My Formal Complaint

The best answers.

(Source: logs.Omegle.com)

I’m a zombie. This is terribly inconvenient.

scarfmouse:

wwell wwell wwell 

i seem to havve dropped my quill

let me just bend dowwn and pick that up

did i mention that im part vveela

What the shit, Scarfmouse? I thought we were cool! I’m supposed to hate Eridan, gog damnit, stop confusing me!

(Addendum: For those not “in the know”, as the saying goes, this is Eridan Ampora. He is a troll. I hate him. Or at least, I’m supposed to.)

(Source: mousefeets)

"Never try to understand a press message. About half the time we use codes, especially with Dr. Gonzo."

—Raoul Duke (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, by Hunter S. Thompson)

Anonymous asked: 日本語を学ぼう！

I’m sorry, I do not speak Italian.

Game Design Manifesto: Untitled Experimental FPS

Here’s an idea for an experimental, story-driven FPS that I’ve come up with. It deals with matters of philosophy, involves conversational gameplay, and the in-depth character studies of the two opposing main characters.

The story of the game involves a series of protests, which escalate into riots and, later, domestic terrorist attacks. The riots are provoked by United States government which, in the setting of the game, has become invasive and paranoid due to fast-rising crime rates. Recent laws, including the establishment of a mandatory curfew, the introduction of police security cameras in private homes, have caused a public outcry.

The game would have two story campaigns, one for each side of the conflict. The government campaign would center around two central characters: a high-level government agent, who provides the personal story, and a member of the riot police, who provides the overarching plot. The rioter campaign would center around two characters as well: a terrorist lieutenant, who provides the personal story, and a random rioter, who provides the overarching plot. The rioter and police officer should be fully customized, while the government agent and the terrorist lieutenant characters should be as customized as possible while maintaining their story and dynamic.

While the rioter and the police officer should follow gameplay based mostly around action with limited conversation, the government agent and terrorist lieutenant should follow gameplay based mostly around conversation with limited action. In both cases, failure to complete an objective should result in in-story consequences, as opposed to a non-standard game over.

The story behind the agent and the lieutenant is that they’ve known one another for years, since childhood in fact. Originally good friends, the two grew apart after graduating high school, and while the agent went on to join the government, the lieutenant became a vocal opponent of the government. A sequence at the beginning of the game should be included, in which the teenage versions of the two characters are shown interacting, establishing their philosophies as well as their rapport.

Throughout the game, the choices of the player will help to shape the characters. The government agent could be working to protect individual citizens, restore the order, bring justice, or simply protect the government. The terrorist lieutenant could be working to protect individual rights, establish an anarchistic libertarian utopia, punish the government for its crimes, or simply cause chaos and destruction. Their conversation choices should facilitate these, and perhaps more, motivations. Their goals, however, should generally be the same: the ultimate goal of the agent is to end the riots and maintain the control of the government. The ultimate goal of the lieutenant is to topple the government and incite anarchy.

Encounters between the two should be the core of their contribution to the campaign, and involve chase sequences and lengthy arguments during which the player must attempt to sway their opponent towards their point of view. Success in early arguments influences the chances of cornering the opponent later on, and makes it easier to sway them in the endgame. Victory conditions in the endgame would require either convincing the opposing character to cooperate (there could be varying degrees of this, the highest of which would allow them to actively aid you in the final act) or alternately killing the opposing character outright. Giving into your opponent’s argument should be an option at this stage.

The rioter and the police officer should not interact at any point. Instead, their conversation extends mostly to their allies. They can make choices too, but theirs are more about the events in the plot than any personal outcome. Their personalities should be simple enough that the player can customize them completely and decide their personality on their own. Their choices should be simply posed, and accommodate a variety of unspoken motives. Ultimately, the goals of these two characters are the same as the goals of their character-driven counterparts.

The final act of the game should be a pair of missions. The mission for the central character here should involve using a number of different possible approaches to capture or neutralize the highest-ranking enemy, such as the terrorist leader or the president of the United States. The mission for the minor character here should involve a series of action-based snapshots depicting the direct capture or execution of various lower-ranking but important enemies, such as the terrorist lieutenants or the secretary of defense. Ideally, the latter should come after the former.

The end result would be a unique and compelling story-driven experience. It would require a tremendous amount of work to pull off, and probably a lot of money as well, but the final product would surely justify it.

WHY NO I’M NOT BITTER AT ALL WHY WOULD YOU EVER EVEN ASK THAT

Bow Before the Fisherman Khan

Anonymous asked: Who says we have a decade's worth of petroleum remaining?

More or less. It was just an estimate.

Pretty Sure I Just Won an Argument on Economics