Humodour

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 NOLF had worse AI; the enemies were dumb, how can you say that? Do you mean their search/calm modes? In HL1 marines would even dodge grenades. Location based damage is nice, but at the end of the day it's really only gravy. It doesn't make or break combat. HL1 had way more awesome levels and more intricate level design than NOLF, IMHO. NOLF had some beautiful levels, and nice scenery, but the level design (in terms of combat and exploration) wasn't special. At the end of the day, though, none of these is a particularly good reason for why the combat was better. The simple answer is: HL1's combat was just more fun to play, whilst NOLF's was more varied and gave you more choices (which is certainly fun in its own way). All references to NOLF mean NOLF1. And yeah, AvP 2 was pretty fun.

Well, the game seems a fair bit more fun and interesting now that I've gotten off the Sunder; more intriguing plot and less linear combat. As usual the humour is excellent.

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

The most interesting question haven't been answered yet, is it fun? I know GDM has already sorta vouched for it but have you come to any conclusion? If you were okay with PS:T or KOTOR, I reckon it'd suit you, yeah. Here's an example of the humour Dogmeat was talking about... maybe it's funnier in context, I dunno. I got a pretty good laugh out of it though: Casically it's a section in the game that's closed off until you progress a bit in the quest. To close it off, instead of just arbitrarily not allowing you entry, they've done the following: Police tape across the entrance, a policeman standing in front of the tape. You talk to him he says "Some bloke is on fire around the corner. This area is closed off until he puts himself out". In the background you see a man on fire briefly run past screaming his head off. Will comment more thoroughly when I've played more of the game.

Nothing about Anachronox says "console RPG". To be honest Anachronox is fairly RPG lite. Few dialogue choice, little choice in character advancement (really all you can do is choose your party members), a pretty linear plot (however intricate). Well, so far anyway. Adventure game seems more of an appropriate title.

Well, I finally found a copy of Anachronox and started playing it. It's not what I expected! For some reason I was expecting an FPS RPG like Deus Ex. It's actually more like some weird mix between Fallout, KOTOR1 and Planescape: Torment. I don't know what to think about it yet, but it seems like it has potential. I think what's most noticeable right now is that in some ways its a bit linear (go from A to C, through B then back to B) but things in each hub/ward change as the plot advances, so I guess that's tolerable. Also the combat system is quirky. It's like a mix between PS:T, Fallout and connect four. It seems a tad boring so far, though - perhaps with more NPCs or higher levels more options and tactics will become available. Although the levelling system seems very linear as well - each NPC has a set class and you have no say in their levelling up. The plot seems sufficiently interesting and unique so far. The characters in the world are quirky and fun mostly. I guess in all I wish the game gave me more control, both in combat and in character advancement, So am I right in my assessment? Do things get better? I am only up to having left Anachronox for the first time.

Well, I finished NOLF1. It was a great game. I've started NOLF2, am up to the start of the Siberia area (snowmobile). NOLF2 doesn't seem as good. The stealth mechanics seem less balanced and the stealth pistol which was gold in NOLF1 is pretty useless in NOLF2 - even when I aim right at their heads at point blank range it somehow hits their limbs or body instead most of the time. Meh. Something about the game doesn't seem as cool; it seems more linear as well. You can't choose what weapons you take on a mission anymore, which seriously bums me. Does it get better? I guess I'm only at the start.

You'd be mostly correct. But you'd also be misleading. Why do people agree/disagree with an act? I think you'll find that the reasoning is startlingly uniform, which suggests something higher than human whim or selfishness.

Oh, the reference to Skynet was just to garner interest. The thread has very little to do with Skynet, really... well aside from the fact that Skynet was supposed to also be a neural net.

Azarkon, what makes you think China needs to be bigger? It seems to me that the basis of all your arguments in defence of China (and it's problems, like human rights), fall back to "it is necessary for China to become more powerful". Why does China need to become more powerful? It's not like it's more of a good thing; that argument might work for India, but China seems to be stagnating in unrest, lack of freedom, and general discontent. How are those qualities that should be expanded to other countries like Tibet or Taiwan?

But those acts are still not inherently evil, nor would they be if everyone on earth thought they were. I think you're becoming excessively philosophical. By which I mean debating beyond any useful purpose, even for the mental exercise. I say this because you are basically arguing that all thought and perception is arbitrary. While that argument is tenable it's as much consequence as a crepe paper space helmet. What does it mean? Nothing? Because in itself and by its own rationale the statement is also worthless. I was thinking much the same thing. Glad someone else noticed it.

[quote name='H

Giants: Citizen Kabuta was one of the most awesome games ever. It's right up there next to Deus Ex. I think it really pulled off the hybrid genre system.

Ha! That's one huge sweeping claim. Care to back it up? The politics of the West tends to be about saving and improving human lives in its respective country. But hey, just another benefit of democracy; people governing politics, not politics governing people. Only because China would butcher the Taiwanese if they tried to become independent. Even so, China has constantly expressed its dissatisfaction with the status quo, and as I said IIRC the current deadline for full integration of Taiwan peacefully is 2020. Thus either way China plans to do away with human lives to add yet another limb to its already grotesque figure.

****, that one is awesome Dan. I wonder what powers it. Centre of gravity algorithms perhaps? This robot is similarly awesome. Instead of being taught how to walk it learns by itself - with no human input. And when you break off one of its legs, it learns a new method of walking. Again, it relies on optimisation (competition and selection - similar to an evolutionary algorithm).

It is so much more important than human lives.

http://www.physorg.com/news125321581.html

Yes, if you live in the UK or Ireland. Otherwise it's blocked, as is the link to Mitchell & Webb (one of my favourite comedy duos) in your signature, you cold-hearted meanie! Use a proxy that places you in England.

They've also determined that they will invade Taiwan if it isn't fully part of China by 2020. They've amended their laws to legalise force (read: violence) in the subjugation of Taiwan, too. Their justification was some sort of claim of maintaining political stability. Which, funnily, is the same excuse they used in the Tainanman Square massacres.

I don't think selfishness is a good basis for evil at all. I think a human rights definition is a far better one. Human rights are much more absolute; they are a dichotomy or having them or not having them. I say any act which infringes on another's human rights moves down the gradient towards evil, whilst actively upholding another's human rights moves up the gradient towards good. As an absolute in this sense, it is possible to judge entire cultures. Some may bawk at that idea, but I think it is somewhat necessary in such a globalised world; a gold standard for morality.

I don't see why torture needs to be in the game.

[quote name='H

I was more saying I won't love by societies standards, but my own... It was also supposed to be funny. Oh. Sorry. I'm not making any qualitative judgement about society's standards of good/evil; just pointing out that whilst they are man-made, they're far less relative and intangible than some people in this thread are claiming.

[quote name='H

Oh wow. Actual proof against the existence of God: