How in the world do you equate staying true to the original game's concept by introcuding another battle front (post 1942 cleanup) and adding a "what if?" elemental to focusing on 1992->now military actions?
They're different time periods, they're different locations, they contain different weapons, vehicles, and concepts. The biggest improvements in SWoWWII were mobile spawn points and the "Destroy" objective.
Both of which were used in subsequent Desert Combat releases - which makes sense, since it's a mod.
HL & CS did have a similar situation to BF1942 and DC - in CS's case, it was packaged and sold as an expansion pack, despite the fact that it continued to be freely available on the internet. I'm curious to see if the same thing happens.
So you came to the conclusion that none of the games *could* have predicted a 14 game winning streak by the Patriots because the article didn't say they did.
Do you think that's a valid assumption?
I don't claim that football games are 100% accurate predictors - however, I think that claiming that it's impossible for them to be correct is jumping to conclusions. Which has been the entire point of questioning your reasoning.
> You present a false dichotomy I am unable to adequately respond to.
Then let me rephrase. Regarding:
> How many of these games would have predicted the Patriots would win 14 games in the regular season? Not a one.
Are you factually aware of this, or is it a statement made without proof? Do you have a resource to back it up, have you simulated it yourself, or has there otherwise been a study that conclusively proves your statement correct?
> How many of these games would have predicted the Patriots would win 14 games in the regular season? Not a one.
Do you know that, or are you just randomly spewing stuff? I don't know how *well* this was generated, but the '02-'03 season I just finished in Madden 2k4 would have yielded a Raiders/Bucs Superbowl (with Gannon getting QB MVP), had I not interfered (because, to the best of my knowledge, the Falcons didn't beat the Raiders 56-0).
I'm curious; I think I'll go through and generate all of last season, just to see how close it happens. Had I the NCAA 2k4 football game, I might be able to import a draft selection to see if this year simulates close to how it actually worked...
Hell yes. This is one of those games that I vaguely remember as being incredibly interesting, but not getting enough time to play - like the old Dune PC game.
I own a KD-XB component video to RGB adapter... and yes, 480p pales in comparison to 1600x1200. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison, because the games that look really good on the PS2 (FFX, for example) can't (don't?) utilize 480p, and are designed specifically with the PS2 hardware (vector processing) in mind.
The biggest thing that console gamers forget, when comparing graphics, is that you're not talking about the same scale. 480p roughly looks like 640x480... nobody even runs their desktop at that anymore. Even 1080i is interlaced (every other line displayed, so it's only rendering 540), and the only system capable of that (and 720p) is the Xbox - which has a handful of supported games.
The console's "graphic revolution" can't come until HD becomes standard, or Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony decide the vast majority of their client base already has HD capability.
You can only make 480i look so pretty. There's only so many ways to work with that limited number of pixels.
The disadvantage to a sniper rifle is that it's generally large, unwiedly, and unsuited to anything resembling a heated firefight.
Those are serious disadvantages, but aren't generally taken into account for action FPS titles. Most (all?) FPS titles don't model where your gun is in relation to your body, so you don't have to deal with crowded areas (dense brush, urban warfare) or situations where a full-sized rifle isn't useful (close quarters combat).
Sniper rifles are incredibly useful in long range engagements. As visibility decreases with engagement range, they become less useful. You don't use a sniper rifle when engaging a guy 20' away.
It's a matter of incorporating realism. The (physically) longer and more powerful the weapon, the better its accurate range will be - however, weapon weight and firing rate also need to be taken into account. Those big, bulky, low firing rate weapons should be correspondingly less useful in a rapid, close-range encounter.
> you probably misspoke, but it was evolutionary I found it difficult to call Halo "Combat Evolved", though I'm sure it will have its place in the evolution of the FPS genre. I suppose it's semantics, as whatever role it played, it is still part of the history of the FPS genre.
> those are the answers I generally hear from people who like Halo to your questions. That's fine; it's exactly what I wanted to hear, why people liked Halo. Since I disagree with some of it (I found the controls awkward) and wasn't exposed to other portions (multiplayer), it's pretty clear why I wouldn't think it a 90-100% game.
>...people used to WASD and mice might not be very good outside of their element. Yeah, I feel that looking + rotating via stick is too slow to be useful... but I play PC FPSes on a trackball with the sensativity turned way up.
>...an insanely good multiplayer game. Sounds like what I really missed was the MP. Lacking friends with Xboxes (or an HDTV; I find playing split screen @480i to be limiting to the point of worthlessness), and having no real reason to purchase Live (does it support Live?), I pretty much played it all the way through once, by myself, and haven't brought it back out since.
On the other hand, maybe I can find some place near D.C. that has ~16 player Halo games going on. I guess it's not too late to give it another chance.
>...calling it "the biggest milestone in videogame history" is going a bit far, don't you think?
It might have been, was it released FOUR YEARS AGO ON THE PC like it was supposed to be. I don't even think it was evolutionary, and I can't figure out why it got such amazing reviews.
Can somebody explain this to me? What I played was an average FPS with mediocre graphics (*from a PC gamer's POV on the Xbox version). The two things remotely interesting about it was Co-op (a big plus, but they removed it in the PC version - WTF?) and the ability to pilot vehicles. I fail to see how this warrants a near-perfect score, as neither of these are innovations.
> The console market being much larger Do you mean combined - as in, all three major consoles vs. PC? Because once developers start an Xbox version, it is extremely likely that they'll go the extra step to the PC.
Note that the two most popular games on the Xbox - Halo and KotOR - were intended to be PC releases, and were shanghaied by M$ft.
If you're talking about any single console having a larger market that the PC - well, I just don't believe it and you'll have to provide numbers =)
But those single console releases - the Final Fantasy series is generally exclusive to Sony/PS2 (I don't know what the deal is with FF:CC), and Zelda (which I have never considered to be a RPG so much as an action/adventure game) is generally exclusive to Nintendo/GC. Besides KotOR, does the Xbox have any other RPG titles?
I think if you take a look at the top 30 or so RPGs on GameRankings (independent of system), you'll notice that a large portion of them are PC titles.
Also, I think that the controller presents a technical barrier - if RTS games translate poorly to consoles, how can you expect games like Baldur's Gate to translate well? I just don't see how the transition could go smoothly, since there are no original western RPG non-PC titles available for any console.
1) The trend tends to give the graphics edge (from a subjective standpoint instead of an "absolute" one) to the consoles for their release... but that's the other problem with consoles. As better graphics cards are released for the PC/Mac, the consoles again lag behind.
Unfortunately, I can't see that trend continuing with display (unless console manufacturers decide that the majority of their audience has access to HD TV) - without higher resolutions, increasing graphics detail eventually becomes moot. That's not to say the trend will just stop - actually, I'm pretty sure the next gen of consoles will have graphics that rival top-of-the-line PCs. There just needs to be a HDTV (or whatever) revolution before console graphics advance to the point where they no longer benefit from higher poly count.
2) I'm not discounting player-made content... but the possibility is incredibly low. Many of the higher quality mods utilize tools external to the "official" tools... like Maya, Milkshake3D, etc. While I'm sure porting them to the console is possible... again, it's not something I expect this generation.
Hopefully, this is one place where a cross-platform relationship can be established. I'd like it if players could create content on their PC that becomes available for console users to download. Morrowind comes to mind as a great example of how the console version suffered from the lack of player-made content.
3) RTS control hasn't advanced much beyond its origins (except for the addition of hotkeys). All it takes is someone to figure out how to better utilize console controllers, or for mice to become standard console utilities... and then, RTS games will spread out as well.
Halo is the one console FPS that I played through. I always felt restricted, confined... I always wished I had more buttons available, or the freedom of a mouse. And yet, when I played the PC version, it didn't feel right (but it might have been a bad "port" - I gave it two chances on the Xbox, I might as well give the PC version another shot).
But I don't think it provides for a more level playing field. The same display issues exist on for consoles (larger screens, better resolutions) - and those of us who can't master the thumbsticks are at quite a disadvantage. If I were to have access to a trackball instead of thumbstick #2, I'd be able to turn around instantly and many of my gripes would disappear. But I think there might be other issues in that case (button location?).
Back on the console RPG topic - *why* do you think that PC RPGs will decline in popularity? There are just as many, if not more, RPG fans who own a PC - and more options exist for expanded content and eye candy. The only reason that I've seen is that "it's easier to develop for consoles", which I don't see as a real answer. Certainly, it's easier to hit the target requirements, and you can provide less technical support... but that's supposed to be true about developing *any* game for a console.
> with PCs losing their last vestiges of hardware advantage over consoles (namely harddrives and network adapters), there is less and less justification for publishers to ignore the console market under some illusion of console-gamer predisposition to action.
1) PCs are capable of displaying graphics several magnitudes better than a console. 1600x1200 in 32bit color with 16xAF and 8xAA vs. 480 interlaced (only displaying 240 lines). HDTV can display higher resolutions (notably 480p, 720p, and 1080i), but the only console that supports 720p is the Xbox, and its hardware isn't powerful enough to handle it for most games. Also, there is no HDTV standard, and since it doesn't look like HD will make the jump anytime soon, it will be a very long time before consoles can catch up to the PC in graphic quality.
2) Player made content. Please note that Counter Strike, possibly the most popular game ever (second only to Starcraft), is a player made module. Unless Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo decide to include developer kits along with their consoles (and developers decide to support player made content), this gigantic draw will remain on the PC.
The first two are *fact*. The third is my opinion.
3) I cannot abide console controls for certain genres - namely, First-person Shooters and Real-time Strategy games. They do not provide for the same level of precision as a mouse o trackball. I am aware that such devices are or could become available for consoles, but then you have the issue of what to put them on. Put yourself behind a desk, and now you're playing on a low-end PC with bad graphics and no potential for player-made content.
Those who predict that the days of the PC RPG are coming to an end seem to be unable to recognize Morrowind, NWN, MMOGs, and a host of other excellent titles that debuted last year. This argument comes and goes, but I've seen neither PCs nor consoles permanently decline in popularity.
That's a pretty great idea, though I think some of that has been touched on in True Crime (AFAIK, haven't played it).
But as Richard Garriot (Lord British) once said, "Great ideas are a dime a dozen - it's the implementation that's the key". Of course, that was said well before EA bought Origin and started screwing with his stuff. Now, I expect it's a tricky combination of implementation, funding, and not getting sued.
>... nobody is ultimately responsible for an action.
Wait a moment - of course people are responsible for their actions. This is why we punish/rehabilitate people who commit crimes. In the case of a minor, the parents or guardians bear responsibility for not dealing with the situation.
In the example I provided (child kills another child), it's very likely the parents/guardians are criminally liable as a "blind" accomplice. If they noticed there was a problem with their child, and did nothing about it, they facilitated the murder. If they didn't know their child was capable of such actions, it's very likely they weren't taking proper care of him/her in the first place.
Kids aren't let off the hook just because they're underage. The youngest convicted of murder (AFAIK, IANAL) was 11. I don't believe (again, AFAIK) that children under 6 are responsible for their actions at all... but if we're talking about people that young commiting heinous crimes, there's clearly some form of neglect at work.
It's harder when you're talking about teenagers... should parents/guardians be held as responsible for the actions of a 16 year old as an 8 year old? I think that to further this path of discussion, we'd probably need to speak with someone with actual legal knowledge.:)
But, in my opinion, you're totally right - those who are legally responsible for minors should be held accountable for the actions of those in their care.
> If GTA3 influences their son to cross some mental line and beat my daughter to death, all the parenting in the world that I did wouldn't have mattered.
We already have laws against this: it's called murder. If somebody's kid beats your child to death, he either lacks the mental capacity to tell right from wrong (and thus should be institutionalized), or doesn't care (and thus should be jailed for life/executed, depending on state/belief). Either way, that person needs to be removed from society.
See, we already have ways of dealing with this issue - it happened well before violent games were available. Ideally, the system catches people who are prone to commiting violence - odds are that the person incapable of telling right from wrong has already done something to indicate this. Same goes for the person who doesn't care that it's wrong.
> How do I hold that other parent responsible or force that other parent to keep GTA3 out of their problem-child's hands?
Unless you're part of the judicial system, *you* don't. If the other child's parents have been criminally negligent, they should be punished. It's your responsibility to make sure representatives are in place who will respect your interests - but, as I've already shown, you're blaming a symptom instead of the problem itself.
Your entire argument has the huge flaw of blaming an inanimate object for the actions of a thinking, breathing human being. An inanimate object can't be responsible for the actions of an individual.
We even already have ratings for games - M = "Mature", as is clearly labeled on the GTA3/VC box. As you are a libertarian, I assume that you understand that "making more laws" don't solve problems - we need to enforce the ones we already have, and revamp the ones that don't work.
If you believe that "Mature" games cause as many deaths as, say, cirrhosis of the liver or lung cancer, then we can look into making similar punishments. If you believe it causes as much harm as, say, watching an "R" rated movie or looking at similar material, then perhaps we should approach this situation in a similar manner.
Another example of someone who doesn't like something, and decides that their opinion is superior to everyone else's. My post stated that it is not universally revered, allowing for criticism - you felt the need to insult people who might like something you don't.
I'm less of an "otaku" and more of a "gaijin", though *you'd* probably call me "wapanese" - which would likely be followed up by several other deragatory comments about things I appreciate.
You're entitled to your opinion, but try not to be such a flaming asshole as you go about spreading your ill-cheer.
The Orc/goblin formations would have been more important had their moral been better. If they had held their lines, and flanked the riders with the excessive numbers, they would have decimated the charge.
Regardless, they failed their moral check (couldn't help the Warhammer joke), turned, and fled. And what do we know about the speed of horse vs. the speed of foot? It's a good thing for Rohan that orcs/goblins aren't known for their mental prowess.
Can I get an Amen? Bloody good sentiment, MikShapi.
Though I can't vouch for M&M, or Tribes 2, HoMM was a favorite series of mine, as was Deus Ex. When I found a spiritual successor to System Shock 2, I was so happy I might have cried. With DX:IW, I cry for a different reason.
If more development houses would consider your words, we would have a larger yield of quality games at our fingertips. Instead, they churn out whatever they can that caters to the lowest common denominator - with precious few exceptions.
Because of this, I am strongly of the opinion that the only people who can save the majority of the gaming industry are the gamers themselves. We either have to take fate into our own hands, and write the games ourselves - or we must make waves with our money, not settling for crappy games and richly rewarding those who understand what makes a good game great.
Slashdot Mirror
How in the world do you equate staying true to the original game's concept by introcuding another battle front (post 1942 cleanup) and adding a "what if?" elemental to focusing on 1992->now military actions?
They're different time periods, they're different locations, they contain different weapons, vehicles, and concepts. The biggest improvements in SWoWWII were mobile spawn points and the "Destroy" objective.
Both of which were used in subsequent Desert Combat releases - which makes sense, since it's a mod.
HL & CS did have a similar situation to BF1942 and DC - in CS's case, it was packaged and sold as an expansion pack, despite the fact that it continued to be freely available on the internet. I'm curious to see if the same thing happens.
-lw
If you don't care, why do you keep replying? Insulting people on the internet is about the most fruitless thing one can do with their time.
Thanks for proving my point, btw.
-lw
So you came to the conclusion that none of the games *could* have predicted a 14 game winning streak by the Patriots because the article didn't say they did.
Do you think that's a valid assumption?
I don't claim that football games are 100% accurate predictors - however, I think that claiming that it's impossible for them to be correct is jumping to conclusions. Which has been the entire point of questioning your reasoning.
-lw
You wrote:
> How many of these games would have predicted the Patriots would win 14 games in the regular season? Not a one.
Did you perform any analysis of these games to come to this conclusion? If so, what?
Feel free to answer the question this time.
-lw
> You present a false dichotomy I am unable to adequately respond to.
Then let me rephrase. Regarding:
> How many of these games would have predicted the Patriots would win 14 games in the regular season? Not a one.
Are you factually aware of this, or is it a statement made without proof? Do you have a resource to back it up, have you simulated it yourself, or has there otherwise been a study that conclusively proves your statement correct?
Or was that statement conjecture?
-lw
> How many of these games would have predicted the Patriots would win 14 games in the regular season? Not a one.
Do you know that, or are you just randomly spewing stuff? I don't know how *well* this was generated, but the '02-'03 season I just finished in Madden 2k4 would have yielded a Raiders/Bucs Superbowl (with Gannon getting QB MVP), had I not interfered (because, to the best of my knowledge, the Falcons didn't beat the Raiders 56-0).
I'm curious; I think I'll go through and generate all of last season, just to see how close it happens. Had I the NCAA 2k4 football game, I might be able to import a draft selection to see if this year simulates close to how it actually worked...
-lw
I really, really, *REALLY* wanted to see the Shire burn.
-lw
Hell yes. This is one of those games that I vaguely remember as being incredibly interesting, but not getting enough time to play - like the old Dune PC game.
The world needs more games like that.
-lw
I own a KD-XB component video to RGB adapter... and yes, 480p pales in comparison to 1600x1200. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison, because the games that look really good on the PS2 (FFX, for example) can't (don't?) utilize 480p, and are designed specifically with the PS2 hardware (vector processing) in mind.
The biggest thing that console gamers forget, when comparing graphics, is that you're not talking about the same scale. 480p roughly looks like 640x480... nobody even runs their desktop at that anymore. Even 1080i is interlaced (every other line displayed, so it's only rendering 540), and the only system capable of that (and 720p) is the Xbox - which has a handful of supported games.
The console's "graphic revolution" can't come until HD becomes standard, or Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony decide the vast majority of their client base already has HD capability.
You can only make 480i look so pretty. There's only so many ways to work with that limited number of pixels.
-lw
The disadvantage to a sniper rifle is that it's generally large, unwiedly, and unsuited to anything resembling a heated firefight.
Those are serious disadvantages, but aren't generally taken into account for action FPS titles. Most (all?) FPS titles don't model where your gun is in relation to your body, so you don't have to deal with crowded areas (dense brush, urban warfare) or situations where a full-sized rifle isn't useful (close quarters combat).
Sniper rifles are incredibly useful in long range engagements. As visibility decreases with engagement range, they become less useful. You don't use a sniper rifle when engaging a guy 20' away.
It's a matter of incorporating realism. The (physically) longer and more powerful the weapon, the better its accurate range will be - however, weapon weight and firing rate also need to be taken into account. Those big, bulky, low firing rate weapons should be correspondingly less useful in a rapid, close-range encounter.
-lw
Well, hey - that's good to know! Hopefully, more developers will include 480p+ in their games, so this little fact will get more attention.
-lw
> you probably misspoke, but it was evolutionary
...people used to WASD and mice might not be very good outside of their element.
...an insanely good multiplayer game.
I found it difficult to call Halo "Combat Evolved", though I'm sure it will have its place in the evolution of the FPS genre. I suppose it's semantics, as whatever role it played, it is still part of the history of the FPS genre.
> those are the answers I generally hear from people who like Halo to your questions.
That's fine; it's exactly what I wanted to hear, why people liked Halo. Since I disagree with some of it (I found the controls awkward) and wasn't exposed to other portions (multiplayer), it's pretty clear why I wouldn't think it a 90-100% game.
>
Yeah, I feel that looking + rotating via stick is too slow to be useful... but I play PC FPSes on a trackball with the sensativity turned way up.
>
Sounds like what I really missed was the MP. Lacking friends with Xboxes (or an HDTV; I find playing split screen @480i to be limiting to the point of worthlessness), and having no real reason to purchase Live (does it support Live?), I pretty much played it all the way through once, by myself, and haven't brought it back out since.
On the other hand, maybe I can find some place near D.C. that has ~16 player Halo games going on. I guess it's not too late to give it another chance.
-lw
> ...calling it "the biggest milestone in videogame history" is going a bit far, don't you think?
It might have been, was it released FOUR YEARS AGO ON THE PC like it was supposed to be. I don't even think it was evolutionary, and I can't figure out why it got such amazing reviews.
Can somebody explain this to me? What I played was an average FPS with mediocre graphics (*from a PC gamer's POV on the Xbox version). The two things remotely interesting about it was Co-op (a big plus, but they removed it in the PC version - WTF?) and the ability to pilot vehicles. I fail to see how this warrants a near-perfect score, as neither of these are innovations.
-lw
> The console market being much larger
Do you mean combined - as in, all three major consoles vs. PC? Because once developers start an Xbox version, it is extremely likely that they'll go the extra step to the PC.
Note that the two most popular games on the Xbox - Halo and KotOR - were intended to be PC releases, and were shanghaied by M$ft.
If you're talking about any single console having a larger market that the PC - well, I just don't believe it and you'll have to provide numbers =)
But those single console releases - the Final Fantasy series is generally exclusive to Sony/PS2 (I don't know what the deal is with FF:CC), and Zelda (which I have never considered to be a RPG so much as an action/adventure game) is generally exclusive to Nintendo/GC. Besides KotOR, does the Xbox have any other RPG titles?
I think if you take a look at the top 30 or so RPGs on GameRankings (independent of system), you'll notice that a large portion of them are PC titles.
Also, I think that the controller presents a technical barrier - if RTS games translate poorly to consoles, how can you expect games like Baldur's Gate to translate well? I just don't see how the transition could go smoothly, since there are no original western RPG non-PC titles available for any console.
-lw
1) The trend tends to give the graphics edge (from a subjective standpoint instead of an "absolute" one) to the consoles for their release... but that's the other problem with consoles. As better graphics cards are released for the PC/Mac, the consoles again lag behind.
Unfortunately, I can't see that trend continuing with display (unless console manufacturers decide that the majority of their audience has access to HD TV) - without higher resolutions, increasing graphics detail eventually becomes moot. That's not to say the trend will just stop - actually, I'm pretty sure the next gen of consoles will have graphics that rival top-of-the-line PCs. There just needs to be a HDTV (or whatever) revolution before console graphics advance to the point where they no longer benefit from higher poly count.
2) I'm not discounting player-made content... but the possibility is incredibly low. Many of the higher quality mods utilize tools external to the "official" tools... like Maya, Milkshake3D, etc. While I'm sure porting them to the console is possible... again, it's not something I expect this generation.
Hopefully, this is one place where a cross-platform relationship can be established. I'd like it if players could create content on their PC that becomes available for console users to download. Morrowind comes to mind as a great example of how the console version suffered from the lack of player-made content.
3) RTS control hasn't advanced much beyond its origins (except for the addition of hotkeys). All it takes is someone to figure out how to better utilize console controllers, or for mice to become standard console utilities... and then, RTS games will spread out as well.
Halo is the one console FPS that I played through. I always felt restricted, confined... I always wished I had more buttons available, or the freedom of a mouse. And yet, when I played the PC version, it didn't feel right (but it might have been a bad "port" - I gave it two chances on the Xbox, I might as well give the PC version another shot).
But I don't think it provides for a more level playing field. The same display issues exist on for consoles (larger screens, better resolutions) - and those of us who can't master the thumbsticks are at quite a disadvantage. If I were to have access to a trackball instead of thumbstick #2, I'd be able to turn around instantly and many of my gripes would disappear. But I think there might be other issues in that case (button location?).
Back on the console RPG topic - *why* do you think that PC RPGs will decline in popularity? There are just as many, if not more, RPG fans who own a PC - and more options exist for expanded content and eye candy. The only reason that I've seen is that "it's easier to develop for consoles", which I don't see as a real answer. Certainly, it's easier to hit the target requirements, and you can provide less technical support... but that's supposed to be true about developing *any* game for a console.
So why are RPGs special?
-lw
> with PCs losing their last vestiges of hardware advantage over consoles (namely harddrives and network adapters), there is less and less justification for publishers to ignore the console market under some illusion of console-gamer predisposition to action.
1) PCs are capable of displaying graphics several magnitudes better than a console. 1600x1200 in 32bit color with 16xAF and 8xAA vs. 480 interlaced (only displaying 240 lines). HDTV can display higher resolutions (notably 480p, 720p, and 1080i), but the only console that supports 720p is the Xbox, and its hardware isn't powerful enough to handle it for most games. Also, there is no HDTV standard, and since it doesn't look like HD will make the jump anytime soon, it will be a very long time before consoles can catch up to the PC in graphic quality.
2) Player made content. Please note that Counter Strike, possibly the most popular game ever (second only to Starcraft), is a player made module. Unless Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo decide to include developer kits along with their consoles (and developers decide to support player made content), this gigantic draw will remain on the PC.
The first two are *fact*. The third is my opinion.
3) I cannot abide console controls for certain genres - namely, First-person Shooters and Real-time Strategy games. They do not provide for the same level of precision as a mouse o trackball. I am aware that such devices are or could become available for consoles, but then you have the issue of what to put them on. Put yourself behind a desk, and now you're playing on a low-end PC with bad graphics and no potential for player-made content.
Those who predict that the days of the PC RPG are coming to an end seem to be unable to recognize Morrowind, NWN, MMOGs, and a host of other excellent titles that debuted last year. This argument comes and goes, but I've seen neither PCs nor consoles permanently decline in popularity.
-lw
That's a pretty great idea, though I think some of that has been touched on in True Crime (AFAIK, haven't played it).
But as Richard Garriot (Lord British) once said, "Great ideas are a dime a dozen - it's the implementation that's the key". Of course, that was said well before EA bought Origin and started screwing with his stuff. Now, I expect it's a tricky combination of implementation, funding, and not getting sued.
-lw
> ... nobody is ultimately responsible for an action.
:)
Wait a moment - of course people are responsible for their actions. This is why we punish/rehabilitate people who commit crimes. In the case of a minor, the parents or guardians bear responsibility for not dealing with the situation.
In the example I provided (child kills another child), it's very likely the parents/guardians are criminally liable as a "blind" accomplice. If they noticed there was a problem with their child, and did nothing about it, they facilitated the murder. If they didn't know their child was capable of such actions, it's very likely they weren't taking proper care of him/her in the first place.
Kids aren't let off the hook just because they're underage. The youngest convicted of murder (AFAIK, IANAL) was 11. I don't believe (again, AFAIK) that children under 6 are responsible for their actions at all... but if we're talking about people that young commiting heinous crimes, there's clearly some form of neglect at work.
It's harder when you're talking about teenagers... should parents/guardians be held as responsible for the actions of a 16 year old as an 8 year old? I think that to further this path of discussion, we'd probably need to speak with someone with actual legal knowledge.
But, in my opinion, you're totally right - those who are legally responsible for minors should be held accountable for the actions of those in their care.
-lw
> If GTA3 influences their son to cross some mental line and beat my daughter to death, all the parenting in the world that I did wouldn't have mattered.
We already have laws against this: it's called murder. If somebody's kid beats your child to death, he either lacks the mental capacity to tell right from wrong (and thus should be institutionalized), or doesn't care (and thus should be jailed for life/executed, depending on state/belief). Either way, that person needs to be removed from society.
See, we already have ways of dealing with this issue - it happened well before violent games were available. Ideally, the system catches people who are prone to commiting violence - odds are that the person incapable of telling right from wrong has already done something to indicate this. Same goes for the person who doesn't care that it's wrong.
> How do I hold that other parent responsible or force that other parent to keep GTA3 out of their problem-child's hands?
Unless you're part of the judicial system, *you* don't. If the other child's parents have been criminally negligent, they should be punished. It's your responsibility to make sure representatives are in place who will respect your interests - but, as I've already shown, you're blaming a symptom instead of the problem itself.
Your entire argument has the huge flaw of blaming an inanimate object for the actions of a thinking, breathing human being. An inanimate object can't be responsible for the actions of an individual.
We even already have ratings for games - M = "Mature", as is clearly labeled on the GTA3/VC box. As you are a libertarian, I assume that you understand that "making more laws" don't solve problems - we need to enforce the ones we already have, and revamp the ones that don't work.
If you believe that "Mature" games cause as many deaths as, say, cirrhosis of the liver or lung cancer, then we can look into making similar punishments. If you believe it causes as much harm as, say, watching an "R" rated movie or looking at similar material, then perhaps we should approach this situation in a similar manner.
-lw
Another example of someone who doesn't like something, and decides that their opinion is superior to everyone else's. My post stated that it is not universally revered, allowing for criticism - you felt the need to insult people who might like something you don't.
I'm less of an "otaku" and more of a "gaijin", though *you'd* probably call me "wapanese" - which would likely be followed up by several other deragatory comments about things I appreciate.
You're entitled to your opinion, but try not to be such a flaming asshole as you go about spreading your ill-cheer.
-lw
...it's still one hell of a game - though people either tend to love it or hate it.
t s. asp?itemid=519264
http://gamerankings.com/itemrankings/itemcommen
-lw
The Orc/goblin formations would have been more important had their moral been better. If they had held their lines, and flanked the riders with the excessive numbers, they would have decimated the charge.
Regardless, they failed their moral check (couldn't help the Warhammer joke), turned, and fled. And what do we know about the speed of horse vs. the speed of foot? It's a good thing for Rohan that orcs/goblins aren't known for their mental prowess.
-lw
I was really interested in the quote from Pope John Paul II, so I looked it up.
e nc yclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangeliu m-vitae_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/
The excerpt is from "CHAPTER III - YOU SHALL NOT KILL", part 55.
I'd quote the entire passage, but the portions directly before and after that section are also a good read. Interested parties should follow the link.
-lw
Bioware is the development house behind BG1+2 and NWN, not BIS. Please get your facts straight before posting, thanks =)
-lw
Can I get an Amen? Bloody good sentiment, MikShapi.
Though I can't vouch for M&M, or Tribes 2, HoMM was a favorite series of mine, as was Deus Ex. When I found a spiritual successor to System Shock 2, I was so happy I might have cried. With DX:IW, I cry for a different reason.
If more development houses would consider your words, we would have a larger yield of quality games at our fingertips. Instead, they churn out whatever they can that caters to the lowest common denominator - with precious few exceptions.
Because of this, I am strongly of the opinion that the only people who can save the majority of the gaming industry are the gamers themselves. We either have to take fate into our own hands, and write the games ourselves - or we must make waves with our money, not settling for crappy games and richly rewarding those who understand what makes a good game great.
-lw