Jump to content

ValborgSvensson

Initiates
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About ValborgSvensson

  • Rank
    (0) Nub
  1. No it isn't. You are playing the game by yourself, one conscious being interacting with the artificial environment. That's not sport, and neither is it team work. Each of the characters you control are just scripted AI that still requires your participation. And there's only one person actively participating. There's nothing team nor sport about that. Context clues, man. The games we are discussing, namely BG and BGII (I'm partial to them), were multiplayer. So... yea. Also, many sports essentially are played "by yourself", or at least could be and not have anything changed,
  2. I think it's a shame you think that the multiplayer aspects of Baldur's Gate require a lot of patience. I have never once hated playing through those games with friends and family; in fact I had more fun playing in a group than playing alone. What makes multiplayer prospects in these IE games so wonderful is that you don't have to build it any differently than you would a single player experience, content wise (I defer to your judgement on code complexity, not being a game programmer myself). We all show up for a story and a challenge, and with y'all behind the wheel it's sure to deliver. I ho
  3. An interesting argument, but I've used some awesome sporks, and moreover they cater to a group of people who find them immensely useful, such as (as I will refer to them) outdoorsmen. But if we can ground this back in the realm of video games, and specifically the IE games which supported multiplayer, I contend that the theory and practice are both wonderful. Several people have already mentioned the fond memories they have of playing these games with a group of friends, so I won't beat that end of the dead horse, but I'd like to hear some specific reasons that people seem to think adding
×
×
  • Create New...