AJunkMailBin

I consider it akin to cartoons; most people in society think of cartoons as either entertainment for young children - in much the same way as most people in society think of games as entertainment for adolescent boys. In the same way that we expect that young children should only be allowed to use a certain portion of their time being entertained by cartoons, we also expect that adolescents should only be allowed to use a certain portion of their time being entertained by games. This is particularly true when society perceives there to be negative consequences of these forms of entertainment (sedentary lifestyle; lack of exercise; 'dangerous' content; reduced social interaction etc); regardless of whether or not these perceived consequences are true - the perception alone is enough that many people believe their use should be limited (or even stomped out completely) - because cartoons or electronic games are 'a waste of time' (unlike the entertainment that the other person enjoys). For electronic games there is another factor (paragraph is anecdotal only): many of the people who hold these perceptions are older, as a result they are more familiar with older forms of entertainment (board games, books, television or even radio - note that of these only books are really something that is largely individual in its consumption). They are more likely to believe games are purely for entertainment (actually, many games have significant education components or convey complex themes much like quality novels). They are more likely therefore to have reduced awareness about some factors (yes; you can interact with others socially without leaving your room). They are also more likely to believe the worst about the form of entertainment (no; actually there is no evidence to suggest a causal link between video games and violence). All you can really do about this is identifying as a gamer and yet acting in such a way as to demonstrate that you are (acting in a way that aligns with traditional conceptions of) a fully functioning member of (what is traditionally considered) society. I.e. Challenge stereotypes through your actions.

I think I love my family, but what is Love? There have been times when: I have been lonely without someone's mere presence I have been grateful for someone's actions or mere presence I have been calmed by someone's actions or mere presence I have been dependant on someone's actions I have been protected by someone's actions I have wanted to protect someone I have been aroused by someone I have been infatuated with someone I have wanted to be desired by someone In each case: Did I love them? Do I need them to 'accept' my love? Did I want them to love me? Do I need to 'accept' their love? Love is a term people use to describe an enormous variety of different feelings and relationships.

Currently I am working on some high level conceptual modelling for a sand-box that I am making as a hobby project in my part time through Unity. One of the most important elements of such a game is how a player can act within the game universe / interact with other entities. After some significant reading in terms of social, physical and biological interactions, I found very little relevant to my goals. Some game design documents were significantly more helpful, but were generally at too detailed a level - specific to the types of mechanics and not sufficiently broad enough to assist in my efforts. During my investigations so far I have been considering what types of interactions are possible in a gaming environment and was hoping to get some guidance from the Nexus community. I have elected to approach this in terms of considering the potential interactions in our own universe, or the potential gaming universe rather than the programmed representation of those universes. The reason I have decided to approach it in this way is that it is easier for me to comprehend. Using this approach; to my understanding basically there is only really three forms of interaction Interaction by changing Characteristics of an Entity This involves altering the entity directly by changing it's characteristics; in many ways this could be considered the most simple and easily recognisable form of interaction. Examples include picking up a cup; flipping a switch; inflicting a debuff on an enemy. This relies on clearly establishing potential categories of characteristics of entities and method of change. Interaction by changing Connected Entities This involves altering the entity indirectly by changing physical and logical relationships; this is often the intended result of the previous form. Examples include water sloshing in a cup you pick up; lights turning off when a switch is flipped; a second enemy being altered when their ally is debuffed. This relies on clearly establishing potential categories of interfaces of entities and method of change propagation. Interaction by changing Conditions This involves altering the entity indirectly by changing the conditions in which entities are present or have some form of interface; this often acts to trigger changes in characteristics. Examples include increasing the viscosity of 'water' to try and prevent the water sloshing out of the cup; the inhibition of light reflection to assist in limiting the visibility of objects; the creation of a vacuum at a location to prevent sound from reaching the ears of another character. This relies on clearly establishing potential categories of interfaces of metaphysical effects and method of manifestation. To be honest, this is likely to be largely leveraged through the use of a competent physics engine, with adjustments to account for game universe specific metaphysics (such as how the science of 'magic' might function). While I have been attempting to model interactions in different ways (including Inherent interactions/Action Capabilities, Passively / Actively triggered, Focused on a Subject/Unfocused, Performance/Suppression of an action, Attempt/Execution of an Action) I am keen to obtain input from a wider audience. So I suppose my query is this: What sort of actions and interactions are possible? What do you WANT to be able to do in a game - whether as a humanoid character or as something completely different (such as a horse, a slime or a cloud)? For the console thread I am particularly interested in your perceptions given the restrictions on input mechanisms within an environment with a somewhat restricted ability to use modding (and therefore a game which is closer to the original experience as implemented by the developers).

Currently I am working on some high level conceptual modelling for a sand-box that I am making as a hobby project in my part time through Unity. One of the most important elements of such a game is how a player can act within the game universe / interact with other entities. After some significant reading in terms of social, physical and biological interactions, I found very little relevant to my goals. Some game design documents were significantly more helpful, but were generally at too detailed a level - specific to the types of mechanics and not sufficiently broad enough to assist in my efforts. During my investigations so far I have been considering what types of interactions are possible in a gaming environment and was hoping to get some guidance from the Nexus community. I have elected to approach this in terms of considering the potential interactions in our own universe, or the potential gaming universe rather than the programmed representation of those universes. The reason I have decided to approach it in this way is that it is easier for me to comprehend. Using this approach; to my understanding basically there is only really three forms of interaction Interaction by changing Characteristics of an Entity This involves altering the entity directly by changing it's characteristics; in many ways this could be considered the most simple and easily recognisable form of interaction. Examples include picking up a cup; flipping a switch; inflicting a debuff on an enemy. This relies on clearly establishing potential categories of characteristics of entities and method of change. Interaction by changing Connected Entities This involves altering the entity indirectly by changing physical and logical relationships; this is often the intended result of the previous form. Examples include water sloshing in a cup you pick up; lights turning off when a switch is flipped; a second enemy being altered when their ally is debuffed. This relies on clearly establishing potential categories of interfaces of entities and method of change propagation. Interaction by changing Conditions This involves altering the entity indirectly by changing the conditions in which entities are present or have some form of interface; this often acts to trigger changes in characteristics. Examples include increasing the viscosity of 'water' to try and prevent the water sloshing out of the cup; the inhibition of light reflection to assist in limiting the visibility of objects; the creation of a vacuum at a location to prevent sound from reaching the ears of another character. This relies on clearly establishing potential categories of interfaces of metaphysical effects and method of manifestation. To be honest, this is likely to be largely leveraged through the use of a competent physics engine, with adjustments to account for game universe specific metaphysics (such as how the science of 'magic' might function). While I have been attempting to model interactions in different ways (including Inherent interactions/Action Capabilities, Passively / Actively triggered, Focused on a Subject/Unfocused, Performance/Suppression of an action, Attempt/Execution of an Action) I am keen to obtain input from a wider audience. So I suppose my query is this: What sort of actions and interactions are possible? What do you WANT to be able to do in a game - whether as a humanoid character or as something completely different (such as a horse, a slime or a cloud)? For the PC thread I am particularly interested in your perceptions given the flexibility you have in input mechanisms within an environment with a relatively strong ability to use modding (and therefore a game which is more customisable to the experience you desire).

One NPC companion should not have any effect on this sort of thing (it was only really if you were having a great many followers that were attempting to spawn in a formation - the relative positioning used might result in problematic locations for attempted spawns and therefore lead to issues) Hmmn a little interesting. Any mods that effect the cities/towns/villages (e.g. location overhauls)? What about time sensitive mods such as survival mods (remember that time is directly effected in fast travels, the two may conflict)? Weather (again, weather can be directly effected during a fast travel)? Other than that I won't be able to help you much. I used to get this problem a lot with a range of the location overhauls - but I was unable to travel to those areas not merely fast travel.

Personally I do not focus overly on how pretty the characters are (although I do note that I have a lot of character appearance mods installed), how the game looks is more important than how any individual or group of characters look. Nor does the diversity inclusive and celebratory moral motif that SJW seem to want imprinted on everything very suitable to some settings nor to different stories. Would you like race, age, sexual-identity, sexual-preference, religious etc etc equality while walking through the wastelands in fallout? What's that? Power suits don't come in kid's size? Discrimination! In skyrim the elderly, middle aged, young adults, male, female, beggars, jarls, khajit, imperial, nord, daedra worshipper, divine worshipper, all are equal before the ax; but not kids? Discrimination. Would the Skyrim be enhanced were the player choice of Argonian over Nord not reflected in the attitudes (often racist) of the NPCs? What if, in Fallout 4 were the fact that someone was a ghoul or a synth did not matter, would that improve the gaming experience? Not even close. There are all sorts of narratives and themes you can explore if you do not enforce one particular mode of behaviour. While I understand that a diversity inclusive and celebratory moral motif could actually make for a wonderful setting, it would not suit all gaming experiences. For me it is a immersion killer. I am an RPG fanatic and will be answering from that perspective. Things I think are benefits to have: > Story? (For a well-wrought sandbox, a plot may be Ommitted. If there IS a story it must be exceptional; otherwise let the player or their character define it.) > Setting (This largely depends on the story element. If the story is well written, the setting is less important. If the story is not, then this is the thing that makes the game) > Choice (Can I seem to interact with the setting in a way that makes a difference) > Mechanics (How does the game function in those areas where they have defined that they will focus some of their periods of interactivity; personally I hate button mashing/matching/rythm games) > Mod-ability (Can I tweak it and to what extent) Things I think are detriments to have: > Online requirement (Not even for install let alone play; Skyrim was the last single player I bought with an online requirement for install - I will not buy another) > Required protagonist characteristics (This is a big immersion breaker for me, particularly where the character does not match my own characteristics) > False Choice (If all my choices result in essentially the same result, then effectively were they even choices? this ticks me off beyond compare - even being deprived of a choice would have been more palatable) > Cosmetics (Even appearance has effects. One of the ones that bug me the most is gender. Why is it that gender does not effect anything? We don't have a problem with racial bonuses in most games, but gender? Is there some reason my slightly build female cannot wield a battle ax as adroitly as that 6'6" muscular guy over there? Actually yes - both as a female (most men are stronger than most women, given compare levels of effort) and as someone slightly built (both due to muscle and mass), there are plenty of reasons)

The video was a bit over the top and to be honest largely focuses on 'the government' as opposed to those individuals who are law breakers and thus can (at least theoretically) be held to account under the law (where organisations largely cannot, instead they can have some administrative/financial actions taken against them). For governmental entities (as opposed to individuals within), breaches of laws should be something for which they are held to account no more softly than that of the private sector - the only difference may lie in the degree to which that breach is made public (for reasons of national interest). For those breaches that are directly applicable to the department's area of designated expertise / power (for example health departments breaching health laws) should result in far harsher penalties, than were a breach made against a law that is not their expertise (a health department breaching a tax law). These penalties should be recorded and made public within the year (although the specifics of the breach and penalties may need to be obscured to protect privacy of individuals). I am of the opinion that all individuals in the public service should be held to a higher ethical standard. That does not necessarily mean higher penalties under the law, but that they be subject to reviews of their employment at the least (even for minimal offences). Breaches of the law by individuals within other governmental entities should be subject to harsher penalties only where those individuals breach laws as relevant to the power of those particular governmental entities (e.g. a treasury official committing forgery or someone from an environmental protection agency illegally dumping). On the other hand there are entities within the government to which I believe there is sufficient reason that individuals within should face stricter penalties in the event of any breach. These include elected representitives, the judiciary, the police and the attorney generals.

Can you travel to those locations normally at the moment? Also, do you have any mods which might make references to your immediate surroundings (like companion mods)?

I think that the notion of essential NPCs killing role playing is, at its core, referencing the creative tension of RPGs as vehicles for story-telling as opposed to story-creation. This is essentially a question of where are the narrative elements obtained from? Some of the commonly used narrative elements are (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative) Character, Plot, Setting, Theme, Style, Form, Genre, Narrator and Tense In role playing we the player (narrator first person) in accordance with the provisions defined by the developer (narrator second person) establish character(s) (narrator third person). We the player (or the character we define) may set goals for gameplay - either in terms of goal seeking or play-style; this in part shapes the character, plot, theme, style and genre elements that make up the narrative. The developer shapes our gaming experience first by providing the form In our case a video game - which includes the technical support for other narrative elements. The game also encompasses the setting, constructing the gaming universe itself and seeks to supplement the other elements; usually they provide a overarching plot which utilises a style and theme, there is also usually emphasis on various genres. Enter the NPC; this is a vehicle that is used within many of these elements, clearly they are their own Character, they often play a *role* (more on this in a moment) within the Plot or sub plots, they are encountered within the Setting, they act to reinforce or counterpoint the Theme, they may heavily influence the Style, their encapsulation within the Form (game) may heavily influence their capacity to act within a Genre and are an essential tool of the NPC creator (usually the developer) as a Narrator . Simply said, NPCs are written primarily as a vehicle for their creators to convey the story - this is their role. They define in a way that the form (video game) can facilitate, the choices of the player (first person narrator) to effect the plot and related elements. They are there for the sake of enabling a narrative, where the narrator is the creator of those NPCs (the developer). NPC interactions within a highly structured form (such as a video game) are constructed to enable you to experience the defined narrative(s), rather than to allow you to construct your own. Killing or in some other way interacting with the NPC that would inhibit their capacity to act within that role is something that would inherently interfere with the narrative. At it's core, the essential NPC is used to maintain simplicity for the entry conditions into narrative events and to perform the narrative event itself; the essential NPC is there to perform their role ensure that the narrative can continue to be told (as the NPC will definitely be alive) this is often paired with them having limited ability to effect the plot (the event will take place in one of a specified number of variations). Likewise other mechanics are used to achieve this end, for example the replaceable NPC (remove them and someone else can take their place with no real effect on the plot). There are however other reasons that NPCs may not be killable: it may make some content make less sense in the event that they are killed, another problem is that of controversy. For example there is no legitimate reason that a child should not be treated any differently than any other member of their species - is there a reason why they are usually implemented as another race? Absolutely; the screams would be deafening otherwise. Then we have sandboxes; this should actually be the holy grail when it comes to electronic RPGs. There are two problems, the first is voice acting (it's expensive), the second is... they think they need to tell a plot. The expense of voice acting is a legitimate concern. IF all lines need to be voice acted (which seems questionable), rather than simply presented as text, or generated by TTS (stitched together by an algorithm using snippets of recorded speech and some automated adjustments to pacing / tone) it will be expensive. We may simply have to either cut developers some slack on that end if you want robust choice in dialogue. The perceived need for a defined plot is what makes the developer seem to feel the need to constrain everything we can do - even in a sandbox; this creates an enormous sense of dissonance. Sandboxes should be focusing on their most important, defining concept - the form which enables interaction within a setting. That capacity to interact with a carefully wrought setting with meticulous AI... that is where the emergent gameplay that is essential for role-play is born. Even better if, like Bethesda, they are modding friendly (though if they want to make a pure sandbox commercially viable they will need to enhance their modding tools).

Tetris; the four blocks of evil

Ar Tonelico - Simple narrative, interesting cast and setting, strong focus on understanding your companions... can be a little date sim like (and if so, why no Harem!!) Breath of Fire Series - I'm a dragon, biatch! Simple narrative, interesting cast, base building... can be a little cliché; plus it has the burden of Dragon Quarter to live down. Final Fantasy Series - Simple narrative, interesting cast, willing to experiment with mechanics... can be a bit hit and miss, I have not enjoyed any of the recent additions. Megami Tensei Series (and spin-offs) - Challenging narrative elements, interesting cast, strong focus on interpersonal 'links'... the differences between the different series/spin-offs is remarkable, so it is important to know which suits your play style) Personally I like both the Persona spin-off (again, why no harem?!) and the darker series. Planescape Torment - Subtle narrative, interesting cast, strong focus on self definition and varied gameplay styles... dated. Suikoden Series - Challenging narrative elements, huge cast, base building... it does unfortunately feel a little like pokemon with people at times; I would prefer a little more in the way of trade-offs in terms of who I can recruit at any one time. Also, it has the burden of IV to live down (actually a good game, but the plot was perhaps a little too simple?) If there is ONE game where harem is the default route, this should be it - but romance is basically a non factor. Perhaps because the cast is so large, development is modest and even then, only for a selection of the 108+ characters. Tales of Series - Simple narrative, interesting cast and settings... can be a bit cliché but a solid experience. It seems that they seldom experiment, so you are unlikely to see anything novel, but rather an attempt to use established mechanics effectively.

Planescape Torment. I will never forget how that game seemed to enable me to make choices that actually had an appreciable effect on the gaming experience. It felt like I was actually free to choose what role I wanted to play and have that role effect the game.

That would however require that you disable adult content from your profile; perhaps what he is after is instead a session specific solution. The way I would try to approach it is likely to introduce a URL modifier to denote when you are wanting a SFW overwrite of your standard permissions to ensue it is SFW; I.e. currently it is http://www.nexusmods.com/ instead perhaps it would become something like http://sfw.nexusmods.com/ However personally I think you are likely to have to simply change your preferences lol. Worst case scenario - just browse at work.

Go to your user preferences in skyrim nexus (you must be logged in). First one under Global Preferences, ask it to allow you to see adult content. Now adult mods will be returned in the searches.