Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Why you do you think that? There are plenty of reasons why one might not like his stories, but that doesn’t mean he is a bad story teller. His stories are very in-depth and connections made across years of stories, from the first to the last.
MGS series is an action drama, and I love it.
But I am still curious why you feel that he isn’t a good story teller, that quote was of course a joke, but yeah.
MasterP said:
Never really liked MGS, mainly due to the whole 3rd person thing. Played the original on PC and some of Twin Snakes on the Gamecube, neither were terribly exciting compared to other stealth and PC shooters at the time. While the PC and Gamecube had better FP and 3P shooters at the time, the Playstation did not and I think that’s why the series has been so successful. Kojima’s plot writing was a little excessive as well, and still is.
Then again, I really liked the original Rainbow Six games, the ones that made you actually use stealth, made you take your time, and had realistic damange IE you die in 1 chest hit instead of crouching behind a magically bullet-proof wooden desk for 10 seconds while you auto-heal.
“I’mma let you finish, but Hideo Kojima is one of the best story-tellers of all time.”
Seriously though the man is a genius when it comes to telling a story. I will admit that the MGS series might not be for everyone, since a lot of times cinematics take up a lot of play time, but I personally enjoy that kind of stuff.
If you want a total immersion of MGS play MGS4 on the PS3 it is the only one that does the series complete justice as it has everything there. If you didn’t like the series from the original though it is doubtful that you will ever like it.
Everybody has their own thing though and there are definitely some third-person shooters that I can’t stand too, like I personally can’t stand Gears of War 1 or 2, something about it I hate. Anyways, Red Dead Redemption multiplayer is genius and I love it, that is all.
Yep, even Red Dead Redemption feels good. Although my votes are MGS, Uncharted 1 & 2 (close 2nd), and then Red Dead Redemption.
I didn’t realize they had taken things that far Mitch, I am sorry man.
Great idea getting the updated constitution up early, it needs to be up anyways if there is a completed version.
It has levels like most RPGs do if I am not mistaken, so you start low and have to level up through experience points and stuff. A lot of times some people play NPCs or monsters that you can fight for experience and others that play NPC are usually involved in the story, honestly I would rather play an NPC
So yeah one of the biggest glitches I ran into is
After the heli crashes, if you run where the heli crashes your character will get stuck and you get butt *edited*ed by a ton of zombies because you can’t move. Da *edited* is up wit dat *edited*.
It doesn’t make sense that you get stuck there, and it also is not clear where you have to go… Kinda ticked me off.
MajorMajorMajor said:
Ritsuka said:
Sorry but i saw these and thought of Major *- *
i dunno whether to be pleased or upset…
be both……
Best sex evar!
OMG someone with good photoshop please do something to those pics I smell some epic *edited* that needs to be made from that picture.
MasterP said:
I missed nothing, what you’re quoting is someone trying to explain why it’s good to teach students to question sources of information that contain accurate information just because it’s on the internet and instead of taking that accurate information and acting on it, to intentionally search for information that contradicts it.
And what does he mean by “Wikipedia and similar sites”? Similar “untrustworthy” sites such as the IEEE journal archive? Britanica Online? Dictionary.com? Conference proceedings? There are VERY few thorough online reference sources and fewer still that are actually free. It’s that free and open part that’s the real deal killer for librarians like the one you keep quoting. School librarians, since day one, have been against FREE reference material of any kind. To them, anything that didn’t cost money isn’t a credible source, regardless of how accurate the information is. Don’t take my word for it though, go look at any accuracy or comparative study done on Wikipedia and what you’ll find is that librarians, in every study they’re involved in, have given Wikipedia a bad review. You’ll also find that science-related reviewers generally find Wiki to be as accurate, if not moreso, than Britanica and w/e the big German one is and give it praise despite the noted layout issues some articles have.
So like I said earlier, the science-related majors generally love it and liberal arts hate it. It’s curious that you’d choose to quote from an article titled “A Stand Against Wikipedia” when there are more than enough neutral articles you could have quoted from. Are those the kind of articles you read when you were forming your opinion of Wikipedia or did you pick articles that weren’t completely negative?
Do you take everything I say negatively? No I don’t only read negative articles about Wikipedia, I even went and wasted my time looking at your retarded accuracy studies for Wikipedia. Just so you know I chose that article because I was curious what they had to say about it, I referenced it because even though the title of the article is negative it is more of a fight for the USE of Wikipedia than against it. If you would take your head out of your *edited* for two seconds you would see that I personally am agreeing with you that Wiki is a great source for most information finding, especially in quick reference.
I don’t understand how you take ‘Students face “an ocean of information” today, much of it of poor quality, so a better approach would be to teach students how to “triangulate” a source like Wikipedia, so they could use other sources to tell whether a given entry could be trusted. “I think our goal should be to equip students with the critical thinking skills to judge.”‘ as a negative action against Wikipedia, as far as I can tell the person is saying to USE Wikipedia, break it apart and reference other proven sources to check its validity, just like you should do for anything you find anywhere, whether it be a scholarly resource or Wikipedia, you should never go one place, do a search, find what you want and then immediately reference it as the one source, researching 101? Hence why I have no issue with what this person says, I think it should begin to be used as a source, but it isn’t and never should or will be the end all source for researching, no one source ever should be.
So please do me a favor and take your head out of your *edited*, so I don’t have to break this stuff down for you, STOP BEING NEGATIVE, not everyone agrees with your world view and just because I disagree with you that Wikipedia is not the second coming of Christ does not mean that I am immediately wrong.
tl;dr I agree with MasterP, Wikipedia is a great source for quick reference and beginning research, but it should be checked like all other sources when you research, he needs to stop taking what I say negatively.
You’re not bursting my bubble, I know wiki has been around for a while, 9 years is not that long though… Anyways as I have said like a million times over in this thread, wiki is fine for a checking source, I just don’t think it should be the end all be all when you are researching…. Basically this : “I understand what their concerns are. There’s no question that [on Wikipedia and similar sites] some things are great and some things are questionable. Some of the pages could be by eighth graders,” he said. “But to simply say ‘don’t use that one’ might take students in the wrong direction from the perspective of information literacy.”
Students face “an ocean of information” today, much of it of poor quality, so a better approach would be to teach students how to “triangulate” a source like Wikipedia, so they could use other sources to tell whether a given entry could be trusted. “I think our goal should be to equip students with the critical thinking skills to judge.”
Since you clearly missed it. Everything else was just trolling you and now I am fat thanks to all the food, thanks…
Nickname said:
Dude there are always outliers to any situation. I know a lot of people that make crappy money and you know what? They do a *edited* poor job and don’t work hard at all. Likewise I know a lot of people that make a lot of money and work their *edited* off to do it. Its pretty much impossible to speak of work ethic in general terms, but most people won’t become a CEO by not working hard.
And BTW, I sure as hell know I could not run one of those fortune 500 companies.
Don’t sell yourself short.
Nickname said:
Since MasterP wanted proof he is wrong, I am here to give it to you.
MasterP said:
NuRayZ said:
again it’s not all about money masterp, what did we have to show for those 8 glorious years of tax cuts, war, and spending?
The highest Dow Jones in the history of the stock market. I’d say that’s at least worth something…
Until you look at the fact that the Dow Jones DECREASED by over 2500 points while he was in office. On Jan 20, 2001, it was at 10659.98, on Jan 20, 2009, it was at 8077.56. Yup, seems like he did a great job.
Nickname said:
MasterP said:
Bitey said:
What I can’t stand for right now is the inability for conservatives to see that the obnoxiously wealth are killing our economy. Do you not realize that defending them makes you look like a complete jack *edited*? Let’s defend the guy who sits on a throne instead of the guy who makes an honest day to day living, YEAH THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE, GOD I BET THE GUY ON THE THRONE IS PERFECT AND HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG HE DESERVES ALL OF THAT MONEY!What you fail to realize is that the vast majority of the wealthy got it by honest, day to day living. The difference being they targetting their labor into more productive enterprises or simply rose the corporate ladder better. What you’re saying is that since they’re more successful than you are, as a nation, we should punish them with 90% taxes. How is that fair? Who determines what is and is not “wealthy”? What happens when people start thinking that anything above minimum wage should be taxed 90%? Surely you don’t think THAT’S fair…
Nickname said:
I hate to say it Bitey, but MP is right here. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rich_work_more_than_the_working_class If you work hard for the money and earned it… hard to argue with that.
I understand this will always be a matter of opinion though, I agree that a person that works should be able to keep their money, working “hard” is a pretty relative term though. I think I work harder than most CEOs and I make $10/hr, the cleaning lady at my work works harder than me and she makes minimum wage. Even you and MasterP I am sure work harder than most CEOs, I have seen your work ethic, so I know. Everything is backwards in my mind, it seems the less work that you actually do the more you get paid and the more benefits you get. Now some of these guys worked and worked their *edited* off to gain the positions they are in, I will never argue that they don’t deserve it. Others had it handed to them through favors/shady deals/daddy owned the company kind of thing. Until you can truly understand that nature of all of this and what it means it is really hard to make a true judgement call on whether or not people these “hard” workers truly earned their money. Again it is all pretty relative…. My main point is at the end of the day after all taxes are taken out if you still make 100 million dollar/years, you’re still rich as *edited* and you can suck my left nut if you want to whine about being taxed heavily.
Nickname said:
MasterP said:
Bitey said:
So here is the honest to God truth, when the economy is down, we need to tax the *edited* out of the rich. When it is up and we are in peace times, national debt is down, give them a tax cut. I think that is a fair solution for everyone.So you haven’t read anything I’ve posted here. Go re-read my first post which details how and why that policy doesn’t work and gives a historic example of when the exact opposite worked beautifully. I’m not going to waste my time retyping it, it’s not what you want to hear and puts a giant crack in your view of reality so I’m not really expecting you to read it. At least pretend like you did though so you aren’t saying the same things over and over after being proven wrong by your own historic example.
Nickname said:
Again MP is correct. When the economy is down you need to lower taxes to increase spending and be willing to absorb that increase in national debt. When times are good, raise taxes and cut down the national debt. This is exactly what Clinton did in the 90s and it worked great, but if we weren’t already in an economic upswing, raising taxes would have stalled out our economy.
This is where we will again disagree, this is because lowering taxes on the rich in most cases has been proven to increase spending, but right now, nobody is spending money, the rich are hoarding the money. Hence the problem. Nothing is stimulating the economy because the poor people aren’t spending money, the middle class is trying to save up so they don’t get reemed, and the rich are just saving up for no reason really. Rich people need to be buying *edited* like there is no tomorrow. If they aren’t going to spend their money, then guess what we have to tax them. This is why there can never really be a “permanent” tax solution the economy will always dip and change and we have to accommodate for those changes.
Lastly Clinton raised the top tax in 1993 from 31 percent to 39.6 percent. Some conservatives would have you believe that this was the biggest tax increase in history, but as we know from previous things I have posted this is not even the case.
“From 1939 through 1944, overall federal general fund revenue from corporate and individual income taxes, excise taxes and other levies rose from $4.8 billion to $40.5 billion, a 744 percent increase. If federal taxes were raised at the same rate they were between 1939-44, the government would have taken in over $5.5 trillion last year, enough money to virtually wipe out the national debt in one year.” (Keep in mind again that this article comes from 1998)
By the way from 1939-1944 the top tax went from 78% – 94&….. And were rich people still rich? …..Yep.
Nickname said:
Ok so really that is all I could comment on, and I only really found 1 thing he said that I strongly disagreed with so….
Basically this I can agree with :
“I understand what their concerns are. There’s no question that [on Wikipedia and similar sites] some things are great and some things are questionable. Some of the pages could be by eighth graders,” he said. “But to simply say ‘don’t use that one’ might take students in the wrong direction from the perspective of information literacy.”
Students face “an ocean of information” today, much of it of poor quality, so a better approach would be to teach students how to “triangulate” a source like Wikipedia, so they could use other sources to tell whether a given entry could be trusted. “I think our goal should be to equip students with the critical thinking skills to judge.”
MasterP said:
Bitey said:
Which ever professor told you that is super fail.
So the dean of the EE department and associate dean of the kimmel school are super fail? I guess the head of optical physics research at UNCC is super fail too then.
Because my sourse *COULD* be wrong doesn’t mean it is. Every “scholarly” source is fallible but unlike traditional “scholary” sources, Wiki articles aren’t written by just one or two people. I can’t tell you how many times in high school Encarta, Britanica, and World Book gave completely conflicting information, to the point where I typically had to stab wildly between what the three said and hope the teacher didn’t know any better. To that end, Wiki is the only encyclopedia that actually lists the information sources for their articles.
Guess that’s the difference between a liberal arts major and a major based in science, we don’t *edited* with our peers.
Answer me this though, because now I’m really curious, when the whiteboard in front of me has 12 hours worth of math on it that proves a solution in a “scholarly” textbook on theoretical physics to be completely wrong, like not even using the right equations kind of wrong, am I allowed to actually use my brain and determine that MAYBE the textbook is wrong or do I have to stick with your idealism and just erase everything out of the assumption that the printed medium is an infallible truth that cannot be wrong? Btw, lab experiments backed up our equations and proved the book and about a dozen journal articles to be wrong. We used equations on Wiki as a foundation. I’m just saying…
In the read world, “scholarly” encyclopedias, journal articles, and textbooks aren’t nearly as accurate as you give them credit. The average Wiki article is less than 20 pages and has twice as many authors and sources as the average textbook, from the sheer number of eyes alone it’s far more likely that mistakes are going to be caught and fixed on Wiki than on any printed source.
Btw, you really think a non-profit won’t lie in their publications to get more funding, sponsorships, or attention? lol?
I do like though how instead of actually doing what I asked, IE prove me wrong, you mindlessly drone on about how where I get some of my information *might* be wrong. You don’t actually attempt to prove me wrong, probably because you can’t, but that’s getting off topic. So we’re back to the original statement:
MasterP said:
either prove I’m lying or shut the *edited* up
I don’t have any need or want to “prove” you wrong to be quite honest, because I know that no matter what I say or show or bring to the table, in your opinion I will be wrong, so why I continue to do so really makes no sense to me, but here I go again.
You really are the birth child of serious sam and negative nancy…
Anyone who uses wikipedia as an end source is fail, anything that can be used and edited by anyone is fail for a “reliable” source of information. /troll (aka make u mad lol)
At any moment at any time your information could be changed, this is NOT a reliable source of information. So YES just because it can change at any moment it does mean that the source is NOT reliable. How you could think any different is really odd.
I will give you that your one example of Wikipedia being right is amazing and a good job on the student’s part who figured that out. Again though you used Wikipedia as a foundation and starting point and that one example does not account for the many times it has been wrong or not given the whole picture.
It has come a long way since 2007 when it was basically banned from use by most schools. Again though great starting place and some times could end up being a finishing place, but always just check your *edited* before you go with what Wikipedia has lol. That is all I am saying, please don’t feel like I am trying to tear down your personal walls of reality, but if you do a simple Google search on “Wikipedia wrong?” there are plenty of arguments for it and against it.
The world isn’t full of liars and schemers, there are a lot of them, but it isn’t everybody. If that were the case your argument for Wikipedia would be just as flawed since so many minds go into creating what it reports as the truth. Anything and everything is fallible, most scholarly sources are legitimate. Fact of the matter is Wikipedia hasn’t been proven as a reliable source yet. I just realized that this is a rare case of MasterP is being very liberal with this, whereas some of the more liberal people are conservative lol.
MasterP said:
MasterP said:
either prove I’m lying or shut the *edited* up
I just gave you proof, WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT FROM ME! Clearly in the humor of that comic they were showing how anyone can change anything on Wikipedia, I think it is a great “starting point” for any research that you might be doing, but it should never be the at all end all in any reference you ever make and never in a research paper. Which ever professor told you that is super fail. You can use it to find something and then check real legitimate non-profit or scholarly sources to make sure it is a correct reference, then you can use it. Just saying, but you keep right on using an encyclopedia, that anyone with a peanut for a brain an Internet connection and a computer can change.
