Diogo Ribeiro
-
Posts
4600 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Diogo Ribeiro
-
-
is great if you can get "immersion", but immersion in and of itself is a highly personalized gestalt of myriad gameplay and story elements.
Sure. Don't expect everyone else to share my expectations or perspectives.
sure, is a balance act for developers... 'cause what is tedious for Gromnir may be immersive for DiogoThought I certainly could have linked both, whatever argument I made regarding immersion was meant to be unrelated to the weightless ammo, although they may have come off as one and the same in the discussion. And I'm sure as far as balancing acts go, weightless ammo is a boon for hoarding packrats. But is the same logic extended to mines? Grenades? Healing items? And if not, why not? And would it be as meaningless if healing items were weightless as well?
-
After that last post, *now* I get why people said it was a bad idea to sign with DR.
-
And geezues, look at MCA. He seems like he lost ALOT of weight and look so much older.
Actually, I noticed this as well. I was actually stunned when his name popped up; I wouldn't have recognized him in any other way. Even Feargus seemed a bit different.
-
I hate everyone that forgot my birthday. You will rue the day, Obsidianites!
:throwcowlbackwardsandwalkaway:
*throws cow right back at him*
You know you're having a good birthday when people are throwing cows.
You can still restore my former glory, Wals. Jump to the Tardis and convince Guy Fawkes that in order to destroy the Parliament, all he needs to do is graffiti my name all over it. Since the date is the same, it will all pan out.
-
Thanks for the further impressions, Aristes (and everyone else that contributed with some). I suspect it will be a long time before I can get my gaming PC back up again, though. As for the rest you've mentioned, Aristes, it will probably remain a personal thing. I have no problem with enjoying what Fallout 3 has to offer, but of course, some things draw my attention more than others. I wouldn't bring up immersion as it is regarded by many, but truly, if I go by its definition - the author's ability to draw me into his or her fiction - then I suspect Fallout 3 wouldn't convince me as much as the first title in the series did. Not in some rose-tinted way, mind; it's just that the more a concept is expanded upon, the more you risk dilluting it and lose track of the original vision. And I've nearly always experienced that in sequels. Fallout 3's likely a good title but it's not what I'd call a worthy successor; at best, it is a Fallout title - just a different kind of Fallout. It seems to work best as a vision for those who never cared much for the original one.
Now I need to whore myself out to fix my computer.
-
...system of switching between a sort of ambient version of the current track and an action version, depending on the presence of enemies. Aliens could use this to effectively to build up tension when not in combat, whilst also keep a rhythm going during actual fighting.
But doesnt that formula also "give away" the presence of enemies? You know they are near because the sound track changes. That would ruin the "fear factor" for me as its hard to be surprised by an Alien when you know its coming.
The answer to that would be that they'd change music only when you get attacked, an alien leaps at you for instance.
Or everything would go dead silent...
With the motion sensor's cold beeps as the only sound....
Then the aliens would start a pantomine routine.
-
Okay, okay, I hated IWD2
Madness!
-
Except that's not why the technology exists, its sole purpose is to prevent Alex Denton from killing particular people. None of the organizations that need it actually use it, even though it's apparently common enough to be used in a bar in the poor section of the city.
Why would an organization or enclave use it considering they have the resources to hire security, or even develop their own? They can spend money on a regular basis for personnel and technology, as opposed to a rotten bar downtown whose owner doesn't make enough to even hire bodyguards, but decided on a one time investment of widespread, relatively low cost security technology.
-
I hate everyone that forgot my birthday. You will rue the day, Obsidianites!
:throwcowlbackwardsandwalkaway:
-
Wouldn't a character question why they're suddenly better at bartering and talking to people when all they've done is kill supermutants and pick locks? Wouldn't a character question why they look down and they have no legs? And what about their peripheral vision? Nah, a character is only capable of doing what the developer programs them for, and they're generally not programmed to question the rules, or the limitations, of the game they're in.
And if you're playing the character while assisted by mechanisms that effectively allow you to "be" the character, then you *are* the character, being exposed to these problems. There's no way around it, since the character perceives the gameworld through your interactions and vice-versa.
Hand holding as an explanation for invulnerable NPCs makes no sense, as the player cannot know beforehand which characters are important, and thus are unable to prevent themselves from screwing up the game.So, foreknowledge excludes invincible NPCs to be a hand holding example, despite the fact they are, in fact, guiding the players' hand in terms of narrative direction and structure? Ok, if you say so.
Anyway, the implementation of safe zones in DX:IW is fine, in that it does what it needs to do, provides an area to place plot essential characters to keep them free from harm, but the in-universe explanation is ridiculous and ultimately ruins it because it draws attention to the conceit rather than covering it up, which doesn't make for a good example. Bloodlines is a good example with an in-universe explanation, Far Cry 2 is a good example without, IW is a horrible example.Locking down weapons because of violence isn't in line with a setting where everyone is on their toes after the terrorist attacks? Fine.
Am I having a good day with all you forumfolk, or what.
-
wooden houses bother, but newcs and Gromnir's list o' stuff don't?
It does; I agree with pretty much all complaints you've shared. My argument was different, though, which I already explained.
sure, there is a gritty aspect to it, but you might as well argue realism and plausibility of the Flinstones or Jetsons, 'cause fo is just as cartoony... simply darker.Fine, I'll shut up and let others carry on. No point in discussing something no one cares about or thinks is ridiculous.
-
So... how many NPC's can I secks?
Why do you people ruin threads like these? Seriously.
Can the whole group join in the secks?
-
And how old is the wood there?
In addition to newc's questions, not the previous two posts.
-
In the interest of not bogging down this thread with quote games which lead nowhere and lose focus... newc, I didn't say there weren't ruined wooden buildings; just that should have been *some* measure of decay, or perhaps a bit more of it. From what I played it seemed to even out somewhat, but the idea of maintaining a certain visual identity eventually leads to wonder how time seems to have had little effect over some things. Of course, if it's not something that is particularly jarring to you, I undestand and respect that.
So it doesn't bother you, specifically. Fine.
Yes, good point as well. But as I'm sure you'd agree, discussing vegetation would be seen by many as a "silly complaint" as well, would it not? Which does make it hard to properly debate the function of PA aesthetics as they relate to previous Fallouts and moving far into the future.
It's not so much a quibble about whatever quality, age or type of polygonal wood was used; or that I am all hot and bothered. I was simply disagreeing with Grom's idea that Fallout's setting was implausible and as such, anything that tags along for the ride is implausible as well and should not be held up to any such scrutiny.
-
-
Yes. That's where the realism would kick in I guess, but I'm actually fine with the abstraction it provides. It captures the feel of a wasteland (not that I ever saw one, if I discount my bedroom). But the more you situate it in the far future, the more it begs the question - when is it going to stop looking exactly the same as it did last time? And in this case, why does most of it still look exactly like it did 200 years ago? I actually felt it was a nice touch to include different locations (tower, hotel) as a form of settlement because those really do offer more protection, though.
-
I fully appreciate Uwe Boll for introducing a whole new scale of cinematographic quality and expectations. Ever since Boll, I've stopped using "Point Break" as an example of trash.
-
Great. Something like IWD comes along and I'm out of a gaming computer
Thanks for the replies nonetheless, guys. If I ever get around to fixing or upgrading my PC, I'll hunt SoZ as quickly as possible.
-
I don't defend realism in games, newc0253. And I'm also not defending nor justifying past Fallout titles, as the lulz was everywhere. However, in a setting where Vaults were used to house human beings and shield them from damage, you still see wooden structures unaffected by time's passing as if they were as sturdy as the Vaults. There should have been some measure of decay and/or more alternate building materials, not necessarily because it would be plausible (because from what I'm reading, most people confuse realism with plausibility) but because as time passes in every Fallout title, cities generally grow and adapt to the best of their abilities. 200 year old wood doesn't come off as a good choice of protection in a gameworld where vicious raiders and mutants roam the countryside.
-
SW, your summary reminds me a bit of Icewind Dale 2. Is it anything like it?
-
You can role-play an Alien like that smart radscorpion in Fallout 2.
:chitter:
:tail snaps:
:clak clak:
And so on.
-
It also had one of the best pieces in an FPS ever at the time, the muthafuda green thing you can never kill with weapons. It's actually an intelligent way to tackle a boss rather than a boring shootout (something Dark Corners of the Earth also did to goo effect).
-
fallout is not 'posed to be realistic or plausible. is 'posed to be the imagined/realized post-apocalyptic wasteland as dreamed up in b-movies and trashy novellas circa 1950's and early 1960s. giant insects and super mutants? vaults and the duck & cover shtick? camp.
I wouldn't argue for an arbitrary sense of plausibility; as such I don't really care about giant insects or such. But having wooden shacks still perfectly standing or computers still working 200 years after the war seems terribly farfetched even for Fallout's trademark goofiness.
aside: weightless ammo not bother us much more than does weightless gold in typical crpg.Well, the typical crpg was and still is terribly dependent of combat. Weightless gold sounds like a reasonable concession to me since it's a fluctuating resource; it needs to be hoarded earlier on but mostly loses value as you progress. Fixating weight on it at earlier stages would just bog down starting characters until they no longer needed it (which also varies depending on players and their play style). On the other hand, while weightless ammo shares a similiar process (unskilled characters are just going to burn through it so they need to carry a good amount), it will never stop being usefull to those who invest in ranged weapons; and there's also the case for different weapon types. In the end I suspect it's something most people won't mull over, but it certainly removes some of the management associated with combat.
-
Let's combine (Aliens, Mortal Kombat, Soul Calibur, Freddy) with (Predator, DC, Star Wars, Jason) to make more money!
Or, just do something like Batman: Dead End. That's all shades of cool.
Game Design Stuff You Hate
in Computer and Console
Posted · Edited by Diogo Ribeiro
Corruption is a possibility, of course. But then, the setting has organizations cloning and brainwashing humans to swell their ranks while religious sects hold power over weak minded individuals. There is corruption - but just how much of it is present in these organizations and sects, in terms of security loyality? Also, is it really farfetched that they would prefer to deal with the ocasional corruption amidst hired guns than using a universal weapon locking system that would affect everyone - intruder and defender alike - in cases of emergency? I don't think so, but then, them's the breaks. Even being a half-hearted concept, I just can't envision an organization going "if someone breaks in, we're going to prevent *everyone* from using weapons, even at the cost of not having the ability to defend ourselves".
So you're saying an ingame reason that partially succeeds is as much of a failure than no reason whatsover.