Vault Dweller said:
So that's the point that I missed? Since when disagreeing is missing a point, especially since the so called point is a collection of some things that you believe should be in games.
It's missing a point in the sense it wasn't a mere divergence of opinion, it was about you not understanding what i was talking about.
So, basically you think that a feature should be implemented a certain way, and you try to mock people who disagree with you instead of arguing. Frankly, that's pathetic.
I think you need a reality check there, that description fits you much better than it fits me. You are the one that blatantly mocks people for thinking differently from you and for having different takes on how a feature should be implemented, and in this particular thread, a simple look at who mocked who for having diverging opinions is easy to see. It's a pity you find necessary to act like a hypocrite on situations like this.
Anyway, to address your position on violence, it's not a universal mean to an end. As much could be achieved by plotting, scheming, and manipulating which is basically a definition of diplomacy. There's been a number of crises in the past that were handled via diplomacy not because some joker was very charismatic but because parties were convinced that the other way is more beneficial. The Cuban Missile Crisis is one of the many examples. Gandhi said "Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind."
You're using positive examples to reinforce your argument, but while that's a clever tactic, it's unfortunately one-sided; successful examples of diplomacy use and success don't instantly prove it's bound to work all the time. I can point out that diplomacy was ineffective when it came in dealing with Adolf Hitler's extermination of the Jewish people, and that it also doesn't work with religious extremist terrorist groups; yet, mere examples of its success or failure are not practical to the matter.
But i digreess. Even if your statement above was relevant, it still missed the point that violence is a means to an end which is used much more often than negotiation; and that more people are likely to engage in violent acts than in peaceful ones. Back into a videogame concept, for a diplomatic solution to prove successful, it involves several things, some of which the PC might not have control over. First and foremost it depends of who you're addressing - in this case, an NPC. And if the NPC does not accept any kind of negotiation, than its naive to think that my PC should be able to pull it off regardless. Which isn't to say i agree with situations where this can happen.
Then again, this wasn't my complain; my complain was against your idea that a diplomatic solution should exist at every turn.
Are you hallucinating? Stop taking whatever it is you are on.
Your recurrent use of attacks on someone's character, when they are unfounded and irrelevant, then conveniently backpeddling out of the statement, is what needs to stop, frankly.
By the same logic, what makes you think that your expert fighting skills are enough to kill everything you encounter? Nothing. You make assumptions that you are that good, what stops you from making the same assumptions about diplomacy? The fact that you think it's unrealistic? You'd be contradicting the first assumption then.
Speaking of assumptions, that's a nifty collection there.
What i've been saying is that in a gameworld, my diplomatic skills are liable to fail, no matter how good or bad the PC is in them, in certain situations. The same with combat skills, never said otherwise. The point is, however, that NPCs will always be much more eager to use violence instead of letting themselves be convinced. And most NPCs, under these cirsumstances, are likely to be better at using their sword instead of their diplomacy. Obviously, diverse choices when it comes to handling things are better than having a single one. The same in combat situations. But why should i be able to convince NPCs everytime i might be heading towards a combat situation? What makes you think your PC would be able to sit down, have a chat and drink some tea with a fervent religious fanatic who is adamant about his ideals and goals, has nothing to lose and doesn't care for material gains? Thats what makes the difference. Its not that my diplomatic skills on a whole would be useless, its that certain situations are unsolvable in diplomatic terms. Not only that, why should i expect that my choice of skills will automatically have to give me full chances of success in the gameworld? Why should i expect that taking a certain skill will give me as much success as taking some other? Each skill has its own place in the gameworld, and i don't see bad design in it. It only means that what i choose might not be the optimal solution to survive and move on in the world, but might be useful in its own way. I shouldn't expect all character skills to be equally useful, or to give the same options, or to provide the same level of success between themselves.
Again, you're assuming and using double-standards. The fact that some noob who lived his whole life in a locked vault was able to survive outside and stop the whole army of mutants doesn't bother you. The fact that you showed the Master some research done by other people and that stopped him does. Think about it.
I shouldn't even be bothering answering this again, because i already did in the previous post, but anyway...
I have thought about it, and this was your fallacy. You are under the assumption that, since a certain game genre sports an often ludicrous handling of its concept and premise - in this case, that a lone hero can overcome impossible odds, or can do, storywise, deeds of herculean proportions - then all following elements of the game must also be ludicrous, or that they must be exempt of a certain logic behind them. That's very bad reasoning there. Have
you thought about it?
Arguable? Forcing people to do things the only way is always a bad design.
And you're a reference in game design?
Why? Because you think so? Having personalities has nothing to do with listening and agreeing with somebody. If you have a good point why shouldn't NPCs listen to you?
You're being exceptionally dense and hyperbolic today. NPCs with better simulations of personalities obviously have a relation to their own levels of agreement with the PC, among other things. Would you consider an NPC to be easilly manipulated to possess a good personality? Or would you instead consider that an NPC, which has strong foundations to back up his (unwavering) reasoning, is a worse personality? Note that, if you're creating a character, then what you decide the character to be in the gameworld has to be logical. If you create a bloodthirsty psycopath, then he has to be a bloodthirsty psycopath, and his personality has to be fleshed out accordingly. In this case, it's quite naive to think you could use reasoning with such a character. On the other hand, if you create a streetwise thug, then he's going to have to be a streetwise thug. Partial to violence, but not a stranger to a little bribe on the side, or to some theft.
You may disagree with the answer I gave, but that doesn't mean that there was no answer. Regardless, I was more specific in this post, so I repeat "where is fallacy in thinking that a diplomatic path should be available as well?"
The fallacy wasn't in that, chum, read above.
And i'd suggest you pay more attention with what you write - i never posed a problem to there being a diplomatic path in the game, as your last sentence suggests. Merely, i questioned the validity of your question as to why there wasn't a diplomatic option at every turn.
Dhruin said:
Brief interlude and you guys can go back to it: it doesn't seem realistic to me to have a diplomatic route every time. Surely there are people and situations that can't be talked around, just as there probably should be situations that can't be fought through.
Thankfully, someone else in here is using common sense.
