The Orange Box

[Delinquent]

arguing on the internet is like the special olympics... even if you win you're still retarded.




i take this to heart these days. most arguments are two strong minded individuals and are hard enough to convince (truly convince) the other's decisions in one (or many) sittings, never mind text on a webpage.

/.Delinquent

[Fenrir]

So I see a server with 31 players, is there a way to bypass the filter?

[Avvatar]

Wait joe, you honestly expect me to ponder and respond reasonably to "what you say doesn't matter because some other guy I know said..." Hell no, that's a laughable argument, and got the only response it deserved.

Yes, Fenrir. But it requires rewriting some server code to spoof the master server, and thus far only 3-pg.com knows how to do it.

[Lobsters]

arguing on the internet is like the special olympics... even if you win you're still retarded.

I've always hated that saying unless its used to describe really petty arguments like people arguing in an online game about who's better in skill.

I really dont see how having an argument on the internet is bad as long as its about something significant to the offline world and done fairly.

I've also had almost my entire belief system changed by discussions I've had over the internet that I dont think I would have had offline until I was maybe at a university.

It seems to be that there's a lot of advantages to having an arguement online rather than offline. It means that its harder for the person to have prejudice based on what you look like, your gender, your race, etc. Also writing is a lot more organized way of communicating complicated things I would say as it means the person arguing actually has time to think over what they want to say and what points they want to emphasize.

[joe]

avvatar just respond with clear rational arguments. if you want to point out why "what you say doesn't matter because some other guy I know said..." is a laughable argument that's fine, but just responding "LOL" doesn't convince anyone of anything, and the whole conversation goes to shit pretty fast.

[Sizzler]

Valve doesn't want people playing with unintended game mechanics. Friendly Fire, increasing server player cap, and even surf maps are all changes to the original game that Valve obviously doesn't want people to consider normal gameplay. The game was tested and designed over an FF off 16-24 player max player experience (and without surf maps) and they don't want people fucking with their game so early.

[Rioku]

I would like to add that anyone who BUYS games solely on reviews is a moron

Why? I bought Bioshock, Psychonoughts and Darwinia solely on reviews, and they turned out to be great games. Actually with Bioshock I thought the game was going to suck by the advertisement videos and other articles that I read. I am also a open hard core gamer, I will even play sports games ( have not in a while because there are none worth playing) if they get respectful reviews.

Wait joe, you honestly expect me to ponder and respond reasonably to "what you say doesn't matter because some other guy I know said..." Hell no, that's a laughable argument, and got the only response it deserved.

I am so confused about your train of thought here. I guess I was not clear enough in that if you do not like a game that is fine, your opinion is your opinion. But claiming that Valve is trying to throw crap games at you and rip you off is incorrect. It is incorrect because not just one critic but the average critic thinks the games are great.

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platfor ... eorangebox
I have never seen an score that is higher then a 96.

it seems to be that there's a lot of advantages to having an arguement online rather than offline. It means that its harder for the person to have prejudice based on what you look like, your gender, your race, etc. Also writing is a lot more organized way of communicating complicated things I would say as it means the person arguing actually has time to think over what they want to say and what points they want to emphasize.

I never thought about it that way, your view is a great way to think about it.

[Sizzler]

noone

fucking

cares

what metacritic says, and noone should base their own opinions based on them

[Hellboy]

You guys are fucking ridiculous.

[joe]

online reviews are for me not very reliable. every famous franchise gets a high score regardless of how good it is, and there seems to be widespread major score inflation. when most games get 85+ , then a high score is meaningless. you can't really expect them to objectively have a difference between a 90 and a 95, because they are scoring how good a video game is based on their own opinions. so when most of the scores are in the same 10-point range from 85 to 95, the whole thing is pointless.

[Avvatar]

Okay joe, posting 'LOL' doesn't advance the argument. But it still seems like the only sane response to "your opinion is invalid because it disagrees with so-and-so's"

[Sizzler]

Okay joe, posting 'LOL' doesn't advance the argument. But it still seems like the only sane response to "your opinion is invalid because it disagrees with so-and-so's"

Yeah, no

[Avvatar]

Your post does not advance the argument.

[Sizzler]

I never wanted to be part of this stupid argument

[Avvatar]

So's your face.