SophosTheWise
-
Posts
481 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by SophosTheWise
-
-
And another example of historically inspired armour: The Witcher 2.
-
By the way: High Fantasy doesn't single out realistic and historically inspired armor. Proof? Dark Souls or Dragon's Dogma. The Knight in Dark Souls wears a Maximilian armor, 16th century German plate armor. Of course it's not a historically accurate design, but it's cleary inspired by it. The armor that the Chosen One wears at the beginning of Dragon's Dogma is probably 14th century inspired.
-
Chris Avellone said that there will be "a 16th century technology level much like our high or late Middle Ages with the exception of the printing press". I am confident that means there will be plate armour and two-handed swords that resemble real world gear, no overly fantastically shaped weaponry.
The only problem being that plate armor was being abandoned at that point because firearms made it worthless. A
That's not true. Example: German armour (maximilian armor) or demilancers, several Reisläufer and Landsknecht cuirasses, the battle of Pavia and so on. The famous Greenwich plate armor was even used in the 17th century.
Edit: seems I'm late.
-
WHY has "cool" armour always to be black? I will never understand this, black is the worst colour. Everyone automatically knows or assumes that you're evil (because "anatomy of evil"). Besides it's a bad colour for hiding, even at night, difficult and expensive to produce on a certain technological level...
Probably just a visual thing. It's stark and dramatic when filming stuff in mood lighting, so also by long association.
But yeah....I personally like black (and grey, and dark blue), wear it a lot, but if black means evil, I must be more evil than the devil himself.
Outside of that, while I like color in nature, for general clothes I usually like neutral or darker colors. I'm that boring. Plus it shows dirt less.
'Cause it's badass.
*yawn*
-
WHY has "cool" armour always to be black? I will never understand this, black is the worst colour. Everyone automatically knows or assumes that you're evil (because "anatomy of evil"). Besides it's a bad colour for hiding, even at night, difficult and expensive to produce on a certain technological level...
Probably just a visual thing. It's stark and dramatic when filming stuff in mood lighting, so also by long association.
But yeah....I personally like black (and grey, and dark blue), wear it a lot, but if black means evil, I must be more evil than the devil himself.
Outside of that, while I like color in nature, for general clothes I usually like neutral or darker colors. I'm that boring. Plus it shows dirt less.
When I see black clothes I always think of this:
It's a satirical instruction video on how to be a "cool fighter" - it's German but I think you'll get it nevertheless.
And as for dirt on black clothes: Cannot confirm that. The more colours, the less dirt you see
-
-
Look! Cosplay that doesn't suck!
Great light armour realisation for a fantasy game IMO.
WHY has "cool" armour always to be black? I will never understand this, black is the worst colour. Everyone automatically knows or assumes that you're evil (because "anatomy of evil"). Besides it's a bad colour for hiding, even at night, difficult and expensive to produce on a certain technological level...
-
I have chinese friends so I can't be racist.
Fixed it for you.
False. I was simply telling that I, growing up and living in an extremely diverse city, have no problem with different cultures whatsoever, thus disproving the thesis that the "all people who don't like monks in their games are eurocentristic racists"-myth. The ex-boyfriend of my mother even was a muslim and I've lived in the same ****ing appartment with him for eight years, discussing philosophy from around the world. My aversion against non-European influences in games has nothing to do with my political views or any prejudices.
Regardless of what you think you are, you still have prejudices and biases like everyone else in the world.
Yes, that is probably correct.
This isn't a medieval simulator.I don't care. It could be a fairy-elf-mutant-powerranger-simulator and I'd still don't like certain things in them that do not fit in this setting.
Why don't you have issues with Sagani then? She's not "European."Because I simply didn't know her, just googled her and honestly, I don't like her either. I don't know what she's supposed to look like but she looks like a mix of native-american and viking, both of which I'm not overly fond of. Instead of saying it's racist to like other (fictional or historical) cultures better than the other is ridiculous. When I was around 16-18, I was extremely into Germanic/viking stuff, then I really liked the Celtic setting and now I'm into late middle-ages and early-renaissance. I don't see what the big fuss is all about.
Whether people like it or not, the world will continue to be diverse and multiculturalism will continue to occur. Deal with it.
Yes, and that is an extremely great thing - I think we're on the same page there.
I think you didn't really understand my point. I don't have a problem with coloured people, at all. i don't have a problem with other cultures - I have a problem, when they are implemented stupid, and in D&D it's as stupid as it gets, it's an incoherent mess. I never had this problem until I began LARPing and LARP in Europe is a pretty big deal, 4000 people and such. There you have Roman legions fighting Orcs, an army of undead fighting pirates, high-medieval soldiers battling a steampunk-tank. It just looks silly. It's like those overkill-movies with robots, zombies and ninjas. I just can't take it seriously. Make it serious, make it matter. Why is Forton there? The answer can't be, because he's there and the game is diverse. I want meaning behind it, I want something with grip. That worked really well in Torment with Dak'kon for example who was totally outlandish and still it made sense somehow, that he was there.To continue to think of our fantasy worlds as "white-only" worlds and to decry worlds that do not fit this model to be "immersion breaking" is just another way to be neo-racist.Sometimes I imagine the D&D creators like this: "Oh boy, we have a working party with a rogue, a warrior, a bard and a wizard. We could need new classes! YEAH NINJAS WOULD BE GREAT AND SAMURAI! OMG!" And then they exist. Without reason.
Medieval Europe, which this game isn't, wasn't filled with only "white people." Renaissance Europe had plenty of mixing with Middle Eastern/Asian/African cultures, and diverse people lived in those locales. People of different colors traveled the world then, and they travel the world now.And now tell me something I didn't know.
Edit: What I forgot: I don't like fantasy worlds that mirror our values. That happened so many times at LARPs that I could start to cry. "No we will not attack the Orks, they're living creatures after all!" and some sort of bullcrap. It's a lot more challenging to pursue a medieval or ancient approach on morals. So yes, there is torture, rape, arson and what not.
-
1
-
-
Jesus, if I had known how EuroCentric Obsidian fans could be...
I know this isn't everyone, but I feel like part of this clamor by some people to remove the Asian influences is because a lot of people are just increasingly insecure about anything foreign; if anyone remembers those old threads about which languages to include... yeah. Really, really awful stuff was said there in the most nonchalant, matter-of-fact way.
Please, keep this conversation away from devolving into that. I'd like to at least maintain the veneer of sharing hobbies this hobby with non-skinheads.
Come on, dude. Aren't we all grown up? Haven't we all seen those countless The Office episodes?
Your point is absolutely preposterous. Because this does not have anything to do with eurocentrism. As one of the "no asian influences, please"-advocates in this thread, I feel obliged to explain that to you.
Probably every American in this world would call me a socialist or a commie, hell, even in my own country which has universal health care and insurances for unemployed persons, a country which has about 25% foreigners and even more naturalized citizen, many people would call me a commie. I have humanistic, internationalistic worldviews, I think every person has rights, even stateless people should have the right to stay and I support a political project which is supposed to give everyone an unconditional basic income, even If they're not working. I even support cultural relativism to a big extent.
People like you still haven't understood, that there is also something called positive racism (which is still s ****ing bad thing). We don't have to have a "minority program" or a "female quota" in higher offices. What we have to do is NOT TO PRETEND that we are the same or look the same, but to acknowledge that we are all humans with equal rights and that it doesn't matter how we look or what kind of background we have. We're humans and that's the only thing that counts. Including everything just for the sake of including is hilariously stupid.
I, for one, am not afraid of Asians. There's a Vietnamese girl working for my gaming magazine, one of my best friends lives in China and many of my other friends are japanophile to an extreme extent - I don't care where you're from, I don't care about your cultural background, I just care about the fact that we're humans.
Not to start another discussion, but eurocentrism itself is basically a eurocentrism.
But what it is about then? Easy. It's about creating a inherently logical and consistent world. The goal of western RPGs is, often, to depict something close to the European medieval ages. And there were no ninja monks there. It just breaks immersion for me, because it doesn't follow the structures we're familiar with. It just does not work for me. Why don't you flip perspectives? Imagine a martial arts RPG or a Samurai RPG in which you could play an early-renaissance-landsknecht. Absurd, isn't it?
-
2
-
-
I admit, he does look insanely generic.
To be honest, every character until now looked a bit generic. It's not necessarily a bad thing though, many things about fantasy are kind of generic and I'm quite sure those concept pictures will change a LOT.
-
2
-
-
Feargus you're great, but that stronghold comment... ugh.
What was so awful about it?
I want to know that too.
Because having a place in the game world is really cool. I'm not overly familiar with player housing in video games, but I really enjoyed it while playing D&D/Pathfinder, where we fortified our own cheap castle and my alcoholic dwarven bard set up an illegal whisky distillery. Good times. Too bad my bear-mount is dead. Also because of alcoholism.
-
I really wish they'd loose the Asian aesthetic of the monk class. I'd rather see some European-style warrior monks, like the ones you'd find in a Military Order during the Crusades.
I'm not saying they should fight like Knight Templars or w/e - if I wanted to play a pure crusader I'd just play a fighter or a cleric, but at least make them wear hairshirts and modest tabards, or something like that, instead of wushu kuzi or whatever those baggy kung fu pants are called. They just look so dang out of place. And please, no kamas or qi-powers!
Yes! Yes! A thousand times yes! Please NO ninjas, samurai and martial artists in a western RPG unless they are part of an Asia inspired nation in the game. It somehow breaks immersion here and if Forton is not an aaaaabsolutely essential NPC I will not add him to my party.
-
5
-
-
And no, they are not, albeit very similar.
For real, bro? This is what I'm talking about, people don't even understand they aren't sounding smart when they use it.
Verisimilitude - Something verisimilar/the quality or state or being verisimilar
Verisimilar - depicting realism (as in art or literature)
The same word.
No, it's not the same as realism. The question is: what constitues reality (in the sense of the concept of radical realism), and reality is also constituted by - for example - physics. For something to be verisimilar, it simply has to follow an inherent logic. Or to make it a bit easier to apply: if you have two (false!) concepts of reality, you choose the one that is the nearest to the actual reality. If we assume that "our" reality in which we live is the "objective reality" then we'll get beaten by constructivists and we have to chose between two fictive concepts, the one being closest to the predefined reality makes the most sense.
To apply it to the aforementioned Two Worlds 2-blooming-flora-and-fauna-famine-problem: of course you can say that maybe there is a spell on every starving citizen to prevent him eating everything around him or some other absurd thing. The problem with fiction is, that you have endless possibilities to just invent ANY solution for ANY problem, but it gets very, very, VERY difficult not to mess up the whole logic of the gameworld, because creating more and more "solutions" also creates more and more problems based on a solution and so on and so forth. To not have this argument about words that get thrown around by game designers, we could simply agree that we mean *something* in the verge of plausibility or credibility. Which is still not the same.
I may be wrong, that's just the way I learned that stuff in my journalistics class, but that whole reality-concept-thingy was quite brief.
You can attribute whatever meaning you want to the word, but the reality (har har) is it's the exact same word. Saying it's not doesn't make it so.
Synonyms: literalism, naturalism, realism,representationalism, verismo
What you seem to forget is, that the word verisimilitudeis connected to critical rationalismand exactly means, what I said it does.You can use it in a similar way, but there are many ways of describing reality and many ways to say "describing reality" with an entirely different mindset behind it. So verisimilitude is realism with the thought of critical rationalism behind it.
That's what I meant when I first said that there are different approaches to a topic and philosophy was one of them.
So the reason realism is important is because it's realistic.
Got it.
I suppose it's not worth arguing with you.
-
And no, they are not, albeit very similar.
For real, bro? This is what I'm talking about, people don't even understand they aren't sounding smart when they use it.
Verisimilitude - Something verisimilar/the quality or state or being verisimilar
Verisimilar - depicting realism (as in art or literature)
The same word.
No, it's not the same as realism. The question is: what constitues reality (in the sense of the concept of radical realism), and reality is also constituted by - for example - physics. For something to be verisimilar, it simply has to follow an inherent logic. Or to make it a bit easier to apply: if you have two (false!) concepts of reality, you choose the one that is the nearest to the actual reality. If we assume that "our" reality in which we live is the "objective reality" then we'll get beaten by constructivists and we have to chose between two fictive concepts, the one being closest to the predefined reality makes the most sense.
To apply it to the aforementioned Two Worlds 2-blooming-flora-and-fauna-famine-problem: of course you can say that maybe there is a spell on every starving citizen to prevent him eating everything around him or some other absurd thing. The problem with fiction is, that you have endless possibilities to just invent ANY solution for ANY problem, but it gets very, very, VERY difficult not to mess up the whole logic of the gameworld, because creating more and more "solutions" also creates more and more problems based on a solution and so on and so forth. To not have this argument about words that get thrown around by game designers, we could simply agree that we mean *something* in the verge of plausibility or credibility. Which is still not the same.
I may be wrong, that's just the way I learned that stuff in my journalistics class, but that whole reality-concept-thingy was quite brief.
You can attribute whatever meaning you want to the word, but the reality (har har) is it's the exact same word. Saying it's not doesn't make it so.
Synonyms: literalism, naturalism, realism,representationalism, verismo
What you seem to forget is, that the word verisimilitude is connected to critical rationalism and exactly means, what I said it does.You can use it in a similar way, but there are many ways of describing reality and many ways to say "describing reality" with an entirely different mindset behind it. So verisimilitude is realism with the thought of critical rationalism behind it.
That's what I meant when I first said that there are different approaches to a topic and philosophy was one of them.
-
And no, they are not, albeit very similar.
For real, bro? This is what I'm talking about, people don't even understand they aren't sounding smart when they use it.
Verisimilitude - Something verisimilar/the quality or state or being verisimilar
Verisimilar - depicting realism (as in art or literature)
The same word.
No, it's not the same as realism. The question is: what constitues reality (in the sense of the concept of radical realism), and reality is also constituted by - for example - physics. For something to be verisimilar, it simply has to follow an inherent logic. Or to make it a bit easier to apply: if you have two (false!) concepts of reality, you choose the one that is the nearest to the actual reality. If we assume that "our" reality in which we live is the "objective reality" then we'll get beaten by constructivists and we have to chose between two fictive concepts, the one being closest to the predefined reality makes the most sense.
To apply it to the aforementioned Two Worlds 2-blooming-flora-and-fauna-famine-problem: of course you can say that maybe there is a spell on every starving citizen to prevent him eating everything around him or some other absurd thing. The problem with fiction is, that you have endless possibilities to just invent ANY solution for ANY problem, but it gets very, very, VERY difficult not to mess up the whole logic of the gameworld, because creating more and more "solutions" also creates more and more problems based on a solution and so on and so forth. To not have this argument about words that get thrown around by game designers, we could simply agree that we mean *something* in the verge of plausibility or credibility. Which is still not the same.
I may be wrong, that's just the way I learned that stuff in my journalistics class, but that whole reality-concept-thingy was quite brief.
-
1
-
-
Here's what bugs me: people who don't seem to get, that there are different ways of approaching a topic and that certain "fancy words" have a right to exist.
No one used that word until Sawyer said it, and now people are throwing it around like they actually speak that way.
Go to the realism thread, learn what verisimilitude means and understand the point of the realism-supporters.
Also they are literally the same word.
I don't know what Sawyer said about that word, nor do I care about who uses which words as long as they're used correctly. Also, why is it bad to learn new words? And why should newly learnt words not be used?
And no, they are not, albeit very similar.
-
1
-
-
i don't care much for so called "realism" in my fantasy; that goes for armor, buildings, wealth and the like...
people saying they want things to resemble middle ages europe don't seem to be able to understand that if magic, gods, psychics and 4 other alien races had lived side by side with humanity during that time we'd have a completely different notion of what is "realistic".
all i want out of realism is for the npc's to behave according to their customs and common sensibilities.
Go to the realism thread, learn what verisimilitude means and understand the point of the realism-supporters. It is not necessary to beat around the same argumentative bush for a billion years. I think we are, at this situation, well past the "IT'S FANTASY NOT REALITY THEREFORE ANYTHING GOES!!111"-argument.
Secondly I'd recommend reading into constructivist and structuralist philosophy. Really interesting and almost unmissable if you want to argue about what "reality" actually is.
Here's what bugs me: people using fancy words to try and sound smart.
On topic, don't sacrifice any gameplay or fun for the sake of realism.
Here's what bugs me: people who don't seem to get, that there are different ways of approaching a topic and that certain "fancy words" have a right to exist.
-
3
-
-
That question is useless. I don't think Project Eternity is about retro-ness, it's about creating the same gaming experience back in the days of the infinity engine, therefore about creating a believable world (which in 3D wouldn't be possible just yet - look at Skyrim or Dragon Age: Origins), a deep narrative and cool characters. Copying mechanics is just stupid, except it's just done for being retro, like Scott Pilgrim: The Game, for example. One might call Limbo retro because of it's 2D-platforming, nevertheless it's absolutely new in terms of art direction and atmosphere. That whole retro-thing stinks to high heaven. It's all about creating mechanics that work in a given context.
-
i don't care much for so called "realism" in my fantasy; that goes for armor, buildings, wealth and the like...
people saying they want things to resemble middle ages europe don't seem to be able to understand that if magic, gods, psychics and 4 other alien races had lived side by side with humanity during that time we'd have a completely different notion of what is "realistic".
all i want out of realism is for the npc's to behave according to their customs and common sensibilities.
Go to the realism thread, learn what verisimilitude means and understand the point of the realism-supporters. It is not necessary to beat around the same argumentative bush for a billion years. I think we are, at this situation, well past the "IT'S FANTASY NOT REALITY THEREFORE ANYTHING GOES!!111"-argument.
Secondly I'd recommend reading into constructivist and structuralist philosophy. Really interesting and almost unmissable if you want to argue about what "reality" actually is.
I recall Avellone saying something in an interview along the lines of "The Character is the most important tool that the Player uses to interact with the world" which is "duhr"-ly true.
If the Character is believable in place of the world, whatever the gameplay is, and gets feedback from the world I'm good. .
Still, a world with a lack of logical holes suck. I've mentioned this before, but starting area in Two Worlds 2. A desert/savannah-type crossover with LOTS of flora AND fauna. Still, people 10 meters away are suffering a famine. What the hell?
-
4
-
-
-
Unfortunately this game is just a simulation with a limited budget. There's no way they can approach the level of realism that will leave you believing such a place exists. Corners will be cut, some level of simplification will be applied, and there are always going to be actions you'd like to be able to do but can't because it wasn't implemented. At most you can hope for a good level of grittiness, plausibility, and attention to detail.
Well thank you for that information, Captain Obvious.
-
Community
How I Met Your Mother
The Office
Star Trek TNG
Firefly
The Walking Dead
Breaking In
Not necessarily my favourite shows of all time, but mostly the shows I like watching at the moment.
-
Watched Mazes & Monsters, an 80s TV movie starring a young Tom Hanks. It's hilarious, really. Portrays the controversies about Dungeons & Dragons with a bat**** insane group. Really, if you want to have a good old fashioned laugh about stupid intentions, watch that movie.
-
I liked Dragon Age: Origins a lot, in fact it was one of the best games I've ever played I'd say. Also it's the best RPG in a long, long time. Of course it had a lot of faults, a lot of incredibly cliché stuff. But what set DA:O apart from other games were things like deciding who should be the King of the dwarven city or the quest for the Holy Ashes. They gave me a sense of adventure that no other game could give me. Skyrim and Oblivion just felt bland and empty and TOO sandboxy. So sandboxy, that it really felt like being dropped in a world with no meaning. The same problem I have with minecraft, by the way.
Do you want firearms in Project Eternity?
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
Well, there were firearms in the 14th century, albeit quite rare, mostly "hand cannons"
And sometime in the 15th century there were muskets.