Zoraptor

I don't think this view is accurate. If gaming journalists were irrelevant why would Publishers ensure that certain gaming review websites and there gaming correspondents have early access to games and interviews? The reality is that there are still many people that place credibility in what gaming journalists say and what they think so they still play an important function I think that's more due to the free advertising/exposure those gaming sites give the games, rather than because the actual "journalism" aspect is seen as necessary or respected. Exactly. It's not just games though, games journalists impart crucial information like which carbonated beverage or compressed quasi mexican corn wafer makes me good at Halo! Interviews and the like are pure quid pro quo/ goodwill/ exposure propositions, this whole Fez2 debacle indicates that pretty conclusively. What, you thought all our interviews were freely done and without obligation? Nope, we expect something back...

By the stated definition of excusable homicide included it is not applicable. It's an irrelevant objection though. 1) Manslaughter is specifically stated as being the lesser crime for 2nd degree murder by the judge and as a crime that should be considered in this case. 2) The SYG defence is mentioned directly as part of the instructions on what is defined as and to be considered self defence and thus justifiable homicide. It's clearly relevant and something expected to be considered considering everyone accepts Zim used a self defence, er, defence. "JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force. “Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real. If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty" And, "George Zimmerman is not required to present evidence or prove anything." It's pretty conclusive first hand evidence. (Meh, the sizing on the copy paste job seems to be going berserk despite seeming OK in the WYSIWYG editor)

That's a problem with a lot of games though. You can think to yourself "waterchip? fetch it yourself you sanctimonious git" then "supermutants? Not my problem" in Fallout for example. Fundamentally it is a game and you have to play within its limitations, all a designer can do is give you reasons to follow the story and not everyone will think the reasons are good/ sufficient.

I have to admit that every time I hear some shonky reasoning from a politicos I find myself imagining a Francis Urquhart soliloquy to go with it- or a running commentary from Sir Humphrey Appleby if it's merely poorly thought out self serving nonsense.

Even WoD agrees that it does- not to the extent I do though, of course. It's simple fact, not having a burden to retreat if practicable makes it easier to justify killing someone as you have an extra defence for the act, and if they're dead then they cannot contradict it. It's got nothing to do with sympathy, it's probable that both Martin and Zimmerman were idiots to greater or smaller degrees. And that's why you don't think SYG makes it worse. But it's an opinion rooted in, er, opinion, not in fact.

Begins? In Britain? They're already a surveillance entity with an ancillary country attached. It's all to protect the children and stop terrorism (and Iceland) though! It cannot be abused because it's Britain, and we fought nazis, For Freedom!

It was Martin's ground as well, since he was a legitimate guest he had a right to be there. Maybe not at the initial contact (don't really know, reports are contradictory) but he was shot on the same row of houses he was staying at. I don't think anyone sensible thinks that Zim went out with the express purpose of gunning Martin down ie 'murder', just that he showed recklessness or provocation leading to the death, ie 'manslaughter'. I went into the reasoning behind why killing someone was an advantage a couple of pages back- basically, Zimmerman has the advantage of the prosecution having to prove their case, and the advantage of not having to testify, and the advantage of not having the other party (Martin) being able to testify. If for example Martin has said that Zimmerman approached him again after hanging up, rather than the reverse then the whole story takes on a different light. Zimmerman would have disobeyed the dispatcher. If Martin had said that Zim had taken a swing at him, again the whole story changes as Martin has the right to stand his ground. But Martin cannot contradict anything Zim said, leaving the prosecution with the burden of having to prove that Zim lied with the only witness who could confirm that being dead, and Zim not subject to cross examination. It's different in most other countries because self defence has to be proven by the person invoking it which makes testifying almost mandatory (albeit because the really obvious ones self defence cases wouldn't get to court in the first place)- the default is that a killing is unlawful unless the killer can prove that the force used was reasonable and there were no other alternatives. It's difficult to make a direct comparison to the UK though, as pistols and even knives cannot legally be carried there.

Item 1: Yes Zim did, he got out of his car and followed him. We have no idea what Zimmerman did between hanging up the 911 call and the altercation, but he definitely had enough time to get back to his car- or to go off looking for that "****ing punk" that "always gets away". But despite it being "****ing cold" and raining he hung around an extra 2 minutes in- supposedly- exactly the same place... Now, there's no proof Zim did decide to reconvene his pursuit. But Zim had opportunity to do so and was clearly motivated to do so as well, there's just no proof since the only other witness is dead. If he did, your whole argument reverses. Item 2: Oh ffs. Stand your ground is relevant, Zim just did not use it as an affirmed defence so there was no hearing on the matter. He still has the SYG provisions available though, to whit: "If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony" Yeah, it's a different text style and may be slightly difficult to read, because it's copied direct from the judge's instructions. He was so terrified of immediate injury he never even sought (nor needed) proper medical attention for the "smashed in" face and "bashed" head. And, of course, the still open question is who initiated the conflict and whether Martin was simply standing his ground and that being "attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself". After all, Zim reaching for his gun- and arguably carrying one at all when pursuing a minor, on a dark night- denotes an intent to use deadly force as well. It's why SYG is so moronic, it gives an advantage to whoever it is draws first and kills the other.

Meh, many americans genuinely believe that they won WW2 (and WW1 for that matter) solo so embiggening and rose tinting your country's contribution is hardly unique to anywhere- and I say that from a country that suffered more military casualties per capita than any other in WW1 despite being on the opposite side of the world. CoH2 is probably what you do get if you read a lot of history books, in english so only the ones that will sell in english, and if you're pandering to a western market with its biases. Aliens!.jpg

Alluring girl + machine gun? Must be :sunglasses: Maxim. Yeaaaaaahhhhhhhhh (one time I want to use a smiley and there ain't one with sunglasses? And man am I slow or what?)

George I was 1714, so it's only a year out. William III and Mary II were both dead and Anne was queen in 1713. Oddly, Charles II actually got most of the royal powers back after Ollie's rebellion though he didn't do anything much with them, but that was how James II was able to turn much of the country against him by trying to reestablish absolutism. Ironically it was at Bill III's accession that most were lost, though a few persisted even through to Victoria's time. Check out the entries for Bill of Rights (English) and Act of Settlement if you're interested.

They're part of the government, and at one point were the whole of it. Governments do not define what they 'offer' as products or services as a company would, but as obligations. I'm obligated to pay for the roads, even if I have no car. I'm obligated to pay for defence, even if I think we have no enemies. I'm obligated to pay for ludicrous self voted benefits for politicians, even if I regard most of them as utterly worthless. And if I decide not to pay for it? Well, they won't lop my head off and distribute bits of my corpse to the four corners (or leave a horse's head in my bed), but I simply do not have the option to refuse. Queenie is awesome because as a consequence I don't get President John Key/ Helen Clarke/ John Minto/ John Banks/ Kim DotCom/ Richie McCaw/ Judy Bailey/ Tim Shadbolt/ Jim Bolger. And thank god for that.

I'll step up to the plate. But I'll also shift the goalposts a bit to an easier target... The subject of abuse has to be seen in a certain amount of context. It's a given that it's creepy, unpleasant and that most people who say such stuff wouldn't if they were face to face rather than online, or don't really mean what they say. If they do, they're in the genuinely crazy bracket. But, to a large extent the obsessive fan who is going to be upset by nerfing is exactly who the games companies are primarily targeting. They want people to spend money on unlocks, on selling/ buying items, to invest their time and more importantly their money into their games. They don't- by and large- care much about the rampant abuse that happens in voice chat and the like, only when it spills over into their real world. So on one hand they're saying that people should spend time in the game, maybe spend extra real money to buy stuff, care about it, refine your skills, be an arse online to your fellow gamers. On the other, they're saying that they have the right to arbitrarily reduce the effectiveness of your tactics and equipment, including stuff you may have bought with real money; and shouldn't post "I'm going to asterisking kill you you asterisk, gonna asterisk your dog and your mum too!"* to a dev despite not (generally) having any problem with someone saying it in game to another player. To reiterate, I'm not defending the abuse, at best it's either childish or trolling, at worst it's the symptom of a disturbed individual. But unique snowflake provisions for those who work at games companies is a bit... precious, if it isn't consistently applied and if you are actually targeting the obsessives in the first place. (I see incidents like the Hepler one as fundamentally different. I didn't agree with what Hepler said as an adventure game would have suited her comments better, but she's perfectly within her rights to hold that opinion and ironically avoiding combat and just playing the story was a touted feature of Fallout from some of those most vociferous in the abuse. But rather than attack that it rapidly became attack her personally. I put that sort of thing into a completely different bracket from an actual change) *No idea what the guy actually sent, of course

Vodafone? She should be sponsored by Orange.

That whole thing benefits politicians though- Andy Coulson (for non UKers, an ex editor of the Sun who is I believe currently arrested for phone tapping; the Sun makes Morgan's old rag The Mirror look almost like old style NYT in terms of reticence and quality) being appointed as David Cameron's press secretary is pretty indicative that spin is the absolute aim with any truth being coincidental. By and large it is in the politicians best interests to have people be ill informed, so voting choices are made on things like "who you'd want to have a beer with". There was always tabloid journalism but at least previously there was some quality stuff to balance it out, now even the Beeb/ NYT/ WP/ Times are as interested in telling stories as informing. On the Martin case, the civil rights case people are talking about now is pretty weak. I don't have much doubt that Zimmerman did profile and followed Martin because he was black*, how he was clothed (rain, irrelevant) and that he was young. But that's just my opinion, you cannot prove that. *Frankly, I came out as subconsciously racist and quite strongly so, last time I took a test on the matter- probably one of the Harvard Project Implicit ones- and I wouldn't think of myself as such without prompting.

That's a bit unfair. You could also vote to increase the price of the games on sale as well (seriously, Strike Suit Zero 75% off, vote for it and get... 66% off?) which is worth a bit in unintentional amusement.

Bit late there, champ. Still, at least the news isn't included in the post directly above yours or anything obvious like that.

Bunch of Atari IPs got auctioned off. Total Annihilation and MoO went to Wargaming.net (who, it should be noted, bought Gas Powered Games so have Chris Taylor working for them) while Star Control went to Stardock.

The simple answer is that you'd need to ask Bethesda why. The slightly more complex answer is that AI is notoriously difficult to get right and can end up using a lot of computer power very easily; and can in any case only take advantage of what it is programmed to 'know' and sense. The amount of stuff that a real Thief would know and be able to sense is currently far more than can be realistically programmed into an AI for a game as a real thief would have the innate ability to balance risk vs reward and the like. And after you'd got the thief right you'd then have to do it for guards, farmers, villagers and whatever other types you have.

Giant Virus Opens Pandora's Box! Apart from the headline reading as if Nature has hired a Daily Mail sub editor it's interesting stuff. Very large viruses with (for one at least) very low number of previously identified genes.

Well, the drug dealer story sounds like it didn't exist at all in the released version. It doesn't, but that was unrelated to anything Radiant AI. They turned off both the ability to kill plot critical characters and for those plot critical characters to become hostile to other NPCs through their actions. When a non plot critical thief steals apples from in front of a shopkeeper it would be "stop criminal scum!" and he'd be chopped to sausage (indeed, the shopkeeper starts saying "stop thief" but stops halfway through stop for the plot critical one); so the general behaviour is still there and the problems at the heart of it remain. And that fundamental problem is that while the thief 'knows' he should steal he has none of the essential context of how he should steal, so he goes to a shop and steals stuff in front of witnesses and in broad daylight. For a functioning behavioural AI that is a fundamental error as it breaks verisimilitude, no real person could behave that way, be regarded as a thief, and get away with it. That's also why you end up with people raking carpets and the like.

[edit: I'm less than convinced by that drug dealer story, to be honest, or at least that it worked quite as described. Watching a character steal a pile of apples from in front of a shop keeper, one at a time, in broad daylight, in a crowd, while obviously being watched, that character being a thief and getting caught each time but not getting stopped because he was Plot Critical convinced me pretty much absolutely that their AI was... vestigial, in the I front, in practice if not in theory] I know about its failures because I played Oblivion, for my sins. It (or something similar) probably is the future at some point but it will have to overcome some significant problems with getting to a level of realism (verisimilitude, really) where it doesn't make you regularly facepalm.

Yeah, it's Keyrock's post about Tomb Raider with Thi(e/a)f substituted for TR and Garrett substituted for Lara. Delayed shock reaction from "headshot: 30 XP" and similar revelations. On more pleasant things, I'm playing Waking Mars which I'm liking a lot. Not surprising, having had a look at the credits and spotting a bunch of old LGS names. I actually fired it up just to make sure it worked OK (which it didn't, first time) and ended up spending a solid couple of hours playing, something which hasn't happened for ages.

I think so. i don't really understand how radiant works. Anyone care to explain? I know I could look it up, but I want an intelligent answer, not some random cyber-yokel. The idea of Radiant AI was to give AI knowledge, aims etc so they could develop their behaviour organically rather than have specific schedules and scripting governing their behaviour. It didn't work, leading to thieves stealing apples directly in front of shopkeepers repeatedly and house owners raking their carpets or staring at walls for hours. Radiant AI was a good if impractical idea, genuine scripting like in Gothic 3 was less flexible, but worked far better. Thought it was an open secret that the Radiant AI demo was specially scripted rather than being on the fly. The average 2005/6 PC would be considerably worse than a 360 in terms of power.

I'm not certain I finished it, though I definitely got past the big battle on level 4, and got frustrated by the level with all the teleporters (5?). My dad created the characters for me, so it wasn't a fully independent achievement anyway. I distinctly remember getting really upset when he went on a field trip with the computer, and one of his students killed most of my party.