lol, looking at the video the comic is talking about: http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47269.html This is the most hamfisted attempt at a morality system I've ever seen. Whenever you come across a choice the guy goes into a fucking soliloquy explaining exactly what your options are, which of them is really evil and why.
That's so fucking horrible. Seriously, that's just...You know what, I'll see your "hamfisted," and I'll raise you a "patronizing."
I wonder how hard it would be to write a game where you have to make difficult choices.
The easiest way to do this would be to make an obviously evil choice and an obviously good choice, and punish players for choosing the good choice. Like what Bioshock pretended it was going to do, only don't give players a bunch of extra Adam if they keep saving the little sisters, since that defeats the whole concept and makes the choice pretty much meaningless. The problem with that approach is that you've basically made a game where the player is supposed to do evil things, so there's still a clear right and wrong, only now the "evil" choice is right.
You could do a factioning system, where both sides are morally questionable, but in different ways. Like one side could have a core value like "the ends justify the means," so they have ultimately noble ideals, but go about achieving their goals in absolutely vile ways. Then the other side could be all "due process and equality" and all that, but even though they try to be good all the time, the ultimate result of their victory is a worse outcome because they are misguided in their objectives.
Or like, you could work with utilitarian distributions. One path makes the world much better for most people, but absolutely horrible for a small minority. The other path makes the world more even for everybody, although the total happiness is less. Effectively, the difference is that most simple morality games force the player's character, to sacrifice in order to make the world better for others. This game would give the player the choice of making somebody else sacrifice, involuntarily, for the good of others. Noble self-sacrifice is one thing, but forcing sacrifice on someone else is quite another. So again, you're trying to make the world better either way, but you're given the ability to choose whether or not to control things that aren't rightfully yours (other people's lives) in order to do what you personally feel is right.
I don't know, I've never been involved in a project that attempted that, but it would be cool to see.
I wonder if there's some sort of instinct in domesticated housecats that tell it that it has relatives like the lion, cheetah, and panther, and that's why it acts like the big motherfucker on campus.
I wonder if there's some sort of instinct in domesticated housecats that tell it that it has relatives like the lion, cheetah, and panther, and that's why it acts like the big motherfucker on campus.
No, cats are pretty much just dicks whether they deserve it or not.
I wonder if there's some sort of instinct in domesticated housecats that tell it that it has relatives like the lion, cheetah, and panther, and that's why it acts like the big motherfucker on campus.
You can tell that they know. They realize that they are giant ninja monsters. The only reason we don't find them terrifying is because we're like 20 times their size. Get a cat that's bigger than us and all of a sudden it's a different story.
See, dogs aren't that way. A huge, 200-pound dog can still be nice to a 20-pound child, and usually they will be nice as their default behavior. Because they are nature's buddyfriend. Not nature's terrifying ninja.
Man, I'm re-listening to The Spore Cult podcast, where they're talking about the two armies with the giant hats, where they're competing for hat size. And I'm almost ashamed I didn't think of this before.
But it's military millinery.
Willeth on
@vgreminders - Don't miss out on timed events in gaming! @gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
0
Options
JimothyNot in front of the foxhe's with the owlRegistered Userregular
I wonder if there's some sort of instinct in domesticated housecats that tell it that it has relatives like the lion, cheetah, and panther, and that's why it acts like the big motherfucker on campus.
You can tell that they know. They realize that they are giant ninja monsters. The only reason we don't find them terrifying is because we're like 20 times their size. Get a cat that's bigger than us and all of a sudden it's a different story.
See, dogs aren't that way. A huge, 200-pound dog can still be nice to a 20-pound child, and usually they will be nice as their default behavior. Because they are nature's buddyfriend. Not nature's terrifying ninja.
I think I've always found the opposite to be true.
Dogs, while not always mean (though sometimes they totally are) are more likely to hurt people, if only by accident. Bigger ones especially.
Meanwhile cats are gentle and yeah, pretty self-important. But they are all about rubbing up against you and purring, instead of trying to pounce on you or bite you like dogs.
Jimothy on
0
Options
MorgensternICH BIN DER PESTVOGELDU KAMPFAFFE!Registered Userregular
edited March 2009
That kitten gets into college and he chooses to go to Nebraska?
The kitten deserves everything he gets coming to him.
Morgenstern on
“Every time we walk along a beach some ancient urge disturbs us so that we find ourselves shedding shoes and garments or scavenging among seaweed and whitened timbers like the homesick refugees of a long war.” - Loren Eiseley
I wonder if there's some sort of instinct in domesticated housecats that tell it that it has relatives like the lion, cheetah, and panther, and that's why it acts like the big motherfucker on campus.
You can tell that they know. They realize that they are giant ninja monsters. The only reason we don't find them terrifying is because we're like 20 times their size. Get a cat that's bigger than us and all of a sudden it's a different story.
See, dogs aren't that way. A huge, 200-pound dog can still be nice to a 20-pound child, and usually they will be nice as their default behavior. Because they are nature's buddyfriend. Not nature's terrifying ninja.
I think I've always found the opposite to be true.
Dogs, while not always mean (though sometimes they totally are) are more likely to hurt people, if only by accident. Bigger ones especially.
Meanwhile cats are gentle and yeah, pretty self-important. But they are all about rubbing up against you and purring, instead of trying to pounce on you or bite you like dogs.
Are you kidding, cats hurt people on purpose all the time, with minimal provocation. It's just that the only thing they can do is claw at you.
I wonder if there's some sort of instinct in domesticated housecats that tell it that it has relatives like the lion, cheetah, and panther, and that's why it acts like the big motherfucker on campus.
You can tell that they know. They realize that they are giant ninja monsters. The only reason we don't find them terrifying is because we're like 20 times their size. Get a cat that's bigger than us and all of a sudden it's a different story.
See, dogs aren't that way. A huge, 200-pound dog can still be nice to a 20-pound child, and usually they will be nice as their default behavior. Because they are nature's buddyfriend. Not nature's terrifying ninja.
I think I've always found the opposite to be true.
Dogs, while not always mean (though sometimes they totally are) are more likely to hurt people, if only by accident. Bigger ones especially.
Meanwhile cats are gentle and yeah, pretty self-important. But they are all about rubbing up against you and purring, instead of trying to pounce on you or bite you like dogs.
Are you kidding, cats hurt people on purpose all the time, with minimal provocation. It's just that the only thing they can do is claw at you.
Cats aren't untrainable, either. There are some obvious differences in their behavior, but cats and dogs are both social animals. A friend of mine made sure to spend a few minutes with any one of his cats and dogs at some point, to make sure none of them were confused to who the alpha is. As a result they're all very responsive, especialy his terrier.
The problem in general is that most cat owners are pussies who can't stop fawning over their cat long enough to make it clear who is in charge. You're not doing yourself or your pets any favors by letting them get away with being a shithead because you can't stay mad at them.
I used to punish this one cat. She was hard to punish because most obvious punishments were, as best I could tell, just being interpreted as "that guy's being a dick again." Like I would punish her for something, and then she'd go right back and do it again while I'm still standing right there. What worked, though, was Cat Jail. Basically just an upside-down box, Cat Jail worked very quickly. I don't know if she just understood it better, or if it was just unpleasant enough that she stopped trying to compete with me, but her bad/annoying behaviors stopped very quickly after Cat Jail was implemented.
Also, dogs might be too rough or hurt you by accident, but only because they don't know better. My grandmother is quite old and very obviously weak. She's also blind. One of my sister's dogs (being my sister's dog means he's completely untrained and rightly believes himself to be the alpha in his own house) recognized this fact and would always walk behind her or get out of the way while she was trying to walk around. He seemed to understand that she's important and fragile and that he should clear a path so she can get around as easily as possible.
Both animals can be trained, and will just learn to get along with you in most cases, but by default, cats are scary monsters and dogs are buddymans.
Defender on
0
Options
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
lol, looking at the video the comic is talking about: http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47269.html This is the most hamfisted attempt at a morality system I've ever seen. Whenever you come across a choice the guy goes into a fucking soliloquy explaining exactly what your options are, which of them is really evil and why.
That's so fucking horrible. Seriously, that's just...You know what, I'll see your "hamfisted," and I'll raise you a "patronizing."
I wonder how hard it would be to write a game where you have to make difficult choices.
The easiest way to do this would be to make an obviously evil choice and an obviously good choice, and punish players for choosing the good choice. Like what Bioshock pretended it was going to do, only don't give players a bunch of extra Adam if they keep saving the little sisters, since that defeats the whole concept and makes the choice pretty much meaningless. The problem with that approach is that you've basically made a game where the player is supposed to do evil things, so there's still a clear right and wrong, only now the "evil" choice is right.
You could do a factioning system, where both sides are morally questionable, but in different ways. Like one side could have a core value like "the ends justify the means," so they have ultimately noble ideals, but go about achieving their goals in absolutely vile ways. Then the other side could be all "due process and equality" and all that, but even though they try to be good all the time, the ultimate result of their victory is a worse outcome because they are misguided in their objectives.
Or like, you could work with utilitarian distributions. One path makes the world much better for most people, but absolutely horrible for a small minority. The other path makes the world more even for everybody, although the total happiness is less. Effectively, the difference is that most simple morality games force the player's character, to sacrifice in order to make the world better for others. This game would give the player the choice of making somebody else sacrifice, involuntarily, for the good of others. Noble self-sacrifice is one thing, but forcing sacrifice on someone else is quite another. So again, you're trying to make the world better either way, but you're given the ability to choose whether or not to control things that aren't rightfully yours (other people's lives) in order to do what you personally feel is right.
I don't know, I've never been involved in a project that attempted that, but it would be cool to see.
This game looks like ass, though.
Have you played the Witcher? It actually has a lot of what you're describing, and focuses on presenting you with situations where you have to choose between sides, although neither side is wholly good or evil.
The Witcher was cool from what I played, though some of the swearing was a bit awkward.
"Why do people hate elves?"
"WHY DO PRICKS GO IN CUNTS?!?"
YOUR MOTHER SUCKS DWARF COCK
Actually the enhanced edition switched a bunch of the voice acting and such, which was a good idea. I'm playing through it now and it's been pretty solid overall. The most awkward thing is still the sex cards.
Posts
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
The kids could call you Deek Deek.
Are you high, kid?
Are you smoking the reefers?
My ex-cat was a badass bitch. Very photogenic.
Is This
It
DIABEETUS!!!
Damn he was awesome
I am going to have that bassline in my head all day you asshole
doo doo doodoo da doo doo DOO
doo doo doodoo da doo doo DOO
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
what is
"blinding a seeing-eye dog, it's like, ultra ironic..."
"would he like get, a smaller seeing eye dog? like a chihuahua?"
Blind man -> blind seeing-eye dog -> chihuahua that is the blind see-eye dog's seeing-eye dog.
That's so fucking horrible. Seriously, that's just...You know what, I'll see your "hamfisted," and I'll raise you a "patronizing."
I wonder how hard it would be to write a game where you have to make difficult choices.
The easiest way to do this would be to make an obviously evil choice and an obviously good choice, and punish players for choosing the good choice. Like what Bioshock pretended it was going to do, only don't give players a bunch of extra Adam if they keep saving the little sisters, since that defeats the whole concept and makes the choice pretty much meaningless. The problem with that approach is that you've basically made a game where the player is supposed to do evil things, so there's still a clear right and wrong, only now the "evil" choice is right.
You could do a factioning system, where both sides are morally questionable, but in different ways. Like one side could have a core value like "the ends justify the means," so they have ultimately noble ideals, but go about achieving their goals in absolutely vile ways. Then the other side could be all "due process and equality" and all that, but even though they try to be good all the time, the ultimate result of their victory is a worse outcome because they are misguided in their objectives.
Or like, you could work with utilitarian distributions. One path makes the world much better for most people, but absolutely horrible for a small minority. The other path makes the world more even for everybody, although the total happiness is less. Effectively, the difference is that most simple morality games force the player's character, to sacrifice in order to make the world better for others. This game would give the player the choice of making somebody else sacrifice, involuntarily, for the good of others. Noble self-sacrifice is one thing, but forcing sacrifice on someone else is quite another. So again, you're trying to make the world better either way, but you're given the ability to choose whether or not to control things that aren't rightfully yours (other people's lives) in order to do what you personally feel is right.
I don't know, I've never been involved in a project that attempted that, but it would be cool to see.
This game looks like ass, though.
No, cats are pretty much just dicks whether they deserve it or not.
You can tell that they know. They realize that they are giant ninja monsters. The only reason we don't find them terrifying is because we're like 20 times their size. Get a cat that's bigger than us and all of a sudden it's a different story.
See, dogs aren't that way. A huge, 200-pound dog can still be nice to a 20-pound child, and usually they will be nice as their default behavior. Because they are nature's buddyfriend. Not nature's terrifying ninja.
It Is.
I think it's the best out of the three, though the other two have their moments.
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
But it's military millinery.
@gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
I think I've always found the opposite to be true.
Dogs, while not always mean (though sometimes they totally are) are more likely to hurt people, if only by accident. Bigger ones especially.
Meanwhile cats are gentle and yeah, pretty self-important. But they are all about rubbing up against you and purring, instead of trying to pounce on you or bite you like dogs.
The kitten deserves everything he gets coming to him.
Are you kidding, cats hurt people on purpose all the time, with minimal provocation. It's just that the only thing they can do is claw at you.
Cats aren't untrainable, either. There are some obvious differences in their behavior, but cats and dogs are both social animals. A friend of mine made sure to spend a few minutes with any one of his cats and dogs at some point, to make sure none of them were confused to who the alpha is. As a result they're all very responsive, especialy his terrier.
The problem in general is that most cat owners are pussies who can't stop fawning over their cat long enough to make it clear who is in charge. You're not doing yourself or your pets any favors by letting them get away with being a shithead because you can't stay mad at them.
Also, dogs might be too rough or hurt you by accident, but only because they don't know better. My grandmother is quite old and very obviously weak. She's also blind. One of my sister's dogs (being my sister's dog means he's completely untrained and rightly believes himself to be the alpha in his own house) recognized this fact and would always walk behind her or get out of the way while she was trying to walk around. He seemed to understand that she's important and fragile and that he should clear a path so she can get around as easily as possible.
Both animals can be trained, and will just learn to get along with you in most cases, but by default, cats are scary monsters and dogs are buddymans.
Have you played the Witcher? It actually has a lot of what you're describing, and focuses on presenting you with situations where you have to choose between sides, although neither side is wholly good or evil.
"Why do people hate elves?"
"WHY DO PRICKS GO IN CUNTS?!?"
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
YOUR MOTHER SUCKS DWARF COCK
Actually the enhanced edition switched a bunch of the voice acting and such, which was a good idea. I'm playing through it now and it's been pretty solid overall. The most awkward thing is still the sex cards.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Cause it feels good.
Satans..... hints.....