[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Who cares that being poor does not affect the story?[/quote]
*raises hand* Me. I do. That's...pretty much what I've been saying. If it doesn't affect the story, then being poor is not so much a story path as a burden on the player. And therefore there's no real reason (for me) to want to be poor.[/quote]
DA2 seems to be about the rise of Hawke to become one of the most important figures in history. You start off poor. It's how you as a character stand in the story. It does not affect the story, but it is a given in that story. You need an income only if you need some extra stuff. To me it's not a burden. I like to figure out how to make money. It may help Hawke on the way to become the most important figure in history. I am OK with that.[/quote]
How do you know it doesn't affect the story? We still have almost 5 months to go before we see what does and doesn't affect the story of DA2. Given that Hawke has been specifically described as "penniless" makes me think there's a very good chance that it
will figure into the story somehow. If so, then that would be a great thing.
If it doesn't, and if the amount of loot shuffling remains about the same, then that would not be a great thing.
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
I don't know how many other ways I can explain it. The way story and making money are related in my argument is as follows:
1. I like buying things
2. I don't like most of my characters having to choose between being scavengers and being poor
3. If being poor were reflected in the story, then I would no longer mind it.
4. But it's not reflected in the story, and therefore I do mind it
5. I would like more alternatives to making money besides what's already there
6. If #5 is not going to happen, then I'd at least like looting to be less annoying.[/quote]
#1: You do like buying things. Erm. OK. Interesting.
#2: You don't like being poor and associate the solution for being poor with scavenging. I fail to see where the scavenging fixation comes from. I guess it is because you think that your primary income needs to come from looting from dead bodies.[/quote]
It's not an opinion that looting is a major part of player income as provided by the game.
[quote]#3: You keep telling me about your requirement of being poor has to be reflected in stories, but fail to provide a reason. [/quote]
If it's a requirement (and I never phrased it that way), then it's only a personal requirement. Like a preference. I don't need to provide a reason for my own preferences. I've already explained that I am much more interested in story rather than mechanics...that should be enough for you to piece it together I would think. If there's no story difference between having a lot of gold and having not very much, then the distinction becomes uninteresting to me, and therefore I'd rather have a lot. Because why not? If you feel differently, then more power to you.
[quote]#4: See number 3.
#5: There are alternatives to looting from dead bodies. BioWare did a great job on that. I am sorry that you have to do something for those as well.
#6: You can jump up and down, but number 5 has been taken care of. And what you percieve as a primary income is just a click away. The automatic loot collector has not been invented yet.
[/quote]
Apparently you still don't understand what I mean by "alternatives." Gold from quest rewards is already a given. There's basically that and looting. If I don't loot, then I just have the quest rewards. That is not an alternative. I don't now have quest rewards + something else. I'd say to review the wardrobe example again, but clearly--well I'll get to that.
[quote]These points were supposed to explain "the way story and making money are related in [your] argument".
#1 is your personal preference and does not shine much light on your promise to explain the relation between making money and the story. The same goes for #2. Again #3 (and #4) is a preference and no reason is given why being poor has to be reflected in the story. In #5 yet another preference. #6 still has nothing to do with your promise to explain this mystery.[/quote]
What are you trying to show here? Stating my preferences somehow makes my argument invalid? The whole bloody thing is
about my preferences. 6 things were clearly too many, so I'll try to cut it down even further.
1. I like when things result in perceptible differences in the game's story. That is a preference, yes.
2. Having very little money affects gameplay, but not story. Given number 1, that means having very little money is not entertaining for me for its own sake.
3. If it makes no difference to the story (see 2), then having more money would be preferable, because it is less of an obstacle to me as a player. I can still choose not to spend it. It gives me options.
4. I find looting piles of junk and shlepping it to vendors extremely boring and tedious. I would gladly skip it but for #3. Therefore I thought it would be nice if there were some alternatives, so I could still make a comparable amount of money via activities I think are fun rather than activities I think are dull.
Please save us both some time and don't bother pointing out which of these are opinions. It's irrelevant, because I never said my argument wasn't based on my own personal preferences. Like you said, I was trying to explain the connection between money and story "in my argument." Not for everyone. I'm not dictating anything here.
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
Excuse me, but no I am not lazy. I tried putting this as simply as I could, but you either can't understand or you refuse to. It is an optional part of the game, but only in the sense that you can willingly give up one of the main sources of revenue in the game. It is not optional in that there is something there to replace it. Before you bring up quests, that is not a replacement, that supplements it. Together, looting and quests provide all your income. Restricting yourselves to quests only just means you make less money. You can't choose a different path to make the same amount of money.[/quote]
You did not try to make it clear. You provide personal rules instead. Like in: "If being poor were reflected in the story, then I would no longer mind it." That seems to be the best you can come up with.[/quote]
Why the hell should I have to come up with anything better? I'm not trying to prove Fermat's Last Theorem here, I'm just stating my opinion like anyone else on these boards.
It's really not a difficult concept. I don't like
so much looting (not looting period), but I feel like I need to do it because there aren't a lot of ways to make money in the game (just looting and quests). I would consider just skipping it if it would present any new storyline opportunities, but it doesn't. So what's a logically-minded fellow to do?
I could attack the issue from a number of directions. I could ask they make looting less burdensome, I could ask they put in some different way to make a comparable amount of money, or I could ask they make the story reflect being poor in some way. Any one, two, or all of these would alleviate the problem greatly. I guess there is another option, and it's the one it seems you wish I would take, and that is simply to be silent and put up with it. Well if I were inclined to do that, then I probably wouldn't be on the forums in the first place.
[quote]You are dictating your requirement as a rule for reasons unknown.
About laziness: The fact is that looting a body or opening a chest is a click away. Here is a
list of side quests. A lot of those include no enemies, some only a few, but rarely more than half a dozen. Not all of them drop loot. I never counted it, but I guess about half of them do. Let's say that half a dozen enemies is an average for the quests in that list. If so then you need to click 3 times on a lootable body during a quest. And maybe click on a chest once or twice. Sure there are random encounters during traveling with a dozen or more enemies, but these are rare. Epic battles with even more enemies are rare too. And again not all of them drop loot. So yes. I do think you are lazy. Let's hope your health insurance covers RSI caused by all those extra clicks.[/quote]
At this point I seriously could not care less that you think I'm lazy. Although maybe you're on to something, because the prospect of trying yet again to get this through your skull sounds very tiresome indeed.
Right. Here we go.
I don't have some kind of aversion to clicking on things. I do not want them to give me money for nothing. I NEVER said EITHER of these things. I think the amount of junk loot in the game was a bit overdone, and therefore I think it would be nice if it were dialed back a little. That's it. Not removed. Unless you can tell me objectively why the drop rate in Origins was perfect, then I don't understand why this is such an earth-shattering suggestion. What if it were as little as 5% less? Would that be so bad?
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
If you like, however, use a different example. Like the Rogek quest. Explain to me how blackmailing Rogek turns out differently if your motivation is that you're poor. Compared to doing it because you're greedy, or you hate dwarves, or whatever else. The answer is that it doesn't change it at all. And that's why I've been saying being poor isn't part of the story.[/quote]
The original example was mentioned in the same post as the Rogek one. In this case it had to do with the order of the story. That was its only significance. Nothing more, nothing less. I am certainly not interested in more of your word games about examples taken out of its context.[/quote]
Oh for crying out loud. FINE. Choose your own example.
"It had to do with the order of the story." Oh please. The whole point of bringing up these examples (and for talking about the "order of the story" at all) was because you thought I was saying money had nothing to do with story, which was never something I argued. All along it's been about being POOR. Again, if a lack of money had an effect on the story, then I would have an interest in it. You seem to be disagreeing with my assertion that being poor doesn't affect the story in a meaningful way, but you can't explain why. As usual you're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. Then when I ask you to back up any of your points you accuse me of playing "word games."
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
And what does having the current rate of item drops solve, that reducing that number would now no longer be a solution? And you would be able to sell it, just not all to the same vendor. It would add realism, and increase the effort you have to go to. Since "effort" is always such a good thing in your eyes, surely you'd see this as a positive change.
And one small note here, since you mentioned traps. I also didn't like traps. I didn't like making them, and I didn't like using them. So you know why I am not calling for any changes to the trap system? Because choosing not to use them did not significantly hamper my gameplay. That is a truly optional system right there. Choosing to skip looting, on the other hand, comes with a huge price that you have to pay.[/quote]
Don't try to switch things around. You feel that you need to click too much. You tell me that this annoys you. To me that means that it is too much effort for you. It has nothing to do with me.[/quote]
Of course it has something to do with you. You're trying to tell me why my preferences are wrong. You are the other person in this discussion. How could it
not have something to do with you?
You said adding an artificial limit to what merchants will accept doesn't solve anything. As though effort for its own sake isn't a good thing. This seems to contradict what the rest of your argument seems to imply, because you said that it would be bad if making money required less effort. Let's set aside that I never said I wanted it to take less effort, and that I only wanted
different effort. So, since you seem to be saying less effort is bad, then I'm wondering if
more effort, in your eyes, is therefore good.
If you responded favorably to the idea of merchants having artificial caps, then that would confirm my suspicion that you believe effort for its own sake is inherently good. I would then proceed to address that idea and why I think it's wrong.
If you responded unfavorably, then I would ask why you seem to think Origins was the perfect amount of effort vs. reward. If you are against lowering the effort, and against raising the effort, that would be the logical conclusion.
So you see, I'm just trying to eliminate a variable--namely, to determine whether you think effort and satisfaction are positively correlated or if you think that there is a curve to that line--that after a certain upper bound of effort, satisfaction starts to decline. Whatever the answer is, it would help shape the course I take in my future responses. I didn't anticipate you simply refusing to answer, although I suppose I should have.
[quote]And about realism. This is realism: Every dead body drops what it really owns. So a soldier drops full armor, weapons, and any other possession, including money and letters to his grandma and a picture of his dog. You would only be able to loot what you could carry based on the actual weight and using the local gravity. Dragon Age is not a intended as a full blown Microsoft Blight Simulator. The loot, inventory and merchants have been reduce to simple game mechanics. That's enough for me.[/quote]
Well perhaps all is not lost. It seems I have my answer after all. The scenario you described right there, that would be bad, yes? Meaning there is such a thing as "too much loot?" That suggests to me that you agree that there is a line, and in your opinion, Origins doesn't cross it but that scenario does. Now I would ask you: is it so unreasonable that I consider Origins to be even just a little bit over that line too?
[quote]You don't like traps. Ah. Interesting. Thanks. BTW: I don't like crossbows. I never use them. I love selling them and their bolts, though.[/quote]
Do you really not see the point of that example?
[quote]There is no huge price to pay if you skip looting. There is not much you really have to buy. On the other hand anything you want to buy costs money. There are a number of ways to get that money. You favorite method seems to be looting bodies which requires a click once in a while, which somehow annoys you.[/quote]
So much wrong in this paragraph.
"There is no huge price to pay if you skip looting." WRONG, the price is you earn less money
"Your favorite method seems to be looting bodies" WRONG, I'm actually not a fan, if you couldn't tell
"...requires a click once in a while..." WRONG, it requires a lot of clicking, but that's irrelevant, as my objection was never about clicking. In fact, at the beginning, my entire argument was entirely IN-CHARACTER...the question was why are RPG heroes necessarily scavengers? Even if there were an "auto-loot" option, this question would still remain.
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
At the start of the game finding low level gear is used to equip my henchmen. Later better gear appears and bit by bit they'll get better stuff. And most of that is found on corpses or in chests and often related to quests. Then there are those expensive ones you can buy, but you don't really need. They are a bit of an extra. For that you have to put in some effort. Nothing is for free..
There is not much "effort" required. You just loot corpses and open chests. It's a click away. If you don't want that then do the quests which will get you either free great gear or lots of money. If you think you spend too much money then create your own potions and poisons. You can steal if you like. But that's exactly what you don't want to do. For you it's too much effort. I don't see it as an effort at all.[/quote]
Of course you see it as effort; that's why you've been calling it "effort" this whole time. You keep making and abandoning new arguments as they are shown to be either irrelevant or just plain incorrect.
Then some keep rearing their heads, like this assumption that I just want "lots of money" or that I have some aversion to engaging in any kind of commerce. I don't want to be rewarded for nothing. What I want is the option to do something more interesting than rifling through the belongings of the people I've just killed for stuff to haul to the nearest vendor, and I'd rather be rewarded for THAT.
I never argued that looting a corpse was physically taxing or anything. It's just BORING. Do you understand that? Can you comprehend the difference? I DON'T LIKE DOING IT. I'd rather make money by doing things I DO like to do.[/quote]
Ah. You missed the quotes around the word "effort".
*snip Wikipedia article*
Yes. It is clear that you don't like the "effort".[/quote]
Those weren't scare quotes; they were just normal, everyday quotation marks. You know,
those things you put around terms when you're referring to the term itself? Or
when you're...you know, quoting someone? Both of those uses actually apply. Surely at least the latter was obvious considering that right before it were the words "you've been calling it".
But this is all beside the point. It's kind of funny really. In response to my accusation of making and abandoning arguments and not backing them up, your only response is a red herring.
First it's that you shouldn't be rewarded for not making an effort. Then it's not actually an effort at all. Then it's--"hey you used scare quotes!"
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
It's optional in the sense that it's possible not to do it, but it's less of an option than the trap example is. You can't just do quests "instead," because quests and looting are both part of how you make money.
Maybe this analogy will illustrate my point. Let's say you are given a wardrobe, but it only has sweaters for tops. No t-shirts, no collared shirts, no hoodies, etc. Let's say you don't like wearing sweaters. Maybe you think they're uncomfortable, maybe it's the middle of summer, maybe you just don't like the look. You point this out and someone responds by saying "you don't HAVE to wear a sweater." You respond by saying you don't like going shirtless either, and that you wish there was something else you could wear. Then they helpfully reply that you can wear pants "instead." Well that's not really a replacement, now is it? You were already going to wear pants.[/quote]
If getting your sweater requires you to take the stairs then you start complaining. In that case, look for the T-shirt.[/quote]
What the hell does that mean? What do "stairs" illustrate in this analogy? In case you didn't realize, the wardrobe represents the game, and more specifically, ways to make money in the game. You are limited to what is contained within the wardrobe. "Sweaters" represents looting corpses, and "pants" represents quest rewards. The "T-shirt" in my example would be an alternative to looting corpses, which is why it is an upper-body garment like the sweaters. You see, it all fits together.
[quote]But whether you like it or not, you can make more money in the game than you need. That means looting is truly optional. And if you hate clicking the mouse a few times in a quest and feel it is too much effort then skip it.[/quote]
But how am I supposed to know how much money I need? I don't always buy the same things every playthrough.
Anyway, no I don't "hate clicking the mouse a few times." Don't be ridiculous.
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
I wave away your irrational story requirement argument. It doesn't make any sense for reasons mentioned at the top. But maybe you can shine some light on that. About your proposal: You are not adding anything to the game, because your proposals don't make any sense either. I've written about that above.[/quote]
Wow, that must come in handy. You can just "wave away" people's arguments if you don't like them or can't understand them. I'm sure that's much easier than thinking about them.
The reason it doesn't make sense to you is because you apparently can't understand it. I never said "making money" had to be related to the story. I only said that because "being poor" was not related to the story, being so has no allure for me.
My proposal WOULD be adding something to the game, because it would not remove looting and it would be providing other, additional means. That way there would be alternatives. I gave some of Fable II's methods as examples. Buying and selling property, investing in businesses, etc. If I could do something like that instead of looting, I would gladly do so.[/quote]
I again wave away your story requirement, because I cannot take something into account that is not explained well. I posted somewhere at the top about this. It has to do with a rule that you are trying to impose on us and there is no reason given behind that rule. That does not make sense.
Your propasal has been discussed above.[/quote]
I "wave away" your objection. Whee!
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...
But you're telling me there are alternatives when there's really just "the rest." That other stuff was already part of the game, and I was already doing those. I haven't been skipping side quests in favor of just looting.[/quote]
What you call "rest" is a well thought out package created by BioWare. These did a great job. Use it to your advantage. You'll make more money than you need. If you still think that looting is required for your main income then try harder or move you mouse a bit and click on a body. It's not hard. Simplifying the system even more for situations that are merely exceptions and rarely occur is useless.[/quote]
I never said it wasn't well-thought out, or that BioWare didn't do a great job. DAO on the whole is an amazing game, and I can say without exaggeration that it's my favorite game ever. That doesn't mean there aren't parts that I don't like.
I'll say once more (and hopefully for the last time) that clicking has never been a factor in my arguments. In fact, if they made it so 99% of enemies dropped just coin instead of junk items, it wouldn't be an ideal solution but I'd happily click away. It would be better (in my ever-so-humble opinion) than the current system, if not as good as it could be.
I don't think scavenging corpses for money is fun, either in- or out-of-character. I think the game would be better if there was a variety of money-making options besides looting and being rewarded for quests. Two pretty simple ideas, honestly. I really don't understand what about them is so obscene to you.
Modifié par SirOccam, 11 octobre 2010 - 06:31 .
Retour en haut
really I dont.
- bold, caps and italics are just a form to emphesize, uderline what is most important of what I wanna say. If its something on the contrary what you read from my posts I apologize.
