An interesting way to teach people how to understand logic, rhetoric and formal arguments. Nicely done.
Reviews for "Socrates Jones: Pro Philo"
eventually I m to tired for this - or to dumb 8)(
However, I like the general idea of it, but at times I really could need a hint ... or, maybe, disable buttons I already pressed which were wrong xD
Also, when a challenge-statement was updated, maybe add a star or something to it, as a switch to see what it was like before - and back - just to be able to quickly see the difference between old and new :D
nice work there, hope u keep it up :D
Although it was a great game and very, very well thought through philosophically, I often felt I had to figure out how this game would let me make obvious conclusions instead of simply let me draw them. Imo, the short statements you could choose to attack an argument weren't always logically connected to the sentence they had to be applied to but only triggered the counter argument that would eventually build this connection. When I got into the thought-line behind the system of counter-arguing, clarifying etc., it became more obvious but still not completely conclusive for me. I would have wished for a possibility to just state the obvious when presented with an obviously flawed argument instead of, sometimes, pick blindly between clarifying and further explanations until something triggered further hard-scripted dialogue that would finally bring up new points and allow me to proceed...so overall I found the gameplay too indirect since conclusions I already had in mind, could only be found through the development of the fixed dialogue I could only start... I also quite liked Kant actually using "your face is ugly"^^ on a technical side, this game loaded really slow at times, which was especially painful when a third character wanted to chip in only to stretch the real action even more
does not load :(
Honestly, this was extremely frustrating for me. I appreciate the effort, but a few parts of the game are very flawed. Euthyphro is attempting to suggest that mankind is flawed, so I pose that perhaps he's flawed in his assumption that his understanding of right and wrong is higher than average because he's studied the gods. He conceded that perhaps his viewpoint could be flawed as well, so the Arbiter jumps in saying that I'm being a dick for pointing that out. Bullshit, Euthyphro made a fallacious statement and I corrected him. If a main part of his argument is that mankind is flawed, then he concedes every subsequent statement he makes and is a piss poor debater. I'm not playing a game where common logic is trumped by your attempt to force the storyline into a linear experience. If you're ever in an actual debate, don't ever make an egomaniacal blanket statement like "mankind is flawed" in an effort to further your point.