xWoW_Rougex's forum posts

#1 Posted by xWoW_Rougex (2747 posts) -

This ain't got nothing on Eve. nothx

#2 Edited by xWoW_Rougex (2747 posts) -

I approve of these FF towns. Theyr'e great. However, because you didn't include any wrpgs, you forgot the best of the best.

Athkatla, the capital of Amn, from Baldur's Gate 2.

Absolutely beautiful. Great music. The background noise like the merchants in trade district, the birds, the dogs barking, the screams during nighttime over at the docks is the best in any game ever. Many games lack this these days, it's a shame because it made the city feel much more alive.

It was also huge (biggest city in a rpg perhaps?), full of mysteries and probably had like what, at least 60 hours of content in it?


#3 Edited by xWoW_Rougex (2747 posts) -

After 3 years of school that focused on technology and 3 years of university studies of computer science I can confirm this is how the majority of the typical gaming girl (except they tend to be more red haired) look. Hot, bit petite, often red haired, Other traits include being quirky and contrary to what might be popular belief, extremely outgoing and social.

Actually now that I think about it, that describes a lot of girls hah but the point is, I googled her and I could just instantly go "yeah that's a typical gamer girl". There's something about gamer girls that makes you instantly recognize them. Like they radiate some kind of Gamer Girl aura...

#4 Posted by xWoW_Rougex (2747 posts) -

I vote for Minsc (and Boo!).

#5 Posted by xWoW_Rougex (2747 posts) -

Mirror's Edge. In a way it does count; the game is all about parkour.

#6 Posted by xWoW_Rougex (2747 posts) -

Why I thought Xenoblade was good but not epic:

It had a big open world and the quest felt very mmorpg-ish. Kill X and Y, pick up blue orbs to gain ingredients.

It felt like playing a single player MMORPG. The world felt stale, lifeless...

Given that I'm the only that felt like that, I'm guessing Xenoblade 2 will keep this kind of world.


#7 Edited by xWoW_Rougex (2747 posts) -

I've said it another thread but it feels a bit weak on content so far? Are there gonna be other weapons? Customizations? Leveling up? Many maps? Maybe other goals? More teams?

So far it appears to be quite simple? 4 vs 4, few maps, all with the same weapons. It could get boring real quick.

Edit: Didn't watch video, 33 minutes of gameplay? no thx

#8 Edited by xWoW_Rougex (2747 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

@xWoW_Rougex said:

@foxhound_fox said:

Red shift.

Right.

Well it's time to clear some things out:

1) I'm not even sure how we got into this, I've never claimed that Big Bang didn't happen but rather that Big Bang does not prove that there is no higher entity or similar.

2) About my second post...Clearly I am not qualified to disprove the theory but my point was that it's a theory. We're stuck on a planet, observing traces, coming up with laws and calculations, there are lots of "based on this and that" and hypothesises. In my last post about the programming thingy, the point was that I still believe that we can't say for 100% sure how it all exactly happened. We have theories that say "this _should_ happen". We have a theory based on knowledge known to humans, do we humans know exactly everything about the universe? Nope. I can't name specific examples but I feel pretty certain there are have been situations in the past where theories and laws that have been accepted as the truth that later have been disproved. We're a tiny planet and meddling with forces that are infinitely big and infinitely far away. How can we possibly claim to know the exact truth about universe?

1) Nobody here claimed as such. You seem to be setting up a strawman.

2) A "scientific theory" is not the same as a colloquial "theory". A scientific theory is a collaboration of many different people's work on a set of observable and/or demonstrable FACTS. It is the best available explanation for those FACTS that we currently have. If you have a better explanation for those FACTS that can be shown scientifically (i.e. reproduced by others in the lab or through the working of your theory) then go right ahead and present it.

There is no evidence to suggest a God exists. It's called "faith" for a reason. If you cannot accept that, then you really need to reevaluate why you believe in God in the first place.

1) As I said in my first/second post: That's a common argument in threads like these, not necessarily in this thread though.

2) I did say I can't prove anything which was never my intent either. You said yourself: the best _available_ explanation. Why are we even bloody researching the damn thing if we apparently already know the truth about everything, if the puzzle is already solved? Why can't we reproduce Big Bang then already? Why did it even happen in the first place? How can we say we know for sure how it all happened exactly if we don't know all about it yet then? I am not trying to dismiss the proof we already got but rather saying that the proof we have so far is hardly enough for us to have covered the area to 100%. If we just pretend we're at around 30% then that means there is 70% of unknown possible groundbreaking discoveries that could possibly bust up theories or possibly enlighten us. Feels like we're far from the goal line but we're already celebrating?

3) I've never stated I believe in God. I said I don't like that the idea of an infinitely large explosion that came from absolutely nothing and created everything is considered an absolute fact when we don't even have it all figured out yet. I believe that it could very well be the case but it could also be something else. In other words, sounds just as weird to believe in an explosion that just "popped up" and created everything as believing the universe just popped up from God's imagination.

Edit: To end this; let's just agree to disagree and accept my crazy belief of not considering something that is far from set in stone as the absolute unquestionable truth.

#9 Edited by xWoW_Rougex (2747 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

@xWoW_Rougex said:

@toast_burner said:

@xWoW_Rougex said:

@toast_burner said:

you look at the evidence it is clearly true.

What man made laws? I have no idea what you're talking about and I have a feeling you don't either.

Give me the Big Bang for Dummies; what evidence is there of Big Bang then?

Red shift.

Right.

Well it's time to clear some things out:

1) I'm not even sure how we got into this, I've never claimed that Big Bang didn't happen but rather that Big Bang does not prove that there is no higher entity or similar.

2) About my second post...Clearly I am not qualified to disprove the theory but my point was that it's a theory. We're stuck on a planet, observing traces, coming up with laws and calculations, there are lots of "based on this and that" and hypothesises. In my last post about the programming thingy, the point was that I still believe that we can't say for 100% sure how it all exactly happened. We have theories that say "this _should_ happen". We have a theory based on knowledge known to humans, do we humans know exactly everything about the universe? Nope. I can't name specific examples but I feel pretty certain there are have been situations in the past where theories and laws that have been accepted as the truth that later have been disproved. We're a tiny planet and meddling with forces that are infinitely big and infinitely far away. How can we possibly claim to know the exact truth about universe?

#10 Posted by xWoW_Rougex (2747 posts) -

@xWoW_Rougex said:

@toast_burner said:

you look at the evidence it is clearly true.

What man made laws? I have no idea what you're talking about and I have a feeling you don't either.

Give me the Big Bang for Dummies; what evidence is there of Big Bang then?