Grimrock

Here's a relevant quote from Antti,

antti wrote:Everyone can post on these forums and the game is not designed for "certain types of people" and we welcome all sorts of feedback. Discussions and differing opinions relating to the design of the game can be had on the forums as long as the discussions steer clear of flaming.

In short, I don't want the following argument used on this forum: "the game is not designed for you so STFU". Everyone has a right to their opinion as long as it is communicated in a nice and polite manner.

Daniel.

Link to source, please.

Isaac wrote:

BlueLegion wrote:Well it looks like you both picked the wrong game to play then? How about finding a game that fits to you better instead of trying to mold this game into something else?

My gosh, what are you talking about? LoG is the most fun I've had in a game in years, why would I want to change anything about it?
The only thing I've suggested be changed is to have enemies that are directly behind the party skip their combat animation. I've followed the game since the middle of last year, and I'd have bought LoG at Skyrim's price.

I think I misinterpreted your post. I first thought you were agreeing with him and dismissing LoG's gameplay.

Mychaelh wrote:Link to source, please.

Sure,

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1627#p15568

That being said you can find anything on the forum by clicking on the persons name, "search users posts" then searching the results with a keyword. (I searched for designed in this instance), it's how I find every quote.

Daniel.

Nice to hear a quote like that from the devs.

The "find another game" is a really rude comment considering we are all posting here because we love the game and want it to become bigger and better. It's ok to disagree on what would improve the game but the dismissive attitude is just arrogant and unfounded.

I'm not going anywhere even if the devs disagree with my suggestions. I'll be getting all new content on day 1 anyway.

1varangian wrote:The "find another game" is a really rude comment

It certainly is, and I don't use it.
*(but I honestly don't disagree with it either, that's what genre, series, and sequels are for; to categorize for personal taste in entertainment).

You just used it. rofl

Darklord wrote:Here's a relevant quote from Antti,

antti wrote:Everyone can post on these forums and the game is not designed for "certain types of people" and we welcome all sorts of feedback. Discussions and differing opinions relating to the design of the game can be had on the forums as long as the discussions steer clear of flaming.

In short, I don't want the following argument used on this forum: "the game is not designed for you so STFU". Everyone has a right to their opinion as long as it is communicated in a nice and polite manner.

Daniel.

With all due respect but I don't see how this is relevant to the actual discussion. The entire thread is borderline flame-bait since it attacks a core mechanic of the game and the people arguing for the change seem to ignore all the explanations of why their suggestions will ruin this mechanic. Instead they claim that all they want is tweaking but don't really engage into a discussion of what would be the effects on the overall gameplay when doing these changes. Even worse, some of the "lacking" features are already in the game but again people ignore the arguments completely.

Instead of criticizing people for defending the game, it would be helpful to also seriously ask some people of why they are continuously ignoring all arguments and start a meta-discussion by accusing other people of using straw-man arguments which in my opinion is borderline baiting at this point. The same goes for the amount of hyperbole like: "99% of all attacks can be avoided by circle strafing" or "There is only one encounter in the entire game (fighter challenge) where tanking is necessary".

I'm all for moderating discussions and keeping a polite tone but this doesn't help in my opinion.

BlueSpace wrote: With all due respect but I don't see how this is relevant to the actual discussion.

I was responding to those telling others to go and play a different game.

If we could all try to keep things polite and friendly it would be appreciated, constructive criticism is great though!

Daniel.

BlueSpace wrote:
With all due respect but I don't see how this is relevant to the actual discussion. The entire thread is borderline flame-bait since it attacks a core mechanic of the game and the people arguing for the change seem to ignore all the explanations of why their suggestions will ruin this mechanic.

It's mostly the people "defending" the game (not that it really needs to be defended - these are suggestions, not demands) who post things like "go away" or "stupid idea" without any explanations to back up their opinions. A lot of people feel there are things that could be done to spice up combat and bring the RPG side of it up to speed.

There's 2 camps. Some people want to play combat like Tetris while some people want action/RPG combat where stats and tactics play a key role without eliminating the need for player movement. I support the latter because the RPG is already in the game, it's just often irrelevant. (Then there's the third camp who actually want static turn based combat but it's apparently a tiny majority - dungeon crawlers really have to be real time with movement)

Right now combat is about 90% Tetris / 10% RPG. Hats off to Almost Human if they can make it 50/50 and please both camps.