Hell Kitty

I really enjoyed Bioshock, but I completely agree that it's easy to forget your in a city under the sea.

Huh?

I did "Suicide as a response to terminal illness, or extreme physical pain and suffering is a whole different matter." That's the difference between suicide and euthanasia, what I'm asking is if killing oneself over the "sharp emotional pain" of the things you listed is foolish, what sort of "sharp emotional pain" is it not foolish to end ones life over? A friend comes to you and tells you that they are feeling this pain, it's becoming to much to bear and they don't think they can go on living as long as they feel this way. Would you ask what it was specifically that caused this pain, so you can properly judge whether or not they are being foolish? Do you think that your judgment would help someone who was truly feeling suicidal? I'm stating the obvious here, but people feel differently, react differently to all sorts of things. What seems like nothing to one person might be a huge deal to another. If someone is happy, it doesn't matter if what made them happy seems silly to you. If someone is sad, their emotional state is no less valid if what made them sad wouldn't have affected you. Claiming that someone is wrong (foolish) for feeling the way they do is, well, rather foolish, because if they really are depressed all you are doing is feeding that depression. None of the things you listed would cause an emotionally/mentally healthy person to suddenly turn suicidal, but to someone truly on the edge it can tip them over. It's not any one thing that makes a person suicidal, though, and it's not what those things are that matter, but how they make them feel, and telling them how they feel is wrong is only going to make matters worse. For example, a man loses his job, his wife leaves him, and he's in financial ruin. Being clinically depressed, he already believes himself to be worthless and pathetic, unable to cope, and in his mind these things serve to confirm that. And to top it off he has a world that agrees with him. "Yes, you are a coward, you don't have what it takes to face your problems." "Yes you are a fool, you shouldn't feel this way."

Now that you've listed things it would be foolish to kill oneself over, how about a list of things you'd find understandable? That way if anyone ever wants to confide in you that they are having suicidal thoughts, they'll know whether you're likely to sympathize with them or dismiss them as a fool. It's probably also important to point out that thinking about suicide is not the same thing as feeling suicidal.

Is that a sexy conjoined twin in the second pic?

I only took one level of Animal Friend, and I thought it was the best thing ever.

The choices in DX are in how you complete your objectives, not changing the story. It more like the Thief or Hitman series.

This kind of attitude just ensures some people will go through with the act, rather than seek help. It's like when a woman refuses to report a rape out of fear of how she will be judged. As long as there are people who will claim the way a woman dresses or acts makes her responsible for her attack, then victims will avoid seeking help. Someone who is suicidal is pretty much at their lowest point, the pain they feel is so great they are no longer able to bear it, it doesn't feel like it will ever pass so the only way for it to end is for their life to end. They feel weak and pathetic, and what do they have? A world that agrees with them. So if someone you claimed to love committed suicide, and you were somehow able to bring them back to life, you wouldn't want to help them out of their depression, you'd want to see them tortured? That's pretty messed up. Yes suicide is selfish but god damn so is this. Road rage is the same as taking joy in someones misery? Even a small, seemingly insignificant moment of kindness can make all the difference.

I was so impressed I printed out your post and stuck it on my fridge.

No. You can't fail at something you're not doing.

Why would an organization or enclave use it considering they have the resources to hire security, or even develop their own? They can spend money on a regular basis for personnel and technology, as opposed to a rotten bar downtown whose owner doesn't make enough to even hire bodyguards, but decided on a one time investment of widespread, relatively low cost security technology. Why spend money on fallible, corruptible humans, or waste money developing their own version of technology that has proven so effective it even stops people from using melee weapons? Of course the real answer to the question of why other organizations in the game don't use this technology is that the story requires that they don't. Like when Victim #1 in Generic Horror Movie makes Stupid, Obvious Mistake #13. The answer to questions like "why are some characters invulnerable?" or "why can't I attack people in certain locations?" is "to preserve the integrity of the story". The reason for the weapon locking technology in DX:IW is to give an in-game reason to this common game rule/limitation, but when it just leads to another question, "why don't other organizations use this technology?, the answer for which is "to preserve the integrity of the story", then it fails.

You'll always be the moderator of my heart, kirottu.

You're the most useless feature ever. Other than that I agree.

Except that's not why the technology exists, its sole purpose is to prevent Alex Denton from killing particular people. None of the organizations that need it actually use it, even though it's apparently common enough to be used in a bar in the poor section of the city. I really enjoyed exploring in Gothic 3, but what killed it for me was that I knew I was never going to find anything interesting. This seems to be the standard for RPGs nowadays. At least Fallout 3 had bobbleheads and unique weapons to find hidden away in the wasteland. Every game needs to use the inventory system from RE4. Every single one. In Saint's Row 2, one of the bonuses I unlocked by completely an activity gave me a bonus for dealing with a particular gang, problem was I had already completely wiped that gang out.

I'm too busy recovering from turning 29 to care about something other jerks birthday.

Wouldn't a character question why they're suddenly better at bartering and talking to people when all they've done is kill supermutants and pick locks? Wouldn't a character question why they look down and they have no legs? And what about their peripheral vision? Nah, a character is only capable of doing what the developer programs them for, and they're generally not programmed to question the rules, or the limitations, of the game they're in. Not really. Hand holding is when the developer does something because the player can not or will not do it themselves. For example the player could find the object they need to progress in the game on their own, or the developer can hold their hand by giving them something like a glowing quest arrow. Hand holding as an explanation for invulnerable NPCs makes no sense, as the player cannot know beforehand which characters are important, and thus are unable to prevent themselves from screwing up the game. Anyway, the implementation of safe zones in DX:IW is fine, in that it does what it needs to do, provides an area to place plot essential characters to keep them free from harm, but the in-universe explanation is ridiculous and ultimately ruins it because it draws attention to the conceit rather than covering it up, which doesn't make for a good example. Bloodlines is a good example with an in-universe explanation, Far Cry 2 is a good example without, IW is a horrible example.

For the Oasis quest, I did exactly what he asked, ignoring his followers. It's the "good" thing to do, and you get a shiny new for it.

I really enjoyed the first Half-Life back in the day, but I'm not really interested in replaying it now. And what CS said about the soldier AI.

I stoled it from yer xbox. http://avatar.xboxlive.com/avatar/[insertGamerTaghere]/avatar-body.png

I've had it for about a week from beta. I haven't tried installing many games (and I only have room left for one at a time, but I haven't noticed too much difference in speed for any of them, but it sure is a hell of a lot quieter.

I thought the whole "[series] is dead" thing referred to nothing good being done with the franchise for x amount of time, not that nothing good was ever done with it. Of course plenty of folks use the "[series] is dead" line to dismiss a new entry in a series because they don't like it.

This is what I mean when I say there is no right (good design) answer, and that arguing doing something one way is more immersive* will never get anywhere. I just can't agree with the above. All games have rules that must be followed, these rules need to exist for the player, but they don't need to be known by the character. Far Cry 2 could have thrown in a line about how mercs never attack one another unless on the battlefield in order to give an in-universe explanation as to why buddies can't be harmed in certain situations, but I'm glad it doesn't. That stuff always feels like hand holding and it irks me. I think it's more important that a game allows us to protect a character we have an attachment to, than it is to make that protection necessary. In Silent Hill 4 the player has an unkillable companion, and the amount of damage she receives from your failure to protect changes the ending. In Silent Hill 2, the amount of time we spend with another unkillable companion, for whatever reason (to protect her, to stare at her like a creep) can potentially change the ending. *God, I can't even go to some forums now because anything folks don't like is dismissed as destroying immersion. "Third person? But that's not immersive!" Blergh.

Zoma wasn't referring to to what Japanese look like, rather what they find attractive. The image he posted is a modified version of Faith based on what a Korean (I think) artist claims Asians find attractive. It's the whole "Westerners think Lucy Liu is attractive but Asians think she looks weird" thing. As for the silly people who think every korean/japanese/chinese look alike: http://www.alllooksame.com/exam_room.php (you need to register but you don't need an email, just a username and password)

In mission based games like Thief or Hitman, important storyline characters are hidden away in non-interactive cutscenes, unkillable characters in such games ought to be a non-issue. So like you say, always depends on the game. Discussing "immersion" isn't particularly useful here because what is good or bad for immersion depends entirely on which game conceits you are or aren't willing to accept. So you're first thought on meeting anyone in a game is "I'm going to enjoy figuring out how to kill you"? Duuude.

Gah, no! IW was horrible in that regard. Why does some scabby little bar possess weapon-locking technology that the rest of the major corporations don't? Tarsus could have saved themselves a whole lot of trouble. If you're going to have an in-universe reason for no weapon zones then it better be good, like Elysium in Bloodlines, whereas IW is just all over the place. In Far Cry 2 there are certain locations, like factions bases, the bar, and player safehouses, where upon entering the player will put away his weapons, but an in-universe explanation is never given. I'm fine with unkillable characters for the reasons Nightshape has mentioned, so their inclusion in a game isn't an immersion issue for me at all. How it's handled is what matters more to me, like I prefer the way Doom 3 doesn't allow you to attack non-hostile characters at all (crosshair changes and weapon lowers) compared to something like FEAR, where attacks on allies have no effect on them, and characters simply don't respond to your actions. If the result of falling off a ledge is always going to be death, is it better to let the player suffer the consequence of their (possibly accidental) action, being a reload or respawn, or use an invisible barrier and save them the trouble? I don't think there is a right answer because either way you'll annoy someone. Personally I'm happy with what's in Fable 2, you need to press a button to jump from any height, and you can't do it if there is nowhere to jump to safely. The players exploration isn't hindered, and they never need worry about a silly accident.