Anyone else think Far Cry is overrated?

I think the person who noted that gamers generally play most games for the genre, and music fans a generally less inclined to listen to a much broader selection hit the nail on the head perfectly. Of those 10,000 people who played Far Cry, it is a pretty safe bet to assume they also have played the other major FPS titles. Thier opinion is not simply judging Far Cry in a catagory of it's own, but against it's peers in the FPS genre as well. The amount of games vs the amount of music artist in the pool is vastly different. Not to mention the medium of distrobution is VASTLY different in the music industry vs the gaming industry. Most people only hear whats played on the radio and whats played inside clubs. Very few go out and selectively buy a multitude of different artist especially if they have never heard of them. I would bet money that the majority of the 10,000 reviewers on this site have also played HL, HL2, FEAR, Doom 3, Prey, Chronicles of Riddick, Quake 4, and other contenders. While every person might not have played ALL in the list, it is a safe bet that they have played most of them. That is the difference. dnuggs40

i agree that for a game to stand out among it's peers is impressive...

but with music you're talking about more varieties, more artists, more styles and for Britney Spears to sell 10,000,000 with all the different choices out there is just as impressive. Whether it's a person that listens only to pop music (which you have to admit at any given time there a thousands more pop artists than there are FPS's) that decided to choose Spears or someone that regularly only listens to country or alternative rock picking up her cd...

the thing is... people's opinions are just that. opinions. they aren't facts. just because 10,000 say the game is good doesn't mean everyone has to like it and that their opinion is less valid.

if you look at the gamespot review for Far Cry Xbox, the reviewer says that the Xbox version is better than the PC version... now are you willing to stand by that claim just as you are with the gamespot's review that the PC version of Far Cry claims that its AI is great and doesn't mention any mistakes?

are you willing to agree that the Xbox version has both the same score from Gamespot as the PC version and also that the user reviews rate is just was well? I mean here's 5,000+ people that all think a similar thing.

People don't but Britney's album cause it's good, they buy it cause it's GOD DAMN BRITNEY SPEARS ZOMG SHE'S SO COOL!!! It's more of a trend, related to -society-. Gaming is much different than music, I'm sorry. The entire comparison is totally out of place. I'm sorry again. And once more.SunnySimantov

Paris Hilton is trendy and her cd didn't sell...soooooo there goes your theory that it's trend over music.

thanks for stopping by

"the thing is... people's opinions are just that. opinions. they aren't facts. just because 10,000 say the game is good doesn't mean everyone has to like it and that their opinion is less valid. "

I am sorry to say, but yes, some opinions *are* less valid. I could say in my opinion, I am sexier then Brad Pitt. Now mind you, physical attraction *is* opinion based, and in the eye of the beholder. But seriously, 99.9999999% (basically everyone but my wife :P ) of women would say I am a delusional. It might not be technically a fact that Brad Pitt is better looking then me, but I think it is close enough. It's a pretty damn strong consensus...

"the thing is... people's opinions are just that. opinions. they aren't facts. just because 10,000 say the game is good doesn't mean everyone has to like it and that their opinion is less valid. "

I am sorry to say, but yes, some opinions *are* less valid. I could say in my opinion, I am sexier then Brad Pitt. Now mind you, physical attraction *is* opinion based, and in the eye of the beholder. But seriously, 99.9999999% (basically everyone but my wife :P ) of women would say I am a delusional. It might not be technically a fact that Brad Pitt is better looking then me, but I think it is close enough. It's a pretty damn strong consensus...

dnuggs40

See post above yours regarding opinions. Sorry...but not all opinions are equal :Pdnuggs40

Well....it actually comes down to personal choice i say...people are still skewering me over my dislike of the Half life games...but you know...Far cry was i think a mediocre game with a damn bad story line....hey the opening scene was like...what?? why was he sailing there.....man...i played the game for an hour and chucked it...i played half life too and back then hated the game! its true most of my friends think i have really wiered tastes...but it all comes down to personal choices...people like it people dont...but i felt many games are over rated...but awesome games like mafia, NOLF series the old gold Hidden and dangerous, hm...revolt, all of them had awesome gameplay....therefore the conclusion...it all depends on the person...there are some rare classics which strike a chord in every gamer and they too are sometimes forgotten over time...sad but there's nothin anyone can do about it...scarlatti90

Wow, overrated??  no way.

I've played through to the finish on the realistic setting 2 times. Very enjoyable experience. 

The AI does it for me.  Also the accuracy of the guns is nice.

I just got started playing STALKER and thats a big let down. Bad AI  horrible shot accuracy. If STALKER had FarCrys AI that would be awesome. 

"the thing is... people's opinions are just that. opinions. they aren't facts. just because 10,000 say the game is good doesn't mean everyone has to like it and that their opinion is less valid. "

I am sorry to say, but yes, some opinions *are* less valid. I could say in my opinion, I am sexier then Brad Pitt. Now mind you, physical attraction *is* opinion based, and in the eye of the beholder. But seriously, 99.9999999% (basically everyone but my wife :P ) of women would say I am a delusional. It might not be technically a fact that Brad Pitt is better looking then me, but I think it is close enough. It's a pretty damn strong consensus...

dnuggs40

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]

"the thing is... people's opinions are just that. opinions. they aren't facts. just because 10,000 say the game is good doesn't mean everyone has to like it and that their opinion is less valid. "

I am sorry to say, but yes, some opinions *are* less valid. I could say in my opinion, I am sexier then Brad Pitt. Now mind you, physical attraction *is* opinion based, and in the eye of the beholder. But seriously, 99.9999999% (basically everyone but my wife :P ) of women would say I am a delusional. It might not be technically a fact that Brad Pitt is better looking then me, but I think it is close enough. It's a pretty damn strong consensus...

smerlus

One look at sculpures a few centuries ago would disagree with your view of how females "should" look like.. In fact, in ancient Syria large women were prefered over slim women due to them being more "fertile" than skinny women. Also  Victorian women a few centuries later were still sort of "plump" but were considered very attractive... Flappers during the 20s were considered beautiful because of their short hair.. Large breasts were considered to be a sign of unintelligence a few short years ago.. So yes what we consider "beautiful" DOES change over time.

But what is Beauty really? Is it an anorexic female? Or is it a 600lb monstrosity? Does not society dictate what is considered "beauty"? If I were to visit Iraq would they consider females in America more beautiful? Or is it based on cultural norms? 

I would have to agree with Dnuggs analogy. The only thing you CAN prove is that you exist.. thus my quote in my sig. Truth is relative.. you may think that the world is round.. (which it is more eliptical than circular.. but I digress) but there ARE people in this world that believe the world to be flat.. There are people who don't believe the holocaust really happened.. that the pyramids were landing pads for Go'uld ships..  (okay maybe not the last one.. ) But you see my point.. they may be wrong in your eyes.. but they have their own "facts" that differ from your own.. 

 I also believe I just proved you right too Smerlus.. that the AI is not perfect.. nor is anything that exists in reality "perfect" since we all have differing ideas of what perfection means.. Socrates (or if you believe Plato) tried to get to the exact definition of "what is knowledge".. in the end there really isn't an answer.. to go through websters and say "It says right here.. knowledge is ....." is to be foolish.. because knowledge is wider than the definition given in a book... We can debate things like "this game is great" or "this game is horrible" or "this game has bad AI" but really everything is relative.. and it is actually pointless to debate about anything.. but its fun as hell though... :)

BTW, I believe I didn't say anything in this post.. and therefore this post does not exist.. so mote it be.

 As you Smerlus blogged .. you can't find a forum to have a discussion in.. maybe your actually noticing that all these discussions and topics are just a waste of time.. what you should find interesting is how much "fun" they can actually be.. that is if you can just take everything with a "grain of salt".. the world isn't just black and white.. but a world filled with grey.. maybe that is the advent of post-modernism.. that "reality really isn't what it used to be"  or it could be all these "liberal" professors are just messed in the head and you and a few others are actually right.. who knows. I guess we will find out when death brings us.. that is, if there is indeed something after death.. or I find myself transmigrating into an ant or something along those lines.

 --- the point of this post is just lacking in any real point.. I assume there is a point somewhere.. just can't find one.. oh well..  :P

Now back to a waste of hours of my life .... gaming

One look at sculpures a few centuries ago would disagree with your view of how females "should" look like.. In fact, in ancient Syria large women were prefered over slim women due to them being more "fertile" than skinny women. Also  Victorian women a few centuries later were still sort of "plump" but were considered very attractive... Flappers during the 20s were considered beautiful because of their short hair.. Large breasts were considered to be a sign of unintelligence a few short years ago.. So yes what we consider "beautiful" DOES change over time.

But what is Beauty really? Is it an anorexic female? Or is it a 600lb monstrosity? Does not society dictate what is considered "beauty"? If I were to visit Iraq would they consider females in America more beautiful? Or is it based on cultural norms? 

I would have to agree with Dnuggs analogy. The only thing you CAN prove is that you exist.. thus my quote in my sig. Truth is relative.. you may think that the world is round.. (which it is more eliptical than circular.. but I digress) but there ARE people in this world that believe the world to be flat.. There are people who don't believe the holocaust really happened.. that the pyramids were landing pads for Go'uld ships..  (okay maybe not the last one.. ) But you see my point.. they may be wrong in your eyes.. but they have their own "facts" that differ from your own.. 

 I also believe I just proved you right too Smerlus.. that the AI is not perfect.. nor is anything that exists in reality "perfect" since we all have differing ideas of what perfection means.. Socrates (or if you believe Plato) tried to get to the exact definition of "what is knowledge".. in the end there really isn't an answer.. to go through websters and say "It says right here.. knowledge is ....." is to be foolish.. because knowledge is wider than the definition given in a book... We can debate things like "this game is great" or "this game is horrible" or "this game has bad AI" but really everything is relative.. and it is actually pointless to debate about anything.. but its fun as hell though... :)

 

BTW, I believe I didn't say anything in this post.. and therefore this post does not exist.. so mote it be.

 As you Smerlus blogged .. you can't find a forum to have a discussion in.. maybe your actually noticing that all these discussions and topics are just a waste of time.. what you should find interesting is how much "fun" they can actually be.. that is if you can just take everything with a "grain of salt".. the world isn't just black and white.. but a world filled with grey.. maybe that is the advent of post-modernism.. that "reality really isn't what it used to be"  or it could be all these "liberal" professors are just messed in the head and you and a few others are actually right.. who knows. I guess we will find out when death brings us.. that is, if there is indeed something after death.. or I find myself transmigrating into an ant or something along those lines.

 --- the point of this post is just lacking in any real point.. I assume there is a point somewhere.. just can't find one.. oh well..  :P

 

Now back to a waste of hours of my life .... gaming

 

Alkpaz

what i was talking about with females is the Waist-Hip ratio which can be found all the way back to the sculpture Venus De Milo from ancient Greece. It's not saying that skinny women or fat women are attractive but through out time as humans, there has been a certain ration in women that men have found attractive through the ages. no matter if the woman weighed 300 pounds or 90 pounds... men are attracted more to women sharing this proportion.

and yes, some people believe the world is flat, that the holocaust didn't happen... and we have a word for these people called 'Ignorant'.

I have yet to see an ignorant person in this topic. I may not agree with some people but i've never sat here trying to prove someone's like for this game as wrong like people have tried to prove my dislike of the AI. it would be a waste of time trying to prove that Far Cry sucks or is great.. I myself think it's a good game.

so the whole 8 pages of responses were just to show those people that think their opinions are fact..that they are out of their minds

[QUOTE="Cranler"]The game that took the longest for me to like was Gothic. Took an hour. A song you didnt enjoy at first but ended up liking is very common, not as common with games. Some songs are very catchy some arent. One listen to a song is definately not the same as 1 playthrough of a game.

Came across this, read the first sentence because it really hits the nail on the head about how a song "comes" to you. http://www.planetbollywood.com/Music/pukar.html

Do I need to play any game a few times through before giving it a decent review?

Its much harder to be a music aficionado than a game aficionado since there are many more albums out there than games and you could easily miss alot of great music. Many people who loved the music of the 50's dont like the 60's music and so on. I bet alot of these Britney reviewers have never even heard of Pink Floyd for example or much of the pop music from the 80's and probably think music gets better with time. I'm sure most of Farcry reviewers are likely to have played all the best shooters which makes these reviews much more credible. I've liked every shooter that got good reviews, cant say the same for album reviews.

Here are some facts on Farcry upon release.

Probably one of the best if not the best ai.

Best graphics.

Best physics.

Much larger levels than most shooters.

Multiple paths.

Non scripted ai so each reload plays out different.

You can use vehicles if you want but only are forced to a few times.

Plethora of difficulty options to make it extremely easily or incredibly difficult.

Majority of the voice acting is terrible.

Much of the dialogue is bad but many find it funny.

Unoriginal story.

The last 3 arent a big deal since its a game and not a book or movie. These aspects will become more important when gameplay and graphics evolution start slowing down. This and the lack of quick save are the reason it deserves a score in the low 9's and not the high.

All these facts make it a great game.

 

smerlus

actually a lot of those aren't facts...

once again facts are undisputable... I can prove to everyone in the world that it is a fact Steel is stronger than butter...can you show Far Cry to everyone and have everyone say that it has the best graphics for that time period?

no

does everyone like shooters with large levels? no, so how can that be used to be a plus in a game?

and actually since going into this whole AI debate, I've found plenty of sources that suggest Far Cry's AI isn't as dynamic as everyone thinks... Choppers have only certain scripted points that they drop off people, certain mercs only respond once you cross a certain threshold or activate certain things, one site even looked at the script and found out that if the AI approaches certain objects, they are forced to take cover behind them instead of  dynamically "choosing" to.

conversly that pretty much makes the scripting pretty impressive because for some of these situations, you would never be able to tell the difference between static and dynamic. you might with the drop off points, or the fact that you ahve to open some doors to trigger the mercs aggression... but anyways... that's a different story.

Notice I separated multiple paths and large levels. To me a level is the amount of space where you can roam without having to load. On average I get about 30 min of play time between loads. Compare that to HL2 where you load about every 10 min. You like immersion killing load screens?

The look of the game(realish or cartoony) may be subject to opinion but its graphics had more new features than any other game at the time.

In HL2 there are many points in the game where you know exactly what the ai will do. That doesnt happen in Far Cry.

I do. The graphics are the only thing good about it. Boring gameplay, story is predictable, and the game is just extremely glitchy. I picked up the game last summer, and I liked it, but looking at it now, it's just an average game. However, I must admit that I adored the lush Jungle environments and the other eye candies.

To sum it all up, I wasted my $20.00. I want to sell the game. How much will I get if I sell it at Gamestop/EB Games?

xTRIGGER092x

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]

"the thing is... people's opinions are just that. opinions. they aren't facts. just because 10,000 say the game is good doesn't mean everyone has to like it and that their opinion is less valid. "

I am sorry to say, but yes, some opinions *are* less valid. I could say in my opinion, I am sexier then Brad Pitt. Now mind you, physical attraction *is* opinion based, and in the eye of the beholder. But seriously, 99.9999999% (basically everyone but my wife :P ) of women would say I am a delusional. It might not be technically a fact that Brad Pitt is better looking then me, but I think it is close enough. It's a pretty damn strong consensus...

smerlus

That is NOT scientifically proven sorry dude.

"there's even a body measurement ratio for females that has remained the same for centuries"

Bull crap. If you look at portraits of women deemed to "beatiful" a couple houndred years ago, their porportions are NOT the same as what is considered beautiful. They were generally thicker and had more meat (an indication of being healthy and wealthy. Today's "hot" women are waaay younger and much thinner. It is EXACTLY like opinions, and the measurement changes with the times.

Not to mention my face is perfectly "symetrical", and I even have some nice features. It IS opinion, not scientific fact that Brad Pitt is better looking. But it is also a consensus, and my opinion that I am better is just rediculous and weak.

"as humans there's no such scientific explination why we like certain games... so the Brad Pitt myth is busted!"

also malarky. Games that have solid gameplay elements, good working controls, a likeable story, and other common elements generally do well. Technical aspect can all be measured, not just by standards, but also against their peers. To imply there is no "explanation" to why some games are considered good is rediculous.

 edit:

 The "waist vs hip" ratio is not scientific fact, it mearly shows the common trend.  An ugly girl can have the perfect porportion, but she is still an ugly girl.  Same as a girl who doesn't fit the ratio, might still be beatiful and adored by men.  All the ratio shows is a trend, it is NOT a scientific way to show women are beatiful...

Point is...the only way to "prove" a person is attractive is to line up 1,000 women and ask them...

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]

"the thing is... people's opinions are just that. opinions. they aren't facts. just because 10,000 say the game is good doesn't mean everyone has to like it and that their opinion is less valid. "

I am sorry to say, but yes, some opinions *are* less valid. I could say in my opinion, I am sexier then Brad Pitt. Now mind you, physical attraction *is* opinion based, and in the eye of the beholder. But seriously, 99.9999999% (basically everyone but my wife :P ) of women would say I am a delusional. It might not be technically a fact that Brad Pitt is better looking then me, but I think it is close enough. It's a pretty damn strong consensus...

Jack_Summersby

That is NOT scientifically proven sorry dude.

"there's even a body measurement ratio for females that has remained the same for centuries"

Bull crap. If you look at portraits of women deemed to "beatiful" a couple houndred years ago, their porportions are NOT the same as what is considered beautiful. They were generally thicker and had more meat (an indication of being healthy and wealthy. Today's "hot" women are waaay younger and much thinner. It is EXACTLY like opinions, and the measurement changes with the times.

Not to mention my face is perfectly "symetrical", and I even have some nice features. It IS opinion, not scientific fact that Brad Pitt is better looking. But it is also a consensus, and my opinion that I am better is just rediculous and weak.

"as humans there's no such scientific explination why we like certain games... so the Brad Pitt myth is busted!"

also malarky. Games that have solid gameplay elements, good working controls, a likeable story, and other common elements generally do well. Technical aspect can all be measured, not just by standards, but also against their peers. To imply there is no "explanation" to why some games are considered good is rediculous.

 edit:

 The "waist vs hip" ratio is not scientific fact, it mearly shows the common trend.  An ugly girl can have the perfect porportion, but she is still an ugly girl.  Same as a girl who doesn't fit the ratio, might still be beatiful and adored by men.  All the ratio shows is a trend, it is NOT a scientific way to show women are beatiful...

Point is...the only way to "prove" a person is attractive is to line up 1,000 women and ask them...

dnuggs40

so the waist hip ratio is just a trend... that's cool. like i said the sculpture Venis De Milo was made in ancient Greece so this trend has no factual basis but has survived for over 2000 years... meh but it's just a trend. hmmm what other trend has survived this long? people eating.... that's just a trend.

and do you know anything about ratios? it doesn't matter if you're 4000 pounds or 40 pounds, your body can have the same ratio. if the waist hip ratio was 1:2 a 40 pound woman could have a waist of 15 inches and hips of 30 and a 4000 pound woman can have a waist or 50 and hips of 100... they still have this same ratio.

and once again i didn't say "waist-hip ratio automaticall makes women that have been set on fire that have no arms or legs automatically beautiful" i said it's one of the factors.

there are tons of scientific studies that suggest exactly what i've said... sorry if some poster on gamespot doesn't believe me. forgive me when i ignore you Dnuggs because you don't believe the thousands of studies and polls that prove that pheremones, face symmetry, waist-hip ratio to be heavy factors in why people are attracted to one another.

have fun...google these things that you say are false and be amazed when you learn something,

 Oh and by the way thanks for your argument because you just proved your earlier argument wrong. If thousands of scientists and psychologists that investigate why humans are attracted to one another all believe these theories to be true and you just come in here and say "nuh uh they're not true"

how come when thousands of gamers say Far Cry is great without any kind of studies, it's an automatically the truth because of consensus?

again, try not to contradict yourself in a debate.

I would have to agree with Dnuggs analogy. The only thing you CAN prove is that you exist.. Alkpaz

You've taken the Evil Trickster argument far too seriously. There most certainly is an objective reality - it's not all in your head. But this issue has been debated by far more skilled philosophers than I - or you - so I suggest you hold off on making bold claims about reality until you've taken a few more of your philosophy courses.

thus my quote in my sig. Truth is relative.. you may think that the world is round.. (which it is more eliptical than circular.. but I digress) but there ARE people in this world that believe the world to be flat.. There are people who don't believe the holocaust really happened.. that the pyramids were landing pads for Go'uld ships.. (okay maybe not the last one.. ) But you see my point.. they may be wrong in your eyes.. but they have their own "facts" that differ from your own..Alkpaz

They aren't facts in the socially defined meaning of the word (which is relative, of course). By definition a fact must be objectively true, so to say that it is a fact that the holocaust did and did not happen because there are different sets of facts out there is to redefine the word. And the problem with redefining words is that when the rest of society hears you speak, they do not understand you as you intend to be understood.

I also believe I just proved you right too Smerlus.. that the AI is not perfect.. nor is anything that exists in reality "perfect" since we all have differing ideas of what perfection means..Alkpaz

True.

Socrates (or if you believe Plato) tried to get to the exact definition of "what is knowledge".. in the end there really isn't an answer.. to go through websters and say "It says right here.. knowledge is ....." is to be foolish.. because knowledge is wider than the definition given in a book... Alkpaz

Again, wait until you get further in your philosophical studies. Neither Socrates nor Plato had the last word on epistemology - it's an entire branch of philosophy.

We can debate things like "this game is great" or "this game is horrible" or "this game has bad AI" but really everything is relative.. and it is actually pointless to debate about anythingAlkpaz

That's a silly thing to say - debate profoundly impacts our lives. When the various social forces debated during the civil rights era, an entire nation's views were changed, leading to the end of segregation. When I engaged in a debate with my classmates about the nature of the doctor-patient relationship, my whole view shifted against paternalism, and that will have a profound impact on my future patients.

.. but its fun as hell though... :)

BTW, I believe I didn't say anything in this post.. and therefore this post does not exist.. so mote it be.Alkpaz

How smug.

As you Smerlus blogged .. you can't find a forum to have a discussion in.. maybe your actually noticing that all these discussions and topics are just a waste of time.. what you should find interesting is how much "fun" they can actually be.. that is if you can just take everything with a "grain of salt".. the world isn't just black and white.. but a world filled with grey.. maybe that is the advent of post-modernism.. that "reality really isn't what it used to be" or it could be all these "liberal" professors are just messed in the head and you and a few others are actually right..Alkpaz

He's not alone; the vast majority of people believe in an objective reality - it is a minority that do not. Further, that minority is primarily (though nott exclusively) isolated to academia, but even there many great professors - gasp, some of them liberals - acknowledge the objective world around them.

who knows. I guess we will find out when death brings us.. that is, if there is indeed something after death.. or I find myself transmigrating into an ant or something along those lines.Alkpaz

By your way of thinking, there doesn't have to be a death at all - just don't believe in one and you can alter the facts of the universe. Would you be right or wrong? Who cares! Those are anachronistic terms. So long as you believe it, it's true to you, right?

--- the point of this post is just lacking in any real point.. I assume there is a point somewhere.. just can't find one.. oh well.. :PAlkpaz

Luckily I can impose my own interpretation on this post and give it meaning for you. You're welcome.

Now back to a waste of hours of my life .... gamingAlkpaz

Enjoy.

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]That is NOT scientifically proven sorry dude.

"there's even a body measurement ratio for females that has remained the same for centuries"

Bull crap. If you look at portraits of women deemed to "beatiful" a couple houndred years ago, their porportions are NOT the same as what is considered beautiful. They were generally thicker and had more meat (an indication of being healthy and wealthy. Today's "hot" women are waaay younger and much thinner. It is EXACTLY like opinions, and the measurement changes with the times.

Not to mention my face is perfectly "symetrical", and I even have some nice features. It IS opinion, not scientific fact that Brad Pitt is better looking. But it is also a consensus, and my opinion that I am better is just rediculous and weak.

"as humans there's no such scientific explination why we like certain games... so the Brad Pitt myth is busted!"

also malarky. Games that have solid gameplay elements, good working controls, a likeable story, and other common elements generally do well. Technical aspect can all be measured, not just by standards, but also against their peers. To imply there is no "explanation" to why some games are considered good is rediculous.

 edit:

 The "waist vs hip" ratio is not scientific fact, it mearly shows the common trend.  An ugly girl can have the perfect porportion, but she is still an ugly girl.  Same as a girl who doesn't fit the ratio, might still be beatiful and adored by men.  All the ratio shows is a trend, it is NOT a scientific way to show women are beatiful...

Point is...the only way to "prove" a person is attractive is to line up 1,000 women and ask them...

smerlus

so the waist hip ratio is just a trend... that's cool. like i said the sculpture Venis De Milo was made in ancient Greece so this trend has no factual basis but has survived for over 2000 years... meh but it's just a trend. hmmm what other trend has survived this long? people eating.... that's just a trend.

and do you know anything about ratios? it doesn't matter if you're 4000 pounds or 40 pounds, your body can have the same ratio. if the waist hip ratio was 1:2 a 40 pound woman could have a waist of 15 inches and hips of 30 and a 4000 pound woman can have a waist or 50 and hips of 100... they still have this same ratio.

and once again i didn't say "waist-hip ratio automaticall makes women that have been set on fire that have no arms or legs automatically beautiful" i said it's one of the factors.

there are tons of scientific studies that suggest exactly what i've said... sorry if some poster on gamespot doesn't believe me. forgive me when i ignore you Dnuggs because you don't believe the thousands of studies and polls that prove that pheremones, face symmetry, waist-hip ratio to be heavy factors in why people are attracted to one another.

have fun...google these things that you say are false and be amazed when you learn something,

 Oh and by the way thanks for your argument because you just proved your earlier argument wrong. If thousands of scientists and psychologists that investigate why humans are attracted to one another all believe these theories to be true and you just come in here and say "nuh uh they're not true"

how come when thousands of gamers say Far Cry is great without any kind of studies, it's an automatically the truth because of consensus?

again, try not to contradict yourself in a debate.

 I didn't, you said it can be PROVEN Brad Pitt is more attractive through science, this is not the case.  All they can do is trend ratios that are generally considered part of the formula, but again, my main point about opinions stands correct.

 "Oh and by the way thanks for your argument because you just proved your earlier argument wrong. If thousands of scientists and psychologists that investigate why humans are attracted to one another all believe these theories to be true and you just come in here and say "nuh uh they're not true""

 Again (like pretty much all your arguments), you are giving something undue weight and taking it out of context.  Yes they trend a "ratio" that is common with attraction, that doesn't meant it has any practical application in determining wether or not someone is more attractive then another.  You can find a person with the correct ration and symmetry, this in no way means that person is attractive. 

"and once again i didn't say "waist-hip ratio automaticall makes women that have been set on fire that have no arms or legs automatically beautiful" i said it's one of the factors."

 Again, undue weight and exaggerating.  A women doesn't need to have flaming hair, or be an amputee to be unactractive.  Simply can be "plain" looking.  Stop going from one extreme to another...

 "there are tons of scientific studies that suggest exactly what i've said... sorry if some poster on gamespot doesn't believe me. forgive me when i ignore you Dnuggs because you don't believe the thousands of studies and polls that prove that pheremones, face symmetry, waist-hip ratio to be heavy factors in why people are attracted to one another."

I saw the TV special too.  And Pheremones is a chemical raction...how does this even apply to this conversation?  The point is, you said attraction can be proven sceintifically, this is an outright lie and exaggeration of scientific research.  They have found common ratio's ect over time, thats it.  they can't take any given man, apply this criteria, and determine his attractiveness.  You are over stating their research.

"how come when thousands of gamers say Far Cry is great without any kind of studies, it's an automatically the truth because of consensus?"

you are missing the point and are waaaay out of context...

"again, try not to contradict yourself in a debate."

I didn't...

Wait wait, why didn't I get the memo that 3 year old games are headline news? 

Overrated? :o No Way! At the engine was amazing at the time of release and it completely blew away the competition. The graphics are still very good even today, the sound effects are very impressive, the AI is really good and the opened ended level design is perfect for the game.zeus_gb

Amen brother. The water in that game is probably still the best I've seen. 

Anyway, great game, not overrated.  

how didn't you contradict yourself?

you said 10,000 gamers that say Far Cry is a great game means Far Cry is a great game.

millions of articles about face symmetry, waist-hip ratio, pheromones, body structure say that these play a heavy part in the ways humans are attracted to one another and these studies have been done by doctors, scientist and psychologists.... buuut they don't do anything to prove why Brad Pitt is more attractive than you.

the only evidence that you can give that prove these theories wrong is... you. I hope you don't believe for some reason, that if we were to do face symmetry tests and body comparisons between you and Brad Pitt that you would come up on top completely debunking these theories.

i know your whole debate about you vs brad pitt was about opinions anyways... but again, if you are just going disregard scientific studies as false and say you are better looking than Brad Pitt... you'd be ignorant. Ignorant people's opinion's don't count... and again I haven't seen too many ignorant people posting in this topic.

you do know pheremones are more than just chemical reactions don't you? they did a test where they would wipe a sample of other woman's sweat (containing mostly what they thought were pheremones)  under a woman's nose and found that the test subject's menstrual cycles changed to where the two women were menstrating at just about the same time every month.

I never said the theories are wrong, I am telling you are using the theories incorrectly.  The waist hip ratio mearly shows common occourances in attraction, you are using it like scientific fact.  You are using the trend to prove something, you cannot do that, because when it comes down to it, the trend is nothing more then that.  Show me one piece of research where they state they can prove a person's attractiveness with this ration and and other factors.  You can't, becuase no scientist in their right mind would make that claim.  There are other factors that contribute, and no person of science would ever make the claim they can prove attraction with a formula.

The proof is in the pudding...

 "you do know pheremones are more than just chemical reactions don't you? they did a test where they would wipe a sample of other woman's sweat (containing mostly what they thought were pheremones)  under a woman's nose and found that the test subject's menstrual cycles changed to where the two women were menstrating at just about the same time every month."

So what is the conclusion of that study?  I fail to see how it has anything to do with what we are talking about, not to mention how that says pheremones are more then just chemical reactions...

Not to mention how many women who think Brad Pitt is amazing have actually smelled him...lol

Also, you are stating that these studies are the absolute fact when it comes to attraction.  You do know that is one of the most heavily debated subjects in human behavior right?  And even the advocates for the studies, never make calims to understand it completely.

 You need to learn to use things with context and stop putting undue weight on things, especially from fields of science like human behavior.

I never said the theories are wrong, I am telling you are using the theories incorrectly.  The waist hip ratio mearly shows common occourances in attraction, you are using it like scientific fact.  You are using the trend to prove something, you cannot do that, because when it comes down to it, the trend is nothing more then that.  Show me one piece of research where they state they can prove a person's attractiveness with this ration and and other factors.  You can't, becuase no scientist in their right mind would make that claim.  There are other factors that contribute, and no person of science would ever make the claim they can prove attraction with a formula.

The proof is in the pudding...

 "you do know pheremones are more than just chemical reactions don't you? they did a test where they would wipe a sample of other woman's sweat (containing mostly what they thought were pheremones)  under a woman's nose and found that the test subject's menstrual cycles changed to where the two women were menstrating at just about the same time every month."

So what is the conclusion of that study?  I fail to see how it has anything to do with what we are talking about, not to mention how that says pheremones are more then just chemical reactions...

dnuggs40

well it is a fact that the vast majority of Miss America winners since 1921 all have the .07 waist hip ratio and those that didn't were very close to that ratio, so did sex symbols Marlyn Monroe and... that hot lady from the 70's.. Sophia Loren i think her name was.

this proves that it's more than just a trend because body shapes and what was in according to hair, style of clothes of woman have all changed since the 1920's but this ratio has stayed the same for 80 years in this case and again the 2000 years from the case in ancient greece

and i never said that this is the holy grail of attractiveness....i'm saying it's one of the factors and millions of studies have proved this.

and trying to disregard phermones as 'just chemical reactions' is just like saying 'meh...the drugs that cure most diseases are just chemical reactions' when any common person knows that they are much more important than that.

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]

I never said the theories are wrong, I am telling you are using the theories incorrectly.  The waist hip ratio mearly shows common occourances in attraction, you are using it like scientific fact.  You are using the trend to prove something, you cannot do that, because when it comes down to it, the trend is nothing more then that.  Show me one piece of research where they state they can prove a person's attractiveness with this ration and and other factors.  You can't, becuase no scientist in their right mind would make that claim.  There are other factors that contribute, and no person of science would ever make the claim they can prove attraction with a formula.

The proof is in the pudding...

 "you do know pheremones are more than just chemical reactions don't you? they did a test where they would wipe a sample of other woman's sweat (containing mostly what they thought were pheremones)  under a woman's nose and found that the test subject's menstrual cycles changed to where the two women were menstrating at just about the same time every month."

So what is the conclusion of that study?  I fail to see how it has anything to do with what we are talking about, not to mention how that says pheremones are more then just chemical reactions...

smerlus

well it is a fact that the vast majority of Miss America winners since 1921 all have the .07 waist hip ratio and those that didn't were very close to that ratio, so did sex symbols Marlyn Monroe and... that hot lady from the 70's.. Sophia Loren i think her name was.

this proves that it's more than just a trend because body shapes and what was in according to hair, style of clothes of woman have all changed since the 1920's but this ratio has stayed the same for 80 years in this case and again the 2000 years from the case in ancient greece

and i never said that this is the holy grail of attractiveness....i'm saying it's one of the factors and millions of studies have proved this.

and trying to disregard phermones as 'just chemical reactions' is just like saying 'meh...the drugs that cure most diseases are just chemical reactions' when any common person knows that they are much more important than that.

Again, you are misusing this.  A .07 ratio does not prove a women is attractive.  You are using this as if it does.  You are misusing the research. 

Here is what you are doing...

"Research have shown a .07 ratio is very common in attractive women"

So you are concluding...

"Lisa has a .07 ratio, therefore she is attractive"

You cannot make this logical jump.  It does not work.  You used this line of logic to tell me that my Brad Pitt analogy doesn't work because it can be PROVEN he is attractive, WHEN THIS IS INCORRECT!

About pheremones, it does not apply to this discussion.  Has any of those women actually smelled brad pitt?  Lets keep it relevent shall we?

"so scientifically Brad Pitt may have a more semetrical face than you do which can be proven that he's more handsome than you. "

This is incorrect, and a completely false statement, and exactly what I am pointing out.  It is a false logical jump.

Not to mention how many women who think Brad Pitt is amazing have actually smelled him...lol

dnuggs40

Also, you are stating that these studies are the absolute fact when it comes to attraction.  You do know that is one of the most heavily debated subjects in human behavior right?  And even the advocates for the studies, never make calims to understand it completely.

 You need to learn to use things with context and stop putting undue weight on things, especially from fields of science like human behavior.

dnuggs40

two great posts to show what a hypocrite you are.

here's you "smerlus stop blowing things out of proportion" then you write that thing about brad pitts smell where i even said it would be just one of many factors but you consistently ignore that. come on, i know you don't have any trouble reading or comprehending so why are you playing the role of a 12 year old that just sticks to one thing in an argument and tries to make cracks about it?

and once again here's you "10,000 games saying a game is great is fact and gamers that don't agree are wrong" then you ramble on about how millions of scientific studies are not fact and that scientists that don't agree are perfectly normal and right in not consenting to these studies.

throughout this whole 20 pages of debate, you've done nothing but change the rules everytime the argument didn't suit your side. you've backpeddled over all of your statements but you still hold on to the idea that you're right and i'm wrong.

If anything i've learned from this topic is that Far Cry is in a league of it's own and it can't be compared to anything else unless the people that think that it's a great game decide to do so. Fans of Far Cry are the supreme beings, they know what are facts and trends and in actuality the only Fact in the world is Far Cry is a great game.

Dnuggs, you should start a religion and Far Cry can be your God, it's only then will I just leave you alone, stop proving you wrong and just let you be.

and yes... Brad Pitt probably does smell better than you.

haha

Talk about exaggeration and blowing things out of porportion...

"Brad Pitt probably does smell better than you."

 The only thing in that entire rant that is probally true... :P

[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="dnuggs40"]

I never said the theories are wrong, I am telling you are using the theories incorrectly.  The waist hip ratio mearly shows common occourances in attraction, you are using it like scientific fact.  You are using the trend to prove something, you cannot do that, because when it comes down to it, the trend is nothing more then that.  Show me one piece of research where they state they can prove a person's attractiveness with this ration and and other factors.  You can't, becuase no scientist in their right mind would make that claim.  There are other factors that contribute, and no person of science would ever make the claim they can prove attraction with a formula.

The proof is in the pudding...

 "you do know pheremones are more than just chemical reactions don't you? they did a test where they would wipe a sample of other woman's sweat (containing mostly what they thought were pheremones)  under a woman's nose and found that the test subject's menstrual cycles changed to where the two women were menstrating at just about the same time every month."

So what is the conclusion of that study?  I fail to see how it has anything to do with what we are talking about, not to mention how that says pheremones are more then just chemical reactions...

dnuggs40

well it is a fact that the vast majority of Miss America winners since 1921 all have the .07 waist hip ratio and those that didn't were very close to that ratio, so did sex symbols Marlyn Monroe and... that hot lady from the 70's.. Sophia Loren i think her name was.

this proves that it's more than just a trend because body shapes and what was in according to hair, style of clothes of woman have all changed since the 1920's but this ratio has stayed the same for 80 years in this case and again the 2000 years from the case in ancient greece

and i never said that this is the holy grail of attractiveness....i'm saying it's one of the factors and millions of studies have proved this.

and trying to disregard phermones as 'just chemical reactions' is just like saying 'meh...the drugs that cure most diseases are just chemical reactions' when any common person knows that they are much more important than that.

Again, you are misusing this.  A .07 ratio does not prove a women is attractive.  You are using this as if it does.  You are misusing the research. 

Here is what you are doing...

"Research have shown a .07 ratio is very common in attractive women"

So you are concluding...

"Lisa has a .07 ratio, therefore she is attractive"

You cannot make this logical jump.  It does not work.  You used this line of logic to tell me that my Brad Pitt analogy doesn't work because it can be PROVEN he is attractive, WHEN THIS IS INCORRECT!

About pheremones, it does not apply to this discussion.  Has any of those women actually smelled brad pitt?  Lets keep it relevent shall we?

for the 4000000000000th time.... and i'm going to type it slower so that you can read it.

I  N E V E R  S A I D  T H A T  I T ' S  T H E  O N L Y  R E A S O N!  Y O U  D I D!  Y O U  A R E  A R G U I N G  W I T H 

Y O U R S E L F  O N  T H I S  O N E!

"and once again here's you "10,000 games saying a game is great is fact and gamers that don't agree are wrong" then you ramble on about how millions of scientific studies are not fact and that scientists that don't agree are perfectly normal and right in not consenting to these studies."

Again, you are waaay out of context.  THE STUDIES DONT SHOW YOU CAN SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE ATTRACTIVENESS.  They show trends.  Having the proper ratio's does not PROVE you are attractive, no matter how acurate the statistic is.  You are using the research incorrectly and making invalid conclusions from it.

"so scientifically Brad Pitt may have a more semetrical face than you do which can be proven that he's more handsome than you. "

There you go bud, you said it, not me.  Even if you agree there is other aspects to it, you still claim it can be scientifically proven, which is not true.

"so scientifically Brad Pitt may have a more semetrical face than you do which can be proven that he's more handsome than you. "

This is incorrect, and a completely false statement, and exactly what I am pointing out.  It is a false logical jump.

dnuggs40

YAWN...

ok if i put you and brad pitt next to each other... i know for a fact that more women will choose him.

if i show the women and men that picked him scientific studies that say that they picked brad pitt probably because he's built better, his face is more symetrical, even on the side ran some tests on pheromones (because there are studies on phermones and attraction, how do you think lesser animals communicate and know when to mate and humans are just another form of animals), also he's seen as a better provider because of his financial standing...

i doubt any of them would say "nuh uh...none of these commonalities of human behavior effect me. i am above and beyond these."

"and once again here's you "10,000 games saying a game is great is fact and gamers that don't agree are wrong" then you ramble on about how millions of scientific studies are not fact and that scientists that don't agree are perfectly normal and right in not consenting to these studies."

Again, you are waaay out of context.  THE STUDIES DONT SHOW YOU CAN SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE ATTRACTIVENESS.  They show trends.  Having the proper ratio's does not PROVE you are attractive, no matter how acurate the statistic is.  You are using the research incorrectly and making invalid conclusions from it.

dnuggs40

your user reviews don't show that Far Cry is factually a great game! so i just destroyed your earlier arguement by using this whole debate against you.

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]

"so scientifically Brad Pitt may have a more semetrical face than you do which can be proven that he's more handsome than you. "

This is incorrect, and a completely false statement, and exactly what I am pointing out.  It is a false logical jump.

smerlus

YAWN...

ok if i put you and brad pitt next to each other... i know for a fact that more women will choose him.

if i show the women and men that picked him scientific studies that say that they picked brad pitt probably because he's built better, his face is more symetrical, even on the side ran some tests on pheromones (because there are studies on phermones and attraction, how do you think lesser animals communicate and know when to mate and humans are just another form of animals), also he's seen as a better provider because of his financial standing...

i doubt any of them would say "nuh uh...none of these commonalities of human behavior effect me. i am above and beyond these."

haha

Whats up with you, one post ago you are freaking out...now it's "YAWN"?

Anyways, again, you are not analyzing that research correctly.  You cannot use it prove attraction.  Let me break it down for ya, in simple terms...

Scientific fact: "The majority turds are brown"

With this fact, we cannot now deduct:

Misconception: "Joe is a turd, therefore he is brown"

You cannot prove a person will be attractive with statistics, you merely analyze wether or not they fit the mold.

[QUOTE="Alkpaz"] I would have to agree with Dnuggs analogy. The only thing you CAN prove is that you exist.. Jack_Summersby

You've taken the Evil Trickster argument far too seriously. There most certainly is an objective reality - it's not all in your head. But this issue has been debated by far more skilled philosophers than I - or you - so I suggest you hold off on making bold claims about reality until you've taken a few more of your philosophy courses.

thus my quote in my sig. Truth is relative.. you may think that the world is round.. (which it is more eliptical than circular.. but I digress) but there ARE people in this world that believe the world to be flat.. There are people who don't believe the holocaust really happened.. that the pyramids were landing pads for Go'uld ships.. (okay maybe not the last one.. ) But you see my point.. they may be wrong in your eyes.. but they have their own "facts" that differ from your own..Alkpaz

They aren't facts in the socially defined meaning of the word (which is relative, of course). By definition a fact must be objectively true, so to say that it is a fact that the holocaust did and did not happen because there are different sets of facts out there is to redefine the word. And the problem with redefining words is that when the rest of society hears you speak, they do not understand you as you intend to be understood.

I also believe I just proved you right too Smerlus.. that the AI is not perfect.. nor is anything that exists in reality "perfect" since we all have differing ideas of what perfection means..Alkpaz

True.

Socrates (or if you believe Plato) tried to get to the exact definition of "what is knowledge".. in the end there really isn't an answer.. to go through websters and say "It says right here.. knowledge is ....." is to be foolish.. because knowledge is wider than the definition given in a book... Alkpaz

Again, wait until you get further in your philosophical studies. Neither Socrates nor Plato had the last word on epistemology - it's an entire branch of philosophy.

We can debate things like "this game is great" or "this game is horrible" or "this game has bad AI" but really everything is relative.. and it is actually pointless to debate about anythingAlkpaz

That's a silly thing to say - debate profoundly impacts our lives. When the various social forces debated during the civil rights era, an entire nation's views were changed, leading to the end of segregation. When I engaged in a debate with my classmates about the nature of the doctor-patient relationship, my whole view shifted against paternalism, and that will have a profound impact on my future patients.

.. but its fun as hell though... :)

BTW, I believe I didn't say anything in this post.. and therefore this post does not exist.. so mote it be.Alkpaz

How smug.

As you Smerlus blogged .. you can't find a forum to have a discussion in.. maybe your actually noticing that all these discussions and topics are just a waste of time.. what you should find interesting is how much "fun" they can actually be.. that is if you can just take everything with a "grain of salt".. the world isn't just black and white.. but a world filled with grey.. maybe that is the advent of post-modernism.. that "reality really isn't what it used to be" or it could be all these "liberal" professors are just messed in the head and you and a few others are actually right..Alkpaz

He's not alone; the vast majority of people believe in an objective reality - it is a minority that do not. Further, that minority is primarily (though nott exclusively) isolated to academia, but even there many great professors - gasp, some of them liberals - acknowledge the objective world around them.

who knows. I guess we will find out when death brings us.. that is, if there is indeed something after death.. or I find myself transmigrating into an ant or something along those lines.Alkpaz

By your way of thinking, there doesn't have to be a death at all - just don't believe in one and you can alter the facts of the universe. Would you be right or wrong? Who cares! Those are anachronistic terms. So long as you believe it, it's true to you, right?

--- the point of this post is just lacking in any real point.. I assume there is a point somewhere.. just can't find one.. oh well.. :PAlkpaz

Luckily I can impose my own interpretation on this post and give it meaning for you. You're welcome.

Now back to a waste of hours of my life .... gamingAlkpaz

Enjoy.

"so scientifically Brad Pitt may have a more semetrical face than you do which can be proven that he's more handsome than you. "

There you go bud, you said it, not me.  Even if you agree there is other aspects to it, you still claim it can be scientifically proven, which is not true.

dnuggs40

where is your logic coming from...? it goes against any other form of logic.

the studies say that the majority of people find a symmetrical face more attractive.

therefore if brad pitts face is more symmetrical more people will find him attractive over you.

which would then prove the theory to have some sort of factual basis

this is simple logic... if grab a bunch of people that like the color blue and let them pick between a red candy and a blue candy and most of them pick the blue candy.... wouldn't that mean that most of the people do like blue things? sooooo how would that be false other than your own opinion?

haha

Whats up with you, one post ago you are freaking out...now it's "YAWN"?

Anyways, again, you are not analyzing that research correctly.  You cannot use it prove attraction.  Let me break it down for ya, in simple terms...

Scientific fact: "The majority turds are brown"

With this fact, we cannot now deduct:

Misconception: "Joe is a turd, therefore he is brown"

You cannot prove a person will be attractive with statistics, you merely analyze wether or not they fit the mold.

dnuggs40

typing with spces and caps is freaking out? ok

anyways i see where your whole argument is coming from... you think in your head that i said ALL women will find brad pitt more attractive than you (which they probably would) and then you're trying to apply this to my argument saying that i said ALL MEN AUTOMATICALLY FIND WOMEN WITH THIS RATIO AND THERE ARE NO WAY THAT THIS DOESN'T WORK EVER!

when i never said that.. i've consistantly said this is one of many different things that suggest attractiveness, these things have been proven factors and i'll even admit right now that there is no one on earth that has all of these theories going for them so it's impossible to tell how much weight they all hold.

so again... you're arguing with things you've made up that i said in your own mind so of course you're right. i'll admit, your little 'smerlus argument with dnugg twists' is wrong.

you just won that debate that was taking place in your mind between you and your made up copy of me. i hope you feel better and walk away from this topic a new man