Sure, I've heard of them, but do you guys actually use decimeters very often? I see measurements listed in centimeters (150cm) and meters and centimeters (1m 50cm) all the time, but I don't think I've ever seen any listed in decimeters (15 dm).
I don't know about elsewhere, but here we don't generally use decimeters in common parlance. The concept exists though, if milimeters, centimeters and meters aren't doing it for ya. :)
A deciliter is a very common unit of measurement though.
That comic nicely sums up my main pet peeve with how the conversion from imperial to metrics seems to be handled in media. Basically, someone yanked out a calculator and did a direct conversion.
I really doubt someone actually measured the distance and woha, that guy actually lives exactly 30 miles away, to the inch! Remarkable! More likely, those 30 miles are really an implied "roughly 30 miles", and translating "roughly 30 miles" into "48.28 km" is just plain inane.
You see this on TV all the time. Some guy goes "oh, it's about 10 miles." and the translation will be "oh, it's about 16.0934km." Nobody talks like that.
(We also need to talk about the decimal point, because the above - done deliberately - is clearly wrong and should die in a fire.)
Played with my ex, reached level 60, got into some endgame...got bored. It's...forgettable to way the least.
Yeah, 'forgettable' pretty much sums up my experience with it. I vaguely recall enjoying myself while playing it but it didn't leave any lasting impression at all, whether positive or negative.
I do remember that I liked how they integrated the player-generated content into the gaming world, making it feel like a seamless part of the game (a stark contrast to, say, the Architect Entertainment system in City of Heroes.)
I don't think we were specifically discussing them, since they are no longer canon: the 'modified' endings from the Extended Cut DLC (further modified if you have LEVIATHAN installed) are now the official endings to the game.
If it really needs to be summed up, I made a post regarding the original endings, Scott commented on that post and I replied to his comment.
I get that there are four current endings, but that wasn't the topic in the post Hama was correcting. Hence the clarification. 'We' was the brief exchange between Scott and me, not everyone everywhere.
Alice Margatroid wrote:
Marketing isn't limited only to television or web advertisements; the article explains this...
While that's true, those are also the ads that are easiest to tailor to any specific market, and thus tend to be the most effective. There's no one global culture and designing in-game content to appeal globally is pretty tricky, simply because different things work for different cultures (see the disaster it was to launch Dungeon Keeper 2 with Danish voice acting. Or, as a more recent example, how happy people are with the way Origin sets your language preferences based on your IP. Aka. "I need to spoof my IP to set the client language to English?" o.O)
Advertisement isn't one size fits all, and thinking that "Scandinavia is pretty much Germany, right?" is a pretty good way to miss the boat (EA, I'm looking at you.) :)
I think that article is very localized in its' perceptions. I don't know where the writer is from (an easy guess would be the US, but when you assume...) but I don't think "marketing is evil" is necessarily the main reason. I don't think I've ever seen a video game ad before World of Warcraft started doing it a few years ago. And to this date I can count the games being actively advertised on one hand.
So it's clearly not marketing, my parents (I'm not sure they even knew video games existed) or me that taught my sisters that "video games are stupid" (though the youngest had a secret obsession with Age of Empires II).
Maybe it was the lack of marketing. Maybe they are just more socially conscious than me.
Lord Snow wrote:
I looked around. Everything was calm
Ah, I see. So by Half-Life gameplay you really mean less open world, more railroad. Gotcha. Personally, I hope that doesn't happen. :)
I agree that F3 gave you a lot of freedom but wasn't always able to react credibly to your actions. Personally, I'd rather they improve this and find ways to make the game more responsive to the freedom it gives you, than taking that freedom away.
Lord Snow wrote:
If, one day, there will be a game in the fallout setting with half-life like gameplay, I'd be all over that game. I assume, however, that Fallout 4 is going to continue the same gameplay as well as the same setting from previous games.
I thought our main complaint about Fallout 3 was that it was too Half-Life-like.
Scott Betts wrote:
...but that is the conclusion. From Shepard's point of view, at least, it's more than possible to have fostered a (shaky) peace between organics and synthetics. This outcome makes the Catalyst look less like a galactic protector in the form of a necessary evil and more like a terrible mistake created by a paranoid people. The point, however, is that regardless of what Shepard thinks about the Catalyst's existence, it's still the only way of stopping the Reapers. (Notably, the extended version of the ending provided a fourth ending option where you shoot the Catalyst and watch the Reapers annihilate civilization again.)
Well, it was my conclusion based on the events of the games and what the Catalyst had to say, but I never got the sense from the actual conversation at the end that it was a conclusion I was supposed to reach, and Shepard didn't have any dialogue options (that I found, I only bothered with that long dreg of a walk three times) that really challenged the Catalyst's explanation.
But as I've said elsewhere, I don't really have an issue with the three possible endings (I mean, I think the space magic was kinda dumb, but that alone doesn't really hurt my opinion of the series as a whole). What I take issue with, is the Plot Exposition at the end, and how little sense it makes compared to roughly everything that has happened in game previously. If the writers meant for me to go "wait, that doesn't make any sense at all" they failed to get that across. Instead, they managed to make me sit back with the sense that whoever wrote the ending never actually played any of the games.
To me, it is at best an issue of failed communication, and at worst an issue of someone changing their mind about the main theme of the series in the last 10 minutes of it (or, even worse, not realizing that the series had a different message up 'till this point).
I don't really care which is true. At the end of the day I just can't be bothered with the series after that (I will, however, continue to play the heck out of ME3 multiplayer).
1. Since mid-80s.
Scott Betts wrote:
The absence of the Geth and Reapers isn't a huge deal. To give you an idea of how not-central they are to the universe, prior to the start of the first game neither of them were interacting with the rest of the galaxy at all.
The Reapers have had quite a lot of "interaction" with the universe prior to the start of the first game. :p
While the Geth aren't important, the absence of the Reapers kinda is. If the Catalyst is right, then Synthetics murdering all life in the universe is inevitable unless you murder all organics before it can happen.
Which really means that Synthesis is the only thing that actually works. Ignoring important questions like "how does 'turn organics into semi-synthetic beings' actually work?", "what is stopping semi-synthetic beings from building real synthetics that will inevitably murder them all?" and "am I the only one who think it's creepy how the toaster moans when I put a slice of bread in it?"
Of course, there's also the (fairly good) chance that the Catalyst is a total crackpot with no idea what it's talking about. Which makes the past umpteen instances of galaxy-wide genocide even more horrific (and anything but the 'Destroy' ending pretty terrible). The only things that really bother me about the original ending was how there's no option to go "dude, that makes no sense", and random space magic. That all this pointless mayhem was caused by a mad AI would have been a perfectly acceptable conclusion to the series.
No, the character would not have tried, because the OP would have known it wouldn't work. There is no separation in the OP's action choices to support your statement at all, my good sir.
I don't think it's really relevant to this discussion what may or may not have happened in an alternative timeline.
I don't know the OP. I do know that "shoot the giant melee monster while hovering outside its' reach" is an awfully obvious thing to do, assuming you have the capabilities to do that (there's a reason City of Heroes decided to give all enemies a form of ranged attack during beta :p). That it also just happens to work is just an added bonus.
Of course, this is coming from a guy who's only contribution to a fight against a BBEG Marilith was to shoot her with lightning, so I may not be properly tuned in.
Yep. Because he consulted Google first and didn't even bother to frame how his character came to that knowledge.
It's only meta-gaming because it worked. Even if golems had been immune to Lantern Archon blasts, it would be a perfectly valid thing to try against a seemingly invulnerable but melee-bound enemy. The only "meta-gaming" was the player failing to roleplay his character thinking of trying this trick. And, to be honest, each group approaches roleplaying differently. "You are roleplaying wrong" is not a valid argument.
Assuming, of course, that you are capable of summoning Lantern Archons in the first place (which is an honest mistake that both the player and the GM are "guilty" of, in this case).
Doesn't really sound like cheating, if you ask me. "Big, dangerous almost impervious monster with only melee attacks"? Trying to bombard it with ranged summoned creatures sounds like a perfectly reasonable approach. Granted, you could have taken the discussion up in game. Like, go "hey guys, I know that thing is murdering us in melee, and my magic isn't doing much either. I could try to summon up some ranged things and see if that has any effect. How's that?"
I'm more iffy on the whole Chaotic God letting you summon Lawful outsiders and I think the GM would have been well within his right to shut it down there. That he didn't, and instead started accusing you of cheating seems odd. It's not like you guys are playing against each other (I assume?) Getting angry that you defeated an encounter is weird.
You explained your plan to him, as I understand it, including mentioning where you got the idea. If he had an issue with that, it would be fine IMHO for him to ask you to go through the train of logic that would lead your character to try something like that (or even ask for knowledge checks).
(As a GM, I'd be pleased as punch that a player cared enough about the game to actually think about it outside the session, but maybe that's just me. :p)
Scott Betts wrote:
I doubt very much that it will continue the Shepard plot. I think the word "sequel" here merely refers to the universe's chronology, with the new series taking place after Mass Effect 3, rather than before the first game or alongside the first series.
By "Shepard plot" I mean continuing the current storyline. I thought they had initially made statements that they had no plans to do that (I don't have a source, alas). Of course, plans can change.
Still, too bad, if they go that route. I would have liked something to further explore the setting we know from the ME games, rather than something dealing with the fallout of the ME3 ending. I think the setting is strong enough to tell more stories in it.
That said, it would rather amuse me if the ME4 plot was "they were right. Without the reapers, Synthetics eventually destroyed all life in the galaxy. You're an AI seeking allies as you rise up in rebellion against the omnipotent God-Machine."
I'd play that. :)
The only thing that bothered me was Gipsy's analog. What the hell.
What broke the camel's back, for me, was using the supertanker as a sword. That was just dumb. Then the Gipsy thing happened.
Trace Coburn wrote:
* ‘Shorthand’ because screen-time is precious, especially since by all accounts del Toro was ruthless in keeping running-time down, and ‘analogue’ is a lot faster to say than all that other stuff I wrote above.
'Analogue' is definitely shorter, but so is 'EMP shielding'. We don't need a technical specification on 'EMP Shielding' either, but it seems instinctively more plausible than going "oh that giant robot full of electronic equipment? Lucky for us, it doesn't use electricity at all."
Anyway. I think nitpicking at the scientific details is probably missing the point. What "broke" the movie, for for me, was really the intro sequence where they give you the backstory on the Kaiju and some brief looks into how this has affected society. I sat there thinking "that's the movie I want to see."
Saint Caleth wrote:
How vital is it that the orcs are 8 feet rather than 6'5" or whatever. There are a surprising number of practical tricks to add a few inches to an actor onscreen and once you get someone in costume with Warcraft proportioned armor, the necessary physical bulk will be there.
Roughly as vital as portraying humans as being about as wide across the shoulders as they are tall. Ie. not at all and if you try too hard it might get a bit silly.
Hrm. Advice? "You can't prepare enough Silence spells." But I'm sure you're aware. :)
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
3. If you have a special game world you've built...
I'm not really a passionate person. Most of the time I just shrug and move on. However, I might have some theories to air regarding #3.
I am thinking that when you create your own game world, you're trying to do something unique. After all, there has to be a reason why you're not just playing in Greyhawk or something. I haven't done much world building myself, but the people I know who have, they tend to like to do something to set their setting apart from everything else (more or less successfully). People like to put their own personal mark on things.
An easy way to do that is to go, say, "this world doesn't have elves!". Bang, unique setting. Then, if a player then starts to complain that they want to be an elf and you're being unfair for not allowing them to play an elf or their alternative idea for a "human who was raised in the deep forests by sylphs and hey we could use elf stats for him".
To the player, the "no elves" rule seems unfairly arbitrary (and, make no mistake, when the setting was first developed, it was an arbitrary decision to exclude elves), while to the GM it feels like an attack on their creative efforts, and an attempt to force their unique world into a "generic fantasy" mould.
At the end of the day, both character building and world building is a creative process, and people tend to get super defensive when their creative efforts are being critiqued. The main difference, to me, is that the guy going "I want to play an elf!" hasn't actually started his creative process yet, whereas the GM's unique "no elves here" world has been in the works for probably months (if not years) at this point.
So I am honestly not surprised if there's a violent (oops, I'm not supposed to use that word. Read: strong) reaction to someone suggesting that the GM should always defer to player wishes and modify their campaign/world/whatever to any idea the player is currently fancying.
(That said, it's also never okay to literally shred a PC's backstory.)
I don't think it's really a system concern. I've had AD&D sessions entirely without combat. It's mostly a matter of the kind of plots the GM is designing, and the kind of game the players want to be in.
Of course, you can find a system that makes that kind of game more or less attractive (like, in D&D, if you're better than 95% of the populace, 'killing them and taking their stuff' quickly becomes the easy way). Generally you want a system where combat is really dangerous or where the players aren't shepherded into a "superhuman" role so that combat becomes less of a 'no-brainer' solution to everything.
Call of Cthulhu is a good example of such a system. Especially in a not-modern setting (I don't know why, but modern Call settings tend to degenerate into 'shoot deep ones with assault rifles' games for some reason.) Another favourite of mine is Dark Heresy. I'd also venture to suggest various World of Darkness games or even Exalted (while Exalted generally revolve around epic over-the-top combat, it's also a game that lends itself easily to the players ruling nations and city states and involve themselves in 'grand intrigue' rather than fighting the Tyrant Lizard of the Week).
Of course, I'm still talking about the same thing I was pages ago: in this day and age it behooves you to realize that every image you see in the media is manipulated.
I'm not. I'm simply reacting to the ridiculous notion that you should ban stories about super heroes because super powers aren't real.
Ah, so we shoud ban fantasy heroes, super spies and super heroes because they are an edited form of reality that is unatainable then?
I'm not sure how you could jump to that conclusion based on anything I said. You're the one with the ban hammer.
I don't think you should ban fiction, no, but you might want to stop and think before passing off fantasies as reality. Superman Returns wasn't a documentary, you know.
Would you ban the olympics because most people would find that level of perfection impossible?
I think the difference is that the level of perfection you see in the Olympics actually is humanly achievable, by definition. Whereas photoshop manipulation would be the equivalent of making up world record statistics after the fact. "Let's just edit this footage to make it look like the guy ran the 100 meter dash in 5.01 seconds."
This is also, presumably, why we get so upset over doping use. You are no longer "the best you can be" you are suddenly "the best chemistry can make you", which is an entirely different game (albeit, if you ask me, a much more interesting game. But that's a completely different discussion).