Black Geyser - New Video

Originally Posted by ToddMcF2002
This thread is just…. wow.

Wow maaaaan, like people are, like, talking to each other WITH WORDS AND STUFF, maaaan, like whoaaaaaaaaa.

In reply to being asked why you're complaining that a game is both different and exactly the same, you replied with:

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
Again no complaint.
Just the remark on this BG feature and how self proclaimed old school gamers state they strive to conserve old school gaming.
Improving on a feature is also not copying it.
Most importantly, nowhere written that products must be their own things.

The original point was certain features can not be because players do not like them

Initially you did not know that the original game had the mechanic that the new one supposedly doesn't, and yet you bulled into the conversation because you spied the opportunity to talk crap at someone. After realising the initial point was factually incorrect you are now using this new information to make a different attack. If it's not a complaint, why attack?

A remark is it? A remark you made up on the spot a couple of hours ago because you felt stupid in an internet discussion? The "Original point" was some moron complaining that BG didn't have fleeing mechanics even though BG had fleeing mechanics.

When you say "improving" you don't actually confer any point. You could say "improving" to a gazillion little details in any RPG ever. Just because something exists it doesn't automatically follow that it can be "improved", nor that it should be, nor in what direction and by what method the so-called "improvements" should take.

You could "improve" the variety of swords in a game: Just like all those military weaponry nerds always demand. What's the result of that "improvement"? Messier itemisation, confusing itemisation, lots more development time for barely any gameplay benefit, increased artwork load, and more people than ever arguing about what sword types you've included because those swords nerds never agreed on most of their shit in the first place.

When 99% of players were and are quite ok with choosing between a basic handful of sword choices. And this is not about "playing it safe", it's about practical real world common-sense. If a game want's to have 50 different varieties of sword, good for them, no-one's going to stop them, but choosing to have a basic handful of sword choices is not "playing it safe" just because one game once decided to go full nerd on its swords.

In reply to me suggesting you're completely losing focus with the discussion you wrote:

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
Of course it is. That is the purpose of attributing to people words they have not said.

????????????

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
When reading testimonies of rapists, school killers and stuff, it appears they often desire their victims to resist a bit, they desire them to cower in fear, kick, try to get away. It adds to their enjoyment. What they do not want is getting frustrated by a victim that would knock them out, flee successfully…
That is the spirit.

Jeezus effin' Christ…

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
Abstracting, averaging… On a site that screams about Oblivion being voiced over by four actors, on a site that is bent on storytolding…

Here's a case of abstracting, averaging: make all NPCs coloured androgynous NPCs because meeting hundreds of NPCs. Races and genders abstracted and averaged in one and only NPC.

Abstracting is not averaging. Non-one has either said or implied that, that is something you've plucked out of thin air as yet another example of you're incessant desire to write complete crap at people.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
Neo Scavenger

We're not talking about single character roguelikes that have a penchant for modern realism…

Originally Posted by lackblogger
Jeezus effin' Christ…

What’s the problem? Don’t like all the WORDS AND STUFF?

Originally Posted by ToddMcF2002
What’s the problem? Don’t like all the WORDS AND STUFF?

The choice of example? Doesn't seem odd/bizzare to you in any way?

We should put tariffs on any RtwP/Turn based Rpgs.

Originally Posted by BoboTheMighty
We should put tariffs on any RtwP/Turn based Rpgs.

We should put tariffs on lackblogger's posts. We'd make a fortune off this thread.

You don't like my postings to this thread?

Can I ask why? Or are you just enjoying the attention of pointing out that a conversation is happening?

Originally Posted by lackblogger
Oh dear, you really are embarassing yourself aren't you…

You made me smile for minute, Im so embarrassed now! In this case I better back away to not make it all worse and more embarrassing for me!

Uh-huh…. sureeeee. You're not at all performing troll-saveface reflex number 101…

Originally Posted by lackblogger
Abstracting is not averaging. Non-one has either said or implied that, that is something you've plucked out of thin air as yet another example of you're incessant desire to write complete crap at people.

Puzzling.
Abstraction can be managed through averaging.

Weird stuff to state as it has grown so common: the reign of the middle class has led to the abstraction of a citizen, the average person.

Nevertheless, the kind of abstraction of people race, gender was not cheered.

Can anyone translate this please?

Originally Posted by lackblogger
In reply to being asked why you're complaining that a game is both different and exactly the same, you replied with:

Zero complaint. Far from it.

Initially you did not know that the original game had the mechanic that the new one supposedly doesn't, and yet you bulled into the conversation because you spied the opportunity to talk crap at someone. After realising the initial point was factually incorrect you are now using this new information to make a different attack. If it's not a complaint, why attack?

If the original game is BG, the feature was known and quoted on this site numerous times as an example of players' dedication to old school gaming.

A remark is it? A remark you made up on the spot a couple of hours ago because you felt stupid in an internet discussion? The "Original point" was some moron complaining that BG didn't have fleeing mechanics even though BG had fleeing mechanics.

No. Each person is responsible for one's own words. The original point was about the causes that lead to the lack of mentioned features.

When you say "improving" you don't actually confer any point. You could say "improving" to a gazillion little details in any RPG ever. Just because something exists it doesn't automatically follow that it can be "improved", nor that it should be, nor in what direction and by what method the so-called "improvements" should take.

Already answered.

You could "improve" the variety of swords in a game: Just like all those military weaponry nerds always demand. What's the result of that "improvement"? Messier itemisation, confusing itemisation, lots more development time for barely any gameplay benefit,

Drifting again. It is about enemy behaviours.
All examples taken from Neo Scavenger might be seen as benefitial by gamers.

They are detrimental to players who seek to dominate, to prevail. It is bad design in their case and not benefitial at all.
Lately, a school shooter recounted how he got that sense of excitement seeing people cowering in fear, begging for their life, trying to defend themselves helpless by throwing punches in the air and how he got frustrated by people who managed evasion, blaming them for acting that way. That ruined his fun.

That is the same spirit. It serves no purpose to feed players who want to conquer, to dominate, to prevail enemies that make those players feel insecure because the enemies might be able to flee,might be able to turn the tables on the PC.
Those enemies are meant to be conquered. They must resist just enough to give that sense of excitment but certainly not to make a player feel insecure.

That is the main reason why devs must be very careful when they implement enemy behaviours. The core of the original point.

increased artwork load,

Neo Scavenger was light on artwork. One artwork by type of enemy for example.
Despite this, and thanks to enemy behaviours, a thug (represented by the same artwork) coud be different from other thugs because it behaves differently from the common thug, it could be tougher, cockier, more persisting etc

Characterization through gameplay, same artwork, no visual differences, differences by the way they act and behave.

Originally Posted by lackblogger
Can anyone translate this please?

Not an issue of translation again. A matter of way of thinking.

Not everyone is gifted enough to overcome situations like harping against globalization, global corporations and how they harm the little guy and later using global corporations'reach to enforce a global ban on products, ban that will harm the little guys.
Overcoming a situation like this takes a superior mind.

So… what little we've seen of this game looks pretty good. I'm not getting my hopes up until we're closer to release though.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
They are detrimental to players who seek to dominate, to prevail. It is bad design in their case and not benefitial at all.
Lately, a school shooter recounted how he got that sense of excitement seeing people cowering in fear, begging for their life, trying to defend themselves helpless by throwing punches in the air and how he got frustrated by people who managed evasion, blaming them for acting that way. That ruined his fun.

That is the same spirit. It serves no purpose to feed players who want to conquer, to dominate, to prevail enemies that make those players feel insecure because the enemies might be able to flee,might be able to turn the tables on the PC.
Those enemies are meant to be conquered. They must resist just enough to give that sense of excitment but certainly not to make a player feel insecure.

That is the main reason why devs must be very careful when they implement enemy behaviours. The core of the original point.

Complete horseshit.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
Drifting again. It is about enemy behaviours.
All examples taken from Neo Scavenger might be seen as benefitial by gamers.

Neo Scavenger was light on artwork. One artwork by type of enemy for example.
Despite this, and thanks to enemy behaviours, a thug (represented by the same artwork) coud be different from other thugs because it behaves differently from the common thug, it could be tougher, cockier, more persisting etc

Characterization through gameplay, same artwork, no visual differences, differences by the way they act and behave.

Yes dear, and if a game chose to have 50 varieties of sword then that could be seen as 'beneficial' by gamers, it just transfers the workload from one part of the game to another.

You are literally saying it yourslef: In Neo Scavengar the developer sacrificed eneny variety. By working from that limitation he then had to devise a way to differentiate enemies so that his game wouldn't be too repetative and boring. In a fantasy game this is not requred because fantasy games do not put their limitation at the point of character models, character models are the priority. The threat level is indicated by the character model, and that threat level is what monster type one is facing.

Human versus human was the topic raised, and not only that but human versus human in a team focused environment. Any single individual in any situation, either in a game or in real life, is naturally going to have a greater fear threshold than any team of individuals, it's a completely different paradigm. Walking home alone in the dark through a wood on your own versus with just one mate, let alone a whole gang? Understand the difference yet?

With a team game, the 'fear factor' of each individual is completely surplus to requirements and has virtually no gameplay value. People join desperate fights just because the one they love is being attacked, not because of threat level, because they are defending each other, because they are following a leader, because they might be shot by their leader when they get home anyway if they don't fight, the permutations are endless.

Once again, you're just bull-headedly pushing examples from a single character small roguelike game that has a penchant for realism into a discussion about a party based fantasy RPG, and I keep mentioning this and you keep ignoring it. I've asked you to provide an example of a situation in Baldur's Gate where you feel your game was inferior because it did not include whatever minutia you happen to be over-emphasising in whatever post, but you don't, you keep talking about a single character roguelike that has a penchant for modern realism.

You remember all the way back when Apple informed you that you were comparing oranges to apples? Do you understand why he said this yet?

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
Puzzling.
Abstraction can be managed through averaging.

Weird stuff to state as it has grown so common: the reign of the middle class has led to the abstraction of a citizen, the average person.

Nevertheless, the kind of abstraction of people race, gender was not cheered.

Love these comments by Chien!

I will not try to understand, though. In the end there is only Cthulhu.