Search Results

Originally posted by Mighty-Seb:

Originally posted by VonZuli:

Can't find the OS partition? Refer to step 2 in my guide. It'll be labelled as boot in disk management it is likely your C drive

Can see it but when trying to convert it in cmd it can’t find the partition

You could try "sfc/scannnow" in admin CMD to check your system files integrity. or "chkdsk C:"

^lol! Great avatar pic by the way, she's the best

JZVBEUZ9FA77Q6U
JZVBFAZQUBFDKJ6
JZVBFBZ4EGGNVB9

Originally posted by Soren:

Originally posted by khaosklub:

1) the flat earth example is to point out the ad populum issue.

There is no ad populum fallacy because social constructs are entirely formed through consensus. It's why and how they're given utility. Dollars/money are also a social construct. I can release my own new currency called "Soren fun bucks". But it's useless if people don't think it had any value.

Originally posted by Soren:

Plenty of people describe it as "action-adventure"

it is an ad populum fallacy. because you're justifying it being in the category because a lot of people believe it does.

Originally posted by Soren:

social constructs are entirely formed through consensus.

and the social construct is the genre itself. you're not arguing what an adventure game is there, you're saying that it fits in the category simply because a lot of people believe it does.

the category was created by consensus, but whether something fits that category is objectively determinable. so ad populum.

Originally posted by Soren:

Secondly. I like the table example. Because it's another case where definitions have always been vibes based.

Originally posted by oxford dictionary:

chair
/CHer/
noun
1.
a separate seat for one person, typically with a back and four legs.a separate seat for one person, typically with a back and four legs.

People always give this basic definition. Then others point out "A horse has a seat for one person with a back and 4 legs, so you think a horse is a chair?". Because definitions can't always accurately describe a word in all instances. Everyone knows a horse is not a chair. But the common definition for chair literally includes horses.

1) that's not vibes based, you quoted a dictionary, which is where eggheads agree on what definitions really are. they generally go by majority usage, but that's not necessary.

2) you clearly don't understand definitions. the definition only requires that it is a separate seat for one person. "typically" means that it's not required. it's just a convention. the actual definition is that it is a seat for one person, and that's it.

and you're misunderstanding what "back" means here. it means that there is a back to sit against, not that it is a creature that has a backside. technically, everything has a back, because everything has a front. This is why vibes don't work, because people conflate things to the point of stupidity.

3) dictionaries are fallible. they're not perfect definitions either. they're made by people and even they can be wrong. proof? well, just check other dictionaries.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/chair

Originally posted by collins dictionary:

chair
Word forms: chairs , chairing , chaired
1. countable noun
A chair is a piece of furniture for one person to sit on. Chairs have a back and four legs.
He rose from his chair and walked to the window

so, in this case, a chair has to be a piece of furniture and is for one person to sit on. it must have a back (a specific piece of the chair, not a backside or body part), and four legs.

this one definitely excludes horses, because they are not a piece of furniture. but, this excludes a lot of chairs, because you can definitely have a chair with 1 leg or even a single piece base underneath.

but with logic, one can construct a reasonable definition for a chair:

"a piece of furniture designed for one person to sit on with a backboard designed so that one can lean against it while seated".

not a horse, not a barstool, not a table. see how that works? logic and not "vibes". with vibes you get idiots trying to sell horses as chairs, because people are stupid, and "vibes" is an expression of collective stupidity.

Originally posted by Soren:

That's people misunderstanding a scientific category. Consensus is shared among the science community what is an insect is. They have that category, and they have that consensus.

and this whole conversation is people misunderstanding game genres. the consensus is shared among those who coined the genre. people are taking things like "adventure" or "metroidvania" and expanding it's definition with "vibes" to include things like spiders and horses.

Originally posted by Soren:

But that doesn't mean science or academy can stop people from using words in other ways.

right, you can't stop people from being wrong. they're still wrong regardless of how much vibe they put out in the world

Originally posted by Soren:

I'm reminded of Anita Sarkeesian, and many other academics who insist the word "racism" can only mean "prejudice" plus "power". AKA a KKK member can only be racist because he holds power.

I don't agree with that definition. It's an academic term only. Academics can use it if they want. But for some reason they gatekeep and tried to correct people using the more common colloquial version of "racist" which can apply to anyone being prejudiced, and not just those with power. Which is a losing battle. Colloquial use was far more common than the academic term that contradicted it. So she couldn't convince people. That's just how words work sometimes.

there's so much wrong here, where to even start? No, it's not the common colloquial version that people use, it's the actual definition that people use.

the definition that people like sarkeesian presented is in no way academic, it's ideological. a way to illustrate this is with "evil". what is the definition of evil? the academic definition is something along the lines of "something morally wrong" or "a powerful force that causes misfortune" or even "arising from bad character or conduct". these are all academic definitions that define what "evil" means, and people use it in all those ways.

now, an ideological definition would be like "evil is eating pork" or "evil is blaspheming god" or "evil is selfishness". those are not academic definitions, but ideological definition. it's really not a definition, but categorization of things as "evil", but it is using ideological axioms to categorize rather than just the academic definition.

racism, academically, is simply discrimination based on race, positive or negative. the ideology (which many people follow and agree with) claims that racism only truly happens if there is power involved. this is because they co-opt words with negative connotations to label their moral judgements.

this is akin to redefining what an adventure game or metroidvania is simply because you want a game to have some sort of positive connotation associated with the genre, rather than caring what the genre actually means and expresses.

Originally posted by Soren:

The only people I've seen in this thread who think OoE isn't a metroidvania all seem to also hate the game. So from my perspective I think you're biased.

see, this is what happens when you assume. I for one don't hate the game. it's an awful metroidvania, but it's a pretty fun linear platformer with rpg elements. I've 100%ed the game and maxed out element points with both shanoa and albus in both the collection and the original DS game, which I still own.

what I hate about OoE is all the ways the design suffers due to it trying to inject metroidvania-esque elements and how unfinished and unbalanced it is. I can hate things about a game and still like it.

but it's not a metroidvania. if I want to play a metroidvania, I'm not reaching for OoE. a lot of people are jaded because they were expecting a metroidvania, and people like you insisting that it is one is just going to make more people have expectations that will not be met with this game, which, y'know, is the entire point of a genre, to communicate expectations.

it's akin to another game I love called grim guardians: demon purge by inti-creates or shantae 1/2 genie hero. these aren't metroidvanias. they look like they might be metroidvanias, and people in the discussions for those games insist that they are metroidvanias. but they're not, and a bunch of people hate those games because they were expecting metroidvanias.

and you and raven are definitely the biased ones on this topic, because you seem to think that being a metroidvania is somehow beneficial to the game. it's simply a category. it's neither putting down the game nor exalting it either way. it's like you guys getting mad because it's not a fighting game. why would it being a fighting game matter? it is or isn't one, and it's clearly not one.

just as it's clearly not a fighting game, it's clearly not a metroidvania... though only clearly for those that actually play it. just looking at it from trailers, it looks very much like it would be a metroidvania simply because the art style is very similar to all the other castlevania metroidvanias.

Originally posted by Soren:

Originally posted by khaosklub:

and it doesn't matter how anyone categorizes OoE. what matters is how people define metroidvania.

Yes, and a horse is a chair by how most people define chairs.

which proves my point in that how most people define a chair is just wrong. that is assuming that most people would define it that way.

I'd wager that most people "just vibing" would define it as "something you sit on". which is a very broad definition that fits how "chair" is oft colloquially used. a parked car can be a chair, a box can be a chair, a countertop can be a chair. anything can be a chair if you're brave enough to sit on it.

doesn't matter how it is used colloquially though, the furniture called "chair" is not defined that way and the word "chair" in that context means that specific thing. it's the thing that exists independent of the label. a thing or concept can be like that. the word "chair" is just what we assigned to that thing. "metroidvania" is the word we assigned to a concept. how people use the word colloquially, doesn't change that concept, it just means people are not talking about that concept anymore.

Originally posted by Soren:

Originally posted by khaosklub:

another poor take. this isn't slang. "irregardless" isn't born of slang, which is fine, it's born of ignorance, it's a mistaking of an existing word, not a new slang.

I mean, plenty of new slang is formed this way. "Pwned" for example.

that's not at all the same. that's from a common typo of pressing "p" instead of "o". it's like using "teh". this isn't from mistaking an existing word, it's from common typos that pokes fun at the constant typo.

Originally posted by Soren:

Originally posted by khaosklub:

translation, it's so broad to the point of being useless.

See, that's actually an argument I somewhat agree with. But I just think it's pointless. Yes, words, brand names, and other stuff watered down to the point of losing all utility or all brand recognition. But that's just how linguistics work and it some words eventually take that course.

no, that's not how linguistics work. also, brand names have no business being in this topic, not at all relevant to the subject at all.

see, today, we have a phenomenon that you are familiar with, with the sarkeesian issue that you brought up earlier. this is a modern issue of like the last 10 years or so, and is ideologically driven. words like "racist" and "bigot" have been "vibed" or rather co-opted for their negative connotations and applied so liberally, they mean nothing anymore. this isn't how linguistics work, this is a "the boy who cried wolf" phenomenon, where people keep misusing words that are meant to alarm in ways that don't fit the definition so people stop believing it when people use these words.

this isn't normal linguistics. this is simply because of an ideology that tries to expand definitions to push its own agenda.

normal linguistic changes are how we virtually stopped using subjunctive in english, or how people stop using words for a while, but then need to describe that concept again and invent a new word to describe something that already had a word for it. there's also blending of languages, shifting of phonetics, and simplification of grammar. words don't routinely get their definitions expanded to the point of uselessness. they get new definitions in addition to old ones that might fall out of favor, typically because there is a need in a specialized field.

for example, "run". we all know that run is to move quickly propelling yourself forward with your legs. but as we created motors, the motors now "run". this doesn't erase the old definition, it gives it a new definition in a specific context (machinery/electronics). then we can run a game, another definition for a new field of software. until people stop running with their legs, that original definition will persist to describe that concept.

Originally posted by Soren:

See, genres are subjective and everyone draws the line somewhere someone else might not. Which is why me trying to convince you OoE is a pointless endeavour. Instead, I'm just pointing out if enough people share my world view that a word means what we say it does. Then we can't be wrong because social constructs are based entirely on whether enough people believe in them or not.

no, genres are defined. that's the point. a genre with no definition is not a genre. you might not know that definition, which is how many people misuse many words, because they think it means something it doesn't. like how many people misuse "ironic". when something coincides with something else, and is a "coincidence", people say it's "ironic". those people are wrong, because "ironic" describes a specific concept, the concept of something occurring that is the opposite of expectations.

everyone uses ironic to mean "coincidence", because they just "vibed" the meaning. so by your logic, now ironic DOES mean coincidence, but how do we then describe when a result is the opposite of what one expects? does "ironic" now mean both these things? all this accomplishes is make it so "ironic" no longer communicates a clear idea, and saying it is ambiguous. how long until "ironic" becomes a synonym for "surprising"?

this is where "logic" comes in.

send me offer ==> https://steamcommunity.com/tradeoffer/new/?partner=906075881&token=kj01g-fa
★ Nomad Knife
★ Flip Knife | Urban Masked (Field-Tested)
★ Paracord Knife
★ Broken Fang Gloves | Yellow-banded (Minimal Wear)
★ Falchion Knife | Lore (Field-Tested) 0.22
★ Hydra Gloves | Rattler (Field-Tested)
★ Driver Gloves | Snow Leopard (Field-Tested) 0.277
★ Flip Knife | Fade (Factory New) 82%
★ Flip Knife | Boreal Forest (Minimal Wear)
★ Stiletto Knife | Damascus Steel (Factory New)
★ Gut Knife | Marble Fade (Factory New)
★ Stiletto Knife | Blue Steel (Field-Tested) 0.16
★ Specialist Gloves | Field Agent (Battle-Scarred)
★ Butterfly Knife | Black Laminate (Battle-Scarred)
★ Driver Gloves | Racing Green (Field-Tested)
★ Shadow Daggers | Night (Field-Tested) 0.20
★ Driver Gloves | Diamondback (Well-Worn)
★ Talon Knife | Marble Fade (Factory New)
★ Paracord Knife
★ Broken Fang Gloves | Jade (Field-Tested) 0.218
★ Bowie Knife | Doppler (Minimal Wear) P1
★ Skeleton Knife | Ultraviolet (Minimal Wear)
★ Flip Knife | Doppler (Factory New) P2
★ Classic Knife | Scorched (Minimal Wear)
★ M9 Bayonet | Tiger Tooth (Factory New)
★ Talon Knife
★ Bayonet | Autotronic (Battle-Scarred)
★ Skeleton Knife | Blue Steel (Battle-Scarred)
★ Flip Knife | Case Hardened (Field-Tested)
★ Butterfly Knife | Lore (Well-Worn)

The Steam Workshop will undoubtedly enhance the game's playability. Just like Dying Light, I hope Dying Light: The Beast will also open its Steam Workshop.
Additionally, I’m curious if pre-downloads will be available before the official release—I can’t wait to play it!

Originally posted by R for Reload:

Originally posted by 0x90:

Like of all these "level XY is impossible" threads: Just because you have been successful but now you fail it doens't mean something is impossible or trash. On this game it matters A LOT what you build, when you build, what your enemies are and how lucky you're.

You cannot take one strategy to rule them all. Different kings require different strategies. Sometimes a strategy is the key but it doens't work on certain enemies so you have to retry it on other enemies.

The new king isn't trash but it requires a completely different approach.

there is literally one strat that rules all
Forest/farms + Defenders
if you get lucky enough you can win as any faction with those cards.
new king can deffs also use defenders due to camp + defenders
Or stacking HP on warlocks and buffing defenders.

Kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk tu é "melhor que os caras em qualquer jogo". Andrezitos devia customizar o teu acesso (e só o teu mesmo) pra ter um vampetaço de fundo toda vez que tu abre o menu kkkkkkkkk

Originally posted by 回忆沙漠:

Originally posted by V+ aa138ka:

有需要 +

弟/弟很开心，好

确实厉害

so my character is useless now?

Originally posted by 回忆沙漠:

Originally posted by V+ aa138ka:

有需要 +

弟/弟很开心，好

确实厉害