Zero Punctuation: inFamous

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
 

nipsen:

Cheeze_Pavilion:
I think it is neither semantics nor personal morality to hold there is a difference worth keeping in mind between the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of a dictator using force or the threat of it to get the majority to rubber stamp his actions.

Mm. That was a good point. (...shame you sort of have to think about it for a while to understand it, I suppose, but).

It's subtle, but very important I think. When a majority oppresses you, you can try and convince them otherwise; when a dictator oppresses you, you pretty much have to kill him. Big difference between trying to change minds and having to fight civil wars.

Also, you can throw a lot of counter-majoritarian mechanisms in the way of a majority which is restricting its tyranny to voting. The idea of a Constitution and constitutional review, for instance. The only roadblock you can throw in the way of a dictator is a weapon that blows him up. Again: political process over warfare. Pretty significant.

I see where Stig is coming from, though. I'm not sure what actually causes it (except maybe too much focus on creating intellectuals instead of learning people to think, or something like that.. totally random thought), but very often you get long logical pieces of reasoning that essentially will presuppose a point of view, and simply use the analysis to plug it.

See, that's where Stig is totally wrong, though. I took Pellucid's point of view--granted him that he was right for the sake of argument--and showed why his point of view led to results that are unpalatable to him. There's a big difference between arguing that your point of view is better, and showing someone that their point of view is incoherent.

In other words the truth is purely subjective, because it only depends on conviction alone, no matter what the issue is. I think an american phil... *wave*.. thinker..*cough* called Richard Rorty had several unintended strokes of genius when explaining how he believes philosophy is an ongoing debate over what the best words are in any given situation - and that the winning candidate is simply whoever can use language to get what they want.

Yeah, but see the thing about Rorty from what I've read about him is he acknowledged that what he was doing was no longer philosophy, but rather "cultural commentary" or something. He left the Philosophy dept. at Princeton for the Humanities at UVA, in fact: he put his money where his mouth was.

The problem with people who talk of "subjectivity" is that they don't: they keep using all the old terminology and assuming the same intellectual warrant as they were before.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
See, that's where Stig is totally wrong, though. I took Pellucid's point of view--granted him that he was right for the sake of argument--and showed why his point of view led to results that are unpalatable to him. There's a big difference between arguing that your point of view is better, and showing someone that their point of view is incoherent.

Yeah.. I meant a general "you".. sorry, didn't come out that well. :D

Yeah, but see the thing about Rorty from what I've read about him is he acknowledged that what he was doing was no longer philosophy, but rather "cultural commentary" or something. He left the Philosophy dept. at Princeton for the Humanities at UVA, in fact: he put his money where his mouth was.

The problem with people who talk of "subjectivity" is that they don't: they keep using all the old terminology and assuming the same intellectual warrant as they were before.

Doubleplus agreement.

..But Rorty is still a jerk.

I only wrote what I did to stir up a political storm as it were. I seem to have succeeded :P
Btw cheese pavillion I LOVE your clock analogy at the top of page 11, very clever ;)

And what you said about you having more stead because you've had an account longer than me? Baloney. I've been a debater for yonks and a whelp only in name. And anyway you can hardly deny that this is a gaming forum and this particular section is for comments on a certain video. There's plenty of off topic sections for you to rant about your ideologies and their apparently undisputable truths.

However I suppose i can't fault you for trying to convey your ideology and convert others to it since ultimately thats what politics is for. Without that it'd just be a conversation lol

Not bad though. I wouldn't mind having you on my debating team haha. Are you a memeber of one? You oughta join one if not. Bloody good fun and seems to me your cut out for it. Your metaphors made me chuckle :D

p.s.

See, that's where Stig is totally wrong

I resent that :S

nipsen:

tkwelge:
Viacom played the liberal game for decades. Why are they not as evil as Fox? Personally, I don't watch fox news because it is boring and still not real libertarian news. But when I do watch it, I just have to ask, "What is all the fuss about?"

...Well, unlike The Daily Show, Fox is fielding what they're doing in complete seriousness. Several of the anchors write books about how they see their "efforts" as being a counter point to the liberal bias in the "world", etc. And excuse their over the top appeals to aggressive xenophobia, even torture, by that logic.

I don't have a problem with it existing as such. It's more that I'm concerned with the fact that people watch it and accept the world- view they are consciously selling, and tie it to a particular political platform and specific support for particular issues. I would have the same problem if John Stewart went around and evangelized for common health- care proposals the democrats would have - and consciously avoided any type of information about the actual proposals in favour of appeals to avoid thinking completely. And then justified it through his holy mission to "push back" the evil conservatives. While of course stating how such and such number of like- minded individuals legitimize everything he would do. I mean, I meet conservatives who are nice people in general - and they don't see the big fuss about torturing people who are obviously evil, and things like that. And I ask - why is it a good thing? How do you justify it? And I get - well, you have to do it sometimes, because it's the right thing.. you know. Don't we have to do it? We do, don't we - or else they wouldn't do something serious like that, right? We can't argue with these people, can we? ..It's just a severe indictment of the public political culture in the US.

So yeah, not really a position on politics, but on the process used to reach political standpoints, getting people to vote, etc. And..you know - Fox found a very welcome audience in some parts of the US that simply doesn't exist elsewhere. Again, that alone isn't an indictment of the content they are fielding. It's just an observation about how extremely shallow political appeals are part of serious campaigns for political office. And how it has an appeal in frighteningly large parts of the US.

And no, it's not hyperbole to call what they're arguing for soft fascism. It's an appeal to how force solves anything, including differences of opinion - and they are doing a conscious effort to legitimize those views to people who don't know any better. People.. who would apparently vote for a guy who vows to make slavery a fun and patriotic activity, as long as it's only brown people and foreign looking evil dudes that does the slaving

Someone already beat me to the punch of responding to this comment. I'm sorry, being an idealogue is being an idealogue. Your entire argument is that it's okay for Stewart to be an idealogue, because it's all in good fun (retarded argument. The soft media has just as much power or more power than the the "news" media. And yes, Stewart is trying to be serious in his show. He said time and time again that this is true. He even said, "I'm not here to be fair!" and he admits he pedals his (and his massive writing staffs') bias. YOu attache this weird power to everything fox news says that makes them entirely evil, while giving other commentators a pass, because hey, fox news is just evil. You also build several straw man arguments and make ad hominim statements in your post:

("And no, it's not hyperbole to call what they're arguing for soft fascism. It's an appeal to how force solves anything, including differences of opinion - and they are doing a conscious effort to legitimize those views to people who don't know any better. People.. who would apparently vote for a guy who vows to make slavery a fun and patriotic activity, as long as it's only brown people and foreign looking evil dudes that does the slaving")

What!?!:!?! Republicans want to make all brown people slaves? WTF!!!!! And when you talk about Fox News taking advantage of "parts" of this country, you're being downright offensive. Cause all us yokels are too busy changing the oil in our tractors to be able to check the real facts like you smart folk, gosh! Hu yuk! LIke the liberal side of the media doesn't get all of its viewers from a specific part of the country. Everyone is biased! It's not just the people you disagree with. Don't you get that you dumb pile of crap!?!?!?

And most of the conservative that I know are against torture. You see, that's what you do. You pile all of the crazy conservative idealogues together and call and then draw gross generalizations about all conservatives (and us yokels!). Then, you give Stewart a pass by analyzing him individually and saying that "he's just one commentator with limited power, who's not trying to be serious (even though he is and does in fact argue for his sides agenda on a nightly basis). You can't cherry pick like that. Now that obama's in power, watching that kind of commentary is becoming ridiculous. I mean, I've seen several episodes where Stewart defends and rationalizes every policy that the democrats push for. The exact opposite of what he did for the republicans, and yes that makes him an idealogue plain and simple. An idealogue is an idealogue. Rush Limbaugh spends a lot of his show cracking jokes, too. And the Rush Limbaugh show is sold and marketed as "entertainment." And Rush Limbaugh has no more power than John Stewart does. What separates the two? Don't say their opinions either.

THe Democrats have no problem using force to achieve their objectives. Obama has rolled back none of the executive branch power grabs that Bush made. Obama has done unconstitutional things with the economy. He still keeps the drug war going with a softer kushier name. Smoke and mirrors by the way. He didn't bring the troops home (and he might add some). He's keeping the legal framework in place to allow Guantanomo like facilities, even if he does close it down. He's creating more czars in the first couple hundred days of his presidency than the Russians created in centuries. Obama is all about power. And power is force plain and simple.

This isn't about a tyranny of the majority or minority. Obama didn't get more than 53% of the vote, and many people didn't vote. The people don't get any say in what Obama does anymore. He didn't post the stimulus bill so we could see it like he said he would, he ignored the top issue in his online town hall for the sake of the pet projects that he already supported, and the stimulus watch site won't be up till next year. Does the UAW represent the "majority?" He's a pluralistic elitist like Bush plain and simple. Tyranny of the majority isn't the problem. It's trying to tar and feather the other side with star wars metaphors of good and evil, and sitting in your little groups pretending that it's you vs the evil empire that breeds stupidity in this world.

FloodOne:

tkwelge:
I never really saw what was so controversial about rupert murdoch and fox news. They give an outlet for people on both sides of the aisle to speak, and the host of Red Eye is a libertarian. Soft christian fascism? Come on now...... Yes, there are idealogues on fox news, but they exist on every network. How come John Stewart isn't a "talking head." He has a massive writing staff and only talks for about maybe an hour a week on the air. Viacom played the liberal game for decades. Why are they not as evil as Fox? Personally, I don't watch fox news because it is boring and still not real libertarian news. But when I do watch it, I just have to ask, "What is all the fuss about?"

John Stewart has a show on Comedy Central.

If you get your world news from Comedy fucking Central, you have far bigger issues than Repub v. Dem

Exactly my point. John Stewart doesn't even really provide news. It is pure commentary. Pure ideology. People don't go to stewart for news. They do it for ideology, and trust me, anyone who really disagrees with John Stewart can't watch for that long without getting pissed off, so don't argue that people watch it primarily, "because it's funny." That's part of it, but it's not funny to anyone who disagrees with him.

I'm not just trying to pick on Democrats here. I hate most true Republicans these days, and I can't stand right wing talk radio. I have listened to a lot of it in the past, but these days both parties have lost their way. The only reason I'm defending the right in my comments is because the democrats and other lefties have built up such an ad hominim hatred of republicans that they are starting to argue against straw men and not actual conservatives.

Most conservatives that I talk to:

Don't want torture!
Don't want war!
Don't go around shouting USA USA USA!

And nobody is really arguing that Obama is responsible for our current economy. Even most of the right wing idealogues have admitted that the problems were here before obama. THe problem is that whenever anybody criticizes obama's economic policies, they immediately respond, "Hey! Obama didn't cause this mess! But he's saddled with the task of fixing it!" And by "fixing it" they mean "pushing his overall economic agenda while breeding discontent within the market to make it hate itself." Yes, he isn't responsible for this mess, just like Bush wasn't responsible for 9/11 But both presidents are using crisis as an excuse to push an agenda.

Plus, you lefties spend so much time arguing against the conservatives (who have no power in society right now) while ignoring the great arguments of intelligent libertarians. You have no time for that, you're too busy beating a dead horse.

I just watched the latest video on E3. I liked the closing joke, "I'm shit, you're shit, we're all shit; if you're sitting there thinking, 'yes the world is shit, except me' then you're a double shit with a side of fries!" (I'm paraphrasing the joke.) I wonder if this was his response to the political discussion in this thread.

I think you're absolutely right. The position itself is neither of those things. However, in your defense of it you seem to have wandered into those realms....

Good choice and a great review!

This is an attempt to sidestep the issues Stewart reveals by supposing that someone providing commentary and comedy can't also provide facts and reasons. There have been repeated studies finding that people who watch the daily show end up being more politically informed than people who watch CNN or Fox News, two entities which have increasingly been demonstrated to avoid real news and promote disinformation.

..actually, that survey thing was a pop- quiz on cnn.com. And the Daily Show viewers scored around 50% against 25% for the rest, on questions like: what is president Bush's middle name.

@twelge: I sure I explained how the process of finding a point of view is the problem. [Insert sarcasm here]

Good job pointing out the moral choice bit, there needs to be more options. Sounds fun, although I have a 360.

Vendor Xeno:
This is an attempt to sidestep the issues Stewart reveals by supposing that someone providing commentary and comedy can't also provide facts and reasons. There have been repeated studies finding that people who watch the daily show end up being more politically informed than people who watch CNN or Fox News, two entities which have increasingly been demonstrated to avoid real news and promote disinformation.

I completely agree that stewart gives real information and facts, but he veils them in idealogical muck. Like...... Fox News (sometimes). Most of the "shows" on Fox News are opinionated entertainment, and they are up front with their views. Bill O'Reilly and Hannity don't just go on the air saying, "this is absolute fact!" You know that their shows are infotainment plain and simple. Just as you know the national enquirer is BS. You attack these people like they are supposed to be newsmen, but they never really go out of their way to appear as such. Hannitty has never called himself a "journalist." Stewart's show is the opposite. It is supposed to be infotainment, but it tries to slip in lots of stuff to support a populistic agenda. I consider stewart to be the Hannity of Viacom.

Interesting side note:

Rush Limbaugh has a primarily unscripted show that he operates on the fly despite his auditory handicap (partially deaf now). He takes plenty of calls from people who disagree with him and argues primarily from memory. His true on air time during the week is about 6 or 7 hours (15 hours of show minus commercials). John Stewart is on the air about 45 minutes a week (2.5 hours of show minus commercials, side segments, guest segments etc.) and depends on a giant writing staff. Everything he does is pre rehearsed and scripted. The only thing "on the fly" is the guest interviews, and for that he simply uses a bully pulpit mentality against his opponents so that they can't make their case, or if they are on his side, he becomes david letterman, simply there to crack jokes and throw praise upon the guest. John Stewart is an idealogical brand pushing infotainment (biased of course)as actual discourse. That makes him just as bad as a Fox News commenter in my opinion, or worse.

the final boss battle is actually purity short if your evil because you just arc lighting his ass

Although I haven't played inFamous, I do agree that some moral grey area would be nice. I was esp. ticked in KOTOR II when your moral alignment meant going with either the Jedi or the Sith when as the game wore on I found myself wanting to give a genuine F-U to both groups.
You're probably right about Yahtzee, about how a truly evil person would do things. That is pretending to be all nice and benevolent until he's acquired enough power and then BOOM!
I believe several villains have done that exact thing. That was how Emperor Palpatine rose to power. I believe the Shredder from the 2000's redoing of TMNT did something similar, maintained a perfectly legitimate public face, as Saki, while running his criminal empire as the Shredder out of the public eye.

If he's not sick of sandboxes yet, he'll probably do Prototype or RF for the next review.
If he is sick of them, probably the X-Men Origins movie tie-in, which wasn't too shabby for a •movie• game.

what happend to mother terisa eating a baby?

joenero12:
what happend to mother terisa eating a baby?

aids

Tkwelge ; The problem here is twofold. Firstly, much of what you describe here has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of information presented (I don't really care if Rush is partially deaf, I care if he lies all the time,) and secondly, much of what you're saying about Stewart simply isn't true.

One of the crucial skills when it comes to being able to sift your news is the ability to perceive a relevant fact and then discern how arguments or claims related to it hold up under rational scrutiny. In the case of John Stewart, the relationship remains consistent. I turn on the Daily Show and John Stewart is pointing out that there is no basis for fear when it comes to housing terrorism suspects within the United States, since we do in fact have the facilities to maintain high security criminal threats, added to the fact that few of these suspects have been found guilty of any crime whatsoever. The argument is sound. How many writers he has making it doesn't weight into the equation. He then goes on to show a clip of Rep. Michael Rogers promoting the argument that Gitmo could still serve us by housing people even if they're not found guilty. Stewart again makes the only rational argument, which is that an egalitarian society doesn't imprison people who are found not guilty.

As for bullying people, I just watched Stewart and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee have a very polite, very peer to peer debate about the abortion issue, so the notion that Stewart is just some overbearing bully with anyone who doesn't agree with him is simply and demonstrably false, a strawman attack for people who don't like Stewart or "the left." These are random examples, they depict the overall trend of his show.

I've called Rush's show a few times in the past. He's terrible at debate and often makes no attempt to. Once, in the debate of whether or not the United States is a "Christian Nation whose strength derives from its solid moral values, not its diversity," he simply hung up on me after I stated my counter position, and then announced to the audience, "Well, folks, God help us all if there are many more people who think that way." That is bullying from the pulpit, and not something you see John Stewart do.

John Stewart, as I said before, is so good with facts and reasoning that studies done on his audience show them to get more relevant and accurate information from his 45 minutes a week of comedy than they do from several hours a week of Rush or CNN or Fox News. Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, has multiple volumes exposing the disinformation he's spread, and is the sort of person who would loudly and belligerently advocate draconian, excessive and ineffective punishments against drug pushers while he himself was committing that very crime. If you can't figure out which of these models actually deserves your contempt then you simply illustrate exactly what is wrong with those who lean to the right in this nation. In short, stop making up crap about Stewart just because he advocates positions you don't agree with, and stop promoting a hypocritical criminal just because he advocates ones you do.

I just electro-blasted the final boss. Mash triangle... walk over to power cable... walk back... mash triangle.

Still, after buying this on Yahtzee's recommendation (there was one there, I'm SURE of it) this is one of the funnest games I've played in a while. Surfing on railway lines is kickass. Also, the ending was pretty good (even though it's a predictable twist in pop-culture, I REALLY didn't see it coming this time).

All in all, a good game that tries too hard to add another dimension that really doesn't deliver on what it promised, but makes up for it by having a bearable story (especially by sandbox standards), as well as challenging gameplay that makes every effort it can to stop itself from being repetitive (side-missions are actually... believe it or not... quite fun, and there are so many secrets for both sides of the karma spectrum to keep you busy for a while).

yahtzee this one was great

I was getting this game anyway ;-)

Pellucid:

Sillyiggy:
Mean ol' Yahtzee hurt the Republican's little feelings. It's okay. It's okay. Shh, shh, it's alright.

I see what you did there. You're so clever! I bet nobody has ever thought to use sarcasm to imply that someone's legitimate complaint is just the whining of someone with their feelings hurt before!

Man, with powerhouse intellects like yours on the side of the Democrats, we can't win!

Sarcasm: It's so easy a caveman could do it. Now I'm as clever as you are!

You can stop whining whenever you are ready. You can join the rest of the class when you are done with your tantrum.

Okay seriously, first, I am not a Democrat. Secondly, it was not a legitimate complaint. It was whining. If you are complaining about a joke, chances are you are a whiny b***h who is too touchy (probability is a little irrelevant in this case since this is a literal example of when it is so). Thirdly, I should be a little ashamed at replying to a month old thread.

I've not actually read through the bricks of texts that have popped up on this thread but I skimmed through and got the gist, if you all like debating politics and yahtzee go check out his newest venture.
http://www.gamedamage.net/
it is a show and it has a great forum for this sort of thing. so go check it out...

cole mc nice or cole mc deuch lol!

infamous is a great game its just the voices are so lame and that guy with the sunglasses sounds like a bush wackin scrub -_-

"...handing out superpowers to random passers-by seems as good a system as any, since we can all ask ourselves weather we'd use the gift to help people or blow up the entire world."

Yahtzee, if you're wondering about this sort of thing, might I suggest that you buy the trade paperbacks for DC's series 52?

The reason why I bring this up is because Lex Luthor does just that with the Everyman project, which activates the metagenes of everyone in the project and gives them superpowers.

Damn you Yahtzee! You saw right through my Evil plan ...and I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you meddling Kids and that pesky Dog >:(

I've always wanted to try this game. Makes me annoyed it wasn't released for multiple consoles. I like games featuring super powered characters, especially if sandbox, since it can offer unique ways to get about the city. The only thing that sounded really bad to me was the moral choice system. Ben pretty much hits all the main points on the head in here. Moral choice isn't really offering for freedom for gaming its just two different paths, sometimes with little difference (I'm looking at you Fable II). I understand that would probably be nearly impossible for developers to truly create games with 100% freedom of choice, but really, just a few grey area choices would be nice, where things are less clear cut.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here