....Woolfe wrote: ↑April 17th, 2017, 8:27 pmUm.. maybe I am confused, but I think PC is used in terms of Player Character here, and not Personal Computer.....thebruce wrote: ↑April 17th, 2017, 11:07 amAnd there it is again.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.
Why should gameplay philosophies change with hardware capability?
That would make sense.
In this case.
Elsewhere though hardware was made reference too, so the misunderstanding isn't entirely my fault :P lol
The devs want people to buy their game.Gizmo wrote: ↑April 17th, 2017, 8:57 pmPersonally, I don't think the player's wont should be considered at all. The game should have its systems, and they either like it or they don't.thebruce wrote: ↑April 17th, 2017, 7:46 pmAll of this "but then the player can do this, and the player can do that" - sure. But not every player wants to be able to do that, let alone have to do that. That's what we're saying. The game can either assume that all of "that" gets done automatically, or the game can provide various means to an end of which the player can choose which is most fun for them.
The players' desires are not irrelevent.
As I said earlier, they need to decide on a balance between the game they want to make, and the game they want people to enjoy. That means gaining input from us about our preferences. If we don't like it, we don't buy it. They can "force" their style on us, but do they want to if more people will not enjoy it? And yes that can also be said about the style of play we're advocating for. BTIV can either be a huge mass market success, or a niche game. They've got decide a) what they want it to be, and b) what both of those mean for the game design philosophy.
(and again I reiterate: it's not that I, personally, wouldn't enjoy the type of gameplay mechanic you're advocating, but it keeps coming back to whether it's Bard's Tale, which for me is important for BTIV)
noblesse has much more stringent desires on specific mechanics than I. So this is more directed towards him. I may be a bit more flexible on specific mechanics, like I said as long as what's implemented is fun, and feels like Bard's Tale, then I can enjoy it. There are some mechanics mentioned here that I would also find boring, tedious, and unnecessary - in that other means to an end can exist to make that particular desire more fun to achieve than "gaming the game" in order to get there.Really the main problem [as I see it] with auto-pick-up —aside from cursed items [which you don't want singled out], is what to do when the PC can't carry any more stuff. Be it item slots, item weight, or both, when there is more than can be carried, I would guess that the PC's inventory (or carry limit) gets filled up with some of the loot, and stops. What then?
Why do you keep implying "anything"?Gizmo wrote: ↑April 17th, 2017, 9:25 pmWhat we consider 'good gameplay' clearly isn't the same thing... What you consider 'good gameplay' appears [to me] to be streamline/merged—sand-blasted gameplay that ignores anything inconvenient to what the player wants to do in the moment. [Or what is subjectively considered boring]
I don't think anyone has advocated to let the player do impossible things being not being able to wouldn't be fun. The argument was that there are many repeated, mundane tasks (obviously arriving at an end in-game, using the game engine, which is by definition not impossible - the devs designed it that way) become annoying, tiring, boring. Why force that mechanic on a player? There are many repeated, mundane tasks that can be assumed without having to 'spell it out', in order for the player to continue on in the enjoyment without 'interruption', as it were. These are not requests to do "impossible" things. They are requests to have tedious things happen without the need for player agency - the player can "explain" in the gaps with their imagination - whether it's how they arrange inventory items to carry what they want, or know how much spending power they have without having to fiddle with denominations, or understand that their characters take significant bathroom breaks once or twice each day/night cycle without being required to locate an outhouse, etc.My understanding of it [open to correction if wrong], is that of not caring about the incidentals, and just wanting to be done with it... when it is the incidentals that should sometimes make getting it done —impossible; but that this too should be ignored, because it isn't interesting or fun.
Absolutely not. It has to do, simply, fundamentally, with how fun the game's tasks are. That's it. The devs define entirely what the player has to do in order to accomplish something. Part of the design process is finding out what players do and want, what they will resort to, in order to achieve something that's "hard" to achieve. Will they follow the route you lay out for them, with the work and effort required? Or will they try to find sneaky ways around all that hard work? We're human, we're wired that way, minimize work and maximize reward. So the trick for them is to design that work to be fun, not tedious and annoying (to some, not all). They can't please everyone, but they sure as heck can listen to what players find enjoyable and find a way to work it into the game mechanics to whatever degree they want in their game.They will say that this has to do with GUI efficiency, but in practice it affects the PCs ability to interact and to be imposed upon.
Just please keep it "Bard's Tale".