You can be bullheaded about if you wish, but you are not describing reality. The post was neither nonsense, nor anything I'd back away from. And I certainly stand by what I said.Azel wrote:There was a similarity between your beloved Mc Donald's and gaming, only the similarity proved you wrong which is why you ran from it after introducing it. Your attempt at "These are true, and this is how" was nonsense from the beginning because what you are trying to say is true is that certain games are bad, which is purely subjective. The only thing that is bad here is your logic.
Are you saying that they are not as I stated? And if so, can you prove that? They are as stated, that is ~if anything... concrete.Isaac wrote:Bethesda makes beautiful open world franken-shooters [stabbers] that are both mediocre shooters and mediocre RPGs... just enough of both to be tolerable to both groups of fans. If they made really good RPGs then they would loose the shooter fans; and if they made superb shooters, then they would only hamstring them by shoe-horning in RPG mechanics.
A subjective opinion that is based on nothing concrete, followed by a logical leap where you leave your brain behind.
Exactly! But Isaac is too blinded by his own ego to see this; notice how in his reply to you he skips this entirely. I think he brains literally turns off when faced with smartsRithrin wrote:In both games, you start as some unskilled, poor sod that was taken into custody for (alleged) crimes. Through some trick of fate or destiny, you rise rapidly in power, overcoming all obstacles in your way, and achieve unparalleled power. If you are trying to dismiss Skyrim as an 'ego stroking' game, you must also dismiss Grimrock 2. That, or realize that both can be good, quality products that simply feature different game mechanics.
A sad spoiler; as I've not finished the game yet. It wasn't deliberate, but of course once read... it can't be unread.Rithrin wrote:While I'm not a huge fan of some of the recent Elder Scrolls games, how would one distinguish between Skyrim and Grimrock 2 in the area of 'ego stroking'?
In Skyrim, you are the dragonborn! Look how you change from prisoner-refugee into a powerful dragon-shouting warrior mage!
In Grimrock 2,SpoilerShowyou become the Keeper! Look how you change from prisoners into the powerful Island Master, keeper of the spell that holds the universe together!
Isaac wrote:They are each concerned more with maintaining the dynamic world simulation and the perception that the player is the PC living there. This ~even to the detriment of any roleplaying mechanics it may have, as everything else is secondary, and the PC itself is practically negligible, and can be shed when inconvenient... which is a shame IMO, but that's how they want it. The games they make are designed to be a stream of consciousness sim, and their tagline for them is to be whoever you wish and do whatever you wish... and they don't really let the PC get in the way of that; and which is very bad for an RPG, I'd say.
any6 wrote:Uhm big macs are actually one of the most awesome inventions ever. There's meat, white bread (luxury product 50 years ago), mustard seeds on top, cheese, vegetables. For less than 3 dollars, this is full meal, rich in almost every nutrient the body needs.
Imagine merely 200 years ago in the town where you currently live. To get such a quality and quantity of food for such a low price would be a dream come true. It would be science fiction. It's the food described in Jules Vernes stories.
Whenever I'm stuck in grimrock, I always figured it's good to take a little break, let the mind rest, eat a big mac and come back later.
In Australia we get good meat, can even get Angus burgers.Anurias wrote:While I wont argue against hamburgers being a great invention I will argue against the big mac itself, with the abysmal quality of meat, and other less than ideal ingredients in order to keep the
cost of it down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FqOnOwQ ... e=youtu.beIs it true your burgers contain meat filler and pink slime?
In Hungry Jacks you can see wheat filler (or could), not sure if they are still half wheat crap as I don't eat them, but if you see light colored objects through the patty, about the size of seeds, it is grain/flour filler.Thanks, Sugar. We can tell you that there is no more than 5% sugar in our buns, in fact we reduced the amount of sugar in our buns back in 2004. All of our buns have no more than 5% sugar, no matter the variety. We use sugar in our baking process, not only for sweetness, but to provide a soft bun, consistent in size and texture with that golden brown finish when toasted!
More insults; more backpeddling.Azel wrote:Not really interested in whatever nerd rage gamer ego response you wanna type up, Isaac. Dropping you in to the irrelevant category. My favorite part about your ignorance is that you think these single player games are being built to appease an "ego" ... when it is only multiplayer games that allow people to express their ego. You are quite infantile.
Isaac wrote:They are each concerned more with maintaining the dynamic world simulation and the perception that the player is the PC living there. This ~even to the detriment of any roleplaying mechanics it may have, as everything else is secondary, and the PC itself is practically negligible, and can be shed when inconvenient... which is a shame IMO, but that's how they want it. The games they make are designed to be a stream of consciousness sim, and their tagline for them is to be whoever you wish and do whatever you wish... and they don't really let the PC get in the way of that; and which is very bad for an RPG, I'd say.
In other words you suck at gaming, which is why a grid-based game feels like a true RPG to you. Gotcha.
Well hey, hey, that example underscores, rather than overshadows, the main point. That's why I included the bit about SCP Containment Breach and manual eye blinking. My point was that manual breathing could actually be interesting (As an example, there could be lots of poison gas rooms, rooms with no oxygen, etc, designed as clever puzzles) but, since the game wasn't mechanically designed around it at all, there would be no reason to add it just for "annoyance".Isaac wrote:This is a point not often understood.Rithrin wrote: As a game designer, you shouldn't actively seek to add "unfun" mechanics into a game, nor should you seek to entirely add "fun" mechanics.
But this is a bit [too] hyperbolic, and overshadows the valid point.Imagine for a moment, that the developers put four small buttons next to the character portraits with the image of a lung on them.
But notice that both food and air are easy when you have them, and not so when they are not around. Notice that Grimrock 2 does indeed make air a scarcity in certain parts of the game.
Isaac wrote:More insults; more backpeddling.
Says the guy who keeps purposely avoiding explaining how Bethesda games are "Yes Man" games that appeal to player ego yet somehow Grimrock is different. I can prove my points by linking to Awards Bethesda has won over the years; what can you do besides quote hump and avoid stating a single fact?Isaac wrote:All you've shown yourself to be interested in is caustic gainsaying; that and attempting belittlement to avoid having to prove anything you've said once asked
Okay, uh, I agree that Isaac's posts are nutso, but this statement is very strange. Movies, books, single-player video games and many other forms of media act as fantasies and wish fulfilment more often than not. Grimrock and Skyrim are textbook examples of power fantasies: you're directed to think of yourself as the badass, powerful hero(es), you even get to commit massive amounts of violence and yet stay unambiguously the Good Guy(s). And there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it shouldn't be ignored.Azel wrote:And of course, you have not explained how it is possible that single player games appeal to player ego's when it is only multiplayer games that allow an outword expression of ones ego.