random n00b

A pity you missed the extra time, it was pretty good, up until the point when players started to fall all over the place with pains and aches, and then started fighting. And Shevchenko not coming out for the penalties was pretty stupid, even more after Drogba got himself red-carded.

Also, lol Crynaldo. End of Thread.

Lol Drogba.

I agree with you, not Sand. he'd like to see tough sentencing for people who yawn without putting their hand in front of their mouths. I agree with Uncle Ben. Anyway, it's unlawful to apply different penalties to different people given equal offenses. There are aggravating circumstances, but that's about as far as law can go, without risking arbitrary application.

nevermind

Try and refrain from replying to this with some snappy comment - since you make a distinction between "art" and "mere entertainment", what criterions must be met for something to be in one field and not the other? Just wondering, since I would not have it easy categorising creative works like that.

Wrong. It gets a 10/10

Lol!

Search around...

How's your video drivers? If that's not it, maybe it's caused by the Catalyst graphics suite forcing that aspect. Ask the brainiacs at Skeeter's Junkyard if you still can't fix it. Chances are they'll be able to help better.

Aw, man. Just when it was starting to get good. And now, back to our regularly scheduled hating.

You'll always be the only one in my heart. Big words make head hurt? Me understand. Me no talk silly things no more, OK? OK. Friends now?

As far as I know, as long as your game is in English, the US patch should work. Localized (Italian, German, Spanish) versions have different patches, but that shouldn't be an issue for you. Edit: Also, I think that in case of a version conflict the installer will find that the version you are trying to install the patch to isn't compatible, and will abort the patching.

Is it me or are you just trolling for the sake of it? Why, thank you. Pleasing my fanbase is of paramount importance.

The approach I'm taking is merely an empirical one. It's the same that has allowed to make breakthroughs in neuroscience, psychology, and relativistic quantum mechanics. Again, I have yet to see something that could lead me to belive that such an approach is inadequate when dealing with the products of human creativity. Also, I don't see where you get the impression that this approach fails to take into consideration that complex systems have different properties than their forming elements. This phenomenon is known as emergent properties and is well documented, in a (unsurprisingly) rather systematic way. That is only true if the "variables" that govern the reassembly you are talking about are random. If those variables and the rules they are bound to are understood, that is not so much the case anymore. That's where the creative lead comes in and says what works, what doesn't, and what needs improvement. Again, I suppose he is not making this stuff up as he goes, he has a very concrete idea of what he's attempting to achieve, and that idea didn't just appear to him like that. It's the product of thinking, working and experience. His (innate?) quality as a designer and most importantly, his experience in the field are the variables that will determine whether or not he will be able to produce the "particular experience" he's after. This does not preclude the fact that cognitive mechanisms that determine a person's reactions to certain stimuli can't be studied and catalogued, and this data used later. Again, emergent properties. The fact that the neurological mechanisms, that rule how we react to a particular musical structure or an arrangement of colours, are less understood than the properties of a silicon structure does not mean they are less manipulable. Monkeys cannot recreate Fallout because they are stuck in an entirely different cognitive level. In their case it's an insurmountable physiological barrier. I don't see what this adds to the conversation aside from comic relief, since the converse statement "that's why people can't recreate Fallout" is strictly false, thus proving it's just a strawman. Eh, but it is. That's what they did with FO2, and it was the perfect sequel (and still, some say it's not entirely "faithful"!). Arguably, all it featured was a different plot. Yes, an "overall experience" that nobody can quite explain, but that will be called upon when the time comes around to bash FO3. I have a feeling that if, instead of Bethesda, it was the original team that had secured the rights to the Fallout franchise, most of those proposed changes wouldn't draw so much flak. So the importance of "recreating the experience" is tangential at most, when one's own preconceptions and confirmation bias get in the way. Emotion overriding reason, I'd say. I think I already addressed how holism and reductionism aren't necessarily opposite or incompatible. I am focusing on the impression I get that you are implying that complex systems have different properties simply because they do as opposed to that being the result of complex interactions between simpler parts that can be studied, categorised, and harnessed. There's no reason whatsoever to think that's not the case.

Yes. This contradicts what I said, how? A monkey's cognitive faculties are not at human levels (regardless of how folks think of Todd), and therefore you have built a strawman that invalidates your point. Conversely, if you analise and categorise the elements (as you have done) that make up LP's music, chances are that people will be able to reproduce their style rather faithfully, as proven by the many groups in that genre now. The success of said groups is of little consequence, due to factors of marketing and novelty. Again, rarely are musicologists asked when records labels choose which groups are to be the new cash cows and which are to be forgotten. No. No, no, no. What you are describing is simply the creative process. The same creative process involved in designing AMD's latest chip, for instance. No, a monkey wouldn't be able to do it, nor would I. It takes training, intelligence, and a good dose of effort. The same with game design. Is it wrong to apply a rational approach to this, why? Because you and Krez say so? Oh, well. It too was wrong to apply a rational approach to mental disease back in the 18th century as well, when schizophrenia was considered to be caused by "bad spirits", and the "soul" was believed to reside in the heart (one of the three, we supposedly possessed, at least). That is, until some crazy guy came along and thought that mental disease was caused by chemical imbalances in the brain, and therefore, chemistry could provide solutions to those imbalances. W0wsers! If a long-winded exposition on the postulates governing the unfathomability of art could convince me that something that's man-made can't be made subject to analytical thought, I wouldn't even have bothered to begin with. The thing is, you are trying to steer the discussion into the realm of the mystical (where, conveniently, debunking your assertions would be impossible), while all evidence leads to the conclusion that there's nothing unmeasurable or metaphysical involved. Only a lack of formal education, as I said before. Art is, and always has been just another consumer product. And there's nothing "prehistoric" about mysticism. It's the natural tendency of man to ascribe otherworldly qualities to that which isn't quite understood:

Is it? One of the best examples that illustrate the principle of "being greater than the sum of its parts" is music. A symphony is indeed greater than random notes thrown together, but that doesn't mean it's not possible to explain how this is so. So, no. The concept of "greater than the sum of its parts" does not entail unfathomability. Yes. That's known as polish and solid design. Both are very real notions. And just because a notion is widely held, it doesn't mean it's true. Art majors can give very detailed and concrete accounts of their field of work, as the study of art has been systematised. Musicology wouldn't exist, if music couldn't be analysed and explained, either. Just because you can't capture and explain it, doesn't mean *nobody* can. With art it happens just like with technology. Both can appear mystical and magical, unless one has received formal education. Then the magic seems to fade a bit.

[quote name='H

Right. So, please define what the "soul" of Fallout is, so the discussion can progress. Unless it was a matter of Divine Revelation for the original team, there must be some comprehensible aspect to it, that so far, nobody has been able to quite place their finger on. This doesn't seem to conflict with the fact that folks here are certain that Beth will fail to capture that. Funny.

[quote name='H

So? You don't need to be excessively creative to make a game that your regular NMA denizen would consider a "true" Fallout sequel. Isometric + SPECIAL + turn based + dialog trees = Fallout. Right? What are we arguing about, again, then?

[quote name='H

Fair enough. But that's a different example I think, and not fully extensible to games. Games are self-contained and don't need to share key plot elements and/or characters with other installments of a saga, which is not necessarily true for books, movies, or TV shows, where continuity is usually necessary because plot elements are left open (often as a means of keeping the audience interested in a sequel). In this regard, FO was independent from FO2, and those two will not be affected by FO3, since all they have in common is the setting. Hades, yes. I know the Fallout franchise belongs to you. Tiax rules all, and stuff.

Yeah. It's a well known Natural Law that Beth's games must suck. I read it on Science somewhere.

Eh, no. Well a lot of us have. Poor quality sequels and such dilute the atmosphere of the original. Ok. I'm going to accept this is how it is for you, because not everyone reacts the same. Can you explain how this happens? Will any future playthroughs of FO1/2 be less enjoyable because of a lackluster FO3? I'm not being facetious, btw. I'm genuinely interested.