Diogo Ribeiro

1. By unofficial means of communication I mean communication that is based and takes place outside the confines of the virtual gameworld. To me the one, main difference that stands between the Germans' transmission of codes trough secret channels and the situation in EVE Online is that the second was dealt with in two different worlds, the real and virtual ones. In the Germans' case there was no kind of fallback, no secondary world where they could get an advantage, or plan one, nor where they could contemplate and operate reality from afar in some substantially different world. No German could log off reality, ask someone what would be the best strategy against his enemies or read a walktrough on how to beat them, then log in again and use that knowledge to succeed, or outright win the game. I think for both situations to be the same, or comparable, I reckon it would be necessary that there existed a second world, and that one of them allowed for the acquisition and use of information that was not subject to the same rules as the 'main' world. Secure channels may be acceptable, and perhaps even necessary, but I think they should be used strictly inside the virtual gameworld. This isn't a failproof method to prevent metagaming but it seems like a way to ensure that any communication, public or private, pertaining to the game remains in the game, not outside. PMs, whispering to a given player, or assembly points exclusively made for, and used by, alliance members come to mind. Without wanting to suggest a 1984esque situation, the logs of conversations in those three channels could be monitored for any metagaming activities that would be considered seriously damaging to the game and gamers; system admins could deal with those situations afterwards. 2. It was an intricate job, and I admire the level of commitment and hard work they went trough in regards to the game component; it would have been a long, arduous but brilliant campaign for able roleplayers to participate in. But this was also brought down by the apparent befriending of players in real life. Seems a clear case of meta and standard gaming that I don't particularly support. Interactions outside the game should not influence interactions inside the game. Not to this point at least. Meta garden-variety espionage. 3. Several players do, and I find myself divided but it's mostly a case by case basis. When one is part of the ranks of an alliance there are some assets one can gain access to. Extra citizens, money and information. These are part of the rules and are also a given between a group of players who willingly participate in an alliance. The information however, is a mixed bag. No doubt nothing would prevent someone from telling me someone else's fortification defense values, or army offense ratings for example, especially if they had encountered them in battle or spied them... But that is acceptable when done in the game. When you have people posting lists of their 'farms' (other players who are recurringly attacked and robbed of their resources multiple times) along with their status in some forum, this questions the use and morality of information. You already can access this info within the game trough your own work; is it really justified to expose enemy strenghts and weaknesses to others outside of the game, and let them be easilly obtainable with close to no effort on behalf of players? Personally I am not in favor of this. Well, the quick, obvious answer to your question is 'we ask them' but that doesn't always work. A player's motivations are what in turn defines a character's motivations. The problem as we seem to agree comes from guessing these motivations and expect the rest of the gameworld and its virtual inhabitants play along with them. Admitedly I have no ideas that would solve this problem. At first glance the best step forward in achieving this would be to have all the players consciously abide to a code of conduct - not all too dissimilar from the codes of conduct I've abided to in distant P&P sessions - that would have all players agree to roleplay and to do as little metagaming as possible (the cases of enforced roleplaying I've seen in some Neverwinter Nights servers springs to mind), but this is too optimistic and can't account for all possible permutations where gaming and metagaming intertwine. For the most part it seems we're stuck with dealing with these situations and behaviours as it's seemingly impossible to fully police these activities at this moment.

After I manage to get my computer game-friendly again I will want to buy San Andreas and Spore. Neverwinter Nights 2 is also a must but only because I have commited to develop a module for it. All else in my list are mainly oldies or bargain bin titles.

That's only because the boredom makes it feel longer.

Yes. No. I suck. R00fles! Seriously though, I think anyone could have written the kind of rant I wrote. I don't find it is particularly insightful or intelligent; it's raising more questions than giving answers, though that may be important as well. I'm more interested in other people's opinions than my own to be honest.

Lego Star Wars seems like a satisfying action game, with no great pretenses. The use of the Star Wars franchise and the ocasional humor found in the interaction with Lego-based environments and characters seems tp make up for a fun ride. Now, if only I had the time and money...

There never really is a way, wheter these situations take place in a real or virtual environment. I think this is one of the main problems with the concept of role-playing, more specifically with keeping in character, when it comes to computer RPGs. It's hard for gamers to convince others they're roleplaying a space pirate or similar archetypes when their actions can be easilly deemed as being against the game or metagaming. To me this situation in EVE Online is a great example of a group of gamers roleplaying their characters in the virtual gameworld. From their motivations, to their tactics, to the whole Ubiqua Seraph situation - all of it just feels like they are dedicated gamers and can deal with this kind of things. While it was no doubt disastrous for players on the receiving end of the well coordinated attack, would there be as much complaints if this act by the Guiding Hand Social Club was instead played out by NPCs in an add-on developed by EVE's developers? Would it be considered cheating or despicable then? It feels like a contradiction - it's a game genre that perhaps allows for the most organic changes made by players, but most gamers tend to frown on such changes. They want to activelly change the gameworld but are afraid of what those changes may mean to them. The whole problem is that unofficial means of communication (such as forum messaging, private chats or channels, emails) and unwritten game rules allow for this kind of situation to rise. As an example, when I have the time I play a certain MMORPG. No point in naming it, though it's basically centered around building our own empires, mine resources and train out armies to eventually become king cheese. One of the things several players do is set up personal forums for alliances. In those forums players exchange information about other players' soldiers and spy offense and defense, their gold per turn, miners, wheter these players belong to the alliance or not. This is metagaming, insofar as sharing information about users who are not part of the alliance (and therefore never consented to having their stats displayed) and about users whose offense and defense is too high for certain users to fight against. So basically I can log in a given alliance forum, be nice, scoop up information then find myself using it for personal gains, or for alliance coordinated attacks. I may even build a spy network to infiltrate and undermine a fellow alliance member's fortification and armies based on information he gives me (though I'd have to be careful not to be exposed). I assume a scenario where I actually sell information about other players' status would also be possible ("sell" in terms of ingame monetary resources, not real life currency). I am not aware if such things are done but I wouldn't be surprised. That would have certainly explained all the spy attacks I received after exposing my statistics to fellow alliance members; someone could be playing double agent. The thing is, these situations are considered to be morally reprehensible simply because they are being done outside the field of the game. Nothing prevents players from establishing alliances and communicate between themselves and set up attacks or somesuch; but all else can be dubbed metagaming. But just where does it begin and where does it end? How do we let everyone know that player A is a metagamer and player B is roleplaying a double agent? Perhaps more importantly, how do we make every other player understand and play along with the differences, to make them sacrifice themselves for a given idea of roleplaying and of virtual co-existence? It seems to me that the more one tries to put the RPG back into MMORPG the more hassle one finds.

The game caps at level 50; however you get a total of 64 character points to spend. There's also a quest that involves the gods of Arcanum and a major blessing to the main character, but I think you should try it out some time later. If you feel like cheating there is a hack made for the game which bumps the level cap to level 127. If you're interested, click me.

ZOMG rate me!

While Arcanum's skill points penalizes players for spreading their points too thinly I consider it a plus as it incentivates replayability, though its not without fault for being perhaps too penalizing. It could be argued that the penalty is necessary to maintain some balance while simultaneously enforcing the dicothomy between magic and technology. With more skill points available to the player I suspect the system would eventually allow for characters to become equally proficient in both technology and magic, and any penalties between using both might have been sufficiently mitigated to put to waste the whole idea of opposing forces. I think a total of 64 skill points seems like a well rounded number but it depends on what a player is after. I'd be lying if I said I never felt like one or other character of mine felt incomplete and just a couple of points away from being what I had planned; but most of the time the amount of points fit like a glove. However I don't think Fallout was necessarily better because I found one of the problems with both Fallout games, particularly with the sequel because of the higher level range possible to attain, was that character diversity was skewed because there were too many chances to make a jack of all trades that wasn't harmed because of spreading points too thinly. This was mostly due to being able to level up more intensively than in the prequel as the time limit wasn't as severe, and because of a handfull of elements that could permanently bolster character stats (skill books, operations, special chips, trainers).

Quite. I find it terrible that she claimed the people around her supported that change in her and say she's great the way she is now.

The Darque is correct.

I am not aware of any mod, though if there is one in the making the most likely source for it to be announced would be at the Planet Vampire forums. Still, there's a pretty good FAQ written by Offkorn giving a step by step way to activate them. Fallout's Traits also come to mind. Nietzsche once said "That which does not kill me makes me stronger", and he may have been referring to you. All your life you have been making mistakes, but you always seem to come out better afterwards. In other words, you critically fail more than normal but you have a 10% experience point bonus. I used the Escaped Lunatic background for my serial killer and the Frankenstein Monster background for some other character I played back then.

I'm not sure of the necessary tech ranks as it's been a while since I've played it, but if my mind isn't totally fubar, I'd say you need a Novice rank in the Explosives tech tree. Though I'd have to second Steve's statement regarding bullet manufacturing. For the most part you can find bullets around and they will become a mere pitance later into the game. Still it's a nice schematic to learn from a roleplaying perspective so grab it and use it - just remember that you will find a hard time finding the components and sometimes it will be cheaper to buy bullets than to buy the components to make them. EDIT: I think it's actually easier to make Fuel than Bullets (so all those with a knack for playing heat-based weaponry-wielding characters will have an easier time with that choice of ammo).

Great find, kirottu. They got the scoop!

If you remove the arcade and quarter theft bits, that reminds me a lot of my former trippy LSD days. It's pretty bad that we get to see another of Saywer's project cancelled, or at least a version of the project. Hopefully he'll have better luck with his projects at Obsidian.

Bioshock is a spiritual successor, not a sequel.

Still, all that would be put to waste if the majority of console RPGs doesn't rise up from the 'lets save the world and play some card game while we're at it' and similar attitudes.

Taking out the narrative which has arguable merits, System Shock 2 already did pretty much the same Deus Ex did.

Whatever good writing was found in Deus Ex, it doesn't strike me as innovative.

Spotted at Gamespot: Another adventure game when the genre was decried dead by several naysayers. Who would've thunk it. Grab the demo here.

Spotted at Gamespot: Promises aside, it looks sharp. I'm a sucker for mechs, though we'll see how it goes. You can download the demo here.

I think spells in Oblivion are now cast even when players have weapons equipped, as opposed to needing to switch between an equipped weapon and free hands.

You don't just replace a text-based hyperlink system with speech. Something has to propel the speech to happen, unless they are suggesting everyone just talks without the player activating dialogue. Last I heard from a Bethesda developer, it was hinted that an approach to dialogue trees was being pursued. 'Excitingly emergent gaming experience'? That's not what emergent gaming is, and if they're excited about a feature that's been used time and again... Whoa. Another article with a whole lot of gushing from gaming 'journalists'.

If it doesn't, it should. Or did you white out the word in all the books you keep in your house?

You played a mod of a chapter in a series which is no longer being continued or supported by its owners? What is the world coming to? Oh, and hypocrite >_>