ilitarist
Learned
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2016
- Messages
- 857
First you mention AoD as being realistic RPG, and then you go compare it to Witcher 3. Make up your mind, already.
Yes, because even "realistic for high fantasy" Witcher 3 is better in that regard. Feels more realistic.
I wasn't aware swearing could be tasteful.
That's an odd way of looking at it (that swearing means being angry about something). Did you watch Deadwood? Were they all angry all the time in your opinion?
Where I used to work, swearing was a way to add emphasis (like pay attention to this part, it's important) and it was widespread, from the president and the VPs to managers and especially production stuff whose speech consisted mostly of fuck this or fuck that. The sales reps were the most well spoken folks there. It was the same way in most 'behind the closed doors' meeting with other companies, no matter how profile. Maybe that's just the business world though but that's what I know. I doubt the army is any different but maybe teachers are nicer, who knows?
Perhaps "angry" was wrong word. Menacing?..
Swearing looks natural and in right place in, say, Tarantino movies. Using it in art without proper finesse is an obvious problem. Again, that Witcher (third one, previous ones had huge problems with writing not unlike Age of Decadence - many character couldn't decide if they're speaking modern English or they're in a fantasy novel. To be fair, books have exactly the same problem) does similar stuff: swearing is used for emphasis or to express character traits. Some universes have special swear words exactly because it's hard to properly use familiar shits and fucks in an effective matter. When it works you get strong characters and powerful speech - like Tarantino movies or, I suspect, that Deadwood thing. If it doesn't work it looks juvenile. It's like... rhyme. You are usually not required to rhyme. If your joke or message has a good rhyme in it then it may become more powerful, if not than it loses points.
Also from what I know of primitive armies (...does Soviet counts?..) they're similar to prison word in regards to swearing; i.e. they overreact to personal attacks.
Respectfully, how would you know that, after 5 hours and 6 achievements out of 109? You didn't like the game, the writing, the design - fair enough. You don't need to clock 50 hours to figure out if you like or dislike the game, but when it comes to choices, you've barely scratched the surface.
Perhaps. I am by nature focused on negative, on criticism and I suspect the worst.
There are very few cases like this, mainly because the scripting was a nightmare due to the number of options, so on rare occasions when you indicate your willingness to do something, we remove the option to backpedal.
Are, so you're one of the developers. You did a good job with scripting then, that thing looks monumental. Still, even while the ambition is admirable it doesn't justify problems I get in the end. Then again, it seems to be one of the most celebrated RPGs of later years so it's clearly clicked for most people.
You know, I am now playing Jeff Vogel's Avernum Escape from the Pit. It doesn't have nearly as much writing. Has much more characters though, and they all are relatively primitive. Almost every quest is straightforward task without much of a choice. As I suspect there will be no big decisions in the game, just optional quest. Most of it's much simpler than AoD, it's all straightforward. And I enjoy it. One of the reasons I enjoy it is that this relatively simple design means there are next to nothing problems with it. It doesn't require me to suspend my disbelief or ignore limitations. And I believe you can't make the game with a design like Age of Decadence in such a way that you don't see strings and patches and inconsistencies. I can't ignore them.