Amentep

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".

There's depth and breadth, but I think there's also a certain lack of verisimilitude being referenced in the thread. Depth and breadth need more writers and/or more time. Verisimilitude in some of the examples above could be handled by a Quest Board or a reputation/fame threshold that prevents someone who is neither known locally or nationally to be approached by random people and told their deep dark "I keep skeevers in my basement illegally and wolves have gotten in and are killing them" secrets.

I like being able to choose races. I like the races feeling distinct and I'm okay with them having different natural talents. I also like to intentionally go against the races "natural proclivity" and create sub-optimal characters because I have an interesting idea. As long as the character isn't sub-optimal to the point of being useless, I'm okay with being a worse mage than [other race] so long as I'm not a useless mage without qualification. I dislike arbitrary distinctions with races (Halflings only go to level 10 if they choose fighter! Dwarves can't be Paladins despite a number of Lawful Good dieties in their pantheon!).

DM is the ultimate arbitrator anyhow; as much as I have rules lawyery tendencies, everyone at the game has to agree to let the game flow. If not the rules lawyer needs to be the DM so it goes their way.

If that means that those convicted of sex based crimes are forced to be on a Pervert Watch List, then I approve. Im not opposed to convicted criminals losing rights, but every single citizen? Way overboard imo. No, actually my worry is that opting out of "decency" filters will make you a candidate for secretly spying on what you do use your internet connection for because, clearly if you don't want to be filtered then you MUST be up to something illegal that would be blocked by the decency filter.