45703
Post by: Lynata
Melissia wrote:None of this is a good reason to force sexism in to a game every single FETHING time you have a woman character.
That is correct, but I don't think anybody has been argueing this, nor would I agree that this is the case for every game with female characters.
68714
Post by: VorpalBunny74
 Melissia wrote:It shouldn't be damn hard for people to admit that realism in videogames can and does also suck in many ways, too.
I agree with this, realism is a weird goal for a hobby that largely markets itself as escapism.
But I'll admit to being biased against realistic games.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
 VorpalBunny74 wrote: Melissia wrote:It shouldn't be damn hard for people to admit that realism in videogames can and does also suck in many ways, too.
I agree with this, realism is a weird goal for a hobby that largely markets itself as escapism.
But I'll admit to being biased against realistic games.
If you are in game design schools. It is literally shoved down your throat to make better more graphically beautiful games.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
 Lynata wrote:That's kind of claiming a self-fulfilling prophecy, though. If you made Jensen customisable, you'd still get the same story with the same things happening, right up to the "push one of three buttons" ending. The only thing that makes characters like Jensen or Lara specific is designers taking choice away from you instead of leaving multiple options.
Customisable how? Change of hair? Clothing? What the hell difference would that make to the game? And you're making it sound as if characters are arbitrary to the story, like the fact that it's a story about [specific character] rather than [blank slate #33459-A] somehow makes the game more limiting. That's baloney.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Lynata wrote:Melissia wrote:None of this is a good reason to force sexism in to a game every single FETHING time you have a woman character.
That is correct, but I don't think anybody has been argueing this
People have stated that the only reason you should ever include women is to have a game about "womens' issues". Which, in the end, has basically the same result.
68714
Post by: VorpalBunny74
 Asherian Command wrote:If you are in game design schools. It is literally shoved down your throat to make better more graphically beautiful games.
That's not surprising, considering how much importance is placed on graphics by the press and a lot of consumers.
Like the backlash against the FF13 PC port.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Asherian Command wrote:If you are in game design schools. It is literally shoved down your throat to make better more graphically beautiful games.
That's not surprising, considering how much importance is placed on graphics by the press and a lot of consumers.
Like the backlash against the FF13 PC port.
Yeah they are trying to push us mostly to 'realistic' and the problem though is that we lose a lot of skills if we only go for realistic designs.
Where most people are drawing humans, but can't draw creatures. I am known for being able to make a creature, but I suck at human characters.
632
Post by: AdeptSister
Lynata,
That is what keeps coming up: That adding a Minority or Female character has to be justified in a story, but a white male character does not.
Especially when it's fantasy. Which reminds me one of my picks for a problematic male character: Barrett from FFVII. Part of me is happy they tried to have a black character, but man, it was bad.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
 AdeptSister wrote:Lynata,
That is what keeps coming up: That adding a Minority or Female character has to be justified in a story, but a white male character does not.
Especially when it's fantasy. Which reminds me one of my picks for a problematic male character: Barrett from FFVII. Part of me is happy they tried to have a black character, but man, it was bad.
Wait what. If your using my idea from last thread. I think I have debated it is fine to add it. It just needs to make sense. You can't just plop a strong female character who is african american in a world where every's natural skin color is blue.
It would be awesome. But it wouldn't make a lick of sense.
68714
Post by: VorpalBunny74
Asherian Command wrote:Yeah they are trying to push us mostly to 'realistic' and the problem though is that we lose a lot of skills if we only go for realistic designs.
Where most people are drawing humans, but can't draw creatures. I am known for being able to make a creature, but I suck at human characters.
Can you make humans with creature features, like Zeno Clash?
THAT game certainly didn't aim for realism.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Asherian Command wrote:Yeah they are trying to push us mostly to 'realistic' and the problem though is that we lose a lot of skills if we only go for realistic designs.
Where most people are drawing humans, but can't draw creatures. I am known for being able to make a creature, but I suck at human characters.
Can you make humans with creature features, like Zeno Clash?
THAT game certainly didn't aim for realism.
I would love to.
I mean my art is mostly basically right now. But thats because I just started to draw. But I more about writing and leading groups of people.
632
Post by: AdeptSister
The "making sense" is the point of contention. A lot of times, a different gender, sex, or race would not changed the narrative much. Like it was mentioned before, in CoD4 a protagonist was black. It did not effect the story and didn't need to.
29408
Post by: Melissia
AdeptSister wrote:The "making sense" is the point of contention. A lot of times, a different gender, sex, or race would not changed the narrative much. Like it was mentioned before, in CoD4 a protagonist was black. It did not effect the story and didn't need to.
And, unlike what people have asserted in both "what problems do gamers have..." threads, this doesn't mean that the guy shouldn't have been black.
45703
Post by: Lynata
H.B.M.C. wrote:Customisable how? Change of hair? Clothing? What the hell difference would that make to the game?
And you're making it sound as if characters are arbitrary to the story, like the fact that it's a story about [specific character] rather than [blank slate #33459-A] somehow makes the game more limiting. That's baloney.
I've already explained how it can make a difference: by allowing a player to avoid or at least lessen what they might consider bad taste (see the first couple pages of this thread), and by granting them the ability to insert more of whatever their personal preferences are at the time of gaming into the product. Of course a game feels limiting if it doesn't offer these options, and this has in the past influenced my purchase decision.
Maybe you simply happen to like any and all premade character you are presented with in the games you play. That's great - just don't assume that everyone had the same luck and shares your preferences.
Melissia wrote:People have stated that the only reason you should ever include women is to have a game about "womens' issues". Which, in the end, has basically the same result.
AdeptSister wrote:That is what keeps coming up: That adding a Minority or Female character has to be justified in a story, but a white male character does not.
What?  If so, that is bollocks, of course.
But from how Ash's last comment sounds like, the "making sense" has more to do with setting limitations, rather than the goal of the narrative?
29408
Post by: Melissia
Which means that they can and have always justified excluding women because lazy gakky writers, therefor, feth that excuse.
Or, to be more blunt: "durr, writan wimmenz iz hurd, letz juts sai eetz heesturikul!"
68714
Post by: VorpalBunny74
AdeptSister wrote:The "making sense" is the point of contention. A lot of times, a different gender, sex, or race would not changed the narrative much. Like it was mentioned before, in CoD4 a protagonist was black. It did not effect the story and didn't need to.
I don't know, I think a female protagonist would have made Watch Dogs more interesting for one 
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
What? If so, that is bollocks, of course.
But from how Ash's last comment sounds like, the "making sense" has more to do with setting limitations, rather than the goal of the narrative?
That is what I am saying, but more elegantly you have said it.
11783
Post by: illuknisaa
What problems do gamers have with how men are represented in games?
WTF does this even mean? Why would anyone have any problems how men/womyn/cats are represented?
Few years ago there was this resident evil game which was set in africa. It was received pretty poorly but not because it had bad gameplay or myriad of technical difficulties. It was poorly received because it had a white guy shooting black people.
Why should devs waste any effort on features that are as shallow as possbile and add nothing of value to their game? Wanting games to have options for the sake of options is a bad idea. Imagine if the time spent on character creator of skyrim were spent spent melee combat or quest design instead the game would be much better.
25990
Post by: Chongara
 illuknisaa wrote:
Why should devs waste any effort on features that are as shallow as possbile and add nothing of value to their game? Wanting games to have options for the sake of options is a bad idea. Imagine if the time spent on character creator of skyrim were spent spent melee combat or quest design instead the game would be much better.
I know this may come as a shock to anyone who hasn't like, looked at the credits in them but these games are made by a ton of people and those two things were probably done by entirely different teams on the project.
45703
Post by: Lynata
illuknisaa wrote:Why would anyone have any problems how men/womyn/cats are represented?
Are you for real?
illuknisaa wrote:Wanting games to have options for the sake of options is a bad idea.
It's nice if you don't mind playing characters you don't like, but I would not assume this to be a popular opinion. I don't think I would have purchased Skyrim if it had forced me into playing this dude and him alone.
Dismissing character customisation to be "options for the sake of options" is about the same as dismissing narratives as "story for the sake of story". Sure you'll have games where neither won't matter, but to just declare this the standard? I think gaming in general is better than that. We've come past the age of Tetris and Space Invaders.
Chongara wrote:I know this may come as a shock to anyone who hasn't like, looked at the credits in them but these games are made by a ton of people and those two things were probably done by entirely different teams on the project.
But ... but ... think of the budget!
#2hard2render 
79992
Post by: Bishop F Gantry
 Chongara wrote: illuknisaa wrote:
Why should devs waste any effort on features that are as shallow as possbile and add nothing of value to their game? Wanting games to have options for the sake of options is a bad idea. Imagine if the time spent on character creator of skyrim were spent spent melee combat or quest design instead the game would be much better.
I know this may come as a shock to anyone who hasn't like, looked at the credits in them but these games are made by a ton of people and those two things were probably done by entirely different teams on the project.
If you cut one thing you can focus money on the other thing and devs are already cutting corners so bad nowadays it looks like a circle instead of a square.
11783
Post by: illuknisaa
Lynata wrote:
illuknisaa wrote:Wanting games to have options for the sake of options is a bad idea.
It's nice if you don't mind playing characters you don't like, but I would not assume this to be a popular opinion. I don't think I would have purchased Skyrim if it had forced me into playing this dude and him alone.
Dismissing character customisation to be "options for the sake of options" is about the same as dismissing narratives as "story for the sake of story". Sure you'll have games where neither won't matter, but to just declare this the standard? I think gaming in general is better than that. We've come past the age of Tetris and Space Invaders.
But you were forced to play that character?? The game assumed you were a generic nord dude #428 and it never even tried to try do something else. The race/gender selection in the begining only changes how you look in a first person game. And this was a major selling point for you. How shallow can you be?
29408
Post by: Melissia
If you stop paying people they will go work somewhere else, thus causing you to lose your talent.
11783
Post by: illuknisaa
Melissia wrote:If you stop paying people they will go work somewhere else, thus causing you to lose your talent.
What talent?
29408
Post by: Melissia
I was responding to Bishop.
45703
Post by: Lynata
illuknisaa wrote:How shallow can you be?
Yes, I'm shallow for having lost interest in the 5237642765th iteration of "buff brown-haired dude with stubbly beard". 
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
The more extensive the character creation system, the less intrinsic your created character is to the plot. If you can live with that, then ok, but the idea that games would be better if they allowed more character choice is just flat out wrong.
45703
Post by: Lynata
H.B.M.C. wrote:The more extensive the character creation system, the less intrinsic your created character is to the plot.
That depends heavily on what plot you want to use.
Taking the aforementioned examples of Deus Ex HR or Tomb Raider, what exactly would have to change if Jensen was a Black woman or Lara an Asian man? Pray tell, what exactly was it that was so intrinsic to the plot here?
Simple appearances are only relevant for a plot is the plot is based on them. For the majority of games this is not remotely a factor.
42494
Post by: nomotog
 H.B.M.C. wrote:The more extensive the character creation system, the less intrinsic your created character is to the plot. If you can live with that, then ok, but the idea that games would be better if they allowed more character choice is just flat out wrong.
I don't think that is the case. Saint row 2 has massive customization and they are still intrinsic to the plot. They even drive the plot more then most video game protagonist.
11783
Post by: illuknisaa
Melissia wrote:I was responding to Bishop.
So?
Lynata wrote:illuknisaa wrote:How shallow can you be?
Yes, I'm shallow for having lost interest in the 5237642765th iteration of "buff brown-haired dude with stubbly beard".
It's like you refuse to look at a painting because you don't like the frames*
* TBH painting's frames are bigger deal than pc's hairstyle in a first person game.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Your analogy is wrong, it would be more accurate to write “It's like you complaint about every paintings having the same boring frames”. Or something. Because he never said he refused to look at the rest of the game and enjoy it (or not) for its other traits.
25990
Post by: Chongara
I think both custom and and pre-built characters are equally valid game elements, no matter if what you are/aren't getting customization with is appearance or something else.
However, I can certainly appreciate a frustration with the large stable of games using rather "Stock" characters. Particularly when so many of those games are trying to make "You" the player character in question, with the stock option being so unlike you only for the sake of safe marketability.
That said I'm not sure those are valid criticisms of set characters or even the stock characters like Grizzled McWhiteDude in and of themselves. Rather the problem is with how just how prolific and flimsily justified the uses of these elements are.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Chongara wrote:I think both custom and and pre-built characters are equally valid game elements, no matter if what you are/aren't getting customization with is appearance or something else.
However, I can certainly appreciate a frustration with the large stable of games using rather "Stock" characters. Particularly when so many of those games are trying to make "You" the player character in question, with the stock option being so unlike you only for the sake of safe marketability.
That said I'm not sure those are valid criticisms of set characters or even the stock characters like Grizzled McWhiteDude in and of themselves. Rather the problem is with how just how prolific and flimsily justified the uses of these elements are.
A great example is look at the bioshock series.
It has a lot of defined characters Andrew Ryan, Jack is a defined character, Booker is a defined character, and also a father.
Elizabeth is a defined character and had her own DLC which is as long as the original game. etc. etc.
I personally love those games because they make the women in their games definable and human like. (Except maybe Elizabeth, who felt like a god damn human being.)
29408
Post by: Melissia
If you want to know the context of my post, you would read his post. The context is quite clear.
11783
Post by: illuknisaa
Melissia wrote:If you want to know the context of my post, you would read his post. The context is quite clear.
Been there, done that.
Bishop F Gantry wrote: Chongara wrote: illuknisaa wrote:
Why should devs waste any effort on features that are as shallow as possbile and add nothing of value to their game? Wanting games to have options for the sake of options is a bad idea. Imagine if the time spent on character creator of skyrim were spent spent melee combat or quest design instead the game would be much better.
I know this may come as a shock to anyone who hasn't like, looked at the credits in them but these games are made by a ton of people and those two things were probably done by entirely different teams on the project.
If you cut one thing you can focus money on the other thing and devs are already cutting corners so bad nowadays it looks like a circle instead of a square.
You can't lose talent if there is none. Adding extra hairstyles to a character = zero talent.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Your analogy is wrong, it would be more accurate to write “It's like you complaint about every paintings having the same boring frames”. Or something. Because he never said he refused to look at the rest of the game and enjoy it (or not) for its other traits.
Oh? I guess I got it wrong then.
Lynata wrote: I don't think I would have purchased Skyrim if it had forced me into playing this dude and him alone.
29507
Post by: Lotet
illuknisaa wrote:You can't lose talent if there is none. Adding extra hairstyles to a character = zero talent.
Damn man, just because you don't like a feature or the thought of its inclusion doesn't mean there's no talent behind it. I'm trying to pick up 3D modeling skills and when you say something like that it is really dismissive.
Also, what's with the painting metaphor? Just take the words for exactly what they are, Lynata is tired of the same character archetype being used over and over again. Why would you even try to represent it as anything else? Doesn't that statement stand on its own and make complete sense as it is? Don't try to complicate and compare it when you already know what is being said. Just argue against what was said, don't set up a phony argument.
632
Post by: AdeptSister
I think that the popularity of customizable characters has proven there is a market. Heck, it's standard even in fps multi-player games.
Like it has been mentioned in this thread, being able to change the PCs appearance would not effect the game play.
If you like the status quo, that's fine. But you don't have to be so dismissive of other people's issues with the media.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
AdeptSister wrote:I think that the popularity of customizable characters has proven there is a market. Heck, it's standard even in fps multi-player games.
Problem there is that Multi-player parts of FPS games have no bearing on story, so really having customizing options for your character has nothing to do with the game itself. In the case of FPS games, it's generally a means to differentiate yourself from others' or, sometimes to gain a terrain advantage over other players.
68714
Post by: VorpalBunny74
AdeptSister wrote:I think that the popularity of customizable characters has proven there is a market. Heck, it's standard even in fps multi-player games.
Like it has been mentioned in this thread, being able to change the PCs appearance would not effect the game play.
If you like the status quo, that's fine. But you don't have to be so dismissive of other people's issues with the media.
Customised characters can cause clipping and wire-frame issues, though, as seen in almost every wrestling game. I'm not saying it's a bad feature, I think it should be pretty much mandatory for RPGs, but it does require more coding and testing than a set character.
Not to mention gender select means changes to the script if "he/she" is used anywhere, even if they're mainly called by their surname or a title. "That Shepard, he sure get's things done," would be jarring if you were playing a FemShep, for example. I still can't forget that happening in Jedi Academy with my female character 
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
VorpalBunny74 wrote: AdeptSister wrote:I think that the popularity of customizable characters has proven there is a market. Heck, it's standard even in fps multi-player games.
Like it has been mentioned in this thread, being able to change the PCs appearance would not effect the game play.
If you like the status quo, that's fine. But you don't have to be so dismissive of other people's issues with the media.
Customised characters can cause clipping and wire-frame issues, though, as seen in almost every wrestling game. I'm not saying it's a bad feature, I think it should be pretty much mandatory for RPGs, but it does require more coding and testing than a set character.
Not to mention gender select means changes to the script if "he/she" is used anywhere, even if they're mainly called by their surname or a title. "That Shepard, he sure get's things done," would be jarring if you were playing a FemShep, for example. I still can't forget that happening in Jedi Academy with my female character
Yeah, that happens in Saints Row 4 as well. I remember NPCs referring to my lady-boss as a guy sometimes.
Though it is funny hearing Laura Bailey saying she wants more stripper poles
45703
Post by: Lynata
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Because he never said he refused to look at the rest of the game and enjoy it (or not) for its other traits.
Pretty much. 
From earlier post in other threads:
"This is not to say that predefined character appearances automatically make a game or a movie gak, but in my opinion it certainly is something which plays a role in my overall assessment of the game, added to by how much I like said game's other aspects, and how much I like/dislike whatever the developers have chosen to "force" on me in terms of the character I am supposed to play."
- http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/539180.page#5835495
"For example, I disliked the inability to "adjust" Adam Jensen in Deus Ex - something which was still possible in the preceding game - but at least the character looked somewhat unique, and the brilliant story allowed me to overcome what I still see as a flaw."
- http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/539180.page#5837723
In other words, for me character customisation is an important feature, but not the only thing I'm looking for in a game. You know how various games magazines give different ratings for stuff like graphics, gameplay, story etc? Well, I have a similar system, just that "customisation" is part of it, too.
illuknisaa wrote:Oh? I guess I got it wrong then.
You did, but it's pretty common on the internet to assume the worst just because someone has a different opinion.
VorpalBunny74 wrote:Not to mention gender select means changes to the script if "he/she" is used anywhere, even if they're mainly called by their surname or a title. "That Shepard, he sure get's things done," would be jarring if you were playing a FemShep, for example.
You can minimise this impact with just a little foresight when writing the dialogue, though. There's no reason why that line couldn't be "That Shepard sure gets things done", for example. And Mass Effect in particular had a noticeable trend of using "Shepard" in place of he/she - this has also allowed the character to give their Shep a different first name without it affecting the dialogue.
Not saying that this sort of customisation doesn't up the budget still. It certainly does. But generally, I find such claims to often be exaggerated, as if the cost of making a game would suddenly jump up 100% as if the dev was forced to make everything twice.
As for the clipping and wireframe issues - I think Mass Effect also only used 1-2 bodies per race for all the NPCs, and just switched heads? Though technologies such as the one developed by the indie team of The Mandate clearly shows what you can do to support a great variety of body shapes.
If you really want to make good customisation, there's a large number of games that can show you how it's done, from Star Trek Online to APB. It all depends on how important a feature you consider it, and what amount of customisation you believe should be minimum, which obviously depends on personal preferences. Hell, even just having half a dozen premade characters to choose from would already help a lot - remember KotOR or Deus Ex Invisible War? Two body types (male, female) with three heads (caucasian, african-american, asian) each.
68714
Post by: VorpalBunny74
Lynata wrote:You can minimise this impact with just a little foresight when writing the dialogue, though. There's no reason why that line couldn't be "That Shepard sure gets things done", for example. And Mass Effect in particular had a noticeable trend of using "Shepard" in place of he/she - this has also allowed the character to give their Shep a different first name without it affecting the dialogue.
Not saying that this sort of customisation doesn't up the budget still. It certainly does. But generally, I find such claims to often be exaggerated, as if the cost of making a game would suddenly jump up 100% as if the dev was forced to make everything twice.
As for the clipping and wireframe issues - I think Mass Effect also only used 1-2 bodies per race for all the NPCs, and just switched heads? Though technologies such as the one developed by the indie team of The Mandate clearly shows what you can do to support a great variety of body shapes.
If you really want to make good customisation, there's a large number of games that can show you how it's done, from Star Trek Online to APB. It all depends on how important a feature you consider it, and what amount of customisation you believe should be minimum, which obviously depends on personal preferences. Hell, even just having half a dozen premade characters to choose from would already help a lot - remember KotOR or Deus Ex Invisible War? Two body types (male, female) with three heads (caucasian, african-american, asian) each.
I agree, a gender select option can be minimized, but as you said only if it's included from the planning stage. In which case I'm not even sure it would affect some budgets. If video game development is like general software development then most budget blowouts happen because some bright spark wants a new feature halfway through development or testing.
I'm not saying customisation or gender select shouldn't be in more games (I WANT them to be in more games) but they need to be included from the start, no free lunch and all that.
11783
Post by: illuknisaa
Lotet wrote: illuknisaa wrote:You can't lose talent if there is none. Adding extra hairstyles to a character = zero talent.
Damn man, just because you don't like a feature or the thought of its inclusion doesn't mean there's no talent behind it. I'm trying to pick up 3D modeling skills and when you say something like that it is really dismissive.
Are you going to make a game with just 3d modelling skills? If you are then I'm sorry to tell you that the game is going to suck.
AdeptSister wrote:I think that the popularity of customizable characters has proven there is a market. Heck, it's standard even in fps multi-player games.
Like it has been mentioned in this thread, being able to change the PCs appearance would not effect the game play.
If you like the status quo, that's fine. But you don't have to be so dismissive of other people's issues with the media.
Popular ideas are smart ideas? I like the way you think. 
Lynata wrote:Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Because he never said he refused to look at the rest of the game and enjoy it (or not) for its other traits.
Pretty much.
illuknisaa wrote:Oh? I guess I got it wrong then.
You did, but it's pretty common on the internet to assume the worst just because someone has a different opinion.
Lynata this is your post correct?:
Lynata wrote: I don't think I would have purchased Skyrim if it had forced me into playing this dude and him alone.
45703
Post by: Lynata
VorpalBunny74 wrote:I'm not saying customisation or gender select shouldn't be in more games (I WANT them to be in more games) but they need to be included from the start, no free lunch and all that.
Oh yeah, absolutely.
I guess I'm just a bit angry that it's not included from the start as I feel it should be an industry standard by now, just like almost everyone and their mum is doing things in 3D nowadays.
illuknisaa wrote:Lynata this is your post correct?:
Of course. You can see it on the name that precedes the "wrote" part at the top.
Thing is that you immediately jumped to conclusions as if I had posted a much broader statement such as "I'd never purchase any game if it forced me to play some premade character". It certainly is a valid interpretation, but only the worst out of several options. Several other posters have correctly guessed my intent - though that may just be because they're more accustomed to me posting on these subjects than you are (or who may have read the earlier statements I linked to).
My mistake may have been not to word it less ambiguous, but at the same time you kept insisting on that "evil image" of mine you concocted in your head, even where other posters pointed out several alternate possibilities that would paint me in a better image. Why did not give me the benefit of the doubt, like I did with Asherian Command here?
In general, I feel there's several posters from both sides of the debate(s) in this thread who might benefit from not automatically assuming the worst of the other side even if it sounds like arguments against something they consider important. If something is not perfectly clear, just phrase a post in a way that the other side has to clarify their position instead of painting them like arrogant dicks. Maybe they really are arrogant dicks, but don't assume so just because they take a position you don't like.
29408
Post by: Melissia
VorpalBunny74 wrote:I'm not saying customisation or gender select shouldn't be in more games (I WANT them to be in more games) but they need to be included from the start, no free lunch and all that.
I agree entirely. Devs need to think about inclusion from the very start of their game concept.
29507
Post by: Lotet
illuknisaa wrote:Lotet wrote: illuknisaa wrote:You can't lose talent if there is none. Adding extra hairstyles to a character = zero talent.
Damn man, just because you don't like a feature or the thought of its inclusion doesn't mean there's no talent behind it. I'm trying to pick up 3D modeling skills and when you say something like that it is really dismissive. Also, what's with the painting metaphor? Just take the words for exactly what they are, Lynata is tired of the same character archetype being used over and over again. Why would you even try to represent it as anything else? Doesn't that statement stand on its own and make complete sense as it is? Don't try to complicate and compare it when you already know what is being said. Just argue against what was said, don't set up a phony argument.
Are you going to make a game with just 3d modelling skills? If you are then I'm sorry to tell you that the game is going to suck.
Really dude? What's your deal? I'm telling you now I've already learnt how to use Unity3D and GameMaker:Studio before that. Animation and Modelling are the only parts I'm having trouble with, every gap of knowledge for programming is easy for me to fill, so I've decided to learn how to make basic models and get them to work in a game, instead of using pre-built models that Unity can provide because I want to expand my knowledge and not have it be a problem in the future and because you can't make a game without those assets, despite how good my brother may be at 2D and 3D art he's too lazy to help long term. Hopefully I can get him to texture the models at least since he's a 2D artist primarily and a 2D artist can make low poly models look good. I don't even understand why you would say something like that. Oh, wait, it's what Lynata said. You assumed the worst.
10920
Post by: Goliath
 Lotet wrote: illuknisaa wrote:Are you going to make a game with just 3d modelling skills? If you are then I'm sorry to tell you that the game is going to suck.
Really dude? What's your deal? I'm telling you now I've already learnt how to use Unity3D and GameMaker:Studio before that. Animation and Modelling are the only parts I'm having trouble with, every gap of knowledge for programming is easy for me to fill, so I've decided to learn how to make basic models and get them to work in a game, instead of using pre-built models that Unity can provide because I want to expand my knowledge and not have it be a problem in the future and because you can't make a game without those assets, despite how good my brother may be at 2D and 3D art he's too lazy to help long term. Hopefully I can get him to texture the models at least since he's a 2D artist primarily and a 2D artist can make low poly models look good.
I don't even understand why you would say something like that. Oh, wait, it's what Lynata said. You assumed the worst.
There's no point trying to have a reasoned discussion with him. This is the guy that was overjoyed at the fact that PSN got hacked a couple of years ago, because it only hurt console gamers, not real gamers, and they deserved it because he had to put up with shoddy ports. You're not going to convince him of anything, and I wouldn't recommend trying; it's like slamming your head into a brick wall with a superiority complex.
29507
Post by: Lotet
illuknisaa wrote:It will only hurt console owners (those who deserve it and more) not gamers.
Well hey, you're right, he said it in no uncertain terms. Still, I've known an idiot who thought humans could blow up the sun with nukes and that console gamers aren't real gamers, both when he was 17, but now he's a relatively normal guy. The above quoted post was form 3 and a half years ago, after all. If illuknisaa just stop trying to insult people who disagree with him or try to ask him questions, he might also turn out to be pretty normal nowadays.
11783
Post by: illuknisaa
Lotet wrote:
Really dude? What's your deal? I'm telling you now I've already learnt how to use Unity3D and GameMaker:Studio before that. Animation and Modelling are the only parts I'm having trouble with, every gap of knowledge for programming is easy for me to fill, so I've decided to learn how to make basic models and get them to work in a game, instead of using pre-built models that Unity can provide because I want to expand my knowledge and not have it be a problem in the future and because you can't make a game without those assets, despite how good my brother may be at 2D and 3D art he's too lazy to help long term. Hopefully I can get him to texture the models at least since he's a 2D artist primarily and a 2D artist can make low poly models look good.
I don't even understand why you would say something like that. Oh, wait, it's what Lynata said. You assumed the worst.
I think my deal is pretty obvious. You* can't make a game with just 3d modelling skills. In fact you* could drop the entire graphics modelling department from a studio and the game would still be playable.
What I don't get is how people have problems with character customization which has the least amount impact on the actual game. There is nothing wrong having a deep character customization but only if all the other parts of the game work. Things like explosion visuals are far more important to a action game than any hairstyle option could ever be.
Lynata's post here are just hilarious. He cares more about can he change the size of his nose than the gakky melee mechanics, shallow map design or retardo story. The fact that skyrim is a first person game is just icing on the cake.
*I don't mean just you, lotet.
29408
Post by: Melissia
That is a stupendous example of a strawman argument.
123
Post by: Alpharius
In a thread about video games on a site primarily devoted to miniature wargaming, people REALLY need to remember the rules that govern posting here - ESPECIALLY Rule #1.
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
illuknisaa wrote: Lotet wrote: Really dude? What's your deal? I'm telling you now I've already learnt how to use Unity3D and GameMaker:Studio before that. Animation and Modelling are the only parts I'm having trouble with, every gap of knowledge for programming is easy for me to fill, so I've decided to learn how to make basic models and get them to work in a game, instead of using pre-built models that Unity can provide because I want to expand my knowledge and not have it be a problem in the future and because you can't make a game without those assets, despite how good my brother may be at 2D and 3D art he's too lazy to help long term. Hopefully I can get him to texture the models at least since he's a 2D artist primarily and a 2D artist can make low poly models look good. I don't even understand why you would say something like that. Oh, wait, it's what Lynata said. You assumed the worst.
I think my deal is pretty obvious. You* can't make a game with just 3d modelling skills. In fact you* could drop the entire graphics modelling department from a studio and the game would still be playable.
No one said one only needs 3d modelling skills to create a game. It is a useful thing to have though. I do agree that Skyrim is overrated. It is a decent game, but it is not the second coming of game design. FNV is more deserving of that title 
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
No one said one only needs 3d modelling skills to create a game.
It is a useful thing to have though.
I do agree that Skyrim is overrated. It is a decent game, but it is not the second coming of game design.
FNV is more deserving of that title
Correct. 3d modelling is optional, and is usually the most expensive part of any game company is usually the 3d modelling and rendering.
Usually a programmer is also trained in 3d modelling.
29507
Post by: Lotet
illuknisaa wrote:I think my deal is pretty obvious. You* can't make a game with just 3d modelling skills. In fact you* could drop the entire graphics modelling department from a studio and the game would still be playable.
*I don't mean just you, lotet.
Sure you could drop the graphics department. Though I don't know why you mention that, considering no one said it. But I'm sitting here with an unwrapped model wondering what the hell has gone wrong with it. So a graphics department would be nice and can literally flesh out a world.
illuknisaa wrote:What I don't get is how people have problems with character customization which has the least amount impact on the actual game. There is nothing wrong having a deep character customization but only if all the other parts of the game work. Things like explosion visuals are far more important to a action game than any hairstyle option could ever be.
That may be true, but Skyrim is an RPG primarily, not an action game. So to me, that customization is very important to how much I enjoy the game. Heck, it really is one of the reasons that I make new characters and replay the game over and over, along with other Elder Scrolls and Fallout games.
illuknisaa wrote:Lynata's post here are just hilarious. He cares more about can he change the size of his nose than the gakky melee mechanics, shallow map design or retardo story. The fact that skyrim is a first person game is just icing on the cake.
Oh? I think in Bethesda games it's already important. The game hundreds of NPCs and each one has a unique face. So they already have the technology for full character customization anyway. I get much more attached to the NPCs when they don't all look identical. Take Morowind for example, they had pre-made faces so the NPCs had to be very special in personality to stand out, such as Divayth Fyr or Crassius. In Skyrim I can remember most NPCs, even if I forget their name.
Plus hey, you get all those other games that concentrate more on explosions than character faces. I'm very glad that the variety provided by Skyrim exists to do what other games don't. How can a game so un-amazing in so many ways attract so many people? I assume for the same reasons some people hate it before finishing an hour of gameplay... you're not one of those people who abandoned Skyrim quickly are you? That might explain quite a bit about you.
If you're gonna keep arguing about this you should choose a different game. Since I find it very important to my overall enjoyment. If there were only 10 different faces, it would really affect me. I'd certainly take improved hairstyle option over explosion visuals.
illuknisaa, could you please PLEASE read Rule #1. I really want you to read it. It's only a few paragraphs. Could you read it please?
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
 Alpharius wrote:In a thread about video games on a site primarily devoted to miniature wargaming, people REALLY need to remember the rules that govern posting here - ESPECIALLY Rule #1.
I tried that last time, then I got told I was using the Authority Fallacy and was chased out by an angry mob!
Though it really tells you how passionate 'gamers' here get when they talk about games.
Even though sometimes they say they know but they don't really know all the business behind the computer.
Or the techniques Designers use to grab your attention. There are extremely subtle and you can never really tell unless you have been trained to do so.
Ever since learning about animation basically most games are ruined to me when I noticed problems in movement.
Now back on topic.
Men are not under represented, though we have a large category of them. Most times falling in the gruff and gun wielding silent protagonist category.
Very few times do we get a character that is well defined and follows a character arc. You know character 101. Where the character matures or changes.
For example: Booker DeWitt, becomes more protective of Elizabeth and grows up a bit. He changes from a sarcastic jerk to a very caring man of Elizabeth.
Another Example: Jason Brody, starts out as a college student on vacation.
There are a few examples throughout gaming, mostly done by very good producers and game directors. 2k Usually releases some of the best games that center around story.
Spec Ops: The Line and Bioshock Infinite having some of the best characters in gaming. Period.
(Though that is an opinion not an insertion in this debate.)
There a few games that use the silent protagonist in ingenius ways. In the mark of the ninja for example you are an outcast of the clan you bare the mark. A curse upon you for crimes you have done to your clan.
Male characters should have more memorable qualities. But most fall into a blur.
45703
Post by: Lynata
illuknisaa wrote:Lynata's post here are just hilarious. He cares more about can he change the size of his nose than the gakky melee mechanics, shallow map design or retardo story.
Lynata wrote:This is not to say that predefined character appearances automatically make a game or a movie gak, but in my opinion it certainly is something which plays a role in my overall assessment of the game, added to by how much I like said game's other aspects, and how much I like/dislike whatever the developers have chosen to "force" on me in terms of the character I am supposed to play.
Lynata wrote:In other words, for me character customisation is an important feature, but not the only thing I'm looking for in a game. You know how various games magazines give different ratings for stuff like graphics, gameplay, story etc? Well, I have a similar system, just that "customisation" is part of it, too.
Now you're not even jumping to conclusions anymore, you're just ignoring what I said.
Well, it's your choice.
Asherian Command wrote:Male characters should have more memorable qualities. But most fall into a blur.
Yeah, the visual design doesn't help either. In fact, it might even affect perception more than a character's actual personality, unless you've got a very exceptional game. Most of the time there's just a huge risk of immediately falling into a bias because you see a character's design and immediately think "oh, it's one of those again", even if it turns out to be unjustified. Some designers need to learn that mainstream =/= memorable. Most of the time, you just can't have both.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Well, when you've seen a thousand scruffy white boy action heroes already, it does feel like any future one won't be any different.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Yeah, the visual design doesn't help either. In fact, it might even affect perception more than a character's actual personality, unless you've got a very exceptional game. Most of the time there's just a huge risk of immediately falling into a bias because you see a character's design and immediately think "oh, it's one of those again", even if it turns out to be unjustified. Some designers need to learn that mainstream =/= memorable. Most of the time, you just can't have both.
You can have some really memorable characters. As long as you have a good character I am fine with it. Automatically Appended Next Post: Melissia wrote:Well, when you've seen a thousand scruffy white boy action heroes already, it does feel like any future one won't be any different.
I disagree. You can always have a good character regardless of race or gender.
We have yet to see a gunslinger that is charitable, but wrathful. Easily angered but is doing the right thing. Basically a robin hood character. So far we have only had 1 character fit under this category. And that's Garret from the ORIGINAL Thief Games.
I think we need better characters overall and more diversity.
Personally as a writer I think its easy. But a developer would tell me otherwise.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
A bunch of copy pasted stock characters aren't memorable by definition. Maybe memorable stories, or games, but the character themselves is forgettable.
Think of Scruffy McWhiteDude as Keanu Reeves. Yeah, sometimes he's in a decent movie. But really, was the Matrix good because Keanu Reeves was in it? No. Keanu Reeves was pretty bland in the Matrix and we only remember that movie because most of the rest of it was pretty good. Even portraying the awesome John Constantine, Keanu Reeves managed to be unbelievably bland (and that movie really need a good actor in the lead role to save it too ).
Scruffy McWhiteDude is Keanu Reeves. Forgettable, uninspiring, and generally the person you hire for the job when you got no one else.
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
 LordofHats wrote:A bunch of copy pasted stock characters aren't memorable by definition. Maybe memorable stories, or games, but the character themselves is forgettable. Think of Scruffy McWhiteDude as Keanu Reeves. Yeah, sometimes he's in a decent movie. But really, was the Matrix good because Keanu Reeves was in it? No. Keanu Reeves was pretty bland in the Matrix and we only remember that movie because most of the rest of it was pretty good. Even portraying the awesome John Constantine, Keanu Reeves managed to be unbelievably bland (and that movie really need a good actor in the lead role to save it too ). Scruffy McWhiteDude is Keanu Reeves. Forgettable, uninspiring, and generally the person you hire for the job when you got no one else.
What if Scruffy McWhiteDude is played by John Wayne? Automatically Appended Next Post: Asherian Command wrote:
Melissia wrote:Well, when you've seen a thousand scruffy white boy action heroes already, it does feel like any future one won't be any different.
I disagree. You can always have a good character regardless of race or gender.
We have yet to see a gunslinger that is charitable, but wrathful. Easily angered but is doing the right thing. Basically a robin hood character. So far we have only had 1 character fit under this category. And that's Garret from the ORIGINAL Thief Games.
I think we need better characters overall and more diversity.
Personally as a writer I think its easy. But a developer would tell me otherwise.
Like Rooster Cogburn? I wouldn't mind a game with a Rooster Cogburn sort of character.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
 CthuluIsSpy wrote: LordofHats wrote:A bunch of copy pasted stock characters aren't memorable by definition. Maybe memorable stories, or games, but the character themselves is forgettable.
Think of Scruffy McWhiteDude as Keanu Reeves. Yeah, sometimes he's in a decent movie. But really, was the Matrix good because Keanu Reeves was in it? No. Keanu Reeves was pretty bland in the Matrix and we only remember that movie because most of the rest of it was pretty good. Even portraying the awesome John Constantine, Keanu Reeves managed to be unbelievably bland (and that movie really need a good actor in the lead role to save it too ).
Scruffy McWhiteDude is Keanu Reeves. Forgettable, uninspiring, and generally the person you hire for the job when you got no one else.
What if Scruffy McWhiteDude is played by John Wayne?
John Wayne has personality. He can't play Scruffy McWhiteDude
29408
Post by: Melissia
I said "there have been so many scruffy white guy action heroes that they just blend together and leave me thinking they're just going to suck and be samey again". Not "scruffy white guy action heroes can't be good characters". This is not a complicated, hard-to-comprehend difference.
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
LordofHats wrote: CthuluIsSpy wrote: LordofHats wrote:A bunch of copy pasted stock characters aren't memorable by definition. Maybe memorable stories, or games, but the character themselves is forgettable. Think of Scruffy McWhiteDude as Keanu Reeves. Yeah, sometimes he's in a decent movie. But really, was the Matrix good because Keanu Reeves was in it? No. Keanu Reeves was pretty bland in the Matrix and we only remember that movie because most of the rest of it was pretty good. Even portraying the awesome John Constantine, Keanu Reeves managed to be unbelievably bland (and that movie really need a good actor in the lead role to save it too ). Scruffy McWhiteDude is Keanu Reeves. Forgettable, uninspiring, and generally the person you hire for the job when you got no one else.
What if Scruffy McWhiteDude is played by John Wayne?
John Wayne has personality. He can't play Scruffy McWhiteDude
Lies. John Wayne can play anything, provided that character is the good guy. I can't think of a film where Wayne was the villain, or an overall despicable character. Even Clint Eastwood played a bad guy at one point, in The Beguiled.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Lies. John Wayne can play anything, provided that character is the good guy.
I can't think of a film where Wayne was the villain, or an overall despicable character.
That's because the Duke had class
But then again, he turned down being in The Dirty Dozen to make The Green Berets, so I guess no one is perfect
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
CthuluIsSpy wrote: LordofHats wrote:A bunch of copy pasted stock characters aren't memorable by definition. Maybe memorable stories, or games, but the character themselves is forgettable.
Think of Scruffy McWhiteDude as Keanu Reeves. Yeah, sometimes he's in a decent movie. But really, was the Matrix good because Keanu Reeves was in it? No. Keanu Reeves was pretty bland in the Matrix and we only remember that movie because most of the rest of it was pretty good. Even portraying the awesome John Constantine, Keanu Reeves managed to be unbelievably bland (and that movie really need a good actor in the lead role to save it too ).
Scruffy McWhiteDude is Keanu Reeves. Forgettable, uninspiring, and generally the person you hire for the job when you got no one else.
What if Scruffy McWhiteDude is played by John Wayne?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote:
Melissia wrote:Well, when you've seen a thousand scruffy white boy action heroes already, it does feel like any future one won't be any different.
I disagree. You can always have a good character regardless of race or gender.
We have yet to see a gunslinger that is charitable, but wrathful. Easily angered but is doing the right thing. Basically a robin hood character. So far we have only had 1 character fit under this category. And that's Garret from the ORIGINAL Thief Games.
I think we need better characters overall and more diversity.
Personally as a writer I think its easy. But a developer would tell me otherwise.
Like Rooster Cogburn? I wouldn't mind a game with a Rooster Cogburn sort of character.
Yes. also john wayne ehhh . I don't know
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Well, stop using “racial slurs”, it offends people around here. I know it does not sound like a racial slur, unlike, say, “babtou” (that is what would be used in French, no idea what would be used in US or UK), but hey, what do I know…
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Not even sure how that's racist; He's white, usually Irish or PennDutch in depiction, and Scruffy. It's a rather ingenious identifier Same reason I call generic Black characters Attitude Brown, because they're usually not that black, and they always have attitude (I also call them Dies First)
29408
Post by: Melissia
Dies First is pretty accurate.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
The latest CAD sillies seem relevant to the subject at hand:
http://www.cad-comic.com/sillies/20141109/
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
PIST
Assassins creed is a medicore game.
The only reason why it is doing well is because of its marketing.
As is Call of Duty.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Just like Starcraft or World of Warcraft, too-- mediocre games that have good marketing. But the fact is, they're popular, trend-setting games, and those games changing will make the industry standard change little by little, so they're something to be concerned with.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Melissia wrote:Just like Starcraft or World of Warcraft, too-- mediocre games that have good marketing. But the fact is, they're popular, trend-setting games, and those games changing will make the industry standard change little by little, so they're something to be concerned with.
Errr.. No. Blizzard games are extremely complicated. I mean hearthstone is their biggest money maker. All of their games even in the industry are considered even better.
They do things that take most programmers MONTHS to do. They also have more complicated models than most others. That and they also have pretty great writing. They are always consistent. Hence why they are so popular.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
To you they don't. They know how to code, model, and write stories, and in my opinion those are the biggest three things you really need.
57098
Post by: carlos13th
Starcraft an excellent game.
29408
Post by: Melissia
They should choose to do it, if they know how to.
And your list is laughably incomplete, showing your lack of knowledge of game design. You need more than just modeling, coding, and storytelling to make a good game, especially if it's more than just a five dollar indie game.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Yeah I think Im on the fence here.. I mean, I play Starcraft and I used to love Wow, but I don't think they are great, I think they are just well sold. Its like anything over here, market it well and it sells.
Look at Micheal Bay, Tyler Perry, and the fething Cheesecake Factory.
I actually played SC2 for a few hours today cos I haven't had it installed for about 2 years and I forgot how fething corny the dialogue is, plus the fact almost everything they seem to make is ripped off of something else in popular culture. I thought they were fnastastic in my teens but twenty years later I just cant understand how they have been so successful.
Probably because just like so many other American companys, they can get away with blatantly stealing gak because we live in such an insular and elitist country that rarely looks outwards and almost never concedes that maybe other people can actually teach us anything. I remember Tarantio said something along the same lines when he was releasing all of those "Tarantio Presents" movies because people wouldn't watch them if they knew he had nothing to do with them and they were made entirely in China or Japan.
I still find their games polished and pretty well made, but a love affair that started with WC2 is most definitely over.
Well.. once I kill rescue Kerrigan anyway... its been a few years! 
4001
Post by: Compel
I'm going to be a bit disparaging of an art here but. It is 3am and I can't sleep.
I would have though that the programming for Blizzard games was one of the least complicated parts of them. It would seem to me that 90% of it would just be sticking what is effectively large statline into an array. I don't think either WOW or SC2 go into the insane detail that Total War claim they did, by individually calculating the trajectories of every bullet and round etc. Instead its a simple % chance DPS calculation that games have been doing since MUD.
No, I imagine the complexity and real skill comes from people deciding the values that go into the arrays, many of whom, I imagine, might not have any direct keyboard to code involvement. Instead I can seem them handing lists of requirements to the 'code monkeys' to implement.
But then, that might just be my experience in enterprise Software talking and maybe Blizzard work in a completely different way.
68714
Post by: VorpalBunny74
I didn't think Starcraft 2 was all it could be. It didn't have that addictiveness of the first one, at least for me it didn't.
But I have to confess I might be biased due to the frustration of jumping through multiplayer hoops to reach a singleplayer campaign.
45703
Post by: Lynata
... or maybe we've just gotten old and we have all those precious memories of how "magical" everything was back then, when today we are getting bombarded by so much colourful advertisement and PR spins that, in combination with an awakened perception of how sick this world really is, few things manage to enthuse us as they did back then when we were a lot more innocent and wide-eyed. Not to mention cultural phenomena such as this interesting thing here suggesting a trend in reception that, by means such as this forum, cascades through the entire web.
VorpalBunny74 wrote:But I have to confess I might be biased due to the frustration of jumping through multiplayer hoops to reach a singleplayer campaign.
Uh...?
Does this help? https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/running-starcraft-ii-in-offline-mode
mattyrm wrote:I actually played SC2 for a few hours today cos I haven't had it installed for about 2 years and I forgot how fething corny the dialogue is, plus the fact almost everything they seem to make is ripped off of something else in popular culture.
I appreciate the irony in this being posted on a Warhammer board.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Melissia wrote:They should choose to do it, if they know how to. And your list is laughably incomplete, showing your lack of knowledge of game design. You need more than just modeling, coding, and storytelling to make a good game, especially if it's more than just a five dollar indie game.
Modeling - Creation of objects within the game, including background objects and many others coding - including most programmings Storytelling - the ability to tell a story Those are three major bits that you should look at a game for. They are staples of game design. there are many others but I will not rate for everything. I look at those three mostly. Because they are the most important. I would have though that the programming for Blizzard games was one of the least complicated parts of them.
Well. A lot of things they are doing in their games are even beyond many programmers. Their programming is actually more complicated. Say what you will about blizzard but they know how to appeal to a mass market. You may not personally like them but there are sure hell a lot of people that do. ... or maybe we've just gotten old and we have all those precious memories of how "magical" everything was back then, when today we are getting bombarded by so much colourful advertisement and PR spins that, in combination with an awakened perception of how sick this world really is, few things manage to enthuse us as they did back then when we were a lot more innocent and wide-eyed. Not to mention cultural phenomena such as this interesting thing here suggesting a trend in reception that, by means such as this forum, cascades through the entire web.
Basically. I can play new games without any problems. Games are getting better most usually people have memoribillia that games were oh so much better back then. When they weren't they were simple, but that didn't make it better. If you play older games and compare them to newer games, older games are only better because of memorbillia. There are some cases where that is not true.
68714
Post by: VorpalBunny74
Lynata wrote:... or maybe we've just gotten old and we have all those precious memories of how "magical" everything was back then, when today we are getting bombarded by so much colourful advertisement and PR spins that, in combination with an awakened perception of how sick this world really is, few things manage to enthuse us as they did back then when we were a lot more innocent and wide-eyed. Not to mention cultural phenomena such as this interesting thing here suggesting a trend in reception that, by means such as this forum, cascades through the entire web.
VorpalBunny74 wrote:But I have to confess I might be biased due to the frustration of jumping through multiplayer hoops to reach a singleplayer campaign.
Uh...?
Does this help? https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/running-starcraft-ii-in-offline-mode
Cheers for the link, but I played throught the campaign ages ago. Haven't played Heart of the Swarm yet because of an error when trying to install. Ha ha! 
But I agree rose tinted glasses might be in effect for some games, particularly sequels.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Lynata wrote:... or maybe we've just gotten old and we have all those precious memories of how "magical" everything was back then
Nah, Total Annihilation was better.
4001
Post by: Compel
Asherian Command wrote:
I would have though that the programming for Blizzard games was one of the least complicated parts of them.
Well. A lot of things they are doing in their games are even beyond many programmers. Their programming is actually more complicated.
Say what you will about blizzard but they know how to appeal to a mass market.
You may not personally like them but there are sure hell a lot of people that do.
You've stated the programming is more complicated twice now, without stating any reason why. The next two statements seem particularly random and beside the point as well. I never said they didn't have mass appeal. What I said was, I'm not convinced its down to the the guys who write the code.
In any case, going back to thinking about characters. The thought comes to me, is that in the grand scheme of things, there just aren't that many games released every year. Its probably related to that '80% of everything is rubbish' idea. So many books, TV shows and films in general are released every year that you can spend your entire year just looking at the best 20% of novels and be unaware of the rubbish 80% of them. Even with films, though there are significantly less released, there's usually still one or two 'hidden gems' amongst the major film releases.
Games, if you only count games that the general gaming public are aware of. You could argue that storywise things like 'The Walking Dead' could take up the full allotment of 'not rubbish'.
On the other hand, the futures bright. Traditionally, people weren't aware of the semi-indie games like TWD. Now they're getting more well known as it becomes easier for people to become aware of these games with actual good stories and characters (including introducing more diverse male protagonists). At this point, in the not too distant future, I think big publishers will be galvanised into making unique stories and characters a higher priority.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
 mattyrm wrote:Probably because just like so many other American companys, they can get away with blatantly stealing gak because we live in such an insular and elitist country that rarely looks outwards and almost never concedes that maybe other people can actually teach us anything.
Hollywood has the very same disease as Bollywood. And it is called “remake”. I wonder if it is because Indians and U.S. citizens have the same disease that makes them unable to enjoy foreign movies before they are put through some terrible, terrible blender to “americanize” or “indianize” them, or if this is just an assumption from the industry (or if that is the case everywhere in the world but only Hollywood and Bollywood have enough money to do the remakes), but this is very, very lame.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Melissia wrote: Lynata wrote:... or maybe we've just gotten old and we have all those precious memories of how "magical" everything was back then
Nah, Total Annihilation was better.
I've tried Total Annihilation and I was not impressed. What was supposed to be good with it? If you excuse the little trail off topic.
29408
Post by: Melissia
 Ashiraya wrote: Melissia wrote: Lynata wrote:... or maybe we've just gotten old and we have all those precious memories of how "magical" everything was back then
Nah, Total Annihilation was better.
I've tried Total Annihilation and I was not impressed. What was supposed to be good with it? If you excuse the little trail off topic.
For one, it was the first RTS game that tracked actual movement of projectiles over a 3d terrain; it had a much vaster scale than any non-space RTS up to that point; was even easier than starcraft to modify and totally convert in to new games; it had air units that were more than just blimps hovering in the sky (a rarity even to this day; starcraft 2 still hasn't managed it); it had a classic and epic sci-fi backstory; It had true line of sight, with 3d calculations on what provided sight to what; it had deeply customizable AI for individual or groups of units (something which wasn't abnormal back then, but which the 'craft series always lacked); its "flow" economy made the game make much more sense than the standard economies of RTS games, its expansion was perfect and expanded the story and gameplay dramatically; it was the first RTS which had purely water maps, etc etc etc. I could rant for a while about it, but it's easier to say what it lacks, rather than what was good about it-- and that would be that it lacks defined characters and it lacks an attack-move option. And that was about it really, compared to other games of its time period.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Melissia wrote: Ashiraya wrote: Melissia wrote: Lynata wrote:... or maybe we've just gotten old and we have all those precious memories of how "magical" everything was back then
Nah, Total Annihilation was better.
I've tried Total Annihilation and I was not impressed. What was supposed to be good with it?
If you excuse the little trail off topic.
For one, it was the first RTS game that tracked actual movement of projectiles over a 3d terrain; it had a much vaster scale than any non-space RTS up to that point; was even easier than starcraft to modify and totally convert in to new games; it had air units that were more than just blimps hovering in the sky (a rarity even to this day; starcraft 2 still hasn't managed it); it had a classic and epic sci-fi backstory; It had true line of sight, with 3d calculations on what provided sight to what; it had deeply customizable AI for individual or groups of units (something which wasn't abnormal back then, but which the 'craft series always lacked); its "flow" economy made the game make much more sense than the standard economies of RTS games, its expansion was perfect and expanded the story and gameplay dramatically; it was the first RTS which had purely water maps, etc etc etc.
I could rant for a while about it, but it's easier to say what it lacks, rather than what was good about it-- and that would be that it lacks defined characters and it lacks an attack-move option. And that was about it really, compared to other games of its time period.
This all sounds rather neat from a technical perspective and like it could do a far bit for immersion and depth with good execution. On the other hand it sounds like a total nightmare when it comes to accessibility, consistency and clear mechanics.
Like opaque calculations for TloS are certainly cool, but they'd be a bear for anyone looking to master a system or follow the actions of a game in progress. The Starcraft games execute on those points very successfully (as do things like MOBAs), which I think really accounts for both their broad audience and acceptance as spectator sports of sorts.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Well, just wait until you get to see the list of available units. Just to give you a small idea, here is some Wikipedia excerpt:
Cavedog released The Core Contingency a year after the release of Total Annihilation. It features 25 new missions as well as 75 new units. It continues the story after the ending of the Arm campaign. The expansion also comes with the Total Annihilation editor, which allows users to create maps and missions.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Managed to find a list:
http://www.thefullwiki.org/Total_Annihilation/Units
29408
Post by: Melissia
And that doesn't count free DLC units.
632
Post by: AdeptSister
I remember when TA came out and the complexity was definitely intimidating. I did not get a chance to play enough to truly get comfortable. The Craft series and Command and Conquer were more friendly. My major issues with Craft games were attacks auto hit and storylines. But I have to hand it to Blizzard on Starcraft series: the three races play completely differently yet are very well balanced against each other.
My favorite RTS actually is the original Homeworld. I loved space battles with fighters zooming between capital ships and a 3-d environment.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
You've stated the programming is more complicated twice now, without stating any reason why. The next two statements seem particularly random and beside the point as well. I never said they didn't have mass appeal. What I said was, I'm not convinced its down to the the guys who write the code.
Blizzard has its own unique programming code, along with its own unique 3d modelling all developed in house.
All of that is developed by a small group of developers.
Think of 3ds max but 10x more efficient.
Their programming also includes random number generators and random terrain generators as show in diablo 3. Diablo 3 has the most interesting coding ideas put down. Everytime you enter a area something is always different.
There is also randomly generated dunegeons that also change creatures, bosses, etc.
There is also the resource generator etc. Blizzard are masters of RNG. The fact that it runs so smoothly is a staple of their abilities. They do many other programming feats such as their development of WOW and a combination of its quest system. They take ideas from other games and refine them and give them a twist.
In any case, going back to thinking about characters. The thought comes to me, is that in the grand scheme of things, there just aren't that many games released every year. Its probably related to that '80% of everything is rubbish' idea. So many books, TV shows and films in general are released every year that you can spend your entire year just looking at the best 20% of novels and be unaware of the rubbish 80% of them. Even with films, though there are significantly less released, there's usually still one or two 'hidden gems' amongst the major film releases.
Games, if you only count games that the general gaming public are aware of. You could argue that storywise things like 'The Walking Dead' could take up the full allotment of 'not rubbish'.
On the other hand, the futures bright. Traditionally, people weren't aware of the semi-indie games like TWD. Now they're getting more well known as it becomes easier for people to become aware of these games with actual good stories and characters (including introducing more diverse male protagonists). At this point, in the not too distant future, I think big publishers will be galvanized into making unique stories and characters a higher priority.
Agreed.
68714
Post by: VorpalBunny74
Melissia wrote:For one, it was the first RTS game that tracked actual movement of projectiles over a 3d terrain; it had a much vaster scale than any non-space RTS up to that point; was even easier than starcraft to modify and totally convert in to new games; it had air units that were more than just blimps hovering in the sky (a rarity even to this day; starcraft 2 still hasn't managed it); it had a classic and epic sci-fi backstory; It had true line of sight, with 3d calculations on what provided sight to what; it had deeply customizable AI for individual or groups of units (something which wasn't abnormal back then, but which the 'craft series always lacked); its "flow" economy made the game make much more sense than the standard economies of RTS games, its expansion was perfect and expanded the story and gameplay dramatically; it was the first RTS which had purely water maps, etc etc etc.
I could rant for a while about it, but it's easier to say what it lacks, rather than what was good about it-- and that would be that it lacks defined characters and it lacks an attack-move option. And that was about it really, compared to other games of its time period.
I liked that the Core and Arm had distinct differences, they weren't just a copy of the other.
Naval combat felt a bit clunky but I guess that was realistic also I couldn't build a Millennium battleship without that damn Robbie William song going through my head.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Okay, are you repeating something you only half understood, or what? The only place where random number generators quality do matter cryptography/security. Not exactly Blizzard's core activity. Every where else, good enough is okay, as far as I can tell.
Were you talking about Diablo III authentication process? Because outside of this, I have no idea how having a good random number generator rather than a basic one (or, if Windows has the feature like Linux does, the operating system's random number generator) can help.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Random Number generators (accepting that in a literal sense there is no such thing) are so easy to create most programming languages have a function for it (Rand in C++). Hybrid is 100% correct here.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
LordofHats wrote:Random Number generators (accepting that in a literal sense there is no such thing) are so easy to create most programming languages have a function for it (Rand in C++). Hybrid is 100% correct here.
True but these are object randoms. Which basically means that any creature can have anything. This would usually take quite a bit of memory and rendering to do this. So they are doing quite a good job. The only place where random number generators quality do matter cryptography/security. Not exactly Blizzard's core activity. Every where else, good enough is okay, as far as I can tell.
Were you talking about Diablo III authentication process? Because outside of this, I have no idea how having a good random number generator rather than a basic one (or, if Windows has the feature like Linux does, the operating system's random number generator) can help.
No think about this. As a designer there are areas in the game that constantly change, certain things have this, and sometimes they do not have this. They have random commands sent through If/else statements. The fact they also created their own language is enough of a respect to blizzard. I personally say that anyone saying it is a horrible game company I would like to point to a few companies that deleiever crappy games, with crappy game characters consistently. I use blizzard as an example of how to appeal to a mass market. They know how to do things. They do many programming deeds extremely well. They use random number generators to generate items, terrain, monsters. Where many companies struggle I.E. bungie's destiny to even get anywhere close to that. They are known for making incredibly intelligent AI (play against starcraft 2 insanity bots by yourself) now that doesn't mean that all their work is fantastic I don't think they are the 'best' company. Nor are they the most experienced. But they have been making games for the past two decades, and it shows their experience. You can criticize, but saying Blizzard is bad because blizzard is bad. Does not mean I will agree with you. When they have many memorable characters, and very well written plots. Now would I compare them in terms of writing to Bioware? No. Would I compare them to the programming feats of Valve? No. Because valve are the true masters of programming. Blizzard is more focused on the art and modelling aspects and cinematics. They are trained as animators not writers. Which is an advantage for games story telling and sometimes not.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Asherian Command wrote:True but these are object randoms. Which basically means that any creature can have anything.
This would usually take quite a bit of memory and rendering to do this. So they are doing quite a good job.
You are not really working on the technical side of making games, are you?
Asherian Command wrote:They are known for making incredibly intelligent AI (play against starcraft 2 insanity bots by yourself)
Not sure if that changed, but I know that Starcraft II IA used to cheat at higher difficulty level. It just got more mineral or vespene every time a collector brought back some.
Some link after a quick internet search:
http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/708342090#2
Not to say Blizzard do not make very good, very polished games, or that they are not top notch on game engines. Just to say I am not sure you really know what you are talking about, when you try to talk about technical computer stuff.
29408
Post by: Melissia
LordofHats wrote:Random Number generators (accepting that in a literal sense there is no such thing) are so easy to create most programming languages have a function for it (Rand in C++). Hybrid is 100% correct here.
I created one as a project for an intro-level programming class. They're just a step above "hello, world!", really.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Most AI cheats. And it's not a great feat to program a game to out some blocks together to make a room that seems random but is only a little bit random. These are not technical feats.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Having a database of items with a number assigned to them does not take much memory or that much rendering.
The fact they also created their own language is enough of a respect to blizzard.
Not really. Many companies work with their own code, especially since it's been increasingly discussed that no programming language is ideally situated for Video Games (some are proposing that developers get together and create a 'video game' coding language).
I personally say that anyone saying it is a horrible game company I would like to point to a few companies that deleiever crappy games, with crappy game characters consistently.
Like Blizzard?
They use random number generators to generate items, terrain, monsters. Where many companies struggle I.E. bungie's destiny to even get anywhere close to that.
They don't struggle. It's a very easy thing to do. They simply choose not to do it.
You can criticize, but saying Blizzard is bad because blizzard is bad. Does not mean I will agree with you. When they have many memorable characters, and very well written plots.
I'd actually say that they're only memorable because Blizzard was kind of on the leading edge. They were making stories of a complexity that games hadn't really seen before*, but in the grand scheme of things were ultimately not quite that great. Blizzard is very derivative. So is GW, but GW manages to have a certain flair that helps make all their derivative stuff feel fresh even when its not. Blizzard has a knack for fine polish, but not much talent for originality. Hell, they've even started deriving from themselves. SCII is little more than SCI with nicer rendering.
They're the Steve Jobs of Gaming. Marketing masters who can convince you they're a lot more brilliant than they really are
*Not even3 a complexity really, just a presentation. A lot like Metal Gear in that respect, in that they could make a very cinematic experience.
4001
Post by: Compel
I kinda have to agree, I just can't help but reply. "But, so does Minecraft."
I mean, I don't work in computer gaming, but I do work in Enterprise IT and I do get sort of the sense of 'knowing enough knowledge to be dangerous.' Well, not dangerous, but at that point, where someone thinks they know a lot of things about it, but not really.
Like, I'd agree with you that Valve are probably the 'true masters' of computer gaming programming. But that's going to be more related to creating and enhancing the Source engine than anything else, I'd warrant. - But then, you have to factor in Frostbite now as well. That's the sort of thing that I'd see as 'impressive programming.'
Valve are also known more externally to businesses thanks to the publishing of their Valve Staff handbook. Admittedly, noone, as far as I know, has really implemented what they've done to any real success, but it's provided a jumping off points to some other ideas. - Particularly with 'Innovation Friday' type ideas.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Let's be honest, what's miraculous about the Source engine is that it works. It's like a tower of duct tape.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Melissia wrote:I created one as a project for an intro-level programming class. They're just a step above "hello, world!", really.
A basic one, maybe. A cryptography-paranoid-level one is hard, though.
Because a mistake can have terrible, terrible consequences.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Do like random.org and use atmospheric noise.
29408
Post by: Melissia
 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Melissia wrote:I created one as a project for an intro-level programming class. They're just a step above "hello, world!", really.
A basic one, maybe. A cryptography-paranoid-level one is hard, though.
Because a mistake can have terrible, terrible consequences.
One suitable for a video game.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
 Compel wrote:I kinda have to agree, I just can't help but reply. "But, so does Minecraft." I mean, I don't work in computer gaming, but I do work in Enterprise IT and I do get sort of the sense of 'knowing enough knowledge to be dangerous.' Well, not dangerous, but at that point, where someone thinks they know a lot of things about it, but not really. Like, I'd agree with you that Valve are probably the 'true masters' of computer gaming programming. But that's going to be more related to creating and enhancing the Source engine than anything else, I'd warrant. - But then, you have to factor in Frostbite now as well. That's the sort of thing that I'd see as 'impressive programming.' Valve are also known more externally to businesses thanks to the publishing of their Valve Staff handbook. Admittedly, noone, as far as I know, has really implemented what they've done to any real success, but it's provided a jumping off points to some other ideas. - Particularly with 'Innovation Friday' type ideas.
I mainly saying that because the 2nd source engine came out a while ago. In terms of game companies The biggest makers of great engines in house is up in the air. Frostbite is not the best engine there might be something currently in the works. Can I steer this back onto male characters or no? Automatically Appended Next Post: Once you figure out the other side of how to implement it and program it in such a way that it makes sense then yeah sure. Blizzard created the random item generator way back during the 90s. Their blue and yellow items and random subsets within it. You are not really working on the technical side of making games, are you?
Yes and no. I work on both sides. There are extremely complicated bits in Blizzard games that people at my school like our alumni leaders have no how blizzard did it.
25990
Post by: Chongara
You can criticize, but saying Blizzard is bad because blizzard is bad. Does not mean I will agree with you. When they have many memorable characters, and very well written plots.
I like Blizzard products for the most part, hell I've probably put more hours into their games than any other one company. Still of all the merits you could give their games "Well written" is not one of them. As writing goes they're somewhere above Tommy Wisseau, but somewhere below your average Arnie movie. Probably somewhere around how to kill a mockingbird level.
Essssenceeeee
Essssenceeeee
Essssenceeeee
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Chongara wrote:You can criticize, but saying Blizzard is bad because blizzard is bad. Does not mean I will agree with you. When they have many memorable characters, and very well written plots.
I like Blizzard products for the most part, hell I've probably put more hours into their games than any other one company. Still of all the merits you could give their games "Well written" is not one of them. As writing goes they're somewhere above Tommy Wisseau, but somewhere below your average Arnie movie. Probably somewhere around how to kill a mockingbird level.
Essssenceeeee
Essssenceeeee
Essssenceeeee
Err. Have you played their older stuff? I am talking about that stuff. Not the newer stuff. As a company I think they have gotten worse overtime in terms of writing, but in terms of modelling not really.
(Except for reaper of souls, because feth you all it was a great game.)
4001
Post by: Compel
Don't always put too much fair in 'alumni leaders' at school / college.
Back in my business networking classes at uni, my lecturer was prone to tinfoil hat paranoia. They seemed somewhat odd but perfectly plausible at the time. It was only until actually entering the world of employment that I worked out just how tinfoil-ey they were.
In any case. I can't help but think we've mostly exhausted the topic after 14 pages.
Though there's some good, interesting male characters out there, there's just not enough. However, things are slowly improving as time goes on, with examples shown as "Spec Ops: The Line" plus I believe the Walking Dead series. Until they become more common, it's probably best to show support for those games that DO have interesting characters, male or female and, possibly, if you're so inclined, let them know about this.
As, ultimately, I do genuinely think that gaming in general, isn't inherently prejudiced in any way and it has very much been a case of years built up upon years of following the money and the audience.
However, the audience is far more diverse now and far more vocal and I do think companies know that on some level. It's just going to take time for things to permeate through and the ship is changing course. It's just a bloody big ship and is going to take a while to turn.
Overall, I think Gaming has a bright future ahead of it.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Don't always put too much fair in 'alumni leaders' at school / college
Noted. Except one of them.... Err.. well... They replicated something that would get them into pixar no problem. Some of them are quite talented. We only have 130 people in this program.
And only 1% are competent writers.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Asherian Command wrote:Once you figure out the other side of how to implement it and program it in such a way that it makes sense then yeah sure.
Precisely. From the coding point of view, it is really not that hard. That is really not what you should point to when arguing that Blizzard is good at programming, or that programming is important. Especially not when saying programming is important, because really it is the opposite in this case: designing how the system will work, and setting the right values is the real difficulty in arpg. Asherian Command wrote:You are not really working on the technical side of making games, are you?
Yes and no. I work on both sides.
I am teaching computer engineering to third year college students this year. I have a lot of trouble believing you are fluent with this kind of stuff, given how misguided your statement about technical stuff are. My students may not be the brightest genius ever, but I sure do not expect them to believe that the Diablo loot system is hard to implement! Hard to conceive, maybe. Hard to tune right, sure, that is a given. But hard to implement? Automatically Appended Next Post:
And how do you measure atmospheric noise?
You know, once you start requiring special, dedicated hardware just to get random numbers, it is a proof that this is hard. Not impossible, sure, but some real issue nonetheless.
I remember when Debian thought it was easy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generator_attack
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Not to mention that even atmospheric noise probably isn't completely random. It's just that no one happens to have the key or seed since it originates in nature rather than human made computation.
|
|
