I could be talking about a game on the smart phone and I would still be making the same point all over. I'm not buying the principle that just because something is unnecessary it means that it has no value. If you need something more recognizable, take a look at DA's codex entries or Skyrim's book system if gameplay length is your issue.
Well, apparently, what I can do doesn't include building realized relationships with other human beings that have in-world consequences, which is pretty important.
Does it in any game?
Sometimes the protagonist can do that, but does it ever happen such that you can honestly be said to be the one making the decisions?
You know full well that I don't think I was permitted or able to make a single decision for Hawke during any conversation in DA2.
Does it in any game?
Sometimes the protagonist can do that, but does it ever happen such that you can honestly be said to be the one making the decisions?
You know full well that I don't think I was permitted or able to make a single decision for Hawke during any conversation in DA2.
I'm aware. My point is only that the level of social and character interaction in Skyrim (and Bestheda games generally) is non-existed. Relationships are static and unchanging, and your actions do not really alter anything between characters, who rarely even interact with one another.
The world appearing to be fully realized - rather than populated by robots programmed to run like worker ants - is something I see as an important part of verisimilitude. And to me, that's wholly lacking in Skyrim.
I replay games a lot more often than I finish them.
And we likely don't share a common definition of "finish" in this context
Then what is the context? Replaying presupposes to me that the first "play" was finished. As in reaching the end of the story a.k.a origin. Unless being finished means putting the stops of one play-through to start another?
I'm not just pulling this out of nowhere. Have you ever been on the true achievement website. Walking Dead for instance is a very simple game that requires very little effort on the player. By fact, you will have all achievements if you reach the end of all 5 episodes. The number of tracked gamers that earned the achievement for finishing the first episode is about 77,000. While the number of tracked gamers that earned the final achievement was only 33,000. More than half of people that started the game didn't even finish it.
So what of games that actually asks effort on the player? The numbers aren't much better.
You could but it'd still be a bad comparison as you completely disregard the scope of the games.
I could disregard the scope of all games until my face turns blue but the point would have still had legs to stand on.
I could disregard the scope of all games until my face turns blue but the point would have still had legs to stand on.
The point concerning TLoU alone yes but not in a comparison.
Would you be happier if it were, instead of a comparison, wishful thinking that a simple principle that would better a game be applicable to more games. As in other examples I stated like Skyrim and our beloved DA franchise. Which I wish could be even better
Would you be happy if it were, instead of a comparison, wishful thinking that a simple principle that would better a game be applicable to more games. As in other examples I stated like Skyrim and our beloved DA franchise. Which I wish could be even better
No as implementing so many minor detail takes resources, in this case time and money and if a game costs too much money to develop it won't be able to break even or if it manages to not by much. Leaving exceptions like GTA aside which doesn't have all that minor details either.
Like it or not games have time and money constraints and I rather have a slightly flawed game than an unsuccessful.
No as implementing so many minor detail takes resources, in this case time and money and if a game costs too much money to develop it won't be able to break even or if it manages to not by much. Leaving exceptions like GTA aside which doesn't have all that minor details either.
Like it or not games have time and money constraints and I rather have a slightly flawed game than an unsuccessful.
So have I been giving permission to not like something? Good, that's basically been all my posts on this thread.
Most money in the world or none at all, it's still a flaw hiding behind reason x and y.
So have I been giving permission to not like something? Good, that's basically been all my posts on this thread.
Most money in the world or none at all, it's still a flaw hiding behind reason x and y.
Pls at least remember what you wrote before accusing someone.
Would you be happier [...].
No as implementing so many minor detail takes resources, in this case time and money and if a game costs too much money to develop it won't be able to break even or if it manages to not by much. Leaving exceptions like GTA aside which doesn't have all that minor details either.
Like it or not games have time and money constraints and I rather have a slightly flawed game than an unsuccessful.
Comparatively, Ubisoft made the same style argument in regards to AC Unity. That argument didn't work so well for them.
The only concern for time and money would be the rumor floating about that if DA:I doesn't break even or generate profit, Bioware is finished. And rumors only have merit if they are coming from Varric.
Pls at least remember what you wrote before accusing someone.
Yes, there is a difference between you- Schreckstoff
and I - GoldenAbel
Now, there might be a misunderstanding between what who is being who. So might I ask, are you saying my question towards you is an accusation?
Comparatively, Ubisoft made the same style argument in regards to AC Unity. That argument didn't work so well for them.
The only concern for time and money would be the rumor floating about that if DA:I doesn't break even or generate profit, Bioware is finished. And rumors only have merit if they are coming from Varric.
Yes, there is a difference between you- Schreckstoff
and I - GoldenAbel
Now, there might be a misunderstanding between what who is being who. So might I ask, are you saying my question towards you is an accusation?
You accused me of mandating your tastes when all I did was answer your question.
You accused me of mandating your tastes when all I did was answer your question.
So have I been giving permission to not like something(?) Good, that's basically been all my posts on this thread.
Most money in the world or none at all, it's still a flaw hiding behind reason x and y.
Did I make the claim that you were mandating my tastes? It was more of a bad assumption on my part and if I confused you then my apologies.
Which brings me to my next question. How does my original question contradict this nonexistent claim?
Like it or not you said. I've already gave many reasons as to why my tastes dictate I not like the things that have been opposing my first post
I prefer my weapons to look believable and practical. Corkscrew helix blades and giant masses of Iron might look "Sooper azomes" but I'll always prefer things more in line with real-world weapons.
That said, I think a lot of people would be shocked at how weird a real blade or weapon can look. The Khopesh comes to mind.
And I say, albiet incredibly late to the game, that there is no problem with weapons being designed to be "sooper azomes" and trying to just frame it as such is a bit disengenous and pompous, as it makes the issue into one of "Well, I'm correct, and you are obviously incorrect" instead of this being a simple discussion between two peers of video games on the merits and cons of sheathes versus weapon design.
Speaking of which, realistic designs have nothing to do with whether a blade will or will not have a sheath proper or be floating on ones back. Your ideal doesn't really address the problem. Because if you were to only draw from the real world for inspiration, and say you wanted to include your khopesh, a flammenschwert, a talwar, and just to be way out there, a parang machete, your lead designer would still need to make widely different sheaths for each and every type of varient of weapon there was. So what ends up happening instead? The same thing they did in DAO, cloned gear. All gear ends up looking the same, just recolored or retextured to make it seem different, and you do it to create uniformity to make it easier for the creation of sheaths for all weapons.
Given that conundrum, which I view as existing, I would say more varied weapon designs are more important than having weapons have a sheath.
And I say, albiet incredibly late to the game, that there is no problem with weapons being designed to be "sooper azomes" and trying to just frame it as such is a bit disengenous and pompous, as it makes the issue into one of "Well, I'm correct, and you are obviously incorrect" instead of this being a simple discussion between two peers of video games on the merits and cons of sheathes versus weapon design.
Speaking of which, realistic designs have nothing to do with whether a blade will or will not have a sheath proper or be floating on ones back. Your ideal doesn't really address the problem. Because if you were to only draw from the real world for inspiration, and say you wanted to include your khopesh, a flammenschwert, a talwar, and just to be way out there, a parang machete, your lead designer would still need to make widely different sheaths for each and every type of varient of weapon there was. So what ends up happening instead? The same thing they did in DAO, cloned gear. All gear ends up looking the same, just recolored or retextured to make it seem different, and you do it to create uniformity to make it easier for the creation of sheaths for all weapons.
Given that conundrum, which I view as existing, I would say more varied weapon designs are more important than having weapons have a sheath.
Sheathe or no sheathe, mace or staff, why do the characters of this world place their weapons behind their backs if there is nothing their to hold it?
Because they are easily visible and it's a convenient place to put them that keeps them out of the way for a lot of scenes, and it works for pretty much any weapon type.
Because they are easily visible and it's a convenient place to put them that keeps them out of the way for a lot of scenes, and it works for pretty much any weapon type.
So do they etch a hole in their armor/robe and stick it through there?
So do they etch a hole in their armor/robe and stick it through there?
It's more of an example of gameplay and narrative divergence.
It's more of an example of gameplay and narrative divergence.
I can imagine weapon in play and weapon not in play mean different things but the reason why there is exclusion of something that holds these weapons is?
I can imagine weapon in play and weapon not in play mean different things but the reason why there is exclusion of something that holds these weapons is?
I'm not actually present for those decisions (I'm not on that team), but I'm guessing that it has a lot to do with determining whether or not it's preferable to work on that, or work on something else. If something else is considered to be more valuable to the project as a whole, that will be worked on.
So it's probably always "on the list" somewhere. Just not with a particularly high priority for whatever reason.
I'm not actually present for those decisions (I'm not on that team), but I'm guessing that it has a lot to do with determining whether or not it's preferable to work on that, or work on something else. If something else is considered to be more valuable to the project as a whole, that will be worked on.
So it's probably always "on the list" somewhere. Just not with a particularly high priority for whatever reason.
Obviously I can't tell that Team what their priorities are but I do wish something as glaring as this would be given some attention.
I finish a playthrough when I have nothing else to do with that character. My most rewarding playthrough of DAO ended when the PC was killed by Sten for being a self-absorbed little jerk. I ran out of things to do in DA2 right at the start of Act 3.Then what is the context? Replaying presupposes to me that the first "play" was finished. As in reaching the end of the story a.k.a origin. Unless being finished means putting the stops of one play-through to start another?
I'm not just pulling this out of nowhere. Have you ever been on the true achievement website. Walking Dead for instance is a very simple game that requires very little effort on the player. By fact, you will have all achievements if you reach the end of all 5 episodes. The number of tracked gamers that earned the achievement for finishing the first episode is about 77,000. While the number of tracked gamers that earned the final achievement was only 33,000. More than half of people that started the game didn't even finish it.
So what of games that actually asks effort on the player? The numbers aren't much better.
Retour en haut