Pidesco

I have played both. I finished Doom, even. They are not completely different experiences. Completely different experiences would be, say, Myst and Civilization. Other than for nostalgia's sake, I'll probably never play Doom again.

How is it different?

What makes you disagree, exactly?

I'm not saying games replace one another. I'm saying that, for certain games you have options. In fact not only do you have options but you have better options. For other games, there are no options. If you want to play a game like Thief, today, Thief is still, literally, your only option.

It's not exactly the same, it's better. It's Doom with better controls, better graphics, better sound, better enemies and better weapons

The core gameplay of Painkiller or even Half Life is still the same as Doom's. MotB hasn't replaced Torment, because it's a fairly different game, with different gameplay focus and design, and a different plot. It's not better, it's different.

It's still possible to play Doom and enjoy it nowadays, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that it has literally been improved upon in all areas by newer first person shooters. Fallout or Torment or Deus Ex or System Shock or Thief, on the other hand, are still as good as it gets in certain well defined respects.

I'd imagine the difference is that there are modern equivalents of Command and Conquer to play nowadays, while the same is not true for Fallout.

Moved to the correct forum.

It's a result of you appearing meek, open, non threatening, and genuinely interested. This may sound like a thinly veiled insult, but isn't. I'm essentially the same way. Most people are self involved, deaf bottom feeders, who literally have no interests whatsoever, beyond themselves. Hence, there's a lot of people with interesting things to say, who have no one to tell them to.

Wasn't Tiberium Sun the worst of Westwood's RTSes?

I wish my facial hair was that awesome.

HAHAHAHA.

Continue your Mass Effect 2 discussions, here.

Thread huge enough. Closed.

Quake 2 isn't better than the first one, either.

They are developing it in the sense that they are committing resources to its production.

Actually, I enjoyed the work a lot, so that's not the problem. Although, obviously, it's better to do the subtitling with a show you like than with one you don't. I'll stop derailing the thread, now.

I watched quite a few episodes (first or second season, I guess) of this professionally, doing subtitling, and watching it frame by frame really allowed me to see how awfully done the script and characters were.

It seems to me that the problem with the "torture doesn't work" argument is that it assumes that torture is just a simple hurt and terrorize them until they talk. However, I'd be very surprised if it wasn't a lot more complex, developed and subtle than movie torture. Stockholm syndrome comes to mind, for example.

Actually, I wasn't being sarcastic, even if everyone thought I was. It's like demanding the army not to kill anyone. It's missing the point.

How does an intelligence service work if it can't torture people once in a while?

If you want people to stop smoking tobacco, just make marijuana legal at the same time you make tobacco illegal.