Vic2point0

Navigate to Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Shadow Complex Remastered\Engine\Config.

Open BaseEngine.ini and find bSmoothFrameRate=TRUE. Change TRUE to FALSE, save and exit.

Well again, Alan Wake is not a Survival Horror game; it's a Thriller, and the "approach to scary" is quite different between the two genres.

And I personally loved the combat and atmosphere. The only thing I would say they did "wrong" which took away from the tension was give the player too much ammo in many locations.

P.S. - None of the Taken carry guns?

I loved the DLCs, just like I loved the original game, and American Nightmare. "The Writer" is the better of the two DLCs though, IMO. I never expected downloadable content to come with so many memorable events!

Believe it or not, this game actually gets a fair amount of criticism for not being scary, that's the funny part. It didn't get a lot jump-scares out of me, just kept me on the edge of my seat. I like it better that way, as I'm not a huge Survival Horror fan (This game is technically a Psychological Thriller).

I know what you're talking about, where it briefly shows Barbara Jagger in all her creepy glory, and Alice being pulled under the water. It never really made me jump, though. They could've done it much worse, like a literally instant flash of gore or loud screaming. That would be too much, I agree. But this wasn't, IMO.

@random45: And I'm sure someone else will appreciate it now. That wasn't an email I replied to, you know...

I don't think it's a plot hole. There are a few possibilities:

1. She could've left her driver's license in the car. When you get to Diver's Isle, you see her carrying a duffel bag but no purse. Later, you find a manuscript that tells you that even though Mott lost track of them when he was following, he did eventually find their car at Cauldron Lake, abandoned.

2. It could've been a fake. Her trip to "put gas in the car" could've really been a trip to check out the lodge and let Dr. Hartman know they were in town, maybe planning to come by the next morning or something. This would've been the perfect opportunity for Hartman to get all kinds of potentially useful identification from her, not the least of which would be a copy of her license for some BS filing purpose. And then, he could make his own. The problem with this theory, is that without assuming Hartman knew she'd go missing (somehow, magically), there's no real reason for him to make a copy of her license. Not one I can think of, anyway.

3. StarvingGamer's take on it is a workable one, as well. Hartman at least comes off as a bit of a mastermind, and fake IDs and such would complement his efforts to control some of the artists at his lodge (perhaps in trying to convince someone who can't remember who they are that they are someone totally different?) So he may have had one made after hearing the both of them had disappeared. He had a week to do this, after all.

4. Lastly, yes, it's possible that Mott found her license with or without other things that somehow didn't sink with the cabin. We can assume he did a bit of searching for them on and around the lake, especially considering he had a week to do so. So he would've found whatever had been left behind. And really, Mott could've placed any ol' item of Alice's (that Alan might recognize) in the truck as "proof" that he had her. He just got lucky and found her purse/wallet.

As for how Mott knew she and Alan had been separated, one of the manuscripts tells of how Dr. Hartman heard on the police radio that Sheriff Breaker had found Alan at the gas station. It says that he got in his car immediately and started driving toward the police station, but he might've called ahead of time and talked with someone who told him (because why wouldn't they?) that Alan said his wife was missing. This would give Mott enough time to plant the license behind the station and make the call to Alan, assuming he was in town.

@joshwent:

"- There is no proven correlation with media affecting the long-term behavior or decision making capability of kids or adults, so there is no reason to shelter kids from anything."

Why do you specify long-term behavior? Shouldn't parents be free to give a damn how their children behave in general? And I've already said I don't believe in blaming the media entirely. I'd even say it's one of the least powerful influences on both kids and adults. But I think it's beyond foolish to believe the media just cannot affect our thoughts, emotional tendencies and thus behavior. That goes double for kids, who - let's face it - get much of their knowledge of what's "normal" in the outside world from movies and TV.

Reason to "shelter" my kid from sex/nudity in the media: It's an entirely unnecessary risk of influence with absolutely no purpose for a three-year old, as he will not understand the subject even if I give him "the talk" (which would also be pointless), and it wouldn't be the best idea to have him believing much of the content is normal anyway, regardless of how it may or may not affect the way he himself behaves now or later.

"- Kids can be upset by watching extreme violence (even things they know are fictional),"

Well, kids can respond any number of ways, to any sort of media, be it of violence or sex. And do you have any source to suggest this is either harmful to them or any more likely than the negative effects that might come about from early exposure to sex/nudity? If you are willing to dismiss concerns about sex in the media by trusting the parents to make it all work out, you should acknowledge that parents can do (and have been doing) the same for violence.

"so it's beneficial to help them avoid things that would, say, give them nightmares."

But that's not violence, IME. That's horror or anything that crosses the line into something meant to be frightening. And even at that, is it beneficial? I mean, I get that as a parent you want to protect your child from nightmares and such; but couldn't it be argued rather easily a little kid needs to experience (and therefore learn how to deal with) nightmares and such before they need to experience and learn about sex?... I mean, if only just a year or two beforehand?

It's about what you want as a parent, admit it. There's no basis for having a prejudice against violence in the media that you wouldn't have against nudity/sex.

"Absolutely! Humans are inherently sexually active, even before puberty. Repression of that for any reason has had maybe the biggest detrimental effect on society as we know it throughout history right up to today. The shame, self-doubt, judgement, enforced closed-mindedness and hostility towards gender and orientation variation, and unpreparedness leading to unintended pregnancy and disease, that derive from it all start from adults inflicting these quixotically negative feelings on their children."

You list all the worst cases of sexual repression to argue in favor of condoning kids having sex? Why is there never any gray with you people...

No, we may never change each other's minds on the issue. But it's intriguing, just finding out what's behind people's initial response, such as "Violence is worse than sex in real life, so it must be in the media as well!" I see it differently. In fact, it's because violence is so much worse than sex that it's actually better in the media. Whether you believe in media influence or not, should it be even the slightest bit real, there is a lot more to stop/hinder the media's influence when it comes to violence than there is when it comes to sex.

And yes, there will always be parents who don't want their 12-year olds having sex.

@joshwent:

"It seems like you're arguing that media can influence actual behavior (like people who play violent video games becoming more violent), which has all but been scientifically proven false. It just doesn't happen in any meaningful way."

No. The quote was taken out of context. I was asking if some would say "Violence in the media is worse than sex/nudity in the media", and if so, why? A discussion on which could be more influential cannot be avoided. And if neither are more influential, I would like to know how someone reached that conclusion. I can at least put my theory into words, and point to a few reasons why sex/nudity in the media could be more influential.

"People want to keep their kids from seeing violence, not because it will turn them violent themselves, but because it will scare them."

I think there are plenty of parents who keep their kids away from violence in the media for both reasons. Particularly when it comes to young children, they could go either way - being scared or just taking the violence as a cue and, yes, start hitting each other more often.

"Kids seeing murders and screaming and people in pain will cry and be upset, not start replicating the behavior that caused it for no reason. But many folks still feel like kids seeing sex will replicate that behavior. And because of confusing post puritanical religion-induced cultural shame, they interpret that as a negative, even though it doesn't even happen in the first place."

Well, I'm an atheist who sees no shame in sexuality in general, and I would consider it a negative for kids to behave sexually with one another in any case, no matter the reason, no matter the influence. I would've hoped my arguments here have shown that it's not always about Puritanism; sometimes rationality happens to agree with the religious on a topic or two, and this is one of them.

And how you do know it doesn't happen? Whether we're talking about little kids or adolescents, how do you know that sexual experimentation isn't spurred along by the media our youth is exposed to?

"Also, it seems unnecessary, but to repeat what others have just said (including others 2 years, 5 months ago) violence is always bad. Sex is fundamentally good, and only turned into a bad thing when ignorance or violence is added to the situation."

So is it your belief we shouldn't even care if sex/nudity in the media influences the youth to become sexually active, so long as they use birth control? You know, since it's "fundamentally good"?

"Okay, I'd rather my son watch two people hardcore fucking. I'd rather my son watch one girl fis**ng another girl while she li**s a guy's a****le and he puts his.... okay, you get the point? It has nothing to with "the five senses" and everything to do with rational thought. Kids watching violence makes them scared. Kids watching sex makes them (in my experience) uninterested, or at worst curious. (which is a good thing). If you want to sarcastically call that "enlightened", go for it."

I most certainly will! In the same way people like to accuse parents like me of sheltering their kids, I absolutely must point out that violence in general shouldn't be making your kid scared. Horror movies, sure. Ridiculously insane scenes in some movies in which there is a lot of screaming and such, maybe. But they should be able to take it with an ounce of the rationality you believe this other argument contains. Though I'm not seeing it. If anything, you're only confirming what I've said. Since their being scared can be easily regulated if not altogether prevented by the parent before and during their exposure to violence in the media, it leaves a thinking individual like me to ask, "Soooo what is the difference again?"

You just never addressed the argument you quoted. Why would you rather one thing and not the other? Surely you can handle your kids' would-be reaction to fake violence, if you can handle their curiosity about sex and nudity. Once again, the former is rather simple and I just assumed every parent had the inclination and ability to knock that one out of the park... No... This is about what you in particular see and what you think of it. Not about which could be more of an influence. You have issues with kids seeing violence in the media but not sex, and the only possible explanation as of yet is that one looks better than the other.

I could not, thinking about my child, condone him watching two people have sex.

@itwongo: That may depend on how you define it. There are at least a couple dictionaries that consider "indiscriminate" and "not limited in a careful or proper way" part of the word's definition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/promiscuous

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/promiscuity

Instead of going there, let me just say you may be 100% right that it's 100% justified.

and point out that it's the fact that lots of people disagree on this subject that gives the media an edge in influencing viewpoints (if only the viewpoint that it's normal), whereas with serious violence, the general consensus that it's unacceptable gives the media less of an edge.

That's the relevant statement I was making. I think it's silly to place the blame entirely on the media either way. But it's more silly to think that people's opinions can change from being relatively peaceful to being violent yet not from being on the fence on the subject of sexual promiscuity to going overboard. The latter is an easier transition to make, due to a lack of consensus... and lack of legal deterrents once more, I don't want to leave that out.