alanschu

Yeah Alberta I am pretty sure has a law like that. I remember studying it, but that was in the late 90s. I believe Quebec has a law along the lines of, if you're medically trained (a nurse or a doctor I believe), and don't provide help, you're liable. LOL, of course I'm referring to the murder. Though they'd probably get less of sentence if it was the kidnapping and ransoming of a vagrant, due to the absurdity of it hahaha. Insanity might hold up in that regard

Oh man the Oilers have regressed back to the mean. Argh!

Haha, two people I know broke the tutorial

I guess the thing to do there is to ask yourself if you'd still feel the same way if it was some random vagrant that was killed.

Actually I'd say it's quite a bit different than doing it himself. In fact, Stanley Milgram demonstrated that it's actually not that hard to coerce people into doing things they don't want to do (not saying that the guy was coerced to standing by and watching) with his famous experiment in the early 60s. It was certainly had interesting results as far as I'm concerned. Though Milgram's experiement was about coercing people into doing the act themselves, rather than simply watching or other forms of inaction. Link Assuming that the justice system is similar in the UK as it is in Canada, the courts would explicitly require that the man demonstrate both the actus reus and mens rea of the crime. It's shocking and horrifying, but certainly in the letter of the law he shouldn't be penalized for more (assuming that the legal system doesn't equate accomplices to the principal criminal). He didn't actually torture and kill the child.

I just rationalized splitting the 4 pack of borderlands with some friends >.>

To return things somewhat on topic... Timed stuff does seem to work better when the outright length of the game is not very long. Using that as a lemma, you could probably extrapolate that to apply to it working better when the distance from going "completely un****ed" to "****ed" is not very long. For example, Prince of Persia was a ton of fun in its day, but you only had 60 minutes to beat the game (and it was a damn tough game too). But since the time investment wasn't very much, it was easier to get away with. Another example is that I had no problems redoing the final mission of Call of Duty 4 which had a timer on it, lest the plane I was in exploded!

Haha. Were you hotlinking from other sites Wals?

See post 113, where I was reminded that you can use XP to prevent it from happening. I'd go back and edit my post, but I can't. I forgot about the XP sacrifice, because I never used it. I know I'm in your crosshairs because of previous encounters, but this has quickly turned into you making a fool out of yourself again (doubly so because you're trying to be witty in doing so), primarily through you completely misunderstanding what is actually being discussed. Though I sort of had a feeling you were continuing to be petty in this thread. You just confirmed it. Heck, you might as well have just called me out on it specifically. The issues discussed in Dragon Age about "backing into a corner" are more specifically about being blindsided by it. That is, for example, making an active decision to play the game a particular way, resulting in the permanent death of party members, where the result is that the only options available to a player, assuming the NPCs at party camp were not given any experience, was to attempt to proceed through the game with party members that were significantly handicapped. You can't always anticipate that NPCs will leave you based on a choice that you make at that time. You are never hidden from your spirit meter in MOTB near as I can remember. If you remember from that very thread, I said I had no problems with Sarevok turning at the end of TOB, because it happens at the end of the game and outside of a single fight being difficult (the final fight of the game at that), it wouldn't subject the player to several hours (and several encounters) with a specifically gimped party. This is, of course, without even mentioning that the final fight of TOB would have balance considerations made for the very fact that Sarevok could turn. You'll notice I also had no issues with the losing of party members at the end of NWN2, based on the consequences of your actions. I especially have no issue, because the game DID level up your characters that weren't in your party with you. Imagine how interesting that fight would be if, after 40+ hours of gameplay, you found yourself fighting epic level characters with some level 2 scrubs you didn't know you'd need to level up. With Mask of the Betrayer, the spirit bar is presented early in the game, and the game player is always presented with full knowledge of its status, as well as what its effects are when it gets to various levels. There are different ways of dealing with it to keep it under control, as well as an "oh ****" method to prevent players from getting stuck. You can't be blind sided by it, except through gross negligence. To make the Dragon Age situation analogous, you'd need to set up an encounter early in the game where you unexpectedly lost an NPC party member, and demonstrate that you'll need to replace that party member with one that has remained at exactly the level you acquired that party member at. Hence, the player will be cued that they would need to manage the experience level of their party members. This ignores that the player's spirit is a central point of the entire game, and makes an assumption that party members chilling in camp sit around doing **** all. You won't find me saying that games should be winnable in any circumstance. Taking DA as an example, with all of the Warrior abilities cuing the player that strength is useful for a warrior, I won't bat an eye if someone decides that they want to dump all their attribute points into magic and they find the game has become difficult, or if they feel that they should be able to wear cloth armor and still effectively go toe-to-toe with monsters as that warrior. Given that the Spirit Bar in MOTB doesn't actually block the character (thanks Starwars), I rescind my previous statement.

I highly doubt it's a speed run through the game.

Is it ever inescapable? I thought you could use XP to top yourself off. I fail to see how that is painting yourself into a corner when clearly the design gave you a pretty convenient out if you get sloppy with handling the hunger.

I think if the story necessitates it, it makes sense.

Actually I should clarify my stance and acknowledge that this is indeed a concern. Perhaps "magnificently" is a bit too strong of praise for it. However, I do like the fact that the game actually had some sort of consequence because I consider it silly that in RPGs, urgent stuff really isn't urgent at all. It's a huge immersion breaker for me.

I find a timed challenge often depends on how much time there is, and what the challenge is. I thought MOTBs was executed magnificently. I wouldn't have liked it as much if the curse was an empty threat that imposed no consequence whatsoever on the player's actions. The sense of urgency was important IMO.

I agree with numbers man. I liked the fact that the spirit meter provided an actual game mechanic that directed the player. The one thing I hate about a lot of RPGs is that the world is pretty much static outside of when the player triggers stuff. Basically, the world waits for the player. I like the idea that just sometimes, the world forces the player to do something with some sort of sense of urgency, because it makes for a more consistent and plausible game world. The best example of this I can think of off the top of my head is Fallout. While I find the water chip restriction a bit too artificial, I do like that if you take your time, the settlements of the area are eradicated by the mutant threat. No happy ending for them, because sometimes **** just happens.

Paperwork can still go down if the system it replaces has excessive paperwork. A perfectly run privately run system will be more efficient, but simply being privately run doesn't necessarily mean things are more efficient. Aristes is simply asking for health care reform, which can still be done entirely in the private sector. It's just reform aka change.

ROFL that'd be hilarious.

Actually, DLCs probably aren't that bad of a way to combat piracy either, now that you mention it.

There are "misses" which may be abstracted to dodges/parries as Oner says, through the defense stat.

If digital distribution grows bigger, the sheer convenience factor of having multiple distributors accessible right from your home makes finding a game less challenging. The key issue with retail is still shelf space. Retailers can still hide mature content if it's an issue through age verification tied to the user's account. And the fact that I don't have to drive all the way to Walmart, realize they don't stock my game because of whatever silly issue they want, makes it simple. For Fahrenheit vs. Indigo Prophecy, I imported Fahrenheit. With Digital Distribution, I'd just buy it and download it from a service that sells it online rather than buying Indigo Prophecy.

Not really. The big hindrance with retail is shelf space. That's where their power comes in. Plus, digital distribution is private. It'd be easy to lock M rated games behind an age verification service that prevents underage people from seeing it. There's significantly less exposure and image restrictions IMO.

Or the retailers in those places gave money to ensure some period of exclusive retail access?

Meh, AA isn't an issue for me. Unless I'm taking pictures it's often one of the first things I turn off of my graphics settings.

Nobody likes a braggart.