I hate people.

Similarly, "I haven't liked the square games I've played, so I won't play this one" is a reasonable attitude, but any judgement on the game you haven't played is unwarranted.

Well my opinions are based off of my experiences, and since you haven't experienced life the way you have it would mean your view of my opinions is just ignorant. Thus I have no reason to concern myself with your judgement on what I believe. So your own argument sort of defeats itself.

My view isn't on your view. Its on uninformed or inexperienced views. Which everyone is guilty of posessing, and seeing as its an opinion, no one needs concern themselves with it.

And you consider my view one of those, so it is upon my view. Unless you have experienced the exact same lives that those others have as well, you are guilty of doing it when looking down on their views. I think you just need to take into consideration what opinions are.

I assume that game is bad, but I never said I know it is. It is as simple as that, until I play it I won't say it is definitely good, bad, or normal. However I will say before playing it, I think it is bad. Which I'm completely entitled to saying and is perfectly fine.

And I do like a few Square games, but a majority I hate.

I'm a hypocrite, sue me.

I cannot condone decisions like that. If I had a way to be you before I condemned the view, I would be willing. As thats not an option, I will continue to advocate "don't knock it till you try it," even at the risk of losing debates like this one by using an argument that defeats itself.

For the record, the developer is crystal dynamics, not square itself.

I sort of figured it being a Tomb Raider game, sort of think of it like the EA brand. EA doesn't develop a lot of games, but when you see the EA label, you vomit a little on the inside.

Yes we all are, I assume that if you enter a world with two phantoms in Dark Souls and a host standing right next to the spawn with Masks and MLGS, you assume they are gankers right?

I go straight for the host because he's my target anyways, unless a phantom chooses to engage me alone. (which actually happens, the host stands away from the fight and watches, new summon if I win, repeat)

I don't assume they're gankers until they try to gank me, I simply include their additional numbers in my battle plan. Neither do I assume that they're not gankers however.

Well, I was fairly sure that there was a demonstrable effect that if food looked and smelt better it would taste better even if it was composed of the same things. (a psychological effect) and that therefore we did prejudge.


and I agree with you on many things forum but I felt the garbage example was a poor one against prejudging a reasonable degree of extrapolation is fair enough in my opinion (I mean, one or two steps of logic like that food is old and has been sitting in there for a while so is unlikely to taste good.)

especially when making a decision which will cost you money like going to a film or buying a game. would I see a sequel to a film I disliked without any other information. well no not if I could avoid it because I expect sequels to be similar to the original. that is prejudging but it is fairly reasonable in my opinion.

I think prejudging is fine, as long as you don't consider it a fact. I take the agnostic approach in most things in life like that. It is fine to believe someone eats a lot because they are fat. But don't just accept it as flat out fact. I will judge a book by it's cover, but I won't consider my judgement fact until I read the book.

^ Thank you for articulating what I was trying to say. although it seems I err on the side of caution alot with that or at least with people I get alot of "what you didnt realize"

No problem, as a guy who studies the concept of beliefs, I can usually word these sort of things fairly well haha.

A quick note since I like geeky facts......on prejudging things:

There's prejudice which, as used in psychological terminology, refers to a prejudgment based on personal beliefs rather than evidence and usually illogical basis.

Then there's heuristics, which are prejudgments but evidence or fact based and can be called a "rule of thumb" in that it is generally true.

Rather than get myself in trouble for using the example I was given involving African Americans and college I'll do the flip side with my race (aka white as hell). I might still get in trouble but at least I'm avoiding writing someone is stupid (which I don't believe by the way).

A prejudice would be, upon meeting a new white person in a room full of mixed race, you think....."they must be smarter than the persons of other races because they are white."

A heuristic (at least in the United States, particularly where I went to school) would be, given the same scenario, thinking to yourself "that person is more likely to have attended college than the other persons in the room."

They're similar thought processes but the second is a reflection of statistical data (where I went to school I swear it was 90% white) and is not intended to be an absolute statement.

So dan's assessment that a sequel of a movie he didn't like is not worth the money is likely a good heuristic since sequels do tend to follow the original and he has the experience of not liking the first.

Tolvo's statement implying that a group of persons standing at the spawn point wearing particular equipment is assumed to be a gank is also a good heuristic based on his (and my) experience.

It's not that the sequel can't be awesome or that those guys can't be honorable players but personal experience states you're safer assuming otherwise.

Which is what heuristics are for, they help a person decide the most likely scenario they are facing based on the past.

*blinks* I would find that depressing (and interesting) In real life I am fine. however on the internet I tend to either think faster than I type and miss words or leave ambiguity which in a forum format can send a discussion way off before people understand what I meant...


And thanks for that skare I knew the general idea's behind it (and what bothers me are subconscious prejudice because I could have them and be completely unaware which really freaks me out...)
I did not know the difference between a heuristic and a prejudice though Ill try and remember that I just usually grouped it all together as bias.

Did you just insult my mother?

By the way, very cool info Skare.

I dont think I insulted your mother? D: what makes you say that?

It was a joke.

Aha! see I thought it might be but I didn't want to assume that and risk being offensive

I actually did insult your mother Tolvo. You have to squint reeeeally hard to see what I cleverly wrote using the empty spaces between words.

*squints till his face hits the screen and his laptop falls off the table*
I hope you're happy skare. :evil: and I dont know! It could be implicit somehow. subtlety is not a massive strong point of mine.

Oh, you mean like this?

Skare your mother likes my fat belly...She loves feeling it slapping on the back of her head as she blows me that is!

Woah, that was a good example of how to be offensive without tripping filters

It was a good one wasn't it?

The first part of your signature amuses me in light of that. although I hope skare takes no offence especially since he taught me a new word! I am always grateful for that !

Skare and I fought in the Gulf of Darkroot man, I'm pretty sure he understands me more than my hands understand my body. And boy do they get me!

You know what I don't hate?

I don't hate vests.