Azarkon

What you mean is, the Torment will never end :D

It occurs to me that Planescape: Torment is very much like its hero, the Nameless One, in that every few months we have a reincarnation of the thread praising it as the greatest game ever made. And of course, being amnesiac, the thread is sure to point out and reiterate all the arguments that have been made for and against the game since its inception. Again. Alas, I fear that PS:T will never discover True Death, but must wander the forums for all eternity, living the lives of countless fanboys. :D

Over-rated: The Past Under-rated: The Present Both: The Future

Except, of course, that the terrorists believe that they are acting under conditions of war, that they are fighting for a legitimate state, that in fact, they are as much of a political authority as there will ever be in that area. It really doesn't matter if the rest of the world recognizes them or not. The British didn't recognize the US as a state, but did that stop us from starting or fighting the War of Independence? A criminal either has no political objectives, or he does but is small and alone enough that he and his cohorts can be ostracized and condemned. A colony of criminals, however, operates by its own rules, and becomes, if it can resist outside attempts of control, a state. The terrorists do not operate alone; they operate through their own organizations and are a political faction, albeit extremist and violent. They also have support from portions of the populace. In this respect, I must abide by the age-old observation that might is often right, in that the only real difference between a criminal with a political objective (ie an anarchist) and a political faction that eventually gains sovereign power is that one failed while the other succeeded. If the terrorists fail, if they are ever wiped off the map and their deeds turned into anti-terror propaganda, then they will be remembered, I think, as criminals. But if they succeed in driving out the US in Iraq and Israel in the Middle-East, then I can't help but fear that they will become something different altogether. Maybe even heroes.

Race was invented by the European imperials. Before that, there was culture, religion, language, sex, and clan. If we were all homogeneous, personal values would still be enough to fight over. That is only if you don't already believe the commonly held idea that wars happen for economic reasons. After all, one can simply say that the source of all wars is a competition for limited resources, things like land, oil, spice, and believers.

The slaughtering of civilians is a military strategy employed by both guerilla fighters (who we call terrorists) and nations (under the guise of necessity) to weaken the opposite side's resolve, sense of security, and ability to continue waging warfare. It is quite effective, and often results in the accomplishment of key objectives. As such, it is used. There is really nothing more to it. The age of honor and mercy in war died with chivalry. Modern war is all-encompassing, in which the propaganda of righteousness and moral superiority is as much a weapon for the superpowers as it is an outdated, irrelevant principle for those who fight without the benefit of technological, military, political, and economic dominance. Why does the US not target civilians? Because killing civilians does not help in the larger sense of our political and military strategy. Sure, it might save a few lives if the marines shot every Iraqi they came across, but it'd also discredit the US's entire mission in Iraq and cause an outrage at home. Hence, we play the part of the good guys. But come a day when the US is itself fighting for national survival, such as in an all-encompassing war with another superpower, recall my words here and see if the US does not target civilians. That is, if you outlive the nuclear holocaust. War is, in the end, indifferent to human morality. The philosophy of total war has always been to shoot first, and let the history apologists sort them out. If you don't like it, then oppose war, oppose murder, oppose violence and tyranny. But don't act the hypocrite by opposing it on one side and justifying it on another.

Voice chat is probably the future for all games set in modern day / near-future arenas. I can really see a smart designer taking advantage of this and coming up with a game setting where a bunch of online gamers chatting to each other would add to the experience rather than detract from it. Voice changer is somewhat useful for games set in fantasy worlds, but there's just no such thing as immersion when people are speaking real world slangs through high elf voices. Hilarious, yes, but immersive? No. The real problem here is that no RP happens as is, and voices will only, I'm afraid, make the experience even more artificial.

I have no doubt that the person at the receiving end was hurt both emotionally and in-game. But ultimately, answer me this: are you ever truly roleplaying a character, if you cannot be emotionally hurt by the experiences of said character? That is the great paradox of roleplaying. When asked about the future of RPGs, everyone clamors for more immersion, more emotional depth, more "caring" about the characters; and yet how can that be, if these games remain "games"? How can you ever treat an act or an event with emotional intensity, if you were not yourself convinced through the suspension of disbelief? And thus in pursuit of escalating immersion there must be a point where we cease to believe in the fictionality of our characters and instead must be led to believe that they were real. That, as sci-fi authors have predicted for decades, is the grand finale of immersive entertainment. And yet, we waver before the plunge, before the complete immersive experience, because somehow it's just not right. Somehow we don't want the real deal, the true holographic reality of the Matrix and its dozens of incarnations. Somehow, there's a point where it becomes too real. Isn't that funny?

So emotions are to blame? *assumes a gun-kata stance* We can deal with that

Eldar: Eh, I'm not sure the Age of Imperialism is something to be praised, in the UK's case And as for the US, well, the Native Americans might have something to say about that, and let's not forget the slaves. I get what you're saying though: the modern US could be so much worse than it is compared to other countries, but that, I think, has more to do with the fact that the US had gotten past that brutal stage of national history and is now free to be a tad more... Shall we say, benevolent.

Yet the society we have built is hardly one that ensures our survival or our needs. The threat of nuclear war and total annihilation is a far cry from an ideal society for any organism attempting to carve out its existence amidst uncaring nature, don't you think? Selfishness is one thing that we have learned to compromise through the theory of enlightened self-centrism. We have come to learn that if society was a case of every man for himself, then the result would be anarchy and no one would be happy. Therefore we form the contracts you so speak of - yes, to benefit ourselves - but in a much more efficient and secure way. This is how cities and nations arise. How is, then, the end of war - that time bomb ticking above our heads - any less a case of enlightened self-centrism? Clearly no one wants to die, so in disarming all of humanity, we would have come closer to ensuring our continued survival and the meeting of our selfish needs. Similarly, though resources are limited, enlightend self-centrism would dictate that a firm sense of societal responsibility and birth control would in the end benefit us more than allowing nature to curb humanity through war and disease. If cave men could learn to form thriving civilizations - who were previously competitors for the same resources, no less - to ensure greater long-term security and survival, then modern man can learn to form a united world and to end the threat of apocalyptic war. If we cannot, if we destroy ourselves, then I daresay that it's more a problem with our choices than our natural instincts. Human nature? Pffft. More like excuses.

Human nature is one of those terms that's been thrown around so much that it's lost all meaning. So human nature is desire for power? Then... Why aren't we all fighting each other for power? Why are most people content to live their lives in peace and quiet, instead of perpetually wrestling the reins of power from the hands of those who possess it? Maybe what you mean is that *some* people desire power, but that ain't human nature if it only applies to some. And perhaps if we understood the underlying sociological and psychological reason why those few are willing to go such long distances to achieve power at the expense of others, then maybe we can fix it. Who knows?

There is something to be said for idealists who believe that everything is impractical except the status quo. Sometimes we call that branch of idealism realism, but how real is it, I wonder, if realists had existed since the dawn of human history? After all, they couldn't have been all right, or we'd still be living in caves and clubbing the opposite sex for our carnal pleasures :D

Alright, how's this? Stop talking in the abstract and stop generalizing about what games should be about. All that comes down to most of the times is an argument over semantics and definitions, which ends up being an argument over linguistic systems of classification that become deprived of relevance to game development and criticism, and thus things of consequence to this board.

Alright. Gameplay is what you do in a game. Not good enough?

The two definitions are interrelated, methinks. :cool:

Define gameplay.

Just another opportunistic leverage-seeking lawyer looking to cash in on the latest controversial sensation. Does the guy really care about the subject? Probably not. In fact, some of the most obsessive moralists in history have been revealed to be complete hypocrites.

It was the hax0rz.

Realistic and accurate depth of field approaches do exist: http://features.cgsociety.org/story.php?story_id=2917 However, they're not fast enough for games. There have been recent developments in this area, however, with the possibility of a major breakthrough: http://www.ati.com/developer/shaderx/Shade...dSimulation.pdf http://csdl2.computer.org/persagen/DLAbsTo....1109/38.486676 True depth of field in games is not far off, and it is definitely in development. One problem with using DoF though is that what the eye sees as DoF in real life might not match what the computer generates as DoF in a virtual environment. This could lead to the player to notice the fake DoF and be less immersed than if DoF did not exist. This isn't so much a problem in cinematography as it is in interactive worlds because cinematography always allows you to adjust the shot until it's just right and what you want, and as with photos, it's not meant to be first person. But imagine your eyes focusing on the screen in a first person game: true DoF isn't just a simulated blurring in reality, and your eyes CAN adjust its focus, so if I put a coke bottle in front of you with DoF blurring the background, it'll be as if your eyes were focusing on the bottle. But now try adjusting your eyes to focus on the background - that isn't possible on a computer but is in rea life, and may therefore result in a less realistic environment. So in conclusion, we're getting there, but there are giant hurdles to overcome.

I hope they develop it. Personally, I welcome the possibility of full-sensory virtual worlds in our lifetimes. Damn those sci-fi novels have got me excited as to the prospects. And the dangers.

I remember being fairly addicted to DBZ when I was a bit older than that age. The psychological appeal of manly warriors with ever escalating powers can do strange things to attract the mind of a boy in that growing stage of pre-pubescence. Much as sci-fi and fantasy provided the avenues for more adolescent excursions of self-definition and empowerment, ending with science/philosophy/literature becoming the centerpiece of a supposedly mature intellect. Such are the life cycles of fandom, I suppose.

That's fine, but just scanning that list speaks volumes about the variety offered in Western serial comics (ie graphic novels, not news panel shorts). Yeah, I know some artists - many European - are starting to do new things with comics, but they're still few and far in-between compared to Japanese artists unless you consider webcomics. Ridiculous. If you had made this argument with respect to anime, I *might* almost agree with you, but manga? Ridiculous. Explore your boundaries, sir, and I'll offer a start: http://www.manganews.net/ From what I've seen, Western Comics have finally started growing again, in no small part due to the advent of web comics and the intellectual outlet it has given young graphic novelists, who for many years had the choice of doing either super heroes or... Super heroes. Finally we're moving on beyond the dual paradigm of super hero graphics novel and sunday paper comedy shorts, and within reason, I can certainly see Western Comics becoming the equivalent of Manga in the coming years. As for surpassing, that'll depend on the artistic environment. Japan has a very good reception to Manga artists (though not so good anime artists, as you'll find) and many organizations actively promote their work. The West, with regards to Hollywood, also has potential with the latest adaptation of comic books into movies. But it remains to be seen which one is more at ease with the idea of artist innovation, which is elemental to the growth of any medium.

All of the HP books were "darker" than what you'd expect from stereotypical children's literature in terms of the events. All of them carried that strain of fear of death and loss inherent in older fairy tales before they were Disney-ized. The big difference between HP 1 and HP 6, however, is the details and attitudes with respect to what's happening. For instance, in HP 1 Dumbledore was a wise old wizard who seemed omniscient, omnipotent, and certainly invincible. He was more of a symbol there than a man, and so was Voldemort. In HP 6, Dumbledore is still a wise old wizard, but he's no longer omniscient (unless JKR pulls a fast one again), no longer omnipotent, and apparently no longer invincible. Instead, he's fraught with psychological and physical weakness. So is Voldemort, who is less a symbol of evil as he is the caricature of an obessive and disturbed serial killer. The differences that come over Harry are even more poignant. And if you look at the increasing degree of political awareness and inter-personal intrigue, you'll see exactly what I mean. The books have been becoming more *real* with each passing novel. This is intentional, and therein lies the idea that they're getting "darker." Through increasing the details that allow for realism, JKR is making the "magical" HP books into something more akin to fiction and horror. That in itself is frightening, though I reckon that it's exactly what she *wanted* to do. It may come into question, however, whether JKR is prepared to really enter into the realm of adult fiction, and whether her writing style, as well as her marketers, are capable of making that transition that she so needs to make the HP series a "coming of age" tale in both style and content.

Probably true, but you never know... Ideas have a way of leaking from designer to designer. I do know, though, that Gaider didn't join the team until later, so the first game's chars weren't his, though he's come to define the idea of the Bioware NPC.