alanschu

Too bad there's no way to safely do it, by minimizing accidental deaths.

Would you feel just as safe if the nukes you live on top of could go off randomly for no particular reason?

Yes, it does. So despite the fact that things like safeties for guns have resulted in less accidental deaths with firearms, they're as unsafe as a gun without a safety?

Have you seen the movie Wargames? " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes I have. Matthew Broderick, Thermonuclear War. Yadda Yadda. Thank god for Tic-Tac-Toe/ As for "a kill being a kill," I suppose you'd have a point. If the intent of firearms was to kill the person using it, or the intent of nuclear warheads to kill the person storing it.

I think so too.

Brakes were an analogy to the current topic. Hence, still related to the topic. Talking about teenagers when asked that question is a deflection. Unless you're trying to say that nukes are unsafe because of teenagers talking on the phone.

Strawman. Not what we're discussing. Do brakes make a car safer?

I'm guessing brakes don't make cars safer either.

Yes. Because if one drops a gun and it goes off and kills someone, it's clearly just as safe.

They're both loaded. Why you seriously thought I'd be changing two variables is beyond me.

So a gun without a safety (appropriately named) isn't any safer than a gun without one??

I guess Fernando hadn't scored his yet :D For those that like to look at again. "Time to kill....now" indeed!

The thing about DLA is that, when they were hired, they still helped work on a story with an actual adventure. (Their response to the cutting of support by Atari also demonstrates the woes of hiring "mod groups" to work with you). Yes, people have made changes to the NWN game environment. But how much of their stuff had a price attached to it?

There was a kid that was almost in tears in the stands that they showed during the game. After the post game interviews, there were still fans sitting dejected in the stands.

So you'd consider an unstable nuclear warhead, that could literally go off at any time it wants to, regardless of when or where (like in the Silo), with no arming codes and no arming triggers to be just as safe as one that was perfectly stable, with zero chance of detonation outside of its target, 187 highly uncrackable arming codes, with a flawless arming trigger to be equally safe?

Fun fun fun

Well, the last time I saw that movie I wouldn't have even known who Ben Affleck was, so ^_^

I was afraid he'd think I was agreeing with him.

Hahaha. If Edmonton wins I'd still give it to Pronger. But wowee what a serious. Saturday can't come soon enough!

Are you just being obtuse for the sake of stirring things up?

Because in order for people to build with that content, they'll have to buy it. But how many people will buy something to create content, with no one really willing to play it (upon release)? People aren't going to buy content expansions without having quality modules created with that content. The only way to really work around this is to make the content "expansions" (for lack of a better word) would then be to make them cheap. The only thing is, creating content isn't cheap (it's arguably one of the most expensive part of game development now). In terms of finding ways to invest their money, a company would probably have a better ROI simply by making another game. At best, maybe they make a game with that toolset that's post-apocolyptic. Since full-fledged expansions typically don't sell anywhere near the amount of copies as the original game does, I can't expect content (which doesn't really have any incentive for a non-content creator to buy) to sell any better. Except that I'd expect you to have to sell at a lower price, with less volume of sales.

Was a post deleted from this thread?

For the record I enjoyed Gothic 2 as well. Who's the other one?

It's separated from the "safety" issue as far as I'm concerned.

It's possible to make a safer anything. The discussion was never about whether or not it was a good use of resources.