I must have missed recent news concerning LBJ or Goldwater. It sounds like something from ages ago, but feel free to point me towards the news I missed.
An MMO that deals with real loss? Sounds unlikely. I'd love to see it, but most MMOs seem to go out of their way to break suspension of disbelief just so they can prevent any meaningful loss to the player. I'd love to play an MMO where dead means dead, though.
It wasn't the best use of the phrase, but everybody is missing the point here. Some lunatic murders several people, and everyone points the finger at Sarah Palin. It's shameful political opportunism.
Maybe it is, but Palin should definitely be more careful about what she says and what imagery she uses. The might be some loon that takes her seriously.
Nowhere am I putting words in your mouth. I'm merely stating a fact. Consider ACTA, consider the Spanish law the US tries to force through. The US wants other countries to obey US laws, and doesn't want to respect foreign laws.
I'm not saying what they should or shouldn't do, just what they are doing.
It's a complex subject. Of course every country thinks their own laws better than those of others, or they'd change them. And of course countries deserve some sovereignty. And of course it's also extremely useful if there is some international cooperation in legal matters. Of course in the US, US law matters most. But on an international playing field, EU law matters too, to some extend. To what extend exactly, that's for diplomats and governments to figure out, I guess. It's a complex subject.
Well, no predetermined story, in any case. Sometimes creating the story depends entirely on the players. Prime Time Adventures is a pretty extreme case here, but there are other games where the creation of the story is basically the goal. Others are so sandboxy that there's very little real story. Just a bunch of events.
Rarely happens in real RPGs, because this sort of thing tends to be "roleplayed out".
Within the limitations of your character, otherwise there is no point in defining a character.
Depending on the play style of the group. Sometimes it really does seem like the character doesn't matter all that much in the conversation, although I prefer that it does. Not so much the stats, but the personality and concept.
Obviously, there isn't truly free roleplaying in computer games, but it's entirely possible to have a little in the form of pre-defined choices.
Within the unfortunately limited scope of CRPGs, I do agree with you for the most part. Conversations that matter, and that in some way reflect the character you're playing, do make the game cooler. I love it when high Intelligence or Charisma is reflected in the conversation choices. I love it when previous decisions I made are reflected in the conversation choices. I don't like it when I'm forced to say something that doesn't fit my concept of the character I'm playing.
So yes, I do try to roleplay even in CRPGs, but I don't think I've ever played a game where I didn't run into the limitations of the game and had my suspension of disbelief shattered as a result.
Walkthrough websites are a huge trap. I'm currently playing The Witcher (yes, I'm late. Who cares?), and sometimes I do look up some details in order to figure out how it's supposed to work, and invariably I discover something in the walkthrough that would have been more fun to discover by myself. Yet sometimes I find that I missed something that would have been cool if I'd done that.
I sometimes worry that video games might contribute to this attitude.
I'm not convinced it's true, but sometimes I worry about that too.
And sometimes I dream that it is possible to go back to a previous save in my life. And not to fix some mistakes or because I don't like my life or anything, but just to explore some completely different paths. See where they'd end up. It'd be cool if that was possible.
Group-think is the biggest factor, I think. You can have a great GM, a choice of great GMs, even, and players who are individually great and fun roleplayers, but once a group has developed the wrong kind of attitude, it's all lost. I've been struggling with this for some years now with my current group (that's been together for about 16 years, I think). We did great stuff in the past, but we just can't get there anymore. We're afraid to pull all the stops, or too locked into certain behaviour patterns, perhaps.
In order for a game to be an RPG, there's really only one requirement:
* it must feature actual roleplaying. Playing a role. It's not about the player, it's not about finishing the game, it's about the character you're playing.
According to this requirement, no CRPG is a real RPG. They're mostly computer games with some RPG-like elements.
And all of your requirements are violated by some real RPGs. Limited by character attributes? In systemless games, characters may not even have attributes. You're limited by character concept, maybe. Or just your imagination. Evolve attributes and skills? Not necessary at all. I've played very enjoyable RPGs where that never happened. Change the main story? I love that, but some games don't even have a main story, whereas in some others, you really are just expected to follow the main story blindly. It's just about the challenges on the way there. Attributes and skills considered during conversations? Rarely happens in real RPGs, because this sort of thing tends to be "roleplayed out". Sometimes you need a skill check, sometimes not. Depends entirely on the situation and the kind of game you're going for. Sure, in a CRPG, it helps to simulate that different characters would handle such a conversation differently, but that's only because it is impossible to do any real roleplaying in a computer game.
Your requirements are nothing more than a list of your preferences in a CRPG. They coincide reasonably with my preferences, but don't delude yourself that there's any real roleplaying going on.
Sometimes I'd love to reintroduce that kind of gameplay. No save-restore, but infinite replayability.
One game I hope to be able to make one day, is a CRPG that's filled with hurricane-causing butterflies. Tiny changes can have huge dramatic effects on how the story will unfold, what stories will be unfolding at all, what role you'll be playing in those stories, etc. And no going back to check what else could have happened (because the answer is: anything! You'd never get anywhere if you keep going back, so continue and replay after you finish it!). And the obvious way to handle the no-reload restriction without the risk of losing a character through power failure or stuff like that, is to store all game data in a database, instead of a simple save file.
You'd also be rid of long load and save times. I think this would be really cool (though I might still include a "wimp" mode for people who really do want to reload stuff).
Germany doesn't have nukes. Except maybe American ones. Some other countries definitely have American nukes. France and the UK have nukes of their own.
But yeah, pick any european country and the US got more military power. But put them all togheter?
Especially if you would include Russia in europe obviously =P (Moscow is on europes side.)
All of the EU put together still has a much smaller military than the US. If you include non-EU countries in Europe, including Russia, you might get a bit further, but military cooperation between the EU and Russia, against the US of all things, sounds somewhat unlikely. Even so, the Russian military is nowhere near comparable to what it was 30 years ago.
It is not true that evolution doesn't happen anymore in humans. Sure, survival is easy for most of us (but not for everybody!), but not everybody actually reproduces.
But more importantly, evolutionary pressure is not necessary for speciation. Genetic drift is sufficient. A small population that remains reproductively isolated for a long time (1000s of generations at least) can drift sufficiently to become unable to reproduce with members of a different population. It takes enormous amounts of time, though, but any kind of evolution does.
1) Citation needed. Children of single mothers/lesbian parents/work-away-from-home fathers develop perfectly normally.
Depending on what you consider normal. Physiologically, sure, but psychologically, male role models turn out to be pretty important for the development of boys. It doesn't have to be the father, but with a lack of men in child care and primary education, some boys grow up seeing hardly any men before they're 12, and it turns out that that's actually causing problems.
2) Sperm from a male is not necessary at all, the reason you can't combine two eggs are epigenetic and progress has been made in recent years. Some bright sparks amongst you would notice that two woman would only be able to have daughters (but if they were conceived and raised without men this isn't really a problem).
I guess not having any boys born would solve that problem.
2. The US is not the world police, nor should be. Somebody being a dictator isn't an automatic justification for invasion
Possibly. Then there is the analogy of watching a woman getting raped... I'm not the local police, but I'm going to step in. Doesn't that apply to larger situations as well?
Consider a woman getting raped, and then a known wife-beater steps in to stop it. That's what the US acting as world police often looks like.
For a time, the US actively supported Saddam, and supplied him with weapons (including some of the WMDs that they were later looking for). The reason the US supported Saddam was because he opposed the ayatollahs in Iran, who only got into power because the US and UK helped them overthrow the democratic government back in 1953. Similarly, the US has supported a lot of other dictators over the years. Then when the US wants to overthrow their former ally because apparently he's an evil dictator now, it's not that surprising that a lot of people question the US's motives.
Had the US actually actually been on the side of freedom and democracy all that time, it would have had a lot more credibility as world police.
That's kinda the point. The US has a history of dirty dealings that's not all that far removed from those of Russia and Israel, but they like to see themselves as defenders of freedom and democracy. It's this hypocrisy in particular that's resulting in so much criticism and distrust. The US does not behave like a civilized nation, yet they like to pretend that they are.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't aware that Palin's speeches were intended as fiction. I thought she was supposed to be a serious politician. My mistake, I guess.
I must have missed recent news concerning LBJ or Goldwater. It sounds like something from ages ago, but feel free to point me towards the news I missed.
An MMO that deals with real loss? Sounds unlikely. I'd love to see it, but most MMOs seem to go out of their way to break suspension of disbelief just so they can prevent any meaningful loss to the player. I'd love to play an MMO where dead means dead, though.
Not to mention the deathclaws.
Better start saving up on bottle caps now!
It wasn't the best use of the phrase, but everybody is missing the point here. Some lunatic murders several people, and everyone points the finger at Sarah Palin. It's shameful political opportunism.
Maybe it is, but Palin should definitely be more careful about what she says and what imagery she uses. The might be some loon that takes her seriously.
I've seen a holiday park in Netherland where very nice holiday homes had wheels on them. Presumably for a similar reason.
Nowhere am I putting words in your mouth. I'm merely stating a fact. Consider ACTA, consider the Spanish law the US tries to force through. The US wants other countries to obey US laws, and doesn't want to respect foreign laws.
I'm not saying what they should or shouldn't do, just what they are doing.
It's a complex subject. Of course every country thinks their own laws better than those of others, or they'd change them. And of course countries deserve some sovereignty. And of course it's also extremely useful if there is some international cooperation in legal matters. Of course in the US, US law matters most. But on an international playing field, EU law matters too, to some extend. To what extend exactly, that's for diplomats and governments to figure out, I guess. It's a complex subject.
some games don't even have a main story
How do you play a role without a story?
Well, no predetermined story, in any case. Sometimes creating the story depends entirely on the players. Prime Time Adventures is a pretty extreme case here, but there are other games where the creation of the story is basically the goal. Others are so sandboxy that there's very little real story. Just a bunch of events.
Rarely happens in real RPGs, because this sort of thing tends to be "roleplayed out".
Within the limitations of your character, otherwise there is no point in defining a character.
Depending on the play style of the group. Sometimes it really does seem like the character doesn't matter all that much in the conversation, although I prefer that it does. Not so much the stats, but the personality and concept.
Obviously, there isn't truly free roleplaying in computer games, but it's entirely possible to have a little in the form of pre-defined choices.
Within the unfortunately limited scope of CRPGs, I do agree with you for the most part. Conversations that matter, and that in some way reflect the character you're playing, do make the game cooler. I love it when high Intelligence or Charisma is reflected in the conversation choices. I love it when previous decisions I made are reflected in the conversation choices. I don't like it when I'm forced to say something that doesn't fit my concept of the character I'm playing.
So yes, I do try to roleplay even in CRPGs, but I don't think I've ever played a game where I didn't run into the limitations of the game and had my suspension of disbelief shattered as a result.
Walkthrough websites are a huge trap. I'm currently playing The Witcher (yes, I'm late. Who cares?), and sometimes I do look up some details in order to figure out how it's supposed to work, and invariably I discover something in the walkthrough that would have been more fun to discover by myself. Yet sometimes I find that I missed something that would have been cool if I'd done that.
I sometimes worry that video games might contribute to this attitude.
I'm not convinced it's true, but sometimes I worry about that too.
And sometimes I dream that it is possible to go back to a previous save in my life. And not to fix some mistakes or because I don't like my life or anything, but just to explore some completely different paths. See where they'd end up. It'd be cool if that was possible.
Group-think is the biggest factor, I think. You can have a great GM, a choice of great GMs, even, and players who are individually great and fun roleplayers, but once a group has developed the wrong kind of attitude, it's all lost. I've been struggling with this for some years now with my current group (that's been together for about 16 years, I think). We did great stuff in the past, but we just can't get there anymore. We're afraid to pull all the stops, or too locked into certain behaviour patterns, perhaps.
In order for a game to be an RPG, there's really only one requirement:
* it must feature actual roleplaying. Playing a role. It's not about the player, it's not about finishing the game, it's about the character you're playing.
According to this requirement, no CRPG is a real RPG. They're mostly computer games with some RPG-like elements.
And all of your requirements are violated by some real RPGs. Limited by character attributes? In systemless games, characters may not even have attributes. You're limited by character concept, maybe. Or just your imagination. Evolve attributes and skills? Not necessary at all. I've played very enjoyable RPGs where that never happened. Change the main story? I love that, but some games don't even have a main story, whereas in some others, you really are just expected to follow the main story blindly. It's just about the challenges on the way there. Attributes and skills considered during conversations? Rarely happens in real RPGs, because this sort of thing tends to be "roleplayed out". Sometimes you need a skill check, sometimes not. Depends entirely on the situation and the kind of game you're going for. Sure, in a CRPG, it helps to simulate that different characters would handle such a conversation differently, but that's only because it is impossible to do any real roleplaying in a computer game.
Your requirements are nothing more than a list of your preferences in a CRPG. They coincide reasonably with my preferences, but don't delude yourself that there's any real roleplaying going on.
Sometimes I'd love to reintroduce that kind of gameplay. No save-restore, but infinite replayability.
One game I hope to be able to make one day, is a CRPG that's filled with hurricane-causing butterflies. Tiny changes can have huge dramatic effects on how the story will unfold, what stories will be unfolding at all, what role you'll be playing in those stories, etc. And no going back to check what else could have happened (because the answer is: anything! You'd never get anywhere if you keep going back, so continue and replay after you finish it!). And the obvious way to handle the no-reload restriction without the risk of losing a character through power failure or stuff like that, is to store all game data in a database, instead of a simple save file.
You'd also be rid of long load and save times. I think this would be really cool (though I might still include a "wimp" mode for people who really do want to reload stuff).
It's more that the US itself is committing a dipomatic faux pas. They are effectively spying on EU citizens.
That's nothing new of course, but once upon a time, the US used to be a bit more subtle about it.
A scenario where the EU might want to attack the US has already left reality so far behind that Russian allegiance is pretty irrelevant.
Germany doesn't have nukes. Except maybe American ones. Some other countries definitely have American nukes. France and the UK have nukes of their own.
But yeah, pick any european country and the US got more military power. But put them all togheter?
Especially if you would include Russia in europe obviously =P (Moscow is on europes side.)
All of the EU put together still has a much smaller military than the US. If you include non-EU countries in Europe, including Russia, you might get a bit further, but military cooperation between the EU and Russia, against the US of all things, sounds somewhat unlikely. Even so, the Russian military is nowhere near comparable to what it was 30 years ago.
There very good reasons foreign laws can not override a domestic laws.
You should inform the US government of that. Because they try that every time. And sometimes they manage to make it stick.
Yet they're expecting the EU to change their laws for the US.
You are so wrong.
It is not true that evolution doesn't happen anymore in humans. Sure, survival is easy for most of us (but not for everybody!), but not everybody actually reproduces.
But more importantly, evolutionary pressure is not necessary for speciation. Genetic drift is sufficient. A small population that remains reproductively isolated for a long time (1000s of generations at least) can drift sufficiently to become unable to reproduce with members of a different population. It takes enormous amounts of time, though, but any kind of evolution does.
That, or people who don't mind not having sex for years. Nerds might be perfect candidates.
Alright, how about an experiment: we'll send two missions: one with swingers, one with nerds. Then we can evaluate which one does best.
1) Citation needed. Children of single mothers/lesbian parents/work-away-from-home fathers develop perfectly normally.
Depending on what you consider normal. Physiologically, sure, but psychologically, male role models turn out to be pretty important for the development of boys. It doesn't have to be the father, but with a lack of men in child care and primary education, some boys grow up seeing hardly any men before they're 12, and it turns out that that's actually causing problems.
2) Sperm from a male is not necessary at all, the reason you can't combine two eggs are epigenetic and progress has been made in recent years. Some bright sparks amongst you would notice that two woman would only be able to have daughters (but if they were conceived and raised without men this isn't really a problem).
I guess not having any boys born would solve that problem.
You just need a big caching proxy.
Let's hope Google sets up a server park there soon. Although highly interactive ajaxy features still aren't going to work there.
2. The US is not the world police, nor should be. Somebody being a dictator isn't an automatic justification for invasion
Possibly. Then there is the analogy of watching a woman getting raped... I'm not the local police, but I'm going to step in. Doesn't that apply to larger situations as well?
Consider a woman getting raped, and then a known wife-beater steps in to stop it. That's what the US acting as world police often looks like.
For a time, the US actively supported Saddam, and supplied him with weapons (including some of the WMDs that they were later looking for). The reason the US supported Saddam was because he opposed the ayatollahs in Iran, who only got into power because the US and UK helped them overthrow the democratic government back in 1953. Similarly, the US has supported a lot of other dictators over the years. Then when the US wants to overthrow their former ally because apparently he's an evil dictator now, it's not that surprising that a lot of people question the US's motives.
Had the US actually actually been on the side of freedom and democracy all that time, it would have had a lot more credibility as world police.
That's kinda the point. The US has a history of dirty dealings that's not all that far removed from those of Russia and Israel, but they like to see themselves as defenders of freedom and democracy. It's this hypocrisy in particular that's resulting in so much criticism and distrust. The US does not behave like a civilized nation, yet they like to pretend that they are.