Bhruic
Member-
Posts
30 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Bhruic
-
If you are unable to grasp the concept of "realism" as it applies to a computer game, then there really isn't anything to discuss. It should be obvious that a game modelled after the laws and limitations of the "real world" can be considered more "realistic" than, say, a pure fantasy game. Using the definition you seem attached to, there can't even be such a thing as "more realistic" because you seem to believe that realism "is an absolute representation of reality", to use your own words. That's just out and out silly. Actually, you were outright insulting. Heck, you were just outright insulting again (comparing my post to "throw(n) feces", to be specific). You seem to believe that if you cloak your insults in subtlety that no one will notice then. Unfortunately, you're wrong. Bh
-
I see reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I'll try again with smaller words. Your saying "if you want realism, go outside" is idiotic, because outside isn't a computer game. Still with me so far? If one has already decided that one wants to play a computer game, then that's what they want to do. Furthermore, you imply that one shouldn't want realism in a computer game, as if that's a bad thing. Obviously you don't want it, but you not wanting something doesn't automatically invalidate it, no matter how self-important you think you are. The problem with your dictionary quote, however, is that it actually counters your position. Really, I'm not sure why you posted it. I mean, thanks for the help, but really, my side of the argument was doing fine without it. That's what realism means. Now how does one apply it to a game? Well, as I said, one models the game on the laws of the "real" world. That would mean that one can't have water arrows, for example, because they wouldn't function properly in the real world. Same with rope arrows. And so forth. I got your point. But the problem is that you are making a conclusion based on a faulty premise. Or, rather, your conclusion in no way follows from the premise you are making. You are making an either/or case for realism and consistency. For what reason? Has anyone ever stated that realism can't be consistent? You can't conclude that realism isn't important because it's not consistent without showing why it's not consistent - and you certainly haven't done that. Without doing that, your suggestion that it is not important is just a personal opinion. Which is fine, maybe you don't consider realism important. For that matter, I'm not a "realism" freak either. But the argument for realism can't be dismissed with the argument that you've brought to bear. And if you were the person making the decisions about whether it has merits, then your statement would be relevant. As you aren't, it isn't. Yes, of course, you're right, no one ever used climbing gloves before. The T3 devs just thought it up out of thin air. Bh
-
That's simply a distortion of the concept of realism. No one is talking about realism as a "everything that's possible must be able to be done". Realism is simply the case of using the general laws of the "real" world as guidelines for the game. In a game, generally, speaking, anything could be done. We could make the thief able to turn invisible, fly, walk through walls, etc. By limiting the possible to real world equivalents (in general), you can eliminate a lot of those options. And if you don't want realism, play a different game. You see, the "if you do/don't want X, go do Y" line can work for either side. And in neither case is it relevant. Even the most realistic of games would still be enjoyable because it's not real life. Taking the ridiculous extreme, think of the star trek holodeck system. You can create extremely realistic scenarios. Why don't people simply "go outside" (other than the fact that "outside" is a vacuum )? Because the simulation system allows them experiences it's not practical to have outside. I have no interest in being a master thief in real life. There's no reload, for one thing. However, that doesn't mean that the goal of making the game experience as realistic as possible is in any way a bad one. So we shouldn't try and argue the merits of climbing gloves, we should simply accept the fact that the T3 devs claim they were a gimmick? In which case, why not let the T3 devs make all our design decisions. That certainly would save some time discussing things. Bh
-
Actually, there's plenty of reason to believe it won't continue upward. If only that, in the long run, things tend to balance out. That, and the fact that we currently have finite resources to work with. While technology is working to provide new ones, it won't likely do so as fast as the demand increases. The simple act of feeding the planet's population may be beyond our abilities. Humanity, in general, is too much tied up in its own arrogance. What you've been posting is a great example. It's very easy to say that humans are the pinnacle of evolution when it's humans that are saying it. It'd be much like me coming up with a formula that determines the best human on the planet, which just happens to be me (no, really, I am! ). "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed." Bh
-
There's a difference between artificial limitations and limitations in general. The thief character should be limited, of course, in ways that are realistic (within the rules of the world), but he shouldn't be artificially limited beyond that, imo. Not sure exactly why the crossbow discussion steered sharply into rope arrows anyway. Does the crossbow have any advantage beyond aesthetic? I mean, it's nice to have an option, but it seems like a fair amount of work simply to have a different looking bow. Bh
-
Sure they can. But my point is, that has nothing to do with "survival of the fittest". That concept deals with the long term adaptation of creatures to their environment (with some notable short term exceptions). Recent human history is too brief to determine whether us keeping around inferior (from a survival perspective) specimens will be a detriment to humanity. Bh
-
I think you misunderstand the concept of "survival of the fittest". It's not a short term phenomenon. In "nature" (whatever that word is supposed to mean), there are plenty of other animals that end up living relatively long lives with defects of some kind. That doesn't imply that they've managed to evade the "survival of the fittest" concept either. What I would grant you is that because of our technological prowess, we've managed to eliminate any serious rivals. We don't have to worry about anyone (other than other humans) cutting off our food base, or competing for the same food. This gives us a great deal of luxury that most other animals don't have. As for genetic tampering, that field is too much in its infancy to conclude what we will be able to do with it eventually. Bh
-
Er, a good way of defining something is by using completely subjective comparisons? I'm not sure that's a really useful statement. I mean, I compared it to mine, and I thought mine was much better. Bh
-
I think I agree with you, but just to clarify, by "how visible", you are referring to the silhouette issue, yes? Because, otherwise, the lightgem should show how visible you are in general, which would also hold true for any given AI. Bh
-
That's not the way the lightgem works/worked classically. Otherwise there would have been no reason for it to get brighter when holding a weapon, or running, because neither of those things are going to suddenly cause more light to fall upon you. The light gem basically was an indication of how noticable you were. However, in this case, I'd agree that there's no real way for the lightgem to factor in silhouette. Whether or not your silhouette is visibile is determined by the location of the guard looking for you, meaning that it is based on the individual, not something that can be represented in general. Bh
-
The whole concept of "cutting out the middleman" is flawed anyway. They aren't cutting out the middleman, they are just making a new one. Steam (and Valve) is now it. They have become, effectively, publishers. And while now one can say that as developers, they are sure to value the integrity of projects, blah, blah, blah, the same could be said of the original game publishers. Back then, it wasn't a business, it was a passion. Publishers were in it to make money, sure, but they also wanted to put out a great game. So while Valve and Steam may briefly harken back to those days (albeit in a rather spectacularly bad fashion), it won't take long for them (or whoever ends up controlling the system) to focus more on making money and less on great games. At which point we'll be right back where we started from. Bh
-
I started with Opera, then moved to Firefox. I'm not going back. Opera did have one feature I liked, remembering where you were on a page, but otherwise, I find Firefox to be the better overall browser. Bh
-
No, I'm not against the idea. I can understand that some people may appreciate the option, despite the fact that I wouldn't. I certainly wouldn't consider implementing it to be a priority tho'.
-
Can I get a status report? Is there any more information you need to consider the application?
-
According to the guy who made the video, he was getting around 50fps. Admittedly with some high-end equipment. Still, it might be nice as an option for people who do have said equipment.
-
Please, stop telling me what I "should" do when playing a game. It really comes down to simple options. With quicksave, can people play the way you want? Yes. Can they save as much as they want? Yes. Therefore it gives them the option of playing how they want to play. With your system, can people play the way you want? Yes. Can they save as much as they want? No. Therefore it gives them no option of playing how they want to play. Your position is really unjustifiable. You want to remove a game option in an attempt to make people play the game the way you feel they should be. Sorry, but your opinion is just that - your opinion. How other people choose to play, and the method they choose to enjoy a game is up to them, not you. And that's the way it should be.
-
Again, that's no different than any game. One could easily argue that Doom3 shouldn't have quicksaves for the same reason. Not necessarily argue convincingly, but you could argue it. That seems like a semantic argument to me. Whether you are saying "play like this", or "don't play like this", in both cases you are telling the player what to do. Obviously that's a necessity in terms of game rules, but when it comes to issues like saving, I don't believe that it's the designers perogative to tell the player how to play the game. There are two things wrong with that quote. First, assuming that people are unable to control themselves seems somewhat silly, no offense intended. It's not like people can become addicted to using the quicksave option. It's a choice they have. If someone is unable to prevent themselves from using the quicksave, it must be because they actually want to use it. Which brings up point number 2, the concept of the "experience". It's not up to the game author to determine the experience of the end user. It's up to the game author to provide the options available to the end user. How the end user decides to "experience" the game is completely up to them. The concept of the game author having to control the player smacks of elitism, and the idea that the game author knows better than the player how the player should play. I'm sorry, but that's not an idea that I can agree with.
-
I really don't understand the trend in telling other people how they should be playing. I enjoy playing games a specific way, but that doesn't mean I think everyone should play it the way I do. Nor do I think it wise to remove all the game options that I don't particularily use. No one is forced to use quicksaves. Anyone who uses them does so because they want to. In fact, your comparison with "god" mode is entirely apt, but it actually counters the point you are trying to make. People who wish to play with "god" mode can choose to do so. It's not automatic, and neither is using quicksaves. The people who use either option are the people who wish to. Removing an option like that is merely saying "you have to play the way I say", which should never be what a game is about.
-
Actually, the name is of Celtic origin, and they pronounce the 'bh' sound as 'v' (you may have seen the name siobhan before). Hence, the name would accurately be pronounced as "vroo-ic". And don't worry about misspelling it, everyone does. It's entertaining to see the creative ways people can manage to spell it.