It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Whole Anuman catalog 50% off(78 posts)(78 posts)
(78 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Posted May 20, 2011
Bonjour Goggers! Today we have a [url=http://www.gog.com/en/promo/anuman_games_2]magnifique weekend promo! Until Monday, May 23th at 11:59 p.m. EDT you get a chance to grab the whole catalog of the French publisher Anuman. Pick from a variety of gaming genres to tickle your fancy, and save mad cash while you do so! From FPS with alternate history WWI shooter Iron Storm, to RTS with the innovative space strategy (with 4X elements) , engage in visceral or cerebral gameplay to your heart's content. Get your pulse pounding with the [url=http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/megarace_1_2]wacky Megaracer series, or stretch your brain with plethora of adventure games: , [url=http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/still_life]Still Life, and Syberia 1 and Syberia 2.

La vie est grande juste comme GOG.com!
Posted May 22, 2011
avatar
Magnitus: You shouldn't feel obligated play them instantly (it's always nice to have a nice selection of games in the backlog so that after you finish the latest one, you can play whatever strikes your fancy), but you should at least install them to make sure the download isn't corrupted before you do your backup :P.
avatar
mgol: You don't have to install them, it's enough to run the integrity check which is done at the beginning of installation. Then you can exit the installer.

If it still was broken, then it would be so for everyone and I bet someone would notice that quite quickly. ;)
Good point (+1 for you). Guess I'm just being paranoid.

Either way, it's a good idea to download your game, do a pre-installation launch (at the very least) and then backup ;).

avatar
Darling_Jimmy: Sacrebleu!
avatar
Cambrey: I lol'ed. It has been ages since I've read this.
Last time I remember seeing it was when I was reading a Smurfs comic. Very witty given the context :P.
Post edited May 22, 2011 by Magnitus
Posted May 22, 2011
A question about Syberia & Syberia II:

Are the clockwork or steamwork automatons crucial to the story? Are they sentient or intelligent? Depicted as equivalent to electronic robots? I'm hoping that the answer is "No, they're just basic automatons with simple functions built for their creator's joy, like giant wind-up music boxes, etc" (unless they contain electronics in addition to clock/steam components). I can accept mammoths and youkis (and dragons, gods, magic, etc), but clock/steam robots of any great sophistication seems a concept too far past an acceptable suspension of disbelief to be enjoyable. So... ?
Post edited May 22, 2011 by ddmuse
Posted May 22, 2011
avatar
ddmuse: A question about Syberia & Syberia II:

Are the clockwork or steamwork automatons crucial to the story? Are they sentient or intelligent? Depicted as equivalent to electronic robots? I'm hoping that the answer is "No, they're just basic automatons with simple functions built for their creator's joy, like giant wind-up music boxes, etc" (unless they contain electronics in addition to clock/steam components). I can accept mammoths and youkis (and dragons, gods, magic, etc), but clock/steam robots of any great sophistication seems a concept too far past an acceptable suspension of disbelief to be enjoyable. So... ?
There is one automaton that shows a sense of true AI, the rest are basic machines.However, if you really have a problem with that, I'd say you need to get a much better suspension of disbelief, as yours is far too closed minded for your own good. ;)
Post edited May 22, 2011 by BloodMist
Posted May 22, 2011
avatar
ddmuse: Are the clockwork or steamwork automatons crucial to the story? Are they sentient or intelligent? Depicted as equivalent to electronic robots?
The answer is yes to all three. But honestly, I can't see that as much of a problem. I mean, BioShock had security cameras that apparently could read your DNA, and it was an excellent game nevertheless.

I'd say the only difference between fanciful science fiction inventions and magic is context. If you can accept one, there's no reason not to accept the other.
Posted May 22, 2011
You win again GOG *grumbes*
Posted May 22, 2011
This time Megarace 1+2...and to backlog... again.. Thx, nice promo.
Posted May 22, 2011
Hurray for a flat 50% off. I was only interested in a few games from this one.
Posted May 22, 2011
avatar
BloodMist: There is one automaton that shows a sense of true AI, the rest are basic machines.However, if you really have a problem with that, I'd say you need to get a much better suspension of disbelief, as yours is far too closed minded for your own good. ;)
avatar
bazilisek: The answer is yes to all three. But honestly, I can't see that as much of a problem. I mean, BioShock had security cameras that apparently could read your DNA, and it was an excellent game nevertheless.

I'd say the only difference between fanciful science fiction inventions and magic is context. If you can accept one, there's no reason not to accept the other.
Magic is (by its usual definition in games) beyond the normal laws of physics.

Fanciful science fiction inventions differ. By definition, such inventions are supposed to be possible within the normal laws of physics. To be acceptable, they must be so advanced that we ascribe them to technologies not yet developed, or embrace a form of suppressed or undiscovered alternative technology (Tesla tech, etc).

Replicating the millions/billions/trillions of electronic bits required for artificial intelligence on a mechanical level using clock or steam tech in a man-sized (or smaller) chassis seems utterly ludicrous to a modern reader. Perhaps the work could have been excused for this flight of fanciful madness if written before the advent of modern electronics: Science-fiction speculates on what future science will accomplish; because it has yet to be accomplished, we can't fault the author for not knowing how it might be accomplished.

There's a difference between speculating on what science might accomplish and saying "Yeah, I cobbled some gears together and created this intelligent robot."

I'm prob going to be passing on this sale, tho feel free to try to sell me on the games if you think that they're worthwhile.
Posted May 22, 2011
avatar
ddmuse: Fanciful science fiction inventions differ. By definition, such inventions are supposed to be possible within the normal laws of physics.
Can you even enjoy Fallout games with that restriction of sci-fi? You realize a computer is just a really fast adding machine, right? In theory anything you can imagine a computer doing you should be able to imagine clockwork doing (hey computer transistors even today are incomprehensibly small, why not gears?).
Posted May 22, 2011
avatar
orcishgamer: Can you even enjoy Fallout games with that restriction of sci-fi?
Fallout is set in an alternate timeline in which technology developed at a much faster rate than in our own timeline (and in which Tesla tech was realized). It requires a certain suspension of disbelief, sure, but it's not so drastic or fantastic as to be difficult to swallow with a bit of imagination.

I'm not advocating complete realism in games, just some sense of "perhaps this could be, at least in this gameworld".

avatar
orcishgamer: You realize a computer is just a really fast adding machine, right? In theory anything you can imagine a computer doing you should be able to imagine clockwork doing (hey computer transistors even today are incomprehensibly small, why not gears?).
Sure. I didn't rule out the possibility. My qualifiers were specific: Non-electronic A.I. based on clock or steam tech in a man-sized or smaller chassis *at the technological level of the gameworld* (that last bit was an implicit qualifier). Perhaps the game provides some explanation for the inventor's ability to produce the level of extreme miniaturization required for the feat? It doesn't appear that the gameworld is sufficiently advanced to account for such from what I've seen, but perhaps my impression is mistaken.
Post edited May 22, 2011 by ddmuse
Posted May 23, 2011
avatar
ddmuse: Sure. I didn't rule out the possibility. My qualifiers were specific: Non-electronic A.I. based on clock or steam tech in a man-sized or smaller chassis *at the technological level of the gameworld* (that last bit was an implicit qualifier). Perhaps the game provides some explanation for the inventor's ability to produce the level of extreme miniaturization required for the feat? It doesn't appear that the gameworld is sufficiently advanced to account for such from what I've seen, but perhaps my impression is mistaken.
Yeah but why does it need to be explained any more than Tolkien's orcs? I mean, sure, you may prefer that style of deep explanation, and that's fine, it does seem to be demanding a lot, though.

And Fallout's tech is more than a little weird, I mean you have robots, but they're still working on green screen monitors (maybe with vacuum tubes?), robots can hover, but one B52 bomber is still a viable piece of weaponry because no one has airplanes. The drugs you can take require a suspension of disbelief (and this isn't unique to Fallout) instantly curing even crippled limbs, even in the heat of combat.

I mean I could go on, but you get the idea, steampunk is popular, so automatons are really fair game as far as I can see (in many they are powered by nearly magic crystals).

I will concede that most sci-fi games are actually more fantasy in a sci-fi setting (just as Star Wars was a western in sci-fi setting). As far as fiction goes sci-fi generally explores social issues along with technology, you don't see many video games do that much.

And I guess that's where I'll have to leave it, we probably should have decided whether we were talking more setting or story genre (as they aren't always the same), probably would have made more sense:)
Posted May 23, 2011
avatar
ddmuse: Replicating the millions/billions/trillions of electronic bits required for artificial intelligence on a mechanical level using clock or steam tech in a man-sized (or smaller) chassis seems utterly ludicrous to a modern reader.
It's hard to determine an hardware minimum to AI, because we are unable to define the specification of an AI.

The problem is in great part a philosophical one.

Even with nearly limitless hardware resources, we'd be hard-pressed to come up with a satisfying generic AI, because of the limitations of our understanding as to the factors necessary to generate intelligence.

When you look at a human intellect, you need to consider that it didn't come out of a vacuum. It was enriched by an external environment whose complexity is so great that we couldn't realistically reproduce it inside a machine.

We are so far from real AI at the software level that it's hard to even talk about the hardware this unknown software would require.
Post edited May 23, 2011 by Magnitus
Posted May 23, 2011
avatar
ddmuse: Fanciful science fiction inventions differ. By definition, such inventions are supposed to be possible within the normal laws of physics. To be acceptable, they must be so advanced that we ascribe them to technologies not yet developed, or embrace a form of suppressed or undiscovered alternative technology (Tesla tech, etc).
Okay. So if they throw in clockwork sentient robots and say they were made using miniaturised nanogears, as invented by Jennifer Cobbler-Hedgeworth following the principles of advanced Mitchelsonian quantum physics, then it suddenly becomes OK? What's the difference between that and "a wizard did it with his staff and transmutation magic"?

If your definition of sci-fi were universally accepted, you'd have to throw out some 80% of all sci-fi and recategorise it as something else entirely.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm not trying to sell you the Syberias. I think the games suck. But I honestly don't understand why you use this double standard.
Post edited May 23, 2011 by bazilisek
Posted May 23, 2011
avatar
bazilisek: Okay. So if they throw in clockwork sentient robots and say they were made using miniaturised nanogears, as invented by Jennifer Cobbler-Hedgeworth following the principles of advanced Mitchelsonian quantum physics, then it suddenly becomes OK? What's the difference between that and "a wizard did it with his staff and transmutation magic"?

If your definition of sci-fi were universally accepted, you'd have to throw out some 80% of all sci-fi and recategorise it as something else entirely.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm not trying to sell you the Syberias. I think the games suck. But I honestly don't understand why you use this double standard.
Imagine if I were to write a book in which a techno-whiz finds a computer monitor in a junkyard and wires it to his bike to create a bike-bot (and then proceeds to go on adventures with the bike-bot companion). Sound good, or is the first thought that pops into your head that the monitor doesn't contain the computer itself?

I realized while trading thoughts with orcishgamer that my original posts may have been somewhat unclear: I wasn't attempting to define sci-fi as a genre but rather critique writing about science and technology in various types of fiction. I take issue with the writing itself; if the leap of imagination or suspension of disbelief required is too great, if you appeal to science or tech as an explanation but lack or ignore basic knowledge of such, it sucks your audience out of the game/book/whatever experience as in my above example.

Also, as orcishgamer mentioned, much if not most of what many consider sci-fi isn't sci-fi, so applying those thoughts to sci-fi as a genre might not be so bad anyway. ;-)

In regards to magic:

Magic in fantasy worlds requires only a simple leap of imagination: The mind has the power to alter reality or invoke certain forces to alter reality. Accept that, and off we go.

All in all, perhaps it's a very subjective preference. At any rate, not worth arguing much more about. I was hoping that someone might say something to interest me in the games after all, but that hasn't happened, and sale has ended or is ending soon, so it's moot now anyway.
Posted May 23, 2011
I just realized:

the week of selling Witcher 2, AND three sales too? oh my, I hope GOG doesn't struggle for it's existence, trying to get as much money as they can!

*buying* *buying* *buying*
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Whole Anuman catalog 50% off(78 posts)(78 posts)
(78 posts)