alanschu

What are you talking about? The ruleset is the abstraction because it doesn't need to be associated with the Universe. You can use a ruleset to do whatever you want, it doesn't have to be a specific game. In this sense (not being associated with a specific instance), it is an abstraction. In the case of computer game, it served as a mechanism by which we can quantify the attributes and abilities of a character (among other things). But it's still an abstraction. I mean, what exactly is a Strength value of 12? The only real thing we can get from it is that a Strength value of 12 is greater than a Strength value of 11 (i.e. relative comparisons). On specific gameplay yes, because it's the mechanism by which the player interacts with the setting. In terms of what makes a game fun, I don't think it's any more important than the setting and other creative aspects. Rock solid rulesets can't carry a poor, boring game, and a great game creatively will be hampered by a poor ruleset. The thing is, how the ruleset works is arbitrary. As long as it is functional and doesn't hinder experiencing the game world, it doesn't matter really matter what it is. Had Fallout not had an interesting premise and been an overall boring game, I suspect there'd be little fun to be had from playing the game just the same.

Why wouldn't they?

Say what?!?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Your optimism is palpable!

Not really. If someone decides not to buy Bethesda's FO3 based on something he/she reads on the site, say a comparison between FO1's turn-based combat and FO3's (hypothetical) real-time combat, an accomplishment has been made. Why? Because if Bethesda makes a FO3 which doesn't appeal to some people who liked the past two games, and they refuse to buy it because of certain features that were altered, the resulting lack of sales would signal the developers that they lost a portion of their customers due to such design decisions. That's what I'm advocating here. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is it still an accomplishment if you convince old school Fallout players to actually buy Fallout 3?

Those "simple rulesets" are what dictate how a game plays, which is far more important in interactive entertainment than how good it looks. I think the idea was that a ruleset is an abstraction. It's possible that you could have a infinite number of rulesets that all work and make for a fun game with a particular setting.

Hey, the spreadsheet interface is letting me refuel my carriers in the Marshall Islands to go and decimate more Japanese shipping! Next goal is to conquer Truk, to cut off Rabaul, which recon has counted 33 (!) divisions at. I'd very much like to cut them off.

I don't know. I think the cameras may have been close to the ground. I do think that the Dam is probably bigger, though it's hard to say.

It was cool recognizing all those places. It'll be nice because enemies won't necessarily be in all the same spots any more!

Agreed, Close Combat was a very fun game to play, and it was real-time. As Llyranor pointed out, an RTS does not need to be a clickfest. I think the game he was describing was Red Devils Over Arnhem. When I worked on ORTS, we were looking on making an intelligent AI that worked well tactically from both sides. This was so that players were no longer small scale tacticians that had to click 1000x a second, but the strategic scale Generals.

Eli isn't in the Superbowl. I'm expecting Peyton to have an excellent game.

risking your life to save another's, and fighting to save your own, are two different things <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Did you actually read my post? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> yes... weren't we discussing the right to defend yourself, though? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My comments were directed towards taks' observation that the idea "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" was motivated by socialist politics. I was giving an example about how it can still be an issue without socialism being present.

As someone that lives in the West, and votes Conservative with no love for the Liberal Party, I feel that the separatist movement is still quite grassroots. As much as the Liberal Party had done things in recent years to piss me off, I still consider myself a Canadian, and the general consensus still seems to be that way. I'd be very surprised if next election Albertans all decided to vote for a separatist party.

Oh dear god....you're Canadian?

The thing is, I've seen parents faint without first checking on their child if they think their child is already dead. I guess it wasn't technically a faint, but my father froze up after seeing my brother's accident. The whole situation was just surreal and it was more just a stare of disbelief/horror at what just happened.

risking your life to save another's, and fighting to save your own, are two different things <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Did you actually read my post?

Right.

I don't think that it is necessarily purely socialist. I've seen the statement used in moral dilemmas and in similar decisions made by people in charge. If, say, a plane fell down behind enemy lines, would you send in a batallion against heavy odds to rescue them? Unlikely, because it'd be wasting the lives of the many in order to preserve the lives of a few. However, if that plane was, say, carrying a data stick that had detailed reconaissance of the enemy troop formations, which would allow you to save the lives of soldiers across multiple army divisions, then maybe a batallion of men is an acceptable cost. A pretty good example would probably be the situation that the soldiers were in in Saving Private Ryan. Did it really make sense to risk the lives of a platoon of men in order to save one soldier?

Why wouldn't they?

That is certainly the unusual thing.

That would certainly explain the deer in headlights look people get well before it's far too late. It's easy to say what you would do, without being in that situation. Unless of course you actually have had a child of yours in a life or death situation. As for cars blowing up, yes they are cheesy. Unfortunately, they've been cheesy for 60 years now.

Did you mean to type the same message three different times?

Does the game have to end in a single sitting though?

Yes I can, because they're available in 1943 But no, the American production system is set in stone. It'd make the American campaign far too easy as you already have an immense economical advantage. Powering through and getting Hellcats in 1942 and B-29s in 1943 would just tip the scales that much faster. I'm also not sure how exactly I get the atomic bomb. THere doesn't seem to be any "atomic bomb" factories. I think I just get them at set intervals. If I drop more than two though, the victory score is automatically tipped one score in favour of Japan (so instead of Total Victory, I'd get Decisive victory. Instead of a Draw, I'd get Decisive Defeat, and stuff like that). Going into 1946 tips it 2 points in favour of Japan, so the best possible score the Allies can get is a Draw.

You forgot something. You're hoping to convince people to not buy the game, because you state straight up that you'll consider it an accomplishment if you convince someone to not buy it. Plain and simple. Stating the "by himself/herself" is a moot point, unless you don't believe in free will or honestly expect that there is some way to coerce people into buying something against their will through an internet website. I don't need to include "by himself/herself" (BTW, the standard form of ambigious gender in English is to just use the male pronoun. The use of "himself/herself" is unnecessary), since I'm not brash enough to think you'd be forcing people to buy the game. Believe it or not, when a company goes on a huge hype campaign, people are still making the decision the buy it themselves. There's no coercion going on here. You hope to influence people not to buy the game, much the same way that Bethesda hopes to influence people to buy the game. Nitpicking the "by himself/herself" is simply grasping at straws. I never believed you (or anyone else) to be coercing anyone into doing anything else. But then again, I have poor reading comprehension. Why do you care if someone else buys Fallout 3? Wait a minute. I thought it was all for public service to ensure that people don't get ripped off? Impossible. You honestly expect a whole group of "true Fallout fans" that have been outspoken against Bethesda's involvement with Fallout 3 since they purchased the IP to give a truly objective representation of the game? Especially when true objectivity tends to not really exist? Look at the ideas they're tossing around. Creating multiple fake websites. Creating a "fanpage" that tows the party line and hypes the game up prerelease, then suddenly releases a review that just tells it like it is. Disinformation campaigns. Some even going as far as to suggest "cover forum operations" and even (albeit just a few) outright DoS attacks.