Rostere

Portal with about 0.01 seconds of thinking about it. Also: why are you limiting the criteria to only story based and strategy games? Because those are the only games I regularly play. Of course there are counterexamples. Portal was pretty fun, and it's one of the few new innovative games that is not a sequel. After 2001 we've got very few new games that are not sequels or spiritual sequels to old games. The reason is not really the different market to such a high degree, but the failure to utilize our computer power to create new game mechanics. Portal is one example that actually did, with it's 3D puzzles. Most games released today could have been made with crappier graphics in 2000 (and most of them were), that is the simple reason newer games seem less original.

Oh come on, surely you must all agree that 1998-2001 was a golden era for PC gaming. At least give me a counterexample of groundbreaking either story-based games or strategy games that were released after this era. I would agree to that it's blatantly obvious that more original games were released then - if we agree on there being a limit for the number of truly unique ideas you can implement in a computer game. Around 1998-2001, gaming had grew but the original companies which made games throughout the nineties were the same, the same as when programming games had not included investing that much money. Then a lot of companies went bankrupt or were assimilated by larger companies, and we got the more monopolized market we have today. What we're really missing are the companies who were neither industry giants nor indie.

If we do not take into account some things regarding custom maps, I think BNet 2.0 is actually an improvement. And no, I've never bought any CoD, MoH or Halo game... Blame yourselves.

What, a journalist on Gamespot? That's the saddest thing I ever heard.

Well, technically, that is. They don't even have universal healthcare, proper state schools or numerous other social reforms. In fact, I wouldn't even say they're socialist. China is just a country ruled by an authoritarian regime using socialist rhetoric. Also, they have a stock exchange and numerous other things not usually found in communist countries.

"China, you're a disgrace." and so on. But it's not only this topic, it's something you'll see in news everywhere. It's a dangerous thing. Suddenly you subconsciously demonize an entire country with something as banal as a choice of wording. You'll find on other places on the Internet texts where "the Chinese" are talked of in less than polite ways. I know, it's very subtle, but it's also important to think thoroughly about what you intend to say. China has gotten such a tarnished image from the fact that a few (in proportion to the entire population) people subjugate others through their type of government. We are risking the same situation as during the Cold War, where people thought the Soviet Union to be "evil" when in fact there was a small minority controlling the masses through terror. Direct confrontation as such is in modern times entirely pointless (with nuclear weapons and all. Plus we learned our lessons from the big wars in the 20th century), what is important is to reach through to the Chinese civilians and the elements of government which are not as authoritarian. Sooner or later, China's economy will crash or at least stagnate and the people will charge the leadership with responsibility, and that's when we want a Gorbachev in power, not a Stalin. A confrontational attitude towards China will only lead towards increasing nationalism there and with that also nationalist buffoons in power.

I think it's peculiar to talk of a country in such a way. Let's just say that large (I think) parts of Chinese government are to blame for this. Don't forget that China is not essentially a democratic country, I bet most of the people living there would not approve of people being detained in this way.

Realism is nice - but I'm not exactly expecting that much. Comically moving characters or ridiculous shooting are however not what I expect when I buy a game... especially when it is a game where You are going to sneak and shoot a lot ... If the story really is good, then it is sad that game was released so unfinished. In what way is the shooting ridiculous?

On which difficulty?

tl;dr

this this

And thank you for Alpha Protocol once more from me! <3

I am an atheist/agnostic and I only follow my own moral law. I guess that at least followers of Christianity must answer no to topic's question, since the religion demands that you believe in God. I wonder what kind of reason that is. Why whould reason necessarily entail that you would do things for your own good? No, a morality based in something else than religion requires goals, you could impossibly make a moral law out of reason itself. Suppose a person holds no regard for his own life, then by his reason he could sacrifice himself for any cause he thinks is important. Are you really saying there is an objective reason, in which it is of every single beings interest to be selfish?

Exactly. And what will be an honest attempt to apply the law in the eyes of one person, will be twisted reasoning to another. Yet both judgements are interpretations of the law in question. That is why the law is often not as important as the people who interpret it. A good example is interpretation of the so-called divine law in the Bible and the Quran. All people in these religions read respectively basically the same text but come to VERY different conclusions. Catholic or Protestant? Sunni or Shia? Since they have largely the same holy texts, you could believe they would be very similar, but throughout history these have fought wars which have cost countless lives. The most important and final judgement always comes from our inner moral compass, not from a piece of text on a paper. The law is only a crude tool to easier organize society according to consensus, it has no ethical value in itself. You could use the American constitution both to prevent people from gaining rights they have in most civilized countries and to promote equality and justice, depending on how you choose to interpret it. Eventually, it will also become as outdated as the Quran and the Bible (read especially the Old Testament for some WTF!? moments), which is why you should always remember that there is nothing inherently important about any particular set of laws.

This is not a question of what is right and wrong. This is a question of what is actually happening. If you think about it I think you will agree with me. I'm not sure what you're saying. Judges shouldn't be deciding what's rigtht and wrong, they should be deciding what conforms to the law. The legislators consider right and wrong when they pass the law. Yes, that would be the ideal case. However, a law that accounts for every specific situation is not practically or maybe even theoretically possible. Yet again you go back to talking about what judges "should" do. That is not what I am talking about. My point is that it's impossible to apply any set of laws without interpreting them. What would be the need of law schools if there was no need to interpret the law? If anyone could just look up their case in a book of laws, none of that would have been needed. Judges are forced to assert the truth of sometimes contradictory statements by people and apply the law in situations where the exact wording of the law leaves room for ambiguity all the time. Take a look at this article. Could you from that article determine the exact penalty for any given crime in the category? No, you cannot, and it is blatantly obvious. So assume this is not the first time someone is deemed guilty of the crime in question; you have the luxury of earlier penalties to guide your own judgement. Still, these are originally based on earlier judges' interpretations, and since no crime can be exactly the same to any other (not even theoretically), your judgement will be yet another interpretation to add to the list. This is not about the judges deciding what they want the law to mean, this is about it being THEORETICALLY AND PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to not interpret the law.

"Gun in one hand, magic in the other" was a good formula in Undying and I don't see why it suddenly shouldn't work. But of course then there are other things in Bioshock you could complain about.

Uploaded it for you

This is not a question of what is right and wrong. This is a question of what is actually happening. If you think about it I think you will agree with me.

Wow. This sentence really proves some people take a random piece of old legislation too seriously. This sounds like something Obama would say. The Constitution is a bit more than a 'random piece of old legislation'. It certainly is for most Americans anyway (the ones that aren't ruining the country anyway). Oh come on, I doubt obama would **** all over the constitution in that manner. That said, I don't like the implication that the constitution is divinely inspired - to me, that's just as dangerous as disregarding it altogether. America is not a theocracy. What I'm trying to say is that anything will get old in time, and that every intrepretation of any text will be just that, an interpretation. I bet the Bible and the Quran were progressive in their legislation when they were originally written, however today they're mostly used by backwards people who would rather go back to the Dark Ages. It is very dangerous to speak so highly of texts, be it the Bible or the American constitution, and that's not only because it might look silly (like in this instance ). In the end they are just pieces of paper and it's people's mutual agreement over "basic rights" and their individual ethical inclinations that matter. There is nothing special with any such agreement over "basic rights" compared to any other.

I agree... Also, I don't really understand those who say standard shooting is completely hopeless. Are you using a weapon you have no skill in on the hardest difficulty?

Wow. This sentence really proves some people take a random piece of old legislation too seriously.

This.

Oh crap.

Yeah, that really bothers me as well. Especially critics who start out by praising Deus Ex or VtM:B and then goes on to complain about how you don't hit when the reticule is on an enemy I mean, of course that will feel uncomfortable if you're used to playing only GoW, but can't they write that to start with? "Hi, I'm a bloke who normally only plays action games and only the occasional RPG. I only praise Deus Ex because I think it gives me a semblance of credibility"