Gizmo wrote: ↑
April 17th, 2017, 11:29 am
This is etnirely a game design philosophy regarding how much realism is desired in the game.
It is you who are arguing realism, I am not. The game could be based on Flatland, or set in the village of Smurfs... They might not even need money... but favors for favors should probably equal out... and one smurf shouldn't expect the other to fix their wagon, and clean their house, and patch their roof, in exchange for a thank you note and a four leaf clover. [Though that might depend on the specific individuals. ;) ]
We're making the point that your defense can be taking logically to an extreme - how much realism in simulation is too much? There are some simulation-type things you want to be able to do, that we do not want to have to do. But rather than just admitting that it's the type of game that you like
and that we'd prefer not to have in BT4, you're using arguments that seem
to imply we want to do weird stuff that's not feasible in the real world, and literally speaking that may be. But with that you're starting from the premise of the game being a literal environment, whereas we're starting from the premise that the game is analogous to the real world - and as such, any number of real-world, simulator style actions that one might expect to do (anywhere from character pee breaks to sorting currency denominations) are things we simply want to have assumed
happen in gameplay rather than having us be forced to spend time doing them explicitly. There are certain actions you want
to be able to do, which we do not want to have
to do. None of us sit at either end of this simulation spectrum.
That is the crux of the argument.
What I pushed for was and RPG that holds the player to the character they've developed (and/or recruited); that character(s) being their lens into the game world; their means of influencing the events and outcomes that transpire; the source of their options. Those options change [or should] with the kind of PC they have.
And there it is again.
gameplay philosophies change with hardware capability?
Because you read whatever you want to into my posts...
There is nothing in that quote that deals with gameplay philosophies or hardware capability.
The game design philosophy is how much realism in gameplay is enough realism?
And that is not purely a technical capability question. ie, "the kind of PC they have" ~Gizmo.
It means that —in a bar fight... an unarmed halfling diplomat should have different options (and limitations) than a 250 pound armed barbarian warlord. [I'd say that includes leaving with all of the looted gear from the losers.]
All of this is game design philosophy.
How much realism is desired in the fight? AAAADDD? Or controlling every twitch and angle of your characters' limbs and weapons with polygon detection, texture and material physics for armour effects, exhaustion and battle effectiveness related to every pound of weight on your characters' shoulders, and, and, and...?
Obviously there is a line to be drawn - and that is the design philosophy for the game. It can be influenced by technical capability, but it it not merely because the classics were on ancient PCs compared to today. That is what we're arguing - many aspects of the gameplay can and do exist today
despite access to improved PCs. We're arguing points that have nothing to do with technology, just style of gameplay.
But that's the root of it all. The 75 pound mage should not be able to carry the same load as the 175 pound soldier —unless magic is employed... which might not always be possible in all situations.
But after some long trotting and tedious busy-work, the mage could have the same end effect - move everything piecemeal to the intended destination.
So, if the end result is to sell all the 'loot', then there are many, many ways developers can encourage certain strategies to get there.
Limiting it to only 1 - Limited carrying weight, for example - forces people who desire the perfectly legitimate end result to accomplish it via tedious, annoying ways (to them), effectively "gaming the game" for the same outcome. Other mechanics could have been developed to provide alternatives to reach the end result which they might have found more fun (as suggested earlier, like buying larger satshels, bags, mules, etc). Especially if it's a very common task and desire.
For carrying items in BT, there was never really a sense of specific "loss" if say your inventories were full. If it was an item you could choose
to pick up, you were asked, and you could return to pick it up once you made room if you had none. If you finished combat, you knew that whether you had space or not, you may or may not discover loot. So if you had no inventory slots, you don't know for sure if you'd have found an item or not since you're not told, so there's no effective 'loss'. But you knew that if you were hoping to find a rare item then you'd make efforts to leave inventory space for potential combat loot.
In none of this process was there a "hey Cid, go and pick up this item that dropped from the gnome you just killed". Is that the level of simulation you desire? If not, why not that detail, but the other levels of detail you are
arguing for elsewhere? What you're arguing is for your preference
in gameplay philosophy - more believable simulation in roleplaying games, in certain areas of gameplay mechanics.
And that's fine - but it's not Bard's Tale
To borrow an earlier example, a hobbit would need an explanation [allowed by the game —or by the narrative, in the case of a book] for being able to show up in a store with many potato sacks filled with gold (or for that matter potatoes) to trade with. In this case, a wheel-barrow is enough explanation. It would't matter to me if a mage had a scroll of 'Create Gold'; or a magic coat pocket that always had 50 gold in it every morning... So long as it's not 'deus ex machina', and is a known option for the character... The flip side of this is not being able to leave with a dragon's hoard ~if they don't have the means to make that an option. [ie no wheel-barrow, and not enough weeks to haul it all; and no place to store it once gotten. ;) ]
And all of that sounds fine. I think we'd all probably agree. Because those are other strategies to accomplish the same result, but without what we
may consider to be tedious busywork (such as the repetitive trotting back and forth to lug all the loot and sell it). So, maybe we should help inXile come up with strategies and gameplay elements that are fun
knowing the wide variety of preferences we have. ...which are of course still in the spirit of Bard's Tale.