I'd love to see what you feel about Outlast. It's a great example of a challenging experience that isn't inherently "fun" as you're defenselessly struggling to avoid enemies in the dark while managing a handful of batteries for a few hours. And yet Outlast + Whistleblower is one of my favorite video games of this generation.

I have not heard of or tried Outlast but I will look it up. I played a game yesterday called To the Moon. It's pretty much a walking simulator as well. You just go from one dialogue sequence to the next. The story was great, but it would have gained everything and lost nothing as a film.

I am not against Walking simulators per se, so long as the interaction is meaningful in some way and the immersion flows from that.

I can defend it as a creative work without feeling the need to pigeonhole it by saying that it is called a "video game" and therefore must behave like other video games.

This is not some edge case blurring the lines between media. It is very clearly a video game, and should absolutely work as such.

Gone Home works as well as it does because it is presented in the interactive medium. I think the idea of "video game" is going away as "walking simulators" and VR experiences are becoming more popular. Would Gone Home work better as a book? I think it would lose some value as a book. I'm sure it could be done, but the ideal way to experience it is as a "video game".

Dear Esther is probably one of the earlier examples. All you do is walk around and trigger sound bytes. Could you do that in a book? Sure. Does it lose value because of the fact that it was presented as a video game (a Source mod, no less?)? No. I think that attitude is why you didn't enjoy Firewatch as much as others.

You have a skewed opinion about what certain things NEED to be. It's an extremely narrow and unpopular opinion, but it's okay that you feel that way.

I'd love to see what you feel about Outlast. It's a great example of a challenging experience that isn't inherently "fun" as you're defenselessly struggling to avoid enemies in the dark while managing a handful of batteries for a few hours. And yet Outlast + Whistleblower is one of my favorite video games of this generation.

I can defend it as a creative work without feeling the need to pigeonhole it by saying that it is called a "video game" and therefore must behave like other video games.

This is not some edge case blurring the lines between media. It is very clearly a video game, and should absolutely work as such.

So yes I guess there are things I could have gotten out of it-- boredom and frustration, which an LPer can cut out. So I'll admit that my experience was probably better than those who played it,

So when a video game, which is about interactivity, turns out to be worse to actually play than it is to simply watch, you can actually defend that?

I can defend it as a creative work without feeling the need to pigeonhole it by saying that it is called a "video game" and therefore must behave like other video games. I didn't expect the navigation to be rewarding, so it wasn't that bad when it was basically just environmental filler-- some nice views, some side content.

I think your experience was probably typical, though-- I know it bugged Funkmon when it turned out the map wasn't a real topographical map, and that he couldn't navigate by the stars, either, but that's the problem of managing expectations. Having already watched someone play the game, I knew it wasn't about those things, not remotely, so even when I play the game now I don't expect anything from those segments.

;)

Not even close, really.

So yes I guess there are things I could have gotten out of it-- boredom and frustration, which an LPer can cut out. So I'll admit that my experience was probably better than those who played it,

So when a video game, which is about interactivity, turns out to be worse to actually play than it is to simply watch, you can actually defend that?

I might not surprise you, but you have been surprising me lately!

If you've played it and haven't noticed that there's almost nothing you can get out of it by playing that you can't get by watching someone else play, then you weren't really paying attention.

You had to do NONE of the mapping and figuring out where to go in that game. The person you watched did that himself. If you think that someone else figuring out where to go and how to get there versus YOU doing it is an insignificant difference, you are completely and utterly wrong.

So yes I guess there are things I could have gotten out of it-- boredom and frustration, which an LPer can cut out. So I'll admit that my experience was probably better than those who played it, but I'm willing to accept it as a cost of doing business on that side. When I do my own playthrough I'll see.

You would see how tedious it is, and you can't zone out or skip like you could on a let's play. Even if your attention was 100% focused on the video the entire time, it's STILL different because the let's player is doing the route planning and moving the character and you aren't.

"Game X is not a good game" has the appearance of an assertion of fact,

In what universe? The idiocy is really getting to me. Imagine you are talking about food. You tell someone "This is a good pie". That's OBVIOUSLY an opinion. So why when I say that something is a bad game is that also taken as an opinion? Everything anybody ever says is their opinion, unless it's factual in some way or a quotation. Good and Bad are subjective words, so in no possible way can they be used any way except as subjective.

This is getting really annoying. That is why I wrote the last sentence in caps sarcastically, because it shouldn't even need to be said that it's all my opinion. If Firewatch were somehow objectively a bad game, then nobody on the planet would have enjoyed it. Some people did, therefore it's not objectively bad. Use common sense and we save a lot of hostility.

Right on schedule! You're so reliable.

Adding "in my opinion" is doublespeak designed to circumvent criticism from those who challenge the statement of fact, quickly diverting the discussion into endless recursive cycles of "I'm entitled to my opinion, and you're just oversensitive" rather than evaluating the initial statement.

Oh, and I also find it interesting how people here can totally throw down here at DBO and sometimes literally within minutes join up in Destiny and laugh about it and play together and have a blast all while the forums (or those particular players and their friends while on the forums) implode a bit. We're a weird bunch.

Sounds like most families I've known. :)

That right there tugged at my heart strings way more than I would have expected it to.

:)

I still find it funny that after years of dealing with this from Cody, others, or myself, you haven't figured out that it's not worth responding to or putting in the time or effort if you think whatever was said was out of arrogance or malice or whatever. Or just realizing that even though something may be posted bombastically, it may be due to feeling strongly about whatever is being stated in said opinion as opposed to trying to be hostile. Much like your complaints to Cody or myself ring true time and again, your (and a select few of others') reactions pop up as identical as before.

Someone said the essence of writing is rewriting. I might borrow that to justify yet another reply to Cody. I keep thinking I'll distill what the problem is. I hope that I'm clearer and more succinct that I've been before, but maybe not. That was the motivation for my initial post. I thought I expressed an insight I hadn't quite expressed as clearly before, to rebut the "obviously an opinion" line that regularly comes up. Narcogen understood me, at least.

I would say that you, and those same few people, just don't like Cody, myself, or others very much (with or without good reason, I'm not denying culpability here), and enjoy turning whatever posts into something more instead of just taking them at face value.

Disagree here, but several other people seem to think I was spitting mad or something. Not at all. I like Cody quite a lot and always enjoy playing with him and talking with him online. (I admit to liking the real Cody better than his forum persona.) Same with you, but we've played less. I've even met you in real life, and I have fond memories of hanging out. (Remember passing my Halo soundtracks back to Marty and Joe for me so they could sign it without the cellophane on it? I remember that moment with gratitude.)

Cody may or may not learn, but apparently hasn't. I learn but sometimes just don't care about tone and post for some silly reason (you'd be proud if you knew how many times I don't post my thoughts when I feel they'll contribute nothing even if they'd make me happy to post). You also don't learn and get into these exchanges. Generally, nothing productive comes from any of it, I suppose.

Productive? Probably not--this is a site about a hobby, but I try to be constructive. Sometimes, though, it's best not to post. Good on you for restraining yourself. I could certainly work on that, too.

This has all been very reflective. I considered making this one of those posts that I typed out and closed out of, but nah. Food for thought. Don't take this as a personal attack, please. I just find the whole thing interesting, both from how I go about posting and getting replied to as well as how those like yourself end up perceiving or taking issue with posts and replying. A bunch of us have a lot to learn still. It's frustrating sometimes, fun other times, and sometimes we all end up a lot better because of it. Either way, I enjoy reading your posts and agree with them most of the time (even when they're putting me in line). Other times I horribly, absolutely disagree with you all over the place (not the majority of the time).

Back at you.

Oh, and I also find it interesting how people here can totally throw down here at DBO and sometimes literally within minutes join up in Destiny and laugh about it and play together and have a blast all while the forums (or those particular players and their friends while on the forums) implode a bit. We're a weird bunch.

Sounds like most families I've known. :)

I would say that you, and those same few people, just don't like Cody, myself, or others very much (with or without good reason, I'm not denying culpability here), and enjoy turning whatever posts into something more instead of just taking them at face value. Cody may or may not learn, but apparently hasn't. I learn but sometimes just don't care about tone and post for some silly reason (you'd be proud if you knew how many times I don't post my thoughts when I feel they'll contribute nothing even if they'd make me happy to post). You also don't learn and get into these exchanges. Generally, nothing productive comes from any of it, I suppose.

This has all been very reflective. I considered making this one of those posts that I typed out and closed out of, but nah. Food for thought. Don't take this as a personal attack, please. I just find the whole thing interesting, both from how I go about posting and getting replied to as well as how those like yourself end up perceiving or taking issue with posts and replying. A bunch of us have a lot to learn still. It's frustrating sometimes, fun other times, and sometimes we all end up a lot better because of it. Either way, I enjoy reading your posts and agree with them most of the time (even when they're putting me in line). Other times I horribly, absolutely disagree with you all over the place (not the majority of the time).

Oh, and I also find it interesting how people here can totally throw down here at DBO and sometimes literally within minutes join up in Destiny and laugh about it and play together and have a blast all while the forums (or those particular players and their friends while on the forums) implode a bit. We're a weird bunch.

Proto-Indo-European is a reconstructed language from modern languages. Using a simple system, we can see that the languages of Europe, much of the middle east, and India are related. We do not have this language, but it can be easily constructed. They do this by creating a list of words that have very similar meanings in languages. For example, numbers. Next, they find relations and rules among them. Sticking with numbers, we see decem, deka, dasan (Latin, Greek, Sanskrit), and ten, tiu, tien (English, Icelandic, and Dutch). We can see that it's possible that Germanic languages had their voiceless stops (like the t sound) changed from Proto-Indo-European voiced stops (like the d sound). Doing this a bunch of times, we establish patterns, called linguistic laws.

Following these rules in a similar way to finding a least common denominator in mathematics, we find a least common language. Through this, we can find what are called Proto-Indo-European (I’m just going to call them PIE) roots. These are the core historical elements of languages like English, Latin, German, Sanskrit, Russian, Welsh, Gaelic, Bengali, Hindu, Armenian, Kurdish, Persian, and a bunch of other junk. These are called Indo-European languages. Note: not all European languages come from this family, like Finnish and Uralic, but the vast vast majority do.

You can find PIE roots in your trusty copy of The American Heritage Dictionary. This is the superior one volume dictionary, in my opinion, and valuable to linguists not only in America, but anywhere in the anglosphere, as it contains the roots, and therefore performs the ultimate etymology. Other dictionaries, even ones like the 20 something volume OED, go to the ultimate attested language root, but rarely beyond. For your dictionary dollar, I’d suggest buying AH. If you want more, buy a copy of the Compact OED, a magnifying glass, and then also AH. AH is $40, OED is closer to $400.

http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Complete-Reproduced-Micrographically-slipcase/dp/0198612583/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&q...

http://www.amazon.com/American-Heritage-Dictionary-English-Language/dp/0547041012/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=14577290...

But that’s neither here nor there. If someone wants to know more about dictionaries, though, I’m your guy.

Back to Far Cry Primal. Considering this is set in central Europe, doesn’t it make sense to use PIE? No.

It was set in 10,000 BC.

Some extremely fringe scholars think that PIE evolved out of Old Europe cultures. Old Europe refers to a time of apparently similar culture all throughout Europe pre-bronze age, but still during the neolithic period, which is after the 10,000 BC time. 10,000 BC is comfortably during what they call the mesolithic, that is, before agriculture.

The Proto-Europeans definitely had agriculture. They had cows, horses, dogs, wheels, and stuff. They had a shared religion. They came from a snowy place. We can see this all linguistically, as they wouldn’t have words for crap they didn’t have, like wheels. For example, in religion, they worshipped a guy called *dyeus-phater, literally sky father. In Sanskrit Dyaus Pita. In Greek Zeus Pater (Zeus). In Latin Iou pater (Iuppiter/Jupiter). The Germans may have even worshipped this guy. In Germanicus, Tacitus explains they have a chief god, father of all people, Tuisto, whose name sounds very familiar, particularly if you remember the example linguistic rule I mentioned earlier.

The most widely accepted idea (and it’s extremely widely accepted, to the point of consensus almost) is that the Indo-Europeans came from an area in the Eurasian steppes at about 4000 BC, and continued until about 1000 BC. Not only does this make sense linguistically, but it fits with archeology of the period. We can see the spread of the chariot go at the same time. We see introduction of some technology at the same time PIE arrives. Recently, we have even seen it genetically. This is almost certainly what happened. Other ideas are easily trashed.

So, they’re about 6000 years too early for the language. I have also been told that there are three dialects, one basic, spoken by an older race of people dying out (for which there is no archaeological evidence, btw), one simple, and one complex. The advanced one being used by a more advanced culture. Unfortunately, this doesn’t work, linguistically. Complex languages are no more likely to be in high technology or high society than basic ones. Look at English versus Hungarian, Navajo, etc.

Some other problems exist, like some of the animals being wrong for the time and place, and some tech being a little wonky, but I’ll allow it for the purpose of role playing a cave man.

BUT when they force people to read subtitles for languages that don’t exist, and couldn’t have existed in the time and place, I find that annoying. Just have them speak the local language, for pete’s sake. They had to pay some linguists to construct PIE, put on declensions, ablaut, et cetera, three times for the three languages. It’s like if we wanted to play Doom so we bought a Windows XP machine from 2003. It makes no sense.

Funkmon's FCP language verdict: *kakka.