213374U

Yeah dude. Somebody has to compensate for the rampant fanboyism. Neither extreme is good.

And I can't express with words how happy I am that it's that way.

LMFAO

Morrowind has an awesome magic system. A trillian times better than Forgotten Realms games magic systems. You can be far more creative with it. There are two flight scrolls at the begining of the game if you found them. I cast a walking on water spell and seconds before it ran out, I cast one of the flight spells and and aimed for water so didn't die on landing. It was fun. I've done so many other crazy things with the magic system in morrowind. It's great when you get to the point of creating your own spells. Yeah. You can do Fire, Lightning, Cold, and Poison spells, and that's about it. Big deal. Oh, yes, you can fly, too. But it doesn't really matter because any spell which is not totally crappy will drain your mana reserve in one shot. Against the more powerful demons you won't do jack with magic unless you are a potion spammer. Yes, 'a trillion times better than FR games magic systems' indeed.

Um, OK. Still, I don't think this is the same discussion the thread was about, so I'm dropping it off here. If you feel like discussing it further, open up a topic elsewhere and I'll be happy to troll you there as much as you want.

Yet comparing the right to own a gun to freedom of speech is a bit out of the line. The statement loses its validity and strength if you change that part. It wasn't Voltaire's intention to claim that any kind of personal liberty is worth dying for. Now it's you who's twisting logic. Not mine, but Voltaire's. Freedom of speech is universally regarded as a basic human right. On the other hand, the right to own a gun is a relic from the past and it's nowhere near a fundamental right. Despite personal preference, facts and logic, you are still upholding an outdated principle. The paradox here is that you're doing it basing your reasons in wrong premises. It's anachronic, really.

Yet you protect others' right to own guns, despite your personal preferences and common sense, and compare it to Voltaire's statement about freedom of speech. Can't you see the paradox yet? Yep, I'm trolling alright. Didn't you read my sig? ) Now, I thought you meant that freedom is more important that safety, but it seems I was wrong. Since that's not the case, I can't quite grasp your point when you say that democracy and freedom often clash. I mean, that's a known dilemma and possibly one of the most serious flaws of democracy, but it doesn't really illustrate your position or furthers the discussion in any way.

The key words there being 'by your logic'. I just pointed the flaw in your logic by extending it to absurd limits. I'm no anarchist, mind you. Yep, it's hard to tell where lies the line, but if I have to choose between certain freedoms and collective safety, I'll usually go for safety. You are ultimately protecting the right to murder others, regardless of the circumstances. Guns serve no other purpose than death. The paradox here is that by accepting a State in which your rights are protected, it's no longer your place to 'enforce' them. The State makes sure there will be others to do it for you (theoretically at least). If you are referring to Voltaire, I very much doubt he would be happy with a Constitution that allows plain citizens to own assault rifles. Honestly, I don't see how owning a gun makes you feel any more 'free', but then again, I don't possess any guns myself. In case you are wondering, I'm not your typical yellow-bellied euro-thrash pacifist slug. In fact I'm studying to take the entrance exams for the military academies myself. But that doesn't mean I like the idea of guns being sold at gas stations. Really, I didn't want to turn this into an argument about this, and I suggest we drop it off here before it escalates out of control. This was a fine thread and I would hate to see it derailed too much.

OK. But still there are limits as to what you can get, even in the US. You can't get a fuel-air explosive, for example, and AFAIK you can't walk into the pharmacy and get you some crack. I'm not going to turn this into a discussion about your right to own guns, but there's a direct relation between the number of guns on the streets and the number of violent deaths. It's just another example of why certain products should be restricted or banned altogether. Uh, did I say something of the sort? Because it certainly isn't that way.

I like WW's magic system quite a lot, even though it can be a bit cheesy at times. However I don't think it would be easy to implement in a game. Not because of all the paradox/backlash stuff, but because in that system, the limit is your imagination.

Um, right. Following that rule, you should be able to acquire hard drugs and military-grade weaponry at the local Wal-Mart.

Eh? What kind of question is that? I think it would be more fair a question if you compared SA to Super Mario Bros. Diablo just isn't RPG enough.

In fact the idea behind the magic system was brilliant. It was the only mana-driven magic system that could have worked, that I know of. The implementation was poor, though.

Another self-righteous post alright. Making such an absolute claim requires that either you are an authority in the matter, or that you provide some proof. You meet none of the requirements, so your point is moot. But that's not the only fact you got wrong in your post. Do some research, and you will see that most crimes are committed without previous planification. Usually people go berserk for some reason and someone dies. People lose control and their emotions override their rational safeguards and moral concerns. Planned, cold blood murders are in fact a minority, if only because most sane people can't do that unless they have killed before. Yeah, fine. But who is going to protect you?

Um. Your personal experiences make you different. It is a fact that people don't all react the same way to certain stimuli. That is why psychological studies are made with groups of individuals and not with a single, 'generic', unremarkable individual. Not everyone has the same force of will, and not everyone's emotional responses are of the same intensity. Again, quit extending your personal circumstances to the rest of the world, it doesn't make for a solid argument. And about the dog... no. 'Better' is too random a concept. No, I'm no better than a dog. More complex, sure. More evolved, sure. But a dog and I are both animals. The only difference is that I have some restraints upon my instincts due to my sentience, but those restraints can only do so much. That, and the fact I wear clothes. As I said, the movie is fiction. I'm pretty sure the kind of conditioning seen in the movie is not possible. Given that fact, Kubrick could do anything he wanted with it, because it's something he had created. The details are beside the point however. What wasn't fiction in the movie was that the guy's behavior was restricted by his subconcious, and that subconcious had been tampered with somehow. I just used the movie as an example because it's extreme in that respect, and it made for a good example.

Yep. Add to that a totally f*cked up magic system and you get the kind of game that makes me cringe just to think of replaying it. Yet for some reason, I enjoyed the Bloodmoon expansion. Perhaps it hat something to do with a more compelling story and the fact that I didn't need to level up my abilities.

Funny how the first paragraph is exactly what I have been saying since page 1. Congratulations on reaching the same conclusion I did. It would have been easier to try and read my posts, though. The same goes for the second paragraph. If you read my posts you will see that I accept that this will not be a problem in 2 or 5 years, I'm aiming at a larger scope here, 20 years at least. And there is still another issue you disregard. Mind is not only your rational 'concious' self, but also your subconcious. Your subconcious knows nothing of 'fiction' or 'reality' and doesn't attend to reason or logic. Still, your instinctive and emotional responses depend greatly on that subconcious, and there is a chance that extremely realistic fictional violence may mess up with it. It has nothing to do with intelligence. Read above. Have you watched 'A clockwork orange'? In case you haven't I'll tell you that in that movie some psycho is conditioned to have involuntary responses to certain stimuli. Namely, he was nauseated by the sole thought of violence, even verbal violence. Still, the guy rationally loved violence and hated himself for becoming such a wuss. Granted, the movie is just fiction, but it serves to illustrate my point on how reason, intelligence or willpower aren't enough to overcome the tricks your mind plays on you. No. People don't choose how they react. Even though you seem to think it would be cool, people are not logical machines. What nonsense is that? I for one don't get a big red light when an emotional response is triggered, often it's some time before I rationalize a movie or whatever has made me sad or cheerful. Despite all your BS about how you place mind over matter and control your natural emotions, I refuse to believe you have suppressed your emotions. Often the utter lack of emotions is the symptom of a sociopath. You don't look like that to me, but then again, I'm no psychiatrist. Oh, and other thing. Please refrain from derailing every thread you participate in into a conversation about you. If you can't control that urge, perhaps it's time you got professional help. The rest of the world are not clones of yourself and therefore any logic reasoning based on 'you' and then applied to the rest of the world is false. That's a known fallacy and I could look up its name for you, but I don't have your willpower. GTA:SA isn't specially gory, and mind you, not that violent compared to other games, either. But again, for the Nth time, the present state of realism and violence in games is not what's being debated here, but the tendency of games to be more and more violent. The question was, Is the Violence in Video game getting too much? and not Are games too violent nowadays? Really, I hope you were being sarcastic.

You are avoiding my argument altogether. I didn't say people can't play evil in games. I said some are uncomfortable with it. Sure, they would probably be able to do it if they had to, but the feeling is still there. Even though it can be controlled, it can't be suppressed, it's the thing with emotions. You may be partially in control, but you can't 'delete' them. My point was that games trigger emotional responses. You argue that people might get over those responses through willpower but that's irrelevant. The fact is games affect people.

It doesn't have anything to do with being 'remarkable'. Every person is different, and hence their emotional responses will be different. It's not supposed to be an exercise of will, you know.

PC.

Yes Hades, I can do that, too. But that doesn't mean everyone can, and you know that. Don't reduce the whole world to yourself. If you have to be anal, at least find a good excuse to.

Um, forgive my asking but, where did you get your degree in psychology? Right now nobody knows that for sure because it's a rather new phenomenon. Sorry, but no amount of bold text is going to convince me of something that's wrong, or at the very least, unproven. I'm not as arrogant as you are, and I will not make such an absolute judgement about what the consequences of having ever increasingly violent and realistic games may be. But I'm still concerned. Again, that must be something you learnt when you were studying to get your degree in psychology. I really love it when people make random assumptions like that. It really puts the scientific method to shame. Perhaps you should read the whole thread. I know that at the present state of realism it's difficult to be influenced by games unless there's a mental health problem involved. But once games become as real as you can imagine, I'm not so sure. After all, what's the difference between real violence and 100% realistic video game violence? Your mind isn't as rational as you would like to think. Sorry, but we're still animals. So says the guy who compares Beethoven to John Carmack and claims to watch snuff movies. I was thinking of giving you a lecture about snuff movies but I don't really see the point. Still, I find it disturbing that you watch that kind of stuff and proclaim it openly. To each his own, I suppose. At least you're not a criminal.

Gromnir wins the day.

KotOR was released a long time ago. Now as far as KotOR 2 is concerned... "

I have, it took me a while but I learned control. After my first encounter with love I figured I needed to control such reactions in order not to make the same mistakes. I think I have been successful over the last 13 years. My, aren't you the nihilistic one? Anyway, that is a very, very sad thing to say. Exactly, what are your goals in life? And you do? Nope. That's why I don't do random assumptions about it. I base my opinions in what I've read from people who have experienced it first-hand, and people with a slight idea on how the human mind works. Emotional in real life. I dont care if a mdl gets blown to bits on my screen. Neither do I. Unfortunately, your mind likes to play tricks on you. A lot of people are uncomfortable with playing the bad guy in RPGs. That's an emotional response, which they can't control even though they know it's not real. Now increase the realism tenfold, and you get my point. You don't know that. Somebody who has been exposed to extreme violence for a long time is very likely to react violently in a situation of extreme (or not so extreme) stress. It's not like people will go nuts overnight, it's more like people having trouble controlling their natural/dormant violent instincts. Another random assumption, I see. The fact that there will be more diversity in game themes doesn't counter the fact that there may be photo-realistic ultra-violent games, so your point is moot.