Some More Point Less Questions

[sparhawk]

I don't consider all of these things as bad, but I don't want them in a Thief inspired mod as a core gameplay elements.

[Dram]

... the ideas I've had for completely ... the lock picking system

 

That was my idea I believe

 

or at least having it realistic anyways.... blah blah blah forget it

[oDDity]

It was my idea, but since you then said you lockpicked in real life, I asked you (and ishtvan) to come with with a conversion from real world picking to game system, plus some ideas of my own added in. We bashed it out for quite a while, and came up with a pretty good and realistic system.

[Domarius]

Did I interpret this incorrectly?

You seemed to be saying it's a good idea *because* it hasn't been done before. I was disagreeing with that statement.

Jumping Jesus Christ on a pogo stick - you quoted my paragraph and you STILL missed the word "shouldn't". Qualfications for a lawyer would, I hope, at least require basic interpretation of negative or positive words in a sentance...

[Dram]

It was my idea, but since you then said you lockpicked in real life, I asked you (and ishtvan) to come with with a conversion from real world picking to game system, plus some ideas of my own added in. We bashed it out for quite a while, and came up with a pretty good and realistic system.

 

ahh yes that's right!

[New Horizon]

I don't consider all of these things as bad, but I don't want them in a Thief inspired mod as a core gameplay elements.

 

I feel the same. They don't belong in the core toolset, but a special edition 'oDDmOD' would be fun afterwards. I'll have to hunt up that oDDmoD photoshop I did way back.

[Domarius]

Yeah I'm right behind some "elite" addon mod for DarkMod.

[Dram]

oh god, imagine ironman mode in oDDmod - i'd hate to do that lol...

[Springheel]

Jumping Jesus Christ on a pogo stick - you quoted my paragraph and you STILL missed the word "shouldn't". Qualfications for a lawyer would, I hope, at least require basic interpretation of negative or positive words in a sentance...

 

 

IMO the reason why something like oDDity's idea would be good is the very same reason we probably shouldn't use it yet:

It's never been done before.

 

My basic interpretation: Oddity's idea is GOOD. The reason it is GOOD is BECAUSE it has "never been done before". However, BECAUSE it has "never been done before" we "probably" should not use it YET.

 

Which suggests that you support using it IN THE FUTURE, BECAUSE it has never been done before and is THEREFORE GOOD.

 

Anything wrong with that interpretation?

 

If not, then my statement that "never been done before" does not necessarily equal GOOD stands as a valid response.

[ZylonBane]

The important part is that Oddity's idea isn't good, because it specifically sets out to screw the player. It has no interest whatsoever in any refined level of simulation.

Edited March 23, 2006 by ZylonBane

[Domarius]

Yeah you would make a good lawyer. Emphasising the right bits to twist the truth.

 

I said something "like" oDDity's idea.

 

And I said "shouldn't yet", which is clarified in a later post where I said I support some kind of "elite addon" after the basic toolset is released.

[sparhawk]

Yeah you would make a good lawyer. Emphasising the right bits to twist the truth.

 

I said something "like" oDDity's idea.

 

And I said "shouldn't yet", which is clarified in a later post where I said I support some kind of "elite addon" after the basic toolset is released.

 

You don't need to be a laywer to read that interpretation, because I read it the same way. But I bet in my case it is a language issue, and in case of native speakers it is probably nitpicking. Maybe if you INTEND to say one thing you should say so, instead of saying it the other way and then claiming you meant it the other way around. It will increase understanding a lot.

 

My comment about Spring being a laywer was not meant because I thought he twisted the meaning, rather because it is one of the jobs of laywers to accurately make a statement clear.

[Domarius]

I said exactly what I intended to. It's not my problem if people read every second word and assume I'm supporting something because I usually am in favor of things that make the game more difficult.

[ZylonBane]

Making any game more difficult is easy.

 

Making a game more FUN is hard.

[oDDity]

Maybe you'll define 'fun' for us.

I want to make the game more challenging, not just arbitrarily difficult, and challenge is fun for me.

[Dram]

oh god, here comes the whole fun or challenging argument...

[jtbalogh]

Using random calculations to challenge players can be inversely proportional to being fun. To be fun, actions in the game could provide the player some control over the outcome of events. E.g. enemy that can randomly see you in a shadow is a challenge, but less fun. E.g. random damage from an arrow/sword never lets a player build a strategy to minimize the impact or build the next course of action.

 

BTW. Seeing the effects of random damage from arrows or swords is not a feature that players see anyway since thieves are supposed to avoiding getting hit by anything.

 

A feature I am supposed to avoid ends up not a feature at all ?

Edited March 24, 2006 by jtbalogh

[Domarius]

Making any game more difficult is easy.

 

Making a game more FUN is hard.

I'm well aware of this.

 

What oDDity said. More challenging in a good way, not just "harder" for the sake of it.

[oDDity]

E.g. enemy that can randomly see you in a shadow is a challenge, but less fun.

On the other hand, being 100% certain that you are never going to be seen while sitting in a shadow, is rather boring and predictable. Some people dont' like randomness in games, but I equally dislike total predictability.

 

E.g. random damage from an arrow/sword never lets a player build a strategy to minimize the impact or build the next course of action.

 

Your strategy in this game is clear from the start - don't get into fights and don't take any damage, because you can easily die.

You don't need to work out in advance what your safety level of damge is, so you know you can attack x number of guards and get away with it.

This is a stealth game, and that's not how a stealth game shoud work.

 

BTW. Seeing the effects of random damage from arrows or swords is not a feature that players see anyway since thieves are supposed to avoiding getting hit by anything.

You have the option to turn the idiotic health meter off. Some blinkered people absolutely insist in including it for tradition's sake, so thats the best I can tell you.

[sparhawk]

On the other hand, being 100% certain that you are never going to be seen while sitting in a shadow, is rather boring and predictable. Some people dont' like randomness in games, but I equally dislike total predictability.

 

Randomness is not a bad thing per se, if it is used where it makes sense. Shadowes are not alwqys as secure as somebody might think. People can turn around unexpectedly. Guards can be coming around the corner in the wrogn moment, and so on. As long as the randomness is based in a realistic scenario there is no problem with it.

 

You have the option to turn the idiotic health meter off. Some blinkered people absolutely insist in including it for tradition's sake, so thats the best I can tell you.

 

It's not for traditions sake, it's for gameplay reasons. And there is no need to enforce such a personal style thing, because you can switch it off if you don't like it.

[duc]

As long as the randomness is based in a realistic scenario there is no problem with it.

 

I would agree with Sparhawk, and qualify the statement to "it makes sense if the random condition is observable in some way", something like an arbitrary 12% chance that the guard spots you when looking straight at you is a bad thing to me. As sugested a better way of handling it would be to tie it to something you can see happen, that way if you get caught its because you didn't observe and plan carefully enough not because the computer rolled that you failed to save vs. spotting.

 

Another example - do away with health bars but replace them with control, auditory and visual feedback. As you take more damage you move more slowly, breath more rapidly, make more noise and have trouble focusing. It's not game over until you make it game over or you die, and there might be a certain satisfaction to dragging yourself to the end even with serious impairment.

[New Horizon]

Another example - do away with health bars but replace them with control, auditory and visual feedback. As you take more damage you move more slowly, breath more rapidly, make more noise and have trouble focusing. It's not game over until you make it game over or you die, and there might be a certain satisfaction to dragging yourself to the end even with serious impairment.

 

We've been through that one and decided against it. Crippling the player is a bad idea.

[ZylonBane]

You have the option to turn the idiotic health meter off.

So when a real-life doctor takes your real-life blood pressure or temperature, you tell him it's just an idiotic meter, right? Right?

 

[oDDity]

Good idea, the thief should have a tavelling doctor accompany him.

I'm not sure what damage you think you'd recive on a misison that would affect you temperature or blood pressure enough to warrant concern.

[ZylonBane]

Look, are you going to stick your fingers in your ears and go LALALALALALALA and pretend we didn't already explain to you how a health bar is an abstraction of a whole host of physical factors, most of which are, in fact, quantifiable?

 

Have you ever had dental work where they shot your jaw full of novocaine? If so, then you know what it feels like to have most of your face completely numb. You could attach a jumper cable to your lip and not even feel it.

 

Playing an action game without a health bar is like wandering around in real life with your entire body perfectly numbed. You would literally have no way short of direct visual inspection -- or falling over dead -- to tell if you'd been hurt. This is why health meters are pretty much the opposite of idiotic. Since you can't feel when or how much you've been hurt, the game has to tell you, explicitly.

 

Games where your success or failure depend on managing resources that you have no means of monitoring are BAD games.

Edited March 24, 2006 by ZylonBane