Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

random n00b

Members.
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    629

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by random n00b

    Stealth in Alpha Protocool

    in Alpha Protocol: General Discussion

    Posted

    From memory everyone was avoidable. I'm pretty sure last playthrough I just ran from Walton Simons at the final Area 51 confrontation
    Technically, you can complete the game without killing anyone, but not by design. Doing so involves metagaming, too. And in all three cases (Navarre, Hermann and Simons) it involves exploiting the AI to some degree. With Hermann and Simons, the script doesn't make explicit references if you don't kill them (IIRC) but with Navarre, she is officially dead even if you run away.

     

    Spector himself said he was disappointed with this aspect of the game...

     

     

    I remember once spending quite a while trying to take out Gunther at battery park. I had taken out all the MJ12, then I took out all his bots and men, but he just wouldn't die. I kind of figured he was invincible after the 6th rocket I shot directly at his head. It was weird having to just stand there and die to progress the game, though. I'd call it bad design but I've never heard anybody complain they dumped the game because of it, and I can't think of a better way to emulate 'game over'/capture (similar thing with the start of NOLF2) without giving the entire thing away prematurely. It was good to be given a choice of approach even in forced failure though - it made it less noticable.
    I didn't like that. It seemed too lazy a way to have the story progress by presenting an illusion of choice that was all too easily dispelled.

    New Fallout 3 screens

    in Computer and Console

    Posted · Edited by random n00b

    On the trait/perk issue, I can understand what they're saying for most perks, though I don't entirely agree. Small Frame (which I often liked to choose) would always be a creation choice. You can't go back and say; "Oh, I want to be petite." That said, I can see many traits being perk-like. Chem-resistant/reliant developing over time, for instance as you use for chems and either become addicted or acquaire a tolerance to them. So I understand the choice, though I'm sure this means certain traits are gone, or they'll have "choose only at level 1" perks; which it sounded like he was saying they don't.
    Yeah, it looks like the really good stuff (Gifted, Small Frame...) is gone. We're probably stuck with some 100 unremarkable traits that aren't a big deal. Forget about Sniper and Slayer, and welcome to the world of inconsequential choice where differences are purely cosmetic. Quantity over quality, obviously.

     

    But don't despair, there's beards!

     

    Bah.

     

    EDIT: Also, is it just me, or are they making it incredibly easy for a mod that allows you to shoot kids to be made?

     

    EDIT2: And there's a level 20 cap because...?

    New Fallout 3 screens

    in Computer and Console

    Posted

    About the Enclave, unless my memory is very very wrong, there are allusions within FO2 itself that says the Enclave had various spread out outposts farther East. I really don't see them moving wholesale to bloody Washington DC and still having enough materials to Vertibird everywhere though, that's the point. You blow up their big offshore base, kill the president, Horrigan, etc etc etc, and after 30 years you find them helicoptering everywhere pouring in army-size troops all the way on the East Coast? In as sparse a postapoc setting as Fallout?
    "Sparse" what?

     

    It seems that in the Fallout setting, the only ones without access to hi-tech gimmicks were the tribals and townspeoples of the first areas the player explores. BoS, the Shi, CoC, Hubologists, the Enclave... not to mention all the places like Sierra Army Depot. And man, that's just on the West Coast.

     

    But yeah, the Prez got whacked with the oil derrick, and that should have put the Enclave out of comission. I'd rather they didn't recycle baddies instead of making up new ones. The Chinese?

    New Fallout 3 screens

    in Computer and Console

    Posted

    Edit: RangerSG: The problem is that this is "'Giddyup buttercup', a robot pony for little girls.".
    I lol'ed. Probably wouldn't be too impressed to find it running around in-game though.

     

     

    Apparently we've got a fully organised military organisation which has the resources to just vertibird in and out everywhere because some guy and a dog is attacking them.
    Yeah. The Enclave in FO2 was already more than capable of doing this, and in fact, it was supposed to happen if you fooled around with the computer in the nuclear reactor. The vertibird appearing proper was cut out, though.

    "White Pride" children taken away.

    in Way Off-Topic

    Posted

    Too bad judges are treated like elected officials
    Yeah, Common Law systems suck. Oh well.

     

     

    and lawmakers are elected officials, which means that's exactly what happens, so wishing that random social whimsy didn't determine the law is a waste of time.
    Nah. The fundamental pillars of the system are protected well enough against cojunctural action. Changing the statute in a significant manner takes more than just the will to do so.

     

     

    And I do not see the removal of a child from a home to be an "excess."
    Unless it's done as a last resort measure, it IS an excess and the state is poking its nose where it don't belong. Just ask any mother. But yeah, you have made clear your willingness to bow to The Man previously, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that you fail to realize why this is tragic.

     

     

    It's like our requirements for getting a tax exemption as a church - you can preach whatever you like, you just won't get a tax exemption if you preach some things. You can do or say whatever you like, you just won't get to raise children.
    Yeah, because birthing children and raising them is the same as getting some tax exemption. Great analogy, right there.

     

     

    That's the system we'd have if the parents were infertile, why does the ability to biologically pop out a baby give them the right to raise children?
    Parents are generally not infertile, which renders this point moot. Parents ARE NOT required to pass any kind of screening to get the thumbs up from the govt to have children. And that's a good thing too.

     

    Also, why does the ability to biologically process food give you the right to take a crap? It's a basic physiological function, bud. The govt doesn't need to authorise it.

     

     

    I never said SOCIAL equality. Legal equality is the treatment of all people as equal by the law
    If you didn't mean social equality, why all the business about kids having a right to nice parents and all? That has nothing to do with legal egalitarianism.

     

     

    If people can't raise their own kids if we hold them to the standards required for adoption, one of the two is off (or both, I suppose).
    I already addressed this.

    "White Pride" children taken away.

    in Way Off-Topic

    Posted · Edited by random n00b

    The right to life is already pretty damn flimsy - the state kills people in cold blood all the time.
    So, what you're saying is that individual rights should mean nothing if the state believes there's some random good reason to step on them. Woohoo! I like the way you think.

     

     

    And did they violate it "arbitrarily"? I guess it was "arbitrary" when the federal government forced the South to desegregate its schools, overriding what had been considered a state issue? I guess it was "arbitrary" when the NAACP filed a federal lawsuit and pressured the mormon church into allowing black boys to lead LDS boy scout troops? I'm afraid we've "arbitrarily" given the government a whole lot of power to combat racism.
    The difference between all those and this particular case is that the parents were potentially raising a future nazi, but no action had been taken that affected OTHER people YET. That's where the state stops working towards egalitarianism and becomes Thinkpol.

     

    Your willingness to have your criterion replaced by whatever society deems "correct" at any given time isn't shared by everyone, fortunately.

     

     

    And your counter-argument is... my argument is emotional. Frankly, it's not. It's perfectly rational based upon the idea that there is supposed to be legal equality in first-world countries, and allowing some children to live with horribly racist parents and not allowing others based upon their genetic origin is pretty much the definition of inequality.
    Wrong. It's based upon two idealistic dogmas, both closely related. First, the idea that the state can do whatever it sees fit to pursue a policy of absolute "equality", which in turn, is only possible if the Rule of Law stops applying to it - this potentially renders every other single individual freedom meaningless. That's why we have a system, you know? To avoid individual (and collective) excesses.

     

    The second idea is that the state must do whatever it takes to ensure social equality, for everyone, at any cost. That simply doesn't work, it's Utopia. If a balance between welfare and individual freedoms is to be had, inequalities will always exist. Yes, it's a shame that some children will have to grow up under terrible but law-abiding parents, but no system is perfect and it ultimately comes down to the proverbial lesser of two evils. THAT is rational, refusing to accept the shortcomings of an imperfect system and aim for the unattainable is NOT.

     

    That's all good however since all attempts to apply those ideas to the real world have been met with outstanding success, right?

    "White Pride" children taken away.

    in Way Off-Topic

    Posted · Edited by random n00b

    Because the constitution is the only major document outlining human rights in the world?
    The Constitution is the only one that has any enforceability value locally. National Sovereignty.

     

     

    Beyond which, raising children is CLEARLY a conditional right since you can lose it (by having your children taken away)
    By that rationale, you can also lose your right to live, since cops can gun you down. Flimsy.

     

    The fact that a right isn't a fundamental human right does not give the state carte blanche to violate it arbitrarily, which is the concept that you don't seem to grasp.

     

     

    Should children be made to suffer with terrible parents (such as these) merely due to an accident of birth? Are you for punishing people for being born to the wrong set of parents?
    Keep the emotionally-charged blather out of this, please. There's a reason why the state must circumscribe its actions to what is prescribed by law. No amount of appeals to emotion justify an exception to this rule. "Being terrible parents" isn't a crime by itself.

    "White Pride" children taken away.

    in Way Off-Topic

    Posted

    You have the right to be racist, sure. But allow me to ask you a question: is there any point where the right to raise children is mentioned, in any major document?
    Hahaha. Are you familiar with the concept of "Rule of Law"? The state can't act in excess of legislation in any case.

     

    The right to breathe isn't mentioned specifically in the Constitution, either.

     

     

    If these "white pride" parents had applied to adopt, would they have gotten a child? **** no, and you know it. So why, just because these children have the misfortune of being biologically related to their parents, should they be left with them?
    That means **** and has zero to do with this. Should parents be made to submit to adoption screenings and in the case of failure, have their children taken away?

    Alpha Protocol on Kotaku

    in Alpha Protocol: General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by random n00b

    Personnally, I think it's retarded to focus on the classification of your game, or even think about it when you're making it. Just make the best game you can and ignore the genre categorizing. It's something you can decide on later without much impact.
    In a world where the quantity/quality of your marketing is as important as the quality of the product you're selling (if not more), that simply doesn't work.

     

     

    Heck, most games that can't be categorized into regular genres wind up being great.
    Such as?

    Viacom gets to sniffle in YouTube user data

    in Way Off-Topic

    Posted

    I'm going to quote myself from the other thread - I'm just that lazy.

     

    We have far more to fear from the entertainment industry
    Wow, I hadn't read that at first.

     

    Anyway, in this case it's not only the industry being greedy that pisses me off, that's to be expected. It's the mindboggling decisions made by jurists.

     

    "Viacom also requested YouTube's source code, the code for identifying repeat copyright infringement uploads, copies of all videos marked private, and Google's advertising database schema."

     

    It was denied. But I think there's something definitely wrong with a system that allows them to request to violate privacy in such a scale and in a systematic manner. That's the kind of thing that encourages me to download stuff illegally, even if I have no intention of watching/playing/listening to it. Great job.

    Change a coming

    in Way Off-Topic

    Posted · Edited by random n00b

    We have far more to fear from the entertainment industry
    Wow, I hadn't read that at first.

     

    Anyway, in this case it's not only the industry being greedy that pisses me off, that's to be expected. It's the mindboggling decisions made by jurists.

     

    "Viacom also requested YouTube's source code, the code for identifying repeat copyright infringement uploads, copies of all videos marked private, and Google's advertising database schema."

     

    It was denied. But I think there's something definitely wrong with a system that allows them to request to violate privacy in such a scale and in a systematic manner. That's the kind of thing that encourages me to download stuff illegally, even if I have no intention of watching/playing/listening to it. Great job.

    Change a coming

    in Way Off-Topic

    Posted

    Certainly, the release of Vista has seen gains for Linux and Mac. Nothing major, but still above average and, more importantly, consistent market share growth. Meanwhile Microsoft is resisting open source with all its might but they do seem to acknowledge the inevitable shift from selling programming to selling consultancy and support. Once Balmer and Gates fall out of the picture more, I imagine we'll see a significant shift in Microsoft as its other heads are far less hostile to open source.
    That's interesting. I'm not sure if that can be so clearly established as the cause for the gains of Linux, however. Mac, I'm not really up to date to comment.
×
×
  • Create New...