Gramatically, yes. Legally, no (or rather, not really; this is a minefield phrase, and I fall on the side of the debate that says that these are equivalent). Which is why I swapped the phrases without thinking. My apologies for being unclear.
I dispute that it is a reasonable inference. That something is possibly true is insufficient grounds to hold it to be true.
I dispute that it is a reasonable inference. That something is possibly true is insufficient grounds to hold it to be true.
But it is more than just possibly true (at least, taking Il Divo's view). It is supported by a preponderance of evidence, in a majority of possible situations (by possible situations, I mean considering each possible start to BG by the player as one instance). Put another way, in most cases, the player will be able to draw the inference.
Supply is very straightforward in being the quantity of a product someone is willing to sell at a given price. In case of steam at full retail I doubt a developer would set a limit to how many units he wants to sell.
The amount of the product is dependent on our ability to make the product. If game creators could make 1000000 hours of content in 15 minutes, the price of games would either go down, or they'd get muuuuch longer.
All content creators want to sell a maximum amount of their product, but if supply was truly infinite, games would be free (the supply curve would be pushed infinitely to the right and would intersect at the asymptote of the demand curve, which would set the price at $0.00)
Could you explain for us novices? (I realise it must include things like amount of gameplay?)
When discussing supply and demand, you cannot simply take creative content, put it on a digital medium (improving accessibility) and then state that the supply is now infinite.
Sure, we're not competing for shelf space which helps with an aspect of supply, but the content isn't limitless. Even if you replay it over and over, it still lends itself the chance of being less interesting over time. The supply of game content, however, is strongly affected by the ability to create content.
Infinite supply of video games would be a situation where there's an infinite amount of unique content to consume. Then the price would be driven down because the supply of content would be so high.
I dispute that it is a reasonable inference. That something is possibly true is insufficient grounds to hold it to be true.
And you'd be completely off the mark in the vast majority of cases. Taking into account that most RPGs begin by throwing players into the game's main plot, even if they're not required to follow through on it, I'd argue that any other interpretation is completely nonsensical.
But it is more than just possibly true (at least, taking Il Divo's view). It is supported by a preponderance of evidence, in a majority of possible situations (by possible situations, I mean considering each possible start to BG by the player as one instance). Put another way, in most cases, the player will be able to draw the inference.
Exactly. Most quest story lines in gaming rely on the trail of breadcrumbs, Baldur's Gate being no exception. What exactly does Baldur's Gate give the player to follow, other than the Friendly Arm Inn, assuming the player is interested exclusively in the main quest?
How can that claim be off the mark? It's entirely true.And you'd be completely off the mark in the vast majority of cases. Taking into account that most RPGs begin by throwing players into the game's main plot, even if they're not required to follow through on it, I'd argue that any other interpretation is completely nonsensical.
Why would we assume that?Exactly. Most quest story lines in gaming rely on the trail of breadcrumbs, Baldur's Gate being no exception. What exactly does Baldur's Gate give the player to follow, other than the Friendly Arm Inn, assuming the player is interested exclusively in the main quest?
Bad case of Stockholm syndrome is what the OP reminds me of.
It's not rpg's that should cost more but those short 6 hour games that should cost less.
How can that claim be off the mark? It's entirely true.
And I don't understand why a player would necessarily do that. A player might do that, but he needn't.
A person can cover their ears and close their eyes while insisting that the external world doesn't exist. It doesn't make the practice any less idiotic.
It doesn't follow with necessity, it follows with probability. It's the same basic concept behind why developers normally have a tab strictly to keep track of your main quests. It says to the player "hey, this is important". If high percentage of players are capable of recognizing gaming tropes, it's a pretty damn good assumption to follow.
Why would we assume that?
Because you made a claim, specifically with regards to the overarching plot? In which case, wandering off the beaten path is irrelevant.
And, as I pointed out, there are other trails to find. And the trail you insist everyone can see can be entirely missed, not just by not drawing the same conclusions as you, but by encountering a different set of evidence.
So you mean that every player isn't exposed to Gorion's speech about reaching the Friendly Arm? That if they proceed there, Khalid and Jaheira won't recommend visiting the Nashkel mines? That if the player follows that tip that upon reaching Nashkel they won't immediately reach Chapter Two, receive strange dreams/quest journals telling them that they're on the right track?
What's that they say about leading a horse to water?
When I played Oblivion, it never crossed my mind that I should follow the King's instruction to seek out the Captain of his guard. My character had been locked in a dungeon for reasons unknown to me, the King refused to tell me when I asked, and escape was now possible. Actually looking for an agent of law enforcement right then struck me (the player) as most likely a trap, rather than a quest hook.
That most people draw the same conclusion doesn't make that conclusion correct. It makes that conclusion common, and nothing more.
All irrelevant. You made an in character choice. There is a difference between your character, lacking metagame knowledge, being unaware of the main plot and you, the player, being unaware of the main plot. Your initial post made reference to the latter, not the former.
Even if, in game, it was a trap, from a metagame perspective (as the player) you could quite easily figure out that you would need to progress to the Captain of the Guard to continue that particular plot thread.
Baldur's Gate is just as straightforward linking the player to the various locations they need to visit as Oblivion is.
I hate that practise. I've asked many times for the ability to turn it off.It doesn't follow with necessity, it follows with probability. It's the same basic concept behind why developers normally have a tab strictly to keep track of your main quests.
That we're talking about whether people generally see something is no reason to assume that they are looking for it?Because you made a claim, specifically with regards to the overarching plot? In which case, wandering off the beaten path is irrelevant.
They're exposed to the speech, but that's where the trail ends unless they follow it. And then the subsequent pieces can be encountered out of order.So you mean that every player isn't exposed to Gorion's speech about reaching the Friendly Arm? That if they proceed there, Khalid and Jaheira won't recommend visiting the Nashkel mines? That if the player follows that tip that upon reaching Nashkel they won't immediately reach Chapter Two, receive strange dreams/quest journals telling them that they're on the right track?
I'm still talking about the latter. I played Oblivion for quite some time having no idea what the main plot was. I stumbled into Kvatch to find an oblivion gate, having never heard of one, and wondering what the hell it was.All irrelevant. You made an in character choice. There is a difference between your character, lacking metagame knowledge, being unaware of the main plot and you, the player, being unaware of the main plot. Your initial post made reference to the latter, not the former.
I agree. They both don't do thaf at all, and that is a hugely positive feature of those games.Baldur's Gate is just as straightforward linking the player to the various locations they need to visit as Oblivion is.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
I was hoping for a solipsism comment, Sylvius.
Supply is very straightforward in being the quantity of a product someone is willing to sell at a given price. In case of steam at full retail I doubt a developer would set a limit to how many units he wants to sell.
The amount of the product is dependent on our ability to make the product. If game creators could make 1000000 hours of content in 15 minutes, the price of games would either go down, or they'd get muuuuch longer.
All content creators want to sell a maximum amount of their product, but if supply was truly infinite, games would be free (the supply curve would be pushed infinitely to the right and would intersect at the asymptote of the demand curve, which would set the price at $0.00)
When discussing supply and demand, you cannot simply take creative content, put it on a digital medium (improving accessibility) and then state that the supply is now infinite.
Sure, we're not competing for shelf space which helps with an aspect of supply, but the content isn't limitless. Even if you replay it over and over, it still lends itself the chance of being less interesting over time. The supply of game content, however, is strongly affected by the ability to create content.
Infinite supply of video games would be a situation where there's an infinite amount of unique content to consume. Then the price would be driven down because the supply of content would be so high.
In the case of digital content (Which is, in a way, limitless) there will usually, hopefully be demand for more content, so while a piece of content is widely available... part of the 'supply' is the labor that goes into creating it, and creating more. It's the same for writers and ebooks. Just because there is no physical printed copy and it can arguably be sold an infinite number of times, the truth is that it won't be sold an infinite number of times, and a writer (developer) still needs to get paid for that book (game), and have the funds to work on the next one.
As to video game pricing in general, I do think it's somewhat high, but that's true of a lot of things and is more an observation on economy and my socio-economic class than anything else. Though, obviously, some games are worth the money to me and some aren't, and which ones are which differ wildly from consumer to consumer. Some would rather pay the $60-70(US pricing) for a nice lengthy rpg that gives them tons of hours of play and intricate storyline, others would rather a short sp campaign and spend their time focusing on mp. There are games also that I generally find not worth the money either way, and if it's true, then the numbers of copies sold generally reflect that. It's one of the reasons we've got reviews and things, and a responsible consumer will look into the quality of a product before purchasing it.
I don't think that jacking up the industry standard for game pricing on a single genre would likely help improve anything, and would only further separate 'hardcore' fans of that genre and the casual players that might have discovered and enjoyed it. So it would subtract from new players, and also from the established fanbase, as some wouldn't be able or willing to pay the new higher costs, and would, in my opinion, be far more likely to damage the genre/developers/etc. than do anything to boost it.
I hate that practise. I've asked many times for the ability to turn it off.
Which only furthers my point about you blinding yourself. The game gave you perfectly reasonable tools to figure out what the overarching plot was. You had to purposely deny using them. There's nothing wrong with claiming that in character you had no idea what the overarching narrative was. But as for you as a player, you alone are responsible for that.
That we're talking about whether people generally see something is no reason to assume that they are looking for it?
I accept that most people would assume that there is a main plot, but not that they would be exclusively interested in it.
You're focusing too much on the "exclusively interested" phrase. My point remains: your initial post regarding how the player needs to figure out the plot was dead wrong.
They're exposed to the speech, but that's where the trail ends unless they follow it. And then the subsequent pieces can be encountered out of order.
I have never argued that the player is unable to encounter portions of the main quest out of order. Only that they have a perfectly clear plot thread to follow. That you admit there is a trail is pretty much my entire point; there is a clear overarching narrative exposed to the player at the start.
If a player reaches Nashkel without having visited the Friendly Arm, he still gets told he's heading I the right direction, but he'll have no idea why. Once there, there are two different joinable NPCs who want him to go west to the Gnoll Stronghold. At that point, the evidence that main quest relates to the Nashkel mines and has nothing to do with the gnolls is fairly weak.
As I said before, a player can quite easily recognize what Bioware intends the main quest to be, which would include approaching the Friendly Arm as per their conversation with Gorion. At that point, Khalid/Jaheira assign the Nashkel mines quest. Add on top of that, you're given a journal entry specifically linking Chapter 2 with the conflict behind the Nashkel Mines and your logic here is questionable.
I'm still talking about the latter. I played Oblivion for quite some time having no idea what the main plot was. I stumbled into Kvatch to find an oblivion gate, having never heard of one, and wondering what the hell it was.
While the plot hook in Oblivion gives you in-character reasons to run away from it, it gives no ooc reasons to follow it. That's what we're talking about. It doesn't even look like a plot hook to me - it looks like a trap for novice players.
And in both cases, Baldur's Gate and Oblivion, notice that your reasoning failed. Hence why I keep drawing comparisons to the plethora of games which serve to remind the player of what they need to do via main quest tabs, cinematics, the first "initial" quest of an RPG typically being of the highest priority, etc. As I said above, I have never denied that there may be other hooks to get the player started on the main quest. Only that your claim is false, that the game presents no overarching plot to the player when a path can quite easily be seen by anyone recognizing RPG tropes/game mechanics.
I agree. They both don't do thaf at all, and that is a hugely positive feature of those games.
I don't want games to leave an obvious trail of breadcrumbs like that. That BG doesn't is a big part of why I like BG.
I think you misread my post there. I'm suggesting that the games did exactly that: leave an obvious trail of breadcrumbs.
Retour en haut