Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Development Info InXile consults academics to create Wasteland authenticity

Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
1,875,973
Location
Glass Fields, Ruins of Old Iran
:lol: COME ON! I actually used SOIL EROSION! In the piece FFS!

That's how fucking jaded a codexer is. Like a veteran investigator who simply lights a cigarette and lets out a faint sigh upon entering a room full of carved up corpses of children, while the rookie behind him vomits profusely.
 

hiver

Guest
Jaesun

soil erosion gave it away for me.
So...there is atleast one person who immediately thinks you are lying and trolling whenever you post anything.

I have honestly never read more than the first 1-2 lines of your posts
moron.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
So do we still hate Thwacke for somehow forcing developers to apply realism over good game design even though that's not what they do at all....
We don't hate Thwacke (or inXile). It was a pseudo-scientific debate on a range of scientific topics as is customary at the Codex. Why solve one problem when you can solve three?

Science: what is it good for?
The missing link in human evolution
Hiver's insanity
The importance of real star data in space game
The study of XCOM's intro
Bioshock's science - fact or fiction
XCOM's biodiversity
Tracks vs legs: which is better and why
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Fargo: So for me, it goes beyond their science background on things … . They’ve really been great [at] throwing out all sorts of ideas. And all of my writers have used pieces of what they’ve thrown out. It really has helped make the product better.


Oh, so it's exactly what I said, and how it is on every game that uses these consultants. Which was wrong then, but somehow supports your position now.
I didn't post it to support my position and my position is unchanged. I posted a new interview related to the topic we were discussing.

Public service, bitch.
 

almondblight

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
2,549
There is disagreement as to whether or not neanderthals are homo sapiens; saying that classifying them as homo sapiens is wrong is not correct.
Nice straw-men. Here's some history:
almondblight said:
Can you tell me the difference between homo neanderthalensis and homo sapiens neanderthalensis?
trais said:
There's none. If you consider neandertals a sub-species of homo sapiens, then you call them Homo sapiens neanderthalsis; if you consider them a different species then you call them Homo neanderthalsis.
wikipedia said:
Neanderthals are classified alternatively as a subspecies of Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis).
I've got no idea what mental problems do you have, but do yourself a favor and go see a doctor.

Scientists still haven't agreed whether or not neanderthals should be classified as homo sapiens...
Dude, listen. Difference between Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens it's like a difference between gray wolf and jackal. Between Australopithecus sediba and Homo sapiens it would be like between gray wolf and fox.
Yes, they are different.

:hmmm:
 

almondblight

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
2,549
:lol: Yeah. That freaked me out too. I wasn't expecting the update to come when it did. I was thinking it would probably be a week or so later.

Well, it was useful to see that a number of Codexer's ended up defending "linguistics division that will allow us to have a specific dialect for ever race in the World...soil erosion, to plate tectonics to green house gasses as well as effects from a disastrous hurricane."
:thumbsup:
 

hiver

Guest
I posted a new interview related to the topic we were discussing.
The interview isnt new. I linked to it way back but, youre strategy is pulling shit out of your ass rather then reading, understanding and accepting facts, anyway.

Hiver's insanity
Oh, sure... :lol:
When you fail in arguments, logic and common sense - this is a "sure way" to do some backwards revision and come out as some kind of "winner".
 

Brother None

inXile Entertainment
Developer
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
5,673
Science: what is it good for?
The missing link in human evolution
Hiver's insanity
The importance of real star data in space game
The study of XCOM's intro
Bioshock's science - fact or fiction
XCOM's biodiversity
Tracks vs legs: which is better and why

I think all of these can be solved here on the Codex, except for hiver's insanity.

Apropos to tracks vs legs, I just figured tracks are for the full engagement in warzones while the legs are for urban (guerrilla) engagement.
 

hiver

Guest
Our consultants are expected to be able to communicate their theses to an eight-year-old within five minutes — should an eight-year-old be interested.
And not even that can help VD.


I think all of these can be solved here on the Codex, except for hiver's insanity.
No they cant. "hivers insanity" is a cheap excuse VD just invented.
But i guess youre still buthurt over something...

Anyway...

Apropos to tracks vs legs, I just figured tracks are for the full engagement in warzones while the legs are for urban (guerrilla) engagement.
What does this even mean? Do you mean in our present reality or are you talking about advanced tech of alternate post apocalyptic Wasteland?
What do you think "warzones" are too? Places where tanks have the ground set up just right so that they can move everywhere?
Do you think a functional new Scorpitron would "walk slowly"?

Do you have any relevant knowledge about how things work in reality when it comes to tanks in combat conditions?
Or are you just throwing out whatever seems "cool" to you that is not based on any relevant facts at all?
Like Vince.
 

TwinkieGorilla

does a good job.
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
5,480
Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pathfinder: Wrath
To be perfectly honest I never thought hiver would recover from that. And even worse...I think I'm glad he's back? o_O
 

Moribund

A droglike
Joined
Oct 20, 2012
Messages
1,384
Location
Tied to the mast
Fargo: So for me, it goes beyond their science background on things … . They’ve really been great [at] throwing out all sorts of ideas. And all of my writers have used pieces of what they’ve thrown out. It really has helped make the product better.


Oh, so it's exactly what I said, and how it is on every game that uses these consultants. Which was wrong then, but somehow supports your position now.
I didn't post it to support my position and my position is unchanged. I posted a new interview related to the topic we were discussing.

Public service, bitch.

Then you are totally immune to facts. Wow.

Now imagine you did have some experts to help you know about sncient history. Maybe they'd tell you there were these guys named Titus and Polo mentioned in one of Caesar's letters, then you'd be fascinated by these guys and fill in the blanks on some of their antics. And then make an award winning show called Rome because of that.

Hey, maybe all these tv shows, movies, and high budget games do this for a reason.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
I'm immune to marketing and shit you read in interviews, which you apparently take at face value.
 

hiver

Guest
...what did I just step into?


:)

Oh... did these guys set the mine just at the right spot... mm..mm!
Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
Alahu Akbar!

ach,... just a discussion about how using realistic scientific knowledge and facts can make internal consistency and coherence of a particular setting be of a higher quality then those same subjects being designed only by non-experts just inventing stuff - supposedly without any scientific input at all. At All.

But we can make another loop.

As for tanks versus Scorpitron, you see, Vince, among many other things, claimed that the tank is a better design because it has tracks which are supposedly more difficult to hit and destroy then new Scorpitron legs - without any further caveats to the issue.
You see, he didnt like the new design of Scorpitron, says its not "logical", "realistic" and so on. While the old design of Scorpitron as a tank with a tail was GREAT!!!!
But he thinks new synthetic design for W2 is awesome. (done by the same artist, style, concept background, etc)
But he thinks x-com original campy silly enemies are better than "what science thinks aliens should be" - without any additional info or facts or anything else to support such a statement. (those given dont -edit- lead to conclusions he came to. - correction).

And:


It makes absolutely no sense as far as realism is concerned, but it makes perfect "game design" sense. You need:

- visual variety
- distinctive appearance
- progressively harder challenges
- enemies with very different abilities

So, there you go, game design vs realism.

None of these are dependent on not being realistic at all, nor can you be completely un-realistic and create anything except some weird hallucinatory mish-mash of incomprehensible tripping stuff, nor the fact that you design silly non-realistic stuff guarantees it will work in the game.
In any sense at all.
All this, despite the fact that there are thousands and thousands of games and such "inventions" that get ridiculed all of the time. Whole settings that were thrown into depths of inanity because of such design by "game designers".
Despite the fact he often ridicules such inconsistent settings and even writes reviews about them.

Nor could any kind of realism damage these goals - especially since they themselves - are realistic.
- visual variety - realistic concept
- distinctive appearance - realistic concept
- progressively harder challenges - realistic logical concept
- enemies with very different abilities - realistic concept

VD, designing stuff without direct experts involved is possible. Design elements that get created like that sometimes can be overlooked if it just works inside the game setting and gameplay, sometimes its just campy-retro fun which is entertaining on its own (only in some cases though, its not a given at all), but - it most often makes the whole game silly, the setting inconsistent and therefore not - believable. Or just laughably stupid.
Games like ass effect can say they had scientist involved, but we all see that as a very ironic failure - and we know logic and common sense went out of that window long ago - and instead of making sense they ended up making one of the biggest nonsenses in history of gaming.

-edit- the very game is the proof that actual scientific involvement was ridiculously minimal. and delegated completely to the background as some textual descriptions of no consequence on the setting or gameplay.
(we do know for a very fact they just copy-pasted or blatantly stolen bits of other peoples works and just threw them together - just as they used free photos and other people illustrations as game assets etc)
And Thwacke statement about it says exactly that. btw.


The fact it is possible to design a game which is still good without direct scientific experts involved - does not mean all games should be designed like that.
Nor does it mean including experts in relevant fields will convert the fantastic setting into our reality and boredom.

You know this (although you dont accept this because of cognitive dissonance), because you designed AoD with a lot of help from experts (data that you studied), on the relevant subjects.
You read their work instead of talking to them but that is irrelevant.

And it only made your type of fantastic setting stronger, more consistent and coherent.
You went for things that make more sense in mechanics too - and things making sense happens only when they are designed realistically. (No, all things ever designed have a certain layer of realism embedded)

- hell, just look at eternity newest update and how they are struggling with concept of how armors should work in order to avoid making light and medium armors redundant.
The old problem of completely silly notion that heavy armor (represented through AC) makes you harder to hit, right?
Now, that kind of mechanics "did work" - we all played many games using that system and liked the games more or less. So why change it then? Was it not ridiculed and criticized all along? Both on its silliness and negative effects it had on the gameplay.
Is AoD take on the matter then worse?

Its not about making completely realistic setting - its about using enough of it to make the whole game more coherent, more believable and ultimately more interesting in every way.
It is also easier using realistic concepts or implementing "how things actually work" since we know what kind of consequences some particular realistic concept can have.
Unlike those stearing too much from it which produce unexpected delayed consequences and ultimately damage and devalue the whole setting and the gameplay.


/
oh, dont mind me folks... im just being craazzy. wooo!



-edit-
lets not forget that designing "things" in more realsitic manner brings in the feature of things being restricted, limited or costly - because its only reality that demands its not possible to weild two katanas, fly, shoot lasors out of your arse while shooting fireballs from machingeuns, while stealthing through an enemy castle and vooing a pretty princess with your smooth lines and insane charisma - before you ride off on a summoned magical dragon that shoots lightning from his arse.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
As for tanks versus Scorpitron, you see, Vince, among many other things, claimed that the tank is a better design because it has tracks which are supposedly more difficult to hit and destroy then new Scorpitron legs - without any further caveats to the issue.
Did you see the screenshot? Look at again.

I'm not saying that tracks are impossible to destroy, I'm saying they are harder to destroy with small gun fire than the leg joints that are up in the air. Mines? In real life? Absolutely, only it's not real life but an RPG. You have a party of adventurers armed mostly with small guns and they fight their adversaries by standing there and shooting at them practically point blank.

You see, he didnt like the new design of Scorpitron, says its not "logical", "realistic" and so on. While the old design of Scorpitron as a tank with a tail was GREAT!!!!
I loved the new design but I don't think it's a realistic one.

But he thinks new synthetic design for W2 is awesome.
The picture is very pretty indeed.

I also like Ironman but I don't think it's realistic either. Not that I have a problem with it. My whole point was the scientific accuracy isn't needed and doesn't add much. You'd know it, if you read my posts.

But he thinks x-com original campy silly enemies are better than "what science thinks aliens should be" - without any additional info or facts or anything else to support such a statement.
Science makes everything awesome, doesn't it?

Nor could any kind of realism damage these goals - especially since they themselves - are realistic.
- visual variety - realistic concept
- distinctive appearance - realistic concept
- progressively harder challenges - realistic logical concept
- enemies with very different abilities - realistic concept
Well, let's say that humans will fly to another planet and invade the fuck out of it. The enemies will see humans who all look the same to them, and a variety of armored units, carriers, etc. Remove air, sea, and ranged units to come closer to what a player sees in a game and you'll get:

- one type alien unit (infantry, medic, engineer, commander - talking in terms of XCOM here)
- a mech for variety
- stationary guns that aren't an enemy type
- a drone

That's realism and it doesn't make a fun game. Most people understand that and they don't complain about silly, unrealistic things in games.

VD, designing stuff without direct experts involved is possible.
Not shit. Most games were designed without direct experts' involvement.

The fact it is possible to design a game which is still good without direct scientific experts involved - does not mean all games should be designed like that.
It doesn't, I agree, but at the moment there is absolutely no proof that the scientists involvement is necessary and beneficial. Your reaction is "of course it is! science is awesome!". My reaction is :shrug:

Until I see a clear "science does make games better!" proof in form of a completed game, I won't be able to share your enthusiasm. We'll find out soon enough, I suppose.

Nor does it mean including experts in relevant fields will convert the fantastic setting into our reality and boredom.
What *does* it mean? I've yet to hear a single solid argument from the pro-science crowd.

- Science! It makes games better!
- How?
- It just does! They don't call it science for nothing!
- No, seriously, how?
- By making games more sciency! By saving time! By throwing ideas! How awesome is that?
- It's very vague. What are the benefits?
- More smart men in the room is better than less smart men in the room!
- ...

You know this (although you dont accept this because of cognitive dissonance), because you designed AoD with a lot of help from experts (data that you studied), on the relevant subjects. You read their work instead of talking to them but that is irrelevant.
Other people can't read? Reading is teh hard? All books were burned? The internet is broken? What? Research is what writers do, no? Does a small group of straight out of college "scientists" have all the fucking answers? I don't think so.

And it only made your type of fantastic setting stronger, more consistent and coherent.
Common sense and logical approach made it stronger - something that every designer has.

- hell, just look at eternity newest update and how they are struggling with concept of how armors should work in order to avoid making light and medium armors redundant.
And? Do you think that they are actually studying armor or how armor was used? Do you think I did? We went through the same steps: linear armor progression sucks, let's make it more interesting and give the player a reason to use light armor, which is mobility.

Again, understand, common sense, logic, good design = good. Scientific and historical realism = unnecessary. Neither DR, nor armor class, nor mobility, nor dodge are accurate representations of what combat is. Hiring a consultant will be a waste of time and money. You need a skilled designer (talking about Sawyer here) who played a lot of DnD, played/worked on a lot of games and knows what works and what doesn't and is eager to change things to make them better.

The old problem of completely silly notion that heavy armor (represented through AC) makes you harder to hit, right?
Now, that kind of mechanics "did work" - we all played many games using that system and liked the games more or less. So why change it then?
For one simply reason that has nothing to do with realism - linear item design is bad.

Its not about making completely realistic setting - its about using enough of it to make the whole game more coherent, more believable and ultimately more interesting in every way.
You don't need a scientist for that.
 

Shadenuat

Arcane
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
11,955
Location
Russia
Until I see a clear "science does make games better!" proof in form of a completed game
How about Portal? It had all that force momentum applied to transportation mechanics in game, which affected gameplay and puzzles.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom