|
You've probably heard me talk up this game to death on our podcast, and I can't wait to see a good Let's Play of it. And judging by this:Fedule posted:'Aksys Games, Ben Bateman spe-' I think we're in good hands. Make us proud, Fedule!
|
#
¿
May 23, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
Fedule posted:The full breakdown on version differences is: One other thing: The 3DS touch (bottom) screen gets a dumb green filter thrown over the graphics. It makes everything look awful.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2013 04:35
|
|
|
Fedule posted:I try not to think about that. Out of curiousity, do you have a game script to work with? Like a text dump? Gotta imagine that'd make this LP a million times easier.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
njsykora posted:And generally you'll be seeing 2-3 door opening animations in the process, which slows things down even more. God, I forgot all about that. Between that and losing like 10 hours to that 3DS save bug, why did I like this game again? cause it's awesome
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
SingerOfW posted:At least I don't remember being annoyed by all the items that much. I think the thing that bugged me is that I got the Easy puzzle wrong (the logic puzzle wasn't so bad), and if you get poo poo wrong you have to... - Take all your drinks off the bar, and see the inventory screen popup each time - Dump your drinks in the garbage, see the empty glass pop up each time, since it's sort of a new item - Take the bottles out of the drink maker, and put new ones back in (guess what pops up each time) - Repeat until you realize your mistake and do it right It's one of those things where you roll your eyes and go "there was NO easier way you could've had me do this?"
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
Fedule posted:The AB game is, or, rather qualifies as, an Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma Actually VLR gets Prisoner's Dilemma a little wrong. Double betrayal should hurt both the prisoners (but less so than being betrayed). As it stands, double betrayal doesn't really do anything to the "prisoners." I know someone's going to argue they're racing to get 9 before other people, and "technically" hurt, but if you're looking at the Ambidex Game on its own (i.e. outside of the Nonary Game proper), it's not a great form of PD. And actually, I do think it would've made the game more interesting if double betrayal lost both parties 1 point or something, but you'd probably have to tweak the numbers a bit. edit: To expound on it, from a game theory perspective, double betrayal is a "bad" choice; it's the 2nd worst alternative but the only one you can safely bet on. In the Ambidex game, double betrayal is neutral. slowbeef fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:Once it closes, escape is not possible. You will die in that facility. I covered that in my post.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:Looking over it again, yeah, you did. Unfortunately, taking the AB game out of the context of the Nonary Game as a whole (and the penalty of failing to escape) isn't a good idea. Uh... I think you missed the whole point of my post!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2013 05:03
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:Hm, maybe I did. I'm just pointing out that, by keeping the AB Game in context of the Nonary Game, a net neutral is a lesser punishment than a loss of points (while simultaneously not really being a benefit.) Right, gotcha. Let me try to clarify what I meant. The whole idea behind Prisoner's Dilemma is both parties lose out (hence "Dilemma"). It's the best they can do because they can't guarantee getting out the sucker's bet. But it's supposed to hurt. They're supposed to lose something. If they both lose nothing in double betrayal, it's not a great application of the Prisoner's Dilemma and I'd even go farther and say "it's a little wrong if you want to do it and compare it to PD." That's my point. Yes, in the grander context, you can say the Nonary Game in general "fixes" it, but I'm just saying that makes the Ambidex Game on its own a poor implementation of PD. Furthermore, I think it would've been more interesting to tweak the numbers so double-betrayal does lose you BP, and to see the character interactions afterwards, but it's possible that doesn't quite work in the confines of the story, so who knows. edit: Eh, maybe you do have a point. I donno. slowbeef fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
You know what else? If you end up with two opponents with 1 BP each, they have no choice but to betray. There's not enough gain to ally in the chance you get screwed over, and it becomes a pointless option. But if both opponents have 1 BP, and double-betrayal loses them 1 BP... guess what? Well, now they have to ally with each other right? Or they'll both die. ...Except, you know... You do have that "guarantee" they'll pick Ally. And that'd net you +3 BP and you're that much farther from death... ...wait, poo poo. Aren't they thinking that about you too? Welcome back to Prisoner's Dilemma.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2013 05:31
|
|
|
Phelddagrif posted:I'm guessing that the "auto-ally" rule for those who don't vote will have to change for the next rounds (auto-betray, perhaps?) since the players know what ally means now. Otherwise, they could just agree as a group to not play the AB game at all. Everyone stays out of the rooms, everyone allies, everyone gets 2 points risk-free. Yeah, if everyone agrees, but now you have the chance for that one jerk to go "I want 3 points this round..." Wait. What if that jerk's your opponent this round? Yours, Phelddagrif! In fact it's King of Solomon! And he's telling everyone it's really Prisoner's Dilemma after all! Oh no! poo poo, you can't let him get away with that, he's totally picking betray even though he said he wasn't! You can't possibly let your room auto-ally! Prisoner's Dilemma, baby!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
Bruceski posted:As for discussing whether this is a "true" Prisoner's Dilemma, it should be noted that in addition to all the game theory on the classic Dilemma, there's a lot of additional study into variants and how that changes the optimal strategy. This is a PD-style game, regardless. Eh, probably shouldn't have gotten into this so close to bedtime. Alright, I'll concede I haven't learned PD in years (Game Theory came up in my Defense Theory class, and we did a couple - PD was awesome.) So, sure, maybe I shouldn't have said it was "wrong" as I never went into Game Theory on its own. I will say that: 1. I like the Ambidex game because it is kinda intense when you play 2. I think it's serviceable for the story, and a great idea in general 3. The numbering system bothers the poo poo out of me. I mean +3 isn't such a great jump over +2, and again, 0 doesn't seem to do anything. I think they were still working in the confines of 9 being an important number, and it just ends up ... I don't know. Again, maybe it's my preconception of Prisoner's Dilemma. Anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:In this situation if your opponent picks betray you're dead regardless of your choice. There is no real dilemma, your decision just becomes "do I kill the rear end in a top hat too or give him some safety?" Yeah but with stakes being what they are, it's best for both of you to pick Ally. Neither of you can guarantee it and save yourselves. That's the dilemma.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:My perspective says that at the 1 BP level, leaving it at 0 points changed actually introduces a dilemma. See, in that case you have some agency. If your opponent picks betray, and you pick ally, you're hosed. But if you pick betray you're safe (and can potentially gain more points than ally, even!) but you stand a chance of killing your also-1point partner. There's no dilemma in the 1 vs 1 scenario with VLR. Look, if you have 1 BP and the other person has 1 BP, guess what? There's no choice! You have to pick betray, or you might die! If you pick betray, you can't die, so you lose nothing. There's no dilemma. You're just being an idiot if you pick Ally, because the penalty for potential loss is too high. You can't measure it in BP anymore. If you're facing death (by losing 1 BP), then you do have an option. Since you're both potentially going to die, you have a chance to save both of yourselves, by trying to convince the other guy to ally with you. And now they've actually got incentive to do it, since they don't want to die either! You can escape the dilemma! You won't definitely die! But you can't ever guarantee it. I know you're trying to say "what if the guy always betrays" but... that kinda negates any sort of argument about this (especially because he dies too.) The whole point of this is you're not supposed to know what the other person is definitely going to do. edit: Is there a graceful way I can bow out of this til tomorrow? I'm tired and I forgot why this was so important five minutes ago. slowbeef fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
Medieval Medic posted:The scenario where double betray costs one point also breaks down in situations where the individuals in question know other participants. It would force them both to ally with each other in fear of relatiation should only one of them leave the chamber. It doesn't break down with communication. Communication doesn't help Prisoner's Dilemma in any form (and in fact, hurts both opponents), because if you agree to ally, the second you separate, you've just given your opponent a "guarantee" that you'll be allying, and they've got more incentive to betray you, and it's equally true for them as well. The second you separate, you're right back at sqaure one. That's why it's so awesome. Also the drama portion of seeing your opponent or other people playing post-game affects any combination of Prisoner's Dilemma anyway. edit: Knowing anyone beforehand or afterward affects the incentive, sure, but it doesn't especially affect double betrayal = -1 any more than double betrayal = 0. slowbeef fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:You get used to her character design quickly, but it is ludicrous (Alice's is even worse, honestly.) I hate Alice because I was playing this game, she was onscreen, my wife leaned over and said "Oh, now I know why you like this game so much."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
GeneralYeti posted:Please just say "no." This is wrong too (though it would've been better). The correct response: Don't loving answer! Let people think whatever they want and make their own judgment. Christ. (Also why would you ask a question like that in the first place?) This is the final word on the matter. I don't want to see any more posts about it. slowbeef fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
PlaceholderPigeon posted:It's however interesting that the Chinese Room comes up in a scenario where there IS intelligent AI, thus meaning the Chinese room argument fails. Even though I've played this game, I promise I've forgotten how/if Chinese Room comes into play to the story proper. I read it as GOL-M is a form of distributed AI (not really, it's the closest comparison I can think of). His explanations and reactions to the group are an example of Chinese Room. If GOL-M lost his connection to the "mainframe", he'd be "autonomous" in the sense he could still give pre-determined responses to experienced stimuli (that his creators/the master AI had already given him), but he's not sentient, nor could he react to completely new stimuli without the "mainframe" or whatever. So it's sort of an extension of "I guess I feel pain, but only in the sense that I know how I should respond to it." edit: Distributed AI is completely wrong. I can't think of the technical terms. Maybe something where the GAULEMs download instruction sets from the mainframe. edit2: More broadly, I think I missed your point that Chinese Room was an argument used to defeat AI theories in general, so never mind. slowbeef fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Jun 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
Fedule posted:So, yeah, please don't frame-by-frame it and post about it because I'm going to consider that spoilers. Edit that into the bottom of your update in case people miss this post!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
I will crack skulls if ya'll start making cat puns.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
Ghostwoods posted:The objection is not that it unexpectedly makes us look bad. The objection is that it's betraying the narrative. If the game treats its own events as arbitrary, then effectively the writers are saying "screw you sucker, everything you do is utterly meaningless." It's tricky to talk about this post because the story hasn't been revealed yet, but I do want to mention one writing trick: - Break the rules if you know why they're rules and why you're breaking them You can come up with lots of rules ("The road to hell is paved with adverbs", "don't use speech qualifiers, he said heartily") but if you at least understand why that is the general case, you get to play around with them. We're talking about a game where we can go back and do different things in the story, in a format that lets the story itself possibly change (as we've seen). It's possible there's a reason. It's also possible that it's really stupid. It's just early to pass judgment.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Bruceski posted:This was my first path and one hell of an introduction to the game. Same. (well, I think you mean first two paths) This is what I was talking about in Retsutalk when I talked about VLR with Betus and Psychedelic Eyeball.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
Aumanor posted:Alice: a study in hypocrisy. You know what? The sob story does even less for me now. Onwards with loving the stripper up! I think strippers need like a shirt to take off first.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
flatluigi posted:All this Alice hate is even weirder to me because I felt nothing like it on my reread. It's way more intense than the hate for Dio, too, which weirded me out until I realized why (gamers are terrible). Well, hold on. Alice is kind of insufferable, mostly because Sigma just takes it. I mean if you Ally in the first round, she betrays you - almost killing you - and then calls you an idiot for it. Even when she finds out that death is the price of losing your BP, it's not like she ever... ...well, does anything. No apology, no "I didn't realize," nothing. Then in a previous path, she outright kills him and if you Betray that, it's a stupid "Thought you were gonna sneak in an easy couple points on me huh?" kinda thing. She doesn't seem to appreciate the gravity of killing Sigma, or doesn't particularly care. I don't want to go too far since I kinda lost where we are in the story versus what I played, but that alone put me in the anti-Alice camp. I softened to her later, especially after Dio, but I don't think it's too crazy to dislike her in the early game. edit: And yeah, Dio's worse as we've seen, just not in the beginning. slowbeef fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Sentient Data posted:I think a lot of it might come from the same source as nostalgia - just hatred-colored-glasses instead of rose. I'm willing to bet that most of the people who think Alice is absolutely vile are the same people who took this path first on their own run-through (and probably allied with her as their first major decision). Similar stories for people who adore Luna to no end and those who have feelings that would line up with the third major path we haven't explored too deeply yet; basically a case of people latching on to the first attachment, positive or negative, that the game gave them That's actually a neat theory. I never got the "Luna is so great!" sentiment, but she was the last person I ended up going with at the... er, beginning.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Actually, I didn't like Phi either when I started. Or Tenmyouji. I hate Quark. ... You know, maybe I just hate this whole game. Geop, get in here and do the needful.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
gently caress Alice, gently caress Quark, gently caress Phi, gently caress this whole cast. Let's Play Spelunky instead.   Time to vote!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
Hi, I owned the 3DS version of this game! gently caress this room forever.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Mine crashed in PEC so often I had to use a GameFAQ to solve the puzzle "out of order" (i.e. using information that you get from solving other aspects of the puzzle you're supposed to do previously) I did PEC room close to the end and lost 14 hours of gameplay. So yeah. gently caress PEC. (Basically I'd get to a long conversation, turn on the AUTO option, and do something else for an hour, come back, solve puzzle, repeat.)
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
I might have to re-read the thread; I don't remember this Mars bit at all from my playthrough.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Dreggon posted:are the codes Caesar ciphers or just random strings of letters ...holy poo poo this is so much easier to remember.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
Blasmeister posted:If they don't kill you for failing to escape in time what's the point, really? What a fake gamer you are. Obviously, they're going to kill people in the future. That's why you're escaping this room: to help those people!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 21:07
|
|