Amentep

I find your distinction between scenarios to be arbitrary. A bit like asking "would you rather have cake or a poke in the eye with a stick?" "There's no proper context because the bandits just pop in out of nowhere" As does the cop in your scenario (who has no motivation ascribed to him as to why he wants to pull you over - just as the bandits have no way to assume you have money the cop has not been given a reason to assume you need to be pulled over) "and you never hear from them again." This isn't a fault of the scenario, its the fault of the world not responding to the players choice. The cop could be bluffed and go away and never be heard from in your scenario - does it make it bad that that happened? So some bandits jump out and attack you. You get two initial choices - fight or flee (your cop scenario only gets one more option dialogue which could easily be implemented for the bandits). That doesn't mean, however, that the game couldn't make the bandits part of a larger faction. That it couldn't be built into the narrative. It doesn't even mean that it doesn't respond to your choices (maybe the road is one of two choices, and one is known to be patrolled by bandits. Maybe the local guard hired you to travel the road because of reports, maybe you choose the road because it puts you closer to where you want to go even though its more dangerous. IMO the problem isn't the bandit scenario, but of motivating the story elements and creating a context and consequences around even the most minor of game element. Which then comes down to story vs verisimilitude IMO - how much do you want the game to mirror a novel (where everything happens for a reason) vs real life (where everything doesn't have a logical motivation as people collide within a framework that allows for the random and unmotivated and surprising). In that sense, I have no problem with the random encounter.

Lets see, I've seen THE PHAROAH'S CURSE (1957) - fun period horror mummy film. Usual trope of mummy's curse befalling archeologists/semi-grave robbers. This time the mummy sucks blood. Better ideas than execution. Big let down was the end, which seemed to just happen rather than make sense in the story. THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN (1977) - gory late 70s Horror film. Astronaut affected by space radiation becomes a cannibal monster. Very schlocky (supposedly it was originally planned as a parody but AIP thought they could get better money by making it a straight horror film). Still its fun in that low-budget 70s kind of way. The lead is so deadpan, I can't help but figure no one told him it wasn't a parody anymore (or that they changed it so late they couldn't change what was shot and his performance no longer fits the film). JACK THE GIANT SLAYER (2013) - IMO the story never really comes together as it feels it should. There is to me a seeming lack of focus; nominally its about Jack - but its about the Princess too. And about the King, the King's advisor, the head of the guard, the power struggle amid the giants, Jack's relationship with his Uncle, etc. There are some good bits (the villains do everything but twirl mustaches in their villainy) but the final sequence lacks any oomph.

I have to admit, Sega buying Atlus worries me a whole lot - particularly since Sega can't seem to get their act together, I can only fear how they'd run/ruin Atlus and Atlus' games. Also I'd have to figure some of the niche games Altus USA publishes wouldn't get picked up under Sega. but maybe I'm being too gloomy & doomy Also I'm not a superfan of 1st Person Shooters, but that Betrayal Trailer looks interesting.

Which critic is that? FWIW I liked Pacific Rim.

Fallout: Cuba?

I couldn't get past the opening miniseries on BSG, I'm afraid.

Looks like its also being touted as an online multiplayer game from what I can see... Because that's what it *is*. Did anybody seriously think Capcom is gonna pour a $100 million into a massive singleplayer Skyrim-killer PS4-exclusive game? Capcom ain't a charity and financial debacles are no longer acceptable. I was just pointing out information that I'd not heard about before, particularly given the theory at the time of the drop of the original trailer that it might be more like Dragons Dogma (which has a very light and unnecessary online component) than a MMORPG or Guild Wars type thing.

I'd guess the same designer, design team or company. Not really sure what the issue is...its a bit like complaining that all of Drew Struzan's posters looked like Drew Struzan had made them.

Looks like its also being touted as an online multiplayer game from what I can see...

But is it Yahoo Serious?

Indeed, I understand that many people have been institutionalized by it. Wait, that didn't come out right...

Well, they didn't just lock him up for 5 days, they also forgot to feed him or give him any water. Which would be tough for a year to, you know...live through.

He's at his best when he's vulnerable. Like when Magneto took out his adamantium and then, for a little while before it went nutso, even his healing was reduced. That's what's good in this movie is the vulnerability. Even the part I mention in the spoiler is done well in that respect. Something I hadn't hought of... does his healing factor keep his blood cells from degradig, or is adamantium porous? Because how does his body make new blood cells with his bones coated? IIRC, his bones absorbed the adamantium and made it part of his skeletal structure, think of it as organic-metal bones. At least until the inevitable retcon. I'm with Orogun1 though, the character is extremely overexposed. Almost as bad as Batman. In the comics, the combination of organic healing factor and adamantium bonding process created "Adamantium Beta" which did more or less make it so that he had "metal bones".

Right, so why not an "opt in" system instead of an "opt out" system? I'm voting for Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch myself.

So then, why is it not the parent's responsibility to monitor the child? Its not like there aren't local solutions to blocking a child's access that doesn't make it a mandatory for all users unless they opt out.

I think this is an impossible choice in many ways simply because its by *series* and not comparing game to game. Final Fantasy is up there - two games where you create your party and two MMOs across 14-15 games that have at least 80 joinable characters (more if you count the spin-offs) vs Planescape Torment with what 7 characters and that's it? Talk about imbalance... *waits for everyone to chime in and say the 7 PST characters were written better than all 80 FF characters* Now that that is over with, I think it'd be easier to talk about what I have liked (at least from a "how it worked" perspective, not from a "was the dialogue worthy of Proust" perspective). I think the Tales games did a good job of creating characters who interacted with each other and the protagonist. BG2 also did this; I think its fun when the characters in your party react to each other as well as the PC. Makes the characters feel a little more "real". I liked how Star Ocean 2 and the Tales series had it possible to break the team up when you hit town so that you could have some out of party dialogue with your characters. In someways this is similar to Dragon Age's camp, but I felt it was handled more naturally in other games happening in towns, at inns, etc. I'm not as crazy when the Tales series forces character in/out of the party though. DA2 had a bit of this by having you go to certain places with NPCs to trigger dialogue. I liked how each of the PST characters had a huge amount of back story and it took some work to get it out of them. They didn't just offer every dialogue they had in quick succession and you couldn't bribe them to be your friends. It made it so if you didn't care about it they were meatshields, but there was layers in the onion if you wanted to peel away.

I think from an artist standpoint, I'd rather have constructive negative criticism than a polite "I like it" with no elaboration. But "you suck" is pretty much as useless as well in terms of feedback.

No his analogy is relevant as the law is intended to prevent minors accessing porn and other possibly harmful websites. If you are 18 then you could open an account at an ISP and request any filtering to be removed In both cases the child's access to porn is provided by the parent. Parent gets an ISP and leaves the child unmonitored on the internet has provided the child access to porn. Parent goes to the newsagent, buys porn and puts it in a box in the middle of the room and leaves the child unmonitored in the room has also provided the child access to porn. In both cases its the parent purchasing and then providing the access to the porn; the ISP's aren't opening up accounts to kids and selling them porn just as the newsagent isn't. The question is, why is the ISP liable for the parent's lack of monitoring and not the newsagents?

This is actually my main problem with the whole discussion surrounding the incident. There's reasonable and good voices (people shouldn't behave that way), but there are people that are upset because a *artist* was attacked and how dare you insult someone *special*. I don't have to like someone to be able to appreciate their artistic effort. But being a jerk sometimes makes it hard to overlook the person and see the art. BUT on the other hand, I don't think being an artist gives one a free pass from criticism either. I also think the whole "[having done something] > U" attitude afforded creative types is conducive to the rampant hero worship crashing on the rocks of reality that often happens when an artist of any stripe is touted as the best thing since sliced bread. (EDIT: I also have to add the internet seems to love building up then tearing down "idols").

Isn't your internet example not equivilent to selling to a minor at a newsagent, but selling to a dad at the newsagent who then hides his purchase by putting it in a box in the living room labeled "porn - do not open"?

Which is fair enough. So in this case the question is, how do we (the entire community) stop people from reacting in ways that are extremely out of proportionate to the "problem" and getting them to provide the useful feedback without forcing the developer to swim through waves of noise in order to find that irate community member's signal?

I suspect - but could be wrong - that this is what Alan is getting at. I know its what I'm getting at. The solution to the problem isn't in changing the internet; its addressing the stem problems which are all in real life. Where to start, how to proceed....all important questions, but we have to tackle the problem, not its symptoms that show up on the internet and increasingly in real life.

So what kind of action against an "impassioned" player making death threats isn't overreacting? Deleting the threats? Banning the poster? Calling the police because you've been threatened? I understand feeling passionately about a game, but why would we want to excuse the actions of a person who feels that the correct response to announced changes in a game they like is threatening to kill the people who make the changes? I don't think it merits imprisonment. I don't think releasing a patch that rebalances a gun merits someone issuing death threats. What value could that person possibly offer to any community - real or virtual - if their perspective of "what is important in the big scheme of things" is so skewed that a patch that makes a gun action a little bit slower - even in anger - seemed reasonable? (I should add that generally speaking I don't necessarily think every death threat issued online needs police involvement, but really I can't find a lot of sympathy for those who find that their death threat issued on twitter landed them in real life trouble).

So what kind of action against an "impassioned" player making death threats isn't overreacting? Deleting the threats? Banning the poster? Calling the police because you've been threatened? I understand feeling passionately about a game, but why would we want to excuse the actions of a person who feels that the correct response to announced changes in a game they like is threatening to kill the people who make the changes?

It isn't (yet. As this may very well come int future) For one reason. Your senses. It's just not the same emotionally compared to being in the actual situation. Sure its the same. That the "slighted person" is impotent to act rashly towards the "insulter" doesn't change the nature of what you're doing. It just means you can get away with it without repercussions for the most part. Back when I was a mod for Black Isle, one of the other mods created a page with a lot of BIS mods' & posters' pictures (self-submitted). One gadfly decided to start saying in the IRC chat that I looked like "a child molester". I can assure you that this kind of defamation could not have bothered me more, upset me more or made me more angry had it been said to my face instead of over an IRC chat. The problem is that there are far too many people who think "oh its just the internet" and dismiss the idea that what people put here for others to read is completely harmless. It is why we have anonymous tweeters tweeting rape threats to a journalist who successfully petitioned for Jane Austin to be put on a £10 note. Because not enough people think that the internet and social media "matter" and that those offended just need to "get over it". And if they don't they get attacked for being "thin skinned".