Gromnir

"Imagine a game with no story. "This is actually impossible to do." ok, we were wrong. you do wanna make absurdest argument. we once joked about the epic struggle depicted in pong, but that were all it were: a joke. "Characters are static at a certain point in the game's code." so what? from the writer's pov, static is much easier to add depth to. the point you miss about the planescape reference is that it had admirable story elements. it had depth. is nothing about the medium that prevents better storytelling elements from reaching at least ps:t levels... obviously. ps:t were well loved by many (enough to make the new planescape kickstarter project better funded than pe btw) and derided by many more. the thing is, good story elements did not necessarily make planescape a bad game. coulda' made combat better. coulda' fixed memory leak and other bugs. coulda' added elves and dwarves and longswords to makes fanbase happy without affecting story or bothering anybody save for chrisA. am not even gonna touch the "perfect ideal" bit. ... 'course now this thread becomes, "Why Ps:T failed" or didn't fail. HA! Good Fun!

For calling out others' straw man arguments, you seem quite prone to them yourself. No one is arguing that settings must be realistic, but rather that an understanding of the causal processes that have shaped the real world can help to create a believable and convincing fictional setting. If nothing else, this is because the real world is the only guide we have to go on when it comes to inventing sensible and internally consistent scenarios. Our psychology is simply inseparable from the world we live in, and even if we actively tried not to base our creations off of reality we would fail miserably. If you don't understand some of the nuance surrounding real world "rules", you may find yourself inadvertently breaking a different rule entirely, and bad things happen when a creator doesn't know which rules govern their creation (especially when you put that creation in someone else's hands). *sigh* bad saur... bad. poster above said, " I can't believe I'm actually seeing people argue that researching a topic before writing about it is a bad thing. " we never claimed that josh or some other poster argued specifically that reality should be a goal (although that happens more than a bit in threads such as these...and note how many times josh refers to "real-world" or "realistic" in video). we did say that he misses forest for trees and gets swallowed up by minutiae and details rather than making evocative. heck, listen to his discussion of character interactions. he wants believable/realistic, but his characters is typically... flat. josh is a knowledgeable guy, and we would be pleased to hear he is handling mechanics or management o' any number o games, but the more involved he seems to get with story and characters, the less we like the project. iwd2? honest hearts? part o' the problem we has with josh seems to be explained in his video. HA! Good Fun!

More than your target audience does. If one takes art and creativity as a form of teaching, even if only in abstract or non-literal terms, then it's important for the teacher to know more than the students. Like Josh said, you need to know a bit about something to have anything meaningful to say about it. If your stance is otherwise that they need not try to be meaningful, simply entertaining, then we'll just have to disagree. Star Wars is popular, sure, but it's not a very meaningful property. And I will personally be more pleased by works that have something to teach me than those that simply find me in common company for liking. 1) "more than your target audience does" is an exceedingly limited threshold. you wanna stick with such a fuzzy and limited goal? fine. clear josh is suggesting more. 2) nuts "if one takes art and creativity as a form of teaching" somebody wanna explain to tale what logic fallacy he is using? *shrug* even if we were to somehow force onto art a universal educational quality, then it necessarily would needs be quite broad. so broad in fact that it would be near meaningless. is haiku and pottery that is accepted by lay-folk and scholars alike as art that perhaps teaches something only so vague as "that is beauty as i have not seen before and my world is a better place now that i have experienced it" removed from tale's notion of art? be dismissive of star wars 'cause o' your knowing of art is, in our estimation, the height of arrogance. 3) josh is correct, and wrong yup, you gotta know a bit about something to say something meaningful 'bout it.... but josh gets hung up on stuff that aint necessarily meaningful to his audience. 'cause we stick the trappings o' the roman legion in a story, it does not mean that our "something meaningful" is the trappings o' the roman legions. and just because you know something, doesn't mean you got something meaningful to say. even more relevant in the present context, just because know a bit (or even alot) doesn't mean you got anything ENTERTAINING to say. we is talking about games-- entertainment media. one o' the best history classes we ever took were a freaking community college course we grabbed over a summer for no other reason than that we were trying to graduate a year quicker. we went to Cal and some other UC schools for undergrad, masters and jd and took history classes at all levels. we had professors who were at the pinnacle o' their profession. we has a hard time remembering most o' their names, and we has a very good memory. nope, the class we recalls most were the one taught us by some guy at a no-name JC in northern california. the guys that, for the most part, bored us to tears such that we slept through their classes and pretty much learned through independent study was Very knowledgeable. my profs, no doubt, knew a bit about history. the fact is that their knowledge didn't give them any special gift for communicating in such a way as to make the subject entertaining should be noteworthy. probable more noteworthy is we bet they all thought they were entertaining. josh gots alot to say... 4) you need not know more than student to teach them something bunk. is some students out there that will grow too old for this bit o' wisdom to be useful: people who know less than you, can teach you important lessons. HA! Good Fun!

if that is all the value you attach to story (hope that isnt the case) then there is only a little bit wrong with your pov. donkey kong had characters too. the relative importance o' gameplay in donkey kong were such that the story justifications were understandably negligible. is a continuum, no? take a similar minimalist "justification" approach to story elements would renders a game like planescape unplayable. *shrug* story elements is indeed having value as a justification, but am not thinking you were trying to make an absurdest argument. perhaps you wish to clarify... or not. HA! Good Fun!

am not recalling where we said, "absolutely all chrisA characters are 1-dimensional caricatures." ravel, and her various incarnations in obsidian games, has been compelling... which is probable why chrisA puts her in every game. (sidenote: ravel part in motb were disappointing, so not all ravel has been good) regardless, the fact that chrisA can do ravel/kreia, but still contends that the hook is most important, is all the more saddening... even if such an approach is reasonable. HA! Good Fun!

feel free to imagine an inserted eye-roll emoticon here if doing so better conveys our mixed derision and exasperation. *sigh* HA! Good Fun! ps unless you wanna get thread chopped, please add something thread-relevant to your posts. is bad form. example: arcanum, in addition to being a snooze-fest with wildly unbalanced combat mechanics, had no memorable characters.

straw man. lose two points and try again. HA! Good Fun!

platitudes and anecdotal evidence? we has used the tired saw regarding knowing before breaking. it is a good guide, but it ain't some kinda rule in and of itself. also, am thinking it is more useful for mechanics than for conceptual in any event. think i gotta have some kinda serious knowledge o' pre-columbian south american cultures to be writing an entertaining fantasy based loose on incan legends? how much do i need to know? how much Rule is there needed to knowing before breaking is ok? with his basic grammar school education, we doubt Shakespeare were doing serious historical investigations to be creating his plays. in point o' fact, we doubts anybody would use Shakes as some kinda model o' historical accuracy. what rules were he breaking? America's greatest author (north, south and central) is arguably Faulkner. am suggesting you maybe take a looksee at his education and how he approached writing process. the most popular sci-fi franchise, by far, is star wars, and there ain't no freaking serious science in that. for every kim stanley robinson you care to name (dan simmons probably don't count as hard sci-fi) there is dozens o' well-loved authors who only gots the most incidental and largely broken knowing of that which they is writing. anecdotal will not get us very far, particularly when it seems clear that the genuine scientists don't got some advantage when crafting popular or good sci-fi. we could do all-day-long the anecdotal thing as you introduced, but am not sure it would be helping. keep in mind we has said that first-hand knowledge o activities and serious scholarship may improve writing where author uses details to makes more evocative. other end of spectrum is just as true, no? ignorance can be breaking suspension o' disbelief. if a writer is so clear lacking knowledge of Real, then anybody with even a bit o' genuine knowledge will be dismissive of the writer's work... though that threshold is hardly fixed. tv cop tasting cocaine or heroin drives us nuts, but you see all the time. just 'cause Gromnir is bothered by such things clearly does not mean that the insanity o' a modern cop tasting possible evidence that amounts to an unknown substance from an unmarked package is wacky enough to ruin suspension o' disbelief for most audience. infusing knowledge/reality to make evocative = good. treating reality as a goal, in-and-of-itself = bad. josh, it seems, frequent misses forest for trees. he wanna get each branch and leaf accurate. can't possibly have birches at such latitude. birch forests can't be near as dark as described. is implausible. and if you do got birches, the forest humus would not nearly be as dark and damp as described. etc. josh spends loads o' effort trying to get flora and fauna o' his forest accurate, thinking that doing so is important. to a certain degree it is... but josh gives disproportionate weight to such stuff. he ends up with a believable forest in which we don't give a darn 'bout what happens. 2 words: honest hearts. HA! Good Fun!

games is visual media, so am understanding that appearance is important, but we always is perplexed when we hears game developers describe process o' breathing life into characters. chrisA did a piece on character creation that were revealing and disheartening, but also reasonable given the media in which he works. chrisA basically said that the most important part o' making game characters were coming up with a hook-- that one attribute or quality that would make'em memorable. for years we complained that many obsidian/chrisA characters were developed little beyond some wacky concept. a winged paladin that literally sees world in black & white? a womanizing hagspwan with mommy issues? a blind sith who talks like a horrible anime stereotype? bah. ... the thing is, as much as we thinks one-trick-pony characters is cheap, we recognize that the most successful and beloved characters is popular not 'cause o' great writing, but 'cause o' the "hook." was hk-47 a well-developed character in kotor 1? nope. nice voice acting coupled with "meatbag" shtick made hk-47 popular. fo1 dogmeat was a freaking DOG. minsc was a cartoonish parody o' Lenny from Steinbeck's novel. some o' the most well-received game characters is nothing but hook coupled with nice presentation. am wanting to be dismissive when we read articles that seem to reduce character development to what we might expect from an advertising pitch for a 30 sec tv commercial, but we can't. is becoming increasing obvious that game characters gots more similarity to geico gecko or terry tate: office linebacker than characters from literature or dramatic works. HA! Good Fun!

arcanum were a fresh and intriguing game... before we played it. were all downhill from the moment we loaded it onto hard drive. from magazine articles and board discussion, arcanum setting were something we was much looking forward to seeing realized. as a fan o' fallout, we were anticipating a game that were developed by some key fallout developers-- a big, open world with falloutesque character generation were sounding kinda fantastic. ... game were never better than when it were just so much expectation and hype. the reality were complete disappointing. HA! Good Fun!

i have nothing bad to say about tarna. coming from me, such an observation is typically a scathing condemnation. in this case it is a heartfelt approbation. tarna was a good person-- he is a good soul.

Steve Erikson .. The riddiculous cases like Jordan and in a lesser extent Martin aren't so common. Hang on there a minute, for a second I though you were implying the Erikson had a well planned series. Say it ain't so, Malekith. His series has some of the most massive continuity errors of all time! Of all time! I'd be pretty certain that both Jordan and Martin planned their series as well, sticking to the plan on the other hand... Sticking to the plan is probably one thing the game story development process does better than the book process. typically we disagree with zor, but am finding our self in his camp, so-to-speak, in this instance. Most writers we has met develop detailed outlines for their novels and series. is a very useful mental exercise. before real writing starts, the author gots a goodly notion of the who, whats, wheres, why and hows o' just about everything they is gonna put onto paper. 'course once writing starts, the author is hoping for the kinda transcendent experience o' having the characters and story write themselves. some authors will stick to their outlines, but such authors is actual a minority. build an outline, but follow the story is far more common. game development, on the other-hand... well, we cant imagine Not following the outline. gots too many other resources (and dollars) involved in crafting game to let story evolve organic. heck, got too many writers to let story develop organic. HA! Good Fun!

josh is... wrong. some o' the weakest aspects o' obsidian games is the portions in which josh gets to infuse reality such that it impacts more than mechanics. is unfortunate, but you can see the clumsy way in which josh infuses reality into games with caeser's legions in vegas, and the honest hearts expansion. reality, in and of itself, is not a valuable addition to a game, particularly story-driven games. get accurate key geographical features o' vegas into game is interesting to nobody but locals who recognize as genuine. get roman legion elements right w/o making legion characters intriguing is pointless. use reality to make evocative is a good thing, but am thinking that josh tends to get distracted by making the details match reality rather than using elements o' reality to make game more interesting. make Real is not same as making good, compelling or evocative. “In the writing state—the state of inspiration—the fictive dream springs up fully alive: the writer forgets the words he has written on the page and sees, instead, his characters moving around their rooms, hunting through cupboards, glancing irritably through their mail, setting mousetraps, loading pistols. The dream is as alive and compelling as one’s dreams at night, and when the writer writes down on paper what he has imagined, the words, however inadequate, do not distract his mind from the fictive dream but provide him with a fix on it, so that when the dream flags he can reread what he’s written and find the dream starting up again. This and nothing else is the desperately sought and tragically fragile writer’s process: in his imagination, he sees made-up people doing things—sees them clearly—and in the act of wondering what they will do next he sees what they will do next, and all this he writes down in the best, most accurate words he can find, understanding even as he writes that he may have to find better words later, and that a change in the words may mean a sharpening or deepening of the vision, the fictive dream or vision becoming more and more lucid, until reality, by comparison, seems cold, tedious, and dead.” that being said, am all in favor on real-world experience and knowledge influencing design. details o' reality may makes story or game more compelling. be able to accurate describe settings or activities with benefit o' first-hand knowledge can be adding evocative details that an audience will frequent find compelling. or not. a game, just like a story, can be too real to be compelling. aim for fictive dream and feels free to savagely eviscerate and rearrange reality. HA! Good Fun!

*chuckle* been awhile since we read case. apologies: m-16 and "machineguns" gets mentioned. regardless, you is missing forest for trees. why m-16? keep in mind that Scalia is Extreme smart. if an ambiguity exists, it exits for a reason. some others here has identified the issue that you seem incapable of recognizing. HA! Good Fun!

Those words I quoted are from Scalia's decision. And the source is from Cornell Law. Care to try again? *sigh* we said you didn't quote wiki the second time... good for you. (more bad reading on your part) unfortunately, you didn't bother to read the case. Scalia mentions m-16 specific numerous times. please read the case w/o adding your own preconceptions into the text. maybe ask self why m-16 is identified and not other weapons would help you. ... we could give you answer, but then you wouldn't learn nothing. HA! Good Fun!

what is it with you, skyrim and hyperbole silliness? no class means no-CLASS restrictions and not NO RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER. sheesh. class v. classless were discussed multiple times when ill-fated bg3 (Jefferson) and fallout 3 (Van Buren) were being developed by black isle, and if you think this is first time class v. classless has ever come up on these boards, you is nuts. josh had his input. "I don't recall making any mention of situations for Obsidian to fail, or taking or adding systems to Skyrim." Gromnir advocates classless. you respond with, "Do you want Skyrim, in which you can literally max out every single character-progression option in the game, on 6 different party members?" ... do you even read what you write? or was that just a complete non-sequitur that you felt the need to enumerate in a response to a query 'bout classless systems? we never suggested that anything be added to skyrim either. lord only knows what adding to skyrim has to do with anything in any event. HA! Good Fun!

Sincerely http://www.law.corne...0.ZO.html#25ref Yeeesssss???? He's deliberately saying that M16's and other military grade weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment because the fall under the title of "dangerous and unusual weapons". *smacks gromnir with a shotgun* Sincerely http://www.law.corne...0.ZO.html#25ref Yeeesssss???? He's deliberately saying that M16's and other military grade weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment because the fall under the title of "dangerous and unusual weapons". *smacks gromnir with a shotgun* at least you not just reprint wiki conclusions, so we won't rub nose in it, but you is still using wiki conclusions rather than making your own. again you ain't reading correct. read Full case to see how Scalia uses m-16 to identify a class o' weapons. HA! Good Fun!

do NOT rely on wikipedia. and do not read wrong. *smacks calax with rolled newspaper* bad. HA! Good Fun!

is no real fence worth straddling at the moment. 2nd Amendment precludes much in the way o' meaningful gun control options. times and weapons have changed since founders penned the Bill o' Rights. that not change the fact that the founders were no doubt wanting private citizens to have weapons with which to defend themselves not only from foreign armies, indians (our relatives insist that indians is the pc term nowadays for native americans... so confusing) and the infrequent rabid possum, but also to defend self from the US government. option is to change 2nd Amendment... which currently seems unlikely. never forget that what we gots here in the US is a revolutionary government and a Bill o' Rights that were revealing a very deep lack o' faith that the fed powers would effective protect our freedom and liberty. these infrequent tragedies, such as one in CT, are wonderful for getting folks riled up 'bout gun control, but is all sound and fury. change 2nd Amendment. oh, and keeps in mind that gun control laws in norway is relative strict. didn't keeps anders breivik from killing... we forget how many. more than 70? HA! Good Fun! ps we personally think it is stoopid for folks to have handguns and ak-47s n' such. this ain't personal. this is the law. the Constitution gots a process for being changed. gonna have to change to do something meaningful. The problem is that the second amendment is maddeningly unclear, undefined and unhelpful. It can be twisted to fit any whim and in fact constantly is - I'm pretty sure that less than a percent of people defending it have ever read it and those who have still don't have an understanding of the word "regulated". the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller would seem to disagree with you, and is the Court that interprets the Law. and again, regardless of whether you think the Amendment is outdated or outlandish, it is the Law... and there IS a process to change such laws. HA! Good Fun!

A), I don't see any reasoning here other than "classes are CLEARLY, OBVIOUSLY, BLATANTLY terrible and crappy and are just a safe choice to make money," which is none. It's just a statement with no presented basis. B), Do you want Skyrim, in which you can literally max out every single character-progression option in the game, on 6 different party members? And, if not, what's so terrible about simply labeling and organizing the various spectrums of choices available to the player? to point A... josh sawyer disagrees with you. am kinda curious to see if josh direct responds to issue o' eternity classes seeing as how they don't seem to fall in line with his espoused notions on the issue. have classes means that you Fix certain abilities to certain classes. looks up the definition-- classes divide and limit. hell, the classes themselves is arbitrary. did obsidian give a gameplay rationale for 4 core classes? nope. is a d&d holdover that was chosen 'cause o' tradition (i.e expectations). maximize freedom o' player choice and options would seem like a good thing in a single-player crpg, no? point B is just plain... stoopid. seriously. recall that obsidian is peopled by many of the guys who made fallout. point to a bethesda product and say that obsidian would fail 'cause it sucked in skyrim? that wasn't Really your argument, was it? btw, there is one aspect o' classes that is very beneficial to crpg development. d&d developed from tabletop wargaming, so classes is understandable (if harmful) holdovers... 'cause in wargaming, individual units gots to have quantifiable and comparable strengths and weakness. why need to know actual strengths 'cause traditional tabletop wargaming is PvP. balance is extreme important in a pvp game. choose black in chess and get huge advantage woulda kinda suck, no? balance is a far easier task with classes... but eternity ain't pvp. balance is still important, but not anywhere near as important as increasing player freedom and choice, no? HA! Good Fun!

is no real fence worth straddling at the moment. 2nd Amendment precludes much in the way o' meaningful gun control options. times and weapons have changed since founders penned the Bill o' Rights. that not change the fact that the founders were no doubt wanting private citizens to have weapons with which to defend themselves not only from foreign armies, indians (our relatives insist that indians is the pc term nowadays for native americans... so confusing) and the infrequent rabid possum, but also to defend self from the US government. option is to change 2nd Amendment... which currently seems unlikely. never forget that what we gots here in the US is a revolutionary government and a Bill o' Rights that were revealing a very deep lack o' faith that the fed powers would effective protect our freedom and liberty. these infrequent tragedies, such as one in CT, are wonderful for getting folks riled up 'bout gun control, but is all sound and fury. change 2nd Amendment. oh, and keeps in mind that gun control laws in norway is relative strict. didn't keeps anders breivik from killing... we forget how many. more than 70? HA! Good Fun! ps we personally think it is stoopid for folks to have handguns and ak-47s n' such. this ain't personal. this is the law. the Constitution gots a process for being changed. gonna have to change to do something meaningful.

*chuckle* kids these days. *shakes head sadly* at least stay on-topic. example: the notion of rationed pauses is passing odd. for the purists, pause is a less than ideal concession to pnp turn-based roots. turns is giving more opportunity for tactical consideration than is pause or real-time. sadly, as fergie has identified in the past, even the bestest turn-based can be "soul-numbing." pause allows on-the-fly tactical reorganization... something we hope is necessary in eternity. if we were not Needing frequent pauses to order our small army/party, we would be disappointed as it would be revealing a dearth o' enemy ai sophistication. only reason we can see to limit pauses would be to hide developer shortcomings regarding ai... which is bad. end example see, if you is gonna be a putz, at least contribute something on-topic. makes it less likely that you will get us pruned for your bad form. thanking you in advance for your future compliance, we is, as always... Gromnir HA! Good Fun!

no crpg sacred cow is more deserving of being ground into hamburger than is the Core Class nonsense. really. ... the black isle refugees that is now working at/as obsidian is clear understanding that rejecting the dominant paradigm can be fraught with peril. chrisA's vanity cost black isle dearly when he chose to take roads less traveled in ps:t. (though, let us be honest, frequent chrisA took alternate path for no purpose other than to be different.) people expect core classes? yeah, we suspect they do. is far easier and safer to give players what they want than to give them... better. is nothing you can do with core classes that you cannot also accomplish if you get out the meat grinder and go to work on old bessie. core-less system can makes sneaky characters or mage characters or healers. heck, with core-less you can make effective sneaky mages who heal. no core classes = more potential choice for player customization. more player choice in a crpg? that is a good thing, right? look, we get why obsidian give us core-- is the safe move. nothing wrong with playing safe when a big bag o' money is on the line. nevertheless, we is more than a little disappointed that that the obsidians (many who has argued in favor o' classless over core for years n' years, n' yearsn'yearsn'yearsn'years, etc.) is keeping bessie around for yet another crpg incarnation. that fat bovine needs to get put down... hard. HA! Good Fun! ps we had a warning + linky to a certain apocalypse now scene... decided to remove in case kiddies and/or peta members is viewing.

am thinking that it ain't good to fixate on good v. bad or categories o' villainhood. is "villainhood" a word? no? well, you know what Gromnir means. in our opinion the reason why most villains seems ridiculous is 'cause it is near impossible to empathize with a somebody who wants to rule or destroy the world-- Not sympathy mind you, but empathy. rule world? why? what does world rule get you that you cant' some other far less exhausting way? and world destruction is also having obvious problems for empathy... but is actual probable easier to pull of than world rule. villainous motivation and goals is what writers need focus 'pon. Lord Blackspoon's wife were killed in a senseless runaway griffon accident, so he gets despondent and wants to kill all life in the world? nope. bad. am realizing that the drive to be Epic can be strong, but that not excuse bad motivation. focus on motivations and goals. HA! Good Fun!

vol has a point. in this game we will suffer trauma. we will be shot, stabbed, battered and used likes a chew toy by creatures o' mythic proportion and surly disposition. such is the fate of an adventurer in a crpg. not matter if you is in arcanum universe, d&d or fallout, the fact that you will be injured frequently and seriously is inevitable. crpgs is not reality, so don't talk us to death 'bout reality. all crpgs has got some mechanic whereby an adventurer or hero may endure injuries that should be fatal. the sheer number o' combats a crpg adventurer may conceivably survive beggars the imagination. healing stims and doctor bags coupled with a good night's rest is no more real than is healing potions and spells... aided by a good night's rest. however, it would be passing odd to have a magic world wherein the necessarily miraculous healing mechanic is something mundane such as a roll o' cloth bandages and a nap. fallout uses more mundane items to perform miraculous healing 'cause the setting does not have magic. even so, the healing in fallout is no less spectacular than the healing in the forgotten realms. ... honestly, this feels a bit like chrisA's silly avoidance o' swords for tno in planescape. am not a fan o' the ubiquity o' magic swords our self, but their absence from the planescape arsenal were odd. why can't the Nameless One use a sword? because chrisA said so. why in a world of commonplace miracles made possible by magic must we have dirty bandages and a sawbones performing the miracle healings? 'cause tim cain or chrisA or josh sawyer said so. whatever rationale is provided, it is gonna seem more than a little ridiculous and a bit patronizing... 'cause as a crpg adventurer you will be getting Miraculous Healing, regardless o' whether or not obsidian calls it magical or mundane. can we conceive of a magical world with no magical healing? we can imagine such a world wherein peoples can heave fireballs and yet still die ignobly 'cause o' amoebic dysentery. Bob the Bold may have the Sword of INFINITY, but he died after he received a shallow cut on his thigh from a peasant with a fire sharpened stick. the wound became infected and festered, and Bob the Bold became Bob the Fevered... followed shortly by Bob the Dead. can we imagine? of course we can... but that ain't the issue. project eternity is a crpg in which you gets frequent shot, stabbed, battered and used likes a chew toy by creatures o' mythic proportion and surly disposition. there will be miraculous healing. will just be passing odd that the miraculous healing will be non-magical. HA! Good Fun!