View Single Post

Default 

April 24th, 2007, 16:14
Originally Posted by Ionstormsucks View Post
What bugs me a bit in this discussion is that everyone takes the bits and pieces from the article and interprets them in a way he or she likes.

The author has many valid points, but again and again he seems to draw conclusions that are so far off that one is inclined to just stop reading. Trash for example. I can see his point, and in a way I agree with him. Although I doubt that even the classics of the rpg genre could get along without some trash - but anyway… let's just say the author has a point. And now comes the conclusion:
That wasn't the conclusion. This was.
Originally Posted by JeffV
Solving the problem of trash is both very easy and very hard. All you need to do is make an effort. Make the fights interesting. Make the corridors shorter. Cut down on the number of foes. And do something interesting! Think about what you're designing! A neat setting, a new special ability for the bad guys, a different number or mix of enemies…

Every time you have a group of enemies that is basically the same as the previous one, you suck. And, speaking as a designer, this goes just as much for me, for all the times I've had failures of creativity in my designs. I've stopped putting up with it, and you should do the same.
"Instead of throwing in more monsters to pad out your game, design each encounter to be unique in some way. Yes, I'm as guilty as anyone. It's harder than it sounds." The discussion focused on nitpicky details because nobody could possibly object to his conclusion. If anyone tried, we'd force them to replay the orc tunnels from NWN2.

Statues wouldn't be better if they could move. Model airplanes would not be better if they were the same size as airplanes.
abbaon is offline

abbaon

abbaon's Avatar
Daft as a daisy

#18

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 321