Not much of a conversation to have if you’re saying in advance you won’t change your position. As the saying goes, I may as well speak to a brick wall.
By all means, DM me information too sensitive for other threads, or information too specific to the forum itself. But this topic specifically is not a necessary chat to do via DM’s, and the way I see it, it’s worthy of public discussion, even if other members do not want to contribute, or simply just want to learn from the discussion’s talking points.
You are of course, free to ignore all this, and continue with your day.
@Heisenberg, @Dribbleondo, I cannot recall a single time in the last five years (I hope I’m wrong) where either of you changed your position on anything in response to something the other one said… be it balance issues, canon issues, playstyle issues, or just life in general. While both of you are very intelligent and you have a lot of really good stuff to contribute individually, together you’re like oil and water. I’ll delete this if it’s offensive.
Two different mindsets clashing isn’t terribly unusual on a forum, me and Heisey tend to be more active on here (less so for me these days). One wants the best for the game, one wants to go to their own church, so to speak.
I am very much open to ideas and change, so if anyone has better logic on something, I’ll happily subscribe to it. However, I cannot help or speak to people if they refuse to engage in a constructive manner. Stating an opinion, then clamming up when asked or questioning the flaws of it makes for a terrible conversation. A cyclical hell where the conversation moves nowhere. If you read the balance thread, I discuss this on why this is a bad mindset to have.
Man, I sound like a preacher.
I should say we do agree on a few things, namely the corporrate schenanigans at IO (the sapienza edition, the dlc prices etc.), but those are very easy to agree to. Oil and Water is an accurate similie, though.
It’s not, you’re right on the money. Although, there have been times when we’ve both changed our positions and even agreed with one another, under certain circumstances. It’s just such a rare occurrence that I’m frankly weary of even bothering at this point.
And the problem is, we both think we’re each the one, and the other is, well, the other.
Not true. I’ve said repeatedly: the game should stop having more content added to it, have all bugs and glitches and breaks fixed, and then conclude. That would be best for the game.
The problem is, “best for the game” is once again a subjective matter. It all depends on who likes what, what causes the game to flourish, and how often those sensibilities shift and change. Nothing that’s “best” for the game at one point in time necessarily remains that way for the life of the game. So I would say that the more the game allows the highest number of people to play the it in whatever way they wish is what’s best for the game, especially since it probably isn’t going to last too many more years.
The thing is, you don’t know what makes the game good for everyone. That’s what it comes down to. You believe you know, you hope for what’s best for the game and the remaining gamers, but you don’t know what that is, and it’s not your call to make even if you did. I am done with this discussion.
A general reminder that you can in fact reply as Direct Messages or even a new topic.
People generally drop into this thread for some light hearted contrarianism - not an ongoing back and forth about which absolutist approach is correct.
You can’t really make that claim when Heisenberg discouraged you to press on multiple times.
You originally bumped this thread by actively replying to a post of his. You even tried to make him DM you instead of DM him yourself. I can only assume it did not work out because one or both of you two block each other but bypass it so often you forgot you/he did.
Please take a step back and reflect what is happening here.
Over the past day, I had gotten numerous bits of advice from others that what I did was needlessly escalatory, and I became increasingly aware of that myself. I should say, I am genuinely trying to be a better person, and that is clear in numerous posts I’ve made recently (even Heisenberg has noticed this!).
I must apologise profusely for my recent behaviour. I did not see the wanring signs, and Just went “bull in a china shop”.
In fairness, it did used to be a lot harder. Hitman 2 introduced the “hiding in grass” mechanic so when Colorado originally released, that wasn’t available. Also, there is now a way to get up and down the water tower without using the ladder. Lastly, the number of extra gadgets and other unlocks that have been released since Colorado first released means you have a lot of extra options that just weren’t available back then.
Is Colorado difficult? It can be, but it’s not egregiously so these days, I think. If you have no mastery or, for lack of a better way of saying it, just aren’t very good at the mechanics of the game, yes, it can be tricky since practically the entire map is hostile unless you find a disguise, but once you figure out how to navigate it, it’s not really any worse than other maps, in my opinion, anyway.
Especially in a map like Colorado. I’ve been on military bases… people run all over the place in those. I’d expect half the characters on the map to be running around in real life.
