Amentep

I've never played a fighting game where it was necessary to figure out exactly how many points of life a move took off. It was often required to know the priority of the attacks so as to be able to counter actions. That said, I've never played outside of local circles, so perhaps its more important to elite players looking to find an edge on one another? A couple of further thoughts - About baseball stats - they are derivative of real actions. The only numbers that really matter to the game are balls/strikes/outs/innings/scores which are inherent in the game and described to the viewer by the rules of the game (ie the system). While much pleasure can be had debating the benefits of a .200 batter with a high home run percentage vs a lifetime .333 batter with a low home run percentage, that's actually not what the game is about. And to counter the idea that 9 and 10 is naturally understood without in-game context and feedback, I ask - is the system additive (10 would be superior to 9), subtractive (9 would be superior to 10) or divisional (the superiority would be whether the numbers were being used as a numerator with the same denominator or denominator with the same numerator)? You can't say that 10 is always going to be better than 9; the system dictates that - the same as a well designed adjective scale. What the player needs is appropriate feedback about the well designed system - whether its numbers or adjectives. Yes, math will be at the back end of the activities, but what I'm not convinced is that its necessary for the player to understand the math excepting if the players main interest is in min/maxing stats and equipment. Which may be fun, but I'm not sure its actually the point of an RPG anymore so than debating hit statistics is for baseball. And I gathered from Tim's comments that some people feel that if you're not calculating min-max and understanding the math, that RPGs are impenetrable. Which if true - and I know people who've expressed that statement - then a well designed adjective system could address that problem (with, perhaps, adding in its own unique issues).

I'm not sure I'd call all 7 mistakes of his presentation mistakes, either. I can see a benefit to not using numbers. That benefit is that the computer game player doesn't need to know math, therefore the math could be replaced with an adjective system that could be more friendly. I'm of an agreement that POEs mechanics would be hard to express without numbers; that really doesn't make it a simple or eligant design (given the complaints about how it worked and changes to same over the development, perhaps the opposite?)

Sure there's going to be math involved. Did I say there wasn't? My only question is in a computer game how much math the player actually need to play the game. It seems to me if there is well defined feedback it shouldn't matter if the feedback is numbers or words. You'd still need to define a spectrum of words that create a scale of some sort without numbers (worst-worse-bad-average-good-better-best being an obvious example). But my point is that is just as intuitive as, say, a 10 point scale (it is, in essence, a 7 pt scale without using the numbers). Using arbitrary words - yucky-terrible-not great-bad- better but not quite good - good - okay - nice - fine - great - awesome - stupendous wouldn't be well defined to the audience (anymore so than say, using any unclear numerical system, say one that uses really large numbers).

Because I can remember how to calculate it off the top of my head without having to spend time researching the formulas used for a crpg so as to provide a numerical comparison that would come from a native computer game. Isn't this more an issue of feedback to the user rather than the superiority of the use of numbers? If good STR character w/ good sword is given feedback when contemplating an attack on the troll and the feedback is yucky or -10 (or if not turn-based, other contextual evidence that the fight isn't pursuable) wouldn't the end result provide the information necessary for the player to know the character isn't ready to fight the troll? The only difference is that the game wouldn't need to provide a context for -10 if it used a descriptor, since it was making understanding why the calculation moot. Provided that the player gets appropriate feedback (told they need a magical flaming sword) to defeat a troll in the course of the game, so the player knows the Good STR character needs a magic sword of fire (of any good-bad quality), then I think (potentially) you're decreasing the need to explain your system to your player allowing the player to concentrate more on the character they want to play than on whether or not the +2 sword (2d6 damage) is better than the +4 dagger (1d4 damage)

I'd argue (and I could be completely wrong about it) that seeing the numbers is only more intuitive than a well defined label system when the game forces you to understand the numbers to understand how those numbers apply to the game's systems. To use D&D as an example, if you know that To Hit = THAC0 - AC then you can roll dice and resolve attacks. But if you're building a system in the computer, where the player doesn't roll dice, why is there a need for the player to know how the THAC0 is calculated? Isn't the important part knowing, of your options, which one is most likely to succeed in relation to the character you've built? And if so, why would you need to know the calculations (and therefore the numbers)?

Raw documentary stock footage from ~1977 on comic books in the US:

I think the point is that the important thing to take away is that "good" is better than "ok" and "yucky" which would be an intuitive determination, not in trying to codify what "good" means in terms of the mechanics of the game or relative to a numerical scale. Realistically a descriptor based scale is just as arbitrary as a 3-18 scale but I'd agree (at least with what I understand is Tim's point) that great-good-ok-yucky would need less guidance to the player to understand than 18/73 in D&D. Then again, in playing RPGs, I've wondered if the necessary evil of numbers (taken from P&P games) is something that video games need to shed (I've for example thought often of a worst-worse-bad-average-good-better-best system). Since the computer would handle the mathematics there isn't an inherent need for the player to know how that system works provided that it allows their choice to work in a way that meets the expectation that, say, a character with the best strength should seem quantifiablly stronger than one with better strength. The thought would be that perhaps the focus can be put back on the character being created and not in trying to ring every last dps out of the stats and mechanics of the game. Of course, YMMV.

Seems to me reading the article that the $500 dollar fine has less to do with "doing math without permission of the state" and more to do with the fact that the state has determined - through their license board - that the only people who can call themselves engineers are those who are officially dues paying engineer license holders in the state. Someone could do all the math they want, they just couldn't represent themselves as an 'engineer' in doing so unless they were an engineering license holder. This may also be an issue, but its a different kind of issue, I think.

Wut?

You can't even prove you exist (and aren't products of my imagination) much less prove we don't exist and are products of a video game. (Solipsism FTW!)

To be technical, Hurl named a Mechanical Engineer, an Astrophysicist and a Theoretical Physicist, all of whom are celebrities in the US and who all have hosted TV shows.

Looks like it corresponds with Billings to me.

Does having a US syndicated TV show for 5 years really lead to world-wide recognition?

Fair enough. I think 'hard' or 'more accurate science' science fiction is probably going to be more difficult to pull off than space fantasy but could lead to a rewarding story.

Now I've got an image in my head like those movies where everyone stands in a circle holding a gun on one another, only with people holding magical scrolls. "Put the scroll down!" "You put YOUR scroll down!" "Nobody move or I'm reading this scroll...and I'm a trained speed reader!" "On the count of three, lets all put our scrolls down and talk this over like mature adults." "Dangnabit Jethro, you can't dual wield scrolls, you just look stupid, you can't read either one and you're not covering anybody..." etc.

http://deadline.com/2017/04/jonathan-demme-dies-age-73-the-silence-of-the-lambs-1202077725/ RIP Director Jonathan Demme

It *is* as simple as including both "burn to death" and "beat to death" options and just letting the player choose the one that fits their character, however! After all, I can have the guy with 8 Might try to bend those bars, can't I? Why can't I have the guy with no magic try to cast a spell? It is based on your lore isn't it? That said, I'd imagine that a [might] [lore] [scroll-in-inventory] check is getting a bit silly. "Pardon me while I pull this scroll out, so that I may surprise you with a mighty burn".

If we want to abstract things to a biological imperative (such as the initial precis that everything is tied to reproductive advantage), I'd argue that enjoying entertainment comes from the fact that ultimately entertainment is a form of narrative storytelling that ties in with our language processing skills. Since communication is a way to impart knowledge without experience ('don't eat those mushrooms, they killed Uncle Grognark!'), there is probably some tie to our language processing centers and a need to gather information for simple survival that is triggered through communication and manifest itself both in a desire to consume stories (real or fictional) and to communicate with other people (widely or narrowly) as communication serves as a way to pass experience on in the face of being born without broad instinctual knowledge. Or, you know, something.

"Figures often beguile me particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.' " - Mark Twain

I liked Alien Resurrection even if I think it's a mess of a film. A comparison to Terminator Salvation isn't inappropriate, as it is another film with a few interesting ideas that make a jumble sale of a film.

Eh...Classic Science fiction had that though. John Carter meets red martian alien Dejah Thoris, falls in love and marries her in 1912's A PRINCESS OF MARS. I think it'd be hard to argue that it isn't part of the science fiction oeuvre; now whether it should be pursued in a game is a matter altogether different, but to reject it because it isn't "classic science fiction" is a bit silly when it was there since the earliest days of classic science fiction.

But most of it is either lame, a gross simplification or congressional overreach.

I've never seen the appeal of TV Tropes, to be honest.

Oof, that is lovely. I'd love to get my hands on that. Its really nice - I have the smaller softcover they did first; apparently the hardcover is going to have additional writing about the work and photographs (I believe from Mucha's production photos). Andrew Wyeth is considered to be a top US artist. His dad, N. C. Wyeth, is considered to be one of the top US illustrators. His work on TREASURE ISLAND is legendary.