Because sequels are supposed to improve and expand upon its predecessors, be it with story, gameplay, content, or graphics or all of those combined.

I would say that most people are against sequels without any of those improvements, but not nessessarily against them containing a few of those.

Not until someone gives a good reason to.

And there isn't one without fallacy or threat.

I wonder how many times a day you type 666 or 616 into the computer. What about if we converted the characters you type on a keyboard to ASCII values, or Hex or Octo code. How many times does it appear when your viewing a digital picture of yourself, could the colours around your right hand add up to 666. What if we added then divided then added and took the root of that.

You're looking for a sequence of numbers in a world run by numbers. You're going to find it everywhere. It has absolutly no meaning.

This also applies to that terrible number: 13.

Demon's Souls.

Until I die. Then I'm worse off from where i started.

[QUOTE="Penguinchow"][QUOTE="z4twenny"]

i see what you're getting at, i personally would only relate religion to what its basic definition by a dictionary (which does require a belief in some spiritual being, thats vague though since i see myself as a spiritual being.... but thats a different thread entirely) but i'd call my old weekly D&D habits an enjoyable habit at best :P

really though when i define religion i ask 1 question which is "does your belief system have a group of people recognized by the gov't as a religion" in other words, if you're not tax exempt you're not a religion (and imo the US gov't is really really really easy going on what they consider a religion to be) and as many times as i've asked, i can't get my old D&D gang tax exempt.... they did tell me my 9th level drow fighter mage was exempt, which is good cuz he has a lot of loot.

z4twenny

oh i know what he was getting at, it was a roundabout way of what you were saying that yes anything with personal spiritual significance, whether or not it has that significance outside of the individual is still a religious doctrine or dogma as long as you feel spiritually connected with your higher power. its just that me, personally, i wouldn't call those a religion is all.

that being said -

"take what you want and leave the rest"

And neither would I. Originally I was just saying that a religion does not necessarily require a deity. But I may be wrong. All my point was was that some people might say that I play a certain role-playing-game religiously, and I may even concede and use the word myself, however the word comes with a certain stigma that may come across the wrong way.

I think all of our definitions work, it's just the context that matters.

[QUOTE="SnakeBite27"]

[QUOTE="iginlawasup"]

God made that happen, thats my belief. What do people think people mean when they say create? He made it out of clay? God made the space dust form the earth. And anyway it is my BELIEF that he made the earth, I dont care about your scientific facts. Its what I believe.

zakkro

But, don't you care whether or not your beliefs are true?

Are you seriously OK with that? So the people that believe that slavery or racism is ok, or, that it's ok to stone unruly children. That those beliefs are true for them? Because I would argue that that stuff is always wrong. I think you would too.

Beliefs are not always true. There are true beliefs and there are false beliefs, and we ALL need to work together to find out which is which, through science and reasoned logic.

[QUOTE="hiphops_savior"][QUOTE="z4twenny"]

i'm going with buddhism, though thats philosophy and not religion. i don't really like any of the theistic religions because i don't find any of them to be adequately representative of an omniscient being.

z4twenny

no.... no its not. its a philosophy, not a religion. a religion requires a belief in some godlike deity or power.

atheism denotes a lack of belief of any kind of deity. an atheistic religion is alot like dehydrated water.... it just doesn't make much sense in the way you're using it.

I agree with pretty much everything except one small semantic. I don't believe that a religion requires a belief in a god. Your grandparents bridge club or your weekly D&D sessions or scientology could be considered a religion. It's just theism has sort of stolen the word so whenever you hear it you think church then god.

But yes atheistic religion is still a silly phrase, and, I like that comparison you wrote, dehydrated water. Great example.

[QUOTE="neo_starwind"]

[QUOTE="iginlawasup"]

I believe that God created the earth and made evolution happen. Why cant the two be together?

iginlawasup

God made that happen, thats my belief. What do people think people mean when they say create? He made it out of clay? God made the space dust form the earth. And anyway it is my BELIEF that he made the earth, I dont care about your scientific facts. Its what I believe.

But, don't you care whether or not your beliefs are true?

I'm an atheist so from a completely unbiased position, out of those three, I have to go with Judaism. Mostly because they don't proselytize and in fact have to jump through hoops to get join their religion. It's respectable.

Also the god of the old testament (which all three subscribe to) is one of the easiest to argue against.

What might be cool is if the multiplayer isn't really forced. In a large enough sandbox, have maybe 4-12 players in with no means of communication at first. And if you just so happen to run into eachother, you can exchange "phone numbers" or "radio frequencies" and go your seperate ways or team up and fight off the horde together.

Also if that teammate gets infected you get to shoot em in the face.

A zombie sandbox game could be something simple like a score-based third-person-shooter for the PSN or XBLA.