Murdoc
-
Posts
1795 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Murdoc
-
-
@.:Ev1ltyphoon:.:
> @Cheshire:
>
> > Yea, maybe people who hallucinate are seeing reality, and were the ones who need drugs! lol!! ;D
>
> That could be correct if everyone who was hallucinating saw the same things. Unfortunatly, they do not.
Maybe thats cuz you can only see one other dimension at a time. lol . Im just kidding of course :p But, its still a minute possibility seeing as we dont know for sure now do we? -
Yea, maybe people who hallucinate are seeing reality, and were the ones who need drugs! lol!! ;D
-
theres evidence for evolution, and even human evolution. recent archaelogical discoveries (according to a documentary i watched on discovery channel) unearthed a form of man that is ancient (something like 10,000 BC?), and almost ape like (hairy, similiar features),however they walked upright like present day humans, were good huntersl, and had the knowledge of tools (hunting tools etc). we did NOT evolve from monkeys, but we certainly evolved from a species of "human" if you wanna call it, that was less attractive than we are now lol. i hate to bring in the theological debate into the picture, but if you ask me both creationism and evolutionism CAN co-exist. In my mind they do completely. So before aanyone gets religious and says im wrong "cuz God made mankind", dont. evolution is a proven science (latin for truth/knowledge), and should not be disputed as evil since its truth). now i suppose its possible that these ancient humans were just another species, and not what is now present day humans, but since they were intelligent hunters, and gatherers who used tools then if they WERE some kind of monkey, then they were DAMN smart monkeys. kinda like were damn smart monkeys? its not hard to see where im goin with that one. ie. "if monkeys were so smart, why arent they now? but humans are more intelligent than ever?….." it would appear that not ONLY did we evolve from a creature similiar to monkeys in appearance, but we evolved at a more rapid pace than any other life species including, but not limited to our monkey friends. so i guess my answer to this question is that not only have we evolvedddd, but were doin better than any species out there!! basically we pwn in the evolving department. :P
-
I know an allopathic doctor from Bangkok, who treated one lady who was seeing ghosts/spirits. He discovered that she had hepatitis b enter her brain which caused her to see ghosts and evil spirits. She also hallucinated that she wasnt who she thoght she was. Some psychedlic drugs supposedly open your eyes to see this spirit world too. It is all illusion or reality? I guess the same could be said about what we consider "real" now. I think they exist, although I've never witnessed a haunting. Schizophrenia is a similiar phenomena, where people see things that are APPARENTLY not there. But what if they really are, and this is some kind of gift? One tribe I heard of made people who hallucinated naturally like this leaders in their tribe. So, you can see how differently we view the spirit world as opposed to some other cultures. In Bangkok, like I mentioned they almost accept it as fact, partly because in places that are haunted people will always die at a certain time in the night (between 12-3am) , which is the same time poltergeist activity often becomes more intense. In the western world we have sort of a christian/pagan view of ghosts and spirits. On one hand christians believe in a holy spirit and evil spirits, non-christians SOMETIMES believe in ghosts, and others worship them. It's a diverse blend of beliefs, and a lot of "civilized" society are cynical and will believe in magic before they believe in things they cant explain. I think its very possible that ghosts and spirits live and act within some 4th dimension, or possibly multiple dimensions. But its hard to provide proof for any such phenomena, since ghosts like to stay invisible apparently. lol
-
@Anna:
> "U.F.O." is just a label. "Fiery Chariot" is just a label. :icon_nif:
A u.f.o (unidentified flying object) IS definately just a label for someting that cant be identified. A fiery chariot however sounds more like a metaphor to me. Like if you saw some sort of moving craft that had bright lights on it back in 30 some A.D, you might think it looked like a fiery chariot. -
@Andersmith:
> lol, coca-cola is now the first drink to be sold on other planets.
lol, might as well be, dont they own the government by now? lol -
theres some aliens sitting in a living room somewhere drinking coca-cola asking the same question.
-
Hi togekite! I love your music man. I'd like to make a request if I could:
Game Name- Olympia Online
Setting Name- Underground Base
Story Genre- (Medieval Style)
Format- (MIDI)
Atmosphere- sneaky, planning, anticipation. (not sure how they'll blend lol)
Bonus - the area is an underground base for rebels that ally to war against an evil king.
Thanks! :) -
Well actually the bible says Jesus went UP in a "cloud" (probably an advanced spacecraft). Even if I didn't believe in a Creator id still say that aliens (lifeforms on other planets) exist because the universe is sooo BIG! And because its more interesting than believing that all the planets out there are just rocks with no purpose. But, on a side note, I believe that advanced spacecraft and aliens are probably part of the future of the human race, and it would be a good thing when you consider that humans could someday become extinct. Maybe the "aliens" will save us from total extinction and bring us to a better habitation. ;D Maybe not. It's not like theres any scientific data to prove or disprove it. But I believe it.
-
Very nice npc animation. It looks very realistic in a 2d old style rpg sort of way. :cheesy:
-
you are gay
-
@[PIERATE:
> renzozuken2002 link=topic=59665.msg647114#msg647114 date=1276149993]
> Why make a good game if everyone is just going to pirate it anyways? ;D
>
> But seriously, every once in a while a good game does come through. Its not much different from when games were first being made, there were probably tons of terrible games from the old days, only reason we don't know about them is because they sucked. Whose going to remember a game nobody played?
>
> I personally don't think game quality has gone down, the quantity has severely gone up so it just looks like its gone down.
I like your point that theres always been sexy games.
Edit: lol, did i say sexy? i meant sucky. -
The idea of replicating snes style is great. 3 Thumbs up.
-
@chiccora:
> Started working on the Sacred City of Mezlo..its about 12 outdoor maps now (90x90) so it will be a big city; its going to take me some time especially since there will be tons of quests, shops, NPCs and extras. Then I am going to work on the castle; so this part will take awhile. However, I want this city to look awesome, so I am going to work on it very hard so I can present what I want Mezlo to look like visually well.
keep up the work, i look forward to beta. -
@silentdemonic:
> You took what I said out of the context I stated it within. If a game has a short shelf life it is due to it not being well received, you dont see great games landing in the bargain bin a week or so down the line. People buy Games to be Entertained just like people play sports for fun, unless it is your job to test games - nobody plays a game without drawing some form of entertainment from it and thus my above point is reflective of the question.
>
> There being more Games being made does not have the impact you would imagine upon games - if I asked you right now how many active games are on Eclipse you could go to the Active Games thread and go look. If the ideal game for you happened to be entry 11 and you only be bothered to search the first 10 you would miss out on an ideal game for you not because of the number of games as such, but because you didnt spend the time to search hard enough.
>
> I am well aware of Games that take patience, New Super Mario Bros was a game that I played for 2-3 months until fully completed. The design of completing a level which was part of a world which was part of the quest to collect all coins it was all linked and yet broken down.
>
> Oblivion is not a game of patience it is a Sea of Time draining Gameplay whereby should you spend a short burst of time you could very well exit halfway through a quest in a land related to a side quest and if you do not have the time that the game requires to come back a week later you would find yourself a little bewildered even WITH your quest log.
>
> Having Patience and Having ample Free time are two different topics.
>
> Im in my 20's and as soon as I grew out of my love for RPG's I moved on to Action Shooters such as Alpha Protocol currently which is engaging, unique gameplay and fun as heck and even with its twists and turns and dialog in which YOU control the outcome, they still managed to get it right and break it down into linked mission gameplay.
>
> There are many games in history that follow that game design and games that do not are the ones in my eyes that fail - because there is no excuse not to appreciate your player market.
>
> You said your self that this question is largely relative - therefore it is possible to draw the conclusion that the fault is not with the games but the gamer themselves.
>
> I wouldnt play games just for the hell of it "gosh darnit" my time is money and if Im not playing a game because I find it entertaining and a good way to unwind then I and anyone else with that line of thought should not be gaming.
> There is lots to find entertaining, sport, cooking, sex, rapping, heck the world is filled with entertainment and when you get bored of something you just switch. You shouldnt ever be in a state where you cease to find things entertaining it is too bold a statement and one that relies on having experienced everything.
I said we may not find them "as" entertaining than when were young. This happens with everything in life like you said. -
You don't know how much I love you right now Helladen…............
LOL ;D -
@silentdemonic:
> The question is why Games are not Entertaining, in other words are you noticing the Trend (which the OP must have noticed) that Games being released have shorter shelf lives and are just not making the impact that they used to back in the older days.
> Many points can be debated such as the trend of Game making engines or reinventing a tired feature (How many Games have released 'bullet time' and called it something else). These are factors that influence a game being entertaining or not.
> As for Oblivion I said the way it got you into the Story was fun but the actual gameplay was crappy to me - it was aimed at people with TOO much time on hands when a simple rethink could have still aimed at that market but also those with limited amount of time each day.
>
> So to me there is much to debate - but my viewpoint is that it is the Gamers knowledge at fault when they cease to be entertained.
Part of the reason games have a shorter shelf life (eventhough thats not the original question) , is simply that theres MORE games being made.
As far as games being made for people with "too much" time on their hands. Well, some games take patience, and cannot be beaten in one day. To me, some of the best games (not all), are those games in which the developers took a lot of time to make it. Those types of games also take a lot of time to play, and were meant to be that way for those of us who like substance.
But anyway, yea we can debate til the cows come home on what games are good or not in today's era. But questions like "why arent games entertaining anymore" are stupid, when clearly some of us find a large portion of games are still entertaining, and always have. And for those of us who have lived past our teen years, and still manage to enjoy video-gaming, its probably because we asked ourself at one point "why dont i find games AS entertaining as I used to?" and then realized it's probably because we dont find ANYTHING as entertaining anymore, but were still gonna play video games, gosh darnit!
 -
@silentdemonic:
> @Cheshire:
>
> > People who say games arent as good as they used to be will usually point out that graphics in games have become substantially better, but that gameplay is failing. I disagree completely. A good example is Oblivion which has rich gameplay and good graphics. The same type of games that were being made in classic eras, are STILL being made, just with better graphics. But as far as new styles, genres, or anything new in games, there probably wont be, since just bout every idea that can be done, HAS been done.
> >
> > If I think about how I used to wholeheartedly enjoy Mario Bros 1 for Nintendo (I beat it in a day)… and if I was to play it now how that I probably wouldn't enjoy it HALF as much... this leads me to believe I'm really just spoiled with all the games there has been since then. In the words of my mother, we're "a bunch of spoiled bratz". Am I right, or am I right?
>
> Oblivion even when it was released to me was not a Good game, sure it got high reviews but as a game I just didnt enjoy it. Sure the story and the way it got you inside the game world was fun but - it was TOO big of a game for most people who werent looking for something so dedicated. Oblivion was a game that appealed to hardcore gamers who had the time to play/appreciate it so for people like me the gameplay wasnt appealing and thus to me - bad design, it could have easily provided some form of progression in sequences but didnt.
>
> There are many games out there that are fresh and exciting to play and are trying new things but the problem is the dreadful game charts. Stores get games in and rank them in store based on what a small selection of people think the worst for this is GameSpot. This limits the games people are exposed to look how long awesome games like World of Goo where around yet only a little while back was it in stores and getting the appreciation it deserves.
>
> If Gamers didnt play it safe and took a gamble on other games they were not used to they would find a world of fun. I downloaded a game called Luxor, a puzzle game just for the sake of being random and its a game I truly love to wind down the end of the night with.
>
> "if I was to play it now how that I probably wouldn't enjoy it HALF as much"
> Take the risk and go play it, this is the voice of many other gamers too, well I doubt Ill like it Ill just grab something from the Top 10 charts.
I already know I don't enjoy games like I used to because I'm spoiled. That's my reality anyway. And you say you didn't care for Oblivion, eventhough it did have enriched gameplay. This is another reason why I earlier posted that the question for this thread is a fail, because its ALL RELATIVE. I may like a game, that you don't. Someone may like only classic games, except for a few new ones. Someone may like only new games and not classic ones. Some people like classic and newer games. I could go on…
Debating a relative viewpoint cannot be done. If I was to even try to prove one way or the other that games ARE or they ARE NOT entertaining anymore I'd end up only stupider and not smarter, since there's no absolute answer for either stance. -
@Martin:
> Why?
People who say games arent as good as they used to be will usually point out that graphics in games have become substantially better, but that gameplay is failing. I disagree completely. A good example is Oblivion which has rich gameplay and good graphics. The same type of games that were being made in classic eras, are STILL being made, just with better graphics. But as far as new styles, genres, or anything new in games, there probably wont be, since just bout every idea that can be done, HAS been done.
If I think about how I used to wholeheartedly enjoy Mario Bros 1 for Nintendo (I beat it in a day)… and if I was to play it now how that I probably wouldn't enjoy it HALF as much... this leads me to believe I'm really just spoiled with all the games there has been since then. In the words of my mother, we're "a bunch of spoiled bratz". Am I right, or am I right? -
@Martin:
> All this "games are not fun anymore" shit is funny. Games are fun, that's why people are buying it. When you actualy take a little bit of time to check it or think about it - those old "classics" cannot be even compared to present games. I hear people saying how awesome, sandbox and vast Daggerfall was… Daggerfall is pice of shit, I tried it recently and it's unpleyable. I hear how people diss Fallout 3 and say how awesome previous Fallouts were... but previous fallouts are pices of shit - I launched Fallout 2 recently and it was unpleyable... and I don't really want to imagine how the first one looked.
>
> As much as I loved to play CivilizationI when I was 6 years old - it's a pice of shit, as much as I loved Doom - I don't like it anymore. Saying that "oooh... I remember the days when games were fun..." is like to compare friggin PACMAN with Quake1 or Quake1 with MassEffect2\. Those oldies were awesome when they were the only thing you could play. Even KOTOR seems to archaic to me, I recently tried to launch it but gameplay wasn't what I remember and I couldn't play it for too long. How can you say that story was better in the 1990? TES before Morowind had shit story. Games were shit back then but people tend to remember only the pros, because a) they were young b) that was everything they could expect back then. Number of games that doesn't age is incredibly small.
>
> I dare you:
> Play TES Oblivion for a week and then launch Daggerfall or Arena and tell me that Oblivion sucks.
> Play Fallout 3 for a couple of days, then launch Fallout or Fallout 2 - and tell me that Fallout 3 suck ass compared to them.
That's kinda where I was getting at. Of course games are still fun to play, unless you're boring as hell. -
@silentdemonic:
> Well to extend the sex metaphor I do not think it has anything to do with new things being attempted, I believe it is those in long term relationships having too limited a knowledge base to even KNOW what is out there to attempt.
>
> I have been gaming across all genres since the 80s, completed my first game when I was 4- was Rocky ^_^. There has been entertaining games from all genres but the problem is most who complain only access the Top 10 on some Chart made by some guy being paid to place said products there.
>
> The reason I make this assumption is because I know all to well how many people will avoid a game based on negative reviews.
> Just recently a game called Alpha Protocol has been released by Sega, it has been panned by critics, developers of the game who left said it is bug ridden and yet I have not played such an amazing game this year it currently tops my others.
>
> Games like The Last Remnant, Deus Ex, FF Series, Alien Homid, Im not going to generate a list here, but my advice is - if you are not finding games entertaining you need to find a new genre or you need to stop reading the Top 10 charts to find games. You should do some cross internet research, check Forums and so on, even track Japanese releases that are bound for translations - those who seek are rewarded.
Basically what you're saying (to extend the sex metaphor, EVEN MORE!) is that we should be refering to the karma sutra (of games) instead of the "sex for dummies". Thats what I got out of it anyway. -
I didn't notice that it was bright, but my brightness is turned down way low to keep my eyes from hurting to begin with.
-
@Anna:
> It should, because even fictional places have to seem believable (believable is not the same as realistic).
>
> Look at Middle-Earth. Those maps make sense, mountains form obvious continental spines, rivers flow down in elevations, there are divides, passes, flats, and different types of topography with appropriate settlements. Or the Dungeons & Dragons maps. It's not that hard to do if you just bother to think about it. Just another thing people cut corners with for their games.
Ok show me the rule book on fantasy that says fictional places or things HAVE to be believable. A one-eyed, one-horned flyin purple people eater isnt very believable, but its fantasy/fiction. -
I think this thread is fucked up. It's a relative viewpoint. I happen to find lots of games entertaining now, depending on how long i play them for (til i get bored). Some I dont find so entertaining. To make a general statement like : why arent games entertaining anymore…. is like saying "why isnt sex good anymore?" to which Id reply "well who you havin it with? better find yourself a hottie fast!" Not to mention, f just smoke some grass all games are more fun since you'll feel more like a kid again. Anyway, I give this thread an.....
The Legend of Zelda: Until Nintendo Close Us Down! (Test Client Available!)
in Old Eclipse Projects (Inactive)
Posted