Pidesco

Actually after Enoch made his other earlier CIV post I installed the game and BTS almost immediately. I then suffered a bout of extreme guilt and responsibility, and uninstalled it about two minutes after starting it up. Maybe I'm getting old.

Must shake urge to install CIV....

Yes, it's quite awesome. It's not very forgiving, tough.

Well, yes but Deus Ex had a bunch of complex game systems, like an inventory, or RPG stats, that stopped players from picking it up and playing right out of the box. NOLF1, on the other hand, while it had more depth than your garden variety FPS, could be played like your average run and gun FPS. In fact, a guy I knew did just that, playing NOLF1 from start to finish as if it was Doom.

What danger?

I used stealth too. But my point is that NOLF gave you gameplay options without skimping out on the action. On the other hand HL gave you action and not much else. I'm sure that if it wasn't for the unusual setting, writing and plot (by FPS standards), NOLF would have been much more popular than HL. But, of course, without those it would've also lost much of its charm.

I've always felt like Anachronox was a satire of JRPGs.

The AIs in NOLF1 ran away, took cover, tried to flank you and called for help. It was awesome for its time and not many games since have improved upon it.

Anachronox.

I never really understood why Quake 1 is never talked about these days. The engine was such a huge leap from everything that came before, and it made an incredible difference in gameplay. Rocket jump FTW!

Considering that they are quite far apart (in the warped time of video game releases) and being quite different games, is that really a fair comparison? They're both FPSes, only NOLF gave you more gameplay options. And just the fighting in itself is much better than in HL 1 and 2. Why wouldn't it be a fair comparison? I don't think HL1 and NOLF are the same type of game. HL1 was all about survival, science, and a weird alien invasion. The atmosphere was completely different, the story was completely different, and the theme was completely different. The shooter aspect was the only tie, and on that HL1 beats NOLF. NOLF had great shooter elements and lots of innovations HL1 didn't have, but in terms of pure FPS style, HL1 took the cake, IMHO. And HL1 beats the socks off HL2 - that game was just more of the same, but somehow also less of the good same. My list of all-time favourite FPS's so far would be: Giants: Citizen Kabuto System Shock 2 Deus Ex 1 No One Lives Forever 1 Half-Life 1 NOLF1 had better AI, had location based damage, and better level design than HL1. With this in mind, how can you say that the combat in HL1 was better than in NOLF? Also, my list: No One Lives Forever 1/2 System Shock 2 Deus Ex Thief AvP Quake 1 multiplayer

Trailer Edit: Now it's the right trailer.

Other than the physics, and the storyline not being told through cutscenes, I don't see what HL2 had to offer that topped NOLF1 or 2.

Considering that they are quite far apart (in the warped time of video game releases) and being quite different games, is that really a fair comparison? They're both FPSes, only NOLF gave you more gameplay options. And just the fighting in itself is much better than in HL 1 and 2. Why wouldn't it be a fair comparison?

There's a trailer somewhere showing off the style of Anachronox's cutscenes and humour.

That's if you buy a new computer altogether. If you keep upgrading your existing computer instead of buying a new one, getting Vista seems like a waste of a lot of money.

Regarding openness, I felt that NOLF2 was a bit more open than NOLF1. The difference was minimal, though. As for the choice of mission weapons Ab, it did annoy me as well that it disappeared.out stealth and shooting, like everything else it's affected by the value of your 'RPG' stats, which didn't exist in NOLF1. Personally, I thought that the game lost a bit with the introduction of the RPG system. First there was the problem you've mentioned, and second it made intelligence gathering about point collecting which, to me, didn't fit the game at all. I still finished the ninja level stealthily, though. Bottom line is I didn't like it at much as NOLF1. However, it still has great characters, great set pieces, it's still very funny, and it still catches the sixties spy thing. Also, I really loved the engine at the time, I loved Cate's new design, and it has a few things that added to the NOLF1 experience like the kicking over objects thing, or the possibility of unscrewing light bulbs. And it's still better than Half Life.

Whether one person's happiness is worth 16 dead people, I guess. It's all about quantifying good and evil.

Neither does trying to say that actions are black and white - which is what you are doing if you deny that every action has a positive and negative element. Yes, every action has a positive and negative element, sure. But an action which has a significantly greater positive element is good, and an action which has a significantly greater negative element is evil. If an action, say, makes me happy, but causes the wanton killing of sixteen people, then it's obviously evil. What if all those 16 people don't have any family nor friends, and are suicidal? Wouldn't it be a good deed, then?

Well, first you need to make a few judgments on the comparative values of freedom, pleasure, lack of pain, life and social inclusion. Then you estimate/observe the total amount of freedom, pleasure, lack of pain and social inclusion which were taken away by one system and compare it to how much was taken away by another. Bam. Quantified suffering. The way you know that (early) labor unions were doing good when they helped workers gain better wages, working condition and shorter hours. Unless you tell me objectively what are the comparative values of all those things, you've got nothing. Alright then, here you go.

Well, first you need to make a few judgments on the comparative values of freedom, pleasure, lack of pain, life and social inclusion. Then you estimate/observe the total amount of freedom, pleasure, lack of pain and social inclusion which were taken away by one system and compare it to how much was taken away by another. Bam. Quantified suffering. The way you know that (early) labor unions were doing good when they helped workers gain better wages, working condition and shorter hours. Unless you tell me objectively what are the comparative values of all those things, you've got nothing.

The Beatles - Savoy Truffle

How the hell do you quantify suffering?

I think there are no morals beyond the personal sphere. Morality is always an individual issue.

Who the hell was shooting?