Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1073080 Posts in 43949 Topics- by 35983 Members - Latest Member: quanbom

December 17, 2014, 09:38:42 PM
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 182
1  Player / General / Re: Congress Wants To Make Streaming A Felony on: July 05, 2011, 09:09:07 PM
How can you lose profit from a Let's play?
I've heard plenty of people talk about how they watch Let's Play videos in lieu of actually buying and playing the game, especially for story-centric games. See - lost profit!
2  Player / Games / Re: Video games get protection via first amendment rights on: June 29, 2011, 04:15:19 AM
stuff like Paula being fully nude the entirety of the game, demons coming out of Paula's vagina, and other things that would've pushed the game into AO territory.

Oh, clearly this is some important content of great artistic merit that is being censored here. It's truly a blow to the creative freedom of auteurs when a man can't play with vagina demons in his own home.
3  Developer / Design / Re: Creating a Religious Game on: June 25, 2011, 10:08:48 PM
Forget Christianity. Someone needs to make a religious game based on Nuwaubianism. Play as a racist black crusader who fights against ancient aliens, robots from inside the hollow earth, armies of aborted fetuses, and every white person on the planet (since they are all devils).
4  Developer / Writing / Re: Avoiding "But Thou Must" Scenarios on: June 24, 2011, 08:23:52 PM
I think in general players are fairly willing to go along with whatever plot you provide them. If you say "hey this is the villain" they won't have a problem with going to his evil castle and killing him.
The problem arises when the player's expectations of the story diverge from what you're forcing them to do. The most common example is when you have an NPC who is really obviously going to betray the player, but the player has to follow them and do as they say - up to a certain point when the already-realised truth is revealed.

I found it really weird in Portal 2 when there was that sequence where you have to walk past all these signs saying 'STOP! GO BACK!' and then open a big door with 'FORBIDDEN! DO NOT OPEN!' written on it... simply because there was no other path you could take.
I wouldn't have minded if, say, there was some forbidden weapon in there that I needed to defeat the bad guy. But there wasn't. I had no motivation other than "Welp, there's walls in every other direction, so - forbidden chamber it is."
5  Community / Townhall / Re: Subpar Golf on: June 24, 2011, 08:12:25 PM
The problem is that my #1 feature is user-generated content
Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't it counter-productive to charge your customers money for them to create your #1 feature? It seems like you are trapping yourself in a Catch-22 where nobody will want to pay money for a game which doesn't have many levels, and nobody is creating levels for it because nobody has paid for it.
6  Player / General / Re: area 51. Thoughts? on: June 17, 2011, 11:15:53 PM
What I find most suspect about conspiracy theories is that people rarely believe in just one, instead their whole worldview is structured around believing conspiracies, they are part of a culture based around conspiracy theories and so on. So you will see people believing theories about the Illuminati, 9/11, reptilians, moon landing, ancient astronauts, etc. Also stuff like cancer cures and new age healing. Often they will want to weave all these beliefs into one big story somehow.
Basically it gives me the impression that these people are beginning from the position of wanting to believe in conspiracies, rather than the position of wanting to believe in the truth and finding out that the truth is conspiracies.
7  Player / Games / Re: duke getting hammered on gamespot on: June 15, 2011, 11:54:08 PM
All I can say is that the voice actor for Duke is atrocious... I wouldn't hire him for a high school drama production, let alone a videogame which is supposed to hinge on the personality of its main character...
8  Player / Games / Re: Wii U on: June 14, 2011, 02:45:27 AM
Let's suppose Wii U bombs hard. Virtual Boy levels of bad. Do you see Nintendo becoming a handheld-only gaming company?
No, this is just silly. Whatever the serious gamers' opinions are, the Wii U is going to sell many, many copies to women, old people and small children.
9  Player / Games / Re: Wii U on: June 09, 2011, 08:04:41 PM
The problem with this screen-in-the-controller thing is that it's really offering a solution to something that didn't need fixing in the first place.

So did the DS, and the Wii, and for that matter, the iPhone.
Yeah, and guess what? My DS and Wii are both gathering dust because I never use them. I've never played a Wii game that wouldn't have been better off without the motion sensing angle. It's not just a matter of "Why not try something new?" because this controller gimmickry actually hampers good game development when every game has to be designed around some sort of waggling/scribbling/dual-screen mechanic.

It's like, imagine how much the film industry would go downhill if someone started promoting 3D screens and suddenly every director has to film his movie in 3D... oh wait...
10  Player / Games / Re: Wii U on: June 09, 2011, 04:45:11 AM
The problem with this screen-in-the-controller thing is that it's really offering a solution to something that didn't need fixing in the first place. Sure, it would be kind of useful to be able to check my map/inventory/statistics/etc just by glancing down at the controller, but I can already do those things fine in a PS3 game. I just use this design innovation called a pause button.
11  Player / General / Re: Do you smoke? on: April 20, 2011, 05:35:31 PM

Substances need to be rigoriously test to have no adverse affects before people try them. Such is the biochemical study called medicine.
If you are referring to cannabis, a simple google search will link to numerous sources, both legitimate and not, which will inform you that no one has died from smoking it, ever.
This is a misleading statement. Death is not the only bad thing that can happen to you.
12  Player / Games / Re: Crash Bandicoot Return on: April 20, 2011, 04:52:31 PM
His walk animation looks so... depressed. It's like his girlfriend just left him or something.
13  Developer / Technical / Re: Preventing detail in dark areas from being revealed by increasing brightness on: April 20, 2011, 04:33:01 AM
I dunno, Fortress has a point. If people want to ruin the game experience for themselves by cheating, then why don't you just let them?

If you're just discussing it as an interesting technical problem, then sure, go ahead. But if you're actually making a game which is vulnerable to this kind of exploit, then I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it.
14  Player / General / Re: Where is All the Tolerance for Asexuals & Celibates? on: April 19, 2011, 01:59:56 AM
What an awful, materialistic society we live in where people think they can measure the equality of the sexes by comparing how much they get paid.
15  Player / General / Re: Where is All the Tolerance for Asexuals & Celibates? on: April 14, 2011, 05:59:22 PM
I have no problem with people who are 'asexual' in the sense that they have no sexual urges. However, people who have normal sexual urges but restrain them due to some kind of ethical conviction (like Dove, apparently) seem worthy of pity to me, in just the same way that you would pity a closeted homosexual who marries a woman because that's what society expects of him. You will never be able to live a happy and fulfilled life if you set yourself at odds with your own nature.
16  Player / General / Re: Religion (Formerly "What religion are you?") on: April 10, 2011, 01:39:36 AM
nice logic. enjoy explaining all this to jesus. Big Laff Shrug Roll Eyes Facepalm
Just curious, do you think it's your duty to convert people to your religion, as far as you are able?

If so, do you think that your posts in this thread are an effective method for conversion?
17  Player / General / Re: Religion (Formerly "What religion are you?") on: April 10, 2011, 12:55:52 AM
How is that the only scientific method? Do you even know what the scientific method is?  I don't think you can apply that to a metaphysical subject such as God and whether or not he exists.  I'm not gonna run experiments on my prayers to God.  How could I even attempt such a thing.  I'm so confused.  I need a detective.  Noir
I don't know why people always say that "the existence of God is a metaphysical concept" and "God can't be investigated with the scientific method".

Maybe that's true for some transcendental Spinoza-ish kind of God. But for the discrete, interventionist God described in the Bible, it's totally feasible to examine the evidence for His existence in a scientific manner.
18  Player / General / Re: Religion (Formerly "What religion are you?") on: April 09, 2011, 05:07:39 AM
I don't think that's really what most people mean by ethics. An ethical proposition isn't something like "Acting honestly will ultimately, on average, benefit you". That's just a statement about the world. An ethical claim would be "You should act honestly regardless of whether it benefits you". (Or, equally, "You should act honestly only when it does benefit you" - the point being that the statement hinges on 'should' instead of 'is'.)

i guess i just don't understand why someone "should" do something unless there's some benefit from it, or why someone should avoid doing something unless there's some harm that comes from it. if ethics is used in the sense of 'what you should do regardless of benefit or harm' then in that sense i don't think people need ethics, they don't need to be told what to do regardless of how useful or useless it is or how beneficial or harmful it is -- what's the point of doing good if there's no benefit of doing it over not doing it? if there's no reason or "why" for a moral choice, why would it matter?
Well, if you do anything in life, then at some point you must be motivated by a reason which has no "why" beyond it. Even if you are a complete egoist who only does whatever benefits yourself, you are still working from the ethical proposition that "I should always look out for my own benefit first regardless of others" or whatever. Ultimately you have no reason why you want to benefit yourself rather than, say, donating all your money to charity, or killing yourself, or doing a little dance. Any action you take is a moral action, because by doing it you are implying that it is better than any other action you could have taken.

To me it seems like a problem that's pretty much unresolvable unless at some point you rest your motivations on a bedrock of "just because". And although I personally don't rest my bedrock on a really old book written by desert tribesmen, I can't find any reasons why my basis for morality is any less arbitrary than that.
19  Player / General / Re: Some indie films, should not exist at all on: April 08, 2011, 10:18:27 PM
I actually really want to see Terror Toons and I think it truly embodies the indie spirit. I mean, what mainstream studio would ever be able to create a horror film which turns into a superhero-action movie in the last ten minutes?
20  Player / General / Re: Religion (Formerly "What religion are you?") on: April 08, 2011, 10:01:10 PM
a science of ethics would not be about what people ought to do in general, it'd be about what people ought to do to achieve specific ends that they want. that's something that can be studied. what makes people the most happy (among alternatives) could also be studied. which actions lead to which results; effective and ineffective methods, and so on.

for instance, if honesty really is the best policy, that could be proven scientifically: study honest and dishonest people, record what they are honest and dishonest about, and see what those correlate with (success, happiness, and other variables). the same could be done for a lot of other moral issues -- adultery, chastity, politeness, and so on.
I don't think that's really what most people mean by ethics. An ethical proposition isn't something like "Acting honestly will ultimately, on average, benefit you". That's just a statement about the world. An ethical claim would be "You should act honestly regardless of whether it benefits you". (Or, equally, "You should act honestly only when it does benefit you" - the point being that the statement hinges on 'should' instead of 'is'.)
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 182
Theme orange-lt created by panic