That vague definition, which for whatever reason your giving credit to Assassins Creed, would apply to most open world games. I will agree that climbing a tower to unlock sections of the map is clearly borrowed from Assassins Creed, but open world games seem to borrow the best from each other. After all, Assassins Creed's hunting mechanics seem heavily inspired by Red Dead Redemption, no? And the original Far Cry on PC was released several years prior to Assassins Creed.
Always happy to see a new IP succeed even though I don't think the game was anything to write home about. Hopefully, this will encourage companies to develop new IPs for the next generation of consoles rather than just develop sequels.
He is aware how bad the game plays at this point in time. Yet, he continues to talk about it in a deceitfully passionate way. Like it's great. Love Borderlands. But I just don't trust this guy on personal level after Duke Nukem Forever. He's clearly willing to hype up poor products and manipulate gamers to make money.
Very well aware 3D realms developed the project, but he still hyped up the project in the typical "Pitchford" way despite it clearly being a bad product. In my eyes, he was being deceitful and preying on gamers nostalgia in order to make a buck.
Forgiven, but this is just something we as scientist and me as someone new to practicing medicine get everyday. It's exhausting especially when I think most of us as scientist are at the very core trying to benefit society through various means. Constantly being scolded by the general public is unmotivating to say the least. I'm to leave and try to enjoy my Sunday off. Best of luck to you both.
I absolutely acknowledge we, as scientist, don't know a great deal of information, but as someone who has dedicated his life to science, I CAN NOT STAND this nonsense claim that "science can't prove anything", "MDs don't know what they're talking about", "Physicist are just making guesses which they can't prove." It completely belittles my lifes work and is frankly quite offensive.
The whole earth is flat was not a claim made by modern science. The ability for scientific theorist to propose theories and be proven wrong by their peers with objective evidence is strength not a fault. I think I'll do just fine reading those "books" full of all their "lies" and you can continue to believe in spirits and doubt everything you've ever been told. I think we both know which one of us comes out on top.
See this is where yet again you make ignorant claims. In medicine, we make claims based on large emprical studies and say, "This person has pancreatic cancer, the average life expectancy with a person in this health condition, with this stage of cancer, is "X" amount of years." That's an average. Certain people will be statistical outliers. That doesn't mean, we're wrong. Again, the answers aren't black and white and people outside of the scientific field can't seem to comprehend that.
There isn't an end of the universe it's constantly expanding. We could prove that back with the Hubble telescope. Psychology and things like the "id,ego, superego" are theories founded by Freud. It's possible for theories to be wrong but to use blanket terminology such as "science can't prove anything" is just ridiculous, not based on any truth, and pardon my French, bullshit. And spirit? That has nothing to do with any science at all. You clearly not in a field related to any science and are making unresponsible claims. Humility is a strength. Ignorance is a weakness.
jmace1's comments