Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 8156864">I really don't know what to tell you, except that the frustration is mutual. I think we just have very different ways of approaching. You keep trying to force me into this real world simulation box and I keep telling you that isn't what I am aiming for at all. I am aiming for something much lighter, which I call believability. Which is stuff like is the world internally consistent, are the NPCs responding logically what the players are saying (NOT are they responding with the success rate of real world people having conversations: honestly I am not even sure what that looks like or means to be honest). Basically believability is believable enough for the purposes of a game. Again, you are approaching this with an engineer mindset. I am not. I don't think that difference can be bridged by any amount of analysis or communication at this point (we've interacted a lot and you seem to have a lot of difficulty understanding my point of view). The basic difference in meaning is believable to me isn't about me coming up with a working model of how people interact in the real world with numerical hit rates. I am not trying to achieve a simulation of when you have firmly entrenched people presented with strong arguments, they capitulate X percent of the time in real life (I seriously don't even know where that information would be obtained from). All I am trying to figure out when I run an NPC, is whether what the player said would move them, persuade them, prompt them to act in a certain way. And it is all very intuitive. And the aim is to produce a world that feels believable (which as I have said does not mean feels realistic).</blockquote>

Verification