Samuel_Tow

Except you didn't really say much. What, are models better than SG or something?

On the other hand, of the things you do in programming, assigning values makes up the much higher percentage than checking for equality, specifically since == usually tends to test only numerical values for equality. There is a pretty clever trap door in Java, for instance, where actual value of a String variable is a pointer to a character array, so testing two Strings for equality using == will only return true of they are actually the SAME string, not merely two different strings that say the same thing.

Personally, I prefer = as an assignment operator over the alternatives. I had it up to HERE with := in Pascal. I mean come on now! That looks like the head of Cthulu! It's also irritating to type out and something I could never get used to using. It's not intuitive to me to use, and I have a degree in Applied Mathematics, so it's not a non-mathematical way of thinking that's causing this. In my mind, varA = varB has always been the equivalent of a mathematical statement "let varA = varB," which is fairly common.

Or, you know... Not. Some of us manage to solo 99% of the time and do just fine. The game WILL NOT be remade into a single-player game, as no sane business would invest money in a project they're actually closing down, but just shipping out either a patch or a loader that allows you to play offline or host your own servers is at least reasonable. So what if some of the content won't be available to a single player. It's better than nothing.

Well, when we get to the subject of morality, especially morality in fiction, I become a pretty intolerant individual. I can accept a lot of things in the name of good plot, but calling things I see as immoral because they may be perceived as moral by someone else's (even the author's) understanding of it is not something I'm prepared to do. This goes back to the previous discussion elsewhere about the relativity of morality and the existence of an ultimate moral good. I don't happen to feel one exists as an integral part of the fabric of reality, but over the years I've developed a sense of my own ultimate morality that I have never had the slightest desire to compromise on. I may be wrong, I may overlook actions contrary to it, but I will NOT concede to morality I do not agree with.

With that in mind, I see what is moral and what is amoral a certain way. That doesn't mean I'll chastise authors for creating characters that break morality, but I WILL lose pretty much all suspension of disbelief when I see a CLEARLY amoral character being passed as a moral one. Once I switch from watching a movie and absorbing what it is saying into shouting at the TV that "How the hell does that make any sense?!?" that is very much lost altogether, and I can't help but play the Nostalgia Critic for the rest of the duration.

I spent a good deal of time last night trying to think of an appropriate morally grey character last night, and I couldn't actually think of many. I think Red X from the Teen Titans cartoon would be a good example. He is quite clearly a thief and a criminal who has actually stolen from the Titans before, but when the chips are down, he does the right thing and saves Robin even though he didn't have to. He's not a hero, by any means, but when compared to someone like Slade or the Brain or Trigon, his crimes are actually pretty forgiveable. They ARE crimes, mind you, but they're not enough to diminish his character into plain villainy, yet he isn't actually a hero much at all.

As for the different types of morality, I really don't think I would draw as distinct a line in this case. It's not a matter of actions, consequences or the person, but rather a question of presentation. A lot of characters who pass for anti-heroes or morally grey characters are, in my opinion, actually appealing villains. As City of Heroes has taught us, villains do spend a good bit of time fighting each other, and it's quite possible for a villain to shape his career such that he mostly fight other villains the majority of time and avoids the truly sickening evil. By comparison, this makes him less of a villain than the really nasty bad guys, but it doesn't actually make him morally ambiguous. Not just on its own.

For a character to be morally ambiguous or morally grey, he has to have a host of damning characteristics, as well as a set of redeeming characteristics to balance them, and all of these need to be of the same type. A Dr. Doom character, for instance, is clearly a villain, though he could be painted as noble and his ability to think big make him endearing. However, his likeability does not offset his evil. On the flip side, a hero who is a complete jerkass and everybody hates him, yet he always does the right thing in the end isn't morally grey, either. He's a hero, despite not actually being likeable. Personally, I'd only ever see a character as morally grey if I can't decide for myself whether he should be a hero or a villain, which I've found very few characters that fit.

I will admit that I may place actions with more importance than intentions and consequences, but that stems from a combination of the path to the dark side (appropriately) and the notion that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, as well as that a person is defined by their actions, not by their words. When we start down the path of "the cost justifies the means" motion (and into consequence trumps action), I guess you could say we enter into a more relatively grey area, but that's not actually as grey as it seems, because it's fairly easy to spin this into the ludicrous and still sound at least a little justified. That is to say, cost justifies the means is a fairly cheap excuse that has lost a lot of its value in fiction over the years. If played right, it could, at most, lead to a dramatic, character-defining moment of decision, but than anything else, it's usually either the final step over into evil, or the final step out into good.

Maybe I'm biassed, I don't know, but it usually takes a LOT for me to buy that a clearly, horribly evil act is justified because it is necessary. It has just been played as the excuse for the WRONG choice far too many times in fiction. Maybe I'm biassed, of course, because I am NOT a forgiving person and I have a very evil, very long memory, but I've never seen acts of even just about evil balanced out by acts of pretty much good. To my eyes, a single act of evil forfeits a life of good, and redemption from it requires SERIOUS effort. You can't just flip-flop over the line.

As far as valuing the person over their actions and the consequences thereof, I cannot and will not buy into that. I'll give some leeway to the belief that the person, as a self-contained entity, is often quite different from what others perceive it as and often contains notions that can never be understood by others. But at the end of the day, "the person" is irrelevant unless it affects the world around it, and it is in the consequences and actions of this process that a person actually "matters." So even if a person is good and kind-hearted in his mind, if his actions are cruel and wrong, THAT is what the person is in reality. That can actually be played for sympathy in stories - a person who strives to be kind and good, but ends up doing bad things. But that doesn't really make the person morally ambiguous or grey. It just makes the character into a tragic villain.

Again, and to end - I am not against villains who are likeable. That's half the fun of playing one. But I don't believe they can pass for morally grey JUST because we, the self-professed good people, are capable of liking them.

I wouldn't really call those characters morally grey, though. They're pretty much magnificent, alluring villains, so as such are more a shiny black character. A morally grey character is someone who can be a hero just as easily as a villain, and the distinction where he crosses from one into the other is not clear. If you make the character a VILLAIN, then you can still make him likeable, and indeed I feel this way for a variety of well-written villains, but it doesn't make him any less villainous.

In a nutshell, there is a distinction between a morally grey character and a likeable villain, most notably in that morally grey characters are much more rarely likeable.

Two points: There is no such thing as "bad choice," only "choice I don't like." Sometimes it's safe to assume that our preferences are a little more universally appealing, making us a little more right, but under no circumstances would I ever consider going out on a limb and claiming that a person's character design is BAD. Ill-thought-out, perhaps, even random, but this is an evaluation of the perceived amount of effort (or lack thereof) that went in it, not of its final quality.

It really bothers me that this is a recurring trend in this game - "Your costume sucks!" People make what people like, and short of trying to convince them they like the wrong thing, there is no such thing as bad choices, merely unpopular choices.

Secondly, just because something is cliché doesn't make it bad. Unless we want to write up a list of things that should never be used again, or a timeline as to how soon something can be used again, we can't really claim using clichés is bad, specifically since so many of them exist in the official content, and indeed in real life. A cliché is only as bad (or indeed, as good) as the quality of its enactment. If it's just plopped in there with seemingly no reason other than because it's the latest fad, then I can see how this might be less than appealing, but merely HAVING a cliché is in no way a sign of a poor idea.

Clichés are the building blocks of art. Yes, you can go down to basics and manufacture your own soon-to-be clichés, but even if you use other people's, the question is what you do with them, not what you use. Back in the day it was said that black trenchcoats were cliché, yet mine was still cool and stylish regardless of what other people were doing at the time.

One small note: "irregardless" is not a word, it's the negative of a negative. The word you want is "regardless," i.e. "without regard."

Eh, mine has comments like "Lame." You're better off.

See, here's the thing about moral grey areas - they have to be morally ambiguous. You can't just take a complete monster (to give an extreme example) and try to give his actions justification. That just gets people to shout "You're insane!" in an overly dramatic tone, while he responds "I believe history will see things differently."

...I am such a nerd...

The point is, a character has to be convincing and his thesis believable to such an extent that the full horror of his actions seems somehow justified, or at the very least make the character committing them redeemable in some way. For instance, and to go back to topic, the sequels' Darth Vader is pretty much a very, very bad man crushes a man's neck like a can of coke as a matter of course, yet towards the end when we finally understand the full scope of the tragedy that is his life, he still sort of seems OK. But someone like the Emperor would never be redeemable no matter his rhetoric, because at the end of the day, he's still just a villain with an excuse, and though his plan is admittedly very clever, he isn't at all sympathetic.

And that's what it comes down to when you make "morally grey" characters - you need someone who remains sympathetic even after everything they do.

While I'll agree that there was gratuitous fan service (the other kind) going on in the Star Wars prequels which certainly took screen time away from the actual plot, I can't really point to that as the biggest problem with them. It's like blaming the last two inches on a door that's six feet too narrow. The prequels were relatively long, and they had ample time to get SOMETHING going, yet even that time is squandered on an inept script. If I saw this thrilling, captivating story written into them, but that was just not able to be fleshed out due to excessive unnecessary effects, I might concede that they were the problem. But the script did nothing with even the plot air time it had, so it really doesn't even get down to effects before it breaks down.

Now, on the other hand, I suppose you can argue that having lots of flashy effects could serve as a selling point, and Lucas might have decided to sell it on that and so not spend as much effort on the story. But in this case, I'd call that bad directing first and foremost. I happen to believe good movies are made by good EVERYTHING. Good plot, action and effects, not one or the other or the other still. Whenever a decision is made to cut one to benefit the others, that takes away from the merit of a movie, and I'm sure George Lucas had enough time and resources to focus on both effects and plot, and the prequels certainly had enough air time to forward it. It just seems like someone outright failed to do so.

I like the redemption of Anakin. Consistently throughout the series, Darth Vader is easily my favourite character, and I like how he's consistently being downplayed from this authoritarian "black knight" into a pawn for an evil emperor, and within this setting his turn is very much on the money and well played. What I dislike is Luke Skywalker in Return of the Jedi. He goes from a kid to some sort of slogan-spewing sage on par with "does very little" Kenobi, who nevertheless gets suckered into a cheap mind game. And I especially dislike the evil emperor, not for how he's treated, but for the fact that he feels like he was pulled out of thin air. His whole shtick is sitting on a throne, talking, eventually displaying the world's first example of Force Lightning.

If anything, I'd pick Darth Vader over Anakin Skywalker every time. Vader is a dark, conflicted character, yet his conflict is very much internal and implied, rather than external and whiny. Maybe the several-decade time skip between Epidsode 3 and Star Wars, Episode 4 could be said to turn him into a much more interesting character, but the fact remains I could have seen several different ways to depict the corruption of a good jedi that didn't include a whiny, unlikable brat. In fact, of all depictions of a young Darth Vader I had back when I was a kid watching Star Wars, Anakin Skywalker's character in the prequels wasn't even close. Hell, this is starting to remind me of Linkara's list of Top 15 Worst Heroes Becoming Villains, although in this case the "worst" applies to the original hero.

Ironically, I was much more convinced of the Dark Side characters in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, as all of them were given a lot more depth both in evil and in good.

I've always believed that a good villain is someone you really want to see fail, but a great villain is someone you kind of want to see succeed. I know Anakin is someone I REALLY want to see fail, but has never been someone I could sympathise with and actually want to side with. Darth Vader is more a villain I can kind of root for, because he's both so badass and so powerful, but the transition between the two is just... Meh.

No, all the "nasty" emotional baggage that makes these people feel like a blown-up roll of cheese. Star Wars and the The Empire Strikes Back had more than enough "emotional stuff" in them, it's just that most of it was believable and even deserving of sympathy. It had characters I actually liked.

The Star Wars series have declined farther and farther into wangst as the franchise rolled on. In Star Wars, it was almost entirely absent, outside of Luke's reaction to the deaths of his family and Obi One, which is actually pretty much deserved. The Empire Strikes Back is generally good, developing the characters of Han and Leia, but ends up with major wangs. In one word: "No!!!" To his credit, Luke still retains face for much of the Return of the Jedi, though the ending started spiralling down.

And then we have the sequels. That is just a cartwheel tumble downhill, head over heels. Episode 1 was relatively good, but over done, and it just goes worse from there. The original Star Wars movie was very representative of its age - it was largely a war movie with some humour and a good deal of adventure, sort of like Kelly's Heroes in space. Everything from then on has been watered down little by little, even in the old sequels, and I would still take Han Solo's wit and bravado over any of the characters in the new prequels, ESPECIALLY Samuel L. Jackson, who had no business being in the movie to begin with. I might make an exception for Quai Gon, because he really was the one character who didn't writhe in generic pain and came off generally decent, but overall, I'm unsatisfied with the Star Wars prequels.

And it's not because there is too much drama and not enough effects. It's because the drama that it DOES have is terrible and unconvincing. I remember Episode 2 being described as "Obi One travels to a planer. Anakin and Padme fall in live in a tent. Obi One battles droids. Anakin and Padme fall in love by a river. Etc." Not an exact quote, mind you, but it's an apt description. It's done so poorly, that a concept I should find endearing and sweet (I'm a sucker for love stories) ends up being as grating and annoying as watching that YTMND skit of William Shatner shouting "KHAAN!!!"

Aw, you're makin' me blush

I swear, one of these days I'm going to get conclusive proof that I exist. It's kind of depressing to constantly see people prove theories that I'm not real.

[/quote]Lastly, I love the class of the jerk-offs with the rude replies.[/QUOTE]

Oh, you smooth talker you! I think my knees turned to jelly...

The building reaches critical mass based on time passed since the fire started, and from then on explodes a second time on a combination of time passed and number of fires. The myth is that if it blows up once, there is nothing you can do to save it and you should just get away. The fact is that you have in the neighbourhood of 5-10 minutes to finish up, depending on how well you can wipe the Hellions.

If you arrive at a fire too late after it has started, the building will sometimes blow up twice in rapid succession as you trigger new Hellions, but this only occurs if you went to a fire late and no-one has been there since it started.

Hell, I wanted to stab him as soon as I saw who they cast for the role. I don't even know the guy, but his emo plus that look were just murder for me. Then again, I also wanted to stab young Obi Wan, but adult Obi Wan I find to be one of the coolest characters I've seen, upstaging large ham Samuel L. Jackson by several orders of magnitude. Then again, the various Clone Wars series have made him a lot cooler still, as well as actually doing Anakin a lot of good. He's actually a pretty decent, impressive character there. On the other hand, Genndy Tartakovsky tends to have that effect on pretty much everything he touches.

Above all else, I REALLY hate how Anakin was written. All he did was add to the fake, grating drama that the prequels suffered from, something Han Solo would have probably laughed at. The sequels managed to avoid this, as the "Oh, woe is me" only really started creeping in at the end of The Empire Strikes back, giving us the majority of two episodes of decent quality and characters.

Well, there is that crappy writing and the fact that Chris Redfield's neck is about twice the size of his head, but I actually did like the character of Sheva. But still, everyone is just... I don't know. People in different clothes. And not even cool clothes, mind you. Just mostly military spec-ops drab, and the occasional drab cream suit. Again, I like Sheva's tank top design, but that might have something to do with the fact that she's the only woman in the game for the majority of its screen time.

I've always been much more able to sympathise with anime characters and their specific, stylistic, often even absurd costume design. Even something as simple as a large red trenchcoat, an impossible hairdo or an oversized weapon is enough for me, and I'm pretty sure I could describe at least a handful of characters with each of these. Yes, even the red trenchcoat - Vash the Stampede, Dante and Alucard come to mind immediately, and my brain isn't even in gear.

The point is - and this is purely a matter of opinion - that the more regular, believable and... Well, plain a character looks, the less I am able to care about them. Of course, there are certain points where looking regular can be an irregularity in itself, such as the notion a friend of mine holds that "end bosses" should be BIG and IMPOSING. And they should, so when you see a small guy in a suit being one, that IS memorable.

Personally, I watch movies for the fiction, pure and simple. If I watch a movie about space, I'm watching it for the zero gravity and vacuum atmosphere first, and anything else second and down. I don't watch dramatic historical re-enactment movies. When I do watch documentaries, it's for the fact and the history, not the drama and the mystery. I keep my facts in my facts folder and my fiction in my fiction drawer. And when I watch fictional movies, I want them to have something that isn't possible or doesn't exist in real life.

I'll give you an example - I recently say a trailer for Avatar (on Trailer Failure, no less, but that's besides the point) and I gotta' say, I'm going to see this movie even if it turns out to be the worst piece of garbage ever. It seem to have quite a nice mix of things that are blatantly unreal, and yet look very recognisable and, dare I say it, very, very cool.

He was? Maybe being a guy makes me biassed, but I found Anakin to be repulsive in a very physical way. I can't speak about sexapeal (all men look ugly to me, myself included), but he is written as such whiny brat I just can't stand him. Oh, woe is me! Luke found the charred remains of the only parents he ever knew, and yet he still managed to avoid hitting every cliché in the book.

Well, considering the only thing that has over simply not finishing the mission is the end-of-mission bonus, I don't feel it's that big of a problem. Or are you worried of the repeat of the Barakuda farms?

The main idea was that the team finish your mission and get their rewards irrespective of whether you're on or not, but if you're not on, you have the option to reject your mission completion bonus and not have the mission complete. I just hate the idea that someone can pick and complete one of my missions against my will.

If it's a problem, then put it on a timer. If a team finishes the mission without you, then you can either accept completion, or you can reject, but can't retry the mission until an hour has passed until it was first completed. So, say a team completes your mission at 5 PM. If you log in at 5:05 and reject completion, you won't be able to try it again until 6 PM, but if you go have lunch and dinner and come back at 8 PM and THEN refuse completion, then you can retry it immediately. Sort of like TF repetition timers.

Yeah, Dr. Vhaz has been making visual abominations since 2004, at least.

I disagree completely. It's a matter of taste, obviously, so I can't criticise you for having your own, but I feel completely the opposite way. To me, "normal" movie lack something quite special that makes animated movies unique - they're limited to what normal actors can act out. I've been watching normal people my whole life. They are, plain and simple, not interesting to me, not even the good actors.

To me, the more "normal" a movie looks, the more I'm reminded that these are actual people pretending to be doing and feeling these amazing, unusual things. That just ruins the mood for me. On the flip side, the less "real" something feels and the more it encroaches on the uncanny valley, the more I can relate to it and the more interested I am in watching about it. Even if it's something as simple as a realistic person rendered in 3D.

As a matter of fact, I dislike the encroachment of this photo-realistic, super-detailed style of 3D animation that's been overtaking game CGI and even in-game graphics in the recent years. They're well made, but they're just not interesting enough to watch about. I just can't sympathise with the the people in something like the latest Resident Evil games. On the flip side, having watched Monsters vs. Aliens just last night, I'm a lot happier with the the stylised, cartoony people, and even with the grotesque monsters

I'm a firm believer in the Rule of Cool. I can watch Dante stop falling out of the air when he fires his guns, and not question that for a second. I can watch a movie about a 50-foot-tall woman running through steel walls, Juggernaut-style and not bat an eye. I can watch a movie about kung-fu fighting giant talking turtles and not consider it odd. Personally, I don't want a movie that keeps trying to convince me it could happen. I want a movie that shows me things that are ABSOLUTELY not going to happen, yet seem to make sense within the confines of the movie, itself.

It's a little like City of Heroes, in this regard. Anything goes. Vampires teaming up with werewolves to fight alien invaders? Pirate ghosts fighting ninja sorcerers? What other game can you say this about with a straight face and yet still claim it takes itself seriously?

For the past 20 or so years, people have been telling me, alternately, that I should grow out of cartoons and that I'm too old to watch cartoons. I've been consistently telling these people to go to hell. It's taken me a while, but I realised that I simply enjoy animated and 3D movies more than live action movies, and by a very wide margin. I simply enjoy the character designs a lot more, and I have to say - 3D models can act better than any actor I've ever seen.