Diogo Ribeiro

Rarely a person there will deny these problems with Troika's games. They actually have more complaints than those.

Aging is a condition which can be dispelled like any other status ailment. It isn't permanent. If only...

Let me guess: as the world's only The Action Game of 2004 fan and a potential buyer of the collector's edition your feelings were hurt? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ion Storm forumites will likely sour pretty much anyone, much like No Mutants Allowed posters or Codex regulars. I should know, I think I've made a couple of people regret ever discussing some subjects with me in the past. As for a would-be definition of immersion, would you agree that it is established by game mechanisms which facilitate the player's interaction with the gameworld as well as presenting that interaction as credible and consistent with itself? By comparison I find both pretty bad as far as immersion goes. If the game has a plausible reason to do something, justifiable by the gameworld's rules, then I can accept it. This included things like no-kill zones, for example and why I accepted the inclusion of it in Invisible War as a credible gameworld situation (even if, as discussed, it put a damper on some interaction possibilities). But when the game doesn't provide any explanation whatsoever to my inability to do something or an explanation as to why an NPC is doing something that just brings it down. The confrontation with Gunther at Battery Park is one such example. They did however include the possibility to wait it out until Paul's AI returns to normal. That's an understandable compromise between credibility and game mechanics. But that's just it, I am perfectly acceptant of the fact that one mistake can lead to a Game Over. I should be penalized if I make a mistake, and a serious mistake would likely mean that. I am not as acceptant that I can just keep making the mistake without any consequence (other than the immortal NPC shoothing me to death, of course). They already do this; not just for all critical NPCs. As with the Jock and Manderley examples, if the player is dealing with critical NPCs that alone hold the progress of the game and the story, and the designers are really concerned about this then there should be methods to prevent players from breaking the game. That's just the problem. Failure in videogames doesn't have to mean Game Over. That is a narrow gaming convention that plagues too many games across too many genres. And in the real world, the world doesn't end immediately because I failed to do something. Failure doesn't always mean death. Failure isn't the end of everything. Honestly I'd prefer to be screwed because I made a wrong choice instead of not being allowed to screw up. Would you rather a game never allowed you to comit failure, or that it allowed you to commit failure and present consequences to it without forcing you to lose the game?

Yes, I am aware of that. And I don't disagree with anything you wrote on the following paragraph, either. As I pointed out before, the differences between trying to tell a story vs. trying to present choice and consequence to a player obviously collide. Choices, and more importantly consequences, are often compromised. However, this in a way is not all, or exclusively, what I'm arguing because I'm aware of this and the subject has been talked about. I'm mainly taking issues with how exactly the consequences of some player choices have no consequence, or in this particular case, don't allow for consequences. I am not, however, taking issue with the choices which actually have consequences in the gameworld such as short term player decisions regarding problem solving required for level advancement. Jock is just an example, and it's not even about the inability to do something as simple as kill the character; as I said before, this is just the surface of the issue being discussed. The real issue are the situations where the developers give the player freedom of choice but don't provide consequences. Jock is just one example and much more important than a player not being able to kill him is trying to understand why he was deemed so critical to the story when the character wasn't that necessary at all. Showing Joe Green my skill with blades. Or was it trying to widen the smile of one of the hookers? Whatever it was, it wasn't aimed at the pilot. Even if his reaction had entirely been a direct, rather than indirect consequence of me shooting him, the 'in-game' reason is the same as whatever reason players have to shoot any other NPC, to avoid them, to talk to them, etc.. Saying there is no 'in-game' reason to do something is dubious considering there is no 'in-game' reason to perform most of the interactions in the game. There's no reason to hurt civilians, although I can. There's no reason to bomb a locker but I can. There's no reason to kick a trash can or stomp a cleaning bot, but I can. There's no reason to go into the ladies' restroom at UNATCO although I can. And so on. Why is it a problem? That it means different things for different people does not mean the subject itself has no definite meaning.

No, you assumed as much.

You always do when the Codex is involved. We already know they raped you and destroyed everything good and holy in the world, thanks. Just let it go. Kthnxbye.

No, you're doing precisely what I said. You're terrible at lying. If you are adding support to what I said, you are actually supporting what I said about you. This means that you can't throw tantrums because I spoke negatively about you because you actually agree with it. Oops.

I'm not arguing against artificial devices, nor am I trying to argue for them. I'm talking about which of these artificial devices is more immersive (as per the thread's purpose) in the sense they don't glaringly tell players that they're playing a game. I think this is a problem that no doubt comes from developers who simultaneously want to tell a story but also want players to make decisions in them, which more than often leads to situations like these. They should either tell a story, or give me a game where my decisions are accounted for; if they combine both they can't expect it to work out perfectly fine. Personally, I'd do away with such linearity and critical NPCs and prefer to have games with a more organic, branching design behind them. It's intrusive insofar as players' freedom is concerned, no doubt; but once again we're talking about immersion. A weapon lockdown system used in bars for fear of terrorist actions is much more credible, and therefore immersive, than someone never dying no matter how many shots of how many weapons you fire at him. I don't think I ever criticized Deus Ex because it wasn't something that it never tried to be. At best I have criticized Deus Ex because it's something that it tries to be but never quite manages to.

Even if a UNATCO agent's first objective is to safeguard human life, no civilian with a clearance below Angel/0A should be trusted and may be a potential spy. Anyone can be a spy and should be dealt with accordingly. Nevermind that Jock wasn't willing to cooperate that much, but when a gunfire emerged in the Underworld bar, I was attacked by him. UNATCO agents are meant to preserve human life, but this does not involve standing there getting shot at. Obviously, I returned fire which I'm sure you know is pointless. Now, I very much doubt this is 'in-game' reason enough for you; however wheter you like it or not the game, wheter spontaneously or as a reaction, gave me reasons to shoot at him. Oh, but I have answered. On the other hand, your inability to never reach out beyond the surface of what's being discussed here also answers mine.

Because you say so.

Shadowrun. As a CRPG.

Where are the flames? All I did was to sum up all the posts you make about the Codex. If it makes you feel better, you don't have to admit something we've seen you do dozens of times. Always coming up with the same kneejerk, angsty posts against the same targets is the reason why you're (in)famous. Anyone pointing out you're just being an attention seeking troll is a witty retort, even if obviously you wouldn't agree. Aren't you tired of asking the same question on and on? In case the last years answering that straw man of yours weren't enough, here's a recap: just because I visit the site and post on the forum doesn't mean I have some sense of loyalty to them, nor does it mean I feel like I should defend them against people whose clear intention is to troll. If I did felt compelled to do so, it wouldn't be to try and change the mind of someone who's made it up a long time ago. Whatever it is I do to make me feel better about myself sure as hell doesn't involve you.

You can hack a computer terminal and listen in the background to NPCs noticing you are doing it - by reading their lines - but they'll only shoot you when you log out.

Damn, I thought the thread title was about Goatse.

Of course, it's never easy to balance these things. Sometimes they can suck out the fun, as it were. But we're arguing immersion and for the most part it's bound to happen in many games no matter how balanced they are in this regard. Very true, although there's always the possibility of making something like not depending on critical NPCs to move the game and the story forward. Take the example of the character Jock in Deus Ex. Why is there even a need to tag him as critical and let no harm come to him? How many times did we interacted with the character face to face? I can only remember one (if I'm mistaken, someone please correct me), and its the first time players meet him. Despite interacting with Jock further down the road, as he is the pilot who will fly you from mission to mission for the larger part of the game, you don't physically interact with him, as he will always be already inside the helicopter. For this task alone, any secondary character could take his place. One pilot dead, another can take his place. Storywise, it's not like UNATCO couldn't get any other helicopter pilot. Gamewise, it makes no difference to players as they'd still be lead into the next missions. Any and all plot points which required Jock could be played by some other character, and could lead to different situations altogether. They didn't even need to branch out and present something like different paths; they could just play out differently. As I also said above, there's other ways to circumvent the possibility of players coming up with the immersion-breaking events. I already mentioned what could've been done at UNATCO to prevent the use of firearms. Something similar could apply to the Underworld bar. Or just use bouncers who pack more heat than the bar owner. Or have the bar owner (who was a former UNATCO agent) talk to UNATCO and strike a deal with them: they want to investigate the place, she lets them in with the condition that UNATCO agents won't carry any guns into her establishment so as not to scare away the clientelle. The developers themselves included other ways, such as leaving computer terminals with required info in case of players not being able to talk to NPCs. Some critical NPCs appear trough holographic projection and talk to JC Denton, even - another example of allowing interaction without the possibility of players screwing the pooch.

"Y halo thar i likes to say teh stuff about the Codex that's been proven to be wrong in the past but whenever someone points out i curl into a ball, suck my thumb and tell that everyone at their site mailed me male porn pics so I win lollercaust"

A better game? Arguable. More immersive? Quite likely, although I'm sure there's no short amount of (better) ways to actually prevent situations like these from becoming giant "LOL owned" signs thrown at us by the developers.

And on top of that, roast them. Great fireworks.

JC Denton the character doesn't exist as long as his actions and decisions are the player's to make. How can you ever judge what a character can do when it doesn't have a mind of its own? You can't possibly know what the character of JC Denton would do in most circumstances because the character is not self-aware and cannot, unless previously scripted to do so, make decisions or display a semblance of thoughts on his own. To pick up on your own logic, at no time does the character of JC Denton ever have a reason for not killing the character Jock because he never displays having, or not having reasons to do so. Again, the notion of a self-aware character is gone the minute he does not act, think or react unless I tell it to do so. The character pretty much is the player.

And it's now Exitium-free.

All is good. My feelings exactly. I agree, and think that this is one such situation which I'd like to see adapted to a Falloutesque roleplaying structure. Although I must say that while salughtering entire villages (or the entire gameworld) was something I rarely, if ever, tried out, it's very arguable if this is a bad or out of character motive for a character. You're assuming that there isn't any 'in-game' reason to begin with and that I'm talking about a choice with no background just made for the hell of it, or that someone's roleplaying is wrong because it does not adhere to your principles. Not only that, you're still not adressing the point. Once again, it's not about killing. It could be addressed to any situation where the player has the freedom of doing something but the game has no consequence designed for it - and instead of creating consistent restrictions so players cannot make the choice to begin with, or instead of creating credible outcomes to the decision itself, it creates poor situations in a feeble attempt to preserve the game's continuity. As the thread's title and the ongoing dscussion hint at, this is bad immersion. Does the game present the player with the necessary gameplay elements to bake cookies in JC's home? No. Does the game present the player with the necessary gameplay elements to 'kill everyone at UNATCO'? Yes. And if it can't accomodate for the consequences, then why give me the choices to begin with? The game doesn't have to accomodate to near endless consequences for the near endless choices (and reasons for said choices) the player may undertake. It does however, have to accomodate credible consequences for the very choices they allow me to make. If they don't want players to go beyond the limits they've included in the game, then don't give the players the means to do it. Simple. The character could infer Desther wasn't up to something good via the correct attributes. Extra dialogue options would appear to confront Desther if the character was perceptive enough, although confronting him would not bring any result other than "lol u r teh stinky go away kthnxbye". Why would character motivation need to be known by the game for actions the game cannot effectively judge? The game can't track down any motivation that it hasn't been designed to track down. Precisely because of this it can only track some events trough player, rather than game, initiative. And because of this there should be some care taken in regards to what exactly the game allows the player to do. Because not all motivations can be guessed, there should be an effort in predicting decisions we make and, if that is the case, present credible restrains on what we can do. If someone is roleplaying a psycho, and if his vision of psychosis is killing people but this is not accounted for by the game, who's to blame? If the person roleplaying is given the gameplay mechanics to do what he wants, then this is a problem the designers should have thought of from the beginning. If they don't want me to play a psycho, then don't create the conditions necessary for me to play a psycho.

Must... Get... Gamecube.... Can feel the precious... Callling for meeeee.....

I didn't call you an idiot, although bringing up the 'psyco LOL' line multiple times when that was hardly the point wasn't particularly bright. Of course there was a lot of freedom, especially considering it was a level-based game. I'm not arguing against that, and can surely appreciate what it did right. The ability to proceeded trough the game without needing to kill off everything that moved (anti psyco LOL) is something that I still love about the game, along with multiple ways trough many of the levels. This doesn't necessarily mean I should neglect the low points. Which in a way did the immersion thingy a whole lot better by making sure the choices a player would make would have credible consequences. More importantly, it didn't take away the meaning of the player's actions or considerably brought down immersion because it didn't want to risk the plot being broken - perhaps because multiple options had been accounted for, or because it was designed with a less linear progression, maybe both. The reason I can't do this with more games is why I speak up against its flaws so we get more games in the future that don't make the same mistakes. Oh, and Fallout and Arcanum while different in design do make this a bit better. Manderley was an 'actual NPC', and so was Gunther. And as I said back then, some of the NPC interactions are good but some (like with the above characters) aren't as good.