dormcat on 9/1/2003 at 05:00
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw For a quick example, I'll refer to 'End of Days'.
Was it right for Arnie to protect the girl from the 'good' killers, even if it meant risking the whole world? I'm not too sure of that.
While this is a rather unprobable example, you'll get the idea behind it. One of the many problems (which is the one I described before), is where the "It's ok to kill to protect someone" fits on both sides.Wow, you remind me what Tyball said to Avatar when I killed him in order to save Arial. :idea:
And you made a very good point Dragonclaw. :thumb:
Slight SPOILER follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
About killing in DX there's one thing troubles me. There are people can't be killed at all (Tong) or can only be kill under certain circumstances (Simons), and some of them are even negligible (Smuggler) but still can't be killed. I know this feature is to ensure the game to proceed, but IMHO I still prefer UW1's way that you can kill everyone, then the game would not proceed, forcing you to 'behave' in the way of eight virtues. Which game design do you prefer?
Dragonclaw on 9/1/2003 at 10:28
Quote:
Originally posted by santaClaws Hell, what's Arnie got to do with ethical discussions anyway .. IMO one can't talk about things like that taking films and fiction in general as examples.OK, so you did NOT get the point. Let me give you another example:
A cruel dictator is to be attacked. A man near him notices the attempt. Should he shoot the assasin to protect the dictator? Following your morals, that would be right. Even though the dictator will continue to rule with a hard hand, maybe killing more.
SJamieson on 9/1/2003 at 12:03
Yeah, I think you should be able to kill everyone
but there should be enough evidence left around
in data pads and newspapers to allow you to complete
it without them.
If you kill all the characters then you have to work an
awful lot harder to complete the game.
There should also be a decent Story tree like in "Blade Runner"
where if you kill one person another person can give you the
information instead, and where every slight variation in gameplay
can lead to a different possible outcome. The better part of 10 years
on and still noone know how many possible outcomes were truly
programmed into that game.
SJamieson on 9/1/2003 at 14:40
Big Spoiler
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Perhaps the original game should have also allowed you to kill bob page earlier in the game (like at veraslabs) and if you did it would end the game there. As in all 3 actual endings the common theme is that bob page will die. It could have had another cutscene for that point, but doing it would encourage you to go on and see what happens if you didn't kill him.
santaClaws on 9/1/2003 at 15:07
Mhm .. well, I'd try not to be in the vicinity of this dictator in the first place. But hell, I wouldn't shoot the assassin either, I'd rather render him unable to deliver his threat. But I don't think I'd ever use a weapon, not even to defend myself. I fucking hate them.
Fixxxer on 10/1/2003 at 00:06
Hoplophobe: One who has an irrational fear of weapons.
Yep, you seem to qualify. Since it is usually futile to try to reason with irrational persons, and this IS a DX forum, as I've been so kindly made aware, I'll not press the issue...
G-Prime on 12/1/2003 at 02:03
Fixxxer:
I'm just wondering where you got those stats about guns preventing more crimes than they are used in. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I've just never heard those statistics before. Could very well be true, because the way journalism works we might just here more about the crimes. Just want to know, though.
Fixxxer on 12/1/2003 at 03:09
The 440,000 annual crimes committed with firearms comes from the US Department of Justice or the FBI, I don't recall which. The 2 million defensive uses of firearms annually statistic was found by a professor at the University of Florida (IIRC)/criminologist named Gary Kleck in his study
Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.
If you're interested you can find many more statistics and information on the subject at (
http://www.guncite.com) Guncite
santaClaws on 12/1/2003 at 15:42
Quote:
Originally posted by Fixxxer (..) irrational fear of weapons.Now what's irrational about that? You disappoint me. It's irrational to have an affinity to weapons, IMO.
Fixxxer on 12/1/2003 at 18:09
It's irrational because a weapon is only a tool. It's not going to jump up and stab or shoot you. It can be used both for good or bad; what really matters is who's holding it. Obviously, if the person holding it is yourself, you're in no danger from it; rather, you'd actually be safer, if you were educated in the proper usage of said weapon.
