounding Punchout or Perfect Dark or a rumored N64 console. If you want to elaborate, I'd be interested to know. What makes Perfect Dark easier than Goldeneye? What hoops are you referring to? 

You're equating whether or not Nintendo will re-release 20 year old games with whether or not gaming companies in general will manage servers for 20 years after a game's release? I don't think those issues are symmetrical enough to justify comparison. They're different issues, to me at least.  

3 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I watch a lot of videos from guys that know a lot more about gaming industry than I do. What many of them have stated is that in "older days" game developers would set a release date and try to reach it. But if the game wasnt done, they would just push back the date, because the game NEEDED to be done, that was the most important thing. 

Well now, meeting those dead lines is the most important thing, even if the game isn't done or has serious issues. They know they can just patch the game later on and fix those issues. The problem with that logic is, once the game (or system its on) goes off line, then the patch becomes lost to time. So all of these games that require these patches, will be returned to their "unfinished" state if you dont have that patch on your system. 

So if you buy a used xbox 360 20 years from now, and reset it to factory settings, you will be stuck with a TON of unfinished games. That's another reason we should hold these companies to higher standards.

While it's fun to reminisce about the old days, I disagree with their assessment. Pushing games back vs. releasing them for business reasons has always been a dichotomy within industry. As noted in the article I linked in my first post, SWG was released well before it was ready - it was plagued by bugs, Jedi wasn't in the game at all, and a litany of features had to be cut to meet Sony's deadlines - and the devs knew they were releasing a product that wasn't really ready, but they had to do it. This was 2003. 

The Witcher 3 (2015) was pushed back, Mass Effect Andromeda (2017) was pushed back, Battlefield V (2018) was pushed back. For Honor (2017), should have been pushed back. AC: Unity (2014), should have been pushed back. Kingdom Come (2018), should have been pushed back.

There are a myriad of examples on both sides of the spectrum for any time in gaming. Nostalgia for the old days is just that, nostalgia.

Returned to unfinished/unpatched states? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but when you are buying/downloading a game, every official patch/hotfix up until that moment is included with the product, unless you're buying a physical copy that's months/years old. If the year is 2020 and you are buying a physical copy of a game released in 2001, yeah you might out of luck, but that shouldn't surprise you. And while I respect your desire to keep playing these games, the audience/market is just not there to make keeping them alive worth it (in an official manner at least, but as you noted there are plenty of emulators for these older games).

The ease of patching in modern gaming does make it easier to fix things post-release, but I'd be careful in asserting that it means developers purposely ship broken or buggy titles because they don't feel responsible to finish the game pre-shipment. It's rarely (if ever) that simple.

14 hours ago, -W.A.R- said:

Its easy for them to say that using mommy and daddies debit card

Never put a dime toward a microtransaction and never will. Just wish more took this stance.

That's the great thing about where the industry is heading (cosmetic/non-gameplay related items only) - you and I don't have to spend a dime on these things, but we'll still benefit from the fact that the companies receive the revenue.

32 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

If/when Microsoft comes out with a new Xbox or If/when Playstation 5 comes out, I can guarantee you support for 360 and PS3 will be GONE. Add 20 more years to that, and current gen online only games will also have NO SUPPORT. They might be doing a decent job with it for now, but it'll only last so long. So my original point stands.

So, there's two things you're saying here. Online only games will have no support after some time, and backwards compatibility will be gone with the next generation of systems. I mostly disagree with those statements (and I very much disagree with you stating them as fact without providing supporting argumentation).

The reason these games go offline is not because of hardware's inability to play them (though, backwards compatibility is not as simple as people think), it's because the player base dwindles as time moves on. People buy new games/new systems and gravitate toward the newest technology. That's just the way it works. That being said, some of these developers keep the servers up if the game's population still thrives: again, see Jedi Academy and Battlefield.

But should one expect to be able to play an online only game 20 years from now? It's a good question. 20 years is a long time for a game's life. Other than those who are nostalgic about the game, I have a hard time believing there are masses of people who'd prefer to play decades-old games vs. something from the last 3-5 years. That being said, it's very possible severs will be kept up anyway. It really depends on the success of the game.

I'm not too familiar with the games you mentioned, but if you're looking for a horror experience that is single player only, check out the Metro series. 

13 hours ago, DeadSlash said:

It's funny because Me and my friend has a similar conversation in the height of our Asheron's Call days.  When it's gone, it's gone.  There is no offline.  I actually remember some of the very early MP only games.  There was one that (I really wish I could remember the name) was touted as having the best graphics on the market, and being well balanced etc. and it fell flat on it's ass on release.  This is probably 2000ish.  Most reviews chalked the failure up to having no SP.  Today, that's not an issue for games.  Hell, I remember when Quake 3 launched, people thought it was risky that the SP was really simulated MP.  Those days are dead and gone.   

 

Talk of SP games pretty much going away is starting to gain some traction.  Like you, I don't mind MP games, and I would say I probably game MP about 50% of the time, but I miss those days of epic multiplayer games, and (old person alert) Playing Madden with 3 other friends on the Genesis, or Golden Eye with 3 friends.  Sad face

A lot of developers/publishers are keeping servers up. Jedi Academy servers are still up, you can play pretty much any Battlefield game too. I agree that co-op has largely been dropped in favor of larger MP modes, but personally, I prefer that. My friends don't play video games, so I don't have a crew to do co-op with. I did play a Ghost Recon Wildlands trial that had a co-op mode, and admittedly it was fun, but I haven't lost sleep over not being able to play it anymore (trial ran out).

I don't think SP games are going anywhere. Multiplayer has seen definitely a surge in the last ~10-12 years. But there are still plenty of great singleplayer games being made - I haven't had trouble finding good SP games to play. Co-op, yeah that's a different story.

13 hours ago, DeadSlash said:

Do you know what is AMAZING to me, and really, REALLY scary?  How a lot of younger games will defend the fuck out of microtransactions.  When you discuss microtransactions in a negative tone on Steam forums, there will be about 30% - 50% of the replies jumping down your throat for "being poor."

I think there is a way to do micro-transactions correctly. And it seems the industry is moving that way: cosmetics only. BFV and FO76 will both operate this way. For Honor is pretty close to being cosmetic-only. And the developers are promising that due to this micro-transaction revenue, all DLC for these games will be free. That's a fair trade IMO. I'll let whoever wants to drop $100 on a rainbow outfit if it means I get DLC for free.

Yeah, it was an unfortunate surprise. Young guy and an excellent guitarist. I'm not too familiar with All That Remains, but I friended Oli on Facebook years ago when I was just friending guitarists, and he was one of the few who accepted. Think he liked having a guitar following on FB, as he would often post theory lessons/challenges. The dude knew his stuff. Cool thing to do too.