Recent posts by fma1 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Is the "PC" considered a console/????

I used to think that the PC wasn’t a console because it could do many things other than gaming that consoles couldn’t. But now that the new consoles can play movies, access the internet, etc, I’m not so sure anymore. If anything, consoles are becoming more and more like PCs.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Which of these powers would you choose?

Originally posted by Thegamer211:

Option 2.
I could do tests until I get all the answers right hehe…

Option 1 would let you see the test before you actually take it.

Both powers are equally effective for cheating on tests. Come on, be more creative than that.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Which of these powers would you choose?

Originally posted by aguspal:

Okay…

Then if it is infinite I might go for option 2 then because lol immortality. I also can just restart my day every 24 hours…. Literally, the only way I would die is if I die in less than 24 hours… THEN I could also just keep changin stuff until I get the desired result… It would get old after a while, but no one is forcing me to use it, so yeah…

I would take option 2, but I probably would not use it that much. Moderate use sounds best anyway.

Sounds like you might end up being trapped in a self imposed time loop after becoming obsessed with an event of great importance to you that you keep failing to have go your way.
That is the biggest risk of power 2, developing an obsession with perfection
The biggest risk of power 1 is the development of paranoia and questioning whether you can change your fate when you see something undesireable

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Which of these powers would you choose?

Originally posted by burntfires22:

Probably option two. I’d be the perfect man…
Ahem Ladies..

“Hey there, how about you come back to my place and we do a little-” slapRESET!”

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Which of these powers would you choose?

Um…

This is a one time power or infinite? (I guess its limited because then both would be overpowered but who knows…)

Both abilities can be activated at will. You can see forward/go back to any amount of time between your starting point and 24 hours forward/back. This will reset each time you either pass the time you looked forward to (option 1) or return to your starting point in time (option 2).

Originally posted by randomboy839:

Perfection can never truly be achieved, even with a life reset button.
Option 1 is the lesser of two evils.

What about them makes them both “evil”? Both powers could allow one to do great good if they so choose.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Which of these powers would you choose?

Originally posted by aguspal:
Originally posted by fma1:
Originally posted by aguspal:

Option one is overpowered simply because you can actually CHANGE stuff, as you yourself stated in the OP. You can influence heavly how life plays out.

You can do so with the second power as well. If something occurs that you do not like, you can revert time and change how it happens.

Um, OK, but then we would get to the entire timeline issues and troubles that happen in sci fi movies…. Depends a lot on how you interpret it. Personally, I think juggling and messing with the past, stuff that has already happened, just seems to be more chaotic because then you would also take into account on how it will change the present.

Changing the future does not seem THAT much of a mess, simply because you can still influence it in the present, nor does it seem to change something that DID NOT HAPPEN YET create as much of a havoc and headaches than changin something that already happened (the past).

So yeah, still voting for option 1, if anything it just seems more practical.

Option 2 isn’t really traveling to the past. You revert time up to 24 hours, but you cannot just jump back to the present. You revert to the previous time and pick up from there. You relive the moments up to when you used your power, but with all the knowledge that you didn’t have previously.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Which of these powers would you choose?

Originally posted by aguspal:

Option one is overpowered simply because you can actually CHANGE stuff, as you yourself stated in the OP. You can influence heavly how life plays out.

You can do so with the second power as well. If something occurs that you do not like, you can revert time and change how it happens.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Which of these powers would you choose?

Originally posted by Immortal7777:

Option one absolutely. I can prevent my death that way. 2 wouldn’t help me

Keep in mind that your attempts to change your future are not guaranteed to succeed.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Which of these powers would you choose?

You have the opportunity to gain one of two abilities.

Option 1: You have the ability to see up to 24 hours into your future. It is possible that, through your actions, you can change the future that you saw.

Option 2: You can revert time back to up to 24 hours into the past, retaining all of your current knowledge.


Which power would you rather have and why?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Is Carly Fiorina a potent response to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 elections?

Originally posted by Uberendung:

Can you make your attempts at derailment any more obvious? I can’t see the hook I’m supposed to bite.

A troll thread doesn’t require effort to derail. It is destined from the beginning to be a mess.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Is Carly Fiorina a potent response to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 elections?

Originally posted by Uberendung:
Originally posted by fma1:

Can’t tell if OP is trolling or a gun-toting Bible-belt radical conservative.

I like it when people think calling someone a troll or putting labels on them is a good substitute for an argument. I’ve yet to see a liberal talk with logic and not with insults and emotion.

I am neither liberal nor conservative, I don’t like that sort of black and white labeling. But I will give you my personal opinion on abortion. Yes, a fetus will eventually become a living human and it is wrong to kill a fellow human. However, an early fetus is no more alive than you liver or your kidney is “alive”. It is a mass of human cells, but not a human. Humans are advanced beings that are defined by our complex brains. There is a point in development at which the fetus begins to emit brain waves. This is when it is truly human. It has begun to develop consciousness and sentience and it is wrong to take its life at this point, as it has begun to develop the characteristic that most separates humans from other life forms. Before this point, it is a collection of human cells. It becomes truly human once it begins to develop consciousness.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / OFF TOPICS OFFICIAL "GREATEST GAME OF ALL TIME" VOTING

Call of Money: Recycled Warfare

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Is Carly Fiorina a potent response to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 elections?

Can’t tell if OP is trolling or a gun-toting Bible-belt radical conservative.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Is sexual orientation a choice?

Originally posted by HappyAlcoholic:

Depends on the individual.
For some, it’s natural.
For others, it’s a preference.

But that preference is naturally determined by our hormones.

Originally posted by Uberendung:

It’s a choice because homosexuals decide to go against nature.

If something naturally exists on earth, then by the definition of nature, that thing is part of nature. It is impossible for a living being to be against nature.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Would you rather die of thirst or hunger?

Originally posted by FrostyGhosts:
Originally posted by zicit77:
Originally posted by Pokerpo:

i’d rather shoot myself in the foot and claw at it until i die from bloodloss

In this situation you would be locked in a room and your arms and legs will be strapped against the wall so there is no way of escaping. If you choose to die of hunger, then there will be a robot in the room to put water in your mouth when you ask him to.

Originally posted by fma1:

Dying of hunger, you will slowly waste away over many weeks. Dying of thirst, your body will simply shut down after a few days.

Dying of thirst is quicker.

Here’s what I’ll do:
I’ll hold on my breath, until I would die. Nobody can force you to breathe, and your body will shut down himself after the oxygen is gone.

Not quite. You can hold your breath until you faint. Once that happens, your will return to normal breathing and wake up right back where you started.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Would you rather die of thirst or hunger?

Dying of hunger, you will slowly waste away over many weeks. Dying of thirst, your body will simply shut down after a few days.

Dying of thirst is quicker.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transhumanism

I find this topic to be very interesting. Personally, I support transhumanism. I believe that through scientific advancement, we can advance the evolution of our species and bring humanity to a new level of greatness. I know that the topic is controversial, as some people consider it wrong to modify ourselves, calling it unnatural and dangerous, even sometimes an “affront to nature”. I’m curious to see what kinds of opinions people have on transhumanism.

For those who are unfamiliar with the concept

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Is anyone else excited for Ted Cruz's 2016 candidacy?

I am excited for the many opportunities that we will have to laugh at his stupidity.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / So there will be a football match between Hungary and Greece tomorrow

Originally posted by Mikkmar:

Why would you sit in front of a TV and watch some apes run at a ball and kick it for 2 fucking hours?

Surely you have, at some point in your life, watched athletes move around a rectangle while attempting to move a rounded object into a designated area.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Why is gay an insult?

“Gay” is what people say when they are too dumb to think of a better insult.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / e-sports

Originally posted by Immortal7777:
Originally posted by fma1:
Originally posted by Immortal7777:

Bullshit because the games are made with an audience in mind not for the players and in order to make it a feasible sport they have to castrate the game and remove all aspects of fun out of it. Like RNG is removed for a complete sterile game.

If the game just happed to be popular that’s fine but now they are making games for the sole purpose of being e sports

Removing randomness does not necessarily make a “sterile” game. If the game is designed well, it can rely on player skill with minimal randomness.

Does this look “sterile” to you:


While I tend to think of it more as a competition of skill than a “sport” in the traditional sense of the word, there are certainly similarities.

Yes it does, Everything you do has a random element to it, If you are an archer the wind could blow at any minute, If you play baseball an insect could land on you distracting you, If you take away the RNG for complete balance where people can anticipate exactly who will win a battle before it even begins because they have the superior troops, There is no excitement or hope involved in the battle.

So yes it does look sterile. Civilization wouldn’t be fun if your troops had a 100 percent chance of victory against another, World of Warcraft took away out talent trees and forced us into 1 of 3 groups for balance but they neutered it. You need randomness to make it interesting.

That is incorrect. Because actual people are involved, there is always randomness. Even if the randomness isn’t built into the game itself, people can be unpredictable. An inferior team can create a clever plan to defeat a more powerful opponent. A skilled player can have a stroke of bad luck. The game itself doesn’t need randomness in its system when the outcome is determined by the choices that the player make in the game. In this way, it is like a sport. Yes, a baseball player could become distracted, but that is something that affects that individual player’s action at that moment. There is no randomness built into the rules of baseball. Skill based games have a similar principle.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / e-sports

Originally posted by Immortal7777:

Bullshit because the games are made with an audience in mind not for the players and in order to make it a feasible sport they have to castrate the game and remove all aspects of fun out of it. Like RNG is removed for a complete sterile game.

If the game just happed to be popular that’s fine but now they are making games for the sole purpose of being e sports

Removing randomness does not necessarily make a “sterile” game. If the game is designed well, it can rely on player skill with minimal randomness.

Does this look “sterile” to you:


While I tend to think of it more as a competition of skill than a “sport” in the traditional sense of the word, there are certainly similarities.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Meat of the future

Imagine we’re in the not-so-far future. Researchers have developed a way to create meat by growing the flesh in a lab. No actual animal is harmed. There is no thinking, feeling creature that experiences pain or death. Instead, edible flesh is grown in a laboratory. The flesh is identical to that of a source organism which was not harmed, it only had a small sample of its cells taken to grow the futuristic meat. For example, with a few cells from a cow and some genetic engineering, a copious amount of high quality beef can be obtained. And a few cells can be taken from that to repeat the process.

My question is, would you support this? There are people who would believe that this is unnatural. However, this meat would be indistinguishable in taste and texture from meat that was actually taken from the animal.

As a side question, what do you think vegetarians who don’t eat meat for moral reasons would think? Since no actual animal dies, would they be willing to eat this future meat?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / The elites should rule

Originally posted by Rolby:

are u retarded or something richest people are the smartest otherwise they wouldnt have all that money

That isn’t always true. There are rich people who are only rich because their parents were rich. And there are smart people who are too poor to have the resources needed for them to reach their full potential.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / The elites should rule

Originally posted by cokoru:
Originally posted by fma1:

But not the elites of wealth. Rather, it is the elites of intelligence and skill who should rule.

Discuss.

Rule what? Why are you so vague? You do know of meritocracy don’t you?

I simply think that the rulers of a society should be the smartest of that society. I know of meritocracy and that is exactly what I am advocating.