Aristes

The point is, you can decide your own motives. This needs to be done. Maybe you only want victory and renown. Maybe you weighed the odds. Maybe you just like as much bloodshed as possible. Maybe you're a good guy doing what needs to be done in order to save the most people. The point is, the player can decide how the PC views the decision, not the design team.

I cannot believe that folks scoff at the slippery sloap idea when there are clear cases where the concept has led to wide sweeping policy decisions. The sloap need not be slippery, but don't go "hur hur hur the slippery sloap idea is so stoopid." Obama is on record, several times, saying that he advocates a single payer government health care system and that he knows he cannot get it right away. He has, on record, said that he would gradually move policy towards a government run universal system. I don't really care about UHC. I'm against it on principle, but I don't think it spells the end of democracy. It is clearly not capitalistic or free market, but the majority can call for it. My problem is that folks call myth and lie what is clearly at the very least quite possible. Obama, within the past few years, has spoken at length about using the exact same strategies he's using now. Only now we must assume that he really does want to pursue the end goal any longer? That is a myth.

I don't know about anything else, but I went from neutral on Obama to actively hostile. I remember trying to convince my more passionate friends that Obama isn't that bad, but by now I have more animosity for the president than I have had for any other, Democrat or Republican. If the administration had withdrawn the "fishy email" blog and then apologized, all would have been forgiven. As it is, they withdrew the blog and cited "fear mongers." I entered the service of my country at 17 and have voted in elections from local to national since I was 18. I am not a fear monger. I am a responsible citizen and I will never quietly relinquish my rights as an American.

I have played the 360 a couple of times and it hasn't struck me as all that loud. The xbox did, though. The wife's PC is super loud but mine is not. The gardeners can be loud from time to time, but unfortunatly the mail carrier is not. If I had a surfire way of knowing exactly when the mail arrived, I could just meet my mail person. As far as Dragon Age goes, I'm getting the PC version. Added quiet wouldn't help the fact that they apparently had to cut some corners for the console version.

Wow, that looks meaner in the quote box. Yeah, you were one of the folks I meant, but I didn't mean to look like I was jonesin' for a fight. It was meant to be somewhat funny, but it fell flat and a little mean. Nevertheless, my point is genuine. Fallout 1 and 2 are great games. Yeah, even I prefer them to 3. The thing is, 3 is still good. You might not like it, but I did. Fallout 1 and 2 are not perfect. In fact, all three games have a point, and it's relatively early even in 1, where the player achieves critical mass. There is enough loot by mid game to retire and buy one of the cities. Fallout 2 is probably the worst by end game in terms of firepower. If it weren't for crits, I don't think I'd really give a damn about anyone else in the game.

Sometimes reading the die hards makes me chuckle. If FO:NV comes out and is just a copy of FO3, I'd enjoy it. Yeah, I would like to see some changes. I'd like some big changes. ...But the FO 1/2 mantra is just plain funny. BTW: I played FO1 about a month ago and I've been playing FO2 again over the past couple of weeks. "hur hur hur. At least FO 1(2) manages resources more and ammo is super scarce." Maybe for the early levels. I'll agree with that. ...But by the time you get to the mid game in either game you're full of ammo and stimpacks. I remember the good ol' days when FO2 was the red haired step child. Nothing makes some of these guys love FO2 more than to see something truly different in the series.

Well, that is my definition of justice. That's fair. I'm not the only person in this thread that understands the subjective nature of justice. True, but we always happen to believe our own idea of justice is the best, right? It's the human condition, my friend.

I actually really hate hearing that, DI. I think most of us really do love England in a lot of ways. Many of us admire your history. When I went to England a while back with some family members, one of my younger companions complained about going to see the Magna Carta. He wondered why we had to look at stupid British history stuff. I calmly explained to him that British history is our history. Britain is Britain and the United States are the United States, but we have a shared and noble history. I'm probably a little biased because I have family over there, but I think my views are pretty common in the United States. Yes, we are the more powerful nation, but someone is always more powerful than someone else. There were times when the United Kingdom was more powerful than the United States. You did, after all, burn our capitol (bastards!) in... 1813? Somewhere around there, I forget. Anyhow, even during the revolution, even in the years following the revolution, many Americans were staunch Anglophiles. We do have a special relationship with the United Kingdom. We are more powerful than France, but I doubt we've ever had the same feelings for France, even during the revolution, more Americans probably felt closer to the United Kingdom. We are more powerful than Spain, and yet we have never had the same relationship. The United Kingdom isn't some vassal state. I firmly believe that there are no permanent allies any more than there are permanent enemies, but you guys are probably the closest thing to a permanent ally we've ever had. The irony about the Magna Carta is that we went there to see it and it was on loan to the United States at the time. I think we missed it by a few months.

That's it! Play it on hard but in God mode. It will let you max experience gain while minimizing loss. heh heh Seriously, I don't think the problem is with folks not liking combat so much as folks we fall further to the rpg end of the spectrum. One of you guys said we have a scale. Seems reasonable and, using that scale, I'd say that Dragon Age falls further towards combat but it's still an RPG. I don't think Maria said she hated combat. If I remember it right, she said that she sometimes likes it but sometimes it's frustrating and she just wants to avoid it. Maria, if I'm putting words in your mouth, I apologize. It's just that I'm trying to remember who said what and it seems to me that you and Monte are the most obvious examples of this sort of interplay of RPG concepts.

I think folks who play RPGs are used to scanning their character in order to maximize their build. It's not like an FPS where you get what weapons you find wherever the design team decided to dole them out in the game. The variables involved in maxing exp gain are not all that different than decisions regarding stat attribution, skill points, and perks. In other words, min/maxers are naturally inclined to treat combat exp the same way they do other things in the game. That's the real problem. It's become a minigame. In games like WoW, I used to level up to the final level or two by kill exp only because I knew that they'd changed it soon after Burning Crusade so that you received gold rewards in lieu of experience once you'd maxed out your level. I'm simply trying to take full advantage of the game mechanics. That's how we're conditioned to treat games. Most of us here probably do play other types of games. I don't fret over as many trivial things in an FPS because, frankly, there isn't much point. I guess you could either scour every inch or use a walkthrough to find weapons at the earliest possible opportunity, but it's not as important because, unless the design team put a super uber weapon waaaay ahead of where you'd normally find it, it doesn't make much difference. I think players hate the idea of not getting kill exp, but many of them would actually learn the new quirks of the game and adapt very easily. They'd still try to exploit things as best they could, but it would have to be easier on the design team at least. Of course, I've already shamed myself by admitting that I enjoyed Fallout 3 quite a bit. Even so, I still prefer quest only experience. The kill exp isn't what made Fallout 3 fun for me. Exploring did, and I could wander the waste with or without getting kill exp. I might have to do more quests, but I think the nature of the wasteland allows for 'quests' of some sort to fall in the areas that the PC wanders and be a perfectly legitimate excuse to dole out a bit of exp. The player might not even realize the experience he gets for accomplishing something in an outlying area is 'quest experience.'

It's so funny because part of me still reads Dark Alliance when I see DA. I actually kind of dug the DA games. I had fun with them when I had an xbox. Dragon Age looks to be a more enduring classic and, say what you want for the long development time, at least Bioware doesn't mind taking some time to finish a game. I've been somewhat disappointed with Bioware since NWN. I enjoyed KotOR quite a bit on the xbox and I think NWN had some really good moments but I just thought it was clear that combat had taken the backseat to other considerations. In Dragon Age, it looks like combat gets some real love also. It's maybe not exactly in the driver's seat, but more like riding shotgun? Whatever cliche we use, it looks solid now. I don't want to get too giddy because I think that's unfair to me as a consumer and to the developer. They're just trying to craft a strong commercial title. I know that a lot of them really want it to be a great game, but there are sacrifices they'll have to make in order to satisfy their publisher and, to be candid, their rather large player base. Still, maybe Maria can get through the combat easy enough to see the RPG potentials she'd like to see as a gamer and Monte can get through the 'fluff' quickly enough to enjoy another battle. I'm keeping my fingers crossed, but I tend to like a little of both. This might actually be the game for me.

Well, damn it, what I think is... wait... what were we talking about again? No, I remember, I was saying that the Dalish video pretty much rocked. I mean, yeah, I could cite the things that were too "Hollywood" or whatnot, but the video was fun. I'm scared to watch the others because I don't want to mess up the game. I've been a little burned by playing a game out of order and having things spoiled for me and I intend to avoid it as much as possible while still being able to discuss the titles I look forward to playing.

yeah, folks don't go and farm kills and then come on and bitch and moan about how 'easy' the mid to late games are. You have a spread of 20 levels and you can do the main path at whatever level you want? With that thinking, we end up with the wretched scaling system for Oblivion. ...And every game excludes something. If combat oriented folks get their way, then why not include an equivalent method for folks to get exp by stealth, intelligence, charm, or some other crazy way? Why not be all inclusive and try to find any way possible to reach an objective and include every one that comes to mind? Sure some games include exp farming. Cool, but why is it so important in any particular game? I dunno. I'd imagine that New Vegas won't fall far from the Fallout 3 tree, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make the best arguments we can for what we'd like to see.

Ah, where's the gorilla love? No need to harsh his buzz. Anyhow, I see Sawyer ghosting these forms quite a bit actually. I would think that he reads a lot of your stuff. From my perspective, it doesn't really matter. I mean, yeah, if you want the devs to come and comment all the time, it sucks. I like the discuss things with the fellow forum chimps just as well. If us hoi polloi around here are beneath you, then don't let the door hit you on your ass, and --watch out-- I'll be swingin' it shut behind you. Aw, just joshin'. Hurlie, maybe, but not me. hehehe

I don't know why folks are enamoured of the human commoner origin. I mean, most of us in these forums are middle class folks. We're certainly not the equivalent of some medieval commoner, or quasi medievalesque commoner or what not. Although, now that I think about it, we're not the equivalent of a noble either. Hmm. I guess my question really isn't with why someone would want to have a certain origin, but why any specific origin appeals to anyone. From a story perspective, I would guess for the human commoner side. Either that, or because you really like a particular class. I don't want an X commoner or X noble at all, but I do want a mage. That's just 'cause I like playing mages best. Still, I'm fairly stoked to see different origins at this point our of curiosity if nothing else. I think it's cool to offer folks what they want, but if we're going to ask for commoner or noble, I'd like to play a middle class bloke like myself. Maybe a merchant or a professional soldier. I guess either would count as commoner, but if that's the case, noble is so specific whereas commoner can be anything from a beggar to someone who runs a mercantile business. That's such a huge spread. Anyhow, not picking fights with folks for what they like. Just thinking out loud. I have it on Gina's authority that you should post your thoughts even if it's random musings. I wish there were a tongue in cheek grin icon. Damn, I wish I'd seen alan's post beforehand. He kind of points out the thing I was saying about how broad the 'commoner' class is.

A buddy of mine just linked the Dalish video to me in Facebook and I have to say I was pretty impressed. I guess I had heard what alan and Monte had to say and I didn't expect much, but the voice acting didn't make me cringe. In fact, I thought it was good and I enjoyed the cinematic. It didn't seem to give more away than I've seen here, so I'm going to go back and watch the other vids. I'm actually getting to be more excited about this game as time progresses. I'm no longer going to buy it straight away just because alan is working on it. I would have, but now I'm actually completely jonsin' for it. I mean, after all the other games that have released over the years, I don't think it's the second coming. I just want a solid title with fun combat and maybe even an RPG opportunity or two and it looks like DA will supply that at least. If it is the greatest thing since sliced bread, even better!

Okay, I will admit that I was wrong in how I used literally up above. It struck me, when I was reading the latest comments, that I didn't mean we are literallly picking each others bones. Sounds.... dirty. Anyhow, I wonder how the situation will pan out politically in the UK. I meant to bring this up before but forgot.

A quest only experience design doesn't prevent anyone from killing monsters if that's what they want to do. It merely prevents folks from killing monsters in order to level up. It is a trivial matter to suggest that not implementing kill experience somehow prevents a player from exploring. He can explore, but will not be able to explore tougher areas than he can handle at level. At some point, he'll be forced to do quest. At some point in every cRPG I've ever played, the designers force the PC to do some quests to advance the game. ...And the very nature of the debate is confining. So, we must have kill experience? What about stealth experience that will be equivalent of kill experience? What about Intelligence experience that is the equivalent? What it really comes down to is that folks get added experience for killing which inclines folks to solve problems by killing. In many games, if not most, the player actually gains more experience from resorting to a combat solution than in using other tools available in the design. Most non-combat skill experience I see in games is negligible. It really has very little impact. 25 experience for picking a lock? Give me a break. Add all of those non-combat skill checks into one experience pool and you'll get... what? Maybe an extra level? Maybe not? One of you guys crunch the numbers and tell me, because I honestly don't know. The point is, it's certainly less than kill farming. Frankly, I'd be just as happy to get rid of all experience other than quests. That is truly objective based. You are rewarded for accomplishing something, not randomly using skills, from swinging a sword to picking a lock. We get experience for killing in games because that was the early model for RPGs and cRPGs. It's not inherently better and is probably worse. Should you have experience everytime you walk within combat range of someone who is friendly only because you passed a successful speech check and therefore the area is friendly? It's absolutely ridiculou. We're so conditioned by past games that getting out of the box is hard. Folks want to farm. Nevertheless, I think there are great games out there that have different level-up schemes and I hope that eventually we can get away from the kill-experience model. With all that said, I don't think kill experience is universally bad. It should be an option, but not necessary. For example, folks have cited Diablo. That's a great example of a game where kill experience is implemented very well and is quite fun. I actually believe that most folks who go out of their way to kill a bunch of critters do so to farm experience. I doubt there are hard numbers, so it's a philosophical debate, but if the argument is that you believe, Kjarista, that some folks just want to explore, which is undoubtedly true, then I will say that I believe most folks want to farm experience. That's fine. I want folks to have fun however they want to have fun, but the game has to be balanced all around and exp farming makes that more difficult and I think most games show that very quickly. I would imagine that it's much easier to balance a game that has quest only experience and that the easier balance results in other benefits for the game, from pacing to loot drop tables.

Accusations of murder and armed robbery are both tried in the same (type of) courts. I feel strongly that is not outright silly that those crimes are treated the same in that way, which is why I responded to your original statement that: following that line of thought. If you instead meant that terrorism should be punished differently, I'd say that punishment with regards to points 1 and 3 must differ between every unique crime (as they are classified by the legal system), not just terrorism/everything else. I largely meant punishment, however, I'm unsure as to whether terrorism should be considered a crime in the first place. That is to say, it is a 'crime' in the larger sense, but it may not be a legal matter at all. Is it a matter for the DoJ or the DoD? Even if we agree that different crimes require different punishments but legal systems should process each crime in the same manner, then I still disagree with the idea of granting clemency to a terrorist in the same way that it is granted to a murderer. Someone might murder his wife in a fit of rage. He is sentenced to... I dunno... 15 years but his actual time of imprisonment might be reduced based on good behavior. If someone murders a family of people in cold blood, he might be sentenced to life and have no chance for parole based on behaviour. At some point, I don't think end of life clemency should be available. It's simply a matter of where we draw the line. Don't make a mistake about it, though. We do draw that line. There was a choice as to whether or not to free Megrahi. As to whether or not he actually murdered the folks, that's a different case. However, if he is not guilty, then he should be freed on those grounds, not on the grounds of clemency. If you think there is sufficient evidence that he did not commit the crime but you want to extend the benefit of the doubt to him while he still has the chance to return home, say that. Don't say it's what you grant every criminal. Since it seems fairly clear that this was a deal over oil rather than justice, there doesn't appear to much point in using this particular case as our prime example. It's a philosophical discussion at this point. Anyhow, I was going to joke around a bit, but it looks like were all actually at odds with each other, so I don't want to stoke the fire. I do think it's funny that we don't really have two sides on this issue. Literally, virtually everyone has a bone to pick with everyone else in the thread, which is kind of funny in and of itself. hehehe ...And, STILL, I'm not outraged, even when Straw admits it was based on national interests. These things are always based on national interests. The Brits just got caught.

No, no, I wasn't baiting you, dude. I've always liked you to be honest. Just giving you a hard time and I expect a little hard time to be honest. Anyhow, carry on, guys. I'm going to read for a while instead.

i said nothing of the sort. i replied that justice is a 4th reason to punish someone - that has nothing to do with the situation at hand. get your facts straight and please quit misattributing my statements. clearly you did not understand what i said nor do you understand the concept of justice. taks Wow, bro, why the harsh? I'll try to make sure I don't mistake your comments again, although the fact is that your own comments defining the situation say that it is not justice. At least that's how I'm reading them. Feel free to make angry posts about how I got it wrong, but if justice is simply justice and none of rostere's points apply, then the alleged reasoning behind sending the guy home is not justice either. I genuinely apologize for putting words in your mouth at any rate. *shrug* But I would say that terrorism is a different category altogether. At any rate, even within murder, there are a variety of punishments. Even if we counted this as a mass murder, one would expect life without parole, which is what Megrahi received at any rate. I simply think the special clemency should not be an option for the worst categories of crime. I guess we could ask taks. He's the expert. Although, even armed with an online dictionary as he is, I would have to say that the concept of justice and how it works is complex. Having known many lawyers, including my aunt, I would have to say that they sometimes give different answers and those answers might depend on the question and how it is framed. Anyone who claims perfect knowledge is undoubtedly wrong. Of course, taks didn't claim perfect knowledge (so as not to put words in his mouth) but he sure speaks with some authority. Perhaps one of the lawyers who frequent this forum could comment. Once again, I don't have much of a stake in Megrahi or his punishment. In a 'brotherhood of man' sort of way, I think any injustice (we can check with taks as to exactly how to define that) is bad. But We've got enough problems in our own neighborhood for me to worry about what's going on over in Scotland. Seriously, though, while I do think taks is a little overboard on the issue, I don't want to misattribute meaning to folk's statements. It's always a bit difficult when we quote one another simply because it is easy to misread a statement. At any rate, I don't need taks backing me up in the original post. Feel free to excise the sentence refering to what "taks said."

Justice works the same regardless of what category the crime falls in, anything else would be deeply hypocritical. I agree that to prevent terrorist attacks, you must act differently than when you work to prevent the other types of crime you mentioned. This is where you lost me. I could follow your arguments elsewhere in your post, but clearly justice demands different punishments for different crimes and for different categories of crimes. I contend that terrorism is fundamentally different from murder in the same way that armed robbery is fundamentally different from murder. It is outright silly to suggest that all categories of crime should be treated exactly the same. That is not justice. I simply have no idea what to call it.

Where's the love, bro? You would have thought at least some of the PS3 haters would have responded. lol Anyhow, I can't really comment because I don't own any of the three latest gen consoles. However, I have played the Xbox-360 and I would probably own one if I could use the controler worth a damn. The Wii is suprisingly fun. Yeah, it's got a lot of kiddie games, but it has some fun stuff too. Mind you, I wouldn't buy one and I can use the controler, but I understand why some folks are attracted to it. Let us know what you decide to purschase.

im not sure i follow you here.... all i said was what i presumed bhlaab was trying to say. I was responding to Bhlaab's comment about powergaming. I guess I just got confused as to who said what, but it's not like I don't get confused all the time. If I have offended, I beg forgiveness. Either that or you can bite me, bro.

Sure, you can use these successful skill checks to provide more variety to the exp pool. I get that you don't like the idea of a finite and readily defined exp pool will lead to meta gaming, but folks metagame already. Hell, if I know that I need to kill a certain number of a particular creature type in act one to get to a specific level so I can get a specific perk, I'm already doing that. Quest only exp would not be any worse in regards to metagaming. If the design team includes a variety of options in how the player can complete quests, the only real difference would be in making sure you can finish certain quest-lines, which will already be part and parcel of any real meta-gamer's plans. I, for one, don't plan out every quest. My only goal is to finish every possible quest in the game that can be done with a neutral or good character. ...And I need not do them all in one run. Personally, I think removing exp rewards from combat is absolutely essential to getting away from a straightjacketed approach to cRPGs. Including a variety of non-combat exp rewards, such as skill checks, is perfectly fine if you don't want quest only exp. In response to entrerix: So we're already planning out quests in the first place? *shrug* So what difference does it make? Quest only exp doesn't add anything to the meta-gamer's arsenal. Allowing more ways to farm exp does.