Home
Twitter
RSS
Newsletter
PS3
 
360
 
Wii
 
PC
 
DS
 
3DS
 
PSP
 
Mobile
 
Retro
LoginForumsGame ExchangeBargains
Latest Content
draexem's Profile
PALGN Starter
PALGN Starter

Contact Information
Email address:  
Private Message: Send private message
MSN Messenger:  
Yahoo Messenger:
AIM Address:  
ICQ Number:  
Username:  draexem
Joined:  14 May 2010
$poons:  4.40
Total posts:  44 [Show all]
[0.01% of total / 0.04 posts per day]
Post Score:  19  ( 25 / 6) [Show all]
Total votes:  0 [Show all]
Location:   
Website:   
Occupation:   
Interests:  
 
Referrals
draexem  has not made any referals.
Buddies
People with draexem as their buddy: none
draexem's buddies: none
[Add draexem to your buddy list]
draexem's Recent Forum Posts
InvivnI wrote
We have state governments for the same reason why we have local councils, because every region is different - and has different requirements. A national transport plan won't work because transport issues in Darwin are different to transport issues in Melbourne.
Yet transport issues in Townsville are different to transport issues in Brisbane, but the State Government seems to manage just fine.

Also, the reason you have given on why we have State Governments is wrong. The Government of NSW was made in 1856 but Australia didn't have a federal system of Government till 1901. This should give you a bit of a hint on why State Governments were formed and one of the reasons why many people believe they are now obsolete.
grim-one wrote
So draexem - what do you actually want them to do, other than throw money at the problems?
I didn't say to throw money at problems, but solutions don't come without serious monetary investment.

What I want? Just off the top of my head, and going on things already promised by Labor... where the hell's our hospital takeover? Where's our education revolution (unless their idea of a revolution is a syllabus change and computer access for all). What happened to 'Global Warming' being the biggest threat to yada yada. Even without the idea of global warming, the days of relying on coal and oil are ending and there needs to be some very serious investment in researching clean energy.

grim-one wrote
At least there's a solid plan for better broadband, that will deliver results if it gets done. Far too many people are stuck on sub-standard links or on the horror that is pair-gain and RIM. Not to mention rural users with next to no choices.
The woman who gave birth in the hospital toilet will be so happy people are finally getting decent broadband coverage.

grim-one wrote
I agree the State governments are largely superfluous, but I'm not sure running things at the Federal level would be any more efficient or reliable. Being such a long way from Canberra, I think my state might be neglected in favour of 'closer' issues...
True, but that's a complaint that's not going to go away no matter what type of Government is in. People living at the top end of WA complain about their State Governments on this very issue, for example. In any case, State Governments don't exist in either NZ or England and they're probably managed more efficiently for it. Three levels of Government is just too much beaurocracy.
grim-one wrote
These are all state run, not the federal government (although health will be soon I believe).
Removing State Governments will be step number 1.

grim-one wrote
Not sure how you're proposing the federal government would fix this
See above.

grim-one wrote
Again, not sure how you think the government would magically fix this. Research is being done at CSIRO and there's a few trials in place. Not to mention the solar cell rebate available (or maybe this is a WA thing).
Increased funding would be a start. For example:

President Barack Obama unveiled on February 1 a $28.4 billion budget request for DOE for fiscal year (FY) 2011, including $2.36 billion for the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). The proposed budget aims to reduce unnecessary energy use, boost renewable energy sources, and strengthen clean energy research as the United States moves toward a clean energy economy.

grim-one wrote
The cost will be spread over 10 years, it's not all that much in federal budget terms.
Still a significant investment that would be better spent elsewhere.

grim-one wrote
Private sector hasn't done anything dramatic with overhauling residential communications, apart from Telstra laying cable which it won't share, in the last 20+ years. It costs too much money and the return on investment is too long for companies to justify to shareholders. They need to be prodded by this for anything to happen.
When there's sufficient demand then there will be a supply. The reason there hasn't been a dramatic overhaul is because the demand is not there. Australia doesn't need anythin like this yet which is why the private sector hasn't moved.
John Marston wrote
Obviously you have fast internet and not located in a rim/pairgain city maybe you should read up about rims and pair gains before you say its a waste of money. There are heaps of people in my area that can not even get adsl1 they are stuck on wireless which is expensive and crap around here. We are also ranked 50th in the world internet speed....
I'm not arguing that the situation isn't bad, I'm arguing that 47 billion dollars could be better spent elsewhere. You have not provided a single reason why this isn't the case.

For the majority of people, super fast broadband is a luxary (there are exceptions but I'm talking about the majority of people here). Let's address homelessness, law enforcement and people's health before we look at how quickly we can zoom information into everybody's homes, yes?

Island_Wolf wrote
That's State government responsibility (at least that what I think they mostly are). I've seen enough money thrown at it but not good outcomes due to poor planning. I'll take public transport, Sydney's failed T-card that cost money, fail transport proposals, the only decent thing was MyZone and that's about it.
That's another thing that needs to go... State Governments. How useless are they?

Island_Wolf wrote
Housing affordability can't be controlled by the gov.
They can always release more land.

Island_Wolf wrote
Education system is a joke and I believe uni should be better looked after but no one cares about unis.
Indeed it is, and so was Rudd's 'education revolution' and 'school hall program'. Every political party has its problems, Federal Labor seem to excel in wasting money. I'm reminded of Jamie from the Mythbusters where he's constantly telling Adam to think then act, don't act then think.
Seems like a big fat waste of money to me. Our law enforcement needs a boost, hospitals are falling apart, our public transport system is still a joke, the education system is always in need of a revamp, housing affordability is insane, we need to search for alternate sources of energy (not only because of global warming but because China and India will be buying up a lot of the coal and oil, sending prices marching upward and anyway they are both finite resources) ... but lets spend 47 billion dollars on providing 'super fast broadband' to the entire country at the tax payers expense. Because we obviously all have a clear idea on what the important things in life are.

What a joke. Leave the provision of super fast broadband in the hands of the private sector for the time being, there's far too many other things to be done.
There's been plenty of responses from Bioware at their forum about these issues. For those who don't visit here's a selection:

David Gaider wrote
So you have 5 options on the main wheel plus "Investigate", which brings you to another wheel hub where you have up to 5 more options (plus "Return"). So we do, in fact, have the ability to put up more options than we did in DAO. We're not always going to use all of those, of course (any more than we did all six in DAO) but in terms of the number of choices we put up we are not limited by the wheel at all.

I think the problem some people are expressing is that they don't like the paraphrase system, and that sometimes the intent of the paraphrase isn't clear. I think the icon system we use (an icon is represented in the middle of the dialogue wheel when we need to express a particular intent, such as "Intimidate" or "Flirt" or "Combat") mitigates that to an extent... but I don't doubt there are people for whom that's simply never going to work. You are also correct, however, that there's no point in assigning problems to the system that simply don't exist... nor in assuming that the style used in Mass Effect's narrative structure will be exactly the same in DA2 simply because we use the same system (though what else do you have to compare it to for the moment?).

We're not apologizing for these changes, nor are we trying to hide them. This is still Dragon Age to us. It feels a bit like the people who tried to argue with us that our "Baldur's Gate spiritual successor" couldn't be called that because it didn't have every feature that BG did-- we know what a Dragon Age game should feel like, to us, and to be honest I don't think it rests in player VO/not player VO or a dialogue wheel. We think it rests in the choices the player gets to make, the world and characters you're interacting with and the party-based combat.

Granted, it would be nice if we showed some more things that the particular group which hangs out on these forums would like-- but I have the feeling that no matter how much information we divulged on the announcement it would never quite be enough for you guys. So letting you guys absorb this part before seeing more of what's actually in the game is maybe not a bad idea. Like I've said many times now, you'll see for yourselves in time whether the game's for you... but I think if you're assuming that, even though the same people are working on it who worked on Origins that it won't feel like a Dragon Age game just because, say, your player character talks that you're probably selling us a bit short.
Fetidchimp wrote
is the chinese version more fun than the american version
In the Chinese version they use dodgy water icon_razz.gif
Sin Ogaris wrote
So, Red Dead Redemption can go die in a fire. While the story is picking up and the interactions are becoming a HELL of a lot better than the first few missions (although the characters are still annoyingly cliched) and the whole "everybody is bi-polar" thing they had going seems to be over (Bonnie's dad, anyone?) the bugs are killing the experience.
Yeah, from all reports RDR is fairly buggy. I'm surprised you didn't mention constant freezing because that's also been a fairly common complaint (and was what killed the game for me).

Anyway I'm currently playing Sacred 2 and the only thing I'm feeling is a renewed sense of appreciation for it's predecessor. This game just doesn't do it for me at all, and I really miss the original save anywhere system *starts installing Sacred gold back on computer*.
InvivnI wrote
Did anyone see Hawke on Channel 10 last night? He should run again, inject some character back into the proceedings.

I'd vote for him.
Ditto. Can Abbott and Gillard be any more boring? At least Abbott is relatively concise, Gillard just seems to ramble on and on and on and on. And I'd never thought I'd say this but I prefer Mark Latham's 'ladder of opportunity' infinitely more than Gillard's inane 'moving forward'.

I'd vote Labor if Gillard will agree to just stop talking. Fair dinkum it's worse than Chinese waterboarding
Fly wrote
Original point stands though!
Your original point was fair enough, my bad. I got your post mixed up with Karai's and Grim's who seem to be implying that Abbott's refusal to rule out a filter + christian beliefs = a situation as bad or worse than Labor's proposal.
Fly wrote
Because the only thing silly is the audacity of your accusation in the context of your own reply. Let alone to then go on about how great the Howard era was and you slander a 2 line piece as a scare campaign?
I think you'll find you're talking about a post made by another person.

Fly wrote
Laughable in its entirety, I am not only slightly insulted at your slander but completely baffled at your choice of targeted context when you blatantly offer the information that you're a Liberal patsy not 2 posts later.
Yep, you're definately talking about a post made by another person.
ManeKast wrote
Games that arent so realistic looking (Final Fantasy) dont really matter on this point.
*Engage nit picky mode*Bad writing affects ALL games where the storyline and/or character interaction are put forward as being an important part of the game. This means that yes, the writing is an important part to Final 'interactive movie' Fantasy, and yes the fact that the dialogue in FFXIII felt like it was written by a pre-pubescent did affect people's opinions on the game. *Disengage nit picky mode*
Fly wrote
In effect once he's satisfied that technology can work and not impact the internet in a negative tone he will then more than likely use it regardless.
The reason the majority of people are up in arms over the proposed filter isn't because Labor are trying to introduce a filter. People are outraged over the secret blacklist, the performance degradation, the fact that it'compulsary etc etc. Going by what Tony Abbott has said, it looks like he's unwilling to consider any of Labor's more controversial ideas, which is most definately a good thing. Trying to raise a scare campaign against Abbott purely because he won't rule out trying to introduce a filter in the future is pretty silly.

Furthermore the whole NBN thing will not be supported by anyone who believes in small Government.

In other news Gillard is starting to look the same as Rudd, all talk and lots of stuff ups. Labor will probably win the next election but they will be limping over the line.
Re: NRL 2010 (2 years ago)
Gaz has signed, game over peeps icon_razz.gif
pixelatedgames wrote
I have said it for YEARS that red heads are taking over. That one day, Aliens will come down and all red heads, being the superior beings, will be taken away to a glorious land which can only be compared to heaven.
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/images-3/ronald-mcdonald.jpg
InvivnI wrote
Irrelevant, Howard did a good job with saving the money, and Rudd did a good job spending it to boost the economy (though admittedly the insulation scheme was a bit of an epic fail).
Do you remember back during the Howard years where some guy created a website detailing all the promises Howard broke during his time in power? Well one has been created about Rudd as well, not detailing broken promises but instead detailing wasted money. Like the blowout in the school halls program, the blowout and subsequent axing of the solar program, all the money wasted with fuel watch, grocery watch and the like. It's called Laborwaste

http://www.laborwaste.com.au/?Page=News
So who had the shorter reign as PM, Kevin 007 or Whitlam? They'd haveto be fairly close wouldn't it?

So, will Gillard get the woman's vote or will the public be annoyed at the Labor party for doing this?
Fly wrote
This is the key, other nations simply threw money, they wiped debt and they're still struggling to come out of it because they didn't actually stimulate the economy through ultimately negative stimulus aimed at removing debt.
This is a blatant lie. Obama's stimulus package of 2009, for example, contained a massive investment into infrastructre. Germany's stimulus package included 18 billion Euros in the building of new roads, repair of roads/rails.

Kevin Rudd's stimulus was no different to any other Western Nations package.

Fly wrote
I'd also like to point out that by and large the insulation stimulus was a success as many undertook it and it kept several employed.
If you like to count a scheme which a) resulted in people dying and b) resulted in many homes having poor workmanship done which disrespects the homeowner and will take billins of dollars to fix a success, then sure it's a success.

Fly wrote
but this is ultimately as much a failing of the government as it is the home owner for not validating any form of certificate.
But a failing of the Government it is.

Fly wrote
On the school buildings, effectively this was poorly enforced by the Education Union as much as the gov as well.
But again, it is without question that the Government it at least partly to blame. Julia Gillard's blatant refusing to admit that anything is wrong really pisses people off.

Fly wrote
But hey, at least it's not someone visiting a gay bar or a strip joint, since then they'd have to be fired. icon_razz.gif
You talking about David Campbell? I don't think it was the fact that he visited a gay strip joint so much as he used tax payers money to do so. Otherwise it would reek of double standards/discrimination. You know, Kevin Rudd visits a strip joint and all of a sudden he's a common bloke, an average fella, let's vote him in. But some guy visits a GAY strip joint...
InvivnI wrote
Australia is the only western country that didn't go into recession during the GFC.
Not really because of what Rudd did. Every Western country in the world produced stimulus packages you know, but our country was one of the few to avoid the worst of the GFC.

Our strong economic position heading into the crisis + our proximity to Asia + mining boom is what really helped see us through. I also like to point out that 2 of the major programs of the stimulus package (the insulation program and the school hall thing) were severly bungled.

On the whole new leader thing, we've been heading towards it for a while. However I would like to say that it was totally cool when one of the senior labor sources labelled Rudd a crypto-fascist. It's a phrase that I've only recently heard on Red Dwarf. It's awesome that Rudd is bringing back that word.
Quote
The Reserve Bank of Australia is hit with a new controversy when its currency firm is linked to bribery with foreign officials and offers of prostitutes to gain banknote printing deals.

Securency International in Melbourne is under scrutiny by the Australian Federal Police as it faces charges on bribing foreign government officials with multi-million dollar commissions to middlement in order to win a bid on banknote printing deals.

An AFP witness, who is a former Securency employee, revealed to the local media that he was tasked by his senior manager to arrange an Asian prostitute for the visiting official from foreign central bank in Melbourne.

The witness have failed to arrange the request, but suggests that other employees may have fulfilled the request for central bank officials.

The witness also learned that a middleman hired by Securency have intentions to bribe a central bank governor from an Asian country.

Securency International is a joint venture between the RBA and British firm Innovia Films. The company produces polymer material to print money in Australia and 26 other nations including Hong Kong, Indonesia, Brazil, China, New Zealand, and Sri Lanka.

Media reports have stated that two of Securency's top executives resigned the same day the controversial audit was released.

The reports have stated the banknote company were paying almost $50 million in commissions to an international network of agents since 2003.

Several countries such as Malaysia and Nigeria have called on the Federal Government to solve the matter on the allegations of bribery and corruption within Securency.
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/24597/20100523/rba-in-trouble-for-graft-scams-and-prostitutes.htm

Good work muppets icon_rolleyes.gif
GooberMan wrote
After all the arguments and counterarguments, you're still going to whinge about not being able to betray the role you've assumed?
If you would actually propose a counter-argument that is different to 'the developers created the rules, there's your ingame reason' then the argument can actually progress. You've pretty much been saying the exact same thing over and over in slightly different ways. I'm not anticipating much different in this post.

And you underestimate just how sad and lifeless an individual I really am. You have no idea how long I can whinge for. My Dad's a Pom, be very afraid.

GooberMan wrote
And that means it's not a role playing game? What does Pac Man have to betray? Should he be able to make friends with the ghosts instead of eating them? The answer is no because of the ruleset defined by that universe
And I will say again that the ruleset may curb in game actions, but if no in game explanation is presented other than 'it was programmed that way' thn the game isn't an RPG. Which Pac-man is not. Where on Earth did you get the idea that Pac-man was an rpg from?

GooberMan wrote
Including further back than just after the start of the universe? Using methods of observation from within our universe? You're optimistic. The best we can hope to do from within the bounds of this universe is create another one and observe it and assume that's how ours started.
Of course. Just because we can't explain what happens doesn't mean science can't. Science is nothing more than explaining away the phenomena of the Universe, the reason phenomena occured from just after our Universe was born already exists, therefore an explanation already exists therefore science already has it covered. We just don't know the science yet.

GooberMan wrote
And you've probably never tried creating a world going by that.
Wrong. I'm a perfectionist (I can't be arsed doing anything unless it's done perfectly), and a pessimist (everything's gonna go wrong and we'll all die), both of these traits I seriously have to learn to squash. Very interfering in every day life.

GooberMan wrote
Would it blow your mind to consider our reality might have just been made with a set of parameters and logic to see what happens? That the only meaning of our reality is to see what's broken and what should be tweaked?
It wouldn't matter, everything within our Universe can still be explained away using laws in place within our Universe. If I wanted to leap off a cliff I can, I'd just die. If I tried to leap off a cliff in most JRPGS the game stops me for no in game reason whatsoever, and that's the difference.

GooberMan wrote
The idea is that this universe was created by an imperfect god, and that there's no way this universe will ever be stable or rational because it wasn created by an imperfect being.
Never thought about it, but your wiki page is far far too long for me to read something that sounds REALLY boring. Your little snippet should be adequate though. The Universe can be created by an imperfect God, it can be unstable and irrational, as long as it is consistent and orderly then that is fine. An rpg world can be irrational as well, it can be unstable, it just has to offer complete freedom to the participant following the 'in world' laws of the Universe you create.

GooberMan wrote
We don't even know what black holes are exactly. Are they one of these anomalies? Maybe you should try asking one?
They offer consistent behaviour which tells us that they are governed by rules just like everything else. It could be an anamoly but their behaviour is perfectly able to be explained. Unlike for example if I had 2 fields of grass exactly the same and I could enter one but not the other. Or if there is a street in a JRPG I cannot travel down but I see numerous 'citizens' perfectly able to traverse over there. If someone in my party betrays me but I cannot betray anyone myself. If someone in town is a thief but I am unable to steal anything myself.

GooberMan wrote
Hard core science fiction fans are destroying fiction faster than any bad author can. They get far too caught up in meaningless facts to worry about the actual point behind the story. But it does show that no matter how much work is put in to suspending disbelief, there will always be people that won't buy in to it. If you're one of those people, then fair enough and so be it.
Pffft destroying fiction, that's a new one. It won't destroy fiction and science fiction has always been, and always will be a very niche field that won't appeal much to the majority of readers. Well... you'll get a few popular series here and there.

GooberMan wrote
On the contrary, facts are proven and are then superseded by better models that better suit the data collected. This is the point I make. Science will only ever be able to explain things "good enough" instead of perfectly. Newton's laws of gravity have been superseded by Einstein's theory of relativity. I expect relativity will be further superseded once scientists have a greater grasp on quantum mechanics.
Facts that are proven and then found to be incorrect is a contradiction. You'll find that either the 'fact' didn't account for all possiblities, or there was something wrong with the method. Newton's laws of gravity (themselves only theories, not facts) were extremely incomplete, he couldn't explain how gravity actually worked, which Einstein's THEORY of relativity actually did. However, Einstein's relativity theory is itself only a theory and not a scientific fact. Scientific facts are never disproven, for example, the value of gravity on Earth suddenly won't change one day because scientists found out they were in error.
GooberMan wrote
The people let loose in this reality can take some fairly good guesses at why something behaves the way it does, but unless they can actually get and understand that underlying code they'll have to accept the anomalies that pop up. And even when they do understand it, they won't be able to change it.
As long as the programmers have in world reasons for the anomalies created or the limitations on behaviour I have no problem with that. If the reason I can't betray my friends and join the evil side is because of the physics of that world or the way those people evolved on that planet, then that's fine. If the reason I can't perform these actions is because of limitations of software programs, then that's tough luck.

And of course, I expect them to tell these in world reasons to me when I ask.

If my actions are curbed and the 'Gods of the virtual worlds' can't explain it with anything more than a 'we are the Gods, it is as it is', then sorry but an RPG your game is not.

GooberMan wrote
Science can't explain everything in real life. It might do that at one point in the future, but currently it can't. You don't have every single bit of scientific knowledge in your head, and you can't explain everything in real life.
Whether it can explain everything at the present is beside the point, it's whether it can explain everything which is the valid question. And yes, when talking about the limitations of human behaviour and the reason things happen in the Universe, science can and will explain all. You are God when you create a Universe and thus you should have all your rules in your head to apply and be ready to explain. Of course this is far too great a task for the normal artist, which is why it is common to see on hard core science fiction boards a list of reasons why such and such a world in such and such a book is unfeasible and 'rubbish'. Or why the economy on such and such a world isn't correct. Yes it is unfeasible to be able to know every single thing about the world you build, but you build it and be held accountable for you will. Obviously most of us won't nitpick on small and useless things, but that doesn't mean we won't hold you accountable over the lage issues.

GooberMan wrote
Especially considering the scientific method is to prove that something is false and assume something else is true - at least, until the next big more-accurate model comes along and replaces it.
There has never been a scientific fact which has been thoroughly proved that has been later disproved. Scientific theories are regularly disproved but not fact.
GooberMan wrote
No there isn't. They're one and the same.
Yes there is, if a Universe limits choice everybody suffers from the same limitation. If a game limits choice it doesn't have to follow the above rule.

GooberMan wrote
If you don't want to read my post properly, don't quote it. I was continuing the point about alternate realities by bringing up our own. Freedom of choice, in this reality or in an alternate reality, comes down to what the rule set allows you to do.
Which when applied to behaviour will have to be a) consistent with every other person in that Universe and b) have a reason supplied explaining exactly why some behaviour is not allowed (which isn't inconsistent with the physics of an alternate reality), otherwise it's just lazy developing.

Edit: Changed 'allowed' to 'not allowed'. I blame my keyboard for the error

GooberMan wrote
Can you explain everything in real life?
It's called science and yes it can explain everything in real life. Because the Universe has consistent behaviour which follows rules, this allows everything to eventually be explained. If you want to limit behaviour then tell us why it is limited.

GooberMan wrote
No it doesn't. It requires someone to accept something. To accept something, the rule set needs to be consistent. The best sci-fi and fantasy books have a consistent rule set. It's easy to forget it's not real because there'll be very little presented that contradicts prior information.
Yes

GooberMan wrote
It is by borrowing scientific and logical concepts from this reality that the alternate reality is easier to understand as there's less to explain.
It doesn't have to.
GooberMan wrote
In constructing virtual worlds, you're constructing alternate realities. Each of these realities has their own defined rule sets. These rule sets are not necessarily analogous to our own reality and our own rule set. This is where alternate realities start to branch apart from that quick quote you provided - not only should you role play in character, but in universe. Deciding to cast a lightning bolt is hardly something we can do in our reality, but it's something that a mage can do in the Forgotten Realms.
There is a difference between the universe limiting choice and choice not being allowed to the participant for no other reason than the game won't allow it. A limit imposed on the participant which is not consistent with what the world allows breaks role playing experiences.

GooberMan wrote
There are interesting sociological implications there for gamers who crave realism in their games - they only want to inherit a role, not a whole new rule set. In that sense, realism is simply an accepted rule set. Assuming that, realism for this reality is not necessarily realism for an alternate reality.
Who said anything about realism? Freedom of choice in games isn't about realism, it's about freedom of choice. You want to assert a rule set that limits what a player can or can't do, then I'd expect that ruleset to not only be applied to every person in that Universe but a reason to be supplied for exactly why behaviour is limited.

GooberMan wrote
It's a bit strange that suspension of disbelief purely comes down to what people accept in this reality. The human brain is certainly capable of accepting more. How often do people doubt the abilities they have in their dreams?
Suspension of disbelief requires consistency and basis in science, reason and logic. It has little to do with what we accept in this reality otherwise there wouldn't be a market for fantasy and sci-fi, would there?
GooberMan wrote
Which goes back to taking on a role. If you chose to play the role differently than how it should be played, then you're doing it wrong. You're not being true to the character. Let's just use Dungeons and Dragons for a start. If you're a thief and you decide to run in to a battle like a barbarian, then you're doing it wrong. You should have just played as a barbarian. Instead, you're just playing a thief terribly.
True, but in that role is a lot of room for improv. In a true role playing game you have the option of betraying your party, robbing them blind and disappearing during the battle icon_wink.gif

GooberMan wrote
I know you understand what I'm saying because of this. I'm not arguing that role playing means no choice, I'm arguing that role playing is stepping in to the shoes of someone that is not you. That is the literal definition of role playing, and there are a plethora of games that do exactly that. Stats, cutscenes, freedom - they're all meaningless to the idea of taking on a role.
I agree with almost all of what you just said. Where you and I disagree is that you stop your definition of role playing once the participant steps into that role while I believe that any limits imposed on the character during the experience (which isn't imposed on them by the role themselves) dilutes the role playing experience. This means while you think there are a plethora of games out there that are rpgs, I think there are no single player offline games out there which can be defined as role playing games.

I think that you're neglecting the importance of choice in your definition. This was why I highlighted that part of the wikipedia quote for you, it wasn't my intention to take it out of context. I will quote Andrew Rilstone at you though:

In any given situation, a character in a role-playing game should be able to take any action that that character would be able to take if that situation were to occur in real life.

http://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/rpgoverview.html
GooberMan wrote
Which is overdefining role playing:
Taken from the page you just linked to:

A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, they may improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.

Can I just emphasise again the line which says:

their choices shape the direction and outcome of games.

GooberMan wrote
If you want to play a game how you see fit, then you're not adopting another role.
Depends. The whole point of a role playing game is that you adopt another role while having immense freedom to act within that role. So yes the role you play does impose limits but you still enjoy immense freedom.
GooberMan wrote
So, the topic of discussion is role playing games, right? I think you'll find it very difficult to find a game where you aren't playing a role. Isn't that what most of the games you play consist of after all? They ask you to assume the role of buff hero archetype X in an effort to defeat emo villain archetype Y. Or they ask you to take the role of race car driver X in an effort to be the king of racing event Y.
The reason you're able to define every game as an rpg is because you've made an error with your definition (the only place I've seen your definition of an rpg is on the Bethesda forums in that period when that community was trying to defend Oblivion from accusations that it was rpg-lite). Imo, what makes an rpg game is assuming a role and then having the freedom to act out that role in whatever way you see fit, without that freedom of character it's not an rpg. So an rpg game is defined by the many choices a player makes and the better rpg games have in world consequences that result from these choices. Obviously having a pure rpg is impossible in an off-line single player game, but what makes a game more rpg than others is, for example, in your first example having multiple ways to defeat said villain, maybe even having the opportunity to join said villain etc etc. And this is the problem I have with calling the majority of jrpgs out there rpgs.
arbok wrote
and just for the record - id play FF13 over any Bioware game anyday. It might be just me but the Bioware stories and characters bore me to tears.
I think most people would agree with you concerning Bioware's stories, they've been fairly uninspired for a while now. However I'll have to disagree with you concerning the characters, which I rate as a strong point for Bioware (especially DA and ME. The modified Gilbert and Sullivan song in ME2 icon_lol.gif ) and a big minus for FFXIII. I actually rate the characters as one of the weakest points of the FFXIII game, I thought they were really really 2 dimensional*. I also thought that some of them were really annoying and the ones that weren't annoying were fairly forgettable, but to each his own I suppose. A lot of people seem to like them, especially Lightning, Sazh and Oerba so I'm probably in the minority with my opinion here.

*It would be silly of me to expect well rounded characters in video games, but I found the characters in Final Fantasy 13 to have less flesh on them than I expected. This effect was compounded by the fact that I played FF just after I played Valkyria Chronicles, Dragon Age and Persona, all games which at least made an effort to make their characters a little more human and less of an object used to tell a story.
Cyph wrote
Fyuusii, I disagree in part. There are different forms of RPGs. True, (pen and paper) DnD can be considered the most pure form of an RPG, but the latest generation of (electronic) RPGs are still RPGs, just implemented in a different form.
The problems in defining an RPG came about when people started making electronic gaming which tried to incorporate the characteristics of RPG gaming in video games. Of course this is impossible considering the restraints of video game systems so you had games which only include rpg elements being called rpgs. JRPGS developed over time and now includes so few rpg elements that it's hard to actually call them RPGs.

Anyway the point is computer rpgs took on its name from it's real life counterpart and therefore the same definition and requirements should still apply. What defines a game as RPG? Freedom of character, choice and consequences all those things. Stats have nothing to do with the RPG genre. A simple test to see how rpg a game is would be to ask yourself how much freedom you have over the actions of your character.

Most rpgs these days are just statistical action/adventure games with poor combat systems and a bunch of statistics mimicking growth.
M@TT_K wrote
TL;DR/EXPLANATION: The curriculum isn't bad, it's just the way that the school teaches it that is a bit stupid (sometimes)
Pretty sweet reply all up. I tried to give you a vote but it wouldn't let me, apparently you need to have made 25 posts. Meh, oh well maybe someone else can give you one in place of me.

M@TT_K wrote
I am planning to get into medicine
Good luck with the studies mate.

M@TT_K wrote
Last year, year 10 for me, we would have compulsory careers meetings in which we'd get information about, you guess it, careers. One of the main points the careers teacher made was that you do NOT have to go to University in order to get a job. We were also given quite a large book on careers and how we get into said careers.
Lucky lucky punk icon_razz.gif . Our career teacher was incredibly hopeless.

M@TT_K wrote
However, in the vast majority of schools once you pass year 10 (it probably varies) you are given a choice of electives. Saying the information that is learnt in these electives is irrelevant is, again, unfounded.
I think if I came back and asked you this very question in 4-5 years time your answer will change icon_wink.gif . I'll tell you one thing though, when you are in years 11 and 12 you think that the information you learn in class will be important in your chosen field. But even the classes you take that directly relate to your degree... you'll find when you get to Uni you'll quickly forget everything you learnt. Especially if you're aiming at medicine. I studied electrical engineering when I was in Uni and I'll tell you that the maths and physics I learnt when I was in school was minimal help in the maths and physics courses I took at Uni. Most of the stuff you need to know they repeat for you at the start of the course, everything else you learnt you just discard. It may give you a slight headstart in your first semester/year but it's very slight. If you go into Law you can safely forget everything you learnt in school, probably the same for medicine and most of the other courses out there.

I should also tell you that the people who did the best in our courses at Uni generally knew a whole lot about the subject coming into the course that they learnt outside of school. I remember one person I was friends with was taking a programming course and he was saying that he knew more about the programming language than the tutor teaching the class. The scary thing was he was probably right, he'd write entire programs that you were given a month to complete in a couple of days before the due date, and score close to top marks for it. In the programming degrees it's clear that the people who just stuck to learning what they learnt in school were actually behind these guys, they had a wealth of extra knowledge coming into the classes, were very keen on self study and extra study, they were already a little exposed to the field and they were the ones that did the best. That's just from my experience in engineering though. I doubt this applies to degrees like medicine and law though.

And if you're not going to Uni... yeah the stuff is even more useless.

Fly wrote
Oh I see what you did there, your definition of never seems to be missing a few paragraphs if it includes no longer, personally, I'd have chuckled and move on but oh no, you had to weasel you... weasel! Yeah that's right, don;t speak specifics to a nitpicker and you won't be continuously shot down while trying to cover your inadequate adage!
If you're not going to read the posts you reply to, don't bother replying. Firstly I never defined 'never' as no longer, I defined 'dead' as no longer alive. Secondly, where is the weaseling.