Quote:Original post by Way Walker
I place it along with furniture that, in reality, you could move, but, in the game, you can't. Unless it's interesting to be able to move it, I see no reason to allow you to move it. Unless it's interesting for them not to attack, then just have them attack.

Quote:Original post by Kest

Quote:Original post by Way Walker
I place it along with furniture that, in reality, you could move, but, in the game, you can't. Unless it's interesting to be able to move it, I see no reason to allow you to move it. Unless it's interesting for them not to attack, then just have them attack.

Honestly, that seems like a weak argument. The furniture's very existence is often pointless and irrelevant to gameplay. It can be there to add depth and realism, and nothing more.

Quote:
If you feel that creatures behaving this way would add no depth to gameplay, then that's a valid point. Otherwise, you're saying remove what you don't need. It's a video game. The entire experience is optional.

Quote:Original post by MSW
If players have the option of tossing corpses to hellhounds inorder to distract them then you have added depth. If hellhounds can only "see" you when you stand perfectly still, then you have added depth. If the player can perform the same actions each time in getting past the hellhound with the same resault...then you have added depth. That is good game design.

On the other hand if your scenario can repeatedly run with the same player inputs; and get different resaults. Then players will see it as a bug, or worse; bad game design.

Quote:Original post by Way Walker

Quote:Original post by Kest

Quote:Original post by Way Walker
I place it along with furniture that, in reality, you could move, but, in the game, you can't. Unless it's interesting to be able to move it, I see no reason to allow you to move it. Unless it's interesting for them not to attack, then just have them attack.

Honestly, that seems like a weak argument. The furniture's very existence is often pointless and irrelevant to gameplay. It can be there to add depth and realism, and nothing more.

Yes, and if it's irrelevant to the game, it shouldn't be in the game. That's my point. If the furniture is relevant (e.g. it's a prop used during a conversation or something), but redecorating the apartment isn't, then I see no reason to be able to move it around (especially since that's not something you'd normally do with furniture, especially when not in your own house).

Quote:Original post by Kest

Quote:Original post by Way Walker

Quote:Original post by Kest

Quote:Original post by Way Walker
I place it along with furniture that, in reality, you could move, but, in the game, you can't. Unless it's interesting to be able to move it, I see no reason to allow you to move it. Unless it's interesting for them not to attack, then just have them attack.

Honestly, that seems like a weak argument. The furniture's very existence is often pointless and irrelevant to gameplay. It can be there to add depth and realism, and nothing more.

Yes, and if it's irrelevant to the game, it shouldn't be in the game. That's my point. If the furniture is relevant (e.g. it's a prop used during a conversation or something), but redecorating the apartment isn't, then I see no reason to be able to move it around (especially since that's not something you'd normally do with furniture, especially when not in your own house).

So if your player character is visiting another character's home, there shouldn't be any furniture or cabinets because no one leans on them? They certainly aren't there to enhance gameplay. They're there because people have furniture and cabinets in their homes. That's it. No different than having the ability to push them around - and for no good reason. These things have an affect on the game because they have an affect on the mind of the person playing it.

Quote:
Creatures have motivations other than killing the player character. I think that limiting that as their one and only objective is belittling to the creature's existence. It makes it feel less like a creature and more like a video game robot. I believe it may be worth exploring those types of behavior, even if it has no direct connection to the choices the player is making.

Quote:Original post by MSW

Quote:Original post by Way Walker
Unless, of course, the player can see that the initial conditions are different. If the hellhounds only attack when they aren't feeding and the player can see whether or not they're feeding, then you can get different results and it not appear as a bug because it's not precisely the same scenario.

Games don't have to always start with the exact same initial conditions, and varying player inputs earlier in the game can vary situations later (e.g. if they killed less, maybe there wouldn't be enough corpses for all the hellhounds to feed on, so they'd get chased by more hellhounds).

Of course, if the initial situation is different then players must see this, that the hellhounds arn't feasting on corpses. That is my point. The game should present a solid world. If doing X,Y,Z allows you to slip past a hellhound undetected while conditions A,B,C are in effect...Then it always should.

But hideing some calculation behind the scenes inorder to prompt the hellhound to attack...Even if X,Y,Z and A,B,C are met...Then its like pulling the rug from under the player. The game world isn't solid anymore. Why should they then even attempt X,Y,Z and A,B,C if its a gamble that it will even succeed?

Quote:Original post by Way Walker
My suspension of disbelief has never suffered during a play because I know that no one could remove some painting from the wall because it's actually painted on the wall with a frame nailed around it.