Jump to content

Grimlorn

Members
  • Content Count

    329
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

154 Excellent

About Grimlorn

  • Rank
    (4) Theurgist

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Eternity

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  1. This is what makes me question the legitimacy of the revelations and the poster. I don't recall Avellone ever being this nasty (**** in your mouth, really?) even while replying to the billionth question about the Fallout Bible and its status. Also, do we have any actual evidence, or is it all word of mouth (or forum post)? I think you guys need to put this in context. He posted this at about 4 or 5 am. He's been up all night answering questions. That guy he's responding to has been accusing him for several posts of trying to ruin Project Indiana and the devs on it by talking about Feargus. He's human, get over it. I'll never understand why people expect people to act like politicians and be PC and diplomatic all the time and never show any emotion towards someone insulting you. It's ridiculous. How selfless of him. Nothing in my post suggested that. I only meant to put the post into context because people seemed to freak out over it when Infinitron posted it with no context. I don't think his behavior was "horrible." I'm not sure how insulting someone who is insulting you repeatedly is comparable to the other unethical things we're hearing him talk about. Whenever someone's repeatedly insulted me over the internet, I've found they'll stop if you stand up to them. Otherwise, they'll just continue to insult you and it will be sort of like bullying. The first thing you should do with bullies is stand up to them to get it to stop. I just think it's weird how everyone is trying to find any excuse to dismiss what he's saying. No one wants to believe there is anything bad happening at Obsidian, but imo I don't think you should shy away from truth. Even if it's ugly and makes you feel bad, you should still do it. Also, MCA is only criticizing the owners and what they've done. He's only had nice things to say about everyone else working there. I think we should be open minded about the possibility that a lot of this stuff is true and others there could verify if asked about it, although, I don't see anyone saying anything about it. Take a break, though, if you need one.
  2. This is what makes me question the legitimacy of the revelations and the poster. I don't recall Avellone ever being this nasty (**** in your mouth, really?) even while replying to the billionth question about the Fallout Bible and its status. Also, do we have any actual evidence, or is it all word of mouth (or forum post)? I think you guys need to put this in context. He posted this at about 4 or 5 am. He's been up all night answering questions. That guy he's responding to has been accusing him for several posts of trying to ruin Project Indiana and the devs on it by talking about Feargus. He's human, get over it. I'll never understand why people expect people to act like politicians and be PC and diplomatic all the time and never show any emotion towards someone insulting you. It's ridiculous.
  3. haha what a joke. Keep on making up crap. Professionals make mistakes all the time, just less than the average person. To pretend this doesn't exist or there aren't limitations to different people is some kind of joke. You guys can use the it's just bad A.I. excuse, but that's just your opinion. You can't prove that it can actually be done because it hasn't been done. For all we know it's simply a technical limitation at this point and my points still stand regardless. In the IE games, if I remember right, mobs just attacked the closest party member usually. If you moved out of range of that mob then it would give up chase and just attack the closest party member. No going specifically after your vulnerable weak characters. No way to close the distance when you were out of melee range. The people who think RTwP is better than Turn Based are wrong. I've pointed out facts. This isn't about personal opinion or preference. This is about mechanics and which one objectively works better. Dream and your posts are hilarious. You're trying to make up a bunch of excuses or crap to justify your opinion and make your opinion seem right. I'm the only one debating rationally and objectively here. And yes some people's opinions are worth less than others. If someone thinks that Transformers Revenge of the Fallen is the best film ever, their opinion is worthless. That's just the way it is, but I'm not arguing that. I'm simply providing examples of why Turn Based works better than RTwP. You guys are the ones getting upset over nothing.
  4. Playing the realism argument makes no sense. RTwP is just as unrealistic as turn based. You realize you can move in real time but your attacks took 6 second turns/rounds in the IE games, right? It's a game. It's not going to be realistic. This has nothing to do with the points I was making. And yes my facts were facts. The Go thing wasn't an analogy. Read Dream's posts in response to mine. He makes up a bunch of crap about turn based games like chess.
  5. Also want to just add a resounding NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! If I wanted to read a bunch of crappy writing I'd just purchase Merin's book.
  6. Fact: You can abuse movement in RTwP combat while in Turn based you can't. Attack, move, attack, move. Heal, move, heal, move. Or move while rest of party attacks at range. Fact: There are typically more options in Turn based combat RPGs compared to RTwP. Meaning you have different attacks. Like AoOs or Trips or Disarms. There's typically less emphasis placed on these options in favor of simply autoattacking so combat goes by quicker and the player isn't forced to pause several times during one turn/round. I'm trying to remember if there were AoOs in RTwP games. If there were then moving to not trigger them would require a lot of pausing. Fact: Controlling a party in real time is chaotic that's why there is a pause. This is an admission right here that real time combat is bad for this situation. They insert a pause and party A.I. to automate things for the player so the player isn't overwhelmed with Real Time combat. Why not just keep it turn based? Because some people have ADHD and can't sit there a 1-3 minute encounters in turn based? It has to be over in less than 30 seconds or they get bored? Who cares what those people think? Let them play Dragon Age 2 and 3 where everything is crappy real time action combat. Fact: Party A.I. doesn't always do what you order it to after you unpause. So they waste a turn or you have to pause again and reissue a command. Fact: Enemy A.I. is better in Turn Based games. Not sure why, but I'm assuming it's just easier to program an A.I. in a turn based, grid system while in Real time it's just too difficult to get the A.I. to work well. These are all facts and have been demonstrated in games. If you can't recognize these are facts and not opinions on how mechanics have worked in RPGs then I don't know what to tell you. This is what I've been saying all along. That turn based mechanics work better than RTwP and are less exploitable. The only bad thing I've heard about Turn Based combat is the combat takes longer. But that's working as intended giving the player full control of his party. While I do like RTS games because you have to make decisions quickly. That's what real time is there for. It doesn't mean there are more options like with Turn based combat. Just that you have to multitask several things at once and the pressure is due to time and keeping track of everything. Things are simpler because of this. Ex: WC3 and SC2. Blizzard uses a rock, paper, scissors system with armor types and damage types keeping things relatively simple for controlling mass units. In turn based games (not just RPGs) you have time to think. Plan your strategy, read several moves ahead, adapt to your opponent's strategy. There's so much you can do. In real time this becomes chaotic and difficult to manage. Also, Dream is wrong. Players don't always pick the best strategies with enough time. Mistakes are made even with unlimited time and you can't always know what your opponent is doing exactly and even if you do, you can still lose. My guess is he's never played any chess before and is just making up crap. Personally, I play Go which is quite a bit more complicated than Chess. Computer programs can't compete with average amateurs at that game. Even pros who play games make mistakes from time to time and misread the board, misread their opponent, etc. And they spend several hours on most of their games. Pretending this stuff doesn't exist is a joke and either incredibly ignorant or perhaps he's just trolling like I thought.
  7. You can't. You had to donate an extra $8 on top of your kickstarter tier. But don't worry you'll soon realize it's no big loss when you see what kind of people make up most of the Order. I mean look at this steam group for only Order members. Why? It's just something to make them feel special and separate them from people who didn't give an extra $8. $8 for a custom forum tag and a false sense of superiority. Doesn't seem worth it to me.
  8. You're wrong. Real time has to actually limit options to account for all the multitasking going on. A player can only do so much in a moment. So they have to ultimately limit combat in RTS games and the like. Challenge only increases in the sense that you have to multitask. Of course RTwP gives you a pause so you get less options/depth but also don't have to multitask as much because you can pause anytime. Turn based has more options and depth to it because it's not happening in real time and the player has more time to pick and choose what he wants to do. Also the player can't just move out of a mob's range and run around in circles while the other party members attack it. There's quite a few limitations to RTwP. Here's an example I think you'll understand. Think of the difference between playing chess with a 5-10 second per move timer and without a timer where you have as much time to think of as possible. The level of play is going to be a lot lower for someone playing a blitz game than a game where they can actually fully think and plan their turns. If the designers choose to limit options to account for multitasking that's their choice, not an inherent deficit of RT games. By your own admission RT games can have more challenge since if those options aren't limited then you have to account for everything you do in turn based games while also having to deal with the challenges of real time. If a player is skilled enough then they can still process all their options in real time and choose the best course of action, which is where the extra challenge comes from. Simply because you feel that being forced to think on your feet isn't a "real" challenge doesn't make it so. Additionally, again by your own admission, since RTwP games allow you to pause combat at anytime and remove the need to think on your feet then it makes no sense for the designers to limit options for lesser skilled players. As for your running in a circle example; that's an issue of poor AI, and one which can be present in any game type. Finally, regarding your chess example, it supports my point more than yours. Professional chess is played with a time limit precisely because at that point the only way to distinguish yourself skill wise is by being able to react faster than your opponent. Pretty much all the top players are equal when it comes to what strategies and tactics they know. If the games had no time limits they would simply last until one player made a mistake due to exhaustion, which is no different then making a mistake due to not being able to think on your feet fast enough. No I didn't say RT games are more challenging. I just said they challenge your ability to multitask and do many things at once. They still have limitations that turn based combat games don't usually have because the player doesn't have to do anything in RT. I'm starting to guess by your posts you're trolling, because all you're doing is putting words in my mouth and twisting my words. All this by your own admission stuff is crap. I'm not admitting any of that. You're misinterpreting my posts. Instead of taking the point I was trying to prove through the chess example. You took the example literally and twisted it to suit your purposes. The point I made was you play better when you have more time to think than when you're rushed to think on your feet. ex: 5-10 second turns. Who cares why chess players play with timers? It's irrelevant. If you can't grasp a simple point like that then what's the point of having a conversation with you? No it's a fact TB is better due to the examples I've already listed. It has nothing to do with my opinion or preference. It's basically me pointing out facts about TB and RTwP and people saying they're opinions. No they're not. If you prefer RT just admit it, but don't pretend there are better mechanics, options and more challenge in those types of game. There aren''t.
  9. I wasn't arguing with you I was sincerely asking. You turned a post talking about mechanics and challenge between TB and RTwP and what has more into a 'what is better' debate.
  10. You're wrong. Real time has to actually limit options to account for all the multitasking going on. A player can only do so much in a moment. So they have to ultimately limit combat in RTS games and the like. Challenge only increases in the sense that you have to multitask. Of course RTwP gives you a pause so you get less options/depth but also don't have to multitask as much because you can pause anytime. Turn based has more options and depth to it because it's not happening in real time and the player has more time to pick and choose what he wants to do. Also the player can't just move out of a mob's range and run around in circles while the other party members attack it. There's quite a few limitations to RTwP. Here's an example I think you'll understand. Think of the difference between playing chess with a 5-10 second per move timer and without a timer where you have as much time to think of as possible. The level of play is going to be a lot lower for someone playing a blitz game than a game where they can actually fully think and plan their turns.
  11. Geez Nerei. Are you seriously trying to change this into a semantics issue of what is better? What's wrong with you? If you're wondering why I was saying what I was saying about RT read the original quote in that quote pyramid that I replied to.
  12. I didn't say it wasn't technically impossible just unrealistically possible. When you set out not to do romances, you have more room for character depth because you can focus on giving your companions unique personalities and their own motivations without worrying whether it will clash with the player's character if they try to romance them. Because that's how the PC culture is and because developers aren't going to make a ton of content that is only going to be accessible to 5% or less of the players playing the game. If they create a romance with a companion, they are going to make that companion appeal to a large part of their player base so that player base can enjoy the content. Hence the shallowness you get. Just look at Bioware's romances. If they could do what you're talking about they'd do it, but they don't even with their huge AAA budgets. I think I'm being pretty objective considering the pros and cons of implementing romances into a game of this scope with a limited budget. It's just not practical. And yes the best way to make the game is to not have romances so welcome to anti-romance side.
  13. haha keep in mind you're a regular poster on BSN and so are most of the people clamoring for romance. Yet the people who argue against you don't post on the BSN forums. Someone quote this so Merin sees it.
  14. This doesn't usually happen in TB games and if it does it's a bad encounter design. It's better to have 8-12 mobs that can actually hurt you and offer challenge, rather than fighting 30 trash mobs and rolling through them because they are weak just to stroke the player's ego. RTwP is just there so developers can speed up combat and make it faster and easier to defeat encounters. The solution to this would be to simply remove trash mobs and make most encounters unique and challenging in some way in a turn based setting. Just for some reason developers have problems with this, so people think they need real time combat because they're bored or something. Maybe they can't handle the challenge and want something easier, because that's also what RTwP is. Difficulty is not really tied to the type of mechanic unless it is so badly made that is a challenge in it's own right. If you claim that only TB games can be challenging is borderline silly, usually it just gives you more micromanagement options and generally runs slower than RT. Not really sure why you assume challenge = fun. If people find faster running combat fun, then that is fun. If you find challenging TB encounters funny, then that is fun. Do not assume that other people cannot have fun with a system if you cannot. However a funny question really is, what do you call RT with autopause? Is that RT or TB? I could argue that it is simultaneous executed TB. Yes, there are games that use that system. I don't claim that only TB games can be challenging while RTwP can't, just that TB can be more challenging than RTwP. RTwP just doesn't work as well as turn based. Challenge is fun to me. But I don't think challenge = fun for everyone. You're twisting my words. I was simply commenting on TB being objectively and mechanically more challenging and therefore better than RTwP. You can't argue against that. You can just say you prefer one over the other, but that is just a preference and nothing more. I simply prefer TB combat because I've found it more challenging in games and that's fun for me. To be challenged.
  15. Geez you guys don't get it. When I'm talking about unique and challenging. I'm talking about different tactical situations and enemy party combinations with different skills and abilities that challenge the player in different ways. 30 mobs that constantly miss you and you run through easily isn't good encounter design. RTwP games have this in spades because you can't make it as challenging as turn based combat. So they just throw a ton of mobs at you to make combat seem interesting and challenging. edit: Another thing. When you use fighting 30+ mobs taking 2 hours to kill in a turn based game then they do become trash mobs. Because there is no reason not to create more difficult mobs with a smaller party that can challenge the player instead of just throwing a ton of weaker mobs at the player constantly.
×
×
  • Create New...