how to make your rpg work

[anubite]

Dragon Age 2.

 

Yes, that game.

 

It didn't work as an RPG. And I don't mean from the visceral, integer number game stuff (which it did fail also at), but from the roleplaying perspective.

 

I think it's important to point out why.

 

Kirkwall isn't immersive.

 

It isn't immersive, because it lacks three integral things that make immersiveness work.

 

PLAUSIBILITY

CONVEYANCE

CONSISTENCY

 

Plausibility is the contract between your viewership and the world. Fantasy settings are socratic experiments. They're a "What if, the world was really flat? And it was inhabited by elf people. And human societies developed in this environment."

 

They are elaborate exercises in thoughts. Giant "what if" questions.

 

A "what if" doesn't work if it isn't plausible. Good RPG worlds provide:

 

DETAIL.

 

They inform you what kind of bacon most people eat in the morning. In this fantasy city, I mean. Whether they eat bacon at all. They tell you what kind of people inhabit this fantasy land. How they came about. Why they chose to survive in a crazy flat world with elves

 

Dragon Age 2 does none of this. Kirkwall was a city built by slaves... but that fact is never discussed or explored at all. All of the NPCs in Dragon Age 2 are either static set pieces, or wandering mindless sheep, who don't even run away from battles that happen between you and bandits standing out in the open (they boldly walk through a firefight like good AI drones).

 

Kirkwall is not plausible because there is no detail. You cannot understand the city or care about it, or even believe that it can even exist, because there's nothing to draw you in.

 

CONVEYANCE is basically symbolism. This matters less in a 3d game, but it's still so important. Dwarf Fortress has conveyance. Those vague ascii shapes MEAN something. They convey a meaning, a window to interact with this fantasy world. Dragon Age 2 has no conveyance. There are golden eagle statues in the capital, giant golden slave statues in the gallows. What does any of that mean? They come alive during the final fight - cool - but what does that symbolize?

 

What does the landscape symbolize? You go through 7 oddly similar caves and 7 oddly similar beach-coves, staring at the road ahead of you... but there are no landmarks. No symbols. No gods. No statues. No trophies. Nothing. Not even natural wonders. There is no conveyance. The world feels artificial. I'm not getting a mood. A feeling. Vampire the Masquerade has conveyance - you can feel it in the sound of the car alarm that goes off inside your apartment, the busy front desk at the blood bank, that pair of eyes watching you in the distance that disappears as you near them. In the great gargoyles surrounding that massive building out by where the Taxi lets you off. Where graffiti hangs on the walls. This is also detail, but it's of the passive, graphical kind.

 

Dragon Age 2 has slums. It's a dusty ground with a tree surrounding some sandstone hovels. What does any of that mean? Do the poor really build their houses out of sandy stone? Stand around in city and you hear nothing. For being packed with refugees, the city is oddly silent. Like a ghost town.

 

CONSISTENCY means that conveyance, detail and plausibility are upheld consistently, under some broader theme. It means nothing is being violated. When you encounter slavers in a fantasy world, you expect them to know about slaves, to keep slaves --- and if you help slavers, you'll be branded as a bad person. That is a part of this contract between the viewer and the person asking the question - that there is internal logic to this world, that this hypothetical world follows the same logic as OUR world, unless specificly specifed at the beginning of the question. You just cannot say, "Mages swing their staves around like ninjas to attack." Because that wasn't happening in the last game, it's never addressed why all mages attack this way, or why it's done. It's not consistent with the serious behavior of a given mage... all mages just do it. Why are all the mages in Kirkwall evil? Because... blood magic? But I didn't think that's how it worked. Why is the game telling me to help these innocent mages, when they aren't innocent at all? What is Anders talking about? Anders himself isn't consistent at all, he's Jesus helping the sick when you meet him... then he's upset when you don't admit to having a crush on him... then when you do become his lover, he never tells you he's a terrorist bent on killing hundreds of innocent people to start a war so that mages can live under his idea of freedom. There is no consistency in character behavior OR the world, this is why plot and characters matter in an RPG, but they are not CORE to making a good RPG. The CORE is making a good world which spawns a plot and characters. The CORE is making sure these three aspects are upheld at all times during the course of the narrative.

 

I hope PE can follow by these three guidelines.

 

But there is one suggestion I have.

 

It's called simulation.

 

Simulation is a powerful tool to making your RPG seem real. SIMULATE things. Simulate economics, behaviors, etc.

 

Dragon Age 2 has no simulation - when you fight bandits in a city, NPCs don't react at all. There are no systems in place to DA2 that inform NPCs "hey, there's danger here, run!". That's simulation.

 

Unfortunately, Baldur's Gate has little simulation.

 

These are static worlds.

 

A game like Mount and Blade: Warband has emergent simulation. OTHER kingdoms fight each other around you. It convinces you that the world is real. YOU can have an impact on global economy (which should, but unfortunately doesn't effect other kingdoms) by what you buy and sell at a market.

 

Although we can't expect a small budget game to simulate all that much, having small systems in place (like base NPC behavior) is integral to maintaining and growing immersion.

Edited November 26, 2012 by anubite

[jezz555]

Okay I don't think Dragon Age was the greatest rpg in the world or anything but your criticisms of it are extremely harsh. Dragon Age for all it's flaws and plot-holes, did a lot well. It had a huge amount of writing and voice acting, that was reasonably well written/delivered and a large world that was graphically lush. Video Game technology is not at the point were everything can be totally animated and immersive. I grant you your criticism but you expect way too much. Symbolism is nice, explanation and detail can be nice, but they aren't everything. Bigger-picture things like making combat fun, dialogue engaging, and making sure there's a lot of good looking gear are far more important.

 

I'm finding it difficult to articulate what exactly I find so distateful about your post, but I think it's maybe that to me it smacks of a kind of hipsterish pretension, you lambaste the mainstream and popular dragon age( the game everyone here hates on) while promoting lesser known practically indie games like M&B and Dwarf Fortress. From experience I can say that those games aren't for everyone, I for one don't find Dwarf Fortresses ascii-art based gameplay particularly fun or engaging, and M&B is more of a medieval warfare sim than an rpg, and a pretty hardcore one at that.

 

TL;DR rpg's just are not medieval guy sims.

Edited November 26, 2012 by jezz555

[TheDogProfessor]

I got bored with the first DA, and so haven't played the second. Hence, I can't really comment on the specific examples given, but on the whole I agree with most of the points you've [OP] made. Internal logic really helps, for me anyway, in bringing a game alive.

[rjshae]

Another DA2 rant. Yawn.

[anubite]

Another DA2 rant. Yawn.

 

It's not a rant about DA2. It mentions about what it did wrong and I learned from what it did wrong.

 

What I've demonstrated applies to ALL RPGs, or should, if they are to be called RPGs. RPGs are ABOUT their worlds more than anything else, DA2's world was not convincing - it wasn't plausible, consistent or conveyed.

 

What DA2 does wrong is very important. But it's not my focus of this topic - it's to remind Obsidian to focus on conveying the images, the sounds, the feelings of PE's world - as well as a logical consistency to its world and people. Perhaps I'm preaching to the choir, but eh, why not. It's the internet. Perhaps I want validation, or my points disproved, which I don't see you doing.

 

I mean, if you don't have it permanently installed on your computer, go dl VTMB. Go walk into the clinic outside your apartment. Now, it's not an amazing level. I mean, you have one interactable NPC at the front desk who has just a little bit to say to you, just some set-dressing NPCs standing around like in DA2, but the sound effects, the atmosphere, the other characters, the little tidbits about the doctors' private lives stored on the computers - it's these kind of things that create an effective RPG. Furthermore, it has amazing level design - there are TWO ENTRANCES TO THIS LEVEL. Holy hell, not a single building in DA2 has more than one entrance to it. TWO ENTRANCES TO A BUILDING REWARD EXPLORATION OUTSIDE OF IT. It also makes deciding how to approach the building so much more interesting. If you're nosferatu, you can infiltrate the area without ever being seen by anybody but Jeanette's ghoul. It also means that when the police are after you, you have an alternate exit out of the building. Not enough RPGs have dungeons with multiple entrances/exits.

 

When games ONLY focus on the big picture, you get games like Call of Duty - where you're running through generic hallway #7 and there's an explosion and **** - Ramirez, get to Burger Town! Ramirez, get to the chopper! RPGs can be no different in this way, when we use DA2 as an example of a lack of focus to detail and logical consistency (you can ofc have an RPG where a setting deliberately isn't consistent, but this needs strong execution to be pulled off and will probably be quite silly/humorous).

Edited November 26, 2012 by anubite

[Dream]

While DA2 had a great deal of things wrong with it, and while it may not have been your cup of tea, I'd hardly say it wasn't an RPG (it was) because of Kirkwall. As for Mount and Blade vs BG: people didn't fund a mount and blade style game; they funded an IE style one.

 

What I've demonstrated applies to ALL RPGs, or should, if they are to be called RPGs. RPGs are ABOUT their worlds more than anything else, DA2's world was not convincing - it wasn't plausible, consistent or conveyed.

 

Actually RPGs are about playing the role (of a character) in a game with a semblance (or an illusion) of choice. PS:T was hardly plausible and it didn't really have conveyance in the way you describe it but I don't think anyone would say it wasn't RPG. RPGs may be about the world for you, but that's hardly true for everyone.

 

At the end of the day I don't feel any gameplay or entertainment value should be sacrificed on the altar of realism (since this thread really is just another argument for the tired old demand of "make this more realistic!").

Edited November 26, 2012 by Dream

[anubite]

Where are you getting realism from? VTMB is hardly "realistic". DA2 isn't bad because it's "unrealistic" it's bad because it isn't consistent.

 

And although PST may have an unusual setting, it has conveyance. Granted, I haven't played it in /forever/ but if I must.... I could prove that it has all three qualities I mention in my original post.

[Dream]

Where are you getting realism from? VTMB is hardly "realistic". DA2 isn't bad because it's "unrealistic" it's bad because it isn't consistent.

 

And although PST may have an unusual setting, it has conveyance. Granted, I haven't played it in /forever/ but if I must.... I could prove that it has all three qualities I mention in my original post.

 

Which is why I said "in the way you describe it"; I was trying to be polite.

 

CONVEYANCE is basically symbolism. This matters less in a 3d game, but it's still so important. Dwarf Fortress has conveyance. Those vague ascii shapes MEAN something. They convey a meaning, a window to interact with this fantasy world. Dragon Age 2 has no conveyance. There are golden eagle statues in the capital, giant golden slave statues in the gallows. What does any of that mean? They come alive during the final fight - cool - but what does that symbolize?

 

Symbolism isn't something that you're supposed to describe verbally; that's the whole point. DA2 didn't describe why there were giant golden statues but it didn't need to; they were, as you said, symbolic. If conveyance is explicitly stating what everything means then Torment most certainly did not have it.

[anubite]

Symbolism isn't something that you're supposed to describe verbally; that's the whole point. DA2 didn't describe why there were giant golden statues but it didn't need to; they were, as you said, symbolic. If conveyance is explicitly stating what everything means then Torment most certainly did not have it.

 

I think we're talking about the same thing. The audio/visual cues in games aren't explained, but they convey a theme.

 

My point was that Dragon Age 2 has poor conveyance because their symbols don't mean anything. The slaves... the golden eagles? None of that has any meaning because none of it is integrated well into the game. The symbol is there but what it means isn't conveyed. I'm convinced it doesn't have a meaning, it's just set dressing for the game, unlike in VTMB - where you know the clinic has the sounds it does, why it's designed the way it does - it's designed to represent oppression, to represent dark times, to represent a dirty, dingy medical facility in an urban setting, which fits in well with the gothic imagery of vampires and the "coming apocalypse". This theme only grows the longer the game runs on.

 

Dragon Age 2 has these golden symbols, but they have no context, besides Kirkwall being narrated to us that it was "built by slaves" - we never learn any more detail about who these slaves really were, what the descendants of these slaves are really like, or how any of that even matters in the overarching plot of mages vs templars. Are the mages slaves? But slaves back then didn't rise up and brutally kill their oppressors with blood magic? It's hard to give the symbols any context or meaning; the're just THERE. There's poor audio conveyance because it's inconsistent. Kirkwall is supposed to be LOADED with refugees - yet we scarcely see any the entire game; we don't even HEAR the sounds of crowds, or muggings, or suffering, we just see beige dusty houses and an underground section with sewer pipes. There are multiple quests in VTMB related to hospitals, blood, suffering, the poor, and sickness, which help to further give symbols meaning, which results in the abstract idea in video games as mood or atmosphere.

Edited November 26, 2012 by anubite

[SophosTheWise]

But it's not my focus of this topic - it's to remind Obsidian to focus on conveying the images, the sounds, the feelings of PE's world (...)

 

Man, as much as I love constructive criticism and helpfulness, but this is about as arrogant as all the football fans giving the coach advice (even though the coach is pretty much with his team all the time and knows everyone's abilities and skills better than anyone else), or all the people that rant against judges when in their opinion a sentence is not harsh enough (even though judges have studied law excessively and have thousands of pages on a case). I think you don't have to give game developers (or in the case of Obsidian RPG developers that have a long time of experience with both computer RPGs and P&P RPGs and earn their living with it) advice that is so basic.

 

I think the mistakes in DA2 aren't exactly BioWare's faults, but the faults of a publisher who wanted to rush a game and make it sell really well to a broad audience. Many people are perfectly happy with a few highlighted choices and the possibility to smash and smite everything that moves. That's why RPGs like Diablo exist (and it's a perfectly fine reason - I also love fastfood action games from time to time) and that's why DA2 turned out to be what it is. It's a compromise - and as far as I've understood, the only compromise Obsidian has to make, is building a bridge between the concepts of IWD, PE, BG, FO and Arcanum. And, yes, of course the money available.

[Dream]

Symbolism isn't something that you're supposed to describe verbally; that's the whole point. DA2 didn't describe why there were giant golden statues but it didn't need to; they were, as you said, symbolic. If conveyance is explicitly stating what everything means then Torment most certainly did not have it.

 

I think we're talking about the same thing. The audio/visual cues in games aren't explained, but they convey a theme.

 

My point was that Dragon Age 2 has poor conveyance because their symbols don't mean anything. The slaves... the golden eagles? None of that has any meaning because none of it is integrated well into the game. The symbol is there but what it means isn't conveyed. I'm convinced it doesn't have a meaning, it's just set dressing for the game, unlike in VTMB - where you know the clinic has the sounds it does, why it's designed the way it does - it's designed to represent oppression, to represent dark times, to represent a dirty, dingy medical facility in an urban setting, which fits in well with the gothic imagery of vampires and the "coming apocalypse". This theme only grows the longer the game runs on.

 

Dragon Age 2 has these golden symbols, but they have no context, besides Kirkwall being narrated to us that it was "built by slaves" - we never learn any more detail about who these slaves really were, what the descendants of these slaves are really like, or how any of that even matters in the overarching plot of mages vs templars. Are the mages slaves? But slaves back then didn't rise up and brutally kill their oppressors with blood magic? It's hard to give the symbols any context or meaning; the're just THERE. There's poor audio conveyance because it's inconsistent. Kirkwall is supposed to be LOADED with refugees - yet we scarcely see any the entire game; we don't even HEAR the sounds of crowds, or muggings, or suffering, we just see beige dusty houses and an underground section with sewer pipes.

 

The eagles are there because eagles are strong and regal creatures and the dudes who designed that building thought it would look nice. The slave statues are there because the gallows were where the slaves were housed and the statues served to remind the slaves of the power of their masters. As for learning more of the back story of these slaves: place yourself in the role of Hawke. Would you really give a **** about the history of the city and the symbolism of this or that, or would you be more worried about trying to survive and provide for your family?

 

This isn't 8th grade English lit; not everything has to have some deep symbolic meaning.

 

But it's not my focus of this topic - it's to remind Obsidian to focus on conveying the images, the sounds, the feelings of PE's world (...)

 

Man, as much as I love constructive criticism and helpfulness, but this is about as arrogant as all the football fans giving the coach advice (even though the coach is pretty much with his team all the time and knows everyone's abilities and skills better than anyone else), or all the people that rant against judges when in their opinion a sentence is not harsh enough (even though judges have studied law excessively and have thousands of pages on a case).

 

Or someone telling a company that they should make a spiritual successor to several rather unrealistic games more realistic.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Dream

[Monte Carlo]

Pointing out that DA2 was crap is so obvious it hardly bears repeating.

[LadyCrimson]

I'm starting to wonder if it's no longer possible to tell others what you like/don't like in an RPG without the DA series being mentioned.

Which doesn't mean a whole lot (in terms of reference) to someone who hasn't played DA, btw.

[BruceVC]

I'm starting to wonder if it's no longer possible to tell others what you like/don't like in an RPG without the DA series being mentioned.

Which doesn't mean a whole lot (in terms of reference) to someone who hasn't played DA, btw.

 

Thats true, for many the DA series has become a paradigm of how not to produce an RPG

[Pshaw]

I'm starting to wonder if it's no longer possible to tell others what you like/don't like in an RPG without the DA series being mentioned.

Which doesn't mean a whole lot (in terms of reference) to someone who hasn't played DA, btw.

 

Thats true, for many the DA series has become a paradigm of how not to produce an RPG

 

Which is in some ways a bit of a shame as DA:O had more than a few strong points and overall was decent.

 

It was DA2 (and DA3 doesn't seem to be shaping up any better) that really brought out all the hate for the franchise and makes DA:O seem bad by association.

[Cryticus]

I'm starting to wonder if it's no longer possible to tell others what you like/don't like in an RPG without the DA series being mentioned.

Which doesn't mean a whole lot (in terms of reference) to someone who hasn't played DA, btw.

 

Thats true, for many the DA series has become a paradigm of how not to produce an RPG

 

Which is in some ways a bit of a shame as DA:O had more than a few strong points and overall was decent.

 

It was DA2 (and DA3 doesn't seem to be shaping up any better) that really brought out all the hate for the franchise and makes DA:O seem bad by association.

 

To be fair DA 2 wasn't that bad, While I didnt like it as much as origins, I think the real problem is the fact that the game and main character looked like Bioware wanted to create backup Shepard

[Dream]

Which is in some ways a bit of a shame as DA:O had more than a few strong points and overall was decent.

 

It was DA2 (and DA3 doesn't seem to be shaping up any better) that really brought out all the hate for the franchise and makes DA:O seem bad by association.

 

Well all the things that DA2 did to DA:O that people hate DA:O originally did to the IE games (more "actiony"). Personally I didn't mind either game too much (they weren't the best RPGs but certainly not the worst either).

 

Except for those repeating ****ing rooms, christ that made me want to strangle a child.

[marelooke]

I'm starting to wonder if it's no longer possible to tell others what you like/don't like in an RPG without the DA series being mentioned.

Which doesn't mean a whole lot (in terms of reference) to someone who hasn't played DA, btw.

 

Thats true, for many the DA series has become a paradigm of how not to produce an RPG

 

Which is in some ways a bit of a shame as DA:O had more than a few strong points and overall was decent.

 

It was DA2 (and DA3 doesn't seem to be shaping up any better) that really brought out all the hate for the franchise and makes DA:O seem bad by association.

 

To be fair DA 2 wasn't that bad, While I didnt like it as much as origins, I think the real problem is the fact that the game and main character looked like Bioware wanted to create backup Shepard

 

While they'd been promising us all the time it wouldn't turn into Dragon Effect, which is exactly what it turned out to be: from the combat to the dialogues. It just was the final nail in the coffin containing BioWare's credibility, DA2 just embodies that fact which is why it is so vehemently hated.

 

As for immersion: the constant spawning of enemies, wave after wave seemingly out of nowhere really killed that for me, turning an altready one dimensional combat system into a real chore. Suffice to say I've never finished my second playthrough. There is just nothing to suck you into the world, because as the OP points out: it's static, it's lifeless and there really is nothing to explore or experience outside of the main quest. Oh, and recycling the same dungeon twenty times didn't exactly help immersion either (and tbh, I'm not even sure whether that's an exaggeration).

 

DA:O shares a lot of the issues with DA2, but at least the combat system worked, and there were some actually challenging and fun bossfights (Broodmother anyone?). But here also, not enough to do if you want a break from the main quest without starting another game, no areas to explore, no big sidequests (think Umar Hills style, for you BG2 veterans), nothing.

[teknoman2]

I'm starting to wonder if it's no longer possible to tell others what you like/don't like in an RPG without the DA series being mentioned.

Which doesn't mean a whole lot (in terms of reference) to someone who hasn't played DA, btw.

with DA2, bioware hit the bottom... they will really have to try and dig hard to make any game worse.

[SophosTheWise]

Or someone telling a company that they should make a spiritual successor to several rather unrealistic games more realistic.

 

Replying to a thread that asks "what kind of armour would you like to see in PE?" is not the same as creating a thread wanting to teach experienced developers what to do. Besides: I'm baffled by the fact that you still can't let this go. Different people with different preferences exist. Not accepting that is just juvenile

[Dream]

Or someone telling a company that they should make a spiritual successor to several rather unrealistic games more realistic.

 

Replying to a thread that asks "what kind of armour would you like to see in PE?" is not the same as creating a thread wanting to teach experienced developers what to do. Besides: I'm baffled by the fact that you still can't let this go. Different people with different preferences exist. Not accepting that is just juvenile

 

Oh I was all about accepting everyone's preferences if you'd remember; it's you who wanted the whole game to be exactly and only as you liked it. Also, I did let it go seeing as I left that little circle jerk to the half dozen or so of you to enjoy; I just can't abide hypocrites so I felt the need to point it out (you'd do well to read the first post of that thread again by the way).

[SophosTheWise]

Or someone telling a company that they should make a spiritual successor to several rather unrealistic games more realistic.

 

Replying to a thread that asks "what kind of armour would you like to see in PE?" is not the same as creating a thread wanting to teach experienced developers what to do. Besides: I'm baffled by the fact that you still can't let this go. Different people with different preferences exist. Not accepting that is just juvenile

 

Oh I was all about accepting everyone's preferences if you'd remember; it's you who wanted the whole game to be exactly and only as you liked it. Also, I did let it go seeing as I left that little circle jerk to the half dozen or so of you to enjoy; I just can't abide hypocrites so I felt the need to point it out (you'd do well to read the first post of that thread again by the way).

 

Oh, the rabulism.

1.) Of course I want it to be the way I like it. That's how the whole preference-thing works. Nobody in that whole thread did ever declare this forum to be a dictatorship of history fanatics that were going to decide how the game is going to look. We were sharing our views on armor design and how we would like that to be in PE. The only juvenile idiot who came back all the time to flame on everything that people advocated for in this thread was you. I mean, you weren't even constructive. I absolutely don't know what your guilt trip is all about. If you really have problems coping with other's views, I strongly suggest a psychiatrist. Or just open your own "Armor Design Plea Thread omg i want kool spikes on my giant power ranger shoulder armor" - no one is stopping you. Just stop that childish pestering.

 

2.) I did never ever want to give the devs any basic advice on how to make a game. I stated my preference, that's it. And, as I recall, these things are not the same, but I know, you're used to generalize things, so I don't condemn you for that. Just, please, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, stop this personal war of yours. If you really want to keep on pestering me, just PM me and don't egoistically destroy topics.

[Dream]

Oh, the rabulism.

1.) Of course I want it to be the way I like it. That's how the whole preference-thing works. Nobody in that whole thread did ever declare this forum to be a dictatorship of history fanatics that were going to decide how the game is going to look. We were sharing our views on armor design and how we would like that to be in PE. The only juvenile idiot who came back all the time to flame on everything that people advocated for in this thread was you. I mean, you weren't even constructive. I absolutely don't know what your guilt trip is all about. If you really have problems coping with other's views, I strongly suggest a psychiatrist. Or just open your own "Armor Design Plea Thread omg i want kool spikes on my giant power ranger shoulder armor" - no one is stopping you. Just stop that childish pestering.

 

2.) I did never ever want to give the devs any basic advice on how to make a game. I stated my preference, that's it. And, as I recall, these things are not the same, but I know, you're used to generalize things, so I don't condemn you for that. Just, please, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, stop this personal war of yours. If you really want to keep on pestering me, just PM me and don't egoistically destroy topics.

 

The very first post of that thread started off by saying how certain armor designs (not even examples of other games) are superior (not preferable to the op; straight up superior) to the choices made by the devs of GW2 and Tera. That's exactly what you railed against the op of this thread for doing.

 

Regardless, stop derailing the thread to defend your hypocrisy.

 

On topic: While I see the appeal of a completely independent world that exists and lives outside of the player's influence (with nations waging wars, trading, negotiating, etc. with each other); I think it might be outside the scope of this project (and it would be a QA nightmare, which we all know Obsidian doesn't exactly have the best track record with). I'd personally rather see the limited funds available channeled into development of the primary story, but, if Obsidian had Blizzard's funds, it would be nice to see a massive fleshed out world that was actually alive and not simply a static vehicle for the player to be told the story through.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Dream

[SophosTheWise]

Oh, the rabulism.

1.) Of course I want it to be the way I like it. That's how the whole preference-thing works. Nobody in that whole thread did ever declare this forum to be a dictatorship of history fanatics that were going to decide how the game is going to look. We were sharing our views on armor design and how we would like that to be in PE. The only juvenile idiot who came back all the time to flame on everything that people advocated for in this thread was you. I mean, you weren't even constructive. I absolutely don't know what your guilt trip is all about. If you really have problems coping with other's views, I strongly suggest a psychiatrist. Or just open your own "Armor Design Plea Thread omg i want kool spikes on my giant power ranger shoulder armor" - no one is stopping you. Just stop that childish pestering.

 

2.) I did never ever want to give the devs any basic advice on how to make a game. I stated my preference, that's it. And, as I recall, these things are not the same, but I know, you're used to generalize things, so I don't condemn you for that. Just, please, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, stop this personal war of yours. If you really want to keep on pestering me, just PM me and don't egoistically destroy topics.

 

The very first post of that thread started off by saying how certain armor designs (not even examples of other games) are superior (not preferable to the op; straight up superior) to the choices made by the devs of GW2 and Tera. That's exactly what you railed against the op of this thread for doing.

 

 

 

No, we did not.

 

Regardless, stop derailing the thread to defend your hypocrisy.

 

Wow, another rabulism. I'm impressed.

[Tale]

 

Thats true, for many the DA series has become a paradigm of how not to produce an RPG

More like it's become the boogeyman of RPGs. Don't do ___ because the ghost of Dragon Age will get you!