Dream

High heels aren't very practical, but people still wear them 'cause they look nice. Same reason someone would choose to wear an enchanted mail bikini that provides the same protection as a full suit of plate (which is what centurion was asking about). It doesn't sound very likely, but I'd accept that. Sexuality (especially female sexuality) wasn't historically tied to warfare very often, but I could imagine a weird universe where some women do that with magical armour. Did... did we just almost sort of agree on something? It's like the twilight zone

Pretty sure he doesn't wear that because skulls give bonus armor vs bullets; people like to look cool.

High heels aren't very practical, but people still wear them 'cause they look nice. Same reason someone would choose to wear an enchanted mail bikini that provides the same protection as a full suit of plate (which is what centurion was asking about).

The same reasons people wear high heels in real life?

Make a baldur's gate size fireball in an enclosed space and see what happens to every single window in the room. Also people =/= frogs; freeze your hand and tell me what happens when you thaw that ****er out. Finally watch a lightning bolt and tell me if you can perceive the 3000 mile/sec (give or take depending on air conditions) travel time. Have you ever stepped foot inside a classroom? I'm being serious here. So when gameplay is concerned realism takes a back seat to enjoyment, but when aesthetics are concerned realism is king (despite many finding unrealistic art styles more enjoyable). Why is that? If it's simply because YOU prefer a realistic aesthetic then that's cool, but just say that; don't pretend there's more to it than that. So when you only control one character instagibbing is okay, but when you have characters to spare it's not? What? 'Cause it does electrical damage. You can handwaive an invisible force; you can't handwaive how fire works (if your goal is realism, that is).

What does that even mean? Are you saying that pretty much everything in every game can be described as "**** characters do behind the scenes?" If so then I can see why you're having issues here; you're retarded.

So your idea for compelling gameplay is having to buy a stack of pixels once a week to keep in a corner of your inventory? You don't even need to actively manage it; just have the mental capacity to not forget to purchase it (and later in the game when money is flush you can just buy a year's worth of **** and be done with it for the rest of the game). Damn, am I glad you aren't a game designer. The reason there are RPGs with different mechanics is because, get this, RPGs are all different (it is impressive that I have to tell you this). Deep and complex C&C mechanics don't make too much sense in a game like Diablo, but they're key for a game like Deus Ex. At the same time some kind of mechanics related to food makes sense in an RPG where scrounging for food is part of the narrative (say one that takes place in a radioactive wasteland, for instance), but in a game where that is not the case food management can go in the category of "**** your characters do behind the scenes." Look at it this way: the air filter mechanic was pretty cool in the Metro games because of the world they took place in, but shoehorning that mechanic into Halo would feel weird. The point of gameplay is to compliment the narrative.

I have real-life knowledge of physics and chemistry that tells me that many of the effects of magic shouldn't work the way they do. Fireballs should blow out the walls of any room they detonate in (unless they're made out a foot of solid rock). Getting frozen solid should kill you instantly from the water in your body crystallizing. Lightning bolts shouldn't have a travel time. When it comes to understanding how these things work we have a "basis for realism and believability." On the other hand a smith making a chain mail bikini and then getting it enchanted with some spell that provides the wearer with an invisible layer of whatever across their whole body can, in fact, be handwaived away as simply being "magic."

Try not taking a ****/piss for a while and see how you feel after a day or two. Eating is something that is utterly unimportant - you either ate before the battle (if you were really hungry) or you aren't that hungry and just wait until the battle is done. Then lets take your stance to the extreme and take everything that could possible have any effect on a battle and implement as a mechanic in the game. Sharpening your blade before every battle? Check. Making sure the characters eat a balanced diet? Check. Realistic injury recuperation times (forget sleeping for one night; you need surgery and 3 months bed rest for that sword wound)? Check. See the difference is that this game is a fantasy RPG so combat/spellcasting/item management/etc. are relevant parts of it. If this was Healthy Living Simulator 2013 then making sure your character eats on time would be a part of the game, but it's not.

So when you do it for money it's okay, but when DA:O's designers do it it's: Also But yet you still take jobs that don't fit your style because you need the money? Which is it? Either you're this super successful guy turning down work at Blizzard, or you're a struggling artist getting jobs where he can. You can't claim to be both.

So, again, you sit there and judge other people's work, but place your own work (which has the exact same "issues") above similar critique with a neat little justification. It's the classic amateur's perspective: everyone else does it wrong, but the reasons I did it wrong were out of my control and thus should not reflect upon me. Most people mature out of that mindset once they become professionals; apparently you never did.

By that logic they should add in mechanics for taking a dump as well. Once a day you have to take a **** and if you don't have any TP you have to either risk infection or chance it with a leaf. If you choose the leaf then you again run the risk of getting a rash (unless you have a high outdoorsy/****ting skill). So fun.

You're right you're not bitter; you just take everyone opportunity you can to mock people more successful than you at your own profession because they have bad taste and awful art sense. Not bitter. At all.

So when a Dragon Age does it it's awful, but when you do it's "I had no choice man!" Classy. I'm assuming you did your due diligence at least and told your client that her/his taste was terrible, right? I did not. If the client doesn't hire me to design, it's not my place. I am a whore, but a professional whore at least. When I criticize Dragon Age, or any other game, I'm not necessarily criticizing the artist who made the model, maybe not even the concept artist who drew the design. Often it's the art director or an equivalent, who decided this was a good design direction. (similarly to how I don't always get to design everything in my illustrations) I try and choose jobs that allow me to do historical or historical-ish designs, but even if I've been lucky to do this a lot, it doesn't always happen. Beggars can't be choosers. Ever think there's a reason those people are art directors for multi-million dollar properties and you're, well, not. Hating on them for having "bad taste" just makes you seem bitter.

I don't consider your posts nonsense; I just disagree with you, but I can see how you'd think that since in your mind anyone who disagrees with you must be trolling. It was a legit question by the way; why are boob plates so high on your list of priorities compared to everything else that video games get "wrong?"

So when a Dragon Age does it it's awful, but when you do it's "I had no choice man!" Classy. I'm assuming you did your due diligence at least and told your client that her/his taste was terrible, right?

So let me get this straight: you want arms and armor to look believable (by not breaking the laws of physics, I assume), but all the other crap in video games that is completely unbelievable you're a-okay with? Who cares about all the **** they get wrong with chemistry, biology, physics, economics, and a half dozen other fields of study; it's boob plates where you draw the line in the sand. Really? As for why I'm posting here: it's so the devs don't think that all the backers are renaissance fair nerds. You know what I love about you? How much of a hypocrite you are. You talk all this talk about realistic armor, but your own art is chock-full of fantasy tropes (including, gasp, boob armor). I guess your stringent guidelines for what makes art awful only apply to OTHER artists, right?

The greatest country on Earth.

Probably the fact that realistic combat (like realistic armor) looks boring as ****. At the end of the day this is a fantasy video game and not a symposium on warfare during the middle ages; just go with whatever the artist thinks look cool and who cares if it doesn't agree with the laws of physics/realism/whatever (90% of the rest of the game sure as **** doesn't).

That statement contradicts itself.

That looks like it'd make for some super compelling gameplay bro. So fun.

Staying after your shift is over to do a better job is not an unheard of thing in this world (and yes I've personally done just that). Maybe you don't get paid directly, but when it comes time for raises/bonuses/promotions higher ups will generally take your extra effort into consideration.

There's only so much blame you can lay at the feet of QA though. After all these aren't random obscure bugs we're talking about, but blatant issues the devs would have seen by simply playing through their own game. In their own time? As publishers don't pay them to play their own game as they have QA department for that purpose. But after F:NV Obsidian decided that they will use their own money to ensure that games quality is enough so that what happened with F:NV don't happen again (or at least I think that was reason for their own QA department). If you have ever done complex computer programs (like games), you know that most of the time whole product is not functional, but only parts of it, why you need to do integration and systems tests, to see if all parts work with other like you have intented, but that take time and money to do so smaller development studios usually give that part for publishers to do as they have more resources and its their product at the end of the day, but that don't work always so well as we have seen. If they bothered to do it on their own time then maybe they would have hit that 85 on metacritic (and then they would have been paid). Also, while it may be the publisher's product, a massive amount of bugs reflects more on the developer (after all who was blamed for the whole A:CM debacle; Gearbox or Sega).

There's only so much blame you can lay at the feet of QA though. After all these aren't random obscure bugs we're talking about, but blatant issues the devs would have seen by simply playing through their own game.

Googling "knight" indicates otherwise.