Did I ever tell you the definition of inainity?

Not sure I like the new gym teacher

Far Cry 3.

I've watched the trailer above and...I don't think it works? The guy in the picture - he's shallow. He seems to exist only to antagonise - I mean, what's his favorite beer? Does he like sport? No, he has nothing except to be eeeeeeevil. Even sociopaths have more personality than that.

But is there anything wrong died in the wool, binarily evil, mustache twirling villains? Not especially.

But then the clip contains about warcrimes (or just plain old murder). Degrading then murdering unarmed people - setting them to drown, tied to concrete blocks.

And the thing is - as soon as your guy (who is obviously the special mesiah who breaks free of the concrete block) gets free, what does he do?

Well, without a word he goes and murders the guys with guns as well.

It's basically sociopaths killing sociopaths.

I mean sure, maybe you like your cartoon villains who must be shot in the head. Okay. But this isn't cartoon villainry - your not going to save the innocents, they have already been murdered. You are not going to be some frackin' hero for making more human meat become room temperature.

Because this is presented as more real world, it doesn't have the D&D like cosmological elements of good and evil. Because it's presented as real world, all you have are principles that you try and stand by. Unless, dear reader you believe that much like in D&D, magical cosmological forces of good and evil are existant things. And heck, maybe your right, but you'll have a damn hard time inventing an empirical test for that. Anyway, back to personal principles and that's all you have.

And from the very damn start, the characters principles are that he is just as fine with murder to get to his own ends, as the guys he murders.

I dunno - far cry 2 seemed to try and make you feel dirty for doing what they coded it to force you to do it. But forcing it doesn't work - in a game like Dues ex, because there is a non lethal alternative (ie, you are not FORCED to only use lethal force), it is a choice. So in Dues ex, yes, you can feel a little dirty for killing someone in the game.

Here in farcry 3, it just seems a sociopath murder sim. The only people left alive are the murderers, and your as cool with murder as they are, so really there is no moral issue going on. The only moral issue is already case closed, floating under the water on a rope tied to a cinderblock. So apart from really, really high graphics ferns, who gives a crap about that?

Well, I guess the teens who's moral part of the brain has not yet turned on (I think I read that that is the case, in an article somewhere).

Ie, it's pretty inane.

Guild Wars 2 : Death and other inconveniences

Things had gone terribly wrong on the set of 'I love Lucy'

Quoting from the healing and death page of guild wars 2,

Players who have recently been downed several times will take longer to revive each time. If no one revives you, you can spend a small amount of gold to come back at a waypoint. It's as simple as that, and why not? Why should we debuff you, take away experience, or make you run around for five minutes as a ghost instead of letting you actually play the game? We couldn't think of a reason. Well, we did actually think of a reason--it just wasn't a good one. Death penalties make death in-game a more tense experience. It just isn't fun. We want to get you back into the action (fun) as quickly as possible. Defeat is the penalty; we don't have to penalize you a second time.

Now the interesting thing about this compared to a board game like chess, or a quake live match, is if you lose/are killed, well, you just lose. That's the end of the game. While the idea (perhaps not very good idea) of a mmorpg has you...well, still there - the games still going.

Really death in a mmorpg is perhaps more like being hit by a single bullet in quake live. Or perhaps a rocket!

And yet it still involves hurt that matters in the bigger picture.

I'm not sure a lack of a death penalty works out, as dying doesn't matter in terms of the bigger picture. It'd be like whether you dodged all the rockets or got hit by every single one in a first person shooter doesn't matter in terms of the bigger pictures. So instead of 'ROCKETS!!!!1!' it becomes 'Oh, rockets...whatever'. And it's correct - it is indeed just a matter of whatever because it wont affect a thing.

Now I'm inclined to agree on the whole ghost thing, as you can't lose at it except to get literally lost and waste alot of time. That is boring.

And a debuff? It's a death spiral - it's like if your hit in a FPS, you become slower and so get hit even more. So I somewhat agree there.

But after going past those options, they seem to have gone to the extreme and have no penalty at all! Unless you count that small gold fee they mention.

Not to mention the whole 'tense <> fun' thing - plenty of people lose matches of FPS each day - the tension of whether you lose is part of that.

Now what I imagine they'll have is that you die, come back and you waddle up to where you were before in a mission or 'quest' and keep going. Why bother having death at all in that case, since your just going to waste time running back from a waypoint (same as the whole ghost thing) or someone raises you on the spot and...big deal, it wouldn't have mattered if you die. The whole 'downed and last ditch dramatic attempt to live' isn't dramatic at all, because it doesn't mean much except for potentially a ghost run.

I don't think this works out at all. But I'll grant it's what alot of other games roughly do already (that's not to say that it works in those games either).

It just seems to generate the illusion of danger/danger of losing. Really when you look at it, defeat isn't a penalty at all - it just has the illusion of being so.

But in reality all they are coding is an inconvenience, as much as the ghost walk.