Nothing I have at the moment is that strong. I'm not convinced on Korosu, that three word "it was random" response does seem fishy, but I don't think that by saying that it makes her more likely to be mafia. I wouldn't be entirely opposed to a lynch, as I don't have any strong feelings at the moment, but I don't see the reason going beyond "possibly not random random lynch". Saxima seems a little sus to me. Saying "yolo or nothing" seems a little out of place when we have four pages full of conversation to look through and examine. Its not uncommon for mafia to try to start off on a light foot, and whilst lynchung based on that alone would be stupid, I find it sus. I appreciate that its their first game, and some leniency is expected, but it rubs me the wrong way nevertheless. Cal seems neither town nor mafia to me, but she seems on her toes. She noticing a lot of details, and she was thinking about the mafia's plans. Sunrose thought this was potentially incriminating, but I think, if anything, it was a sign of thinking too much, or biting off more than she could chew, which I don't really see as a bad thing in a game about the flow of information.
[QUOTE="Ars Nova, post: 4285099, member: 61191" Some of these RVS votes have been on for a lil bit without moving. Splodge, Karuta, are you keeping your votes where they are for the time being? If so, why? [/QUOTE] If I see any behaviour that I think is truly suspicious, I'll change my vote, but for now I don't see the harm in keeping it on marushi, as I don't have any strong leads. If we get to a poistion where I think that Marushi is at risk of being lynched, and I don't suspect her, then I'll remove my vote as well, but as for now I don't see the harm in keeping it.
That threat is there no matter who you lynch, so I don't think keeping mafia tradition of lyncihng inactives hurts this game anymore than usual.
Well yes, I was only referring to talking to one person, because in that context I was only referring about talking to one other person. I've said before that I was only referring to talking to one person at a time, hence I wouldn't use plurals, so I don't think this contradicts anything that I've said before.
^ This, essentially. I think the way my post was worded is what's leading to the confusion here. The main mafia thead has 12 other people in it, whilst a lovers chat has only 1 other person in it, so you're going to have more to say to 12 people than 1, even if you have 2 lovers. I don't consider talking to 2 seperate people in seperate chats talking to "2 other people".
I was referring to the fact that you can only speak to one of your lovers at a time; you don't share a chat with 2 lovers if you have 2, they're both seperate. You can talk to both (if you have 2) at the same time, but since they're seperate chats, you're only talking to one at a time.
I actually think this early on we're all more likely to talk more in thread than with our lover, since we're gonna have much less to say to 1 person than 12.
I just selected randomly, I'm not out to get you :(
##Vote: Marushi
SInce this is Must Lynch, should we start throwing around random votes to get reactions?
@Makaze still here
The problem I have with these cases is that more often than not the mini-game or extra mechanic is poorly implemented, or simply just broken completely. While its hard to call it an "extra mechanic", any DS game that uses even slight microphone input throws me to a complete dead end. Thankfully, this isn't used too much, but when it is, like in Spirit Tracks, it takes me highly unreasonable amounts of time to move on with what is essentially blowing into a microphone. Then there's a level in the DS port of Plants vs. Zombies that requires the microphone to constantly be stimulating to stop your units from falling asleep. I don't have the lung capacity for that, and I doubt anyone really has. Now that I think about it, I suppose you could consider just about any "rogue-lite" genre-mixing. Very few games are actually "true" rogue-likes, such as Rogue and Nethack, but mix the general concept with other genres; Isaac, Downwell, Nuclear Throne, Teleglitch, Rouge Legacy, Selunky, FTL... the list is quite vast.
Count me in too. Sorry for anything that happens
They way I see it, genre-mixing in gaming has almost always lead to positive results. The go-to example is Persona, obviously, with its social simulating day sections and dungeon crawling night sections, all tied to together with a plot that somehow manages to make these two features seem natural together. Another well less known example, but an equally well done one in my opinion, is Puyo Puyo Box, mixing the classic JRPG formula and falling blocks puzzle games. I've always found these kinds of games interesting, and I'd love to hear about more games that do this genre mixing.
I see Godwin's Law is in full effect. Ah, this problem again. When its the case of 5 versus 1, I like to believe that I would pull the lever to kill the 1 person to save 5. This is assuming of course that all 6 people are on completely equal terms, in age, criminality etc. I agree completely with Makaze on utilitarian ethics, however, I think that in that real life scenario, I don't think that I would be able to will myself into causing the death of 1, even when it leads to an undoubtedly better outcome. With the fat man problem variation, I find it hard to believe that anyone in that real life scenarios would directly cause the death of another human. At least with the lever situation, you could rationalise that internally and think "well I didn't kill him with my two hands, so it's fine", but with actually shoving a person onto the tracks, I at least, would find it impossible to make that raionalisation. And about Hitler, its an interesting thought experiment, sure, but killing hitler would seriously **** up history.
Alive and kicking
I feel like this is appropriate. Spoiler
I think that looks play a more important in a relationship than what people give credit for. The problem, of course, being that it's highly frowned upon in society. Physical attraction all comes down to a biological level. Generally, people are not attracted to "fat" people, as they are seen as "unhealthy", and thus have worse genes then a "thin" person. I use inverted commas, as this is not true 100% of the time, yet is a general rule of thumb. Fat people, generally, are not going to be as healthy as a "thin" person. The same applies to height, generally. Being tall is a good thing, from a survival aspect. You're able to reach higher trees, seem more opposing and generally stronger, which are all desirable traits. Physical attraction is also tied into what people perceive to be "normal". No matter what people say, people are programmed to dislike the concept of change. Change is scary, because you don't know what is going to happen. Generally, people don't like ginger hair, as it is perceived as "abnormal", and you don't know if it's "safe" or not. So your brain, in order to protect yourself and the future generation, makes you perceive it as "unattractive". Furthermore, it is also influenced from a social angle. If the "dominant male" of the group is going out with a blonde haired woman, despite the fact blonde is just as common as brown and black hair(If not less common than black hair), it is seen as more preferable. One desires to be like the "dominant" member of society, and so people, generally, find them more attractive. This is arguably the most influential factor, as many many models are incredibly skinny, and on top of that, are edited to appear to be even more skinny. Being that skinny is just as unhealthy as being overweight, yet because of the social implications, it is seen as "attractive". This of course, is also tied to personality and character traits. Generally, people find more intelligent people to be attractive, because then they will pass on those genes, and create a more intelligent, and generally more successful child. In more Asian cultures, a small, meek and quiet girl is seen to be very attractive, yet in more Western cultures, a more outgoing and luxurious girl is seen as more attractive. This again, all ties into what is perceived to be "normal" and/or what the "dominant" members of society find more attractive. People don't seem to mind as much the stereotypical views on personality and character traits however. I think that this comes down to the fact that it easier to "hide" your personality from other people. It's easier to pretend you're more social than you actually are than to squeeze the life out of your waist with special clothing. Looks are also more important to a first encounter, although not the most important aspect (that title goes to smell), than one's personality is. As a result, creating a fake personality could make you seem more attractive. At heart, people are selfish creatures, and that's not a bad thing. They want what's best for them, and that's natural. If they want to reject a person on the grounds they aren't attractive, or whatever else they may think, then by all means allow them to do that. They should be allowed, and you should be allowed to do that to. Looks are important to a relationship too, so let them be. People always harp on about "equality" or whatever, but don't get it right on the most basic level. Let people be attracted to whoever the **** they want, it makes perfect sense in my mind. Tl;DR : Physical appearance is important to a relationship and is affected by all sorts of factors, as is personality. People have preferences, let then have them.
The main problem people were focusing on, I found anyway, was that the textures were very blurry when using the 3D effects, and that the textures themselves got a downgrade from the wii. So if you haven't turned the 3D on, then there wouldn't really be any reason why you would notice the problems, if they're even there. (I've yet to play the 3D version myself)
I don't really like the idea of one story being more difficult than the other, as it kind of simplifies the "choose a path" aspect. For many players, if they want a more difficult path, they're just going to pick Nohr, and if they want an easier game they'll pick Hoshido. Though each of those players may prefer the other side, and then have to pick a side that they ultimately won't be completely satisfied with. I don't mind the side picking mind you, it can lead to some challenging moral dilemmas, and I feel that making one side this and one side that, sort of destroys the point of a moral dilemma. The whole point is that it isn't simple, and from a story perspective it may be, but from a gameplay perspective it seems really cut and dry, which is not a good thing. It also seems somewhat bizarre that the player will get the exact same units no matter what path they take. I think it would work immensely better if some, not all mind you, were unique to a certain path, and perhaps even make the other path units bosses on the other.
