Game Design Stuff You Hate

[Wrath of Dagon]

No game will ever make complete sense, no use obsessing over minor details. I think I assumed in IW that you had to give up your weapons to enter the bar.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Why spend money on fallible, corruptible humans, or waste money developing their own version of technology that has proven so effective it even stops people from using melee weapons? Of course the real answer to the question of why other organizations in the game don't use this technology is that the story requires that they don't. Like when Victim #1 in Generic Horror Movie makes Stupid, Obvious Mistake #13.

 

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".

 

 

The answer to questions like "why are some characters invulnerable?" or "why can't I attack people in certain locations?" is "to preserve the integrity of the story". The reason for the weapon locking technology in DX:IW is to give an in-game reason to this common game rule/limitation, but when it just leads to another question, "why don't other organizations use this technology?, the answer for which is "to preserve the integrity of the story", then it fails.

 

So you're saying an ingame reason that partially succeeds is as much of a failure than no reason whatsover.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Diogo Ribeiro

[Hell Kitty]

So you're saying an ingame reason that partially succeeds is as much of a failure than no reason whatsover.

 

No. You can't fail at something you're not doing.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Because Spector and co. have said so, am I right.

[Hell Kitty]

Huh?