Follow them on Facebook at IronOak Games or on Twitter at IronOakGames.
For The King is a turn based RPG that can be played solo or cooperatively online. Featuring long term strategic adventuring, turn based combat, and persistent choices, For The King aims to distill the epicness of traditional RPGs into an adventure that can be completed from beginning to end in a single session. Players must survive cunning enemies and creatures, wicked weather and brutal traps in their quest to solve the mysterious death of the king and bring order to the land.
- Online Multi-Player Adventure: Embark on your own or with up to 3 people online. Travel and fight together or dare to set off on your own.
- Short, Epic, Replayable: All the grandness of an epic adventure distilled into a 2 hour highly replayable game from start to finish.
- Turn Based Combat: Turn based combat with unique slot and combo system, battle stances, focus points, items, and special abilities.
- Strategic Procedural World: The map, realms, and locations you'll encounter will be different every play through. Every time it's a unique adventure.
- Persistent Lore: Collect and research in lore to build a unique game world by unlocking special persistent game mechanics in the order of your choosing.
- Day/Night Cycle: New challenges and horrors emerge at different times of day.
- Persistent Weapon Crafting: Craft powerful weapons over multiple play throughs.
- Dynamic Weather and Nature: Encounter weather and natural events that have a variety of effects, good and bad.
This is a game for those of us who loved Hack and Rogue and don't like the modern games.
If you like the idea, get ready for the Kickstarter campaign that begins tomorrow. As soon as it starts, I'll post the link and the list of rewards. I'll also tell you what characters Ms. Sandwalk and I are buying. You will get to see them when you play the game.
If you give enough money you may be able to name an evil character. Wouldn't it be fun to battle "Casey Luskin" or Jonathan Wells"?
1. He is my son. I have a personal interest in promoting this game. I don't want him moving into the basement. Just so you know.
36 comments :
In!
It looks like it was designed...but I must be mistaken, isn't it, prof?
Septic Mind whines in harmony with Terborg :
If the game was found on another planet, and there was no intelligence or designer found around, according to Darwinian teaching, the only logical explanation would be that the game only appears to be designed.
Nope - evolution only deals with BIOLOGICAL entities; since computer games are not biological, no one would invoke 'Darwinian teachings'.
Nope, Part II : sane and rational people detect design by the presence of UNnatural features and/or signs of manufacture.
Since computer games are manufactured and NOT a naturally occurring thing, anyone (except the strawman evolutionists that exist only within the fetid pool of maggot droppings you call your 'mind') would say the game was designed.
Living things show no evidence of manufacture or unnatural features (unless, of course, one is slow-witted and/or egocentric enough to 'think' that "TOO COMPLEX FOR ** ME ** TO UNDERSTAND ALWAYS EQUALS DESIGNED !!1!1!1!!1!1!!!1!!")
O yes, we have plenty of evidence for unnatural features in living systems.... codes, programs, genetic circuitry.
This is all unnatural and was not anticipated. Your problem, in fact the problem of all naturalistic phylosophers, is that you equalize "describing" with "understanding". It is easy to describe the observed codes, decoding machines, bio-information, etc. I do it all the time...but I do not understand why we find them...
The real problem is information, which cannot be understood from a materialistic stance.
The real problem is information, which cannot be understood from a materialistic stance.
Nonsense. Can you give an example of a kind of information that doesn't require a "material" (mass/energy) medium to bestored and transmitted? Any propagation of cause-effect is information, but in order to have it, you need physical entities, states and processes in the first place.
All information is independent of material. I can write with letters, with sand, with dogpooh, anything. The infomation that I write to you, and which you do understand because you reply to me, is immaterial. My brain invents stuff, which I transform in laguage, which my fingers type as letter, which your brain reads and interprets in exactly the way my brain wanted you to read this. There is nothing in these letters (black-whit pxels on a screen) that in actuality means anything, were it now if we had code and decoding machines/circuitry in our brains. I only need fysical entities to tranform and tranfer convey it. The mere fact that the info in my brain can be transferred from one enitity to another mean that it is beyond matter.
Likewise, I can write any DNA sequence as a sequence of zeros and ones. As long as I know the code, I know the info, the meaning. This immaterialism of the DNA is simply not explained, cannot be explained, in the materialitic paradigms. That is why it is usually denied.
Patterns are abstract but not immaterial. Just try to communicate something to me without using a keyboard and physically transmitted signals, or (if we ever meet in real life) without spoken words, gestures, etc. Information is not "the meaning"; it is not even the same thing as "a message". An arbitrary sequence of nucleotides contains exactly as much information as an equally long sequence encoding for a protein. Both can be potentially used to encode the same number of amino acids. The arbitrary sequence is not supposed to be meaningful, but sometimes it can be co-opted for some useful function, quite by chance,
Likewise, I can write any DNA sequence as a sequence of zeros and ones. As long as I know the code, I know the info, the meaning.
The f--k you know. Here's sequence of zeros and ones. Let's assume that 00=A, 01=C, 10=G, and 11=T. You know the standard genetic code. What (if anything) is the meaning of this sequence? And how do you know?
111010101111110001100000001001100011010001010011101111101000
111100101011011110110111111011100101011000000100101011100010
100100110001000110101010101010111100101101001010101010010010
110000100010010000011101111100101001001110100111100101011000
001100111000100111000000100101000000101011010110110011101101
000010010110101010101110010101001101111001101010011110001100
100111011001010 0011000010011100 00000100
Easy...this translates in a row of DNA letters, which correspond, if translated, to a row of amino-acids...which probably have no biological meaning (function) in real life. Most random sequences do not have any meaning, as you know.
How do you know this one has no biological meaning? And how would you know if it had?
It nicely demonstrates that the genetic protein-coding code is in fact binomial in nature. It is also optimal for error buffering. Together, it is clear evidence of design....if you do not a priori reject such conclusion.
How do you know this one has no biological meaning? And how would you know if it had?
From experience. If you wrote the sequence just by random typing zeros and ones, there is little chance it has biological meaning. Try run a blast with the translation. I bet you will not get a hit.
You haven't answered either of my questions.
"O yes, we have plenty of evidence for unnatural features in living systems.... codes, programs, genetic circuitry."
So, you too (like sceptical mind) see "living systems" (which includes you and all other humans) as programmed, robotic machines. Which production run are you from and what is your model number? Did you come with a little piece of paper or cloth that said 'Inspected by number 12' on it?
"This is all unnatural and was not anticipated."
Your 'programming' is certainly showing. Unnatural? LOL. Was not anticipated by whom? And why does it matter if whatever was not anticipated was not anticipated? Does everything have to be anticipated to be considered natural?
"Your problem, in fact the problem of all naturalistic phylosophers, is that you equalize "describing" with "understanding". It is easy to describe the observed codes, decoding machines, bio-information, etc. I do it all the time...but I do not understand why we find them..."
Well, one of your problems is that you "equalize" the map with the territory. Your main problem is that you're a brainwashed puppet who doesn't understand that the religious gobbledegook you believe in is both harmful and laughable.
"The real problem is information, which cannot be understood from a materialistic stance."
You've got the IDiotic-creobot lingo down pat, and it's all just a bunch of uninformative gibberish.
Can you provide any actual evidence for the alleged existence, knowledge, powers, and actions of your chosen, imaginary designer-creator-assembler-producer-distributor-guider sky daddy?
To Piotr:
Yes, I did, but it wasn't the right answer. You belief, like a JHWH witness, that question ahve merely one answer. If you are a scientist you should know better. I guess you ar not a scientist.
For clearence
....sjochtsjochofrjochttroch...
meaning or no meaning?
"Can you provide any actual evidence for the alleged existence, knowledge, powers, and actions of your chosen, imaginary designer-creator-assembler-producer-distributor-guider sky daddy?"
Neither can you for your computer. The outdated and unintellectual idea is that in order to identifiy design, we have to know the designer.
Tell Steven Hawking. He is currenlty looking for intelligent signals and codes with space telescopes. Maybe he should focus his telescope on bacteria teeming his wheelchair...plenty of intelligent signals present in their biologcal code.
Quote from The whole truth:
"This blog is devoted to exposing the truth about supporters of the so-called Intelligent Design movement. The Intelligent Design movement is religious creationism in a poor disguise and is really just an intrusive, dishonest, religious and political agenda. The people promoting and supporting it are insane, narcissistic, hypocritical, dishonest religious-zealots who want to control the thoughts and actions of everyone on Earth."
IDiots of all nations unite! In europe, where I am from, it is not a political issue at all. It is just an alternative to the Darwinian stranglers. And regarding the biological orbservations, ID simply makes sense. I am happy, and with me thousands of honest truth seekers, that we are returning to an era with intellectual and academic freedom.
So, Piotr, I deduce from your replies questions merely have one answer...?
What is it? Monoreposetrism?
You haven't told me how you can tell meaning fron no meaning (in the case of a DNA string).
...sjochtsjochofrjochttroch...
I have no idea whether it means something or not. But it wasn't me who claimed to be able to tell meaning from no meaning.
Peer,
You belief, like a JHWH witness, that question ahve merely one answer. If you are a scientist you should know better. I guess you ar not a scientist.
I think what you meant to say was that there may be more than one answer to a particular question, but only one of the answers would be true.
For example:
Someone asked what 2+2 = can answer 4 or 5. But only one of those answers can be and is true.
Someone could also ask; how God-JHWH can be omniscient (all-knowing) who didn’t know in advance that Adam and Eve would sin?
While there may be more than one answer to this question, there is only one true answer.
Either God-JHWH did know that Adam and Eve would sin and that could mean that He is omniscient.
Or He didn’t know that they would sin and therefore can’t be omniscient.
Do you agree that only one of these answers can be true?
Really? You are spouting on a post promoting a game? You need a hobby. Why not go the the kickstarter page and...
Peer said:
"Neither can you for your computer."
Wrong. My computer, in its original form, was designed-created-assembled-produced-distributed by people who work for the Dell Corporation, and my computer can be or is guided (via available parts, repairs, software updates/upgrades, helpful information, etc.) by people who work for the Dell Corporation and/or other companies, helpful people on the internet or in person, and me.
The people who designed-created-assembled-produced-distributed-guided (and guide) the refined materials, tools, software, labs, factories, business plans, controlled electrical power, other inventions, job training, distribution methods, etc., that made (and make) it possible and easy for the people at the Dell Corporation (and their suppliers) to produce and sell computers could be traced to particular human beings with names and other specifics about who they were or are. There is absolutely no doubt in the mind of any sane person that human beings designed and made my computer and all other computers.
"The outdated and unintellectual idea is that in order to identifiy design, we have to know the designer."
You're not pushing just any old so-called 'designer', are you, so why don't you stop playing IDiotic games and be honest?
On the local news a few minutes ago there was a report about a little girl who died of cancer last weekend. Did your designer-god design cancer? Was her suffering and death your designer-god's will and action?
And yeah, what The Other Jim said. If Larry decides to move or delete all of the comments in this thread that are irrelevant to the game I certainly won't complain.
In addition to 'who' designed-created-assembled-produced-distributed-guided/guides my computer I want to add that the how, when, and where could also be determined by the model number, service tag, records at Dell and their suppliers, etc. The 'why' is real easy: Many people want computers, Dell and others want to make money selling computers and other stuff. Many people want jobs and money, Dell and others employ people and pay them money. Governments want money from taxes, Dell and other companies pay taxes and so do employees.
Does Stephen Hawking (spelling names right must be hard for some people) have a space telescope these days ? That is new to me: these things do not come cheap. Perhaps he sold so many books that he can afford one ?
Please be more specific. I want the identity of the designer...provide a name and a picture please...otherwise I do not believe your computer was intelligently designed.
Of course ...Eelco the cosmologist ....the lurker.
Stephen is renting peep-hours...with Russian money. But you knew that already.
Piort: "You haven't told me how you can tell meaning fron no meaning (in the case of a DNA string)."
Yes, I did. I said: From experience. If you wrote the sequence just by random typing zeros and ones, there is little chance it has biological meaning. Try run a blast with the translation. I bet you will not get a hit.
A good reader only requires half a word...if you typed the sequence of ones and zeros at random there will be no biological meaning if translated into atcg...? If you took a sequence from an organism and transformed it into zeros and ones...you would know that it had meaning.
So, in fact, you were the only one with enough information to know if the sequence has function/meaning...
I have to run a blast to know.
Yes, I did. I said: From experience.
I doubt if you have the right kind of experience. Anyway, experience can't help you in this case.
If you wrote the sequence just by random typing zeros and ones, there is little chance it has biological meaning.
You have no idea how I came up with this sequence. Perhaps I designed it carefully, perhaps not. You can't tell, and that's the whole point. By the way, if the sequence "looked designed" (e.g. if it encoded consecutive prime numbers: 0011100000111111100000000000...) it would quite certainly have no biological meaning.
Try run a blast with the translation. I bet you will not get a hit.
BLAST does not recognise functionality. It can be used to detect potential homologies, but e.g. a de novo gene may be functional though by definition it has no detectable homologues. On the other hand, a pseudogene has no function any longer ("no meaning"), though it may have high sequence similarity to related functional ("meaningful") genes.
And apparently you did not.
Peer,
Which of these are intelligently designed, and what empirical evidence do you have to support your conclusions:
1.Eubalaena glacialis
2. a diamond
3. Plasmodium falciparum
4. Hapuna Beach, Hawaii
Chris, thîs is the sort of questions I asked about 15 years ago.
None of them are directly the product of ID, but indirectly Euba and Plasmo are. You infer that when you keep zooming in. As soon as your reach the molecular level, you will discover that those two rely on codes and decoding machines.
"You have no idea how I came up with this sequence. Perhaps I designed it carefully, perhaps not. You can't tell, and that's the whole point."
You may even have designed it randomly. Giving it a look of design or non-design.
It is like this fossil Homo naledi. Nobody knows where to place it in the fossil record, bacause it has not been dated.
There is missing something: the interpretation framework. For the sequence above that is you. Or rather your brain. So, whatever the meaning of your sequence it was you who deliberately and intelligently designed it for some function...
Yeah, if you look carefully into the DNA (might need to squint a bit) you can clearly see the logo "Jahweh inside", running the latest Jahwindows 10.
There's no evolution, it's all just service packs you dummies!
"On the other hand, a pseudogene has no function any longer ("no meaning"), though it may have high sequence similarity to related functional ("meaningful") genes."
Most pseudogenes have being mistakenly assigend non-functional, because the evolutionary community does not understand we are dealing with complementary sequences to other parts of the protein-coding DNA that function as regulatory RNA molecules to fine tune gene expression.
Isn't that obvious with a 80% functional genome?
Dazz, a logo is not required. The UFO of Roswell also did not have a logo. Stephen Hawking also does not need a logo to find Intelligent Aliens.
Humans are designed so that they recognize intelligent design immediately. And as soon as we observed codes and decoding machines it is clear: ID.
One has to wonder why doesn't Stephen Hawking hire a creationist to interpret the data. He would find intelligence in white noise every day
Post a Comment