Reality vs Adventure
-
Posts
3,529 -
Points
7,912 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
28
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Reality vs Adventure
-
-
It seems now you would rather get involved with their hierarchy of government which would mean that you place yourself into their conflicts. And giving them what they want in return to get things you want I agree would be a longer alternative to rule. But there would have to be a balance maintained. What if either side, you or them, weren’t offering enough or wanted too much?
That to me looks like more of a mafia racket by offering protection and in return they offer you pleasantries, whether it be gems, women, booze, or food. You are correct that it isn’t necessarily malevolent, but rackets like that could get violent very easily. That idea would be more rational, but to take women as an offer would not be sympathetic. To assume their lives would be better is just a tactical excuse.
From top down in their government, how would they acquire women for your pleasure? Would they volunteer? Would they be kidnapped? What happens when the public does find out? And do you stop at a certain number of women and expect nothing else? Cities usually have a brothel, maybe you can spend your resources to buy some ladies for the night if you become that desperate. How much of what rare foods would you want? Would you take all their silk for a soft bed and wardrobe? Would you pluck all the birds for a bunch of pillows? Would you harvest all their gems to shine on your body? That would mean to force labor camps into dangerous mines or working conditions to get enough. Would they then use child labor for extra help? These are consequences from what you propose. Is it that much different from all out forcing them yourself or get stomped?
How much is enough? These are the realities in rackets. Who does the dirty work to get what you want? The ‘little’ little people. And when those refuse to take that abuse, then who is gonna get what you want? Their government comes up short. You act in retaliation. Then the delicate balance becomes chaotic.
You would have to offer something for the people and not just their government bodies if you want to maintain rule and peace. The ‘little’ little people are just as integral to stability as their government and foreign influence would be. To satisfy them, you would have to grant them rights. So that would be the most rational, and in effect creates the most sympathetic way to rule, which also in effect creates a longer and more productive rule.
To help your case, if there was a time of war between the little people, then your proposal will shine the greatest. You will provide the protection and some would even be willing to sacrifice personal things for you. But I guess that would only work in a warring state. In a time of peace, I don't see how that would last that long. But even if there was war, and you abuse your leverage, they could defect. Always different scenarios playing and nothing set in stone. With force, there is always a cold response. When they all have rights, they respect you, their government, and would never defect. But once they lose that respect. All options are on the table.
-
51 minutes ago, The Blackangel said:
I build up castles.
I tear down mountains.
I make some men blind.
I help others to see.What am I?
Gold
-
24 minutes ago, Reality vs Adventure said:
I had to turn off network to charge controller so it would automatically update the 8.00.
So it would **NOT** automatically update 8.00. Don't know how I made that typo
-
I can't use network features on the ps4 because it keeps telling me to update the 8.00, which I keep canceling and deleting. I had to turn off network to charge controller so it would automatically update the 8.00. Anyone else having this problem not being able to sign back in w/o having to update it?
-
19 minutes ago, Jakeyjake said:
There are way too many different versions of schools of magic/disciplines to even go into. Depends on universe.
Yeah, that's what was getting me confused as the different universe uses different terms.
-
I've wondered that too. But if it was going to take place in modern times, then that means there would be modern weapons involved. So that would eventually lead to a shooter game, which will take AC in a direction that would miserably fail. Not saying it can't be done, but it would turn into a MGS or Clancy game. I don't know how it would work get shot at with machine guns while you wield an axe or pirate pistol. Once you get that semi automatic, AC and role play goes out the window. One of the legacies of the game is taking place in a mysterious world, in a mysterious time.
-
And another thing about AC Odyssey is being able to create your own quests or play other's personally made quests if you have the internet. It's not perfect. The dialog you have to read everything because there is no voice over or lips moving since it isn't part of the game. But with improvements, can you imagine how awesome that can be? Something like that is definitely flirting with the future of gaming.
-
For me it's definitely Assassins Creed Odyssey. Honestly, I'm not too much into the story. I think all the amazing things they have done to the game was at the sacrifice of the story. But the story isn't bad. It's about average I would say. But it is the environment, and cities, villages and large map full of never ending places to explore that makes me love the game. There is a lot of detail in absolutely everything from people in the towns, animals, weather, caves and landscape. Even the sea battles and major land battles are cool. I can swim deep in the water and soar above everything with a bird's eye view using the eagle.
Taking pictures is a treat I haven't seen in any other game by being able to have a 360 view and zoom in or out, and even edit pictures. I don't have problems with weight issues with all the cool gear. And the gear is amazing detail. Being able to switch out a helmet, chest piece, arms, feet, waist, weapons, and abilities, is something I love playing with. And having a female character that is beautiful and strong is a plus cause I'm tired of the same ol dumb he-man b.s. I do wish there were more options to have more available horse gear to play with.
A negative is that it is easy to get carried away doing too many repetitive quests. But you really don't even have to do them in the first place. I love being able to tame animals such as a lion or any wild cat, bear, wolf or dog. Wish there were even more options there like taming a boar or even a goat. The fighting is pretty good. I can take a good pic right in the middle of an action and it always has great detail no matter which angle. I also love being able to climb on top of pretty much anything. That is true open world. I can change it from night to day anytime I want. It's a fun and beautiful game. I hope their future games keep all these great features, but improve on the stories and quests. It would actually be a masterpiece if they did.
-
They call anyone who plays video games a gamer like it's an immature thing. But I don't call them a tv watcher. I don't call them a reader. I don't call them an internet surfer. And all those so called adults that watched something like the Game of Thrones fantasy series or the new Witcher series on tv, well, welcome to entertainment bitches.
-
There are a lot of things I can propose that you haven’t thought about because you are not rational or sympathetic. And it isn’t anything new. Even things you think you can place in your favor, you will still underestimate the little people. I can pop many ideas into your head, and different scenarios, but it will come down to your unescapable authoritarian views that just aren’t realistic in any possible manner.
You jumped from ruling them abusively to proposing a spy network. So now you see your first proposal isn’t a reality? Tell me, how would you propose a realistic approach to infiltrate them? Do you want to move on to infiltration techniques?
The females you carry in your pockets, you will be untouchable for how long? Your days are numbered. They want their women back. Once again you propose retaliation. Everything you propose is a path to retaliation.
You are dreaming and fantasizing if you think you are the great persuader to turn tribe against tribe. And use a spy network after you admitted to wanting to rule them malevolently. So now we are discussing spy networks. After you have gained rationality? Intelligence?
First, you would have no idea which side to persuade. Like you said, they are nothing to you. Their ideas mean nothing. They are ants. Now you are considering them as being an equal? People you think you can persuade?
And your irrational behavior at the start to control them eliminates any possibility to gain any influence in the so called world if there are others.
-
Quality quests and unique non repetitive dialogue. Be able to fly over the terrain and view the world from a bird's eye like in Assassins Creed. That was a brilliant treat. Let us fly a dragon and wreak havoc. I remember playing Destroy All Humans and you get to fly a spacecraft around and destroy things. And they remastered it now for the ps4 which I want. But to be interactive in the air as much as on ground would be fun.
-
If they had enough technology to create more giants, then they also have the technology to destroy one. So it would be a lot easier to take out one giant than to have to deal with many of them later. Look at the USA with the greatest arsenal in the world, but infiltrating its satellites and energy sector would cripple it and all that supreme artillery would be useless. They would have to fly blind and drop bombs directly over enemy territory because they wouldn’t be able to launch missiles from anywhere. Not from a carrier, jet, tank, or from absolutely anything, at least not with any accuracy. So with the right technology, your giant size would become irrelevant.
What exactly would be the best way to rule for the longest period of time? For this topic you give two options, but there is always a third to not rule at all. But in this situation, to rule by demoralizing them always ends violently. And through our own history, leaders like that usually create turmoil in their own sphere of power and can even fall from the inside. But since it’s just you and them, your reign to demoralize them can only last so long as they have something to lose. Once they feel they have nothing to lose anymore, whether it be population, pride, sense of purpose, then they will revolt. And you say you will try to keep them at bay and only take so much so they wouldn’t feel the need to retaliate. And that is a 50/50 chance you fuck it up and get too greedy, or take one too many women, or eat 100 too many cows. You have no idea their toleration levels.
You would think they would be too demoralized to do anything. But they aren’t all in chains under constant watch. You can’t monitor their every move. And remember, in those situations people would flee and go underground. From there they will build resistance. You can’t possibly keep an eye on every one of them so far above. And once they break away, you can demoralize the cities all you want, but that resistance will continue to grow. Reigns like that always go up in flames because there is no other way around it.
If you don’t rule in that manner and decide to rule another way, then you are ingrained in their society and become their protector. And it does take more effort and intelligence, but it will last longer. It lasts longer because their existence would mean something and they become productive. We are talking about one civilization right? Because if there were more groups spread out around the planet, there will obviously be conflict brewing eventually. And we can go on about that situation. But this is one group or civilization. Heck, maybe they have allies! That’s why you need to be rational from the start.
The intelligence that requires you to reign in peace is rational. It has purpose other than self, and becomes a very productive society. The easy way is to use force. That cripples rational thinking. There is no rational thinking when you openly desire to abuse them. Rational thinking starts when you look at all the options: stay away, help their civilization, try to peacefully assimilate? Rational thinking also includes what to do if they attack, what if they involve me in their conflicts? But all of the above rational thinking goes away the moment you decide to act first without any evidence of them plotting and subjugate them out of paranoia and pleasure.
-
5 hours ago, The Blackangel said:
Either way, I just hope not. Photorealism would only take away the reason of playing a video game. It's supposed to be an escape, not a tryout for the KC Chiefs, or entry into the Indy 500. It's supposed to teleport us somewhere that the most advanced weapons are swords and bows. It just removes all enjoyment to me. If it's going to do that, then it may as well all be moved strictly to competitions. It's no longer enjoyment anyway. Because by that time, they won't be worried about making a good entertaining game. They'll only be worried about the graphics of the shit game they're about to release.
Photorealism will be the downfall of gaming.
That is a good point. They could spend more resources on realism and deprive the game of other substance. But if they can make it look real and do massive world building like in AC Odyssey then that would be pretty awesome. But there is a trend in photorealism and actually trying to make the game as real as possible like fixing your weapons, gear, and nurturing your horse along with having the scenery look real. I think that trend could take away from enjoyment. If it is strictly a survival game, then that would work. But yes, it is going to get hard to separate photorealism and physical realism where things become a chore. Soon characters will need a shit break. Leave some of those realities out please.
-
I think that if a company wanted to pay off a president to promote its product for a political message, then that could be considered lobbying because that message could sway public opinion and votes, which in itself could cause bills to be passed that they wanted in the first place. So it is more of an indirect lobbying. To do it just to gain sales in a new market that is politically motivated simply opens up a crisis in the gaming world. One side will boycott games they oppose and the gaming world becomes forever political as one company tries to outdo the other in their political motive.
A game that has politics from past history is different because it's all old blood. But current events in a game is open wounds that enables fresh blood to spill.
-
For me, linear better have a good story, or lots of scares and gory scenes. Open world better have beautiful environments worth exploring. Most of my games are open world.
-
Intervening is a responsibility if one side is clearly in the wrong and putting others in danger. That wouldn’t be authoritative of me. That would be a moral obligation. Giant or not. And if there isn’t a clear aggressor, then we have the full capability to try and understand both sides and see if you can diffuse it somehow. Taking a side at that point w/o a clear aggressor would not make me feel obligated to interfere unless of course they go to war and one side wants to torture, enslave, rape, and genocide the other. Then again, I would be obligated to interfere.
It seems your main argument is to control them first before they have the chance to attack you or involve you in their conflicts. That is a failed human perception. Paranoia. You have clearly shown paranoia and the need to subjugate out of fear and for pleasure. That is a package deal for you.
Fantasies need careful consideration. Usually fantasies are perfect. Reality isn’t. If you are loved and respected, attention can be turned to other important matters and be very productive. Your reign will last much longer and stronger if they respected you. You propose a life of quarreling. Subjugation from fear is nothing but opportunity for conflict. Your proposal invites conflict in order to justify your intentions.
The little people have feelings too and if it was their wife or daughter in that bottle stuck in your pocket, damn right some will retaliate. And a few can turn into many. And that is what I mean how you would justify your complete rule over them, by instigating it all. If they rise up, in return you retaliate back and crush them. Yes they will be afraid. In these situations, anger will boil over. Then peace of mind over abuse becomes more important than life itself. They would rather die than be subjugated to any more cruelty. You then lose the reign.
Once you reduce their population, there wouldn’t be many to rule over at that point. Or they will be so terrified and pissed, they will become scattered nomads in hiding and possibly even make an underground network to thrive, repopulate, and either outlive you, or take out your eyes while you sleep.
But let’s say they attacked you from the start without you doing anything. Would you be justified to counter attack? Of course you would. But like any unknown animal in it’s own habitat, you have to respect its boundaries because you don’t know what it is capable of. Honor those boundaries and try to offer a sign of peace or leave it be. But if they want to chase you to the end of their tiny world relentlessly, then sure, you have the right to slay the beast. And from there you have to make the choice to either rule benevolently or malevolently. Or not rule at all, that is a choice also.
Abusing others has nothing to do with survival. There is a difference between surviving and thriving. To thrive is to evolve. To survive is the fight or flight response. It isn’t rational. It doesn’t take the time to look at the whole picture. Being quick to react instead of being rational is a devolved sate. It is the most raw form of humans and other animals. And since it is just you and your DNA can’t mix with one 1000 times smaller than you, then evolving is redundant. You become a basic animal just trying to survive. Your state of mind becomes devolved. That is if you choose to make the little people enemies or abuse them. But if you work together, maybe you can save your humanity and evolve and thrive together. You mark will be left for the rest of their future generations in helping them with things that they couldn’t ordinarily do given your strength. That would be a legacy worth having, instead of having them make monuments for you that they will want to tear down once you are gone.
-
If we can pass a law to ban lobbying, that would eliminate much need for companies to get political in the first place. If they still feel the need to go rebel in a game, know it opens the door for all to go rebel. Nothing like a republican fascist holding my flag claiming to be a patriot. You have confederate flags for a reason red hats.
-
On 10/4/2020 at 1:41 PM, m76 said:
Malazan Book of the Fallen
The complexity of the world rivals Lord of the Rings, in my opinion it beats it by far. Much more gritty, but still has humour at times. It's definitely not a children's book, much more mature, sometimes very dark but still thrilling. Maybe the material is too big for any lazy studio to pick it up. About 12000 pages just for the main series, not including the spinoffs.
On 10/4/2020 at 4:10 PM, Reality vs Adventure said:Wow, that looks like a good series. I just bought book 1 Gardens of The Moon!
Update on book
I've been reading it the past few days. It is definitely complex. More so than Lord of the Rings. It does bring a creepy fear factor from so many things happening especially when Gods are involved. Great characters. Plot is yet to be emphasized so I keep wondering, which could make or brake it for me. But the mystery just won't allow me to quit. It is very unique.
-
5 hours ago, The Blackangel said:
I’m more into things like Layers Of Fear: Legacy for horror games. I like exploration with fear around every corner instead of a monster trying to kill me in a creepy setting all the time. Things like Evil Within are just too overdone for me to enjoy. They rely too much on the stereotype of mutant killers out of nowhere. A disembodied scream that you can’t pinpoint where it’s coming from is a lot more freaky.
I've wanted to play that game. I will make that next on my list in horror. Can't remember exactly what stopped me from getting it. It was too expensive as a rare game or something like that. I love exploration with fear around every corner too. I'm talking scenes of slaughter and pushing your way through a room with bloody hanging half bodies. Find a head roll as a door hits it when you open it. And amplify that rolling sound like a bowling ball. So dense of a blood clotted head.
But anyways, would a rare game like that count which doesn't have the popularity and high reviews?
-
Loud crazy orchestra. It makes me freakin insane. My eyeballs turn in my head, I feel rage, everything moves real slow as I contemplate hacking away at the first person I see. Then the scene ends and I smile real big all open and blank, and ask,"anyone want some cake?" My toupe is flipped over the side and drool hangs from my mouth.
-
I would have to say RE7. I'm not close to finishing it, so can't say if it's the best. But so far it is up there and has good reviews. I beat RE2 remake and played RE4. So as far as horror games that are both scary to me personally and has the popular reviews, RE7 is one of the top.
-
6 hours ago, Jakeyjake said:
As to why domination would be my first choice: in that situation, I have a sense that such a tiny race would see a giant as an existential threat and would plot to take me out, which I would be insane to allow. As well, if I were stranded, I'm not sure it would be even possible to cooperate or leave them alone. Given limited resources and limited space, eventually I would get sucked into their own conflicts. It would be a question of whether to interfere in their conflicts, or wait for them to involve you me them. Why give up the upper hand by waiting?
There is that chance as you mentioned that the little people will have conflicts among themselves and will try to involve you to take a side. That is a situation I am not sure of how to react. I sure would try to get them to make a treaty. The answer would be easier if one side was blatantly the offender.
As a giant, what would be your goal to exist there? Just live and dominate? The little people obviously reproduce and want a civilization. That would be a natural thing. The only unnatural thing would be a lonesome giant who has to masterbate and stomp the little people in frustration. If you were stranded on that planet, and if there was limited resources, then would you think your one life is more important than a whole civilization?
I wouldn’t want to starve either, but there would have to be a way to grow enough food and a way to drink enough water. Planets are usually big, so space is irrelevant. Unless it's a tiny planet you can jog around the whole thing in one day. If they aren’t that advanced yet and would take years to create a system to sustain enough resources, then there is an obvious choice. Me or them. And I personally would value all their lives over my one. They can feast on me when I’m dead and erect a monument out of my bones.
Realistically, the amount you would eat would compare to a couple thousand of them. So on a planet, pretty sure there would be plenty to go around. Look at all the different species on our planet we have to share food and water with.
Maybe they would just see you as a God and worship you without you having to subjugate them or make them fear you. Fear of God is fear enough. Then they would offer you all the food and let themselves die as a sacrifice to you. But the rest of your life you would be living a lie. And if that guilt doesn’t affect you, then you would be a cold blooded devil in disguise.
-
Wouldn't bore me as long as I have places left to explore. But once I've seen it all, I would need a story or objective to keep me in. So I just take my time in open worlds. I try not to get too leveled up beyond the main story and just enjoy it. 1st person shooters and military games gets repetitive for me. It needs a variety of cool environments, or hasta la vista.
-
2 hours ago, Kane99 said:
I'm speaking of the future though, because I don't see graphics getting to that point of realism for many years yet. If anything maybe 20 years from now.
Before that, cause just 25 years ago everyone had pagers. Now we are all walking internet satellites. Some scenes in games already look real. You can take a photo, put it on a post card and nobody would know the difference. Take a black and white of Bayek in AC Origins and say, "hey mommy, look, they still have ancient warriors by the pyramids!" And dumb mommy will believe it.
Anyone got any good riddles?
in Forum Games & Fun
Posted
Because man has to mine for gold! Or tear down the mountains looking for it