Tale

The Sacrifice was done in 29 minutes. Seems anticlimactic.

I thought the point of robots is that they don't have feelings and thus you can abuse them and work them as much as you want... Racist.

Which would be the entire point of deconstructing the winning third option response to the no-win. Wrath of Khan did it well.

If that's a deconstruction, it deconstructs the sadistic choice. It's not a deconstruction of take a third option, which is what I'm talking about.

How did AP deconstruct it?

It is overused. Which means its due for a deconstruction, I should think.

That's not even trying. You can succeed and still fail. Like, you save the woman and the bus full of doctors, but it turns out that there was also a bus full of orphans and kittens set to explode near that farm everyone's parents tell them that the family dog was sent to when it got old. And you were never told about it, it was a secret fallback plan. IMAGINATION

The actual purpose of the thread is in the spoiler.

Don't be rude, bots have feelings too!

The bad guy has given you the typical sadistic choice. Save the woman you love or a bus full of doctors. You only have time to save one! What do you choose? You've seen this kind of thing in lots of games, with or without the third choice. inFamous had the first two. Alpha Protocol occasionally had all three (I only saw the first two, but was told that Veteran allows a third sometime). Mask of the Betrayer could be looked at as a game built around the idea with the Soul Eater mechanic.

I went on my rant about that way back in the day. Dragon Age wanted to be dark or whatnot. Well, it kept giving us rosey ending options that were just as easy as the rest. Then just for the heck of it, denied a middleground option for Alistair/Loghain. I'm a big thematic individual. And it was inconsistent on that. Is it meant to be about doing extra hard to earn your happy ending, despite the fact that the happy ending wasn't any harder? Or is about how you can't always win, despite the fact that you could more often than not and the only time you couldn't it simply felt forced. It seems like that designer might understand my position. Third options (options outside the assumed in pursuit of a more ideal ending) need to be harder or else the first two become trivial. But I have a difficulty imaging a way to actually generate that difficulty. I thought the "rally the crowd" option in ME2 was simply silly. I don't think talking to a few more guys or being consistent is exactly earning it. But off the top of my head, I can see ways. Make the player pay attention to detail and have hidden quests based on pursuit of those details. In that sense, maybe simply hinting that Mages could have helped Conner could have been viable and made that quest better. But I would have liked to risk something to pursuit it.

What took you so long? I realized I hated it by Act II. I never did complete the thing until after Hordes came out. I still don't even know why I gave Hordes a chance, but am glad I did.

Won my Oda Nobunaga game by conquest. Actually achieved the rank 1 score at the end, yay. Maybe I should turn up the difficulty at that point. I'd been buddies with Rome most of the game and he'd been in a war with Persia and Egypt and winning. He knocked out Egypt and wore Persia down. I allied myself with every single city-state on the map the round I declared war. Two conquered cities later (including his capital), my peace offer included my war dec on persia because I figured he'd like that. Persia's two nearly dead pikemen ran screaming from a sole attack helicopter that took Persia's capital for the win.

I dunno, I haven't fought the French yet. I do know my Samurai haven't met a city they can't take in two attacks. According to the 2k games wiki on them, Musketeers are better. They're as much better than Samurai as Samurai are compared to regular Muskets.

I take back what I said earlier. As Japan you're not set up until Musketmen. You're set up until Riflemen. Samurai are better than the unit that follows them, if also more expensive.

Your cut of that would be what, $5?

Update, L4d, UPDATE

I'm up to So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish in my ongoing reread of Hitchhiker's. This is where Adams started to get serious.

*raises hand* Not mix tapes, but everytime I encountered such in my youth, it bothered the hell out of me. The guy copying DOOM around my middle school. My neighbor's pirated copy of Scream. When one of my relatives cracked my shareware copy of Quake I lent. Each and everytime I was asked for a copy of a PC game by friend or family.

I wasn't correcting you, I was giving detail.

Puppet states don't make culture gains harder, FYI. You get like a 25% penalty to, I think, policy cost per city. But puppet states don't contribute to that. Apparently a trick to a fast culture victory is to only have culture based tech so that your puppet states can only build culture buildings.

If welding can't be considered an application of particle physics, then I don't know what can!

If you find other stuff you didn't do and would like to, its easy enough to revert to a save or start a new game. There is no "end of game" state to the gameworld unless Obs chooses to put one in. so there's nothing to be gained from continuing to play after the ending that can't be gained from playing before the ending. Starting a new game is not an easy task. By any stretch of the imagination. Reverting a save might be, assuming you keep enough and the ones you have aren't all locked into a track you can't deviate from. The ideal solution is either allow after the ending or don't lock players into the ending. Let them turn around right before the end or, after the end, automatically throw them back to right before. Trapping players (as Fallout 3 did) is simply bad.

Nah, you just win a regular Civ game, then you start up a game of Gal Civ.