Larian Studios Forums General Chat Chat (Anything) The Argumentative Git thread

Really? BTW Cleg must have been the most effective debater on a topic ever. Three sentences, and he won!

Luckilly for you, I had the perfect topic (I think...):

What is freedom? And is it desirable?

Übereil

PS Go nuts, guys DS

Freedom is a myth.

Barta

Desirable? Absolute freedom of the individual in a society => no, as this would lead into anarchy and a social Darwinism IMO.

Relative freedom => yes. But I'm unsure how to phrase its extension. Freedom of speech, thinking, actions IF not leading into harm for the other individual. Maybe I would call it a self-responsible freedom, a self-controlled one that does not force anything upon another person. Agreeing to disagree and then leave it at that would be nice and always keeping in mind not to harm the person thinking otherwise. Problem comes if there are interest conflicts, then a compromise must be thought of, therefore => relative freedom.
Kiya

What is the Buddha?

buddhism does have that all encompassing concept of freedom, which i find easier to understand; free of choice, free of desire, free of burden, free of life - nothing.

as how kiya showed it in her post, there are many levels & concepts of freedom. & having the topic that wide, this debate has become very convoluted & inconclusive right from the first shot made by barta.

cleg's answer formed in question (double jeopardy?) is a one word says it all & it looks like a winner.

is freedom at its most basic actually a sense to detect it? strip away a person's freedom of anything down to nothing (as how it was done by nazis in concentration camps in WW2) & u strip away his humanity. but if u leave his sense of freedom especially that of thought, he is still 'free' in a way.

freedom an ability to make choice? i think it is. again in the barest form of freedom, especially in oppression, one remains free to hold/live on or give up.

kiya, is relative freedom another word for controlled/regulated form of freedom? may not be extrisinct factor that does the controlling/regulating but it can also be intrisinct. just like some countries have their own versions of democracy? malaysia for instance practises some kind of controlled democracy. not to the sense that it's oppressive but then not totally liberal either.

I hope not, Janggut. A controlled/regulated freedom is controlled/regulated by others, so can turn into oppression in some cases (laws for instance). This is how I understand it. If I see freedom as a "globe" and the "globe" of the other touches mine, or worse, both clash into one another - a relative freedom needs to be agreed upon by both parties. It depends how freedom between both is determined and if a determination is even possible. I think, it has to do with the size of both egos as well. Freedom is a choice IMO and has a price at the same time => self-responsibility, self-control, self-questioning.

I liked Cleg's question as well. If I see Buddha as an invitation to liberate oneself from the ego, I think, one can gain a large freedom within oneself. But it this freedom or freeing oneself from ego, wishes and petty needs? Ok, I might gain freedom from my ego, but do I gain freedom from the society I live in? So, hm... maybe a total freedom within and a relative dealing with the outside? (getting a headache)

@Übereil => I really like your topic. Am thinking about it all the time <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

kiya, if we look at barta's statement 'freedom is a myth', then yes it's true that there is no freedom from the society which we live in. our bodies are restricted in a way to laws of nature & physics, & our behaviours/mindset are restricted by rules & regulations & traditions & norms etc. we are not free.

i think it's buddhism that says something of this effect; free your mind & the rest will follow. or maybe it's from some song! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

the only true way to freedom i feel is still through the mind. once u conquer the limits of the mind, u can change reality as how u perceive it & therefore freedom. free to dictate what u see & feel & do.

freedom is a state of mind? therefore a myth to start with till u make it reality?

Ube, the reward for the winner better be headache reliever. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/delight.gif" alt="" />

Rocket by Smashing Pumpkins (maybe I should have posted this in the lyrics thread, but we're into freedom so...)

Bleed in your own light
Dream of your own life
I miss me
I miss everything I'll never be

And on, and on
I torch my soul to show
The world that I am pure
Deep inside my heart
No more lies

A crown of horns
An image formed deformed
The mark I've borne
A mark of scorn to you

Consume my love, devour my hate
Only powers my escape
The moon is out, the stars invite
I think I'll leave tonight

So soon I'll find myself alone
To relax and fade away
Do you know what's coming down
Do you know I couldn't stay free?

I shall be free
I shall be free
I shall be free
I shall be free
I shall be free free
Free of those voices inside me
I shall be free
I shall be free

Übereil

PS "I miss everything I'll never be". Great line DS

My little comment is this.

We basically have the freedom to do whatever we want whenever we want.
However, are we willing to pay the price for that act of freedom if a price for such act exists?

A basic principal of freedom is our freewill and free choice to choose the laws we wish to apply to ourselves.

Sometimes we step outside of such laws.
We therefore had the freedom to do whatever act and we can continue doing such acts as we please until caught, most of the time our choices stay within the laws, that was our free choice to do so.


Again, we basically have the freedom to do whatever we want whenever we want.
But, are we willing to pay the price for that act of freedom if a price for such act exists?

Of course, I have omitted things like slavery and such.
I’ll leave that part of this topic to those more eloquent. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />


Fafnir <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

freedom is a myth but it is a very constructive myth as it nurrished our live and (for some at least) our death
freedom disappears when we are considering we are free or else when we are trying to fullfill it with a content...
so this old good Immanuel Kant was right freedom is a pure form... He was wrong freedom is not raw obeissance to the categoric imperative...

If any one would like to read a bit of Immanuel Kant's Reason and Freedom...

Here is a link Immanuel Kant

Scroll down to Reason and Freedom.

It's quite interesting.


Fafnir <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Freedom is - nothing left to lose;
Freedom is - limited by the freedom of others.

So freedom is not
- absolute
- universal
- unrestricted
but is in reality found in a relative freedom to do something or a freedom from something specific.

Is it desirable?

It must be - since when we have it, we tend to take it for granted and do not appreciate its value - but when we do not have it, or feel it be taken away or restricted, we fight to the death to gain it.

A desire close to addiction - if you have your level of freedom you feel happy; if the level drops you go berserk.

Right, time to pick a winner... Erm... Let me think... Eh, what the heck...

BARTA! Congratulations! Or whatever...

Übereil

@ Ubereil

I am very surprised to be the winner.
You said :


Three sentences it's great ! I wrote just four words. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Anyway this is the new topic :
[color:"yellow"]single-player RPG vs multi-player RPG [/color]

We have already talked of this subject but it was a long time ago and there are new members in the forum.
Divinity 2 will be the first multi-player Larian game and i am afraid that the single-player part of this game could be less good than in DD or BD.

Barta

You either love multi or you love single.

If you love multi then you want to play multi every game you play.
It is what you love about gaming.
The game becomes more alive and more real to you.
You travel and spend time with friends and share something that you all enjoy.

If you like single, then that is what you want to play.
You like being in control yourself and not having to share those times with others.
It is just a different world that you can be anything you want without having to worry about what others might think.
You get all the glory.

It all depends on what you are looking to get out of the game.


Fafnir <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Rocket-Powered Grenades (RPG) are being used in Iraq by the insurgents against the American, British, and Iraqi forces. The insurgents would appear to be against a multiparty (MP) coalition which is why they have attempted to drive many of the coalition partners out. I believe that the insurgents are actually probably a diverse group united loosely by a common goal and would have to be classified as MP themselves. Thus what we have on the ground in Iraq is MP RPG.

edit: In support of my position, if you go to www.acronymfinder.com you will find that the very 1st definition on the list when a search is done for RPG is Rocket-Powered Grenade.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ROFL.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin1.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" /> I love it, Cleg! - unbeatable

1st law of communication: You get what you ask <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/badsmile2.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ROFL.gif" alt="" /> Cleg, please .. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ROFL.gif" alt="" /> this is .. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ROFL.gif" alt="" /> serious .. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ROFL.gif" alt="" />

singleplayer vs multiplayer when it comes to Role-Playing Game?

just as Fafnir puts it; it depends on what u want out of it.

Singleplayer goodness
1. u play at your own pace
2. u play at your own level
3. decisions, mistakes affect only u without repercussions on others.
4. no compromise

disadvantage?
1. limited to computer-user interaction, which the limit is on computer's part
2. obvious limited content (no matter how elaborate the system of generation) will determine the life of the game

Multiplayer goodness
1. challenges vary with different human players, therefore variety in gaming experience
2. real life interaction (as opposed to choosing options in singleplayer)

disadvantage?
1. prone to cheat & hack by unethical users.
2. difference in gameplay for differennt gamers will result in conflict (slow & easy vs fast & furious, static vs movement)
3. depending on regions (which also concerns time), there will be situation of over-loaded servers filled with gamers & sparse number of gamers that will give such drastic gaming experience (slowdowns, lags, not populated enough).

overall, i prefer singleplayer to multiplayer as one has control over gaming in the former as opposed to facing real life situations all over again in multiplayer. real-life situations being having to compromise/tolerate, peer pressure, discourtesy, racism, etc. i play games to escape real life momentarily, not to immerse in it all over again as if the ugliness of it isn't enough.

OK - back to the question as it was meant:

Personal preferences of individuals, as previously mentinoned, set aside and assuming that the majority would play with people they would be comfortable with (meaning in closed games, not in games open to anybody who happens to be around), which I personally think is more common in Role Playing Games than in Ego-Shooters, there is IMO one big advantage of multiplayer over single player. That is that the AI of any interacting figure is limited, and becomes foreseeable pretty quick - whereas the human intellect behind other players provides for a much higher challenge and a diversity and surprises and more "personal" feeling.

As in a pen & paper game, this can give a denser atmosphere, which allows to involve oneself even deeper into the fantasy world (if you have the right company - as in real life! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />)

I see that you folks are hijacking the RPG argument to discuss RPGs instead. I understand why you would like to talk about RPG instead of RPG. So, I will graciously pass the salt and join in the fray to give my 2 cents about the SP RPG vs. the MP RPG.

When you play a role playing game online there is an option in many games to go it solo. In effect you are playing SP in an MP. I do that a lot, but not always, in Sacred depending on a variety of factors. So an MP game has the potential to give you the best of both the SP and the MP experience.

As to which is intrinsically superior, it depends not only upon the attitude of the gamers, but upon how the games are developed as well. For instance, the majority of folks agree that the SP campaign in NWN is vastly inferior to the MP modules. In other games the MP and SP games are identical.

Those of you who played Goldeneye on the SuperNintendo system might share my opinion that the MP game and the SP game were both a heck of a lot of fun. And while Goldeneye was not an RPG, it did have RPGs in it.