...fps style, original alone in the dark style...

Ummm, those two descriptions are contradictory, actually. Alone in the Dark featured a third person prospective, and FPS style is, naturally, first person. Which is it?

And what do you mean when you say "oldish"? A couple of years old? Five years old? Ten years old?

>> ^Lolthien:
Just FYI, his little rant at the beginning about a game where you play a batman villain and do all that stuff has actually already been done. Evil Genius for the PC. Very fun little game.


Wellll... Yes and no. That was an RTS and it was very fun, but it was base-building of the highest order. Take that idea in an open city? Third person? Sign me up for the one Yahtzee's peddling.

I actually remember you from the nazi topics (where I argued that dispite their wrongs, Nazi government was a successful one in terms of military campaigns and gaining national wealth) and atheists vs theologians topics.

And i remember back then that you were the only one to actually understand what I had to argue, while the rest went off into angry mob mode. I think I was the third person to write something on your comment page, saying that I liked the way you keep your cool, keep your emotions under control and think in different terms in a different point of view.

As you have noticed from those past, I, perhaps similar to you, got into major opposition because I state things that may be radically different from their view. Whether who was right or wrong, who won and who lost is not the issue here.

The point is that it takes balls and tenacity to say what you believe and following up on it to defend your position. Nowadays I don't bother with these debates because I'm just worn out. But you still fight the good fight. But alas, obviously it seems that it's taken some toll on you as well.

You gained my respect then, and your high level of rationale and consistancy in holding your values continue to impress me. Kudos buddy.

p.s. In this case, everyone else is right. Change your avatar. It sucks

>> ^gorillaman:
>> ^maatc:
the rules say that if a so called "third person" enters the field, the play has to be interrupted, the person has to leave, and the game commences with a "referee ball" in the same spot the ball was when the interfering person entered the pitch.

In the air, a foot away from and moving towards the goal?


I just did some research and it´s actually called a "dropped-Ball" (edited it into my original comment) Not sure how exactly this was executed in this case, but I guess it did not result in a score, otherwise I am sure it would have been mentioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dropped-ball

>> ^maatc:
the rules say that if a so called "third person" enters the field, the play has to be interrupted, the person has to leave, and the game commences with a "referee ball" in the same spot the ball was when the interfering person entered the pitch.


In the air, a foot away from and moving towards the goal?

>> ^rychan:
Upvoted. Now can someone explain to me who this guy was?


His name is Jan Maas, and he was the assistant for "De Treffers Kegro Deuren", the dutch 3rd league team that played first leaguer NEC Nijmegen in this cup game.

Treffers lost 1:5, and amazingly the goal he prevented was not counted, since the rules say that if a so called "third person" enters the field, the play has to be interrupted, the person has to leave, and the game commences with a "dropped-Ball" in the same spot the ball was when the interfering person entered the pitch.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:

That example would be a terribly unfair community, but some communities are terribly unfair! The United States had slavery for a hundred years, where half the population in some places literally made food and grew crops, etc. for the other half. I'm not condoning this; I'm describing to you how communities work, not how they should work in some ultimately fair society.

1. By what process do you determine what is "fair"?

You seem to think that there are, naturally, sacred laws that need to be followed, either ones that apply to individuals or communities. I'm saying this unfortunately isn't the case.

2. Do you think slavery is wrong, and if so, why?

So, essentially we're arguing now about what we think is a successful way to run a community; is it that individuals have a high degree of choice, or is it that the community has a high degree of choice.

3. How do you define whether a community is successful?
4. Does a master and a slave form a community?
5. When the community is comprised of only two people, say on an island, and each demand that the other produce food for them, who is to produce food? Is this resolved by adding a third person?

But I also recognize where the other side can lead; more individualism can lead to weaker community structure

6. What does "weaker community structure" mean, and how do you determine it?

quote from rychan:
Or maybe your teaching applies only to concealed weapons in public places, neither of which necessarily apply to this situation.

I was speaking from the perspective of one of the other golfers on the range, who might have a CCW, as they are the only people who could have legally had a weapon on their person...unless they themselves were walking around with a firearm in plain sight.

Generally a person has greater latitude in using physical force in the defense of her dwelling than in the defense of other property.

Exactly, the rules would be even more strict if you were on someone elses property--as the golfers at the ranger were.

"Threatening" clearly can be enough for a reasonable self-defense argument.

Self defense, yes. Drawing your weapon and opening fire, no. If someone picks a fight with you and you shoot them you will most likely be charged with murder...just because someone appears threatening or is even directly threatening you doesn't mean you can shoot them. Legally, you are required to exhaust all available options--including running away if possible, before you can even draw your weapon. Even when become the attack becomes imminent and you have no last option, and you are forced to draw your weapon, you must shout at your attacker to stop--if possible...you cannot just pull out your revolver like its a scene from tombstone and start railing the hammer.

From your own link, http://law.jrank.org/pages/10128/Self-Defense.html:

"A person claiming self-defense must prove at trial that the self-defense was justified. Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. DEADLY FORCE may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force.

In some cases, before using force that is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to the aggressor, a person who is under attack should attempt to retreat or escape, but only if an exit is reasonably possible. Courts have held, however, that a person is not required to flee from his own home, the fenced ground surrounding the home, his place of business, or his automobile.

A person who is the initial aggressor in a physical encounter may be able to claim self-defense if the tables turn in the course of the fight. Generally a person who was the aggressor may use nondeadly force if the victim resumes fighting after the original fight ended. If the original aggressor attacked with nondeadly force and was met with deadly force in return, the aggressor may respond with deadly force.

A person may use force to defend a third person from attack. If the defender is mistaken, however, and the third party does not need assistance, most jurisdictions hold that the defender may be held liable in civil court for injuries inflicted on the supposed attacker.

A defendant who successfully invokes self-defense may be found not guilty or not liable. If the defendant's self-defense was imperfect, the self-defense may only reduce the defendant's liability. Imperfect self-defense is self-defense that was arguably necessary but somehow unreasonable. For example, if a person had a GOOD FAITH belief that deadly force was necessary to repel an attack, but that belief was unreasonable, the defendant would have a claim of imperfect self-defense. In some jurisdictions, the successful invocation of such a defense reduces a murder charge to MANSLAUGHTER. Most jurisdictions do not recognize imperfect self-defense."

I think it is very interesting that you decided to use that article as proof against my argument, and had to read through passages that refuted your beliefs in order to cherry pick your quote from it...what do you have to gain from the view you hold?

Well, regardless of what they told you in your class, I don't think you're correct.

The article you yourself provided pretty much mirrors exactly what I learned in my CCW class (which was taught by a local police sniper with 20 years experience)

You're the third person today to duplicate my post.

"Ecstatica"

Oh god I thought I would never hear that name again! I thought it was brilliant. Though it would be in third person and retain that great spherical way of rendering everything

I'm currently slogging through Alone In The Dark, although I haven't played it in a couple days. I played the first two games back when they came out. It's true, this game is not a true sequel to Alone In The Dark.

He never refers to the most annoying thing in the game: you are required to shift between 1st and 3rd person viewpoints constantly. Half the time the game does it for you without warning. The control is terrible in both viewpoints, and there is no camera control in third person. The game will also sometimes arbitrarily and without warning place the camera in a fixed remote viewpoint that's really confusing and also moves differently from the other two modes. This leads to a lot of falling off cliffs. You also will often find yourself wondering why you can't do something, only to realize you need to switch viewpoints.

There's also no way to skip the constant cutscenes.

I only keep playing it because the graphics and sound are decent and like Yahtzee says there are moments of brilliance.

I haven't skipped anything yet either, although I've been tempted. I actually like the driving sections.

I'd love to get a modern update to "Ecstatica". Anyone play that back in the day?

No problem. You're cool.

In reply to this comment by marinara:
Well I'm sorry I lectured you, I didn't realize you were not receptive to my opinions about LDS.


In reply to this comment by thepinky:
I am LDS. I just refer to the church and church members in the third person in order to avoid accusatory and/or defensive language. People always start attacking ME instead of engaging in a good discussion of the CJCLDS, so I thought I'd try it this way for once. And people always try to convert me.

In reply to this comment by marinara:
So why are you so attracted to LDS?
Who is attracting you to LDS?
Why are they attracting you to LDS?
Why does LDS need to help you?

Well I'm sorry I lectured you, I didn't realize you were not receptive to my opinions about LDS.


In reply to this comment by thepinky:
I am LDS. I just refer to the church and church members in the third person in order to avoid accusatory and/or defensive language. People always start attacking ME instead of engaging in a good discussion of the CJCLDS, so I thought I'd try it this way for once. And people always try to convert me.

In reply to this comment by marinara:
So why are you so attracted to LDS?
Who is attracting you to LDS?
Why are they attracting you to LDS?
Why does LDS need to help you?

Please refrain from making disparaging comments, belittling me, and otherwise making personal attacks. I have been very deliberately using the third person to refer to Mormons and almost everyone but you has done the same.

I accept that intolerance will never stop as long as people like you accept it as a convention of society and degrade those who attempt to eradicate it. Maybe being "sneered at" makes you feel like you have the right to tell people to accept their abuse, but come back to me and tell me to deal with intolerance when neighborhood children throw rocks at your little brother and call him a devil worshipper. I'm sorry if I seem like I feel sorry for myself. I don't know what to tell you. I'm sick of it all and no one even wants to acknowledge that it is a problem. They would rather just ignore it or tell Mormons that they deserve it. I just don't accept that this has to go on. I'm really sorry that you don't feel the same way.

And, please, do not have the gall to say that Mormons deserve it because they proselytize. Can't you see how asinine that is? Let's compare the two:

You lose some sleep or ten minutes or are annoyed because of some missionaries with a sincere desire to share a message with you that they believe to be true and that makes them happy and who leave after you slam the door in their faces.

VS.

Children brought up in ignorance who deface the cars of Mormon high school students as a result of ignorant defamation of Mormon beliefs and the resulting prejudice.

Which is worse? I dunno, it's pretty close.

>> ^MINK:
we have an angry mormon here people! look out!
seriously pinky, i can understand it's a problem if most of society think your particular origins or way of life are wrong. you are not alone, nobody likes this feeling. we all have something different about us that gets insulted occasionally. I even get people looking down on me because I am English, assuming i must be very rich and sneering at my insanely priveleged life if I complain about the price of anything at all. (it's true, i've been lucky, but i am not rich and I don't like being judged as a generic stereoptype of a nationality I have basically disowned, it fucking hurts).
There are atheists who are bullied by christians, muslims bullied by hindis, nerds bullied by jocks, this is how humans behave to each other (unfortunately).
So first of all, accept that this is never going to stop. Second of all, accept that a lot of people here are familiar with mormonism already and we STILL think it sucks, and we reserve the right to tell you so in a discussion thread about mormonism.
However we (non mormons) will NEVER come to your doorstep to tell you about atheism or agnosticism or any other ism unless you ask us. That is a big difference, and if you really want to stop people's prejudice and hate, maybe you should cut down on that side of your marketing campaign. It's just unwelcome. It doesn't matter if you are polite. When you knock on a door or approach someone in the street you are invading their space uninvited.
@deedub: you said (in answer to my question "what if you weren't born mormon"):
"There are plenty of people in my religion that are converts.
So, ask a more specific hypothetical question and I'll answer it hypothetically. There's no answer to a "what if" question without an end to the question."
That's just dodging the point. You know what I mean. If you were born in India you'd more likely be Hindu. You'd probably tell me how great Hinduism is. So if you go down the road of saying there is "only one true religion" then you are kinda being an asshole to everyone who wasn't born near enough to a source of information about that religion. And all the babies who died before they could understand language.
So... isn't the "all-city doorstep marketing campaign" just an excuse so you can all go to heaven and say "well, we TRIED to convert other people, but they wouldn't listen..."

I am LDS. I just refer to the church and church members in the third person in order to avoid accusatory and/or defensive language. People always start attacking ME instead of engaging in a good discussion of the CJCLDS, so I thought I'd try it this way for once. And people always try to convert me.

In reply to this comment by marinara:
So why are you so attracted to LDS?
Who is attracting you to LDS?
Why are they attracting you to LDS?
Why does LDS need to help you?