77[]
Not the prize I was expecting. ZanyDragon (talk) 02:05, December 4, 2013 (UTC)
Throwing the ball[]
Levine said due to cognitive conditioning, he knows NO ONE literally who chose to toss the ball at the couple - I wonder if this is a form of commentary on social perception and lenses of perception being influenced by modern-style mass media...
In any case, of course I strongly held down my RT button like the rest of you, but I experimented later and Fink's top secretary presents you with a statistically seemingly upper-tier Gear piece in the early beach area play-house (before the first fire-fight Elizabeth witnesses), dependent upon your choosing to be "savage"...
I compared the math to pass the time, and the interracial couple do honestly appear to hand out lesser-quality fluffy stuff, LOL... Interesting...
- What's more interesting, the game only rewards you when you make a choice. If you don't choose, there will be nothing for you. Or perhaps that's the real reward? Pauolo (talk) 22:25, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
- -
- "he knows NO ONE literally who chose to toss the ball at..."
- How many people could he possibly have watched??? Shouldnt he have realized that players (minimally on later playthrough) try EVERY option just to see what happens ?? Of course, throughout the game you kill hundreds of humans, which didnt seem to faze Levine enough to give you alternatives. And again many real 'moral choices' have a real cost for doing the 'right thing', and dont result in any rewards (so thus are 'hard') - try playing through BS1/BS2 with no plasmids - dont kill any innocent Big Daddy to be able get any ADAM at all (besides the few places where you have to to move the game forward -- or even make it cost you finishing the game). THAT would have been a REAL cost of a 'moral choice' to the player.
- 75.36.143.198 23:10, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
- Hello fellow, not sure what you are incensed about, but I am not bearing any war-hammer. As to the moral-philosophical meaning, I fear I shall dizzy both myself and readers if I begin to discuss... Not quite sure what you are positing as a thesis here - fatalism and voluntarism of active moral agency are well-known themes of B.I., and appearances are not everything, and "choices" are not simple... Forgive my lack of comprehension as to your overall point.
- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.52.186.148 (talk • contribs) . Please remember to sign your posts.
- Don't take it personally. The above user constantly takes out his frustration with this game here on the fan forum instead of bringing up his criticisms to the people actually made the game. What's worse, he prefers to spew a flippant, stream of consciousness tirade rather than make a cogent argument for you to debate in a meaningful way.
- Unownshipper (talk) 03:43, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
- OK, Less "Flippant".
- The game, for all Levines ad nausem high talk of serious social ills is presented as a dumbed down puppet show the player is led through by the nose, leading to final unsatisfying irrelevancy.
- As far as people who made the game - you probably didnt see the reaction I got on the Company forum when I expressed that I wouldnt care to be on the side of bomb-throwing anarchists (my reaction to stuff the earlier Infinite trailers were showing).
- 75.36.143.198 08:47, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the 2K forum it merged with was a forum policed by company employees who found that it was simpler/less work to ban people who were too controversial (cant have any negativity about the product) and who used the excuse that being argumenative was 'hateful' according to fanbois who couldnt stand someone expressing an opinion different than their own. I had many long complex contentious discussions (and was never banned on the Irrational forum which I was posting on for a long time previously) which most users there had no problem with. Various excuses given leading to my banning made obvious the company censors didnt even read the actual forum postings, just treated the whining as gospel. 75.36.138.253 19:37, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
- Well I'm sorry that you were mistreated by the moderators of the 2K forum, but I would argue, and I hope you'd agree, that you've been given free voice here on this site.
- It's not your content we take issue with, but rather your tone and approach. As the unsigned wiki contributor who initiated this discussion indicated, your posts come across like you're yelling, and no one wants to talk with someone who's irate. Furthermore, your response didn't particularly pertain to what he was talking about in the original post.
- We're not in the business of banning people whose views we disagree with, but please, for the sake of civility, keep in mind the old adage "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar" and that not every post has to be (for lack of a better, less hyperbolic term) a soapbox.
- Unownshipper (talk) 19:50, June 22, 2015 (UTC)
- As someone who has been on the 2K forums since BSI came out the only people who have been banned are those who have violated the forums rules. If someone was banned, they got themselves banned and for good reason. And being critical of a game isn't something that is illegal. On the other hand being insulting certainly is. sm --Solarmech (talk) 20:18, June 22, 2015 (UTC)
- Repaired* I didnt erase your text -- it was an Editing Conflict that wiped your and then my addition - its all back in now....
- Well I was on from before. And 'forum rules' can be interpretted on the whim of the company censors (I recall they just had a changeover of regime of those personnel right before I was banned -- new orders from on high to clamp down on people saying any negative things about the game ... kindof a "Truth vs $$$" conflict situation -- no objectivity need apply ).
- As far as being insulting -- that too is a matter of interpretation - apparently most was complaints from fanbois (who cant stand someone contradicting them) whining about my manner being 'hateful' or somesuch. Unlike them, I dont do personal attacks for MY arguments ... I dont need to. I pointed this out to the company censor but to no avail.
- 75.36.141.253 20:43, June 22, 2015 (UTC)
- You dont have to be sorry. The original premerged forums didnt care and had long lively interesting discussions, but the later company-run forum was intolerant of argumenative positions (opinions largely can be, and most trouble was fanbois getting personal which my throwing it back at them just wasnt allowed for some reason -- ontop of "contrary to the party line" talking about/opinionating shortcommings of the game).
- I back up my arguments with reason and logic (something fanbois hate most of all) and usually have to take 10X as much text to try to explain a contrary opinion. I might throw in quirky ideas/observations that some maybe see as 'flippant', but this would be deathly dry place if all it was was a verbatum regurgitation of exactly and ONLY what is shown (and not interpretation) of the game(s). 75.36.141.253 20:49, June 22, 2015 (UTC)