Aristes

you don't have any kids yet, do you? that changes everything. totally and forever. of course, we live in an area that fosters some rather intense extracurricular activities that the child can participate in, namely, skiing and camping. skiing can be an extreme sport, particularly when you're doing it at 40. my son will likely be jumping off cliffs by the time he's a teenager. camping by itself isn't all that bad, but backpacking into the wilderness for a week can be. 4-wheeling up a rock wall then hiking 2 miles into no-man's land by yourself just to drop a line in a mountain stream is pretty intense, too, particularly when you regularly see mountain lion and/or bear tracks along the way. not sure what i'd do if i ever ran across the owner of said tracks. cry and poop my pants, probably, followed by some gurgling and eventually, death. other than that, simply being awake is often fascinating to me. taks I think Hurley has a kid. I remember a holloween photo or something. Anyhow, you might be lucky and run into a mountain lion. One bite to the back of the head and you'd have a nice, quick death.

I hate the way World of Warcraft does it because I think it encourages folks to be asshats. I had heard that CoH/CoV would offer a chance to switch from good guy to bad guy and vice versa. That would be cool. Even better would be having a number of faction with varying levels of animosity rather than just out and out hatred between two sides.

What I'm hoping is that we get word on some of the locations. Not a detailed list, since I want to be surprised, but at least some word.

Actually, that's exactly what I mean, although I have not put it that way. This is where I repeat my mantra about putting good arguments in the mouths of the NPCs. Make a real question as to which side is right and which is wrong. Want to include stereotypes? Sure! Include them whenever it suits your artistic vision. Don't just throw them out like asphalt in a pothole. Don't lean on them like a crutch. Give us real characters who believe in what they say and say it well. Give us characters who are so compelling in telling us what we don't believe that we almost believe it. Dostoyevsky feared that the anti-religious argument he put in the mouth of Ivan was so good he could not adequately answer it. Give us Ivan! Where are the Shylocks of computer games? Where are the Raskolnikovs? Where is Oedipus Tyrannos? Where is Satan saying, "Better to reign in hell, than serve in heav'n?" I think contemporary issues are perfectly legit and timely, but any issue can serve if the design team can refrain from creating characters all but sporting the words 'bad guy' on their forehead. ...And I'm going to hold forth for just a bit more on this issue. Compelling characters, whether a well placed stereotype or a complex villain, will carry the day. As long as they don't interupt gameplay and create a wall of text, compelling and adult characters will carry the day and leave the player wanting more. I understand the complications of the medium. I understand the constraints of the publisher. I understand the nature of the consumer. ...But I also know that there is a market out there for such characters. I believe fervently it is already there, waiting for someone to tap it. I'll stop myself before I go completely gonzo on the issue, but I do believe.

I wonder if this is just a word usage thing. For me, personally, 'liar' is a very serious charge. Hurlshot hit it. It's the idea he falt out lied that gets me, not the idea that he bent the truth. Even worse, there's really no way to know. Did he believe what he said or was he mistaken? But the evidence supports either case and I hate thinking he's a liar when we can't simply check facts to find out.

That's why I hope technology gets to the point where some of the burden of the Jefferson system can become procedural. Right now, the changes must be coded in on every action. So, a PC decides to take X course. Now the faction standings must be altered based on that event. What if the PC kills an NPC? What if the PC gives his commerce to Faction Y instead of Faction Z? In real life, even very simple actions can have far reaching, unexpected, and sometimes unknown consequences. This is not true of the game and cannot be true as long as the designers must account for these things on a case by case basis. Even the procedural solution, assuming it didn't just dish out gibberish, would not be perfect. This is where the talk about linearity and non-linearity confuse me. We're caught up on linear and non-linear where I prefer a discussion of choice and impact. In a highly linear story, it's much easier to show the impact of the PC's actions. The problem is, PC is forced to undertake that action in the first place, so it's really not a player choice, it's a designer choice. If the design team puts in five ways to complete a quest, the only choice the player has is between the actions the design team provides. ...and I'm not slamming the design team. They can't provide unlimited options. Real life can't provide unlimited options. Why should a computer game, which is an inferior reflection of reality, yield something so fundamentally alien to our reality that it simply cannot exist? Unlimited choices. And even in a pen and paper game, the players and dungeon masters are still confined by their own imagination. You simply cannot fathom what lies outside the boundaries of our imaginations. Even assuming you've got a great imagination, there are still limits to what you can do. "I'm going to use my wish spell to change this plane of existence so that everything in it is part of a single living organism and thus end all conflict for all eternity!" What kind of game would that be? Who would play it? The player and dungeon master are still limited by each other. In short, life is linear. The possibilities might seem endless, but they aren't. As Gromnir and Wombat agree, designers have currently handled this question is to include a lot of optional quests and allow some lattitude in the sequencing and time frame of the quests. That seems like a good enough approach, for what it is. This whole part of my post, regarding linearity, is kind of a tangent, though. I don't see that as the essential issue. Since I can buy into the FO (less structured story) or P:ST (more structured story) options, what I'd really like is to change the choice and impact. On the choice side, and I think this is where Wombat and I have always agreed, I don't want a good/evil or even a law/chaos solution. I want to have a variety of solutions each with a rational basis. On the impact side, I want to leave the judgement as to whether the choice was good/evil, lawful/chaotic, or kind/cruel to the player. The player can decide. On the flip side, the NPCs, when they know what the PC does, can have an morally based opinion. That's fine. ...But the decisions should not be presented as good or evil and there should be some variety in how the NPCs view PC activities. This is an area where I've thought Wombat and I agree. I know I'm putting words in your mouth, Wombat, and I beg forgiveness if they're the wrong words. Now, some NPCs might literally be 'evil.' Which is to say, they would state that their motives are either amoral or evil. That's fine. A PC who thinks of themselves as evil might throw in with them. A PC who had a larger plan might throw in with them temporarily. A PC who believes that the NPC's motives are evil might throw in with the NPC because he is convinced the NPC might have the right idea even if his motives suck. Most players might be unlikely to throw in with an overtly evil NPC, but some might and their reasoning should be just that -- their reasoning. Likewise, some NPCs might be literally insane. They might believe they are right, but a rational PC (and player) will likely see that he the NPC is unhinged. In that case, he will undoubtedly have the same sort of choice as a PC facing an 'evil' NPC. For myself, the worst thing about computer games is not that they're linear or that they lack focus. The most egregious sin of computer games is that they're so. damned. shallow.

Of course it's a circular argument on your part. In the United States, there is an assumption of charity that extends to an individual's statements. If the evidence supports the idea that he made a statement in good faith, all things being equal, then the assumption is that he was being honest. No matter how crystal clear things seem to you well after the fact, the matter was not so settled at the time. What is your essential point, Gorgon? That he did not believe that Iraq had the weapons? You are honestly saying it's better to assume that someone lied every time they are mistaken? It is absolutely bewildering to me. You are honestly saying that an assumption of innocence is the equivalent of an accusation of guilt? Good Lord, man!

I'm planning a trip to Washington State and Las Vegas in June/July. My brother and his wife just left for a trip to England and Holland. Absolutely sucks. I end up going to Las Vegas, yeah, like I don't spend months out of every year there already, and my brother heads off for a European vacation. Rat bastard. I think I might actually go with him the next time he goes to France. He'll have to work, but I can play.

lol I like that one. I agree, though. I liked the post apocalyptic feel and I think Beth actually hit the FO setting on the nose. It's a great wandering game. I haven't played Oblivion in a long time and I doubt if I ever reinstall it. I'm still playing a game of Fallout 3.

Yeah, I agree taks. I tend to hold forth a bit too long in these posts sometimes, so it's nice that someone cuts through the long winded crap to hit the heart of the matter. "So, you were present at his top secret briefings." Were you? I'm saying the evidence supports that Bush believed what he said. I think the onus is on you, not me.

I have no problem using 100 as the max number for skills, GDM. However, I do think that higher numbers allow for the sort of variety we have in real life. There is no "max skill level" for things in real life. That's why we have world records and those world records end up changing as people find ways to beat the previous score. I don't see how they could change the numerical value of the skills at this point, but I don't think that 100 is universally better than 300 or 50. However, it works well enough for me. The reason for changing the skills to such a high value, and Bhlaab can correct me if I'm wrong, is that you would literally have unused excess points with everything maxed if the current system allowed the player to reach level 100 with all of the current perks available. Something must be done with the skills if the PC will have access to significantly higher levels.

Sure, Soviet planning almost ended in Russian defeat. But French planning actually ended in French defeat, but no one uses that as an argument against republicanism. I'm answering this argument because I think it's your best one. The problem with this thinking is that republican governments existed prior to the French Revolution and have existed afterwards. We have one example of Soviet style communism. It failed. We have tons of examples of republicanism. On the other hand, I see the French Republicans as being by and large utopian. The republican aspect of the French Revolution was not the problem. As evidence, I hold up other republics which have survived and thrived. Hell, along side the US, I also hold up the United Kingdom of the time, which I count as a representative government with a monarchy as head of state. The argument regarding the United Kingdom is a trickier discussion, but that still leaves the United States. ...And the United States had a number of republicans of the French variety who were unable to take control of the government. After the Constitution was on solid ground, the utopian elements were shunted aside in favor of pragmatists. Even statesmen with utopian leanings, such as Jefferson, were pragmatists in office. I would no more advocate strict democracy in which every citizen votes on every issue than I would communism or socialism. I certainly don't want monarchy, aristocracy, or warlordism either. And there are many examples of successful monarchies and oligarchies throughout history. As for the rise of Russian and Chinese power, it's not like they were remote mountain villages before the 20 century. Both China and Russia have long histories as powerful entities. They have suffered humiliation and defeat as well, but they have essentially been world players for a long, long time.

Not only that, but I think it's clear that Bush belived that Iraq was a threat. I also believe that he thought the weapons were in Iraq. Yes, he clearly pitched this to the American public, including hitting the points that supported his arguments best, but that doesn't mean he lied. Look at it this way, say I'm absolutely certain that a child has stolen a piece of candy. I know a variety of facts, most of which support my claim but some don't. The child's own demeanor and activities support my position. I don't push the evidence that doesn't support my claim. I push the evidence that does. So, we search the child and find that he does not have the candy on his person. However, I'm still not a liar. I haven't even had the intent to mislead in regards to the essential charge: the child stole candy. I don't mind if folks keep chanting the mantra of "Bush the liar." That's all fine, but I don't think it's supported by the facts. I think the majority of people in the world, including the people who had access to substantial information, thought the weapons were there. What I think Bush did was assume that the weapons were there and he thought that, if he allowed Saddam sufficient time, the UN beauracracy would end up allowing Saddam more time to develop those weapons and they might be used against American soldiers in what Bush, with a bit of tunnel vision, saw as an inevitable invasion. I'm not arguing that the war was justified. I'm not saying that Bush was right. Very specifically, I'm saying that I don't believe he "lied" or even "mislead" about the essential charge that Saddam had weapons. I believe that he was hasty because he indeed believed that Saddam had such weapons. I do believe that he intentionally had the pitch skewed in order to win over the American public. In that regard, you can certainly say he mislead the US. However, that's a matter of means. His means were questionable, but his intent was to remove a threat he honestly believed existed.

The French Republicans were a prime example of the flawed nature of utopian ideas. ...And they were governed by utopian philosophy as contrasted to the experienc in the United States. I would argue that the French Revolution had a lot in common with the Soviet uprising. At any rate, Society as whole does step in to run things. If you're talking about communism, that's certainly different than society. As regards Stalin, his first five year plan, if I recall correctly, was a smashing success. In fact, he touted it as one of the reasons that Communism was on the rise. That was the last five year plan that met goals. You can't cite a period of five to ten years as the vindication of communism. It just doesn't work. The fact that the Soviet Union could not sufficiently diversify its economy (imagine that in a communist system!) is no defense at all. It's almost as if you're saying that the Soviet Union failed because it wasn't isolationist enough by saying that Stalin had it right by actually convincing the people to put in some hard work for great gains when he first instituted his five year plans. Perhaps the reason the system deteriorated is simple. The workers realized that they, as individuals, would not reap the benefit of their labor under a communist system. The eastern front was brutal, but Russia (and therefore the Soviet Union) had the population and will to take advantage of a significant power vacuum created by the fall of Germany. Argue however you want, but the Soviet planning almost ended in Russian defeat. Luckily for the Soviets, the people stepped up to the plate. I greatly admire the Russian. I don't admire the Soviet Union. Ultimately, you're arguing counter-factually. Yes, something different might have happened. ...But something did happen and that one thing makes far more compelling of a case than any number of theoretical things.

Why did the Soviet Union fail, then? A government must provide for its citizens on one hand and be able to withstand its neighbors on the other. Going from one bad system on one hand to another bad system doesn't mean either is good. More to the point, Soviet Communism failed because it lacked the means and methods of contending against on their own turf. If there is no argument like success, failure must certainly provide some like it in reverse. I've read Krushchev's speech, in translation, of course, but it seems to me that it was more a commentary on the man than the principles of Stalinism. Yes, it was surprisingly harsh, but it didn't significantly change the political landscape in the Soviet Union. ...And Krushchev himself is not exactly the best example of great Soviet leadership, either. Yes, the Soviet Union had some successes. I have no problem with conceding that point. However, it was still flawed and flawed even worse after Lenin died. As far as Russia's dominance in European affairs after World War 2, I can offer World War 2. The landscape with France and Germany essentially defeated left a lot of room for Soviet elbows. Fair enough. The Japanese having taken a vicious beating in the east certainly didn't hurt the Soviet aspirations either. In the end, the Soviet Union failed nonetheless. However, I have to admit that I am ideologically opposed to communism. I am opposed to it on a number of levels but mostly I am opposed to any utopian idea that suggests that man can be made inherently good and will, with sufficient education and understanding, be able to live in perfect peace with his fellow man. That is simply not true. Better education will help a man attain personal goals and thus will ease his resentment towards his neighbors, but educated people still fight other educated people. Humanity still strives against humanity. Pusue peace, to be sure, but don't believe that man is inherently peaceful. He is not. Anyhow, Soviet Communism pretty much did away with those pretenses by the time Lenin consolidated his power and became rule by oligarchy. For my part, I can hate communism and socialism but have no animosity for communists or socialists. I must not have been paying attention. I don't usually read the political stuff in the AP forum, but I did see some discussion going on there.

I think Stalin is a far better candidate for the charge of war crimes. I disagree with Lenin's policies on any number of issues, but history has not judged him particularly harshly. The communist government in the Soviet Union was merely a bad idea at the outset. It took Stalin and his successors to make it truly criminal. Do you have a link to the discussion, though? I've only seen your posts in the Alpha Protocol Forum and I tend to lurk rather than post there. I mean, was the thread closed or can we revive the discussion there so we have a better frame of reference for your comments?

What are you two fools talking about? I've seen the ads and I'm certain some nubile young lady will jump me the second I open a can of pringles and that my wife will be on hand to condone the whole thing and maybe join if I so desire! Geez, some people just don't have their heads in reality.

Hey, Wals, I'm sorry to hear about your mom, bro. That sucks! I missed it the first time but glanced and saw it as I was scrolling down. Bad year. I seriously mean that. For me and mine, that's folks in the hospital, folks dying, the California Legislature. I mean, what's next? The plague?

Yeah, but you still had weird things like zero damage crits with firearms early in one battle only to be put down immediately by a crit later. Damage in games is always weird to me. I mean, I don't mind the idea of missing the majority of the time because I know that folks with a low weapon skill should miss the majority of the time. Is the fact that these weapons hit and yet don't seem to cause appropriate damage. Even the first two Fallout games had that problem. It's more of a problem across the industry and I'm just trying to figure out how they could address it without making for a frustrating experience for the player.

I always see our chance to have any real input into the game as limited in the first place. I really just enjoy talking about the game and trying to plug the things I find personally important. Large numbers of fans swarming the boards with a unified gripe or suggestion has a good chance of instituting a change. I've seen that a lot, even though the developer or publisher might not always own up to it. The big thing seems to me that the numbers be high, that they be fairly unified in the specific feature or gripe, and that they have some longevity. Otherwise, we're just discussing the issue. For my purposes, since I find this board so entertaining in and of itself, I don't mind arguing with folks here and listening to what they have to say. Some of the devs, in particular Sawyer and Matthew, are quite active on these boards in a number of threads. Might not mean anything, but at least someone is responding to, making fun of, and possibly even listening to what we've got to say.

My beef with weapons is the way they damage has to be abstracted and applied in order to balance the game. A single shot can kill anyone. Not necessarily, but it easily might. However, in a firefight with people who don't practice regularly with their weapons or who are not accustomed to firing them under duress there should be a lot of wasted rounds. Likewise, taking several inches of a steel knife or machette into your chest would also finish you. So we have these battle which, because of increased hit points and the like, cause multiple wounds but the PC just walks blithely away from the scene. Wounds? Broken legs? These are frustrating things to inflict upon the player and never suffice to show the effects of days, weeks, or even months of necessary recuperation. I'm just as happy to have broken legs or a damaged head depicted the way they are in Fallout 3 because, frankly, I don't see how FO/2 offer any improvement. Nevertheless, I agree about the variety of ammo and the deadliness of combat. I'm forgiving about the voice over work. I hope that there is some effect of wandering the desert. The player should need to have a constant source of water. I know there's not much chance to see any significant gameplay effect of dehydration in the game, but I shudder when I think of someone walking all over the wasteland for several days without water.

haha I'm tempted to take a peek just to find out. lol

I laughed at loud several times. The part about the German Developers was really funny. He didn't outright pan the game, though. I think it was more or less a positive review.

Recently, we watched Australia. It wasn't bad. I was cooking, and so I didn't see the whole thing. It was a bit more campy than I'd expected, but it wasn't a bad film The social commentary centered on the treatment of mixed European/aborigine children in Australian society. I think it was meant to an epic film in the manner of Giant, but it was a little too campy. I enjoyed it well enough. The wife and I started Underworld, which she didn't like. I finished it. It wasn't bad. I'm getting some serious vampire fatigue right now, but it was okay. It wasn't really a scary film, but I think it would have been better if we'd stopped doing anything else, sat on the couch with the lights off, and watched it. The lighting would have had more effect, I think. Anyhow, I don't regret watching it, but I didn't rush out to buy it, either. With me, it's easy for a film to get a passing grade. It's a lot harder either to get rave reviews or to flunk entirely.

Hey, Michael Moore is a great American patriot, don't you know? Ugh, I'm just not good at sarcasm. I haven't seen W, but I've heard that it's actually pretty balanced and insightful. It doesn't just pile on things indiscriminantly. Honest to goodness, though, Michael Moore can be a great entertainer. He's a bald faced liar, but, what the hell, it's not like he's the only one.