Interview Lionheart Team Q&A #16 @ RPGVault

[Azael]

It's vaguely insulting. I don't know, it's like when you watch a movie and they assume you're an idiot, so they spend half the time spelling everything out and repeating themselves. Save it for Barney.

This is what big parts of Matrix: Reloaded felt like to me; "Let's tell the audience exactly what is going on, rather than letting them discover things on their own". A very bad move, IMHO, and one of the reasons I disliked the movie.

There really should be no need for markers if the dialogue is done right and all the skill descriptions are understandable.

 

[Vault Dweller]

But this feature could be very useful in certain situations .

a) If the player is very young .

I think that every person no matter how young would be able to understand dialogues and play successfully providing that he/she is able to read and comprehend simple literature (books with more then 10 pages).

b) If the player only knows little english

How little are we talking about? Basic communication should be enough to get started, a dictionary will always help to get through some tough places. It's very educational: learn while you play

 

[DrattedTin]

Define 'very large'. Is it as large as the Diablo fanbase? Is it as large as the Quake fanbase? Is it as large as the Solitaire fanbase? Company executives make those sorts of decisions all the time and I'm guessing that we don't look that attractive compared to some of the other genres out there. You guys have discussed this elsewhere, but the 'suits' aren't fixated on any particular gaming style - they are just interested in sales figures. Sad, unfair, but true. Nothing makes CRPGs immune to those sort of pragmatic decisions. If the CRPG genre isn't growing then it doesn't look like an attractive investment opportunity, end of story.

If game designers - hounded by hardcore fans - ONLY make games that appeal to those same hardcore fans, then where is the potential for growth in the market, for the sales that make the suits open up their chequebooks to invest in the next CRPG? Where are the new players coming from if games ONLY accommodate experienced players? Who is going to want to join a community where you are called a 'moron' just because you don't know what a THAC0 is?

Are the icons in Lionheart such a huge price to pay to possibly broaden it's appeal? If the game is just as deep and just as enjoyable, do the icons make any appreciable difference? Balance that against the possibility that players like supagu64 might give Lionheart a try because of the icons and learn to appreciate longer dialogues. Calling him a moron (or features that he might like 'moron indicators') certainly isn't going to attract him to CRPGs.

Remember how many times Tim Cain has said, "I make games I'd want to play." Skorpios?

I think this is the best design philosophy. Good games will sell, no matter how niche the market. Bad games will tank, no matter how big the apparent market, UNLESS they have a big name to ride on. And even then, sequels will likely tank, as the consumers will be burned. Games that are intentionally simplified in any area but the interface tend to be bad games. Re: Dungeon Siege.

I don't want to get started on that tangent, however, so I'll go on to say I'm not up in arms about this icon thing. I'd rather they don't do it how they're doing it. I'd rather they do it like Troika are in Temple of Elemental Evil; where only specific skills are tagged where neccessary. Yes, I'd like to know when I'm using my persuasion; that was a pet peeve in Arcanum, reloading to find the line that actually USED my skills... however, telling us what line gives us a quest and what starts a fight, and so on... well, it seems like a step towards Diablo or Demise.

"Hi, I am the NPC. Click here to get a quest. Click here to attack me. Click here to leave. Display flavor text? Y/N?"

This isn't neccessarily a bad thing. It just seems a little silly to try and be the deep RPG to the Fallout niche, and the hack & slash to the Diablo crowd. Both games have their merits. And if Lionheart can pull off the combination successfully, I'm all for it, but it really sounds weird on paper.

 

[Skorpios]

Azael: re verbosity, I agree...



but like many people I often find it difficult to practice what I preach. Apologies if my posts cause eye-strain, but as I said, I'm often responding to posts from several different people and I basically write in a 'stream of consciousness' style, putting down ideas as they come to me. Like any writer, I would seriously benefit from a good editor, but I don't have one handy right now.

Well, we don't have have customers, so we have the luxury of saying what we feel. If I find some 40-year old guy in your library playing with coloring books, I reserve the right to poke fun at him to prod him towards something a little more intellectually engaging. Especially because you'd probably get in trouble for doing the same.

Now that is EXACTLY one of the reasons I'm here! Earlier Vault Dweller referred to me as "Defender of the Developers" and while I don't claim to represent their interests, your example above is one of my motivations. YOU are Reflexive's customers (potentially at least) so they don't have the luxury of telling you to get stuffed when you use insulting, stupid terms like 'moron indicators'. So I reserve the right to come here and poke fun at you guys for being so anal and rude about Lionheart's design with little or no justification - so I'm not so different from you guys at all, just coming from a different angle. In another thread you were all trumpeting the importance and power of criticism to 'improve' games. Just remember: with great power comes great responsibility. How does using labels like 'moron' improve games? As far as I can see, all it does is insult potential purchasers. How does that improve a game or improve Reflexive's ability to create good games if you are driving players away?

Sure, feel free to be 'sinners' and use such insulting language about games and potential players of same, just be prepared to suffer my righteous wrath! As for me fading away after a week or two...looking at the ammunition that regularly appears in threads like this, I'm not going anywhere! (Plus, this is SOOO much fun!) :evil:

Dratted Tin: Just HOW do dialogue icons make Lionheart a hack'n'slash game? As I said earlier, if the icons had replaced the dialogue then I think you'd have a case, but the dialogue options are still there! The Speech (praise be to St P) skill is still there, they've even expanded the Barter skill to apply to more dialogue options. Doesn't sound all that hack'n'slash to me. Please explain how the icons achieve this.

Much of the responses I've read seem to be that icons insult your intelligence. Seems to me you are fairly insecure about your intelligence if icons have that much influence over you. We have icons everywhere, not just in the world of computers, but the world as a whole - everything from stop signs to toilet doors involve icons. Do stop signs make you feel dumb? Do you feel like an idiot when you pause to identify the little dude in pants and the dudette in the dress? Why aren't intelligent drivers campaigning against stop signs, or why aren't you burning down toilet doors?

There really should be no need for markers if the dialogue is done right and all the skill descriptions are understandable

Are you sure that's how you want it with passive skills that are used during dialogue? The skill description has to list EVERY possible situation that the barter skill is used for? Doesn't that sound a bit spoilerish?

Barter: This skill is used during dialogue when:
1) Bribing guards
2) Negotiating rewards
3) Haggling with prostitutes
4) Convincing the Grand Poobah of Constantinople that you deserve the Slippers of Infinite Desire in return for saving his lost daughter.
5) Begging for your life after being captured by the Testicle-Eaters of Procyon 6.

An extreme example I know, but the whole point of good dialogue is that there will be a wide range of situations where Barter might be applicable - listing them all is even more spoilerish than the indicator I feel. Do you want to KNOW that there are prostitutes in the game right from the start, or would you prefer to make one of Vault Dweller's 'chance discoveries' and find out how much fun you can have with a high barter skill?

Also, I'm not sure I get your 'liver with chocolate sprinkles' analogy either - because I don't see the icons as chocolate sprinkles, more like a different wrapper. Putting sprinkles on liver WILL taste like crap. Apply this to Lionheart's situation and you are saying that the icons make Lionheart play like crap. That is what I'm disputing - my argument is that the icons have little or no impact on the overall gameplay of the game. It only seems to be hardcore gamers like yourselves who are threatened by the icons, saying they insult your intelligence. If you are so intelligent and you feel you don't need the icons, just IGNORE them!

In my version of your analogy, the liver wrapper now says something like: "Liver: it's brainfood!!" It might not be the best slogan (just as the icons might not be the best feature ever) but it doesn't actually change the taste of the liver so regular buyers can enjoy it quite happily, and it might just entice some extra consumers to give it a try.

Remember how many times Tim Cain has said, "I make games I'd want to play." Skorpios?

I think this is the best design philosophy.

I agree, that is a good design philosophy - but does it have to be the ONLY design philosophy and can anyone (even Tim Cain) translate that philosophy intact through the the convoluted paths that games have to take now from concept, to design, to marketing and beyond? Was Arcanum a game Tim wanted to play? Obviously. Was it perfect? No, Tim said himself that Troika bit off more than it could chew at that time with Arcanum and it showed, especially in areas such as combat which pretty much everyone has criticised. So even the BEST design philosophy can go awry. Also, consider all the wannabe Tim Cains out there who follow his philosophy but unfortunately like playing CRAP games?? Deer Hunter anyone??

I'm sure Reflexive are trying to make a good game too, but just how do you define the term good? For Saint_Proverbius it is easy: turn-based with a good implementation of the Speech (praise be to St P) skill, as well as all the other features Saint_Proverbius wants in a game. But does that automatically make it a good game in my eyes? Or my 70 year old Lithuanian neighbour? Does it also guarantee good sales (well, you've got ONE guaranteed pre-order I suppose...) Of course not!

For all you know, Lionheart, with icons and all IS the game Reflexive want to play - we've already seen that some icons are included because of the enhancements in the Barter skill. If you have one icon, why not be consistent and have the lot? At least then the player realises the icons actually mean something rather than just being a random glitch on the screen every so often. Is this treating players like morons? We are talking about the INTERFACE here people - it's not meant to be a MENSA puzzle, it is meant to let you INTERFACE with the game as easily as possible. Maybe the icons are little too obtrusive for your personal tastes, so what? The content of the game is still the same!

If you are playing Lionheart (with the icons) and you are roleplaying a particular character (Tank, sneaky diplo, Unarmed thief, etc) - are you saying that you would choose different dialogue options SOLELY because of the icons? You would not just roleplay the character as you see fit? If you are on a quest to find Nostradamus, aren't you going to click on any questions about him anyway?

Dialogues are pre-scripted guys! The dialogue options you see reflect the character you have built, the skills she has, the stats she has, the NPCs she's encountered, the quests she's accepted. The icons don't change that one iota, and only seem to be very limited spoilers in my estimation. Show me the significant reduction in sophistication or entertainment caused by the icons.

And don't give me guff like "It's like the Matrix". You can't compare a totally passive experience like a movie to a RPG. Lionheart is so much more interactive - the plot unfolds through your actions, not the icons. If you decide not to talk to the Weird Woman you will never even see the icons so the ability to choose is still there - you are still in control. No one is holding your hand, any more than any other game with pre-scripted dialogues is holding your hand anyway.

I'd also probably find it amusing at first and then annoying if "sword skill activated" flashed over my character every time he tried to stab somebody.

Ummm, don't many games have icons that you click when you want to enter combat mode? Do you feel like a moron when you click on the 'sword & shield' icon to practice those fancy combat skills? Does this really annoy you? Why is it so bad if Lionheart shows you when and where you can put your passive skills into play also? I would have thought the majority of you would be welcoming the higher profile given to skills such as barter and Speech (praise be to St P)!

If combat worked liked you want the passive skills to, then the GAME would choose (without any input from you) when combat is appropriate and activate it automatically. Would anyone put up with that kind of gameplay in a (spiritual) successor to Fallout? I don't think so. Didn't Saint_Proverbius campaign very hard to make all NPCs killable? What is the difference between that and making all guards bribable (with the Barter icon and all that it entails)?? If Speech (praise be to St P) is as vital as the combat skills, why then shouldn't all skills get equal representation in the interface? The icons ADD to your control of your character because you can CHOOSE when to put your barter skill or Speech (praise be to St P) skill into play rather than the game doing it automatically. Doesn't anyone find that the least bit positive?

NWN (sorry, guys) does this by flashing stuff like [Insight] or [Persuade] and such before dialogue, and to be honest, I've grown not to like it. Partly it starts me thinking about game mechanics instead of role playing when I read it, so it screws with immersion. If they just added the dialogue options without telling you what's going on, it wouldn't keep reminding you that your character is basically just a set of numbers.

But isn't that a problem with you and your interpretation of passive skills - not intrinsically the game itself? As I keep saying - you guys screamed to get Speech (praise be to St P) into the game and now that the game interface reflects the importance of that and other passive skilsl you say it 'ruins the immersion'?? Does it ruin the immersion to select the Lockpick skill when you want to get past a locked door? Are you made painfully aware that that skill is just a number? So how does selecting a skill like Barter or [Persuade] ruin your immersion during dialogue?

If you were roleplaying with a group, wouldn't you say something like, "I want to persuade this bouncer to let me into the Tavern, I go up to him and tell him that I am the Lord Mayor's second cousin...." Would you then get upset if the DM rolls against your Persuasion skill? This is how CRPGs work my friend, there is always going to friction between the sense of 'reality' and the mechanics of the game but until you can design a dialogue interface that perfectly solves this problem we'll just have to make do with how Lionheart deals with it. It might not be perfection, but I've seen no evidence that it is utter crap either.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Now that is EXACTLY one of the reasons I'm here! Earlier Vault Dweller referred to me as "Defender of the Developers" and while I don't claim to represent their interests, your example above is one of my motivations. YOU are Reflexive's customers (potentially at least) so they don't have the luxury of telling you to get stuffed when you use insulting, stupid terms like 'moron indicators'. So I reserve the right to come here and poke fun at you guys for being so anal and rude about Lionheart's design with little or no justification - so I'm not so different from you guys at all, just coming from a different angle. In another thread you were all trumpeting the importance and power of criticism to 'improve' games. Just remember: with great power comes great responsibility. How does using labels like 'moron' improve games? As far as I can see, all it does is insult potential purchasers. How does that improve a game or improve Reflexive's ability to create good games if you are driving players away?

Sure, feel free to be 'sinners' and use such insulting language about games and potential players of same, just be prepared to suffer my righteous wrath! As for me fading away after a week or two...looking at the ammunition that regularly appears in threads like this, I'm not going anywhere! (Plus, this is SOOO much fun!) :evil:

Hey, it's cool with me. Maybe we'll have someone other than Volourn to argue with. Just don't be too disappointed if we fail to see the light anytime soon.

Barter: This skill is used during dialogue when:
1) Bribing guards
2) Negotiating rewards
3) Haggling with prostitutes
4) Convincing the Grand Poobah of Constantinople that you deserve the Slippers of Infinite Desire in return for saving his lost daughter.
5) Begging for your life after being captured by the Testicle-Eaters of Procyon 6.

An extreme example I know, but the whole point of good dialogue is that there will be a wide range of situations where Barter might be applicable - listing them all is even more spoilerish than the indicator I feel. Do you want to KNOW that there are prostitutes in the game right from the start, or would you prefer to make one of Vault Dweller's 'chance discoveries' and find out how much fun you can have with a high barter skill?

Not really a good comparison. If you just had the first 3, except 3 was just "haggling", the rest would logically follow. Although 5 would probably be an inappropriate use, unless you were offering something in exchange.

Also, I'm not sure I get your 'liver with chocolate sprinkles' analogy either - because I don't see the icons as chocolate sprinkles, more like a different wrapper. Putting sprinkles on liver WILL taste like crap. Apply this to Lionheart's situation and you are saying that the icons make Lionheart play like crap. That is what I'm disputing - my argument is that the icons have little or no impact on the overall gameplay of the game. It only seems to be hardcore gamers like yourselves who are threatened by the icons, saying they insult your intelligence. If you are so intelligent and you feel you don't need the icons, just IGNORE them!

Probably an overly broad analogy, it just kind of refers to adding dumb stuff in general.

In my version of your analogy, the liver wrapper now says something like: "Liver: it's brainfood!!" It might not be the best slogan (just as the icons might not be the best feature ever) but it doesn't actually change the taste of the liver so regular buyers can enjoy it quite happily, and it might just entice some extra consumers to give it a try.

That would probably be more along the lines of marketing it as "Lionheart: It's Not Your Daddy's RPG". Actually changing what goes on in the game is a little more. The food analogy breaks down here, but I guess if it broadcasted "Liver is Brainfood" every time you took a bite, it would be more like it. Or something.

Ummm, don't many games have icons that you click when you want to enter combat mode? Do you feel like a moron when you click on the 'sword & shield' icon to practice those fancy combat skills? Does this really annoy you? Why is it so bad if Lionheart shows you when and where you can put your passive skills into play also? I would have thought the majority of you would be welcoming the higher profile given to skills such as barter and Speech (praise be to St P)!

If combat worked liked you want the passive skills to, then the GAME would choose (without any input from you) when combat is appropriate and activate it automatically. Would anyone put up with that kind of gameplay in a (spiritual) successor to Fallout? I don't think so. Didn't Saint_Proverbius campaign very hard to make all NPCs killable? What is the difference between that and making all guards bribable (with the Barter icon and all that it entails)?? If Speech (praise be to St P) is as vital as the combat skills, why then shouldn't all skills get equal representation in the interface? The icons ADD to your control of your character because you can CHOOSE when to put your barter skill or Speech (praise be to St P) skill into play rather than the game doing it automatically. Doesn't anyone find that the least bit positive?

Hmm, your argument doesn't wash. In Fallout, you'd just click on someone that was hostile while your gun was equipped, and you'd automatically shoot them. The attack button was there to override the fact you won't by default shoot someone who's non-hostile, not a symbol that you're activating your gun skills. If you had a sledge equipped, you'd be using melee skill instead. It never really came out and said anything, you just did your actions and the game ran the results and did the skill checks in the background. Likewise, lockpick was a bit more implicit, I at least usually clicked on my lockpicks or just used the keystrokes. To the player, you're taking the action of picking a lock, not saying "use my lockpick skill". You could do just that from the skill menu, but that was hidden from you unless you wanted to open it.

But isn't that a problem with you and your interpretation of passive skills - not intrinsically the game itself? As I keep saying - you guys screamed to get Speech (praise be to St P) into the game and now that the game interface reflects the importance of that and other passive skilsl you say it 'ruins the immersion'?? Does it ruin the immersion to select the Lockpick skill when you want to get past a locked door? Are you made painfully aware that that skill is just a number? So how does selecting a skill like Barter or [Persuade] ruin your immersion during dialogue?

If you were roleplaying with a group, wouldn't you say something like, "I want to persuade this bouncer to let me into the Tavern, I go up to him and tell him that I am the Lord Mayor's second cousin...." Would you then get upset if the DM rolls against your Persuasion skill? This is how CRPGs work my friend, there is always going to friction between the sense of 'reality' and the mechanics of the game but until you can design a dialogue interface that perfectly solves this problem we'll just have to make do with how Lionheart deals with it. It might not be perfection, but I've seen no evidence that it is utter crap either.

Maybe the distinction is overly fine, but to me, at least, it makes me feel more like I'm in the game. I'm taking actions, not rattling off what skills I want to use. Maybe you don't feel quite the same, but I can notice the difference. It's like in PnP, if you're a passable roleplayer and want to help keep up the illusion for the other players, you say "I haggle a while with the merchant to get a better deal" not "Okay DM, I'm gonna roll a barter check, what's the difficulty?" A good DM is also going to just ask to roll the dice and show the number or else roll it for you, always staying in storytelling mode, not say, "Okay, roll Barter." That breaks up the continuity. The more you can keep the game mechanics abstract rather than explicit, the easier it is to get into character.

 

[Skorpios]

Walks with Snails: Hey it is relatively easy to tie this thread up if you want. All I need to see is a retraction from everyone who used the term 'moron indicator' or the equivalent and I'm out of here! (Unless I see it again of course! :wink: )

Not really a good comparison. If you just had the first 3, except 3 was just "haggling", the rest would logically follow. Although 5 would probably be an inappropriate use, unless you were offering something in exchange.

What do you think the testicles of your followers are for? :twisted:

"Canon Aphorismic's balls are much juicier than mine! Let's make a deal!" *Barter icon*

But that is the point I'm making - how do you know for SURE that no. 5 is inappropriate when it is not up to YOUR judgement but the decision of the designer, logic is not necessarily involved. They could scatter Barter flags through all sorts of dialogues, so you have to second-guess the designer if you want to invest in barter and even if you do, you'd never know if it was worth it until you replayed the game. Doesn't it make sense to let you know as you play that your skill points are being well spent? Just as combat skills let you defeat more and more powerful enemies, passive skills should let you swindle them, or bamboozle them. Just as enjoyable, just as useful, so shouldn't these abilities be just as obvious right off the bat?

it just kind of refers to adding dumb stuff in general.

But how do you define dumb? Why is your judgement any better than anyone elses? I don't feel the icons are dumb, I don't have any strong feelings about them at all actually. Reflexive's stated position on the icons is that they are to assist newer players. Is that automatically dumb? Are you calling all new players dumb? Then why can't Reflexive include a feature in THEIR game for new players? Does it really hurt you that much to have to look at the icons? Seeing as the icons also tie into expanded uses for the Barter skill - is that dumb? Making a skill more useful is dumb? I'm not really sure I follow your definition of dumb and I'm guessing there are plenty of other players who'd agree with me - so why use the term dumb? Just come out and say that you don't like it, but don't call it something you can't prove outside of your own skull.

Hmm, your argument doesn't wash. In Fallout, you'd just click on someone that was hostile while your gun was equipped, and you'd automatically shoot them. The attack button was there to override the fact you won't by default shoot someone who's non-hostile, not a symbol that you're activating your gun skills. If you had a sledge equipped, you'd be using melee skill instead. It never really came out and said anything, you just did your actions and the game ran the results and did the skill checks in the background. Likewise, lockpick was a bit more implicit, I at least usually clicked on my lockpicks or just used the keystrokes. To the player, you're taking the action of picking a lock, not saying "use my lockpick skill". You could do just that from the skill menu, but that was hidden from you unless you wanted to open it.

Also, did I refer specifically to Fallout regarding a combat icon? Arcanum had one, the infinity engine series had one, etc, etc, so I feel my argument DOES wash thank you very much. And you could still use a similar icon in Fallout to instigate combat.

Hmmm, let me get this straight: an button with a gun on it (as in Fallout) is OK, but an icon with Barter on it (as in Lionheart) is not OK? In Fallout the button on the interface let you know that clicking on a hostile person would use your Firearm skill (orwhatever) and your rifle to shoot them. In Lionheart, during a conversation, clicking on an option with the Barter symbol, means you will attempt to use your Barter skill to deal with them. Both situations involve my character using a skill on an NPC so I think I can safely compare them.

Why is one situation SO different from the other? Forgive me if I'm not paying close attention, but you seem to be saying that combat skills deserve more information and interface space than non-combat skills. Isn't that a fair description of the interface of a hack'n'slash game? Don't the icons representing the passive skills indicate that the designers DO value those skills and their use in the game? That they are trying to encourage players to explore barter and Speech (praise be to St P)?

Combat skills already get all the glory with combat animations (are people STILL campaigning for 'bloody mess' to be in Lionheart?) so why can't Reflexive raise the profile of passive skills through the dialogue screen? Passive skills are never going to be as flashy as combat ones, but doesn't that make it even more vital to make them visible? You all seem to be against hack'n'slash in RPGs but then why do you want non-combat skills kept in the background? Is it just me or does that seem contradictory?

That would probably be more along the lines of marketing it as "Lionheart: It's Not Your Daddy's RPG". Actually changing what goes on in the game is a little more.

But how much more? If the story behind the dialogue is the same with or without the icons (and story is what makes up the bulk of a game's flavour), then the icons are part of the interface which IS more similar to the wrapper the liver comes in. If the wrapper is unattractive and hard to open then people are less likely to buy the liver, right? I know I'm pushing this analogy hard but it is YOUR analogy. Feel free to take your chocolate sprinkles home if you're not happy with what I'm doing with them.

No one has answered MY question either - just how do the icons alone make Lionheart a hack'n'slash game or a game for morons? A clear, simple explanation that even we morons can understand is needed I think.

 

[DrattedTin]

MORON INDICATOR, MORON INDICATOR, MORON INDICATOR!

Alright, now that I've got you with us once again...

Dratted Tin: Just HOW do dialogue icons make Lionheart a hack'n'slash game? As I said earlier, if the icons had replaced the dialogue then I think you'd have a case, but the dialogue options are still there! The Speech (praise be to St P) skill is still there, they've even expanded the Barter skill to apply to more dialogue options. Doesn't sound all that hack'n'slash to me. Please explain how the icons achieve this.

Lionheart is a hack & slash game. This is indisputable. The idea of marrying complex skill systems and good dialogue to a hack & slash game is admirable. But it's little things like this that make you worry. I'll play Lionheart, and I think I'll enjoy it, but these icons seem a little silly. They're trying to be everything to everybody, and that's just not the way to go in my opinion.

The people who will appreciate the icons are in the minority (or so it seems to me), and the only merit I see of them is that they're very easy to defend in debates (they make the game so accessible!)

I'm going to get into some ridiculous exaggeration for the sake of argument (an art Skorpios appears fond of) here, and suggest Reflexive do away with the whole complex "magic" system... just replace it with a "CAST FIREBALL!" button! It'll appeal to the masses!

 

[Skorpios]

I will repeat myself till you start paying attention. The icons dumb the game down but they do not broaden its appeal. You answered "Yes", remember?

Oh, I'm paying attention, but are you? I answered yes, an average intelligent game player should be able to navigate through Lionheart without the icons - BUT will they automatically want to? Remember they have to BUY the game before they can play it, that is where marketing and feature lists come in. Not everyone will be able to come to RPGCodex and read the thread about how you guys convinced Reflexive to include the Speech (praise be to St P) skill so the game is now 'safe' to play.

Are you saying that a deep, complex dialogue system is immediately attractive to a novice player with little or no experience of RPGs? Remember games do keep getting more complex but new players keep appearing (not sure where from, my Dad said it had to do with birds, bees and toilet seats or something).

Would you throw a novice into Planescape: Torment and expect him to instantly have fun? Would you throw them a copy of Diablo 2 and say, "This is kind of what CRPGs are about."? Neither choice is very satisfactory as an introduction to CRPGs, right?

Lionheart seems to be somewhere between those two extremes, so I don't think it's unreasonable to include and promote features that might encourage newer players to give it a try, even if they felt less than confident about wading through a lot of dialogue. Especially when Saint_Proverbius has been very vocal about how vital and important the Speech (praise be to St P) skill is in the game. Anyone feeling a little nervous about all of that text can read Cabal's post that the game also includes icons to aid new players and maybe consider buying it. Doesn't that constitute 'broadening the appeal' of the game?

And again Vault Dweller - how exactly do the icons dumb down the game if the dialogue content is still intact? If they ADD functionality to various non-combat skills? Again, I seem to have a different definition of 'dumb' in my dictionary.

Just to clarify, my definition of 'dumb down' is to remove or simplify features to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the audience. But that hasn't happened (as far as I can see). If anything the icons enable ADDED functionality for non-combat skills which generally appeal to more sophisticated players, as shown by your distate for hack'n'slash.

Lionheart's plot seems stuffed with historical figures (Galileo, Nostradamus, Joan of Arc, Leonardo da Vinci), many of whom we can talk to. Are you saying a game that lets you chat with Leonardo da Vinci, even with icons, is aimed purely at the 'Diablo Generation'? Does it sound like your average hack'n'slash game?

If the icons 'dumb down' Lionheart that much, please explain how the removal of said icons so magically 'smarten it up'? If I could turn off the icons, wouldn't my encounters with the above historical luminaries be EXACTLY the same, just with a little less colour on the screen?

Will I be sitting in front of my computer saying, "Gosh, I feel SO MUCH SMARTER now without those pesky icons attacking my individual free will! Hmmmm, I wonder if it was my Charisma or my Barter skill that convinced that lady to give me her underwear? Oh well, guess I'll never know! I'm so glad those helpful RPGCodex guys convinced Reflexive to remove those icons for us REAL roleplayers."

 

[Skorpios]

Lionheart is a hack & slash game. This is indisputable.

Oh you must know me by now, I never think ANYTHING is indisputable. Labels are very dangerous things, Dratted Tin. But humour me, lay out your reasons for saying Lionheart is h&s (hack'n'slash).

Are we going to take Diablo 2 as our 'baseline' for h&s?
Does realtime combat automatically make a game h&s?

Bearing in mind of course that BOTH of our arguments are based on no actual experience of Lionheart.

OK, if Diablo 2 is our baseline (and remember my experience with this game is limited so humour me if I make mistakes) am I right in assuming that Diablo 2 has nothing even vaguely resembling a Speech (praise be to St P) skill?

Does Diablo 2 have any quests more complex that 'kill so-and-so' or 'find such-and-such'. I know that all games use variations of the above, but then I assume that the difference between a h&s and a 'real' CRPG is subtlety and variety of solutions to said quests. In a h&s you just kill things until you either kill the target or find the item - no non-combat skills are used or required to complete the quests.

Does Diablo2 have a basically linear storyline and design? "Enter Dungeon 1 - kill everything, kill Boss, collect loot. Enter Dungeon 2 - kill everything, kill slightly different coloured Boss, collect loot. Enter Dungeon 3....etc"

Does Diablo2 have several classes, each with a fixed set of abilities (even though each class does have various options to pick and choose from as you level up)? Note this doesn't automatically make it a h&s, but you'll agree it is easier to optimise fixed classes to work in a h&s game, rather than freeform character design. That way all characters 'work' as killing machines, even if they work in different ways.

Diablo 2 is basically realtime combat with a single character plus an optional henchman and some summons available (I think). There is little or no interaction between you and your henchman other than: "You want to join me?" "Yep, but it'll cost you." "OK." Nor do they have a large role to play in the overall storyline of the game.

Now have I been reading the wrong websites, but do any of the above apply strictly to Lionheart? Sure combat seems to occupy a prime role in the game (and your opinion on that I'll leave to individual taste) but I seem to remember a fair amount of combat in Fallout, in Badlur's Gate, in Torment, in Arcanum...didn't seem to do the roleplaying that much harm. Plus, a prime indicator for roleplaying would be some kind of Speech (praise be to St P) skill, right? Doesn't Lionheart have one? I'm not sure, perhaps we should ask Saint_Proverbius.

We've been told that many quests are solvable using non-combat skills - even Barter gets a chance to shine! Players can even gain experience for sneaking past opponents. Again - this is sounding more like 'sneak and swindle' rather than pure h&s.

Reflexive have worked up an entire alternate history setting enabling us to meet all sorts of amazing characters, both real and imagined. Do you REALLY think they are going to have Leonardo da Vinci in a game and then just have him say, "I really hate that Galileo, he's stealing all my publicity, will you kill him for me?" Look at the effort they've expended on the background to the world of Lionheart and then ask yourselves whether it is so unreasonable to assume that a similar amount of effort and thought has gone into the plot and dialogue.

We know we have at least 3 factions you can join with significant impact on your character and their relations with other NPCs - one of them is featured on this very website! That kind of interaction between your character and the gameworld doesn't seem very h&s to me.

Does Lionheart use an (admittedly altered) version of the SPECIAL sytem or not? Is it basically classless, giving you the freedom to explore any combination of skills you want? It might not be a very successful character every time, I'll grant you, but there are plenty of CRPGs in the same boat. At least you have the freedom to explore and experiment. Again, does this match the standard h&s definition?

Aren't the companions in Lionheart fully-fledged characters with their own agendas and storylines, and often they'll decide when and where they will join or leave you? They are not just simple cannon-fodder or pack mules.

Maybe I'm mis-reading your use of the term 'hack and slash', if so I'll await my edification with relish.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Hey it is relatively easy to tie this thread up if you want. All I need to see is a retraction from everyone who used the term 'moron indicator' or the equivalent and I'm out of here! (Unless I see it again of course! :wink: )

Didn't think I was tying this thread up, I'm just trying to explain why this isn't necessarily the greatest thing. And I think the moron indicator part was put in as a joke (though I can't be sure not being the one who made it). Jokes are good. Chill out.

What do you think the testicles of your followers are for? :twisted:

"Canon Aphorismic's balls are much juicier than mine! Let's make a deal!" *Barter icon*

Well, in that example dialogue, it is clear you're using Barter just by the words. This is a Good Thing. It keeps things in character while making your intentions clear. At that point, plopping down a Barter icon is unnecessary. The main thing is to make the dialogue itself clear enough to not necessitate getting out of character.

But that is the point I'm making - how do you know for SURE that no. 5 is inappropriate when it is not up to YOUR judgement but the decision of the designer, logic is not necessarily involved. They could scatter Barter flags through all sorts of dialogues, so you have to second-guess the designer if you want to invest in barter and even if you do, you'd never know if it was worth it until you replayed the game. Doesn't it make sense to let you know as you play that your skill points are being well spent? Just as combat skills let you defeat more and more powerful enemies, passive skills should let you swindle them, or bamboozle them. Just as enjoyable, just as useful, so shouldn't these abilities be just as obvious right off the bat?

I think you're drawing some bad parallels here. You know your non-combat skills are working or not judging by your success or failure, just like combat skills most of the time. With any game, you've got to take some things on faith. By your reasoning, without something to compare it with and no explicit cues, you have know idea of knowing if you were actually using the throwing skill when bludgeoning people with a mace. You'd have to replay the game to make sure, shock and horror. And anyway, you're kind of proving my point about roleplaying. Ideally, you should look at building skills in the way that fits your vision of the character. Putting points in barter represents the character spending time and effort to get better at negotiation, not funneling x amount of time into a little box that magically gets whipped out and turned on for certain occastions. When you scatter around barter icons, that's exactly what it can seem like, though, at least if you're trying to get in character.

In the broader sense, putting down Quest and Attack icons isn't really doing much at all to help you know what skills you're using, anyway. All it does is take you out of character and spell out what the game effects of your actions are. That takes away Vault Dweller's surprises. And it takes away my immersion. For no good reason, really. Really I think that's where the moron indicator comment arose, but I didn't make it so I can't say for sure.

Also, did I refer specifically to Fallout regarding a combat icon? Arcanum had one, the infinity engine series had one, etc, etc, so I feel my argument DOES wash thank you very much. And you could still use a similar icon in Fallout to instigate combat.

God, let's avoid trying to negate arguments by semantics. I think my response was reasonable and appropriate to this:

Ummm, don't many games have icons that you click when you want to enter combat mode? Do you feel like a moron when you click on the 'sword & shield' icon to practice those fancy combat skills? Does this really annoy you? Why is it so bad if Lionheart shows you when and where you can put your passive skills into play also? I would have thought the majority of you would be welcoming the higher profile given to skills such as barter and Speech (praise be to St P)!

If combat worked liked you want the passive skills to, then the GAME would choose (without any input from you) when combat is appropriate and activate it automatically. Would anyone put up with that kind of gameplay in a (spiritual) successor to Fallout? I don't think so.

You mentioned spiritual successor to Fallout and gave some appropriate examples, so that was what I used in my response.

Hmmm, let me get this straight: an button with a gun on it (as in Fallout) is OK, but an icon with Barter on it (as in Lionheart) is not OK? In Fallout the button on the interface let you know that clicking on a hostile person would use your Firearm skill (orwhatever) and your rifle to shoot them. In Lionheart, during a conversation, clicking on an option with the Barter symbol, means you will attempt to use your Barter skill to deal with them. Both situations involve my character using a skill on an NPC so I think I can safely compare them.

Not exactly. Saying you're taking an action is okay, putting in game mechanics terms is a little more dicey. Honestly, if it you're given an option to declare your intent to barter through dialogue, that's okay. If it gave you an option to whip out your sword and wave it around threateningly or just put *attack*, that's fine, too, because it's an action taken in character.

Why is one situation SO different from the other? Forgive me if I'm not paying close attention, but you seem to be saying that combat skills deserve more information and interface space than non-combat skills. Isn't that a fair description of the interface of a hack'n'slash game? Don't the icons representing the passive skills indicate that the designers DO value those skills and their use in the game? That they are trying to encourage players to explore barter and Speech (praise be to St P)?

Well, by your own criteria, you must not be paying attention. Don't know when I said combat skills deserve more attention. And I certainly didn't mean to imply it.

I don't quite follow where icons determine how much the designer cares about certain activities. You put in what's required for functionality. That's what I was talking about. If you need to put in an extra button to let the player attack non-hostiles, even if it's just to let them avoid jumping through extra hoops, then give them a button. You don't need an extra icon tacked on to an existing line of dialogue to barter though, where does that come in?

Combat skills already get all the glory with combat animations (are people STILL campaigning for 'bloody mess' to be in Lionheart?) so why can't Reflexive raise the profile of passive skills through the dialogue screen? Passive skills are never going to be as flashy as combat ones, but doesn't that make it even more vital to make them visible? You all seem to be against hack'n'slash in RPGs but then why do you want non-combat skills kept in the background? Is it just me or does that seem contradictory?

Not quite contradictory. Everything should be in the background, ideally. That's what I was talking about with abstraction, but I think you completely missed my point. Combat mechanics are actually already in the background, at least for most games. While you're in the action, you're probably not necessarily thinking about using your melee skill, you're thinking about pounding that bandit to mush. Similarly, in dialogue, you should be thinking about trying to convince some person to see things your way, not activating your barter skill. I can't see the dichotomy you're trying to draw here.

But how much more? If the story behind the dialogue is the same with or without the icons (and story is what makes up the bulk of a game's flavour), then the icons are part of the interface which IS more similar to the wrapper the liver comes in. If the wrapper is unattractive and hard to open then people are less likely to buy the liver, right? I know I'm pushing this analogy hard but it is YOUR analogy. Feel free to take your chocolate sprinkles home if you're not happy with what I'm doing with them.

Eh? The interface is actually a significant part of the game and shapes how you interact with it. Your wrapper example is basically an exact parallel to the box the game comes in. So my example stands. At least as much as I meant it to, since it was partly a joke on how the analogy wasn't quite perfect.

 

[Skorpios]

I'm going to get into some ridiculous exaggeration for the sake of argument (an art Skorpios appears fond of) here, and suggest Reflexive do away with the whole complex "magic" system... just replace it with a "CAST FIREBALL!" button! It'll appeal to the masses!

Now that is ridiculous as it doesn't even apply to what I'm saying. What have they removed to make room for the icons? NOTHING. The icons are added to the existing dialogue options, simple as that. So what has been 'dumbed down' to appeal to the masses? NOTHING. Instead we actually have ADDED functionality to the Barter and Speech (praise be to St P) skills. So the gameplay is actually MORE complex than before.

And you know that removing all spells but one wouldn't even appeal to the most brain-dead Quake fan. Even action junkies like variety, that's why they give them more than one weapon to play with! If Reflexive had cut down the dialogue screen to just a little option box saying: [clue] [kill] [shop] then you might have a point. But as I keep repeating with no actual effect seemingly: the dialogue is STILL THERE!

You make it sound like they ripped the guts out of the dialogue system to put in the icons. LOOK at the screenshot - the dialogue is still all there! You can read it and immerse yourself in the world of Lionheart. The icons don't make the text invisible do they? The game is not aiming itself at brain-dead illiterates - just adding some small, helpful guides that may or may not help SOMEONE out there or at least ease their entry into the game. Is that such a crime???

 

[DrattedTin]

It was a joke, man. I felt like I had to get one in there somewhere.

 

[Jed]

Dratted Tin: Just HOW do dialogue icons make Lionheart a hack'n'slash game?

By removing the thinking.

 

[Skorpios]

Walks with Snails: When is it semantics when I clarify a misunderstanding or mistake? I said initially:

"DON'T MANY GAMES HAVE ICONS?"

Then you brought up Fallout 'disproving' my argument. Is Fallout many games or not? It is a fact: the Infinity Engine games have a combat icon, Arcanum has such an icon, many other games have either a similar icon or some sort of interface display that informs the player combat skills are being used. Not to mention the graphical cues that you get. If my Barbarian is hitting some guy on the head with a mace, I think I can safely assume he is NOT using his throwing skill OR his Persuasion skill. You don't always get that immediate feedback with passive skills. You don't see your silver tongue work it's magic, either the skill works or it doesn't with little to indicate the actual course of events unlike combat where everything is blazingly obvious.

The point I was trying to make is this:

Fallout. Gun icon on interface representing your equipped weapon. This is all in your face, not in the 'background'. In 'roleplaying' mode you see someone you don't like, you decide to shoot the bastard (and believe me I'm beginning to understand THAT feeling!), so you click on the gun and click on him or whatever is required. In the background the game does all the rolls etc to calculate a hit or miss, that's fine, but in the FOREGROUND, your avatar pulls out his rifle and starts blazing away and hopefully your enemy starts dying. If he doesn't then I've gained some feedback on the usefulness of my Firearms skill. Action-packed and exciting stuff! You really appreciate the skill points you spent in Firearms now, right? Or decide to invest some more if he ends up kicking your butt.

Lionheart. Barter icon on a dialogue option. In 'roleplaying' mode you decide to see if you can haggle this guy out of some extra money for the package you've just delivered because you had to walk a heck of a long way for it. You click on the option with the Barter icon and say that to the NPC. In the background the game does all the rolls etc to calculate success or failure. In the FOREGROUND, the NPC says, yes, no, or DIE YOU GREEDY BASTARD!. Not quite as sexy as combat, but still interesting enough, and I've gained valuable feedback on the usefulness (or lack thereof) of my Barter skill.

But imagine if you never even saw the icon - you'd never know if you were taking a risk or not based on your Barter skill. You wouldn't appreciate the skill points you invested quite so much as firearms example above, right? You wouldn't feel the same sense of accomplishment in swindling a guy if you thought maybe it was just blind luck (or plain old scripting) that made him say yes.

Can you see the similarity I'm trying to draw your attention to? Two different situations but both involving the application of a skill onto an NPC. Both involving a simple part of the interface (the button with the gun on it in Fallout, the dialogue option with the Barter icon in Lionheart) and both involving background 'rolls' and then in-game consequences.

What is the major difference between those two situations? Both involve quite recognisable roleplaying decisions that are equally valid as far as I can see. But according to you guys one is good and the other bad. How come?

From one perspective you are saying that players should ALWAYS have control of combat skills and be aware of when they are using them, but NOT non-combat skills. Doesn't that devalue the non-combat skills? How can they matter that much if they are nearly invisible? Of course you know they are working in there somewhere but why does one set of skills get centre stage while the other hides in the wings?

Combat skills are in your face - exciting you with amazing criticals and life and death situations. Why SHOULDN'T non-combat skills be just as visible? Look at it from a character building perspective. Many people enjoy building the ultimate gunslinger for example, and the game rewards them with a fun character with lots of chances to show off his skills. "Did you see that! I managed to kill the President of the Apemen with one shot!"

What if I'm interested in creating a master Swindler in Lionheart. "Did you see that! I managed to swap this old sock for Torquemada's Flagellatum Hereticus!" Without the icon how could you PROVE that it was your Barter skill that made that possible, maybe Torquemada is just scripted with a sock fetish? Would you have the same certain sense of accomplishment and pride in your character's abilities as the Gunslinger?

If an outsider watches you playing a game and only sees the combat skills being used, what kind of game do you think he sees? Hack and slash perhaps?

Now let's try one last extreme example and treat combat skills the same as non-combat ones. You are walking down the street, suddenly an enemy appears and once you click on him he instantly drops dead for no apparent reason. That is what would happen if the game treated some combats the same way as you believe dialogues should be treated. It simply applied your Firearms skill (for example) completely in the background and killed him, no muss, no fuss. Doesn't sound like much fun to me. Then you WOULD be in the dark - did I kill him with my Firearms skill or my Throwing skill? Wouldn't you demand that information from any competent designer?

So why should combat skills be treated like royalty, and non-combat skills treated like their embarrassing in-bred relatives locked up in an asylum somewhere? Don't you want CRPGs to progress beyond their hack and slash roots?

 

[Araanor]

Now that is EXACTLY one of the reasons I'm here! Earlier Vault Dweller referred to me as "Defender of the Developers" and while I don't claim to represent their interests, your example above is one of my motivations. YOU are Reflexive's customers (potentially at least) so they don't have the luxury of telling you to get stuffed when you use insulting, stupid terms like 'moron indicators'.

Fine, take that role if you wish. But remember that the attitude here is in many ways a reaction against the media of computer gaming, amazed by shiny graphics and glossing over shallow gameplay, handing out rewards like it's christmas, the lapdogs of the publishers. We are highly critical here. It's What We Do.

Oh, and please do get to the point.

 

[Skorpios]

Dratted Tin: Just HOW do dialogue icons make Lionheart a hack'n'slash game?

By removing the thinking.

Unless Reflexive knows a LOT more about CIA brainwashing techniques than I do, how is that possible? I thought 'thinking' occurred in my own brain, how do those colourful little icons suck those thoughts right out of my head?

If you encounter a Barter icon for example, aren't you FORCED to think about it? Is my barter skill high enough to pull this off? Will a haggle attempt tick this guy off? Seems to me it stimulates just as much thought as the dialogue itself.

According to you XJEDX, we can all settle this quite quickly and amicably just by using the power of icons. You guys don't even need to think any more about what I'm saying, just stare at the pretty icons....

0=[=====> Click on the sword if you agree with Skorpios and believe he is the sexiest guy on the planet.

-----X---@ Click on the rose if you disagree with Skorpios (but still think he's kinda hot!).

There, once that's done there will be nothing left to discuss, nothing to think about, the icons have done their wonderful work....we can all rest now...secure in the oneness of our moronification...living together mindlessly...in peace and harmony....





Yeah, right :twisted:

 

[Skorpios]

Fine, take that role if you wish. But remember that the attitude here is in many ways a reaction against the media of computer gaming, amazed by shiny graphics and glossing over shallow gameplay, handing out rewards like it's christmas, the lapdogs of the publishers. We are highly critical here. It's What We Do.

Oh, and please do get to the point.

A brief and to the point post then Areanor: since when does 'highly critical' equal 'bloody rude'??

Do two wrongs make a right? Does the sometimes rabid criticism on this forum somehow counteract the media hype?

Is the mythical 'average gamer' any better served by your cynicism than by media distortions?

 

[Araanor]

A brief and to the point post then Areanor:

Thank you.

since when does 'highly critical' equal 'bloody rude'??

Very well, we are bloody rude here, if that's how you have to see it.

Do two wrongs make a right? Does the sometimes rabid criticism on this forum somehow counteract the media hype?

I gave you something of a background. Counteract? It's a refreshing change, if anything.

Is the mythical 'average gamer' any better served by your cynicism than by media distortions?

Maybe not the cynicism in particular, but surely the knowledge would. RPGCodex isn't meant to cater to your 'average gamer', anyway.

 

[Skorpios]

Actually, I'd like to clarify something. Somehow I've gained the reputation of "the guy who thinks criticism and/or fan feedback doesn't matter or should never be done."

I'd like to repudiate that TOTALLY. Of course feedback from players like us matters, it is an essential resource for game designers to know what works and what doesn't for players so they can design better games in the future. It can even assist designers during the design of a game, like Saint_Proverbius and other fans' vigorous promotion of the Speech skill in Lionheart. I've posted repeatedly that this is my view but I guess my posts are just too long to read all the way through or absorb properly. That is my fault and I'm happy to wear the blame for that and I can easily point out several prior posts where I say that:

I AGREE WITH YOU - CRITICISM IS A USEFUL AND POWERFUL TOOL.

Got it this time?

I believe implicitly in the importance of criticism, which is why I also believe STRONGLY that the best criticism is carefully thought out and positively presented (even if it is negative in nature).

That is why I originally posted against Dark Underlord's 'moron indicator' post. Feel free to to criticise Reflexive's decision to use dialogue icons. But if you believe that deliberately using cruel and hurtful terms like 'moron' is in the interest of improving games well forgive me if I beg to differ.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Somehow I've gained the reputation of "the guy who thinks criticism and/or fan feedback doesn't matter or should never be done."

Really? Hmm, I wonder, was it because you fought, bitched, and complained about our every attempt to provide criticism and/or fan feedback and took it upon yourself to protect developers from every negative word said?

I AGREE WITH YOU - CRITICISM IS A USEFUL AND POWERFUL TOOL.
Got it this time?

Yes, sir! You sure showed us, sir...that you have mastered the elusive art of font and color management. Hurray?

I believe implicitly in the importance of criticism

Bullshit! These are just words, your actions beg to differ.

which is why I also believe STRONGLY that the best criticism is carefully thought out and positively presented (even if it is negative in nature).

The one thing that RPG Codex is famous for is "carefully thought out and positively presented criticism".

But if you believe that deliberately using cruel and hurtful terms like 'moron' is in the interest of improving games well forgive me if I beg to differ.

It's your right to have a different opinion, mate. The thing about the word 'moron' though, it fits. There is no doubt that this feature is designed for extremely slow people and people who think that reading is boring (morons describe both cases), for even you agreed that an average person would be able to figure out what's what in a conversation. I'm sorry for not being politically correct and using 'bad' words, but we are all adults here and can get over it.

Bottom line: I realize that Reflexive is trying to attract the biggest target market - the morons, and I'm very happy for them, but please don't ruin the game for the rest of us and provide an option to turn the damn things off.

 

[Skorpios]

Vault Dweller - yes I put it in big RED writing because somehow both Saint Proverbius and XJEDX qualify as morons under your definition because they failed to read several times that I basically agree with the validity of criticism of games. I've even done it myself on occasion - I was a beta-tester on Arcanum for example. Would I have done that if I believed my opinions had no weight with Troika?

I also said several times that all things being equal I agree with Saint Proverbius's assertion that the current Speech skill is an improvement over what Reflexive had in place previously. See I can easily accept the validity of your criticisms and the fact they can improve games. It in no way invalidates my belief that such criticism is most effective if it is expressed positively.

Let me guess about Saint_Proverbius's arguments for the Speech skill - it didn't go like this did it?

"You Reflexive guys are a bunch of moron sell-outs!!! Put Speech in you fuck-ups!!!"

No, I never though it was anything like that.

Now from what Saint_Proverbius posted he spent several days arguing clearly why Speech as a skill had advantages over the derived attributes of Schmooze and Outwit (see I did him the courtesy of reading his posts - shame he didn't return the favour!). The guys at Reflexive considered those arguments and ideas and agreed with them. A win for everyone concerned. Would the outcome have been the same if Saint started calling them morons etc? I doubt it. So does that support my ideas on positive criticism or not?

In the 'Gripes' thread I basically accepted the spells as unoriginal which was the main focus of the thread. Even Eric described them as 'meat and potatoes', he also outlined some very interesting background on their design. Again, where did I deny your criticisms?

Bullshit! These are just words, your actions beg to differ.

(I'm tempted to say that my actions ARE just words on a discussion board, but I'm afraid you'll start whimpering about semantics again.)

If my words and my actions seem to contradict each other let's look at your own performance in that regard in the 'Gripes' thread:

Earlier you posted in response to my defence of the spell list:

But it is a part of a gameplay. So far the spell list is the most boring feature of the game as it offers no mystery, no discovery, and no sense of wonder when you cast a spell. Somebody fucked up, and there is no reason to pretend it's no big deal

(Can you tell this was written before he found out about the dialogue icons? :wink: )

Later after Eric had discussed the issue in several posts he said he "liked the magic system we have now."

We like it too, although it would not have hurt to have more originality in the magic department, but I'm sure we can save the really cool magic for Lionheart 2: The Mother of All Sequels

Where are the strength of your convictions, Vault Dweller? You had a game designer in the palm of your hand and yet you didn't ask him 'who fucked up'?? Suddenly the magic listing isn't a big deal any more? It can wait until the sequel? What happened to the urgency of your earlier criticisms??

So when I defend the spell list it is a "fuck-up" but when Eric does it, it suddenly becomes something you like? Whose actions and words aren't matching up here?

If you believe that any criticism is justified, using any terminology or language that you feel like using, why didn't you direct that criticsm at Eric where it would obviously do the most good? He was right there, waiting for your feedback. Even I couldn't protect him from whatever you wanted to say. Perhaps you realised maybe even subconsciously that calling him, or one of his team-members a 'fuck-up' isn't the most constructive criticism? Wasn't that the same point I was trying to make all along?

Just as your criticisms are aimed at improving the quality of games, maybe my criticisms are aimed at improving the quality of discussion on this board. Both tasks might be impossible dreams but it sure is fun finding out! :twisted:

Let me get this straight: the dialogue icons are purely designed for "extremely slow people...who think reading is boring". If that is true, how do they impact on you at all? You obviously don't need them, so again, how do they affect you? Does the existence of a wheelchair ramp make it impossible for you to walk into a building? Maybe I am a moron, but if the dialogue icons are so far below your level of intellect why do they register at all? Turning them off changes a small number of pixels on the screen, that's all - why can't you deal with that?

Bottom line: I realize that Reflexive is trying to attract the biggest target market - the morons

OK, so the largest single group amongst gamers today are morons? As far as I know there is nothing special about gamers (apart from owning computers), so following your logic the majority of all people are morons? Oh really? This view isn't just the tiniest bit elitist and offensive? There have been several political groups convinced of their superiority over the 'ignorant masses'. Maybe I am on the wrong discussion board after all. Does "Mein Kampf" ring a bell? That was stuffed full of criticism and labels for people different from the author...

The one thing that RPG Codex is famous for is "carefully thought out and positively presented criticism".

"Someone fucked up", "Reflexive is trying to attract...morons", "People who think reading is boring = morons".

Carefully thought out? Maybe, if you are deliberately trying to be offensive, but I think you'll agree the presentation is far from positive.

For most of human existence EVERYONE was illiterate so were all of our ancestors morons? A significant portion of the population are illiterate or suffer from learning disabilities, they don't enjoy reading much - do they automatically qualify as morons under your categorisation scheme? I just hope none of your relatives suffer from these problems, I'm sure they would be hurt to be labelled as such. Yes this is a semantic argument, but just remember, what a label like 'moron' means to you might mean something very different to someone else and have an emotional impact you cannot predict.

Sure we are all adults and should be able to handle it (ignoring the fact that this forum is open to people of any age, so your assertion that we are all adults here isn't even accurate), but wouldn't it be easier to act like responsible adults in the first place and think before we start labelling people?

Hmmm, so here I am busy criticising you and other posters about your attitudes and your language and yet somehow I DON'T believe in the power of criticism? Isn't that an interesting paradox!!!

 

[Astromarine]

I'm sick of this topic. I was thinking it would go on forever, but Skorpios has made me a favor and forfeit the discussion. Skorp, I agree with you that the moron indicators aren't life or death, but you lose the argument on a Godwin's law ruling. Stop this now, let's go back to talking about the *good* things we see happening in RPGs.

 

[Volourn]

This thread makes my head hurt; and that doesn't happen often.

 

[Skorpios]

What a cool law! Wish I hadn't been influenced by that mini-series on Hitler that was on recently! Fair enough I suppose, I guess that is what you call a hidden blessing.

Thanks all, and goodnight!

 

[chrisbeddoes]

Boys . I lost my Powah Stringz Ahrorm .
It lookez like dis .
Can anibodi give me one for frize ?
PSS . FOOS is a great gamez .
Not like Lionherties.
Lionhearties dis not have thongies !!!!!
At liest it has daz dialogies intadacatories !!!!
with dialogiez ikonz !!!!!
Dey dat helpz wit questzs !!!!
Now gotz !!! noprobliema dooz qiestzs !!!
MOst Coolez !!!!
Lionhiartiez dialogiez IcoNZSS !1 RoXoRZ !!!!

P.S
Can abibodiz gives me frie
Lightzaber ?
Pzzzzzzzzz
I gotta bi Jedi !!!!!!!!