Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

We need your help!

We need 1 more developer from Canada and 12 more from Australia to help us complete a research survey.

Support our site by taking a quick sponsored survey and win a chance at a $50 Amazon gift card. Click here to get started!


Member Since 16 Oct 2000
Offline Last Active Aug 24 2015 09:14 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: The acceptance of gold loot in RPGs

07 May 2014 - 08:49 AM

If a drop is ultimately reducible to "gold" (in-game currency) then making it drop as something else is only valuable insofar as it contributes to immersion.


Consider grey drops in World of Warcraft or the Alien Food in XCOM:EU...in both cases, the combat event gives you in-game currency...but also something that's reducible to in-game currency. Certainly it's there to contribute to "realism" and immersion. In XCOM:EU, many of the "drops" - especially when you're tackling an alien asset, like a UFO or their base - are not monetary...but are easily transformable into currency at a button press...whereas in WoW you need to find a vendor to sell your stuff or you need to junk it. There's a lot going on here...also consider that, in WoW, carrying space (bag space) is a resource you need to manage, where in XCOM:EU storage space isn't a consideration at all; it's effectively infinite. "Do I carry these Withered Gizzards back to the vendor to sell? Or do I dump them in favor of these High Quality Withered Gizzards I just found?"


Note that I've omitted the otherwise useful drops in both cases; i.e. drops with functions beyond selling for currency, like crafting assets. UFO Flight Computers sell for big bank but also can be turned into Firestorms (the upgraded Interceptor model). These particular drops didn't seem to be on the table, but I can't really disregard them; they contribute to immersion in both a purely thematic sense ("Look, I found a fancy alien computer instead of a box of dollars") as well as a functional sense ("I can use this fancy alien computer to make cool stuff OR I can sell it for boxes of dollars").

In Topic: Do Giant Eyeballs with Tentacles Appear Too Much?

01 May 2014 - 10:49 PM

Kind of reminds me of Ultros from Final Fantasy VI...ridiculous tentacles adversary you fight like three times...then later he's running a gladiator arena and just hanging out.

In Topic: Life, the worst game design of all.

30 April 2014 - 02:16 PM

haha, quick eyes. I did redact that; I felt it was too confrontational and not constructive; too easy to misconstrue as adversarial.


Seems we have an accord. :)

In Topic: Life, the worst game design of all.

30 April 2014 - 10:28 AM

think you agree that self-expression is intrinsically enjoyable. That includes game-making, cooking, and long conversations with friends where you really open up to them. If that's true, we can work with that. smile.png


Boredom is a choice; it is not an inescapable consequence of external factors, but a fully escapable consequence of internal ones. I get that a lot of people really like to proactively dismiss the idea that each of us are responsible for our feelings, but that doesn't challenge the fact that we are. As Louie C.K. says, the world is vast and each of us has explored basically zero percent of it; our minds are functionally infinite. While we can't always (maybe never) choose what comes to mind or what happens to us, we do get to choose how we react. These are foundational truths to humanity and I think dressing us up like we're helpless is nothing more than an actively harmful appeal to pathos.


Whether you agree with my definition of boredom or not, if your assertion is that, purely, we should remove "boredom" as a possible status effect in our "redesign", I'm down with that. But it's maybe unnecessary if we can just present the "users" with a lot to do and not a lot of busy work to get to the fun stuff.


If all basic needs were guaranteed to be met for all people (something that I think most of us here have put on the table for our "redesign") that doesn't necessarily result in a "world of lazy gluttons." Indeed, we have (I emphasize *few*) lazy gluttons now who 1. are NOT a majority and 2. do not necessarily have all of their needs easily met. In reality, most people have to work (very hard) to meet even a portion of their needs, most people have esoteric hobbies they enjoy, and virtually all people who partake in some form of free self-expression (art) report that it makes them happy.


If we take away the need to work, I assert that we won't negate the desire to work; certainly we won't negate the need for self-expression, or the desire for esoteric hobbies. Why? Because, right now, whether somebody works to sustain survival, or because they feel the work is a calling of some kind, or they find true joy in their career climb (the three ways people approach work, according to research), people will still follow the other avenues to enjoyment. In many of the proposed "redesigns" here, people can still work careers if they want to, but nobody has to work three fast-food less-than-minimum wage jobs in order to survive. (Unless they really enjoy that.)


Imagine a world where you were guaranteed shelter and healthy food and reliable healthcare even if you did NOTHING, then you could go about doing whatever you wanted: meeting people, exploring, studying and leaning about what others before you had discovered; more time to spend with family and friends, more time to spend on entertainment, art, sports, whatever.

If we can design life to facilitate this, why wouldn't we?

In Topic: Life, the worst game design of all.

30 April 2014 - 09:23 AM

The point in doing things is not only because it improves our lot in life. The point of doing things is often that doing the thing is intrinsically fun, valuable, or improves the lot in somebody else's life. Pediatricians, teachers, hospice workers, artists, and others work jobs that pay crap, demands 80+ hours of work per week, and they're not doing it for any reason other than their love for the field and/or love for the people they help.


(Before anybody says "Doctors make bank!" do some legwork on that thought. <3 Doctors make lots of money due to in-office procedures, which pediatricians do very, very few of compared to all other fields. They are some of the worst paid doctors. Really you can expand it [or change if you prefer] to nurses, orderlies, any other hospital support staff you choose.)


Meanwhile, imagine World of Warcraft or Dark Souls or any other multiplayer game, co-op or otherwise, where some people spawned in at level 40 and others at lv1; and maybe the people that start at lv1 can never surpass lv30. Because "life isn't fair" the designers say. The level constraints aren't random, either: they're based on what region on Earth you live in, maybe some non-P.C. demographics, and how much money you elect to pay per month.


How well do you think that would sell? :)