Editorial Bethesda developer explains why TB is obsolete

[Vault Dweller]

Granting licenses to legally pilot automobiles is franchising, sir.

Because you said so?

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

You you are saying that there are no real time RPGs before computing but also that the real time RPGs that were around don't count either? Cunning.

First things first, I didn't take the LARPers out.

Second, LARPing does seem to fall outside of the context of the discussion. Live action Role Playing doesn't always mean LARP"G."

Gaming isn't a mandatory building block of LARPing in general. Gaming is a mandatory component of RPGs and CRPGs.

If you really want to stick to it as your position, hey fine, but it's already been gone over.

 

[kingcomrade]

Why people don't get it...is quite beyond me.

No doubt.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Granting licenses to legally pilot automobiles is franchising, sir.

Anyone here remembers Bladen?

http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2958

Bladen: Unless you are some kind of university or military official then you could not have had access to the internet before that.

Rosh: Definitely, you are an idiot. University students, particularly CS, could use the internet as well. You do know why ARPANET and associated networks were started and used, right? Of course you don't, you're just some bullshitting kid who really isn't fooling anyone.

Bladen: So what, you think that university students are not officially enrolled? Universities would not allow some smoe, or fat geek off the street to come in and use their access as they please.

Rosh: Do you seriously forget what you type, shithead? You said "university or military official", which is a far different thing than you claimed above.

Bladen: Any one who is officially enrolled in a university is an official. Are you that stupid? You think that only lectures and officers are officials? Even a friggen Corporal ranked soldier is an official, if they are authorised to used the internet, thus becoming officially authorised.
...
Comedy Gold.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

Granting licenses to legally pilot automobiles is franchising, sir.

Because you said so?

I wish the fit of laughter that produced could be translated into text without losing anything.

I'll spell it out.

Given that A: One of the definitions of franchise is ..

a special privilege granted to an individual or group

And that to license somebody for whatever activity is to legally grant them a/the privilege of doing that activity legally.

Then it follows that to grant somebody the legal privilege to pilot an automobile is a form of franchising.

You basicly stated that you don't have to be privileged to actually drive a car. And you don't, but nor do you "have to be" privileged to do anything that franchising or a license allows. It's just illegal if you don't secure the privilege.

Basicly, permission/rights have to be bestowed for a franchise dynamic. That's as simple as I can make it.

Your right to vote is a franchise, to be disenfranchised in this reguard is to have your permission/right to vote removed. To grant the privilege for another to use the name of your product on their product is a franchising.

Franchise is broad and covers more than just the system by which fastfood joints multiply.

 

[Ratty]

*sighs*

In the fields of computer and video games and pixel art, axonometric projection has been popular because of the ease with which 2D sprites and tile-based graphics can be made to represent a 3D gaming environment. Because objects don't change size as they move about the game field, there is no need for the computer to scale sprites or do the calculations necessary to simulate visual perspective. This allowed older 8-bit and 16-bit game systems (and, more recently, handheld systems) to portray large 3D areas easily. While the depth confusion problems illustrated above can sometimes be a problem, good game design can alleviate this. With the advent of more powerful graphics systems, axonometric projection is becoming less common.

Again, this is what I've been saying the whole time on this issue. Why people don't get it, or want to make it about something else is quite beyond me.

Look, Mr. Van_Backpedaler, stop trying to bullshit your way out of this. Newsflash - it's pointless and idiotic to try and lie about things you wrote on an Internet forum, when the truth is... right here on the Internet forum.

"... That's why you can't have true Isometric perspective in an actual 3d game."

That statement alone summarizes what you have been waffling for a dozen or so pages now. We are all very acutely aware of the fact that old 2D games used isometric projection (or rather, art assets prerendered/drawn with isometric projection) to visually emulate a 3D environment. However, what you essentially did was equate this popular application of isometric projection with the *definition* of isometric projection, stating that a real-time 3D game with isometric camera isn't truly isometric, when it in fact is.

I'm still waiting for a comment on the "isometric perspective" oxymoron, by the way.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

Again, this is what I've been saying the whole time on this issue. Why people don't get it, or want to make it about something else is quite beyond me.

No doubt.

ah that's better.

 

[Sovy Kurosei]

Why do you guys keep pursuing these semantics arguments at the Codex?

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

*sighs*

In the fields of computer and video games and pixel art, axonometric projection has been popular because of the ease with which 2D sprites and tile-based graphics can be made to represent a 3D gaming environment. Because objects don't change size as they move about the game field, there is no need for the computer to scale sprites or do the calculations necessary to simulate visual perspective. This allowed older 8-bit and 16-bit game systems (and, more recently, handheld systems) to portray large 3D areas easily. While the depth confusion problems illustrated above can sometimes be a problem, good game design can alleviate this. With the advent of more powerful graphics systems, axonometric projection is becoming less common.

Again, this is what I've been saying the whole time on this issue. Why people don't get it, or want to make it about something else is quite beyond me.

Look, Mr. Van_Backpedaler, stop trying to bullshit your way out of this. Newsflash - it's pointless and idiotic to try and lie about things you wrote on an Internet forum, when the truth is... right here on the Internet forum.

"... That's why you can't have true Isometric perspective in an actual 3d game."

That statement alone summarizes what you have been waffling for a dozen or so pages now. We are all very acutely aware of the fact that old 2D games used isometric projection (or rather, art assets prerendered/drawn with isometric projection) to visually emulate a 3D environment. However, what you essentially did was equate this popular application of isometric projection with the *definition* of isometric projection, stating that a real-time 3D game with isometric camera isn't truly isometric, when it in fact is.

I'm still waiting for a comment on the "isometric perspective" oxymoron, by the way.

I was coming from an application standpoint, which was obvious over and over again, but to indulge you ...

My point was that there's no need for the application of "ISO" in a true 3d game with true 3d assets because it completely defeats what the application of "ISO" is best at. That being making 2d assests cheat a 3d dynamic. It's not like a fixed "ISO" perspective presented via isometric projection is required for a true 3d engine with true 3d assest.

at any rate, I'm just going to say I'm wrong here. Kudos to you.

 

[Human Shield]

Why do you guys keep pursuing these semantics arguments at the Codex?

Agreed. Take all talk about the definitions of isometric and franchise to general discussion.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I only said that I respond to easier stuff more quickly. Once I've read something, I've already begun thinking about my response. Responding to easy stuff first, doesn't mean I'm ignoring anybody else. It just means that I can slide something simple in, while priming my response to something more complex.

We're on page 16 and you still haven't addressed Section8's post on page 4. In the interim, he's posted yet more stuff which you've also ignored, while seemingly having plenty of time to respond to everyone elses one-liners?

Congratulations! Your status has been upgraded.

You've made 96 posts on this forum since you joined. 89 of them have been in this thread. If you've got the time to do that, I suggest you take the time to look at the "harder" stuff (as you call it) and try to comprehend that if you really want to have a debate here, instead of just the trolling you keep doing. Anyone that can spam a topic out to 16 pages should have plenty of time to respond to the actual argument.

 

[mister lamat]

he answered on page 14, douchepuddle.

when the stakes are so small...

 

[Koby]

My point was that there's no need for the application of "ISO" in a true 3d game with true 3d assets because it completely defeats what the application of "ISO" is best at. That being making 2d assests cheat a 3d dynamic. It's not like a fixed "ISO" perspective presented via isometric projection is required for a true 3d engine with true 3d assest.

Textures. 'nuff said.

 

[elander_]

actually, they don't... unless of course you're using elander's paradox model of rpg development, in which case 1977 and the birth of larping would come before 1975 and Dungeon.

I wasn't really interested in this discussion or trying to prove anything about what rpg come first. It's retard to go back to the time of primitive rpgs when there were obvious limitations of speed and memory and then apply this to the time of Fallout and System Shock. Two games that with the amazing pixel shader tech and cpu power we have today have not yet been matched. That was what i was trying to explain to MVB but he is too busy trying to explain everyone that tech limitations can influence design and people are trying to explain to him that as a matter of principle the ability to play in a TB game determines game design in a completely different way that works best for rp. It's probably a bit too abstract so feel free to turn this into crap to make you feel smarter.

PS: If you are really into it try browsing HOTU or Abandonia and sort the rpg list by date. Like i said this argument is retarded when we are discussing Fallout but at least you may learn something about rpgs other than DnD and Dungeon Whatever. Just one thing this list does not include Spectrum games and earlier micros. I think we might find one or two shitty action rpg where you have about 3 attributes like agility, strength and stamina to play with. Not much different than any modern action rpg: hack-and-slash with stats, except for the epic plot for 5 year olds (not with with too much text because the poor babies may get tired) you can enjoy so much in these modern games.

 

[Koby]

@DarkUnderlord How is FMF doing these days?

(and yes this THE most appropriate place to ask this).

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

I only said that I respond to easier stuff more quickly. Once I've read something, I've already begun thinking about my response. Responding to easy stuff first, doesn't mean I'm ignoring anybody else. It just means that I can slide something simple in, while priming my response to something more complex.

We're on page 16 and you still haven't addressed Section8's post on page 4. In the interim, he's posted yet more stuff which you've also ignored, while seemingly having plenty of time to respond to everyone elses one-liners?

Congratulations! Your status has been upgraded.

You've made 96 posts on this forum since you joined. 89 of them have been in this thread. If you've got the time to do that, I suggest you take the time to look at the "harder" stuff (as you call it) and try to comprehend that if you really want to have a debate here, instead of just the trolling you keep doing. Anyone that can spam a topic out to 16 pages should have plenty of time to respond to the actual argument.

Um, I did respond to his page 4 post, I even presented it in RPG-o-Vision.

Should we just let the rest of the rant slide now?

Btw, who I respond to and when is up to me. I don't owe anybody here anything, other than the chance to express their opinions and views. I, however, don't owe everybody here a response to thier opinions and views.

It's not like we're discussing whether or not making fallout RT or TB is the best way to deflect an asteroid on a collision course with earth here.

Given the stakes, I don't feel an overwhelming need to respond to every contrary post to my opinion when what I would say I've already said in response to something else.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

You've been a member here for quite some time. Have you read any of the discussions that take place here amid the vitriol? We're in a constant cycle of challenging existing convention in the hopes of bettering it.

I have been here a long time, and I have read other discussions. Why do you think it's taken me so long to get around to laying out a position, especially an unpopular one? :wink:

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

Well, it's about time. I was beginning to think you were just going to keep talking about it as some pethetic attempt to force me into your autocracy.

I'll wear this tag with honor, because in the end, I know you're just projecting.

 

[mister lamat]

i wouldn't say projecting, just lashing out like bullies. the smell of their dreams being crushed by bethesda is akin to that of a rose though

 

[kingcomrade]

Again, this is what I've been saying the whole time on this issue. Why people don't get it, or want to make it about something else is quite beyond me.

No doubt.

ah that's better.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. I just cut out unnecessary text, I didn't change your meaning at all. You were stating that you are clueless and quite bewildered.

I'll wear this tag with honor, because in the end, I know you're just projecting.

Has there ever been a dumbfuck which didn't recite this brave oath of righteousness upon being knighted?

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

Again, this is what I've been saying the whole time on this issue. Why people don't get it, or want to make it about something else is quite beyond me.

No doubt.

ah that's better.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. I just cut out unnecessary text, I didn't change your meaning at all. You were stating that you are clueless and quite bewildered.

I'll wear this tag with honor, because in the end, I know you're just projecting.

Has there ever been a dumbfuck which didn't recite this brave oath of righteousness upon being knighted?

You misattributed the quote. I fixed it for you.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

Has there ever been a dumbfuck which didn't recite this brave oath of righteousness upon being knighted?

Bryce. The honor was too much for him.

 

[SlavemasterT]

Has there ever been a dumbfuck which didn't recite this brave oath of righteousness upon being knighted?

Bryce - he just squeals and runs off crying, to be reborn as a new account again and again, like a phoenix of tears.

 

[Joe Krow]

MVB could have argued for turn based half as articulately (quite poorly if most of these posts are any indication) and he would have been praised. He disagreed so he got tagged. The dumbfuck label just means he doesn't defer to the hive on every issue. It's a childish way to keep the sheep together. Instead of respecting an opposed opinion or proving it invalid they call you names. So what?

(indies suck)

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

MVB could have argued for turn based half as articulately (quite poorly if most of these posts are any indication) and he would have been praised. He disagreed so he got tagged. The dumbfuck label just means he doesn't defer to the hive on every issue. It's a childish way to keep the sheep together. Instead of respecting an opposed opinion or proving it invalid they call you names. So what?

(indies suck)

Your opinions are unsurprising. [/geminito]