At the end of the day I didn't think you were going to say it this week, but there it was, right at the buzzer!
Another good one guys, although I'm sad to hear my worst fears about that new Raiders film confirmed. Really? Really?? Worst than Temple?

Easily, the worst of the series.

I bet it was because of the ending, because up until that point, I thought it was actually pretty good.

As for examples of bad guys, I believe the best bad guys are good people turned bad or people who believe what they are doing is right, and if you see things from their point of view, suddenly it makes sense why they do what they do, and if they don't waver in that, that makes them the more effective.

Andrew Ryan wins my vote for doing what he thinks is right, as he explains himself all the while, you see the depth to him and understand what he does and why, but the one bad guy I can think of that does both the above is Arthus from Warcraft 3, TFT and soon WOW, as he pursues evil to try and save his people and ends up the true villian. Actually quite a good character developement from Blizzard.

EDIT: I hope Mr Clarkson from Top Gear doesn't frighten all the people of other nations due to his "over the top everything" (though must say it's a great show because of that!). If he does, we as residents of the UK apologise. James May forfills standard english stereotypes so he's OK....

Yeah. It wasn't horrible though. It was entertaining, at least.

But then again, that's probably because I was 4 years old when the last one came out, and never saw it in the theaters...

A couple things about AoC.

I agree that the drops are pretty lame for the most part. However, I'm not so sure that's a terrible thing. From a technical perspective it's always safer for the devs to start with things underpowered and up the ante rather than go toward the opposite extreme and face a wave of complaints about nerfing when they have to tone it down. And from a story/immersion perspective, this is the world of Conan, which is decidedly low magic. Conan himself was not decked out in Flaming Underwear of Awesome Prowess. He wore regular stuff and had a sword which, while badass, was not bedazzled or endowed with earthbending powers. I really, really appreciate the fact that if you find something cool, it's really an event - it means something precisely because it doesn't happen very often. Ultimately, I never, ever want to face a choice between which pair of magic shoes my character should wear today. That would just be so un-Conan. Of course, it's a game, and even I want cool stuff soemtimes, but I do appreciate the fact that the devs are erring on the side of the mundane over the super-magical. It's in keeping with the gritty feel of the genre.

Another thing about AoC that just hit me last night after I got ganked for the fourth or fifth time while solo questing is that there really seems to be almost no consequences of dying in PvP. This took me by surprise, maybe because this is the first time I've actually wanted to even try an MMO. I just assumed that I would lose some money, or XP, or one of my items, or something. Instead I just end up respawning (usually not very far away) and continue on my business. It's a minor nuisance - an interruption - but nothing more (spawn camping is a different matter entirely, though). In fact the last time I was ambushed as I finished hacking up a monster I decided to just stand there and let it get over with (I wasn't going to win so I didn't bother trying). Twenty seconds later I was back in the same spot and my attacker had moved on. Ho hum. I'm really not sure if I like that or not. Right now I like it because I'm inexperienced and I've been killed about 20 times whereas I've only been the victor 2 or 3 times. Anyway, I'm curios what others think about the whole PvP thing.

If you ever want to try the pain of losing xp and possibly even anything you've got on you, including everything you've got equipped, try Lineage 2. You'll learn to hate it quickly and think the sun shines out of AoC's... well, you'll prefer AoC's method.

Perhaps a better way to approach this issue would be to list games that had multiple endings that weren't crap. Should such games exist, even with the idea of good endings being subjective, it would be good to see if there are any common themes (assuming there's more than one).

While I'm not sure D&D is a good comparison, I think we're quite a way off having games that provide alternative outcomes for any possible action, if that day wil even arrive at all. I'm not sure I even want it to.

I don't even know where to get into a bar brawl!

One question I had is what was the actual name of the game trade store that was talked about just before the games you can play now section was over. I live in Calgary and I'm wondering if there is one around here because EB's is retarted and I've had enough of Best Buy as well.

The difference is that you have your gigantic human brain to use to dynamically meld the story, whereas the poor developers only have the relatively puny resources of a primitive computing device to fall back on. Creative and dynamic narrative is one of those things one might call "AI-complete", in that if you can do it, you have essentially built and A.I.

And even if you did have a gigantic human brain, not very many human brains have the capacity to build compelling endings on the fly.

So, color me pessimistic that we'll ever see anything like this beyond what is fairly straightforward and obvious.

Fallout. How great all the variable endings you could get in that game is what gives me hope for Fallout 3 and their "over 500 endings." I'd be willing to bet that the "over 500" is every possible combination of a series of endings that will be shown in a montage at the end of the game - not an actual count of the number of endings that they've written.

A multiple place-centric ending (see: Fallout) envelops an entire place, with its many people, into one brief summary.

The approach I am interested in is character-centric endings, as opposed to place-centric endings.

Each key character has several possible paths that are affected by player's, and their own actions. Because in the end, when we watch a TV show, we get more attached to the characters individually rather than their neighborhoods as a whole.

In addition, character-centric endings are easier to manage content-wise. You're not setting an entire village on fire, or staging an invasion by giant robots, you're just doing a lot of writing of dialogue and behavior routines on a deep level for each key part.

Here I was thinking I could mention one interactive medium to suggest a concept without having to enter the minefield of apples to oranges comparisons. The point stands that in the interactive medium of video games there are opportunities to explore the consequence of choices, much like pen and paper roleplaying games do. Using one interactive medium as an example of potential is substantially different than comparing it to a passive experience. You sir, are copping out and reaching for the low hanging fruit of this particular argument.

I'll ask the question again, because I think it's an interesting topic. If you have three GREAT potential endings, and you reach one of them and you think "Wow, what a great ending!" you believe it's devalued by the mere possibility of things happening differently for someone else? I honestly don't quite understand the viewpoint. I'd take one great ending over a handful of moderate ones, no question. But if all of them are equally great and have the bonus of being relevant to your input I'd think the ending is made even better for it. Who cares if there were other possibilities if I'm satisfied?

What about choice? If a player's actions cannot affect the ending in any way, then one will never have more than the illusion of choice.

Even if you don't you don't know that the other endings exist? Does this apply to other media as well?

I'm sorry, princess. I didn't mean to make you sensitive.

Like I said on the show this is a philosophical argument, and one to which I doubt we could come to an amicable agreement.

Such is the constraint of any video game capable of being produced. _For me_ I prefer a contained story. Now, the interesting question you bring up is if the knowledge that other endings exist influences the experience for me, and I think the answer is yes. So, I will agree that if I don't know there are other endings, and I experience a great ending then I can be satisfied, but when is that ever going to happen?