Hiro Protagonist II
-
Posts
2543 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by Hiro Protagonist II
-
Well lets cut to the chase. I've asked not to have asterisks and other gimmicks in games by surrounding words with them because on my current play through of IWD 2, it's totally unnecessary. You've been arguing that they are necessary and going with the usual red herring not related to games and not actually showing actual games where they have been necessary. I then provided a screen shot of IWD 2 (from a google search, not my actual game) and showed that the asterisks were unecessary. I then asked you to show us some screen shots of games where it was necessary. What do you do? Keep bringing up the usual red herring, ignoring my request of actual games where it was required and needed. TBH, I think you're just arguing for arguings sake. You still have not shown in any game where it was needed and the game could not be without it. -
For what must be the third time already. Can you show screen shots of games where the emphasis of words with gimmicks like asterixs has added to the game and was necessary? Also attacking me for being difficult and for the jollies is poor form. You've been consistantly avoiding the issue of where these gimmicks have been added to games and added context to what's been said in games. Who's being difficult? It's certainly not me when I've shown an example from IWD 2 where it's unnecessary.
-
You said it here: And I honestly think you're just arguing for arguments sake and not trying to have a proper debate. It seems it's a personal thing with you that started in the Production thread and has flowed into this sub-forum. I say it's personal because you're now attacking the person and not the argument, much like mcmanusaur has done.
-
Congratulations, more red herrings. Why doesn't that surprise me. It seems it's hard for you to stay on topic with game design with my original quote of using asterixs in IWD 2. Not once have you listed games that use it effectively to rebut my stance on IWD 2. I requested not to use them in P:E because they're unnecessary. How about sticking to the actual topic of games and showing games where it's been useful if you're such a proponent of it.
-
You think so? So you're not sure? Wow, just wow. You can't understand what I'm saying in my original post. What the hell are you on about? I've said repeatedly I'm against item durability because it's not in the previous IE games. Are you for item durability? Wow. Where do you get me saying I went the other way for realism? Talk about about a confused post. Just wow.
-
Again with the ad hominem attacks. Mhmm. More ad hominem attacks suggesting I'm trolling. Good form mcmanusaur. How about sticking to the topic instead of attacking the person? No, clearly I've shown you've made long winded strawmen arguments. Hmmm. very consistent. Okay, thanks for the spell check. Nothing else to add I see.
-
You admit that you couldn't find myself making a case *realism for realism's sake". Yep, caught you out. And now you're using ad hominen attacks calling me a troll. It's not about winning or losing. It's about forming a well thought out post addressing the points, not attacking the person. And when people such as yourself resort to ad hominen attacks, then clearly you'll just say anything and accuse others.
-
*ahem*... u_u: The bolded portion even shows where you specifically cite Mcmanusaur as arguing that very thing. Nope. It seems it's really hard for you to understand what my post is and you're trying to take it out of context. I'll break down my post so you can understand it. 1. So you would rather have more realism in P:E like item durability even though they're not in any IE game? Did you understand that point Lephys? 2. Having more realism (in certain respects) for the sake of realism would detract from the whole experience and frustrate players more. This part refers to some respects like item durabitly. You understand that Lephys? 3. I'd rather a balance and lean more to fun than frustration. This refers to balance and being more cautious. I'd rather have things out of the game like item durability than have it in. Much like the IE games. You understand that Lephys? 4. It seems you would go the other way just for realism. This part you seem to have difficulty understanding and just focusing on this part alone and taking it out of context in reference to the previous 3 points. This refers to *certain respects* to realism which I have stated in previous points like item durability. Since you quoted my entire post, it should be kept in context. But that's okay Lephys. Maybe I should have emphasized my words!
-
Hahaha... ^_^. You're fantastic, you know that? Truly. Cars provide speedier travel, which is useful but not necessary. Italics/bolding, etc., provides indication of more precise inflection/tone in textual dialogue, which is useful but not necessary. You're right. Apples and oranges. I don't know what came over me, as I was clearly trying to point out how similar cars are to italics. I could've sworn they were practically the same thing, for a moment there. Hmm... I'll not argue that I missed a mark, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't the mark. (See how much splendid-though-unnecessary use I'm getting out of italics? You should try it sometime, 8D) Nope, look at my example of IWD 2 which is what I originally started this about. If you're going to use an example, then at least keep it in context. Since this is game design, and the overuse of asterixs and other gimmicks to highlight uneccessary words, then how about showing dialogue which is used to great effect? Since you're such a proponent of using these gimmicks in game design? Waits for the next irrelevant apples to oranges red herring comparison, or an actual screen shot of a game where these gimmicks are useful. Since this is all about game design. Note, I didn't have to emphasize any words.
-
Ah, ok. So the below dialogue *needed* emphasis because *most* people wouldn't *get it*. The developers *had* to show the *emphasis* on the words *I* and *you*. Because hey, the below dialogue written out would have totally confused everyone. Oswald Fiddlebender- Of course I can! I'll need to find more components though... and guard my ship - or what's left of it. Say, I could guard the ship while you retrieved my spell's components - I wrote them all down in that book over there. Interested?
-
Truer words were never spoken. I do believe you've somehow managed to hit my point far more precisely than even I myself had done. I mean, looking back, I can't even find a single word to quote (much less a string of words) that isn't screaming "obviously authors who don't emphasize certain words with visual means are doing it wrong." Luckily you got one of those good educations before it all went downhill, eh? Also, it goes without saying that something cannot be beneficial without being necessary. My car? Pssh... I have the capability to walk 30 miles, so I could easily get to work without it. I don't actually need my car to reach work. Therefore, we shouldn't use vehicles. I mean, people were getting by without vehicles for a long time, so that clearly means they serve absolutely no purpose. Necessity = purpose. Lack of necessity = pointless. Your understanding of things is beyond measure. Comparing apples and oranges. Cars? Completely missed the mark.
-
You and others have consistently cited "realism for realism's sake" as something that leads to poor results and thus should be avoided, in response to others' statements of support for realism, as if that is what they are asking for (it's not, which makes your argument a straw man). So no, that's not a straw man argument by me at all, actually. And no, claiming someone else is making a straw man argument when they call out your straw man argument generally doesn't cancel things out. Incorrect and completely off the mark. You're still using a straw man argument citing me as saying "realism for realism's sake". And yet you haven't shown where I have said this. Stop and think for a moment on what I just wrote. You're saying I said this and I didn't. You're completely wrong. Taking what I have said out of context, mispreresenting me by saying I said "realism for realism's sake" when I didn't. And the worse part is you're keeping up this strawman argument. Well they are long winded and lacked substance because you start off with a strawman argument, misrepresented and taken out of context what I said and then proceeded to take apart what I didn't say with paragraph after paragraph. Note what I said? You made up stuff that I didn't say and then proceeded to argue against that. That's the very definition of strawman and a post without substance. And now you're suggesting I'm trolling you? Yep, another ad hominen attack. The stance of someone who knows they're losing and are in the wrong.
-
Yourself? Sounds like it from your long winded and straw man argument. So I have an agenda and using rhetorical tricks? That's a classic case of misrepresentation and the usual straw man tactics of people who can't debate the issue. Keep up the straw man tactics and long winded posts with no substance mcmanusaur. Now that's just petulant, immature ad hominem. Your assertion that my argument constitutes a straw man has no weight given that you apparently can't be bothered to identify what the offending aspects are. We all have an agenda, so I didn't mean anything particularly nefarious by that. Are you denying the fact that you're arguing against "realism for realism's sake" when there's no one arguing for it? Because I'm calling that a rhetorical trick, and your cry of misrepresentation is a rather transparent defense. I'm sorry that you're not able to glean the substance from my "long-winded" posts, but I assure you that it's there. Who's using the ad hominem attacks now? Suggesting I'm petulant and immature? Yep, keep at it mcmanusaur. Attack the person and not the argument. And your argument is a straw man by your very own words which I highlighted. And I'm not arguing against realism for realism's sake. I have said that having realism 'in certain respects' can detract from the game such as item durability which wasn't in the previous IE games. Show me anywhere in this thread where I have argued against 'realism for realism's sake'. You can't! All you've done is taken what I have said out of context, misrepresenting me, and are STILL continuing to use a straw man argument. Well done. Sounds like you won't admit that you're clearly wrong.
-
Yourself? Sounds like it from your long winded and straw man argument. So I have an agenda and using rhetorical tricks? That's a classic case of misrepresentation and the usual straw man tactics of people who can't debate the issue. Keep up the straw man tactics and long winded posts with no substance mcmanusaur.
-
So when I pick up a book and can read it without the italics, the asterixs, the dashs and everything else to emphasize certain words, then clearly the author got it wrong. Lephys says so.
-
You can read a book without punctuation too much of the time it's still important though a cat is quite fluffy The point being that there's a huge difference between "I never accused her of anything!" and "I never accused her of anything!". Those two sentences actually have two different meanings. One is very specifically stressing the falsehood of the action, and the other stresses the falsehood of the target of action. I.e. "I did something to her, but it certainly wasn't accusation," and "I accused someone, but it certainly wasn't her." Sure it's not necessary, but it certainly helps to represent inflection in dialogue that people actually use that would otherwise go unrepresented. Must be a new thing for people these days. Tsk, tsk. The decline of education in our schools. Authors for centuries didn't need to do this.
-
It isn't needed. I can read a book without the author resorting to these gimmicks. So I don't understand why game developers have to use them.
- 287 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Project Eternity
- Production 01
- (and 5 more)
-
You must be new to the internet. Welcome.
-
The thought that- for the sake of being "fun"- cRPG's should be less realistic than PnP RPG's just makes me cringe. In fact, early cRPG's (including the Infinity Engine games at that, in my humble opinion) suffer from playing too much like graphical tabletop RPG's, rather than taking full advantage of the video game medium (which by the way tends toward more realism and complexity, at least in my view). I realize that you're probably just trying to make a general point about how different media vary (that I am agreeing with), but I'd say it's usually the less realistic and heavily-abstracted elements of PnP RPG's that tend to require re-working for cRPG's. So you would rather have more realism in P:E like item durability even though they're not in any IE game? Having more realism (in certain respects) for the sake of realism would detract from the whole experience and frustrate players more. I'd rather a balance and lean more to fun than frustration. It seems you would go the other way just for realism. What would sell more, get more players to play the game and have replay value? - A game that tones down on the realism but is fun to play. - A realistic game that isn't fun to play.
-
Yeah, the BIS boards were definitely one of those times we can't forget. Mostly good times though. I remember when Fallout BOS was announced. Definitely a milestone for the board. And the lets just say 'criticism' over IWD 2. The lack of kewl phat loot, the mess that is the Fell Woods, the slow downs with the game, and on and on it went. And who could ever forget Ye Olde Political forum. Some good debates there. I'm just waiting on the next similar white knight thread to grace us.
-
One thing I really dislike and I'm seeing a lot of in my play through of IWD II is the over use of the asterix. Please for the love of god, don't use the * around words. We're not idiots and do get the emphasis on words. It's annoying as heck. And I realised how much I dislike the Fell Woods. One of the worse parts of the game. Using the same area backgrounds for different areas was a horrible choice. The Fellwood maze is a perfect example of what you should avoid doing to players.
-
I like the idea of seeing a person's face in the dialogue screen. Baldurs Gate 2 had it to some degree. Having both you and the person you're talking to adds a personal touch to it.
- 287 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- Project Eternity
- Production 01
- (and 5 more)
-
Diablo 3 - Reaper of Souls - new expansion
Hiro Protagonist II replied to IndiraLightfoot's topic in Computer and Console
Seriously? I've never used the AH to buy anything for my characters and can do up to MP5/MP6 in SC, MP1 in HC. Every character, all ten of them (7 SC, 3 HC) have been geared with items that have been drops. I have to wonder about players who can't play the game without the AH. -
Diablo 3 - Reaper of Souls - new expansion
Hiro Protagonist II replied to IndiraLightfoot's topic in Computer and Console
I'll be getting the Collectors Edition of the expansion. Have been a fan of Diablo since the original came out. -
My girlfriend tempting fate at Hell's Gate at Noosa. Didn't even read the sign and holding on that small branch for support. An aerial view of Hell's Gate.
