Comments for Oddly Entertaining* Navel-Gazing http://www.benjaminhoyt.com/blog - Ben Hoyt on Video Games, Technology, Politics, and more... Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:03:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 Comment on Where in the world has Ben been? by Kirt http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CommentsForOddlyEntertainingNavel-gazing/~3/503245380/ Kirt Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:14:15 +0000 http://www.benjaminhoyt.com/blog/2008/12/13/where-in-the-world-has-ben-been/#comment-264 Thats Cape Breton NOT NewfoundLand Sucker!! Almost as bad... but to be know as a newfie would mean certain death: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newfie Thats Cape Breton NOT NewfoundLand Sucker!!

Almost as bad… but to be know as a newfie would mean certain death: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newfie

]]> http://www.benjaminhoyt.com/blog/2008/12/13/where-in-the-world-has-ben-been/#comment-264 Comment on Where in the world has Ben been? by Benjamin Hoyt http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CommentsForOddlyEntertainingNavel-gazing/~3/486524875/ Benjamin Hoyt Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:30:37 +0000 http://www.benjaminhoyt.com/blog/2008/12/13/where-in-the-world-has-ben-been/#comment-262 Actually, we don't...yet. We are working on it. I realize that it's crazy to do a SNF game without the Bee Gee's but they are very expensive. If the game does well, though, we will add them. We DO have a lot of great Disco music, though... Actually, we don’t…yet. We are working on it. I realize that it’s crazy to do a SNF game without the Bee Gee’s but they are very expensive. If the game does well, though, we will add them. We DO have a lot of great Disco music, though…

]]> http://www.benjaminhoyt.com/blog/2008/12/13/where-in-the-world-has-ben-been/#comment-262 Comment on Where in the world has Ben been? by Uncle Doug http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CommentsForOddlyEntertainingNavel-gazing/~3/486524876/ Uncle Doug Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:17:30 +0000 http://www.benjaminhoyt.com/blog/2008/12/13/where-in-the-world-has-ben-been/#comment-261 I assume you've got Donna Summers and the Bee Gees on there. I assume you’ve got Donna Summers and the Bee Gees on there.

]]> http://www.benjaminhoyt.com/blog/2008/12/13/where-in-the-world-has-ben-been/#comment-261 Comment on Where in the world has Ben been? by ari http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CommentsForOddlyEntertainingNavel-gazing/~3/486524877/ ari Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:41:07 +0000 http://www.benjaminhoyt.com/blog/2008/12/13/where-in-the-world-has-ben-been/#comment-258 try roughneck, ben. try roughneck, ben.

]]> http://www.benjaminhoyt.com/blog/2008/12/13/where-in-the-world-has-ben-been/#comment-258 Comment on Where in the world has Ben been? by Benjamin Hoyt http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CommentsForOddlyEntertainingNavel-gazing/~3/486524878/ Benjamin Hoyt Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:04:47 +0000 http://www.benjaminhoyt.com/blog/2008/12/13/where-in-the-world-has-ben-been/#comment-257 Umm....I'm pretty sure it's like a Level 1 Oil Worker, right Ari? ;-) Umm….I’m pretty sure it’s like a Level 1 Oil Worker, right Ari? ;-)

]]> http://www.benjaminhoyt.com/blog/2008/12/13/where-in-the-world-has-ben-been/#comment-257 Comment on Where in the world has Ben been? by ari http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CommentsForOddlyEntertainingNavel-gazing/~3/486524879/ ari Sat, 13 Dec 2008 14:16:07 +0000 http://www.benjaminhoyt.com/blog/2008/12/13/where-in-the-world-has-ben-been/#comment-255 what's a leatherneck again, ben? what’s a leatherneck again, ben?

]]> http://www.benjaminhoyt.com/blog/2008/12/13/where-in-the-world-has-ben-been/#comment-255 Comment on Fallout 3 - Why You Can’t Kill Children by jp http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CommentsForOddlyEntertainingNavel-gazing/~3/468490891/ jp Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:24:01 +0000 http://www.benjaminhoyt.com/blog/?p=141#comment-249 Nuking a whole town (that contains children) but restricting the player from killing a child elsewhere is a non-sequitur. Morality aside, it doesn't make any logical sense. Plus, Fallout 1 and 2 has few limits as to what it possible for the player. You can literally kill everyone and everything in fallout 2 and still beat the game. Much of the outcry is from gamers truly wanting a sandbox experience - not one that is tied by out-of-place morality. In the fallout world, there is no judeo-christian morals, which makes it so odd to bind the gamers to it in fallout 3. Nuking a whole town (that contains children) but restricting the player from killing a child elsewhere is a non-sequitur.

Morality aside, it doesn’t make any logical sense.

Plus, Fallout 1 and 2 has few limits as to what it possible for the player. You can literally kill everyone and everything in fallout 2 and still beat the game. Much of the outcry is from gamers truly wanting a sandbox experience - not one that is tied by out-of-place morality. In the fallout world, there is no judeo-christian morals, which makes it so odd to bind the gamers to it in fallout 3.

]]> http://www.benjaminhoyt.com/blog/2008/10/31/fallout-3-why-you-cant-kill-children/#comment-249 Comment on Fallout 3 - Why You Can’t Kill Children by Aaron Lutz http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CommentsForOddlyEntertainingNavel-gazing/~3/452283202/ Aaron Lutz Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:28:18 +0000 http://www.benjaminhoyt.com/blog/?p=141#comment-248 I think the biggest thing that Parkin was trying to get across (unsuccessfully) is that Bethesda claimed they removed the killing of children based on moral standing; I think even you agree that, morals notwithstanding, they did it because not doing so would damage sales and public image. It's not that they didn't include killing of children, it's that they said they did it because of moral standing - that's bogus, in my opinion. They had loose enough morals to allow close-up, slow-motion gratuitous gore when you kill anything else, and nuking a whole population, etc. But when it comes to killing children, oh suddenly they have these morals. I agree with Soren; a likely effective and obvious solution in my mind would be to take the close-up, slow-mo graphic violence out entirely; it's like a teenage boy's wet dream to see blood spraying from a decapitated neck, but in all honesty, it just wouldn't work that way. A more realistic and somber approach to killing, death, and violence, as well as more appropriate in-game consequences for this type of behavior (staying true to the vision of the game) would be a better solution, IMHO, than to superimpose this restriction on the player and claim moral high ground. I think the biggest thing that Parkin was trying to get across (unsuccessfully) is that Bethesda claimed they removed the killing of children based on moral standing; I think even you agree that, morals notwithstanding, they did it because not doing so would damage sales and public image. It’s not that they didn’t include killing of children, it’s that they said they did it because of moral standing - that’s bogus, in my opinion. They had loose enough morals to allow close-up, slow-motion gratuitous gore when you kill anything else, and nuking a whole population, etc. But when it comes to killing children, oh suddenly they have these morals.

I agree with Soren; a likely effective and obvious solution in my mind would be to take the close-up, slow-mo graphic violence out entirely; it’s like a teenage boy’s wet dream to see blood spraying from a decapitated neck, but in all honesty, it just wouldn’t work that way.

A more realistic and somber approach to killing, death, and violence, as well as more appropriate in-game consequences for this type of behavior (staying true to the vision of the game) would be a better solution, IMHO, than to superimpose this restriction on the player and claim moral high ground.

]]> http://www.benjaminhoyt.com/blog/2008/10/31/fallout-3-why-you-cant-kill-children/#comment-248 Comment on Beatles headed to Rock Band….almost by Robi Ganguly http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CommentsForOddlyEntertainingNavel-gazing/~3/452283205/ Robi Ganguly Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:19:28 +0000 http://www.benjaminhoyt.com/blog/?p=139#comment-247 I'm going to guess that it'll be a separate game you have to purchase but that it'll allow you to use the other instruments. When it comes down to it, the Beatles Corporation (Apple, I think, is the name) is just too powerful to not extract a massive premium for their music license. I bet that's what's driving this. I’m going to guess that it’ll be a separate game you have to purchase but that it’ll allow you to use the other instruments. When it comes down to it, the Beatles Corporation (Apple, I think, is the name) is just too powerful to not extract a massive premium for their music license. I bet that’s what’s driving this.

]]> http://www.benjaminhoyt.com/blog/2008/10/30/beatles-headed-to-rock-bandalmost/#comment-247 Comment on Fallout 3 - Why You Can’t Kill Children by Sören Höglund http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CommentsForOddlyEntertainingNavel-gazing/~3/443725592/ Sören Höglund Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:01:58 +0000 http://www.benjaminhoyt.com/blog/?p=141#comment-246 That's a false analogy though. Bethesda purposely excluding part of the npcs from the systems they implemented is not the same as not including a forced head-shaving system at all. You can make a fairly convincing argument for the inconsistency being worth it, for the extra flavour having children around gives the game, much as you can make an argument for having unkillable npcs to add structure to a story. But if you try to justify it on *moral* as opposed to commercial grounds, you open a whole can of worms. That’s a false analogy though. Bethesda purposely excluding part of the npcs from the systems they implemented is not the same as not including a forced head-shaving system at all.

You can make a fairly convincing argument for the inconsistency being worth it, for the extra flavour having children around gives the game, much as you can make an argument for having unkillable npcs to add structure to a story. But if you try to justify it on *moral* as opposed to commercial grounds, you open a whole can of worms.

]]> http://www.benjaminhoyt.com/blog/2008/10/31/fallout-3-why-you-cant-kill-children/#comment-246