Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4061958" data-attributes="member: 4937">Well, if there is one thing that they've been consistantly good at it is making the game look stupid in thier previews.Imagine instead of focusing on how reckless he could be and get away with it, he instead focused on round by round account of the really cool mine cart encounter, taking care to show how the new mechanics of the game facillitated this sort of running series of challenges.&nbsp; That's what we really want to know.&nbsp; Can the game make my game better?&nbsp; You know, what if they made this an oppurtunity to make a real preview?&nbsp; What if they actually focused on game events rather than the internal emotional state of the writer?&nbsp; &nbsp; Instead, what we get is someone ranting on a particular play style, which sort of sight unseen implies that if your play style of 25 years is radically different than the above, that you just aren't going to be supported.&nbsp; And that the particular play style seems goofy, slightly juvenile, and seems to primarily support <a href="http://www.seiyuu.com/okamoto/gaming/realmen.htm" target="_blank">gamer archetype #3</a> only makes it worse.Whoever thought 'encourages player recklessness' made a really great selling point?&nbsp; It doesn't matter what sort of rash and foolish decisions I make, I'm likely to succeed anyway?&nbsp; That's not a selling point to me.&nbsp; This isn't the sort of challenges I thought anyone was clamoring to be made easier.&nbsp; I thought there was a general agreement that resolving challenges ought to be easier.&nbsp; Making overcoming challenges easier does not count as reduced system complexity.&nbsp; We wanted I thought to reduce the mechanical headaches.&nbsp; I want 'kinder and gentler' to mean the math is easier, not that the game was easier because all the bad things that might happen to your character have been carefully removed and all the sharp corners filed down and padded.&nbsp; D&amp;D was plenty cooshy as it was. It's so bad, I half suspect deliberate sabotage on the part of the writer.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4061958, member: 4937"] Well, if there is one thing that they've been consistantly good at it is making the game look stupid in thier previews. Imagine instead of focusing on how reckless he could be and get away with it, he instead focused on round by round account of the really cool mine cart encounter, taking care to show how the new mechanics of the game facillitated this sort of running series of challenges. That's what we really want to know. Can the game make [i]my[/i] game better? You know, what if they made this an oppurtunity to make a real preview? What if they actually focused on game events rather than the internal emotional state of the writer? Instead, what we get is someone ranting on a particular [i]play style[/i], which sort of sight unseen implies that if your play style of 25 years is radically different than the above, that you just aren't going to be supported. And that the particular play style seems goofy, slightly juvenile, and seems to primarily support [URL=http://www.seiyuu.com/okamoto/gaming/realmen.htm]gamer archetype #3[/URL] only makes it worse. Whoever thought 'encourages player recklessness' made a really great selling point? It doesn't matter what sort of rash and foolish decisions I make, I'm likely to succeed anyway? That's not a selling point to me. This isn't the sort of challenges I thought anyone was clamoring to be made easier. I thought there was a general agreement that resolving challenges ought to be easier. Making overcoming challenges easier does not count as reduced system complexity. We wanted I thought to reduce the mechanical headaches. I want 'kinder and gentler' to mean the math is easier, not that the game was easier because all the bad things that might happen to your character have been carefully removed and all the sharp corners filed down and padded. D&D was plenty cooshy as it was. It's so bad, I half suspect deliberate sabotage on the part of the writer. [/QUOTE]

Verification