Orogun01

Hope you like Art Deco then. I still think that aside from the Glades and South Beach we don't really have many landmarks but on the other hand FNV didn't use any of Vegas famed buildings so it could work with Miami in the same way. If they do Miami: Devs, plz put my house in the game?

Sorry, Gortho. Never occurred to me that it wouldn't be clear. To explain, a lot of economists and other more human sciences utilise complex numerical models and simulations to help predict an outcome without actually implementing it in the real world. It's how everything from road networks to production lines, and emergency call centres are built. not to mention all the eocnomic forecasting national treasuries do. Of course all these models are dependent on data and how it's interpreted, so there is a margin for error. Plus the occasional "looks great on paper fails on implementation" plans, although I can churn those to lack of foresight. Which when we dealing with drugs counts for a lot since there is a great deal of human factor involved.

It is and it is not true for both games and films. There are less games with permanence than movies, indeed a game has a half life of a few years before it goes through all the retailing and finally becomes irrelevant. Still I say that there are a few exceptions to the rule, games that get re-released in new formats. As for movies; I still love Blade Runner (tears in the rain moment is one of my top 10 scenes) I can still watch Aliens and appreciate the cinematography and the effects. These are films very dependent on special effects. Some games seem to get it, that the characters, plot, storytelling they're all supplemental to the gameplay. Tetris has been a very strong game, and Shadow of the Colossus managed to become memorable without anyone knowing the main's character name. All those comparison between the two mediums (film and games) are fair but there is something that has to be taken into account when it comes to games: they're an active medium. The argument of the "immersiveness" of games has been discussed plenty, and while games are immersive that is not guarantee of an emotional impact. Consider that the games regarded as having the most emotional moments are some of the most linear; with a few exceptions. So whilst in a film you can manipulate the plot to achieve the desired feeling, in games you manipulate the plot to fit the gameplay. Wanna do a shooter? alien invasion! and that's the depths of emotion you're gonna get.

A few of the landmarks might be different, but it would be too similar to Washington DC to feel "new". FO3 covered ruined metropolises, FO:NV covered desert/frontier style settings. We need more swamps in games, so the everglades would be interesting. Bring in the mutated alligators and lots of radiated water Any significant landmarks on Hawaii? You know I've seen the Everglades and that game would be really hard, and there would be no landmarks or buildings left since the structures are very weak. Plus mutated alligators? Them things sound scary man Nah, they should go to Atlanta instead. Old city, underground railroad, and awful lotta African Americans there to become ghouls and add themes of racism to the game. A Martin Luther King ghoul for DLC

Well we already look bombed out and we could use the nuclear winter. But the setting must have some remarkable landmarks, so despite a lot of people being against it I'm putting New York forward. They already did Point Lookout, so...

ehh...stamina is the blue bar, durability upgraded in the workbench. A good, cheap solution is to carry a bunch of other weapons for later use.

Saved this post for use in 20 years.

For a second there I tried to argue against this point but then I realize that I'm already arguing for it on another thread Any word on the fat tax actually working or do retailer raised their prices?

Even if we subsidize healthy food, driving down the prices that's no guarantee that it will sell. You will see an immediate rise but in the end you spend taxes on a project with low return as opposed to taxing fat and forcing fast food restaurants. Plus I will pay you if you get one of those Big Mac fatasses to eat a carrot.

There are good video game writers? You do realize that Bethesda's games feature massive sandboxes where no one cares about the writing? Its simply not their main concern, heck if you put together all of Bethesda's plots together they would have more holes than a Swiss cheese after a shootout. Besides games in general don't really need that good of plot, just a general excuse to point your virtual guns at someone.

Oh Bioware...we know

So if we leave them all alone they will stop calling us the Great Satan, blaming us for all the sand in their shoes and women's trying to be equal? I have never seen anyone so disposed to throw a scapegoat away. Besides, they're too dangerous to be left alone.

..b-but just imagine how much money the American government would make from taxing fat.

Hey as video game writers, they're in the top ten.

Alrigthy then!

Stephen King's hate of dogs.

Why it took me so long to find Mount&Blade is beyond me (probly the clunky animations and graphics) but now i'm hooked.

Reason # 1 Philly don't work: radioactive rain

By not provoking them? So we should turn all of our churches into mosques and kill our jews and that will solve the problem? I'll get right on it

Cheap most likely, since it's hard to attract programmers to a game project without financial bonuses (SOBs make more than everyone else) so is easier to look for those passionate about gaming.

We could say that it varies depending on who is the smoker is, I'm sure that some smokers are very decent, talented people. Despite what others may think This is incredibly wrong. You can read up on it here. That's from the American Cancers Society, but you can find a dozen other organizations saying the same thing. And nowhere in that article there was an answer to my question on the levels.

Don't really know if I should be mad or flattered; "disingenuous post" that really throws me off balance I know from your previous post that you don't seem to believe in prohibition, and are in favor of legalization. Personally I don't believe that the majority of the public's has enough self control to even deal with the legal drugs we have today. So i'm not even that positive about even the least damaging drug being completely legalized. On smoking, the amount of second hand smoke that you would have to inhale in order to actually be harmed by it can only be achieved by living with a chain smoker. You would had a stronger case if you put forth the right to privacy of the people subjected to secondhand smoke. I can agree with banning smoking from private and government facilities, but public places are common ground and aren't really owned. Under private ownership people are subject to the preferences of the owner and whether or not he should allow smoking, It doesn't make sense to me that in a public avenue they should be subjects to the preferences of others.

I have made it clear before that the crux of this matter is that some people take issue against smoking, if we were to pass legislation based on the disgust of the many I still contend that we get rid of the morbidly obese. Disgusting habit-check Should be banned in public because I find them offensive to my eyes-check Obesity poses real danger-check So do you really think that I should be able to get away with this just because my personal bias coincides with a sound argument. Despite the fact that an opposing view on the subject its equally valid. At some point you need to remember that things in life aren't all pleasurable, you banning a prick who cut you in traffic from driving and denying a group of people their pleasure just because you find it offensive its equally irrational.

Yet these poor celebrities aren't forced to smoke, many of them lead forcefully healthy lifestyles as an clear reaction to their ambient. You hit the nail on the head when you said that its due to popularity; as with most drugs legislation is related to popular opinion. At this time drugs have become a cop-out to avoid personal responsibility and serves that they are viewed as a negative illness. Putting emphasis on the fact that the user is a victim and not at fault since is beyond their control. Smoking on the other hand began to hit low when public's interest in cancer was renewed, and as it was a cause it was deemed evil. Yet despite the fact that I rarely see smokers anymore there still seems to be biased people who believe that it's a disgusting habit and should be banned. Worst is that they convince themselves that they are right because smoking poses real dangers.

Yes, I agree but smoking hardly turns you into a vegetable and before we get off hand here we should probably check the actual percentage of smokers that develop cancer. Not saying that lung cancer its not mostly caused by smoking but there's probably a certain amount you have to smoke before it happens. Nonetheless all your points are easily applicable to obesity, I would even dare say that's a greater danger than smoking but since majority rules... @Hurlshot: Aside from your right to your personal opinions(which I respect), I'd just like to say that its sad that smokers have hide and sneak just do something that's still legal.