Got a list?
Best I can think of off the top of my head is Knights of the Old Republic. Some of the Inform-based interactive fiction titles are pretty good: “Dust” and “Spider and Web” by Andrew Plotkin, say. Most of the Infocom titles I can think of, not so much, though I never finished A MIND FOREVER VOYAGING.
I’d add System Shock 2 and the Japanese version of Final Fantasy III/VI, if we’re making a list.
Spider and Web is a good choice but I was thinking in terms of commercial releases and IF walks a funny line between game and storytelling. While I appreciate Plotkin’s other efforts none of them gelled as well as that one. You also managed to guess A Mind Forever Voyaging
The rest of them mentioned: not on my list. At best I found the stories in those games to be a pulpy diversion that only stand out because the field around them is so terrible.
I don’t keep a list of those games even in my head; it’s just extremely rare that I react to a game saying “That was a good story!” I just glanced through the games that were immediately handy (only a hundred or so console titles) and the most recent one on the shelf that I would put on that rare pedestal is Eternal Darkness.
And I should add that I don’t think this is a bad thing. A game is not a book or movie no matter how often the developers go through a phase where they think they’re Hollywood. I want to play a game not be told a story.
Your class always starts as fighter. You can change it later within the game.
SWEET. Now I have to go load it back up on both the main and the tertiary laptops, and play with the mods.
twirl
Wanted to add that with the widescreen mod, the game looks surprisingly good, all things considered.
Buying a used game does not violate the principle. The principle is that if you are enjoying the game, you’re obliged to pay for it. And if you bought the game, whether you bought it new or used, you paid for it. Obligation fulfilled.
I’d find a slightly different (but longer) principle more plausible. If you’re enjoying the game, then you’re obliged to have paid the amount–if any–that was asked for by the legitimate owner or licensee offering you the game.
This takes care of the possibility that someone might just give you the game for free, and rules out the case in which a pirate offers to sell you a copy of his pirated software.
-FrL-
BY the by, Morte is by far the game’s best tank. He’s nigh nvulnerable later on, and comes with excellent combat ability. He doesn’t go up through magic items, however.
Legally, yes, your obligation is fulfilled. Ethically, it’s much more of a “gray area.”
No, no it isn’t.
As long as someone paid for the original purchase for one single copy of the game, that’s all that one must ethically support. If I get it as a birthday gift, I’m not obligated to pay the game company for it, again. If I buy it used from someone else, I’m not obligated to pay the game company, again.
This idea is just weird. Some people seem to be confusing game companies with the federal government. Game companies do not have a right to tax a series of sales, they only have a right to initial compensation when their product is first sold.
That’s it.
Gah!
Anyways, back to the topic: I haven’t played much so far, but the setting which is supposed to disable the fog of war seems not to work. The cheat-book, however, is awesome and should allow players a bit of customization once they’ve played through the game once or twice and simply want to beat the heck out of monsters.
Think of buying used games this way:
A purchase of any piece of software grants the user a license to install it. They may purchase more licenses if they want to have it installed on multiple computers at the same time. However, if they only purchase one license, they can only have it installed on computer at a time.
Just as you don’t have to pay each time you move a piece of software from one computer to another as long as you delete the installation from the first computer, you don’t have to pay the company to transfer that license to someone else.
I don’t understand how used games are remotely unethical.
It’s not like the company pays me back for making a crappy game if I don’t play it long enough to justify the cost, why should I have to pay them extra if I extend the lifetime for which that game is played whether I play it for years, or I give my license to someone else to use so that they can get enjoyment out of it?
Just to repeat:
Clarification:
You change class by talking people into teaching you 
When Ubisoft not only buys back my copy of Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor but pays me for the negative entertainment value I derived from plumbing the depths of its unplayability, I’ll consider the proposition that entertainment is sufficient to incur financial obligation. In the mean time, as long as the corporation’s position is “screw you, we got your money” my attitude will be “screw you, I paid for this game and I’ll do what I want with it.”
Imagine you pour out your blood, sweat, and tears into creating an awesome “indie” single-player game.
One person buys it, plays it, and beats it. Rather than tell his friends to buy their own copies because the game is so neat, he sells his copy to his friend, who in turn plays it, beats it, and sells it to another friend. The cycle repeats for 100 times.
If I was that game developer, sure, I might be happy that so many people enjoyed my game. But I’d be pissed that they all got so much enjoyment out of it, but didn’t feel the need to support me in any way, other than the purchase of the original copy. I might just stop making games altogether.
The net benefit to a developer from you buying a used copy is pretty much the same as you pirating a copy. Knowing this, how can you argue that it’s still completely ethical to do so, especially for games you actually enjoyed?
It’s easy: piracy is illegal, the other is one of my fundamental rights as a consumer. There’s a tiny difference between the two.
(And while we’re on this, anyone want to point out where to buy a new copy of a ten year old game from a company that has gone out of business?)
Hence my distinction between “legal” and “ethical” obligations, a few posts back.
My ethical obligation as a consumer it pay for goods that have not been stolen; it is not to pay the manufacturer. The person who initially purchased the product from the manufacturer (who is rarely the initial user of the product) has already discharged that obligation.
I find it more unethical to claim that people should not be allowed to do what they want with goods they’ve purchased (with the obvious legal limitations).
What do you say to my (purely hypothetical) game developer who only gets one sale? “Screw you, I’m within my legal rights as a customer”?
Because there’s still only one license of the game in circulation in that example. And that’s all the game company can ethnically expect payment for. I don’t, for example, feel any ethical pangs if I play Soul Caliber on the Xbox with friends, and don’t pass around a hat so that we can send another sixty bucks to Microsoft, or whoever.
My conscience is 100% clear, and I just sent Nevermore one of my copies of Planescape (that I bought via ebay a couple years ago, IIRC). If it bothers you, that’s fine, and you shouldn’t buy/trade/borrow/sell used games. But for those of us who aren’t bothered… I honestly don’t see your arguments making any dent. I’m not being snarky, but that’s just the way it is.
I’d also suggest that we take this to GD or something instead of cluttering up this thread… but free bumps are free bumps. 
Yes. And he’s trying to oppress my rights by saying that I shouldn’t.