np NP: Friday, July 22, 2016

[Howitzer 32]

http://www.egscomics.com/egsnp.php?id=489

I heartily endorse this product and/or service.

[Scotty 1,061]

I can understand Dan's reasoning here. I personally haven't played Undertale, though people have been telling me I should, but if the game has a legitimately playable pacifist option, and it sounds like this goes along with Grace's dream in the story comic where there is a way to avoid conflict by reasoning with characters and coming to a non violent solution, something like that wouldn't make for an interesting NP series, especially if you're trying to not spoil anything. With the Fallout:NV series, yeah you could go pacifist, but as we saw, it meant dealing with some very questionable ethics so seeing Grace reacting to that was funny.

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,430]

Grace, do you really want to play a game where you don't need to kill simulated opponents?
Skip the video nonsense and embrace classic pinball.

[mlooney 2,467]

50 minutes ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Grace, do you really want to play a game where you don't need to kill simulated opponents?
Skip the video nonsense and embrace classic pinball.

Have you priced working classic pinball machines of late?  Not Cheap.

[Stature 96]

Just now, mlooney said:

Have you priced working classic pinball machines of late?  Not Cheap.

How about Tetris?

[Howitzer 32]

1 hour ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Skip the video nonsense and embrace classic pinball.

Timeshock! is my favorite table, although I'm also partial to The Twilight Zone.

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

How about Myst and Riven?  I don't recall having to kill anyone in either of those games!

[Aura Guardian 57]

36 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:

How about Myst and Riven?  I don't recall having to kill anyone in either of those games!

Ooh, those were good, yeah.

[mlooney 2,467]

7 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

How about Myst and Riven?  I don't recall having to kill anyone in either of those games!

Myst is how I got my then wife to accept computers.  However, because, at the time I was a worse pack rat than I am now, she looked at the 15+ more or less functional computers in the geek room and told me that "If it can't play Myst, get it out of the apartment."   This was 1994ish.  Had a lot of XT class machines laying around.  I think I kept both of my "Coherent" machines which were 286 boxes.   That was slightly pre linux days

[The Old Hack 2,358]

2 minutes ago, mlooney said:

Myst is how I got my then wife to accept computers.  However, because, at the time I was a worse pack rat than I am now, she looked at the 15+ more or less functional computers in the geek room and told me that "If it can't play Myst, get it out of the apartment."   This was 1994ish.  Had a lot of XT class machines laying around.  I think I kept both of my "Coherent" machines which were 286 boxes.   That was slightly pre linux days

This reminds me a little of a fictional character I once created. He was this mildly immortal technomage who was born early in the 20th Century and lived in a building he owned himself. (There's a story behind 'mildly immortal' but I won't go into it here.)

Once you got into the first floor, it was totally dominated by a massive and very old computer which if investigated a bit more closely looked a lot like ENIAC. When you went a level up, you'd discover somewhat smaller (but still massive) computers made with 50s technology; these used transistors instead of bulbs. Another story up and you reached the 60s. And so forth. His entire home consisted of sort of geological layers of computers and whenever they started to take up too much room he would just move another level up where he could start filling the place with cutting edge computers.

I have no idea where he came from in my mind except that he must have been some sort of ultimate packrat. I actually think that I would like to live like this if I were able to. Then, whenever I felt nostalgic, I could just walk down the stairs.

[Scotty 1,061]

34 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

I have no idea where he came from in my mind except that he must have been some sort of ultimate packrat. I actually think that I would like to live like this if I were able to. Then, whenever I felt nostalgic, I could just walk down the stairs.

Like a museum of computer evolution.

[Veya 1]

I will be honest, I am the rare kind of person who played Undertale and hated it, the whole "no kill" message felt like pretentious garbage to me, many characters people found "endearing" felt obnoxious to me(specially Papyrus), and worst of all, nobody could give me a satisfactory answer to why I should not kill certain characters, I used Undyne as an example, and why shouldn't I kill someone who's been trying to brutally impale me with spears? all answers I was given demanded a meta knowledge my character had no way of having, all while people I knew urged me to spare her.

It was the first legitimately mechanically well-made game that managed to feel unfun to me, and I really can't understand why people like it.

If there was a mod that allowed me to, say, kill anyone I want and gave the game ignore the kills, like divorce gameplay and story completely, I would probably be able to enjoy it a little, as I wouldn't have the game going "hurr durr ur bad" for every time my finger slips on a key.

[Howitzer 32]

1 hour ago, Veya said:

 I used Undyne as an example, and why shouldn't I kill someone who's been trying to brutally impale me with spears?

You should kill her.

The first time through, anyway.

You're not really even supposed to know that being a pacifist is an option until the end of the play through, at which point you start over and do the pacifist run to see the real ending.

Of course, the tag line for the game kind of gives it away before you even start.

[Veya 1]

19 hours ago, Howitzer said:

You should kill her.

Well, you see, the thing is that I had a small flock of people I knew telling me to avoid killing at all costs, I remember a friend of mine called me a monster when because I killed the goat lady at the start and I didn't care about it, and that's the thing, I care nothing for any of those characters, I don't have a reason to, as far as I am concerned, this game revolves around the game telling me I am supposed to care and expecting me to, and then putting said characters as obstacles to me.

And don't get me wrong, I enjoy games where choices matter, Chrono Trigger is probably the Ur-Example for that in RPGs and it still holds as one of my favorite RPGs of all time, then there is the entire main Fallout series(minus 4, 4 is garbage story-wise. 3 is... eh, could be better, but gets a pass). the earlier TES games(Skyrim is... meh at best in this department).

As far as I care, the "true ending" is the one my character just walks out of that cave, leaving the trail of dead bodies of those who tried to stop me, and gets back home in time for the next GameGrumps upload or something like that(I don't actually know the human level of technology in that universe).

[Drasvin 123]

If you don't care about the characters and their plight, then Undertale will lose most to all of it's impact. A lot of people love the game because they find the characters endearing and become invested in their plight. No one piece of media or art is going to appeal to everyone. Anyone who thinks that everyone will enjoy a given piece of art is either deluding themselves, naive, or foolish. A piece of art can appeal to a large number of people, but not everyone. There are simply too many varying opinions and tastes of what is good for that to be possible.

As for the question of why to not kill Undine, why should you kill Undine? Sure, she's trying to kill you with magic spears, but that doesn't mean you should answer violence with violence. It's entirely possible to just run from her and get away. With the exception of one or two fights at the end, all monster encounters can be dealt with by dodging the attacks and defusing the incident or just running away from it. If one is going for a Pacifist run, they don't even need the Fight command at all(though you can still use it and get pacifist as long as you don't kill the monsters, presumably to prevent punishing accidents). The game berates players that killing monsters, because the setting is treating those deaths with much of the weight of killing an actual person. Someone is dead because of the player's actions. Possibly it was in self-defense, which is understandable, but it does mean the player didn't try for a better outcome and answered violence with violence.

[hkmaly 490]

22 hours ago, Drasvin said:

As for the question of why to not kill Undine, why should you kill Undine? Sure, she's trying to kill you with magic spears, but that doesn't mean you should answer violence with violence.

If your ancestors would have the same opinion on self-defense as you do, you wouldn't exists.

It was nice from Grace to try for better outcome. But she was lucky Adrian had gun ready.

[The Old Hack 2,358]

50 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

If your ancestors would have the same opinion on self-defense as you do, you wouldn't exists.

Some of mine did. I still exist.

[Vorlonagent 442]

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

If your ancestors would have the same opinion on self-defense as you do, you wouldn't exists.

It was nice from Grace to try for better outcome. But she was lucky Adrian had gun ready.

In my mind this is as it ought to be.  Hope for the best (resolve the boar situation without loss of human or animal life) and act on it. 

but plan for the worst, in this case pack an elephant gun.  I don't think a shotgun would have done the job with a single shot at anything besides point blank range, which Raven was not at.  Boars are really bloody-minded creatures.

[hkmaly 490]

30 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

If your ancestors would have the same opinion on self-defense as you do, you wouldn't exists.

Some of mine did. I still exist.

Not many of them, I would assume. Or they were close ancestors.

Considering you are Danish, you are likely to have lot of vikings between ancestors, aren't you? Those weren't exactly known for their pacifism.

(Although ... considering WHEN was the gold age of vikings, I might have as many of them between my ancestors as you do. I mean, it's 30 generations and Europe isn't that big ... especially considering the fact vikings sailed around most of it.)

13 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

In my mind this is as it ought to be.  Hope for the best (resolve the boar situation without loss of human or animal life) and act on it. 

but plan for the worst, in this case pack an elephant gun.

Yes. And I didn't played the game, but someone trying to kill me with magic spears doesn't look like "the best" ...

[The Old Hack 2,358]

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Not many of them, I would assume. Or they were close ancestors.

Considering you are Danish, you are likely to have lot of vikings between ancestors, aren't you? Those weren't exactly known for their pacifism.

Not solely. My father's side of the family came from Russia. I have mentioned that they were refugees.

And there is a difference between pacifism and merely being reluctant to kill when there is no need to. It is possible to defend oneself nonlethally. I have done so myself. An ancient martial technique called 'running away.' Admittedly it is not flashy but it can be quite effective. There are other methods too, including but not limited to responding with no more force than is needed to end the threat. This may be done without necessarily ending a life, though it is a risk one always takes when employing force. (In that regard, running is better as a nonlethal response. The biggest risk to the enemy is if they suffer from a heart attack trying to run you down, in which case I wash my hands of responsibility.)

[Drasvin 123]

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

If your ancestors would have the same opinion on self-defense as you do, you wouldn't exists.

It was nice from Grace to try for better outcome. But she was lucky Adrian had gun ready.

What about farmers and potters and masons and smiths and weavers? And all the other common civilian occupations from the days of yore? These people aren't guards or soldiers (except when conscripted and torn away from their lives, often given rapid training in the simplest of arms) and often depend on the guards and soldiers to defend them from threats and to keep the peace.

I can understand fighting and even killing if one has to, but if one doesn't have to, they shouldn't. Get away and contact the police or such. The topic of Fighting versus Running and Hiding has been on my mind a lot as my work has been teaching the employees what to do in an active shooter situation and is even planning on having a drill on it soon.

[ijuin 505]

The possibility of running away also depends on the attacker's motivation in attacking you. If the attacker is merely defending his territory/patrol route from intruders, then he probably won't pursue you. On the other hand, if he has "wants you dead" as a high priority, then your only chance to escape without disabling/harming him is to get him to lose track of your location.

[The Old Hack 2,358]

43 minutes ago, ijuin said:

The possibility of running away also depends on the attacker's motivation in attacking you. If the attacker is merely defending his territory/patrol route from intruders, then he probably won't pursue you. On the other hand, if he has "wants you dead" as a high priority, then your only chance to escape without disabling/harming him is to get him to lose track of your location.

Or tiring him out?

My main point is: I refute this ridiculous assertation that 'kill or be killed' is the only method that works. Inside the same species there tends to be several ways a confrontation may be resolved. Fight, flight, posture and submission. The same goes for humans, to a large degree. Have you ever seen a burgeoning fight where one side clenches their fists and the other responds by throwing up their hands and saying, "Hey, I didn't want a fight!"? I have. Several times.

In fact, I would say that actually resolving every fight with killing would be contrasurvival. You very quickly get an awfully shallow gene pool that way...

[banneret 45]

I concur, there are ways and ways of surviving and thriving, and as social creatures with a wide range of communication methods and decent powers of calculation, fatal force should be the exception, not the rule. Of course, there is a lot of violence in recorded history, but it is abundantly clear that more violence is practiced than strictly warranted.

[hkmaly 490]

20 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

My father's side of the family came from Russia. I have mentioned that they were refugees.

... so, Genghis Khan or one of his soldiers might be between your ancestors as well?

(I mean, they certainly did attacked Russia ...)

18 hours ago, Drasvin said:

What about farmers and potters and masons and smiths and weavers?

... well, originally I was referring to time period before smiths. Although ...

18 hours ago, Drasvin said:

except when conscripted and torn away from their lives, often given rapid training in the simplest of arms

... I think that finding a straight line of ancestors who managed to avoid all wars even after year 1 would be hard.

18 hours ago, Drasvin said:

Get away and contact the police or such. The topic of Fighting versus Running and Hiding has been on my mind a lot as my work has been teaching the employees what to do in an active shooter situation and is even planning on having a drill on it soon.

My point was that we are spoiled by society we lives in. Of course, today it makes much more sense to contact police, especially considering how badly are common people trained to fight AND how easy contacting police is since the cellphones. But it used to be very different.

16 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

In fact, I would say that actually resolving every fight with killing would be contrasurvival. You very quickly get an awfully shallow gene pool that way...

Fight inside your group, sure. Fight outside your group? Well, you aren't so likely to benefit from genes from outside your group, are you?

Is Undine even your species?

16 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

My main point is: I refute this ridiculous assertation that 'kill or be killed' is the only method that works.

You generally have some options before you get into the "kill or be killed" situation. First, you can escape, if the space is open enough and you are fast enough. You can negotiate (talk). And if the space is not open enough and enemy is not open to negotiation, you can try to use force but not kill - but at this point, you should accept that it can end up with killing the enemy. Especially if you have little or no experience with how to fight without killing. If you will try to make sure enemy will survive, then you failed to make sure you survive.

14 hours ago, banneret said:

I concur, there are ways and ways of surviving and thriving, and as social creatures with a wide range of communication methods and decent powers of calculation, fatal force should be the exception, not the rule. Of course, there is a lot of violence in recorded history, but it is abundantly clear that more violence is practiced than strictly warranted.

The main reason that more violence is practised than warranted is that the violence is applied on incorrect people. For example, common soldiers instead of politicians who send them to fight. But this is also historically new: before invention of politics, the tribe leaders WERE part of the fight, and often in the front.