Interview Lionheart Team Q&A #16 @ RPGVault

[Voss]

The thing that is really bugging me about this game is that I'm still not sure about it, one way or another.

The pros and cons are about equal, and I'd like to see something that pushes me one way or the other for good. I seem to be stuck in an inescapable loop. And sadly the one thing thats pushing toward buy at the moment is the lack of anything new and interesting out there (coupled with a few weeks of free time that coincides nicely with the release date) , which is sad and pushing back toward against, since that isn't a sign of oh wow, better get this game.

I like some aspects...but these little annoyances have added up, causing confusion and doubt.

Its much easier with KoToR, since the info, descriptions, reviews and experiences I had with NWN make it fairly obvious that I'll hate it.

 

[Skorpios]

You work in a library, right? I would assume that you have some respect for books. Here is a situation, a guy gets a good interesting book, looks at the pictures and returns the book saying that reading is boring, but the pictures were alright. Let's say you are too busy too argue with him and unable to try to convince the guy to give reading a try, and let's say that for all intents and purposes, the guy is literate and mentally healthy. What would be your opinion of him?

First off I LOVE reading, I will probably be buried with a couple of books, 'just in case' - but working in a Library isn't quite as good as it sounds to a reader. Remember you are not employed to read the books but process them (covering, shelving, etc, etc.) It's a bit like working in a chocolate shop and not being able to eat anything!

Vault Dweller: what would be my opinion of someone who said something like "reading is boring"? Well, that is a view VERY far from my own as I've stated, but my universe is big enough to encompass people who don't like to read. I might not inrinsically understand their position but I can easily accept it. I don't like to swim but other people love the beach - and the world goes on. We are all different and there isn't really one GOOD choice for entertainment or education that we should all automatically enjoy.

Maybe that guy just has his brain wired so that he really enjoys the aesthetics of pictures and visual images but not written text? I have no problem with that. And it certainly doesn't make him 'stupid' or a 'moron' in my eyes.

Just what is a moron anyway? One definition in the dictionary is "having the mental capacity and maturity of an 8 to 12 year old". Now kids aren't dumb - they just think differently as they mature. This also applies to the whole spectrum of humanity. The inside of everyone's skull is different. Labels like moron are basically meaningless but can be very hurtful as I've said. Would you go up to someone with a mental disability who has the mental capacity of an 8 year old and say, "Hello moron!". No you wouldn't (at least I hope not!), because he is still a human being with feelings and the right to dignity.

 

[DrattedTin]

Yeah, but people who like the indicators have no dignity.

 

[Voss]

Oh good. Someone's started gibbering about rights.


Its definitely time to stop.

Oh, Skorp, I have to thank you. Arguing with you has convinced me to move Lionheart from a definite buy to a questionable maybe. In order to argue with your posts I've had to look at the game with a more critical eye, and have found more things that I don't like about it than I otherwise would have. Otherwised I would have groused briefly about spells, stopped and bought it anyway.

Now I'm not sure one way or the other, so thanks for helping me make an informed decision.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Arguing with you has convinced me to move Lionheart from a definite buy to a questionable maybe. In order to argue with your posts I've had to look at the game with a more critical eye, and have found more things that I don't like about it than I otherwise would have.

Like what if you don't mind me asking

 

[chrisbeddoes]

This is the RPG CODEX "undead thread" .
And I have to ask.

Will a noble palladin be found to stop this evil undead thread ?

 

[EEVIAC]

Like what if you don't mind me asking

I have to agree with Voss. Just reading the various arguments and critiques in this thread has reminded of the RT combat, unoriginal spells, even the fact that buying the game puts money in the coffers of Interplay, a company I really don't like and no longer want to support. But the game world is interesting enough for me to forget about all that, and I look forward to the game despite my misgivings.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Will a noble palladin be found to stop this evil undead thread ?

Thou canst not kill that which doth not live

This is the RPG CODEX "undead thread" .

I thought that "What is it about Bioware" is the RPG Codex "undread thread". Every time I think that the bitch is finally dead, another lurker steps out from the shadows and starts another round as if 13 pages are not enough.

 

[Skorpios]

Oh good. Someone's started gibbering about rights.


Its definitely time to stop.

Oh, Skorp, I have to thank you. Arguing with you has convinced me to move Lionheart from a definite buy to a questionable maybe. In order to argue with your posts I've had to look at the game with a more critical eye, and have found more things that I don't like about it than I otherwise would have. Otherwised I would have groused briefly about spells, stopped and bought it anyway.

Now I'm not sure one way or the other, so thanks for helping me make an informed decision.

You are welcome Voss and EEVIAC - that's all I wanted to achieve - that people THINK about the game and their reasons for criticising it (and/or buying it). Throwing silly labels around doesn't achieve anything and it doesn't help anyone decide whether they like the game or not. There ARE more features to consider than the dialogue icons when it comes to Lionheart, I agree.

I don't think I ever promised that Lionheart would be the 'BEST GAME EVER!!!!!' or anything like that so if you've decided that it isn't the game for you that is fine by me. It's your 'right' after all to spend your money as you wish. As for me, I'm still a sucker for a good alternate history story, so as long as that is the basis of the game's plot I'm willing to give it a whirl. I've always favoured diplomatic characters over warriors so the TB/RT combat factor is less important to me for instance.

Finally, sorry if my discussion of my beliefs about the rights of others upset or bored you (and the rest of my ramblings haven't already achieved that??). Weren't you warned by my earlier posts that I suffer from the cyber version of verbal diarrhoea??

My post was in response to a direct question from Vault Dweller and it DOES relate to the core reason why I've debated so hard and so long on this topic so I thought it justified. I do believe that everyone deserves to be treated with respect even if their behaviour suggests otherwise. Oh, forgive me, I'm gibbering again...sorry Voss.

Voss, I've picked up some interesting tactics in online debating as well. The most popular one seems to involve a simple and direct attack on your opponent's intelligence, justified or not. Somehow just calling someone a moron or accusing them of gibbering makes your opinions seem so much more worthwhile - don't you think?

But, seeing as the thread has drifted back to the perennial question of the 'use' of the icons let's give that another thrash. OK we've all agreed that any experienced RPGer has no use for the icons. Any adrenaline-fixated action junkie wouldn't even be bothering with the dialogues anyway, so they are no help to him. Any semi-literate person with half a brain should also be able to navigate dialogue - so what do the icons actually do??? This conundrum seems to be at the heart of many people's arguments against the icons and ESPECIALLY the argument that the icons should be able to be turned off.

I think one of Cabal's quotes gives us a clue to what Reflexive are trying to do (whether they've succeeded is a whole other story - but show me a developer who pulls off EVERYTHING they try perfectly!). The quote basically goes something like:

"We are trying to reach beyond the hardcore audience with these icons."

The point isn't so much whether the icons do anything much in the game (besides be a visual aid in the use of skills etc as we've already discussed). The point is the icons are a feature aimed at ATTRACTING a wider audience to try the game - then letting other features keep them there.

Here's another hypothetical example: I'm a player 'fresh' from Diablo 2. It had 'Action RPG' on the box so I'm aware of the term but Diablo 2 is the only 'RPG' I've played so far. I enjoyed it - the combat was fun, but I felt something was missing. The endless killing became repetitive and I started to wish that my character could do MORE in the game,. I wanted to be able to interact with others in the gameworld with something other than the sharp edge of my sword.

So I start looking around - hitting the game sites - looking for other RPGs that still have some action because I enjoy that in my games, but that also have something else going for them.

I discover Lionheart and start to investigate further. It is based on a system called SPECIAL which was used in a game called 'Fallout'. I hit the search engines and check out some of the Fallout sites that are STILL going years after the game was released. I read some arcane forum debates about what 'hyper-retro post-apocalyptic '50's chic' actually MEANS. Hmmm, that seems a bit too full-on for me. Those guys are SCARY!

I start to discover what I've been missing in Diablo 2 - which is basically a reactive dialogue system that lets your character interact and change the gameworld. I read about a game called Planescape: Torment that literally had thousands of pages of text behind the dialogue system. Torment sounds about right!! I want to play a game, not read 'War and Peace'!

Going back to Lionheart I learn about the factions and how some of them have built-in prejudices against certain types of characters. I read more about the SPECIAL system and the Speech skill which actually makes dialogue worthwhile alternative to combat in progressing through the game.

Hmmm, what if the dialogue is as wordy and complex as Torment? I don't want to be drowned in words! Better check the forums and see what Cabal has to say about dialogues....

I feel the point is that the icons are saying something like 'you don't HAVE to be hardcore to enjoy Lionheart' giving people beyond the core of RPG fandom an incentive to have a look at the game. On the other hand Reflexive's responsiveness to Saint_Proverbius and other 'hardcore' fans indicates that they have not forgotten serious RPGers either. You have to admit that right? Maybe they are trying the impossible. To make a game that satisfies everyone, but isn't the attempt worth trying?

In some ways I think it is almost a shame that Lionheart is based on the SPECIAL system, because it raised the expectations of a Fallout-starved harcore audience WAY beyond normal. Would you have been so vehemently critical of Lionheart if it was just a totally fresh RPG franchise from Reflexive?

Wouldn't the depth of the dialogues, faction system, alternate-history storyline have been a pleasant surprise from a company with no real background in RPGs? Wouldn't realtime combat be an understandable if not a welcome feature from a 'new' developer?

Suddenly throw Interplay and SPECIAL into the mix and hellfire rains down on Reflexive if they take even one small step away from 'pure RPG goodness'. Is that really fair?

 

[Voss]

Arguing with you has convinced me to move Lionheart from a definite buy to a questionable maybe. In order to argue with your posts I've had to look at the game with a more critical eye, and have found more things that I don't like about it than I otherwise would have.

Like what if you don't mind me asking

Let's see... icons, real time w/ pause added in later due to complaints (which makes me kinda twitchy about it), the spells (but not the spell system), the knights of saladin getting bumped down from a joinable faction to a side-quest giver.

On a preference level: The races leave me kind of cold (untainted, maybe tainted and two flavors of tainted primarily on the basis of a single racial trait, strikes me as kinda eh.) The destined hero factor - I like to see heroism earned, not granted by prophecy or birthright, not a requirement based on having special powers- it cheapens the story.

And while there seems to be potential on the setting, story and interaction side, which is what I really want in a RPG, I can't tell from the preview info whether its just potential or actually there.

 

[Voss]

Finally, sorry if my discussion of my beliefs about the rights of others upset or bored you (and the rest of my ramblings haven't already achieved that??). Weren't you warned by my earlier posts that I suffer from the cyber version of verbal diarrhoea??

I just have a severe dislike of people throwing the concept of 'rights' into a discussion. Imaginary political rhetoric has little place in a discussion on politics, and no place in a discussion on something else. Wanting people to be treated with respect is fine, but worrying about how the 'conceptual them' or the 'generalized those people' will have
their feelings hurt seems rather pointless.

Voss, I've picked up some interesting tactics in online debating as well. The most popular one seems to involve a simple and direct attack on your opponent's intelligence, justified or not. Somehow just calling someone a moron or accusing them of gibbering makes your opinions seem so much more worthwhile - don't you think?

Actually no. I find insults rather pointless- something to be ignored. As for the gibbering- it was because the concept of rights was tossed into an unrelated discussion. unrelated = pointless = gibbering. Same way if I start of on a spiel about giant, flying, invisible fish. Which I'll admit, I am prone to do.

I think one of Cabal's quotes gives us a clue to what Reflexive are trying to do (whether they've succeeded is a whole other story - but show me a developer who pulls off EVERYTHING they try perfectly!). The quote basically goes something like:

"We are trying to reach beyond the hardcore audience with these icons."

But is it really doing that? The examples of icon usage on the screenshots (and there are some older ones on RPGdot that have icons as well) are all so completely obvious as to render them completely pointless. Trying to accomplish a goal is nice, but actually accomplishing the goal is what matters. And if it doesn't do that.

In some ways I think it is almost a shame that Lionheart is based on the SPECIAL system, because it raised the expectations of a Fallout-starved harcore audience WAY beyond normal. Would you have been so vehemently critical of Lionheart if it was just a totally fresh RPG franchise from Reflexive?

Yes. The RPG-ness of it was a major focus of a lot of the preview information. And I consider myself more RPG starved than fallout starved. BG2 and Arcanumwere the closest things to a good RPG thats come out in ages...and BG2 was lacking in many areas, and Arcanum was lacking in a lot of engine areas (partly because of real-time). So when it comes to new RPGs, I want a really damn good one.

Wouldn't the depth of the dialogues, faction system, alternate-history storyline have been a pleasant surprise from a company with no real background in RPGs? Wouldn't realtime combat be an understandable if not a welcome feature from a 'new' developer?

If the depth is actually there, sure. Real time combat is *never* welcome (for an RPG or strategy game- turned based shooters would be odd), sometimes tolerated, and barely excused for Reflexive simply because interplay probably required it.

Suddenly throw Interplay and SPECIAL into the mix and hellfire rains down on Reflexive if they take even one small step away from 'pure RPG goodness'. Is that really fair?

Actually, having Interplay as a publisher is more of a burden than a help. They haven't been making the best decisions. BIS had a good record, but they've been in decline of late- mostly because of interplay.

I'll rain down hellfire on anyone who takes steps away from 'pure RPG goodness', regardless of affiliation or system. Unless they aren't making RPGs, in which case they're excused.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I think one of Cabal's quotes gives us a clue to what Reflexive are trying to do:
"We are trying to reach beyond the hardcore audience with these icons."
The point is the icons are a feature aimed at ATTRACTING a wider audience to try the game

What Cabal said is a case of wishful thinking and/or repeating marketing lines. The icons are useless and represent a step in the wrong direction. The only thing that can help a newbie to navigate in a world filled with quests and conversations is a kick-ass journal system, not some lame icons.

Here's another hypothetical example

You see, the problem with your hypothetical example is that you are trying to create a situation that proves Cabal's point. I have a very vivid imagination, but I'm having a very hard time imagining a moron who is afraid to try a game because it has words. I'm usually the one who argue that people are stupid, but nobody is that stupid.
Look if a person is unable to comprehend a line of dialogue without an icon, how the fuck would he be able to understand what is required of him even if he manages to click on an quest marked line successfully? That is the point.
The icons do nothing, if instead of them Reflexive would have done a "translation" page in a journal that would simplify and break down dialogues to easy to understand parts (this guy bad. you go kill bad guy. good guy give ph4t l3wt ) that would make more sense as it would actually do something.

Maybe they are trying the impossible. To make a game that satisfies everyone, but isn't the attempt worth trying?

An attempt is definitely worth trying. So they tried, it did not work out, why pretending that it did?

In some ways I think it is almost a shame that Lionheart is based on the SPECIAL system, because it raised the expectations of a Fallout-starved harcore audience WAY beyond normal.

Don't think so. I don't expect Fallout's depth from Lionheart, I like the alternative history thingy, I like the magic idea, I like SPECIAL, it could be a fun adventure. SPECIAL does not mean it's a Fallout game, all it means that it's a classless system.

Would you have been so vehemently critical of Lionheart if it was just a totally fresh RPG franchise from Reflexive?

Like XJEDX always says "that's what we do here"

Wouldn't the depth of the dialogues, faction system, alternate-history storyline have been a pleasant surprise from a company with no real background in RPGs?

Of course, that's why we are looking forward to it despite RT combat :wink:

Wouldn't realtime combat be an understandable if not a welcome feature from a 'new' developer?

Did he just use realtime and welcome feature in one sentence? And the answer is no, btw. Prelude was turn based, it had a great story, very well done quests, interesting magic and spells, etc; and that's what we expect in a RPG.

 

[Skorpios]

Quote:
Wouldn't realtime combat be an understandable if not a welcome feature from a 'new' developer?

Did he just use realtime and welcome feature in one sentence? And the answer is no, btw.

Sorry, Vault Dweller, that was a poorly constructed sentence. What I actually meant was:

While not welcome in a RPG, isn't realtime combat an understandable feature from a 'new' developer in this climate of "realtime rules" and I assume (and you all seem to agree) under instructions from Interplay to make it so?

I can fully understand the position that real-time ruins roleplaying games, generally I believe it too - as I said earlier, while combat is not a prime feature for my judgement of an RPG I would always choose turn-based over realtime.

For me it boils down to choice once again. Turn-based combat is all about choices and making them in a reasonable time-frame. Real-time combat does not allow the time to consider any options you are just mindlessly clicking away just to survive. Real-time combat with pause is an uncomfortable compromise but I can live with it.

Real-time combat in most cases doesn't let you invest much in your character, because he could be just one wrong click, or late mouse movement away from oblivion. If I spend 20 hours building up a character I don't want him to die just because my finger slipped off the mouse at a crucial moment. If he dies because of a CHOICE I made then I can handle that no problem - that is what RPGs are all about. Real-time works in shooters because on the whole you don't invest anything in your character. He's just a weapons platform and if he dies you just reload the level and start again.

I'm sure there are old wargamers still bemoaning the rise of Real-Time-Strategy games - but does that automatically make games like Age of Kings or Warcraft III bad? Sales figures would seem to indicate that there are plenty of gamers who enjoy real-time strategy. What if the designers of those games had listend to hardcore wargamers who said "NO REALTIME EVER!!!"??? A whol new genre of games that entertain a huge audience of players would never have been created. Is that really what you want? Lay down such strict guidelines that designers can never innovate?

It might be a sad fact but the 'suits' look at what sells and make decisions accordingly. So when they invest in games sometimes the money comes attached to conditions like 'make it realtime' or 'make it playable by the "average gamer"'. Maybe the indicators don't do anything but satisfy the 'suits' who have given the money to make everything else possible (the alternate history story, the factions, the dialogue system itself). Isn't that kind of sticking it up the suits? They wanted a game for idiots (based on their own standards perhaps?) but instead Reflexive managed to make a half-decent game despite the restrictions! Every story has two or more sides. If you are always going to look on the dark side, let me live in the sunlight!

An attempt is definitely worth trying. So they tried, it did not work out, why pretending that it did?

As far as I know the game isn't even released yet - so how come you are so sure the attempt was a failure? I'm not pretending they succeeded I'm just saying we don't know for sure how the game has turned out yet. You seem totally convinced it is a failure - I'm reserving judgement until I have more information to go on. So far I am yet to see a feature that makes the game unplayable for me so I will probably buy it. Doesn't that count as a potential success at least in my case?

 

[Voss]

I'm sure there are old wargamers still bemoaning the rise of Real-Time-Strategy games - but does that automatically make games like Age of Kings or Warcraft III bad?

Yes, I am. And Yes, it does.

Sales figures would seem to indicate that there are plenty of gamers who enjoy real-time strategy. What if the designers of those games had listend to hardcore wargamers who said "NO REALTIME EVER!!!"??? A whol new genre of games that entertain a huge audience of players would never have been created. Is that really what you want? Lay down such strict guidelines that designers can never innovate?

Theres innovation for real-time strategy? It isn't just crank out units, loop them and send them in a suicide wave? Odd.

So there are people who enjoy them...it doesn't make the games good.
There are people who enjoy watching paint dry- it doesn't make it a fun and exciting past-time.

As far as I know the game isn't even released yet - so how come you are so sure the attempt was a failure? I'm not pretending they succeeded I'm just saying we don't know for sure how the game has turned out yet. You seem totally convinced it is a failure - I'm reserving judgement until I have more information to go on. So far I am yet to see a feature that makes the game unplayable for me so I will probably buy it. Doesn't that count as a potential success at least in my case?

The icons don't seem to do anything for anyone except Captain Oblivious or
Mister I-can't-read-words. If they aren't functional beyond this, they're a failure, no matter what their intended purpose is.

 

[Vault Dweller]

While not welcome in a RPG, isn't realtime combat an understandable feature from a 'new' developer in this climate of "realtime rules"?

Realtime rulez? What about Harbinger and an army of Diablo clones that did not do too well? Yes, marketing departments think that real time combat is the ticket, but it's a big assumption that killed many promising games and successful franchises. So, to answer your question, I'd expect a new developer to think and question the industry's stereotypes rather then go with the flow. However, like you said Reflexive deals with Interplay and they probably did not have a choice in that matter.

I'm sure there are old wargamers still bemoaning the rise of Real-Time-Strategy games - but does that automatically make games like Age of Kings or Warcraft III bad?

Ha? What was it? *stops playing Warcraft III*
No, of course, it does not. I'm not saying that RT is teh ev1l, but it's not a "must have" feature eaither. It depends on a gameplay style and should clearly demonstrate all the advantages and superiority of the choice. If it does not, then it does not belong. If a game is RT not because that's where it shines, but because RT rulez then it's a gamble and as we all know the house always wins :wink:

Lay down such strict guidelines that designers can never innovate?

I don't think you can ever stop true innovation, but one may argue that real time combat is not a recent "revolutionary" discovery, but something that's been around for awhile, for a very long while.

It might be a sad fact but the 'suits' look at what sells and make decisions accordingly.

It would also be nice if they can look at what did not sell and most importantly why, but I guess that would be too complicated programming for marketing drones.

Maybe the indicators don't do anything but satisfy the 'suits' who have given the money to make everything else possible (the alternate history story, the factions, the dialogue system itself).

It's very likely, and I don't think there nothing wrong with some criticism, otherwise you never know what they'd come up with next if they think that the icons are directly responsible for Lionheart's success and not the alternate history story, the factions, the dialogues, the gameplay, etc.

As far as I know the game isn't even released yet - so how come you are so sure the attempt was a failure?

Ok, I can tell you, but promise you won't tell anybody. I can see... teh future :shock:
Well, I define a failure as something that doesn't work. I don't see how the icons can make the game easier for somebody or attract a wider audience. They don't bother me now as their non-spoilish nature's been confirmed, I am simply making a comment about their functionality. If I'm wrong and they do work in a very mysterious way on a subliminal level, I'd very happy for Reflexive and would be eagerly awaiting more games from them.

so I will probably buy it. Doesn't that count as a potential success at least in my case?

I will definitely buy it, I'll go preorder it this weekend and collect proudly whatever junk they put in the preorder box But I'm a part of the hardcode audience and so are you, so it does not prove that the icons are working.

 

[Skorpios]

Let's face it - short-term thinking, which is what most marketing departments seem to specialise in pretty much means that they will look at what works much more often than what doesn't. It's just a lot less effort.

"Real-time games sell?" "Great! Bung it in our games then!"

"Harbinger flunked out? How come?" "Well....I dunno...all sorts of reasons I guess. But it was a dud, forget about it."

If you don't do any real analysis of the reasons behind a game's failure, then the obvious path is to just focus on the 'winners' and steal as many of their features as possible.

Of course, with no real analysis you often don't understand how or why those features worked in the first place. Hence the Diablo clones that flunk out, etc, etc. Also, even a failed game might have some very good features worth considering and these are often lost as well.

Now, of course I'm NOT saying this is a good system, but it does seem to be how the majority of games are made these days. Jump on the bandwagon of any success - quietly sweep any failures under the carpet or bury them under so much hype that any true chance of working out what went wrong is totally obscured.

Is this wrong? Yes! Should we be criticising such companies loudly for this? Yes! But let's be realistic here, as long as this system still produces the odd 'winner' that can finance all the failures, the system isn't going to change much.

As long as people still buy crap, then people are going to make it. Not only should we be criticising the PRODUCERS of games, but the CONSUMERS of them as well. But it is difficult, because every player is individual with differing levels of crap-tolerance, so many people are quite happy to buy crap games because they prioritise games quite low in their lifestyles.

Again, we are going up against human nature here. Seeing as how several thousand years of civilisation hasn't really altered human nature, I doubt even VIGOROUS criticism on a board like this will achieve much either, no matter how much fun it is. :twisted:

I know Voss, I'm drifting off into airy-fairy realms of theoretical discussion once again, so let's bring this back to Reflexive and Lionheart.

The above system is what they have to work with. Do we really expect them to totally buck the system all by themselves? What have they done that is so evil considering the above environment and pressures on them to conform?

I guess the first question has to be: have they created an RPG or not? Diablo 2 is thrown about a lot as a baseline for a game that is called an 'action RPG' but doesn't actually qualify for the RPG label. From what we have seen of Lionheart's features, does it qualify?

Pros: SPECIAL system enabling the creation of a wide range of characters. A range of skills, Perks and abilities that let players roleplay a wide range of characters. A complex dialogue system that reacts to a wide range of characters. A reactive game world that accommodates a wide range of characters including factions that enable your character to have a REAL impact on the world.

Cons: Real-time combat which puts the emphasis on action rather than planning. Dialogue icons which needlessly simplify dialogue.

Any major pros or cons I've overlooked that might qualify or disqualify Lionheart as a RPG?

Again, the judgement is going to subjective based on how much importance you give to the individual items listed above - but I can see a pretty decent RPG there. Maybe not the best in the history of gaming, but certainly worthy of the title of RPG.

Well, I define a failure as something that doesn't work. I don't see how the icons can make the game easier for somebody or attract a wider audience

So just because YOU can't see it - it definitely doesn't exist? You agree you are part of the 'hardcore audience' correct? So if a feature is designed to appeal to those outside of that audience couldn't it be possible that you fail to see that appeal because it is specifically NOT aimed at you? Does the universe disappear when YOUR eyes are closed? I don't notice it flickering everytime you blink so I guess not.

You like certain features in a game and dislike others. I like certain features in the same game and dislike others. Is it logical to expect our likes and disilkes to be identical? Extend that over the entire spectrum of gamers out there then. Why is it so unbelievable that there are players out there who MIGHT find the icons useful?

My earlier hypothetical example was trying to illustrate that. Are there people out there for whom READING isn't the number one priority in their lives? Obviously, just look at the popularity of reality TV. Now I didn't say (as you seem to do constantly) that that automatically means they DON'T or CAN'T read, just that reading isn't their top priority when it comes to entertainment. (Even comic books have READERS after all - we do do more than just look at the pictures, Vault Dweller.)

Actually the whole comics vs. books could be a useful example. We DO have some comic books in our Library. A small selection, but we have a few manga books, graphic novels (such as Superman and the Simpsons) and perennial European classics such as Asterix and Tin Tin that have been with the library longer than I have.

OK, say we have a comic book reader who is looking for something different. Wouldn't it help him feel more at ease with the experience if he picked up a book that had some illustrations and wasn't just a blank wall of text? Wouldn't that make it more appealing to him?

Now in a novel, illustrations like that do little more than 'nudge' the imagination of the reader - it is the text that does most of the work - but can't you see that just their presence helped the comic book reader make the transition from one style of reading to another?

Apply this to Lionheart's situation. To a player outside of the 'hardcore' RPG audience, say coming from a RTS field where icons are plentiful, or a game like the Sims where icons are everwhere but text is sparse, or even Diablo 2 where text is present but less important than the many spell/ability icons used in the interface constantly and the combat skills are paramount.

Couldn't it be barely conceivable that such players might be influenced by the presence of icons in screenshots and other promotional material to consider Lionheart where reading things like "a rich and deep dialogue system with over 20,000 pages (or whatever) of dialogue text!!!" might leave them cold?

So the icons don't actually achieve that much in the game. So what? If they can get more people to buy and then play Lionheart than normally would - haven't they achieved a LOT? And they still haven't affected the gameplay of the hardcore audience all that much. The "20,000 pages" are still there to be read and to be enjoyed.

Who knows, maybe the icons are the first step to converting these new players into 'hardcore' RPGers? Once they actually have a chance to play a 'real' RPG rather than a pale imitation such as Diablo 2, won't they start giving feedback about what they want from such games? With more 'hardcore' players being more vocal about RPGs won't that obviously put more pressure on developers and the 'suits' to make better RPGs? Or is that just wishful thinking?

Don't you want more people in your community so that there is even more debate and feedback on what makes games work? If criticism is as important as you say, isn't MORE criticism better? Wouldn't Saint_Proverbius's battle for the Speech skill have been MUCH harder if there hadn't been others to back him up - both outside and inside Reflexive's team?

So there are people who enjoy them...it doesn't make the games good.
There are people who enjoy watching paint dry- it doesn't make it a fun and exciting past-time.

You know what you are saying is rubbish right? We are talking about GAMES here - entertainment. By definition if people are enjoying them then they have achieved their purpose - and thus are 'good'. What other criteria would you measure a game by? The paint-drying example was stupid and you know it. Show me the people who PAY to watch paint dry, and I'll show you the people who PAY to play RTS games. And people criticise MY analogies!

The icons don't seem to do anything for anyone except Captain Oblivious or Mister I-can't-read-words. If they aren't functional beyond this, they're a failure, no matter what their intended purpose is.

See above for my take on the 'function' of the icons, but I also had to point out that AGAIN you are labelling people for no good reason. Have you ever met 'Captain Oblivious' or 'Mr I-can't-read'? Then why are you talking about them? Have you ever met anyone who does overlook the obvious sometimes? Or as I said earlier, someone whose No. 1 priority isn't reading? Yes? Then perhaps, just perhaps, they might find a use for the icons. I'm not saying it's certain but it is possible, unlike you who declare almost fanatically that the icons have no use whatsoever. How can you be so sure?

I can accept that you know that the icons will have no use for you - but how do you claim to know what happens in my head? Or in supagu64's head? Or the heads of the thousands of other gamers out there? Don't tell me you've had quest icons implanted in your own brain and thus have become psychic?

 

[Skorpios]

The destined hero factor - I like to see heroism earned, not granted by prophecy or birthright, not a requirement based on having special powers- it cheapens the story.

How did you earn heroism in Fallout for example? All you did was draw the short straw and got booted out the Vault door! Why is destiny any cheaper than blind chance? The heroism (or villainy) came from how you subsequently played the game and Fallout's reactive world let you do that very enjoyably.

Being the 'Chosen One' is unavoidable in RPGs. How would you play the game if you created a character but then it was the NPC standing next to you who got whisked off into the adventure? Can't really see all that much excitement roleplaying the "guy who stayed at home", can you? RPGs are plot-driven - if you aren't at the centre of that plot then what is the point of playing?

For whatever reason (birthright, prophecy, your choice of cologne) the spirit that originally bonded with Richard the Lionheart has now bonded with you. From that moment on your destiny as 'The One' is confirmed but you will still have the freedom to play 'The One' however you like as far as I can see. With 4 very different factions to eventually join you can go in all sorts of directions - heroism, villainy or somewhere in between!

Plus in a post-Disjunction world, just about EVERYONE has special powers, so being bonded with a spirit isn't all that out of the ordinary. So far the story doesn't seem all that cheap to me. You still have to find your place in the world of Lionheart, despite your 'bondage' to the spirit within you. As far as I can tell you have free rein to play just about any character you want within reason. Remember, just because you have bonded with a spirit, you can still totally ignore magic and play as a pureblood warrior, thief or diplomat (although magic might not ignore YOU! :wink: )

Again, what I've seen of the story so far is one of the PRIME reasons I'm excited about the game.

 

[Voss]

Bonded with that spirit doesn't have anything to do with magic ability. It has to do with keeping you on the main story. Its a special case.

As for fallout being kicked out the door in the hopes you can save them isn't the same as having special powers and destiny, especially once out the door you can start making individual choices. Theres a difference between *initial motivation* and the opening of the story and being the one destined to be at the forefront of everything little aspect of plot and contrivance. And being the guy next to the chosen one could be far more interesting. That guy could find his own way out (sneaking out the door when it opens, knocking the chosen one out and taking his place, etc) and go on to far more interesting things.

Being the chosen one is no way unavoidable in RPGs. Developers just need to move away from writing simplistic stories involving destined heros with special abilities that save the world (again, and again, and again).


A normal person that achieves his goals (whether its becoming a hero, dominating the spice trade, preventing or causing war, etc. depending on his/her own choices) through skill, will, cunning and luck is a much more interesting and inspiring hero (or protaganist) than the Chosen One come again. Personally I'd like to see a 'become a king/vizier/court mage/power behind the throne by your own hand type game'. With particular emphasis on consequences and are you willing to settle for second best, or taking advantage of an unexpected opportunity that leads to something else? Is being king better than being general of the armies during an upcoming war that will make you filthy rich?

See. No need for special destinies.

Hell, even getting involved by happenstance (you are at an inn, when...) would be better than some of the nonsense being used as plot these days.


As for the post above that....
Ok, taking out paint dry and insert molesting children. There are people who pay for that...but most wouldn't consider it fun or exciting.
And frankly, if 10 million people do a stupid thing, its still a stupid thing.

Why yes, I have met Captain Oblivious or Mr I-can't-read. I pass 100 like them in the street every day.

As long as people still buy crap, then people are going to make it. Not only should we be criticising the PRODUCERS of games, but the CONSUMERS of them as well.

I thought part of what was upsetting you was that we were criticising the consumers? You seemed to think it was mean of us.

And progress is only made when individuals decide to buck the system. Conforming mindlessly, even if it benefits you in the short term (ie a company gets paid for a piece of crap game) is still very evil.

Pros: SPECIAL system enabling the creation of a wide range of characters. A range of skills, Perks and abilities that let players roleplay a wide range of characters. A complex dialogue system that reacts to a wide range of characters. A reactive game world that accommodates a wide range of characters including factions that enable your character to have a REAL impact on the world.

Cons: Real-time combat which puts the emphasis on action rather than planning. Dialogue icons which needlessly simplify dialogue.

complex dialogue or simplified dialogue? Decide, it can't be both. and from the dialogue we've seen I'd call it more standard dialogue, Infinity Engine style. And you are assuming far too much (and this is why I'm still hesitant about the game):
your assuming that the game is reactive, accommodates a wide range of characters, and that factions allow you to have a real impact on the world. I hope it does, but I'm not going to blindly assume it.

SPECIAL and perks does not an RPG make (see Fallout: Tactics). Interaction, choices and consequences do.

Hopefully, hopefully, some day developers will read a lot of the criticism that goes on on this board, realize that people are open to hard-core RPGs and say "screw the recycled marketing gimmicks, we're just going to make a damn good game". But if we're all quiet and accept the shit that most companies toss out, it will never happen.

 

[Skorpios]

Bonded with that spirit doesn't have anything to do with magic ability. It has to do with keeping you on the main story. Its a special case.

Voss, as far as I'm aware, it is a central theme in Lionheart that magic is impossible without bonding with a spirit. For whatever reason Richard's companion spirit has chosen you. That also doesn't change the fact that MANY people in Lionheart have bonded with spirits or had other interactions with them. You character isn't that special in Lionheart's context.

As for fallout being kicked out the door in the hopes you can save them isn't the same as having special powers and destiny, especially once out the door you can start making individual choices.

And what says that Lionheart restricts your personal choices? As I said before, with factions such as the Templars, Wielders, Inquisitors and an unnamed fourth (evil?) faction, there doesn't seem to be much restriction of your roleplaying choices. You can play an upright knight, a good but persecuted magic-user, a fanatical cleric, or you can even turn those choices on their heads: a magic-using inquisitor, a corrupt Knight, etc. If bonding with the spirit controlled your destiny that much how could you have so many choices of careers, many with quite different moral and ethical choices intrinsically part of them?

Do you choose to join the Inqusition, despite their persecution of minorities, because of the good works they do in protecting the majority? Do you join the Knights Templar and stick faithfully to their strict code of honour, or bend the rules to achieve what you want? Having made contact with the elusive Wielders, do you join them, or turn them into the Inquisition for a huge reward? These choices don't seem to simplistic to me.

I know - I can't PROVE they are explored in Lionheart - but don't you think any half-competent writer would?? That is what I"m saying - from what we have seen of Lionheart's story and the background they have created for it - those sorts of situations do seem more likely than in a game like Diablo. Did you have to option to join with the demons in Diablo? Were you ever struggling with deep ethical issues or just killing everything in sight?

***POSSIBLE SPOILER****
I've seen hints of a couple of quests in screenshots where your character has the option of breaking someone out of the Inquisition's cells. That is a direct and powerful ethical choice. Do you help your friend or stay within the bounds of the law? Do you risk the ire of the Inquisition - a powerful force in your society - for the sake of friendship or your own personal view of justice? Again, this suggests more depth rather than less to the story and quests in Lionheart.
*****SPOILER FINISHED************

Also, let's face it - we are dealing with a 'fantasy' scenario here as opposed to Fallout's slightly more contemporary post-apocalyptic scenario. So even though Fallout didn't promote a prophecy or destiny - didn't the final scenes of the game actually create one? A legend of a wanderer of the wastelands? Prophecies and dreams of destiny have always been part of human nature and story-telling.

Heck, in this game we have Nostradamus for goodness sake! Are you going to have Nostradamus as a major character then have a game WITHOUT prophecies? Remember this game is set in the 16th Century - people BELIEVED in prophecies and divine destiny in those times - so their use is appropriate in this case, especially when you throw the Disjunction into the mix so there really ARE powerful spirits out there meddling with the destinies of mortal men and women.

Let's face it Voss - which sounds more appealing:
Lionheart: Legacy of the Crusader, or
Simkins: Legacy of the Janitor?

I'm not saying Simkins couldn't be an intriguing and challenging game, but I think you'd agree that you would have to work harder to sell it. First to a publisher, then to gamers in general.

Being the chosen one is no way unavoidable in RPGs. Developers just need to move away from writing simplistic stories involving destined heros with special abilities that save the world (again, and again, and again)

True, I agree with you in that regard - better stories equal better games. Just don't automatically judge a story by it's beginning - the devil is in the details as they say. Look at all the background Reflexive has published for Lionheart - much of it having no direct link to your character (the hundreds of years of history - the various Crusades and so forth). Does that seem overly simplistic to you?

Yes, saving the world can become a little monotonous, which is why we enjoy games like Torment so much where all you were saving was one man's soul really (and even then, objectively you failed as he ended up in Hell). So I know where you are coming from. But for better or worse Lionheart's central focus is the existence of this alternate world, that is a little like ours was, but also very different. After showing us so much about this world and how it is under threat - isn't it logical that this motivates us to save it? I guess another factor is - do you HAVE to save the world? Is there an evil path letting you destroy it, or gain ultimate power over it? Maybe not likely taking sequels into account I guess.

Personally I'd like to see a 'become a king/vizier/court mage/power behind the throne by your own hand type game'. With particular emphasis on consequences and are you willing to settle for second best, or taking advantage of an unexpected opportunity that leads to something else? Is being king better than being general of the armies during an upcoming war that will make you filthy rich?

Again, I can't argue with you because I'd like to see a game like that myself! You all know my feelings on 'consequences' in RPGs. I just don't see a status as 'Chosen One' necessarily makes that impossible to achieve. Doesn't it mean that your choices actually have wider-ranging consequences than the average individual? Again, it boils down to the writing and we can't really judge Lionheart's until we play the game. But the background stuff already presented is a pretty powerful argument for the story's quality.

]See. No need for special destinies.

My central point I guess is that there is ALWAYS a special destiny for the protagonist in RPGs. Not because they have been chosen by Gods, blind luck, or King Whatsisface - but because they have been chosen by YOU to represent them in the game.

Ok, taking out paint dry and insert molesting children. There are people who pay for that...but most wouldn't consider it fun or exciting.

If you can't tell the difference between molesting children and playing a game....well there is nothing for me to say, is there? Am I the only person who finds this offensive?

Why yes, I have met Captain Oblivious or Mr I-can't-read. I pass 100 like them in the street every day.

Are they wearing some sort of costume? Or is it your obvious psychic powers that let you pick them out so easily? And again, if there are so many of them, doesn't it make basic economic sense that companies make games to sell to them rather than you? You are arguing your own genre out of existence again Voss.

I thought part of what was upsetting you was that we were criticising the consumers? You seemed to think it was mean of us.

If I really believed that criticism itself was mean, I wouldn't be spending time criticising YOU would I? I thought I'd already stated this quite clearly - I personally approve of criticism - it is a very useful tool in all sorts of ways. What I dislike seeing is needlessly negative METHODS of criticism. Comparing players of games YOU don't like to child molesters is neither helpful or very useful Voss, and has the potential to cause offense and harm. Deny that if you want, I'm not sure you'd find many people who agree with you.

And progress is only made when individuals decide to buck the system. Conforming mindlessly, even if it benefits you in the short term (ie a company gets paid for a piece of crap game) is still very evil.

Hmmmm, and progress is NEVER made by individuals working together within a system? What is democracy, Voss? How would a hospital work if all doctors and nurses did whatever they thought was right and never cooperated with each other just because they didn't like the system? Would that help the sick people? Systems aren't ALWAYS evil, Voss. Real life is made up of all sorts of shades of grey, unlike your worldview it seems.

Also, where did I say that Reflexive was mindlessly conforming and putting out a crap game? I was just pointing out that they had to deal with the system (whether they try to 'buck' it or not) and as far as I could see they were doing the best they could. Would a mindless, evil, greedy company give Saint Proverbius the chance to input into the game and actually ACT on that input? I think not.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. You want the freedom to criticise Reflexive for every single mistake or attempt to 'cheat' AND claim all the glory for your 'brave struggle' to improve the game thereby. But when Reflexive actually DO try to improve their game by incorporating your suggestions do they gain any recognition for it? NO! That seems very unfair to me.

Criticism can and SHOULD be positive as well as negative, Voss. How could designers make good games if we only tell them what they are doing WRONG without also telling them what they are doing RIGHT as well!

Complex dialogue or simplified dialogue? Decide, it can't be both. and from the dialogue we've seen I'd call it more standard dialogue, Infinity Engine style. And you are assuming far too much (and this is why I'm still hesitant about the game):
your assuming that the game is reactive, accommodates a wide range of characters, and that factions allow you to have a real impact on the world. I hope it does, but I'm not going to blindly assume it.

My listing was an attempt to list the factors that we are aware of at this stage that suggest Lionheart is a decent RPG or stand against it. I'm not blindly assuming anything, but kept the list short and to the point - if you want me to defend it will.

Complex dialogue vs. simple? I was attempting to honestly reflect the disagreement that this thread is built around. By complex dialogue I guess I meant RPG standard as you said - but a lot more complex than Diablo for example. I also included the icons which many people see as simplifying the dialogue system. I included BOTH because despite the icons the dialogue options are still there enabling a decent roleplaying experience if you can deal with the icons.

As for my assumption of 'complex dialogue, reactive world, wide range of characters' that is based on many factors but here are a few of them.

SPECIAL: SPECIAL's very nature encourages free-form character creation - Lionheart uses this system modified for a realtime and fantasy environment but not changed THAT much. The basic combo of stats, skills and perks are all still there.

Speech skill: Saint_Proverbius's struggle to get the Speech skill utilised is well documented here and elsewhere. Would Reflexive REALLY have changed their design to incorporate Speech if the game didn't ALREADY have a reasonably complex dialogue system? Otherwise what is the point of putting a Speech skill in if no character ever uses it?

Replayability: We've had feedback from Reflexive that is possible (although maybe not easy) to play through the entire game without participating in combat. That many quests have multiple solutions using different skills (both combat and non-combat). That the dialogue options themselves react to a character's stats, skills, level, etc. This all adds up to suggest that MANY kinds of characters can enjoyably play through Lionheart.

Factions: As I've stated earlier - the existence of factions argues for a reactive world, much in the nature of Fallout. Unlike Fallout: Tactics where you are 'locked in' to the Brotherhood of Steel I believe (I never bought it). Look at the factions we have to choose from. Knights Templar, Inquisitors, Wielders, and 'Faction X', possibly representing the (evil?) faction that WANTS to trigger another Disjunction. Your character has to choose one of these factions - that has been made clear. All of those choices have interesting ethical and moral dimensions that argue for a complex game and plot. Don't you think the world will react to your character differently if they are a Knight, an Inquisitor, a Wielder or an X'er? If not, why include those factions and make them joinable? Also, these factions are only the MAJOR joinable ones, we have been told of other lesser factions that you can interact with (the tainted, goblin tribes, thieves' guilds etc). And one more factor - prejudice. Depending on your racial choice in character creation or magic use in certain areas, many NPCs will react differently to you.

Does that world sound reactive or not to your character? Am I REALLY assuming too much? Sure, I might be optimistic about this game but am I being unreasonable about it? Why should I assume the worst just because you always do?

SPECIAL and perks does not an RPG make (see Fallout: Tactics). Interaction, choices and consequences do.

You know I have to agree with this and I do. But are you saying a flexible character creation system is a BAD thing in an RPG? Again, see above why I believe Lionheart does have those factors - we'll just have to wait and see how well they are implemented.

Hopefully, hopefully, some day developers will read a lot of the criticism that goes on on this board, realize that people are open to hard-core RPGs and say "screw the recycled marketing gimmicks, we're just going to make a damn good game". But if we're all quiet and accept the shit that most companies toss out, it will never happen.

Now who is being idealistic? Sure, sounds great, it will happen as soon as you fax in a clear, simple schematic that totally explains how any single company can make a "damn good game" that pleases EVERYBODY, is totally original, is achievable in a human lifetime on a reasonable budget and is immune to technological change, economic effects, human error, or just plain bad luck, etc, etc. That is what you folks seem to be 'open to' and you DON'T seem to be open to any kind of compromise so your wait might be a long and frustrating one. Good luck!

Plus, if anyone is being quiet - it is certainly not me!!!! :twisted:

 

[Ausir]

How is being "chosen" because of being a descendant of Richard different than being Chosen One because of being a descendant of the Vault Dweller?

 

[Skorpios]

I guess Voss didn't like that aspect of Fallout 2's story either.

 

[Voss]

Voss, as far as I'm aware, it is a central theme in Lionheart that magic is impossible without bonding with a spirit. For whatever reason Richard's companion spirit has chosen you. That also doesn't change the fact that MANY people in Lionheart have bonded with spirits or had other interactions with them. You character isn't that special in Lionheart's context.

I'm aware that other people have some relationship with spirits through bloodline and bonding/possesion from the Disjunction, but I was under the impression that the bond with the companion spirit was different- a difference between being touched in passing by something, and having it nest in your head and actively talk to you.

<snipped a bunch of stuff>
My central point I guess is that there is ALWAYS a special destiny for the protagonist in RPGs. Not because they have been chosen by Gods, blind luck, or King Whatsisface - but because they have been chosen by YOU to represent them in the game.

Ah. I wasn't clear here. I was generalizing about the RPG genre, not talking about Lionheart in particular with the destiny thing. As for the above statement....sorry, doesn't work for me. You can't mix destiny within the context of the game's story, and that a real person happens to being playing that character. Its two different things. Yes, the game has to be interesting for the player, but that doesn't necessitate the special destiny and powers gimmick.

If you can't tell the difference between molesting children and playing a game....well there is nothing for me to say, is there? Am I the only person who finds this offensive?

Heh. It was supposed to be offensive. You rejected a more bland example as being ridiculous and not something people would pay for :

We are talking about GAMES here - entertainment. By definition if people are enjoying them then they have achieved their purpose - and thus are 'good' [/quote}

So, I decided to throw in something that some people do pay for and enjoy...and therefor by your definition above would be 'good'. I suppose I could have been less extreme and used the Deer Hunter games or some web-based porn games that quite a number of people enjoy, but I felt you needed to be clubbed over the head with the point- that just because people enjoy it, doesn't mean that its good.

Are they wearing some sort of costume? Or is it your obvious psychic powers that let you pick them out so easily? And again, if there are so many of them, doesn't it make basic economic sense that companies make games to sell to them rather than you? You are arguing your own genre out of existence again Voss.

Maybe its different in Australia, but here in the states we have lots of stupid people. They seem to be encouraged really. And since I live in a county that brings down the already sad national literacy rate in this country, they aren't all that rare or hard to spot.
But I'm not really arguing the genre (not my own genre...that'd be interesting however. I genre of my own...hmmm. Ideas) out of existence- these people don't play RPGs. I could go find out how badly they sell in the local stores, but since I generally have trouble finding RPGs behind all the fighting and sports sims, I already have a decent idea of how they do.

If I really believed that criticism itself was mean, I wouldn't be spending time criticising YOU would I? I thought I'd already stated this quite clearly - I personally approve of criticism - it is a very useful tool in all sorts of ways. What I dislike seeing is needlessly negative METHODS of criticism. Comparing players of games YOU don't like to child molesters is neither helpful or very useful Voss, and has the potential to cause offense and harm. Deny that if you want, I'm not sure you'd find many people who agree with you.

Aiiyah. I was referring to the methods...you've gone on at length about your approval of criticism. As to offense and harm? Offense, sure... I find it a useful tool in the right places, if used occasionally and proper judgement. Harm? Not unless some sad wanker kills himself because he realizes he's a disgusting little perv, and then whats the loss? Also, it wasn't a direct comparision of players of genre X to child molesters, just a comparision of things that some people find entertaining.

Hmmmm, and progress is NEVER made by individuals working together within a system? What is democracy, Voss? How would a hospital work if all doctors and nurses did whatever they thought was right and never cooperated with each other just because they didn't like the system? Would that help the sick people? Systems aren't ALWAYS evil, Voss. Real life is made up of all sorts of shades of grey, unlike your worldview it seems.

Greys and shades are wonderful things. But systems always do more harm than good.
and individuals working within the system tend to get eaten by it. And democracy, just so you know, is a form of government that doesn't exist, where people get together, collectively decide what to do and appoint someone to take care of it. Regardless of what modern political rhetoric might suggest.

Also, where did I say that Reflexive was mindlessly conforming and putting out a crap game? I was just pointing out that they had to deal with the system (whether they try to 'buck' it or not) and as far as I could see they were doing the best they could. Would a mindless, evil, greedy company give Saint Proverbius the chance to input into the game and actually ACT on that input? I think not.

Where did I? I was generalizing abou the industry again. Come on, keep up with the discussion.
:D
Criticising a game doesn't mean I think its totally crap...just that I have doubts, and issues with the specific things I've mentioned. And that I don't know if its going to be a good game- and have no reason to simply assume it will.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. You want the freedom to criticise Reflexive for every single mistake or attempt to 'cheat' AND claim all the glory for your 'brave struggle' to improve the game thereby. But when Reflexive actually DO try to improve their game by incorporating your suggestions do they gain any recognition for it? NO! That seems very unfair to me.

:shock:
1- if I have cake, its mine, and I can eat it. I hate that phrase.
2- I don't want freedom. take political rhetoric elsewhere.
3- brave struggle? Oh you mean the hyperbole added at the end? It'd be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.
4- I haven't made any suggestions, so logically they haven't incorporated them. So I'm pretty sure they shouldn't get recognition for something that didn't happen. So thats quite fair.

Criticism can and SHOULD be positive as well as negative, Voss. How could designers make good games if we only tell them what they are doing WRONG without also telling them what they are doing RIGHT as well!

A- if its been done right it doesn't get smacked with criticism.
B- generally speaking if people are satisfied, they say nothing... its hard to get feedback from that.
C- if you point out whats wrong, they may change it, and it could be better.
If you point whats right, they may change it, and it could be worse.
Well, perhaps not... but going on about whats right with something is less often criticism than it is ass-kissing or brown nosing. It may be nice, but people wonder about motives.

<A list>
Am I REALLY assuming too much? Sure, I might be optimistic about this game but am I being unreasonable about it? Why should I assume the worst just because you always do?

Yep.
Could be.
You shouldn't. And I don't always assume the worst. I'm far less cynical than I was six years ago- and don't worry if that frightens you.
It frightens everyone. No idea why.
:D

You know I have to agree with this and I do. But are you saying a flexible character creation system is a BAD thing in an RPG? Again, see above why I believe Lionheart does have those factors - we'll just have to wait and see how well they are implemented.

Not saying its a bad thing at all... Just that the character creation system is, to me, a minor and almost irrelevant part of an RPG. Particularly when compared to story, interaction, consequence and their lot.
I realize you believe lionheart does, but since Reflexive lacks a track record in this area, *I* am not willing to take it on faith.

Now who is being idealistic? Sure, sounds great, it will happen as soon as you fax in a clear, simple schematic that totally explains how any single company can make a "damn good game" that pleases EVERYBODY, is totally original, is achievable in a human lifetime on a reasonable budget and is immune to technological change, economic effects, human error, or just plain bad luck, etc, etc. That is what you folks seem to be 'open to' and you DON'T seem to be open to any kind of compromise so your wait might be a long and frustrating one. Good luck!
Plus, if anyone is being quiet - it is certainly not me!!!! :twisted:

It doesn't have to please EVERYBODY. Even on a serious level, it doesn't. It just has to please enough people that it can shown to be profitable to the publishing/investing folks.
Its not really a matter of idealism- just a show of market share- and that there is a sight like this representing that market share gives me some hope of that.

On a less serious level, it doesn't have to please anybody but me.

I so need loyal minions to cater to my whims.

You're making me as long winded as you! Evil! Evil!

 

[Voss]

I guess Voss didn't like that aspect of Fallout 2's story either.

Oh, I forgot about this.
No. I didn't

I also don't consider the fallouts a holy grail... they were good...or rather 1 was good and 2 was decent. But they aren't the end and beginning of RPGs.

 

[Skorpios]

Voss, sorry, just as I assumed that all of your criticisms were aimed at Reflexive rather than 'gaming' in general - which is reasonable I guess because this thread is focussed on Lionheart mainly. You seem to have assumed that all of my comments were directly aimed at YOU - which also is reasonable as I was quoting from your posts.

When I was takling about my views on criticism I was discussing the 'general' views of posters on this board that criticism is 'WHAT WE DO'. For someone who doesn't like political rhetoric, you hang out with folks who like the odd catch-phrase...oh well, it takes all kinds.

Also, just because I use a term like 'freedom' how does that make what I say 'political'? Freedom is more than a purely poltical term, even if American politicians have hijacked it as such. What other words are banned under your system?

Again, why aren't I allowed to use 'political' terms, but you can bring in child molesters? How are they any more relevant? I smell hypocrisy....

As for the case of 'harm' - don't you think your comparison of molestation and games trivialises the whole issue? The difference between a game and child molestation is REAL people get hurt. There aren't just 'sick pervs' but victims involved in this as well. How do you think they might feel being compared to forms of entertainment as banal as computer games? Your explanation is more offensive than the original comment!

You won't feel guilty about the suicide of a molester? (Which is irresponsible in itself.) How about the suicide of a victim? Of course you'll say I'm over-reacting to a simple comment - but you admitted yourself that there was a less offensive option you could have taken! Deer Hunter might be stupid, but at least it doesn't ruin people's lives. Molestation does whatever else you say, don't trivialise that fact.

Anyway, the central point of my argument is how exactly do we measure 'goodness' in terms of a game? If a computer game entertains its players then by definition it is a good game, because that is what a game does. Just because some games are distasteful in CONTENT or poor quality doesn't always mean they aren't GOOD. These are subjective judgements based on time and place. They are also a reflection of human nature which you will obviously tell me is beyond the bounds of this discussion - fringing on the 'political' as it does.

Example: looking NOW at a game like PONG (black and white paddles knocking a pixel around) we would call it crap. When it first came out it was a gaming revolution and everyone played it. It was GOOD. I'm not saying it was the best game possible - but it entertained thousands if not millions of people? Isn't that a GOOD thing?

Let's look at 'Deer Hunter'. My personal view on it is probably the same as yours, it is distasteful in content, simple and low quality in execution. BUT - there is a sizable market out there who buy the game and obviously enjoy it. That makes it a good game at the most basic level. It is a good, mindless, bloodthirsty, politically incorrect shooting game. That is my definition of good - stripped of as many subjective judgements as possible. Your definition of good is obviously different, so I'm just clarifying that.

You criticise various games such as Diablo 2. Is Diablo 2 a good RPG? Not really, as far as I can see - but it IS a good GAME, pure and simple, because it entertains a large number of people very successfully.

This definition has nothing directly to do with sales numbers - if a games sells a lot but no-one is playing 2 months later then that is a BAD game, because it has failed to entertain. Diablo 2 definitely has longevity whatever its other shortcomings.

I'm aware that other people have some relationship with spirits through bloodline and bonding/possesion from the Disjunction, but I was under the impression that the bond with the companion spirit was different- a difference between being touched in passing by something, and having it nest in your head and actively talk to you.

Remember Eric's description of the magic system? Where you have to 'haggle' with your spirit to gain spells? That was always the central theme of the game, even though the actual mechanics of it were dropped. In Lionheart, true magic is impossible without a 'symbiont' spirit that lets you tap into mana. This is still reflected in the mechanics to the extent that Perception and Charisma are the stats that apply to magic skills. This refers to how well you understand your spirit and can convince them to help you.

Also, it still doesn't change the situation that much, in a world full of spirits, some good, some evil, some neutral, do you think they are going to leave people alone? Everyone in that world will be touched by spirits in some fashion. Even the hatred of the Inquisition is a direct reaction to the presence of the spirits. Bonding with a spirit just isn't that remarkable in Lionheart - what it does do is mark you as 'unclean' to a majority of the population. If that is a 'special power' then I'd want my money back!

But if you see every use of 'destiny' in a story as a gimmick, there's not much I can do to dissuade you. I've pointed out that 'destiny and prophecy' where a big part of the culture that has inspired Lionheart, so it would seem odd if the storyline ignored that, but whatever works for you.

So you have lots of stupid people (in your judgement anyway - how many of them do you REALLY know?) in your country. So what? What does that have to do with your argument? As I've said here and elsewhere, the gaming industry caters to many different sectors of the gaming community - why is that such a bad thing? Why are the only GOOD games you can see games that YOU like? Don't you think that is a very narrow view that everyone else might not share exactly? That alternate views of goodness and worth are possible?

 

[Skorpios]

I realize you believe lionheart does, but since Reflexive lacks a track record in this area, *I* am not willing to take it on faith.

I'm sorry if my optimism comes across as 'blind faith'. I've listed already the factors that encourage me to think positively about Lionheart. Could I be disappointed? Obviously I could, that is a risk I'm willing to take. Have I ever said anthing at all resembling, "LIONHEART RULES 4 EVA!!!!"?? I don't think so. My personal feeling is that it looks like it has the potential to be a decent RPG and that is what I've been arguing. When you balance that up against statements such as 'moron indicators' - which seems more reasonable?

Just as your cynicism prompts you to reject every optimistic interpretation I make - my optimism prompts me to reject your cynical interpretations of the game. I guess we will never reconcile that as I said before which does make all this a bit pointless. All I can hope is that people who read this thread consider BOTH sides of the argument.