Diogo Ribeiro

Here we go again...

Just wait until I talk about elf bo -- is shot

No, but the three of us are.

I'll be the almighty...

I wonder if this is unrelated or if there really is a pattern forming here.

I might me mistaken but didn't IGN write up some articles which showcased E3 babes exclusively, while writing other articles about E3 itself?

Haha, Oblivion is the pinnacle of roleplaying facial animations! Regardless I suspect it's going to be a good game, though not necessarily a good RPG, or an RPG I'd like.

I don't know why I'm even bothering with this, but... Yes, a Lv. 20 character will easilly dispatch a Lv. 1 Goblin. So? Growing in power doesn't mean the game will be easy as you advance trough it, though it's going to feel easy when you've reached maximum advancement.

The timer abruptly ends the gameplay because it's counting the time the Master and the Mutant Army take to find out where Vault 13 is. Since it's the Vault Dweller's duty to protect the people of the Vault as well as stop the Master's plan of mutating all the humans of the wasteland, when they reach the Vault so the Master can access it for its experiments, it ends. In that context I think it's a valid 'Game Over'.

While I don't particularly care for MOGs, DeathzBlade brings up a good point. It doesn't mean anything to the developers that certain elements of a franchise may be applied in a contradicting way when applied to a MOG. As players we can have the valid concern or desire to see those games do not go against the setting or gameworld consistency of some franchises, but nothing (other than the developers' own intention) prevents a massive multiplayer game from spawning endless Jedis, Vampires or Vault Dwellers, no matter how much it isn't mean to.

You're a queer fellow. Heya, it's me, Imoen! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wat'cha want? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yer all buffle-headed.

Yeah, there's not even a chance to do that. You just find some furniture, then when you enter the room it shows the message you see on the first screen (

You're welcome

Quoted for the power of +1.

I wasn't making a direct comparison between both; only illustrating that using something in a videogame which has a parallel in real life does not necessarily make it more realistic, if at all. No doubt, although there doesn't have to be a need to force the player to achieve a result in a given timeframe; instead, you can just let the player do things at his own leisure, but simply provide different consequences for the time he takes. Of course, this is different than an overaching timer which will eventually spell Game Over, but then again, different timers with different concepts behind them.

I think you actually get experience from killing him as well, although if I recall it isn't as much as it is given for talking him out of it. My Chaotic Neutral gnome talked him out of it... Then backstabbed him. Strangest part of that scenario is that no one in the tavern seems to care I'm attacking Marl.

Baldur's Gate 2. I think the worst example of how consequences, and by association consequences of evil actions, were handled in Baldur's Gate is how you can slaughter innocents but then go to a nearby temple and offer money to bump your reputation back up, even to a 20.

Actually I'm surprised when I do find people who actually have similar expectations to mine when it comes to games in general, and roleplaying games in particular.

I'm not denying it has an analogue in the real world; I've explained as much in my posts addressed to LoneWolf16. However, there's a clear difference between a gameplay mechanic that is trying to simulate real life and one that isn't - regardless of what parallels one might find in real life. Wouldn't you agree it would seem out of place to suggest a game which has swords is realistic simply because swords exist in real life? Pressure of time is present in real life, just as the need to make decisions and perform actions - but simply because this is also applied in videogames as wells doesn't mean it's doing so with the intention of being realistic, aka imitating real life or carrying the same expectations of elements found in real life or in the real world into a videogame. In fact, the very application of those things in videogames may not coincide with how they operate in real life at all. That's why I've outlines several times the nature of my suggestion wasn't meant to be realistic, but didn't deny there's a parallel in the real world.

Isn't it just possible to make it so the experience table is updated with new values and information for further levels?

It can add to the credibility and consistency of some situations, and by association, it can add to immersion, as well as introduce other venues for roleplaying. So, yes. No, because as I've told you before (but incredibly it always got lost in translation), trying to make it feel 'more real' isn't the issue or intention. Consistency within the gameworld and credibility of its mechanics are what's at stake, and these are not associated with realism. They may be, depending on the context of the game; but it aren't in the case of this suggestion. So, to finalize your attempt to divine my meaning, it should simply read: "I think timers, both general and specific, can be a good thing to implement as they can potentially add to the immersivenes of a game."

As you say so, it depends on implementation. But one poorly designed and implemented timer should not be held as entirely representative of all possible implementations of timers. One bad example is not a rule. As for the mechanic itself, there should be some measure of feedback given to players. Don't. We need more ramblings here. If for no better reason than to just challenge some people's obviously insecure egos.

My point had to do, in a way, with both. Eventually it branched off at some point and I focused solely on the timed events, or universal timer. It's safe to say that it was mainly about the concept of time itself split into certain aspects, one of them being an overaching timer, another being story specific timers.

I'd hazard the quote in your previous post was more adequate, though; not that that wouldn't work, although it feels too narrow in scope.