Aristes

It seems perfectly reasonable to talk about mortality rates, N_R. I don't think folks are trying to be tough guys, they're just discussing it in practical terms. However, adding a human face to it doesn't hurt. I will tell you, because of a variety of factors, the flu is a lot more dangerous for me than most others. No, I don't have AIDS, but I do have some health problems that put me in a danger category. Of course, I'm always careful anyway, so I don't know what I'll do differently for the time being. Honest to goodness, I'm not trying to be an internet iron man, but I really do think that the media over-hypes these events, which has inured the public. When things go sour fer realz, we won't be able to tell from the initial press reports. As far as estimates on the 1918 flu, they range from 20-100 million. With a spread like that, you can make a lot of claims. Certainly, it was a serious epidemic. However, and here's where mortality rate comes into the discussion, if things got to be as bad as the 1918 epidemic, we would have a serious problem with panic, and the mortality rate was not 10% while the percentage infected was vastly less than 100%. You mention the Black Death, but the plague undoubtedly infected and killed more people in a much smaller population. ...And it completely unhinged whole regions of the globe. It literally transformed Europe. Yeah, it's worrisome when you and your loved ones are in the middle of the danger zone, but it's even worse when you're talking about whole families dying off. The upshot is, we should have some level of concern, but it's hard when the press treats something like SARS in much the same way as the current strain of Swine Flu. I don't think this strain of Swine Flu is the next Black Death, but you're right, you never know. With that in mind, what would you have us do? Be scrupulous in our personal hygiene? Make sure we avoid infected peoples? ...Or just skip a few steps and baricade our doors?

I wouldn't be ashamed of standing up for your principles, Gorgon. I admire it. I've never been a Greenpeace fan, but, damn it, I am a fan of folks who stand for something. If it's murder, we'll have imprison or kill them, of course. hahaha I did my bit for the environment. I planted my second friend in as many weeks.

You people are absolutely terrifying.

Those are silly arguments. Because, if you are struck by a medical emergency, you will receive care. In other words, if your house is on fire, the fire department will come put out the fire. However, you will receive better care if you have health insurance. If you have fire insurance, not only with the fire department put out the fire, but you'll probably have your home rebuilt. Because, if you are struck by a medical emergency, you will receive care. In other words, your child will receive free education k through 12. However, you will receive better care if you have health insurance. If you provide for your child's education, you need not use public education. Instead, you can send your kids to private schools or augment their schooling with private tutors. ...And the argument that "well, you're okay with this, so why not this?" is the epitome of the slippery slope. Ha! And folks scoff at slippery slope arguments. To be fair, however, my arguments are practical. I'm not implacable. If you convince me I'm wrong, I won't refuse to budge.

I don't understand. Are German games bad? I'm being honest, here, Kaftan, you yutz, so give me a straight answer. Anyhow, I figured I'd get Velvet Assassin because it's a stealth FPS and I tend to buy those when I see them. A demo could be nice, but I'll probably buy it as long as it doesn't have universally terrible reviews. ...And, by reviews, I mean word of mouth here. haha

Where I live, we have one of the highest life expectancies in the world. In fact, my city was cited by National Geographic some time ago as being one of the top three areas for longevity in the world. I have a major, world renowned medical center nearby, and enjoy sufficient insurance for my medical needs at the moment. I've been in the emergency room when folks with no medical insurance have been treated. So folks can talk about how dreadful things are in the United States, but it's not like some poor bastard with a medical emergency is kicked to the curb. And countries who have paid virtually nothing by comparison for their own defense over the past several decades should be ashamed for citing American debt. I'm not saying my country is perfect. I'm merely saying that these issues are more complex than the two second message board posts would seem to indicate. Monte Carlo is the only person who has taken the time to look at it without trying to castigate the US. Everyone makes decisions. Every country makes decisions as well. Now, to be fair, I think the overwhelming hubris of doctors in the US, not to mention the outright greed, has probably been the best case for UHC. However, I don't want to aim at the health care industry and end up shooting myself in the foot. There is no evidence that the excellent health-care I have received will improve with the government running it from top down. Poor folks with emergencies do get treatment. No matter their debt. No matter their social status. No matter how much money they have. That is sufficient for my conscience. I'll be honest, I hate the idea that some folks don't have comprehensive health-care. I don't sit in my house on a mountain of cash laughing at poor people while lighting my cigars with $100 bills and drinking my coffee out of the bronzed skulls of the impoverished. I want everyone to be healthy. ...But the world in which we live is unfair, and sometimes we make it worse by ill-conceived plans to make it better. We should always try to do the right thing, but the system we have has served us well. I don't want to throw over our system for UHC until some of our more egregious problems are solved. Yes, some people get better health care than others in the United States. Newsflash, some people get better treatment, no matter the cause, everywhere. At least in the United States, the reason someone gets better treatment is because they have provided for the service through their own work. That's better than a bureaucrat in Washington deciding my fate. As far as socialized health care? There's a long road between here and there in the United States. If it become law, then I guess it becomes law. I'll abide by it.

If there's one thing worse than an army of zombies roaming the streets, it's an army of zombies slouched on sofas demanding cups of tea and hogging the remote control. This made me laugh out lout. Hell, this is my life without swine flu. Usually slouched at my computer, though.

Let's Dance --- David Bowie

I virtually never use anything but fast reply, bro, so don't feel bad. I agree about VATS, where my biggest grief really comes from having to wait for the slo mo business.

You are an angel as well as a Lady, Crimson, and I thank you.

I wish I still had arcanum. I would really like to play it again. Unfortunately, I don't have it, so.... I'm playing WoW right now and wondering how long before I pass out.

I'm currently having trouble sleeping. Yeah. happens sometimes.

I've never understood why folks were always so enamored of called shots. For my part, I don't care where I hit them as long as I do enough damage to kill them. Now, if I would have seen a significant advantage for shooting robotic sensors in that they had a dramatically reduced chance to hit me or something, then I would be a bigger fan. Yeah, shooting someone in the leg so they walk slower and limp is nice, but not all that exciting. The gore was kind of funny, but way over the top! However, seeing someone disemballed (haha) would be interesting.

But disagree with this *in part*. In 1950, the world population was 2.5 billion. 50% of the population dying off would create incredible changes in the culture and economy. It wouldn't send us back to the stone age or even pre-industrial period, technologically. Libraries would still exist, power plants would still run, internet servers would still provide porn, car factories would still make automobiles (they're mostly automated), oil would still be pumped, and farmers would still grow food. Society would still run, it just might not look anything like what we have now. I would agree with you if we had a situation where half the world's population suddenly disappeared or died straight off. however, if half the world's population died off from a specific disease, by the time you've come to the end of the epidemic, I doubt if any of the things you've mentioned will still be in play. The infection kills off half the earth and probably another quarter of the earth's population dies off from starvation, other diseases or health issues, and war/fighting/bloodshed. And this will take at least weeks or even months. As the epidemic progresses, first countries will try their best to seal borders. Then regions within countries. Finally, cities, and areas within cities. People stop going to work. They drive away strangers from their midst. transportation breaks down and foodstuffs don't reach more urban areas. I think society would come through in the end, as you've suggested, but exactly in what condition and with what core values, I couldn't even guess at this point. ...But, hey, YOU'RE the one who killed off the entire world's population by mutating some disease! I was too scared to play the game.

I'm with Gorth. I think the media tends to hype most things in order to sell. I don't begrudge them. There must be some urgency in the news for it to sell. However, let's say we had the news about SARS and how terrible it would be. How hyped the disease was and how it caused some true panic in some sectors. Now, advance that over several decades. This might be the one where the media and some individuals say, "I told you so!" However, if it doesn't pan out that the disease causes real mayhem outside of Mexico, will the media say, "aw, we were a little overboard in reporting this issue?" Of course not, but they will have undermined themselves in future reporting. This is clearly the case as regards natural disasters. Yes, we need the media. ...And yes, we should take things seriously. For my part, I'm making sure I wash my hands regularly, which I already do at any rate. I'm covering my mouth and nose if I sneeze, which I already do. I'm making sure that I don't come into casual contact with people who might have the flu. So, I appreciate that we do get this sort of news. However, the sort of unashamed handwringing on the part of the media smacks me as theatrical in nature. I have no doubt that it is. I think it's terrible that 20 some odd people have died in Mexico. If 10% of the world population died off tomorrow, it would cause complete and unrestrained panic across the globe. I don't blame Lady Crimson and other folks for not understanding how terrible it would be. They are simply ignorant in regards to the severity of such a death rate. If 10% of the people in most regions of the earth suddenly died, the neighboring regions would face a refuge problem. If the death rate world wide is 10%, we'll militarize our borders and shoot people who try to enter. I'm not being dramatic. Most folks here don't seem to realize what 10% death rate in an entire population would mean to them personally. However, Swine flu has a less than 10% mortality rate and less than 100% of the population will have the disease. I don't think we're going to see anything even remotely approaching a 10% mortality rate world-wide, let alone on any continent. If we have a 100% infection with a 50% mortality rate, kiss the world as you know it goodbye, because what will be left will not even resemble what we have now.

Actually, I like the idea of including a asymetrical map just because it allows more freedom. Imagine an adventure in the Carlsbad caverns. There is not only an asymetrical layout to the caves horizontally, but also vertically. Squares will give the feel of a developed area, and will be entirely appropriate for the city areas, but basin is definitely not a big square. There are mountains surrounding Las Vegas, but also passes leading through several spots, as well as several freeways. Valley of Fire is to the East and Red Rock is to the west. There's a lot of changes in elevation between Las Vegas/Henderson and Lake Mead. So, using the idea of terrain isn't so bad at all. Hell, if the lake water really is radatiated, then that's a boundary in and of itself. Not to mention more or less reasonable man made barriers, such as a possible blockade between Nevada and the NCR. I don't know what the story will be, but there are probably some dynamics that will effect which areas are easily accessible to the PC.

I'm just happy to have some hope of seeing areas outside of the city itself. I would gladly take a non-realistic scale as long as it means I get to see some of the outlying areas. I'd really like a chance to see Area 51 or maybe even Death Valley, but at least Hoover Dam, Lake Mead, and Mt. Charleston.

I'll probably buy it off of steam also.

Wow, what does that say for some of the outlying areas? I mean, you're not going to get all of Henderson in there with a 2x2 world, let alone Lake Mead and especially Area 51 or Baker. That really sucks. I take your word as authority, then, that the density could be less without dramatically changing the formula. With that in mind, I guess my argument as regards the large and open areas has had its legs cut out from under it.

Give us a linky, D_N, for those of us too lazy to google.

As someone who is actually spending money on the games, I don't really give a **** how much it sells I just want something that's good. If it's a success that's alright but I'd rather have a game that doesn't pander to demographics or use a reliable brand name as a crutch. Frankly, the industry doesn't give a crap whether you care or not. Unless the idea of a large, vast, and relatively empty world is a gamebreaker for you, sticking to the working formula makes sense from a game design point of view. ...And imagine that the majority of player wanted the same thing you want. Imagine that the minority clamored for something other than what you want. When does it stop being pandering and become a solid design decision. For my part, I wouldn't mind a large rambling world, but I want the design team to pander enough to have good sales while keeping to those core attributes that I most appreciate. In that regard, changing the world to be less "busy" or some such is not nearly as important as improving the writing.

If the goal of the developer is to sell games, I'd probably go with established recipe that the franchise used for commercial success. It's not like Gothic or Arcanum enjoyed the same level of sales. I also greatly enjoyed Arcanum, but you don't throw over what works for something that had tepid sales. Anyhow, no one is going to complain about a tighter story or better npcs or dialogue. However, creating a huge swath with no interactables doesn't add to the game. It changes it. I could go for mkreku's non-NPC interaction idea, but there has to be SOMETHING there.

This happy party of "more barren spaces" just doesn't make sense. I get mkreku's idea of non-npc enounters. That's cool. Put just as much stuff there, but make more of the environment interactable. Maybe even provide puzzles of sorts. Great. However, make sure there is a lot of crap around there easy enough for players to find. If the encounters don't include NPCs, the stuff you put out there has to be interesting enough to grab the players attention. I'm not just talking about interesting things in the environment the player can view. Yeah, the husband and wife suicide scene that the player sees in one of the houses in the wasteland of FO3 is interesting, but it still doesn't count as an encounter as such. Have scenes like that, but include more stuff around the houses that allow the PC some interaction. As it stands, it seemed like you guys were saying you wanted a whole lot more of nothing. Now it seems like maybe it's more of an art direction where you want the perception of barren and empty spaces. I dunno. Nevertheless, if the team must err to one side or the other, FO3 is a better bet than Gothic or Arcanum. No offense to fans of those two games.

I have to say that moving towards vast barren spaces doesn't appeal to me. Maybe there is some way to give more of a feeling of a vast open area but still packing the terrain with a lot of things to do. I'm afraid Crash is exactly right. It sounds cool in theory, but players are going to complain if there's nothing to do. Of course, this kind of hinges on what Obsidian does with travel. If they can't make substantial changes to travel, they should not make substantial changes in terms of the amount of content in areas the PC will traverse. If they can make some major overhauls, they might be able to give a better impression of that huge, sprawling wasteland! EDIT: I guess it took me too long to post. In light of mkreku's post, I would really have to see what he means by comparing it to Gothic. I haven't played that title, but seeing would be believing.

I care about one thing in regards to console v pc gaming. I don't want my controls nerfed or otherwise impaired to make up for the fact that console players are forced to use a crappy analogue controler. I don't have any animosity for console players. I just want my character to respond quickly and fluidly to mouse and keyboard controls.