Garple

Other great-bad movies include Phantasm, It, and this movie I can't remember the name of in which a kid boots up a VR computer game that makes him kill people in real life (while playing the game).

Personally, I'm pleased to hear this. I wasn't sure if they were going to continue with the Fable games. Yes...it almost certainly won't include everything they promise for it, but it will still be a big leap forward, and a lot of quirky fun. I'd rather play Molyneux's ambitious "failures" then another mediocre FPS.

As they say: Individual results may vary. I tend to make the decisions based on either, what I feel I should do based on the narrative context, or if I'm trying to roleplay I do what I think my character would do. The only thing about the karma systems that really and truly bothers me is that they assign points to my actions even when nobody was around to witness them, so it's like the game itself is making the judgements. However, in Fallout 3, since they actually use the term "karma", it makes more sense, since karma, at least according to the religion(s) of which it is a feature, witnesses are irrelevant, or are replaced by a spiritual force, so in that case, the game acting as the omniscient divinity is not so jarring. I know, it would be nice if they didn't have to get all "meta" about it. But it would also be nice if we didn't have things like: "MISSION: Destroy all ten fuel tanks with the rocket launcher" (complemented by a little fuel tank icon in the upper right-hand corner with a 7/10 indicator to tell you how many fuel tanks are left). But the games industry is a toddler compared to other entertainment mediums, if it's even that old. If developers only released games that contained no philosophically objectionable content, video games would not exist or they'd each take 25 years to make. Granted, I know ethics systems in games are not very good right now, but I'm sure there's a very concrete reason (financial, temporal...) why they don't make better ones. It's probably important to consider the fact that we have any simulation of ethics in games at all a huge step forward.

But how would I carry that around?

By genre/style...do you mean shooters and brawlers that use cute, kid friendly characters? If so, I guess I mostly agree.

I am really excited about this, mostly because I've always found standard-sized ninjas too cumbersome. I was always like "why won't someone invent a ninja that combines deadly steath with portability and ease-of-use?" People are starting to realize that my cello case doesn't hold a cello as word gets around. I need a ninja I can slip into the cellphone compartment of my backpack.

It will be called "Pants!" and it's coming Q4 of 2010

I don't understand why it's considered a given that having an achievement system in place is going to color my ethical decisions in-game. WHO GIVES, I must ask, WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT ACHIEVEMENTS AND GAMERSCORES? And aren't the people who do care about achievements the ones who are less likely to be concerned with how the ethics system is designed? I mean, they're obviously not very immersed in the game as an experience if they are thinking more about a (tangentially related) system implemented by the designers than how their decision will affect the actual gameworld. What ever happened to suspension of disbelief? Are we starting to think, as games get more and more realistic, that there's no work to be done on the player's end in terms of using his imagination?

So, like Twisted Metal with a wasteland?

True, there's a lot of pastiche going on, but to me, instead of just timelessness, I get an alternate universe feeling out of the whole thing. Like: "what if the things that developed in the world had come about in this way and in this chronological order" etc...I don't mean to make it sound like sci-fi or anything, but to me it does feel very fantastical. That may or may not be the intended effect (and frankly that's not for anyone but Wes to say, if he so chooses) but I think his movies have the potential to affect viewers in a broad range of ways and that's one of their greatest strengths.

I wonder if this will be compatible with the second stage of Shinobi III on Virtual Console.

I would guess that the design of the banners might have more to do with the archetypal personas of each group than some kind of actual value-judgement about the two groups. Rebels are usually seen as ragtag bands of disenfranchised working-class underdogs, whereas on the other hand, it makes sense that the Royal banner would look pristine, lavish, ethereal (divine right of kings etc...). I would be very surprised if Molyneux could bring himself to make anything in which Revolutionaries are "bad-guys" considering everything we know about him.

I think their unbelievable nature is one of my favorite things about Wes Anderson movies. Each one is like a vacuum-sealed universe unto itself, which for some reason fascinates me, I guess because it's a unique form of fantasy (if you will) which I've never seen done anywhere else. Plus, I just really like whimsy. I do certainly understand, though, why that's not everyone's cup of tea.

I want to make sure the weird little dissonance in regard to Trials HD that exists in this thread doesn't discourage people from checking it out (not that I really think it would). Mostly I just want to say that game is FUCKFUCKINGING RADDDD, for serious. I downloaded the demo because it got a very high metacritic score, but I didn't expect much. I was like, "What? A dirt-biking game? I don't know about that. Well...since there's a free demo..." And then BAM!!! It grabbed me and still hasn't let go. It's the most addictive game I've encountered since Geometry Wars. Even if the PC version is the same (which I doubt) there's still a large enough contingent of us who (for whatever reason) don't ever game on a PC, so good on ya, Red Lynx (and thanks).

There are many movies which I've seen parts of on TV!

Full disclosure, I haven't read most of his work. I mostly wanted to have a triumvirate of writers to make my point, because three seemed like the best number (concise but adequate). But there will always be figures in every field who are lionized for superficial reasons, and it will always be kind of too bad that they get the limelight over more qualified individuals. I'm not talking about Bangs with that last sentence. I think he's really great. For some reason it bothered me hearing him called the greatest writer of the twentieth century. I'm probably just being a douche.

I wonder if part of the problem is (at least based on your impressions of the game, Chris) that unlike Oblivion, A straight open world isn't really the core of the gameplay. It sounds more like the myriad possibilities presented by the dynamics between characters is the key to what this game has to offer...which is fantastic, but maybe hard to demonstrate in an advertisement. They can't just say "LOOK AT THESE GRAPHICS!" like Bethesda could with Oblivion.

IT SUX BECUZ THE PC IS 4 NOOBS GET A SWEETBOX 360!!!

Ok. But someone who's a rally good writer is always going to be better than most novelists. There aren't a lot of great people in any field, ever, as far as I'm concerned. Relative to the rest of the population, or even just the rest of the individuals in their field whose work is inferior, their number is extremely small. Yes, I agree that Lester Bangs was a great writer. I'm just trying to fight against hyperbole. And, fine: whether or not Tim Rogers is as good as Lester Bangs is up for debate. I don't understand what being an internet age writer means and why it is inherently bad. If you we born in the 30s or 40s, would you have considered Bangs too "television-age?" My point is more that Tim Rogers is trying to do the same things Lester Bangs did. He's writing reviews in the 1st person, and is not afraid to skewer games that every other critic exalts. He looks at games within a broad context with unique criteria, like: how does it make the player feel, or how does it serve the medium as a whole, by accomplishing something that is unique to video games, etc... Plus I find him and Lester to be grade-A snark machines (in a good way). The only way I can see to try and dispute your statement about Tim Rogers not being insightful is to find examples and quote them. But I'm not going to do that, because I don't feel like it. Also, I think you mean Benzedrine

Or affix a signature catchphrase to the beginning of every sentence. Chris: Fuckbag! Empire Total War is really good. Nick: Tampax-Cap! I can't get it to work! Jake: Toss-Muppets! I played a game ten years ago...

Share your experiences talking about games with "regular" people. AKA those who don't keep up to date obsessively like we do, etc... and especially exchanges you've had with game store clerks. In Gamestop the other day, I asked the clerks, "have you guys played "Little King's Story" at all?" One of them said, "Never heard of it." The other one scowled and told him "It's only on Wii," as if that disqualified it from legitimacy or something. I paid for my used copy of Burnout Paradise and left with a sadness in my heart. I should have known better. But I had the audacity to hope.

"They used to have sweets!"

Suck it, Remo. Also, touche, sir.

It's so weird that that exists. That's the internet for ya.

Most leading men are like that. Robert DeNiro, Denzel Washington, Samuel L. Jackson... The two modern leading men I can think of who aren't that way are Johnny Depp and (believe it or not) Brad Pitt (12 Monkeys, Fight Club, Snatch, Benjamin Button...) I'm sure there are more guys in that group, but I don't watch that many movies these days.