Being hardly anything of a vet in Landfishian debates, I''m just popping in my word to say that although some people blindly go to break every rule just because they can, I think Landfish deserves a little bit of credit for his actual ability to formulate a defense for his blatant (and good) thinking outside the common loop.

Anyone who simply opposes him for the sake of it, or agrees just in case Landfish is the next big thing should get stuffed. There won''t be a landfish forever and we can''t just go ahead and let someone else do all the thinking for us. If we did, then we''d all be using directx and windows products...

umm - crap. We need more landfish - uhh - what''s the plural of landfish?

Wow, I seem to generate controversy even in anonymity!

Ok, a few "official" statements. First, Landfish had never even heard of Warren Spector before reading that article. Chances are, Warren Spector has still never heard of Landfish. Any and all similarity between the two is simply in the theories they hold in common. I don''t think anyone actually believes that one ripped of the other... SonicSilicon was merely making the comment that the document read like something LF might have written.

#2. I really appreciate the ego-rub, but in cases like this I have to side with the people who say: "It;s not Landfish alone making these threads, it takes everyone on the board." All I''ve really done is ask questions, and then maybe I''ll defend my implications. Truth be told, I am a REALLY amatuer developer! I wouldn''t come here if it weren''t for the opinions of others!

So! Back to this monster thing... I''ve got to think that it would create more player/player rivalries, seeing as they will have nothing else to vent thier testosterone on. This would fit nicely with the no-death plan and others like it. You wanted to know how to create conflict? Don''t give them a common enemy and watch them pick themselves apart.

But we need to create other opportunities. Ideally, combat will be so risky it will be a last resort of the desperate (like reality!). There might be any degree of blackmail, social sabotage, hostage taking, non-lethal combat, seduction. These things would make a game VERY diverse in it''s gameplay. In order for this to be exploited to it''s fullest, we would need a complex interface, capable of setting tone, mood and body language... the same problem our friend Mr. Spector mentioned in his dissertation. (way to stay one topic!)

Any holes so far? I''m thinking I might (MIGHT!) start a new thread to deal with these interface problems... Still VERY interested in feedback.

To be honest, I agree also. But I callenge you guys to look back at the incedents you are talking about. Can you tell me honestly that you percieved that someone really thought I was the only one who thought like this? Who? I don''t remember that! The only person who MIGHT be though guilty of that is SonicSilicon for the way he chose to introduce the article, but think about that. He was introducing an article by someone else with the same ideas, so there''s no way he would think it was my movement alone!

I think you are after a imaginary enemy. If I thought there were actually people toadying to me that badly, I would be off this board so fast!