JFSOCC

I disagree. there should be options outside playing the game sure, but I think it's fine to have content that is only accessible if you choose to play the minigame.You got to be ok with not everyone seeing everything. I'm probably not going to clear out all 15 levels of the mega dungeon, that's fine. If you don't enjoy the minigames, don't play em. But that shouldn't mean that the minigames carry nothing of consequence. Just that there are options besides them. IE say you want to gather information, you can do that by beating a guy at this game, or you can do something else for other information elsewhere.

chance, not random chance.

I think you may misunderstand the premise. It would be apparent beforehand that some options are riskier than others. It wouldn't be the heart attack example, but rather he can go on to redeem himself, or he can decide "ah **** it, I can go on being the bad guy muhahaha" (to put it bluntly) Random consequences based on chance, and some insight to what the possible outcomes might be beforehand, and I think this would make the game a lot more organic. with no playthrough exactly the same, even if you do everything exactly the same. Now that's replayability!

Ah the fundamental "who owns the land" question. Somewhat irrelevant. Israelis live in Israel now, and Palestinians live in the Palestinian territories. Do we accept right of conquest? We'll, I think we kind of have to. You can't kick out the Israeli's now, they're there, they've roots there now. (even if they didn't before 1948) Should they have come there in 1948? No, not on the shaky claim they had. but that's all moot now. Both sides can each have their territory AND live in peace, this I believe. I would like to say that the Palestinians were already living there when Israel was founded, but they were part of a territory under the control of the British (ever great administrators of the land, look what they did with India, Afghanistan, Persia, the American colonies, etc. lovely cases of ignoring local populace, culture, traditions and sensibilities.) The Argument that Israel is the land that Jews originated from and should be theirs, well, I guess if that's true then we should give back the United States to the native Americans, we should give back Turkmenistan to the Turkish, Turkey to the Greeks, the Netherlands to the Spaniards, Hispaniola to the now extinct native people. Why doesn't that happen? Well because of the history. It's not that it got conquered fair and square, as no conquest is ever fair nor square, it's because people are living there, people who have a shared cultural identity, who call the place they live their homeland, who have roots there. By the time Israel was created, the Palestinians (in a world where great Britain was rapidly losing control of it's colonies after fighting two ruinously expensive wars) had the right to Palestine. The British figured it still belonged to them, so considered this killing two birds with one stone. But that's all moot now. Israel got created, several generations have lived and died there, you can't deny the Israelis their land now. What you can do, is partition the land in such a way that there is space for both peoples. Israel should stop annexing more land, they don't need it. (though there is a fear that if Israel can't keep growing it will die a demographic death. I'm not sure if I care. Israel as a Jewish state rubs me the wrong way. I'm fine with it being a secular state, in which all religions are welcome. Right now it isn't.)

Extracted was surprisingly good. it's off to a slow start. but if you enjoy sci-fi, I recommend it.

@OP. Popcorn brain, it's called. We humans get a small dopamine boost every time we click a link. it's a bit of a "ooh, what does this button do" or "what's behind this door" Clicking random article on wikipedia, getting stuck on tv-tropes, googling yet another thing, it all gives us that little spike. a small fix. and that reward is hard to turn off, because of the way our brains are wired. Getting rid of all that is a huge boon. I'll let you know when I've succeeded

The Length of your posts make them daunting to read, but it does demonstrate that you are passionate and argue well. However, good communicating skills sometimes also mean being brief. I try not to zone out when I see a wall of text (especially because I'm often guilty of them myself) but it does happen.brevity is the soul of wit and all.

That's seriously impressive. I just wanted to say that. that's 13.7 times per second. Insane. The more I read this thread, the more I think the hatred is not against minigames, but rather the repetitive nature of some minigames. the monotony that makes it a chore rather than something exciting. The trick is (I think) to make the minigames such that they are never exactly identical, but unique experiences in every instance. That's doable by changing the extranalities while keeping the mechanics the same. I've seen games that do minigames well, despite it's many flaws, many of the minigames or staple quests in the assassins' creed games are quite entertaining. In the first game, pickpocketing challenges where in different environments, different crowds, targets that behaved differently, such that while it was still "get close enough but not too close and press button x" each pickpocket was different. It didn't do it perfectly, but as an example it should work for what I mean. Many people here seem under the impression that a minigame has to be completely separate from the rest of the game. But that's when you get the "why bother?" disconnect. It's not about making these games optional, it's about making them fun, about preventing them from being overly repetetive, and about good pacing (a 1 minute game EVERY SINGLE ****ING TIME you pick a lock is bad pacing) When you don't make it dynamic enough, it does. As much as I love Jacksmith, the smelting/pouring mechanic is exactly the same every single time. Unless you spasm and toss the mouse across the room, you're not going to spill the molten ore, or have any detriment to your forging process. So, the only factor there is whether or not you spasm. You don't really have to try to not spasm. You just don't do it. It's not any sort of fun challenge. Also, the blade hammering pretty much always gives you plenty of hammerings to go completely around the blade. This makes you be pretty careful, but it's exactly the same every time. So, while I admire the "crafting can be active and fun" notion behind the game, I definitely wouldn't port it straight into an RPG. However, if you were to, for example, have to hammer differently each time (maybe the cooling molten block has a different temperature grid every time, so your hammer blows cause varying effects depending on the temperature of the area you're striking, which could be color-coded much like an infra-red thermal image for simplicity's sake), now you have a dynamic system. I've said it 12 times and I'll say it again. If, after figuring out that mechanic, it becomes too tedious to repeat it a bunch of times, then the exact same logic can be applied to combat. "Oh look, bandits. Man, I've already figured out how to fight these guys and be victorious, so now fighting bandits is purely a chore and is no fun at all." And yet, I don't see anyone suggesting that combat getting duller with repetition is a good reason to not have a combat system. Oh man, this is why I hate random encounters so much. they become a chore when I'm really busy wanting to get to point B from point A. Now I have to get through this combat thing... again.Combat isn't the thing I get most of my enjoyment out anyway. (Which is why I dislike dungeon crawlers masquerading as RPG's, like Torchlight and Diablo and Dungeon siege. All of which to my mind aren't RPG's) But this too, as I mentioned earlier in this post, is about pacing and presenting the player with a fun and distinct challenge. Not just more of the same.

Something is replayable when a second playthrough is a significantly different experience from the first playthrough. That means different challenges, not just different solutions.

I agree, if every lock was different however...

I think Visas is probably my favourite NPC companion character of any game so far. Although Mira was pretty interesting too. I think that Morrigan in Dragon Age was trying to be a combination between Visas and Kreia. I would enjoy it if you get offered the chance of redemption when you may not have realised you did something wrong in the first place. have all your deeds up to that point seen from a different perspective. I dunno. As for redemption from an obvious evil... pass. cliché doesn't begin to describe it.

that's a false argument. it's not like you can't expect anything from the player. it's not a simulation where the only thing determining outcome is character stats. A false argument? Are we scoring a high school debate class here? Yes the player can be expected to have some input altho in a ROLEPLAYING game that input is typically in the form of determining strategies and deciding how HIS CHARACTER would proceed. Success and failure should for the most part depend on strengths and weaknesses in his CHARACTERS skills and attributtes vs those of the enemies and the games mechanics and not on the players dexterity and button mashing prowess or on knowledge the player has gathered from experiences outside the game. Introducing minigames like chess and poker at the very least unfairly skew game results towards those with specialized outside knowledge of their workings while offering nothing that relates to the players CHARACTERS in the game and thus IMO serve no useful purpose in the game save from those who happen to play and enjoy those games outside the confines of the roleplaying game. Would you have the devs add these game forms to the "game requirements" - CAUTION: Player must have a thorough knowledge of chess, poker, backgammon, hearts, spades, & old maid, and be ready to learn other card and strategy & board games specific to this game on the fly in order to participate fully in these adventures. If you want to play chess or poker or other minigames - exit PE and do so to your hearts content - don't clutter up my CRPG with them... Well, that's assuming there's A. use of a real-world game. B. No teaching the game ingame.I suppose you could limit participation to those characters who can reasonably be expected to play.

The problem for this sort of thing (and minigames in general) in a CRPG is the game is supposed to be about the characters skill set not the players - so who's poker playing or chess playing skills is this going to rely on and how are they going to be determined? that's a false argument. it's not like you can't expect anything from the player. it's not a simulation where the only thing determining outcome is character stats. That depends on how generic the reward is, or how completist you are. Not everyone cares to get every reward.

I'm in two minds over this. On the one hand, I would like everything that this game offers to be polished. And animations are part of that. I want to hear a little clank sound when I move a piece of weaponry in my inventory. On the other hand, I don't see why you would need everything to have an animation. Like you said, grapple without an extensive animation but with an obvious effect should be equally feasible, if it adds to the game mechanic wise, I shouldn't disqualify it for lack of an animation.

If there was a "don't know" option I'd have picked that. If you allow movement like that, you'll have to balance your game around that. doable...

Nice try, Japanese Prime Minister

Alright, Search shows there has been some discussion on this before. But the last post was made on 20 September and I don't want to be known as a thread necrophiliac forums.obsidian.net/topic/59969-minigames/ For those who want to read the 2 pages of discussion. Quick summation of that topic is that most people that posted there are against minigames, of any kind. I'm not. But I do feel that minigames have often been poorly done, which makes it understandable that people don't like them. But since that thread I've seen mention of minigames and discussion of individual possibilities pop up in many threads. Whether for Lockpicking (NO!) or Crafting, games that are unrelated to the game world (why?) like Pazaak. And the occasional example of a fun minigame that incorporates the game mechanics of the main game. (Mage's Maze from Quest for Glory was mentioned) So rather than ask "minigames, yes or no" I'd like to ask, what makes minigames interesting as option? Why wouldn't they work, or why would they. Do you have any ideas for minigames you'd like the share? or examples of minigames done well? What would be the reason for minigames in a game? (can't the game entertain us without resorting to game in game?) ----- Personally, I see minigames as a way to pace the game (tonally). If you want to not quest, do difficult dialogue, or commit goblin genocide, you can maybe do this other thing, and it gives you a benefit (whether items, xp, gold or abilities, or information) for when you get back to brass taxes. I think the biggest problem with Minigames is when they are repetitive, more of the same. A lockpicking minigame would be cool, if you wouldn't be picking more than three locks in the entire game, as that is unlikely, it would become a chore rather than something enjoyable. when whenever you want to pick a lock, you have to go through that thing again. If it's too easy you wonder why, if it's too hard you get frustrated because your rogue should be able to pick a goddamn lock. I also have mixed feelings about completely superfluous minigames, like gambling card/boardgames that some games have, because they have nothing to do with the world, aren't integrated into the experience, and therefore don't really make sense. But... I can see minigames work out when they're within the spirit of what you are doing. If you have your stronghold, maybe you can do warfare from an overhead view, commanding units to capture and control lands, or defend your keep. (if it is a keep) It would be optional, but integrated into the world. it would make sense in that context. Information gathering minigames could be cool too, if diverse enough, but the question there is whether you'd not just make it part of the main game's questing. Lastly, I'm always a fan of "free-play after game end" and minigames could maybe open up after game end to keep the game world from going completely stale. just a thought. Your thoughts?

Indeed, and since PE doesn't exist yet, it can be anything. how amazing!

I have serious problems about who decides what the consensus is, as many of the threads you listed don't actually have a consensus.

While I don't agree with the specific examples you've given on how you balance the stats, I do think that stat drawbacks might be interesting and could be considered.

I agree with most of what you are saying, but Hamas (and others) did kill a bunch (about a thousand, though actual numbers are uncertain) of Palestinians without trial on shaky claims of collaboration during the first intifada. That helped radicalise the region in more than one way. ... And? Israel isn't doing any better with random rocket strikes into the Strip (killed a BBC guys kid didn't it?) You can't just say "Hamas/Palestine are the devil for killing random people in rocket strikes and made up charges" without also turning around and saying the same about Israel. And Israel has probably been indirectly at fault for the deaths of MANY more Muslims in the occupied territories than Hamas or anyone else ever would. I am saying the same about Israel.

I agree with most of what you are saying, but Hamas (and others) did kill a bunch (about a thousand, though actual numbers are uncertain) of Palestinians without trial on shaky claims of collaboration during the first intifada. That helped radicalise the region in more than one way.

Anecdotal evidence is evidence of "instances" it in itself is not enough. For instance you mentioned that Gaza has a 5 star hotel. From this we're supposed to infer that everything is fine and dandy in that country. When in fact, the fact that it is just the one, and nothing is said about it's success (other than that it wasn't open yet). That hotel is going to fail, obviously. so it fails as evidence. I did present you with evidence refuting the claim that there is enough food in Gaza, and I did it with stronger evidence than the obesity study that you presented.

besides the fact that your evidence is anecdotal, they don't prove anything. Yes, within Israel there are those who choose to help. Yes Israel does supply some energy, but not nearly enough, only after they destroyed power plants in earlier war, and only as lipservice to international requests. the Palestinian on the ground doesn't get any better from it. That Palestinians are treated in Israel has to do with the medical ethics code more than Israeli politics, and the fact that help in the occupied territories is lacking. As for hunger... Edit: and let's not bring Fox news into this.

please keep discussion civil, everyone.