Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Critical

  • Rank
    Obsidian Order's Master of Ordnance


  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  1. My goal was simply to end the argument now that you had decided to better explain and expand on it, but your asking for my view. Fair enough.... I'll laying down your views, how I understand them, You believe that the purpose of Inventory is for two things: 1. For combat usage (Im guessing this includes equiped items) 2. For items you will use later. Thus, the purpose of picking up items to sell them, is to you an incorrect use of inventory? But then you seem to talk about picking up items for selling.... (which to me seems contradicting of what your saying but this is your view, not mine we get to mine later) What you seem to be suggesting is: Players should only be able to carry out what they want and the rest of their weight should be dedicated to gold (then a few random items to fill where you don't have gold; that would take a lot of gold in every dungeon for people to abandon taking other items). We will skip the currency and hoarder definitional argument all together, since it really involves a lack of knowledge on your part. You also say weightless gold doesn't fix design issue (which are? You never stated them) and creates new ones (What are they? You don't seem to discuss them unless you mentioned it somewhere I missed) Honestly I think this isn't the best solution for what you seemingly want to do, but ok... You also seem to be contradicting your views in a few places. I disagree with this fundamentally, Inventory is there to store what ever the player wants to store and can store. The Developer creates a limit to inventory mainly for game balance purposes thus preventing players from buying 10,000 hand grenades for the final boss, but also not to break the players suspension of disbelief (which is critical to any sci-fi entertainment, fantasy included). Furthermore, Gold has always been worth more then the weight of items, because gold is highly demanded & scarce (highly priced), thus conveniently used for currency since its weight is minimal compared to its value. What you seem to suggest is that every dungeon would have a mountain of gold, but then gold wouldn't be that valuable would it? Gold is valuable because it is both scarce and demanded. As you stated if there was a mountain of gold in every dungeon, why would we even value gold or use it as currency? Gold should always be an immediate pick up, because (as I said) its price to weight ratio isn't equal to every other item and materials weight in world (its usually far greater) and since its highly unlikely you would ever find more then could be carried out by a party. The main argument I've seen for gold having weight, which seems to only be part of your argument unless I'm mistaken, is not giving gold weight DOES break their suspension of disbelief. Most people can suspend this belief because they don't want to toil with having to manage where all their gold is..... but to other people 10,000 gold coins should physically show their weight on the player. My suggestion to the devs would be to solve the problem the way Bethesda does. Make gold a physical part of your inventory, but leave it with no weight. Its quite easy for any modder to quickly go in and add weight. Players who are really dead set on giving gold weight will mod in the weight. That is if weight will be a factor in inventory management at all, in which case players will likely have to create a full weight mod. (it also seems to be going in that direction) Edit: This is the last I'm going to comment on this, mainly because I regret I've even gone this far... It either seems your grasping at an idea (about inventory management) that your having trouble describing or your just adding wind to your argument which isn't as complicated as you describe it. If its the former you should take your argument to another thread about inventory management in general.
  2. First off you need to reread your previous argument, your poor wording and the claims you used are exactly the reason why you got the response I gave you. Sorry if I offended you by calling you a troll, but half way threw my respond I just couldn't believe someone would make such an argument with so many clear flaws. So I checked your profile page and it showed you made your account just an hour before you made your post (also your first post). So ya, I did think there was a possibility that I was getting trolled. Nowehere did I state that weight == value. Infact I stated that the value to weight RATIO is important. Basically your weight capacity in the game is there for one of two things. One is your combat effectiveness. You can only carry a certain amount of weapons, potions, etc. And the other is carrying stuff you dont want to sell. In a game where you're picking up items to sell, these items are directly competing with gold for how much you can carry out of the dungeon. If you say that you should be able to carry as much gold as you want out, then why not every item? Having a game with weightless items is fine from a design standpoint, as long as it's one or the other. This shows the problem with your previous argument. If you had explained it as you have now, it would have made far more sense. Its very easy to see where I misinterpreted your viewpoint to mean weight relative to gold as a fixed factor. Next time you should consider explaining your view better and not expecting us all to get what you mean. The misinterpretation of argument happens a lot when you have only language as a medium for discussion. This is a very simplified scenario that explains why gold needs to have weight in games where a lot of items you pick up, you only pick up to sell at a later point. You can apply this to any dungeon, just condensed. It doesn't make any sense for gold to be 'free' while other items which are only valuable to the party because they can sell them in town, need to have their weight considered.There are many other types of games that use weightless money, like RE4 which has a very well designed inventory for the type of game it is. But in an RPG where it is assumed all items have weight, it never makes sense for gold to also be weightless (except for party-pooled gold, but when why is only gold poolable?) Listen you are the one who paired that phrase with a specific scenario that was very simplified. Think about it. You have a specific scenario (you called it such), yet you decide to explain it in a simplified context and you didn't think to assume it might get misinterpreted. Your previous scenario is very poorly explained makes quite a few assumptions we are forced to believe for it to work. Its a poor explanation and explains exactly why you seemed to be attributing the phrase as fact. I'll explain this again, Gold can and is used as a form of currency. It happens to be that in the real world, Gold (Au) has weight. My Debit Card here weights less than a pound (I'm pretty ****ing sure of it), yet it has the ability to contain a direct link to my account which contains currency. The weight of my debit card and its weight in gold is not directly equal to them being equal in monetary value. Why do you think "credits" in scifi rpgs have no weight, because they either don't or the weight of the distribution device is so minimal its not worth talking about. I can see where someone would make an argument that gold should have weight because its unrealistic for a normal human to carry so much of a particular precious metal that can have a fair amount of weight if its in large quantities. In fact I'm pretty sure that's what most people are suggesting in this thread when they support gold having weight, yet you seem to be suggesting that you believe it should be so for gameplay purposes.... yes? "IT WAS WORTH FAR FAR FAR MORE THAN ITS WEIGHT" You just said before that weight =/= money? Now it has a worth, I'm confused :psyduck:I said why is gold special compared with OTHER items that also only exist to be used as currency. In a barter game you could also take a magical sword you looted to buy what you need. Does this mean it should also be weightless so you can carry as much as you want? Before you mention the utility of the sword, almost every item useful to the player in an RPG with increasing item efficiency eventually becomes useless except to sell. This is a really poor defense for what you stated, but I'm trying to be nice here. First off you made a claim about why Gold was used as (not stated directly, but indirectly) currency. I thus began to explain why currency was created and why gold was used. Which leads me to this, > is NOT =, these are 2 completely different symbols of math. You know this, I know you know this and I know you are dilberatly trying to make an untrue claim about what I said as a scapegoat. If you really don't know this then well I'm sorry I'm the one informing you of this, but its true. Its not an opinion, its not a point of view, its a fact that "> doesn't mean =". Currency (noun): A generally accepted medium for exchange. Your Magical sword isn't currency.... it can be exchanged for currency, but it is not gold or what ever currency in commonly used. Unless in your fantasy RPG world people buy cows, pay taxes, and sell goods with magical swords (in that context magical swords do become currency). In short: Yes. First of all, just because gold has weight doesn't mean you'll be literally swimming in it after each dungeon, and again is an argument against bad design rather than gold with weight. Second of all, if you prefer to go back to loot items on the ground of a dungeon already defeated, that's your choice. The game should not be designed so you can loot as many items you want to feed your horder compulsion. Items disappearing from previously cleared or visited dungeons is a very simple concept both from a design and realism view (bandits/locals/whatever loot the place while you're gone) I'm sorry but Hoarding and Greed isn't precisely the same thing. What makes Hoarding a problem is that someone applies an immense psychologically utility value on goods they acquire. A hoarder in a video game, wouldn't just take everything in order to sell it at a shop. A hoarder would take nearly everything in a dungeon and store it, because their mind has placed a value on keeping the item for many possible reasons. Your understanding of what hoarding is, is incorrect. Saying people are greedy, to take everything in a dungeon in order to sell it is more accurate. Because every single person who is defending it comes up with a specific scenario (that makes zero sense to be in a game in the first place) in order to explain why they oppose it. It is weak because it's obvious that they're just arguing this scenario in order to defend it, rather than thinking about it properly. It can also be applied to any other item: items shouldn't have weight because it takes me 10 trips to sell all my loot in Skyrim. And yes I'm referencing an unknown, which shows that whether it works or not is to do with how well it's designed, which is key. There may or may not be flaws. Weightless gold on the other hand, is always flawed in this type of RPG. Edit: Also, just because other people make an assumption about an unknown, doesn't mean you should do so as well. You should identify the weakness in the premise and explain their error. I was going to make a quick reply and then it turned much bigger and less focused. There are numerous errors and problems in my post that you could point out. However most of it would be to do with the type of game being referenced. Gold became weightless because it ended up being pooled between the party, and it became too difficult to incorporate it into the encumbrance system. In Action games, where you don't pick up items to sell, your inventory capacity is only for determining your combat capabilities, and gold haing weight doesn't make sense. But in any game where 'useless' items (such as magical +3 swords when your entire party is using +5's) are assumed to have weight for whatever reason, handwaving weightless gold doesn't fix any design issues, it just creates more ones. As for being called a troll, trolls are the new nazis I guess.
  3. No NO Cantousent! Dont tell them that the premise of fireballs appearing out of peoples hands isn't real! Im having too much fun reading the rest of this thread and its funny explanations of invisible people who steal infinite amounts of money. We have to save some for later....
  4. Im going to break this down.... Sorry if I half-assed the response, but well... the post seemed half-assed. In fact I probably just got trolled. But its ok, I'm bookmarking this for future use. Promise not to use the name. Edit: Ok I lied
  5. I really dislike that kind of exposition; is too cheap and lazy for my taste, like they didn't know how to portray the bad guy through his actions so now they need him to be explicit and explain his evil plan word for word like you're "special". It's lazy at its best patronizing at its worst, best we find out by ourselves what we want to do rather than be swayed by pretty arguments. I mean how hard can it be to write some scenes where both points of view are expressed through acts rather than words. I agree if done wrong it becomes an exposition, but there can be reason to engage in conversation near the end, especially if the antagonist seeks to change the protagonist. The main antagonist doesn't have to explain the whole damned plan in a giant monologue, in fact as the player progresses threw the end area it can be used to reveal any last bits of information the player may not have known. Letho is a perfect example of a final meeting with an antagonist. Geralts final explanation is in fact a flash back and there are plenty of other unique ways that don't involve Monologues. The main purpose of a conversation just before the climax is to unveil any last revelation which allows for reflection and thus creates closure. If you didn't catch the *cough* well....
  6. Themes that are always good if done right... -"Heart of Darkness", the potential for evil. -Idealism vs Realism -Utilitarian vs. Moralist (more of a grey scale sub category) -The Mortality of the Protagonist -Alien Culture (tough or incapable of interacting without conflict) -Order vs Chaos (almost always done poorly, so stay away) -Fear of the Unknown
  7. There are only six main archetypes you really need in any RPG to give people enough room to build their own type of player. -Strength based Warrior (Fighters, Barbarians, Bezerkers) -Skill based Warrior (Knights, Tacticians, Bards) -Stealth based Rogue (Thieves, Assassins, Spies) -Combat based Rogue (Rangers, Duelists, Swashbucklers) -Direct based Mage (Elementalists, Battle Mages, Arcanists) -Indirect based Mage (Healers, Illusionists, Summoners) If you try to give players too many classes (10+) then at that point you should just make it a classless game or allow it to be multiclass based system.
  8. Oh whole heartily agree the Antagonist should explain themselves. If they never do it will prevent closure to the story. I just don't want them to undervalue the Antagonist and ruin the ending (*cough* like some other unspoken games) simply to give the player a sense of agency. If it works and it can be done then sure! Absolutely! I also applaud the chance to side with the Antagonist. But if it ruins the story by creating an implausible conclusion, then it shouldn't be in there.
  9. Maybe for a weaker character, but there is a fundamental flaw in this thinking when it comes to the antagonist... Unfortunately there can be plenty of instances where 2 sides simply can't see eye to eye. Debates themselves don't change people's opinions, perspective and knowledge previously unconsidered by the opposition does. If in this case a "Powerful Archmage" (basically the intelligent opponent) has come to a major difference of opinion with you the protagonist and is a major opposing character of the archetype your suggesting, it is unreasonable to assume that you can simply convince them that they are wrong solely by discussion alone. Let us assume that this "Powerful Archmage" is NOT purely motivated by evil and instead has come to their own conclusion on the situation and has put forth all of these plots and machinations in order to solve a major problem that the world (both yours and theirs) must solve. Now all of a sudden you decide to come in and what? Talk him/her down? Somehow make them see that their viewpoint is wholly wrong? They, who have probably had just as much if not more time, energy and resources to study this problem. Do you not think they may have not already seen your point of view, that they have only come to their conclusion without first considering the repercussions of their drastic actions? But no you want to be a hero, your viewpoint is clearly superior. Your talking skill superior... Spoiler alert! and wake up call... http://www.youtube.c...ed/BpGMjpOpNE0" Convincing the antagonist to lay down their arms simply because you came by and talked them down (whether its by gameplay or rolling dice), devalues the weight of the antagonist. A good Antagonist would only bend if there was something they did not know and could have in no way foreseen; that which would fundamentally change the conclusion they had drawn previously and acted upon. Examples: -This is why the Master in Fallout killing himself works because there is a flaw in his Super Mutants; its somewhat weak to assume the Master could not have acquired that knowledge himself but it is still plausible. -This is why Letho's actions in the Witcher 2 can not be changed by Geralt. It is Letho who shows the player a reason not to fight him. The player can only decide whether to fight him or let him go. -This is why assuming that Lanius would abandon his attack on the Hoover Dam in Fallout: Las Vegas because he had not considered "losing the East if he took the West" (when if anything Lanius would have more knowledge than the player on that subject) is a poor ending. It makes Lanius look weak willed, unfit to be Legate and creates an unlikely conclusion (thats why people make fun of that ending). -Thats why convincing Hugh Darrow (in Deus Ex: HR) to help you stop what he started without using that pheromone thing to alter his thinking is there only for player agency. -Convincing the Transcendent One that they must join with you works, since the antagonist is part of you, the protagonist. Your journey has changed your own previous conclusion because it has given you a new perspective. if done right it can be done, but sometimes you can only end conflict the hard way... Far too true.... Edit: long day messed up the wording there a bit
  • Create New...