The fact that the GM has the last word doesn't mean that word is right. The world is full of bad Game Masters.
Aswell as bad players ... And lots and lots other bad persons, and things.
Originally Posted by Sharet
In the end, we will all accept what Larian is going to choose (we have no power to change things if not through mods) but still, we are here to give feedback on what we think should be improved.
Didnt we allready talked about this?
You provide your feedback, i shall add mine ... this is how forum works.
Then mr.planetscapist come and post his picture of some character while demanding that nobody should talk to me ever again, now and prefferably even before ... this is how this forum works, lately.
Originally Posted by Sharet
Answer: Everything that doesn't look and/or work the way it is supposed to be in the setting.
Yes ... this is perfectly logical and undersandable ...
Except that "is supposed to be" part. Since your GM is the one who call how thigs "are supposed to be" ... and yet you dismiss that, since he "is not right" or "is a bad GM" ...
So ... since you said: "This is not "my liking", this is how the setting is built."
Im not quire sure where do you take how things "are supposed to be" ... Bcs unless i understand it incorectly, you dont use your own opinions, nor opinions of your bad GM. O_o
Originally Posted by Sharet
Answer: Because, due to the quite understandable fact that the human brain tends to notice and focus on things that don't make sense with the laws of nature.
Wich are butchered on every single step, or corner, and yet some things "we are used to" are fine ... and others that "does not please our eye" are concidered horrible crimes against normality.
I presume that is the main problem i have with this topic ... I, when immersing to some setting, aply same approach to everything, if one thing breaks some "law of nature" and i accept it, i never question that "law of nature" ever again in the setting* ... bcs it was allready broken and it would be odd to accept it for one thing, but complain on it for another ... ... usualy it means that im willing to accept a lot, from GM ... not everything, true, but a lot ... It seems to me that you are either just willing to accept less than me, or you are selective. :-/ There is nothing bad about it, just to point out ... we just dont think the same way ... wich is i presume not a surprise by now.
*There is exception for this rule by the way ... And its the case when i get the feeling that "law of nature" i allready concidered broken in some past time, seem to be "even more broken" (if you get what i mean, its not easy expression) by some futher event ... for example if my GM would claim that in this world there are Flying rocks, that defile gravity with their very existence, but dont have any own source of power that would provide it (aka magic) ... i would not question flying sword (since there obviously are things that defile gravity and sword is comparable, or smaller items when compared to stone ... like matter, potentialy material, size, weight, etc.) ... But if we would later find flying mountain (just an example of exaggerated breaking of the same law) ... i would probably have some questions.
Originally Posted by Sharet
I really have no idea how to explain this concept better than this, I'm sorry.
Well, we cant agree on everything ... thank you for trying tho.
---
Originally Posted by Wormerine
And coming back to the previous point of yours - no, the experience can't be occasionally immersive. When film/game is described as immersive that usually means that it doesn't draw unnecessary attention to its artificiality and makes it world feel authentic.
Did i say occasionaly? I believe i dont but maybe i misspoken (misswritten?) myself. :-/
Nah, whatever i said (since i really dont want to spend even more time searching here for something that might be simply missinterpreted) ... I didnt mean that game should be immersive for a while ... then more crazy for a while, while screwing the immersion ... and then start to build immersion again ... just to screw it a moment later again. That would be PURE madness.
My example (whatever it was) was about constant amount during the whole time. I dont need this game to become Faerun life simulator ... and quite honestly, i dont believe you want that either ... I believe we all simply defend our preffered possition of seesaw ... i want it a little more to the right side ... you want it a little more to the left side ... the best way Larian can satisfy us both is give us either both, or none. :P
Some wise man once said: Democracy only works if none of the involved groups are satisfied. Shame i dont remember who was he.
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 11/05/2202:58 PM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
The fact that the GM has the last word doesn't mean that word is right. The world is full of bad Game Masters.
Aswell as bad players ... And lots and lots other bad persons, and things.
Originally Posted by Sharet
Answer: Everything that doesn't look and/or work the way it is supposed to be in the setting.
Yes ... this is perfectly logical and undersandable ...
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Except that "is supposed to be" part. Since your GM is the one who call how thigs "are supposed to be" ... and yet you dismiss that, since he "is not right" or "is a bad GM" ...
So ... since you said: "This is not "my liking", this is how the setting is built."
Im not quire sure where do you take how things "are supposed to be" ... Bcs unless i understand it incorectly, you dont use your own opinions, nor opinions of your bad GM. O_o
See you always seem to not be in for a productive conversation. If we're talking about Faerun, which we are, there is countless content as to how the world works. Tons of lore inside books from every edition as well as novels, which you seems oblivious to their existence and try to equate your lack of knowledge in said setting by strawmanning and gaslighting people into your own obliviousness. Dragons can fly because they are magic energy incarnate, they fly due to their magical nature, not the strength of their wings. Devils are always Lawful Evil because Alignments in the Forgotten realms are primordial energies that have brought the universe together, and they are the representatives of said alignment, therefore if a Devil stops being Lawful Evil he stops being a Devil. ALMOST EVERYTHING in the Forgotten Realms makes sense because Mr. Ed Greenwood is a great world builder. If you go over to his Twitter you can see how ground to our own perception of reality the Realms actually are, set and self contained into their own laws of both magical and natural nature. To keep arguing that there's this huge chasm of understanding and whataboutism in regards to the "realism" and "immersion" of the Setting just shows how little knowledge you own on the subject and how little willingness you have into having honest conversations on the topic.
EDIT: Dragons are speculated to be able to manauver and fly due to their magical nature, yet in the Draconomicon 3.5E there's tons of info on their anatomy and biology explaining the whole thing.
Answer: Everything that doesn't look and/or work the way it is supposed to be in the setting.
Yes ... this is perfectly logical and undersandable ...
Except that "is supposed to be" part. Since your GM is the one who call how thigs "are supposed to be" ... and yet you dismiss that, since he "is not right" or "is a bad GM" ...
So ... since you said: "This is not "my liking", this is how the setting is built."
Im not quire sure where do you take how things "are supposed to be" ... Bcs unless i understand it incorectly, you dont use your own opinions, nor opinions of your bad GM. O_o
Okay, be honest Rag. Do you actually believe that when the characters stow their swords floating on their backs, that that is a literal representation of what's happening? Do you believe that the weapons are literally floating there within the reality of the game? Because I do not. What I see is the game transparently using a shortcut that many, MANY games like it have used in the past. I think it's perfectly fair for them to use it, but the game isn't even attempting to claim that it's happening in-universe. Sure, we can SEE it happening, but as you've pointed out with the map, just becaues we see something doesn't mean it's not an abstraction.
As others have pointed out, this game is taking place in the setting of Faerun, a setting that has a lot of stuff already written about it. So it is not only reasonable but logical for people coming in to assume that Larian, being the GM, will stick to the established setting until stated otherwise. Larian has made no attempt to fold the floating weapons into lore in any way. And given the fact that this is a video game, and the approach they're using for the weapons is one used in many other games over the years, the logical assumption is that what we're seeing is an abstraction. Because what reason do we have to think otherwise?
If you’re not entirely underwater, you’re not submerged.
I have two coments for this:
1) Nice one
Thanks, man! I'm no Niara, but I still try.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
... but miles away from what i was talking about.
Darn...
Thanks for clarifying what you meant. I agree that Larian need to balance the needs of different players but I disagree that they can do that by providing 20% to 80% immersion for players who want 100%. Let's leave it at that, especially since it's my subjective opinion.
Speaking of which:
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Quite honestly it seems to me that "immersion" become easy argument for people who just dislike something, and "just wants it gone" no matter what.
Yes. People in general are much better at knowing what they feel than knowing why they feel that way. Players in particular are great at identifying what they dislike in a game, but not so great at fixing problems.
Maybe I'm not giving other forum-members enough credit, so I'll just speak for myself. I know what I found jarring, then I pulled an explanation as to why from where the sun don't shine. So the salient information here is "I don't like floating swords, teleporting badgers or pocket-dimension camps" not "my delicate sense of immersion is shattered which indicates malicious intent from the developers."
Now that I've shown you my gonads in all of their glorious honesty, I'd like to take a peek at yours. I've read your post several times and it seems to answer all of its own questions. Let me show you what I mean by editing your own words. Let me know if I misunderstood anything.
Quote
The problem is that none of those things people are complaining about around here breaks the immersion for me not even once in my 796,5h ... so i ask those people why, or how does it work ... instead they start to explaining me what is immersion, or what does it mean to break it. :-/ im aware, it may come as surprise, but i also played the game.
For me, there are two layers when i "immerge" myself to the virtual space: There is first layer and that are engine limitations ... ranges, rules, resources, limitations, stuff like that ... things game "allows" me to do ... And that would be burrowing through the time and space.
I burrowed several times to the other side of a chasm to get that lootbox in "Dragon's Lair" (that cave where Thieving Tiefling kids are living) ... And quite honestly it never felt unimersive ... no matter the distance, its still the ground and the ground end somewhere ... sure, its a little unconsistent but that dont bother me. maybe im simply exceptionaly good in ignoring things that would bother me otherwise
And then there is second layer and that is actual immersion ... what my characters know, that they would do, what they would think ... things that would "make sense in this world" ...
As for the cage example [burrowing into a suspended cage], my Badger will never burrow through time and space, since it would be a nonsence and i dislike nonsences. I ... and in that extend the badger ... know that i can burrow through the ground ... but not through the solid stone, not through empty air between cage and ground. Thats why i never do them, thats why i never even check if i can do them, since i would not care anyway ... and thats how i keep myself immerged, no matter what game "allows me to".
If I've faithfully summarized your position, there are some inconsistencies that you ignore and you avoid nonsensical events during your serious runs. This indicates to me that you understand why players who come accross these inconsistent or nonsensical events during their serious runs might feel a little upset. Wasn't that your question in the first place?
The fact that the GM has the last word doesn't mean that word is right. The world is full of bad Game Masters.
Aswell as bad players ... And lots and lots other bad persons, and things.
What kind of an answer is that? Let's ignore bad decisions from a particular party because the other one makes bad decisions too?
"I don't think green water is healthy" "Well yeah, but leaves are green too!"
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Sharet
Answer: Everything that doesn't look and/or work the way it is supposed to be in the setting.
Yes ... this is perfectly logical and undersandable ...
Except that "is supposed to be" part. Since your GM is the one who call how thigs "are supposed to be" ... and yet you dismiss that, since he "is not right" or "is a bad GM" ...
So ... since you said: "This is not "my liking", this is how the setting is built."
Im not quire sure where do you take how things "are supposed to be" ... Bcs unless i understand it incorectly, you dont use your own opinions, nor opinions of your bad GM. O_o
Nonono, wait a second. There is a way on how "things are supposed to be" when we are talking about a setting, which is all the documentation (manuals, novels etc.) that form the canon of that setting. In the FR setting, non-magical weapons don't float mid-air in normal circumstances, where "normal"=no magic involved.
The fact that a GM choose to take parts of the established setting and change them is a legitimate action, but also a highly criticisable one. And, in this instance, I criticize it as a bad decision, for all the explanations provided in the other posts.
Besides, let's face it, weapons are not floating mid-air because is a "unique take of the GM on the setting"; weapons are floating mid-air for a technical shortcut, and it shows. It's this more than anything that causes the narrative dissonance and suspends the disbelief, because, unlike the beautifully crafted cinematics, it's a feature screaming "YOU ARE IN A VIDEOGAME, THIS IS NOT REAL, WEAPONS ARE STICK ON THE BACK BECAUSE WE DIDN'T BOTHER TO PUT A PROPER ANIMATION (THAT WE HAD IN OUR PREVIOUS GAMES BTW)" in your face.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
... for example if my GM would claim that in this world there are Flying rocks, that defile gravity with their very existence, but dont have any own source of power that would provide it (aka magic) ... i would not question flying sword (since there obviously are things that defile gravity and sword is comparable, or smaller items when compared to stone ... like matter, potentialy material, size, weight, etc.) ... But if we would later find flying mountain (just an example of exaggerated breaking of the same law) ... i would probably have some questions.
Exactly, the problem is that in the FR mundane weapons don't fly on your back
Honestly mate, I may not like the excessive sarcasm you put in every single one of your posts, but I have found merits to your arguments on different occasions, even if my stance was different. Now seems to me you are just arguing for the sake of it. You are the one who was complaining about people wanting to change the game to their liking to the detriment of your own experience (e.g. fast travel) while they could have "just ignored" those features they were complaining about. And now? Now you are defending a clearly bad feature, that doesn't make any logical sense not in-game nor in the real world and from which NO ONE would suffer if it was corrected.
Honestly Rag, without malice, name a single negative aspect if the weapons in this game were properly sheeted.
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
Okay, be honest Rag. Do you actually believe that when the characters stow their swords floating on their backs, that that is a literal representation of what's happening? Do you believe that the weapons are literally floating there within the reality of the game? Because I do not. What I see is the game transparently using a shortcut that many, MANY games like it have used in the past. I think it's perfectly fair for them to use it, but the game isn't even attempting to claim that it's happening in-universe. Sure, we can SEE it happening, but as you've pointed out with the map, just becaues we see something doesn't mean it's not an abstraction.
As others have pointed out, this game is taking place in the setting of Faerun, a setting that has a lot of stuff already written about it. So it is not only reasonable but logical for people coming in to assume that Larian, being the GM, will stick to the established setting until stated otherwise. Larian has made no attempt to fold the floating weapons into lore in any way. And given the fact that this is a video game, and the approach they're using for the weapons is one used in many other games over the years, the logical assumption is that what we're seeing is an abstraction. Because what reason do we have to think otherwise?
Exactly, thank you.
Originally Posted by Flooter
So the salient information here is "I don't like floating swords, teleporting badgers or pocket-dimension camps" not "my delicate sense of immersion is shattered which indicates malicious intent from the developers."
Exactly again. "Floating weapons" are just a case study. Of course they didn't put them there because they are trying to change the setting of the FR, it's just a (bad) technical choice which should be corrected.
All this topic has became more hot of what it really should have.
The matter is simple: this game, at its current state, has some features that are really detrimental to an immersive experience, because they are breaking the disbelief of the players to be in a coherent, even if fantastical, world. Some features are necessary for the game to function with some degree of enjoyment (minimap, fast travel etc), while others offer nothing than breaking your immersion (weapons glued to your back).
Im allways honest. Sometimes not unnecesarily harsh kind of honest, but i try my best to never lie. (Except jokes, they dont count since you state it was not a truth right after.)
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
Do you actually believe that when the characters stow their swords floating on their backs, that that is a literal representation of what's happening? Do you believe that the weapons are literally floating there within the reality of the game? Because I do not.
No i dont ... Did you get the feeling that i do? O_o
I wonder where it came from, since as far as i know the only (or at least first one, i cant shake the feeling that somebody mentioned it afterwards) person who expressed herself as if she would believe it ... was Niara. O_o
As for Sharet, i didnt quote that example for purpose (again ... was it also with you last time?) since i get the feeling that he simply grabed the last used words to describe his example, rather than believing that this is the litteral representation of Faerun. O_o
---
Originally Posted by Flooter
Thanks, man! I'm no Niara, but I still try.
^_^
Originally Posted by Flooter
Thanks for clarifying what you meant. I agree that Larian need to balance the needs of different players but I disagree that they can do that by providing 20% to 80% immersion for players who want 100%. Let's leave it at that, especially since it's my subjective opinion.
Im glad somebody understands me.
As for the rest (of the whole post) i cant say much more than: Exactly ... egg ( ) freaking zactly!
Whatever zactly is ... cool name tho, i should write is somewhere ... i presume his favourite food will be eggs.
Originally Posted by Flooter
Let me know if I misunderstood anything.
Quote
The problem is that none of those things people are complaining about around here breaks the immersion for me not even once in my 796,5h ... so i ask those people why, or how does it work ... instead they start to explaining me what is immersion, or what does it mean to break it. :-/ im aware, it may come as surprise, but i also played the game.
For me, there are two layers when i "immerge" myself to the virtual space: There is first layer and that are engine limitations ... ranges, rules, resources, limitations, stuff like that ... things game "allows" me to do ... And that would be burrowing through the time and space.
I burrowed several times to the other side of a chasm to get that lootbox in "Dragon's Lair" (that cave where Thieving Tiefling kids are living) ... And quite honestly it never felt unimersive ... no matter the distance, its still the ground and the ground end somewhere ... sure, its a little unconsistent but that dont bother me. maybe im simply exceptionaly good in ignoring things that would bother me otherwise
And then there is second layer and that is actual immersion ... what my characters know, that they would do, what they would think ... things that would "make sense in this world" ...
As for the cage example [burrowing into a suspended cage], my Badger will never burrow through time and space, since it would be a nonsence and i dislike nonsences. I ... and in that extend the badger ... know that i can burrow through the ground ... but not through the solid stone, not through empty air between cage and ground. Thats why i never do them, thats why i never even check if i can do them, since i would not care anyway ... and thats how i keep myself immerged, no matter what game "allows me to".
If I've faithfully summarized your position, there are some inconsistencies that you ignore and you avoid nonsensical events during your serious runs. This indicates to me that you understand why players who come accross these inconsistent or nonsensical events during their serious runs might feel a little upset. Wasn't that your question in the first place?
Hmm ... yes that sounds about right.
Except that part with ending ground ... but i checked and i really said it so poorly. I meaned the chasm ofcourse ... as when you burron on one side of chasm ... and you burrow deep enough, you get to the point, where you are under it ... then you just move a bit to the side and start burrowing up ... yes im aware, it would mean you just moved 6000f instead of 60 (or how much you can, dont remember) ... but that is the part im willing to ignore.
As for the question ... not exactly. I *know* what would bother me in such situation ... while i know it never bothered me enough to concider it gamebreaking, or even just immersion breaking ... I could asume, sure ... but concidering how often i and other people around here agree on something ... i decided otherwise. Also there is allways chance that somebody would give you the point of view you never even concidered youreself.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
The amount of effort required to fix weapons "floating by characters backs" is not worth the time and energy cost for such an extremely minor thing. Just get over it, and save your energy for more important things.
Originally Posted by Ikke
You seem to be assuming that immersion and enjoyment are opposites, that inceasing immersion will somehow decrease possible enjoyment of the game. I think that is a false presumption. For example, how would the game be less enjoyable if weapons were carried realistically, or if there was a passage of time?
I think that in general, if done right, improving immersion will improve enjoyment. I think that everyone playing the game, perhaps some more than others, is in need of believing the illusions that the game offers: that there is a real world with real people trying to solve real problems.
I will give you that in some cases improvement of immersion versus enjoyment is debatable. For instance, personally I could do without the enormous amount of junk (and accompanying inventory management) that you can carry. (seriously: why are the people in the game so keen on having crates and chests everywhere when everyone can shove five cheese wheels, ten barrels and twenty sets of full armour in their back pocket without it even bulging a little bit?). But Larian should be clever and creative enough to not let immersion stand in the way of enjoyment. Whether they are willing remains to be seen...
Your thinking is incorrect, because not everyone enjoys the same things, and some things people find to be immersive can be frustrating for others.
For instance, it could be considered more immersive if instead of having fast-travel points, you just have to walk everywhere. But the more you travel back-and-forth across empty, cleared areas, the more it feels like a waste of time.
Originally Posted by Ikke
OK, but in combat everyone is holding their weapons, right? And in combat they are climbing, walking, running, falling prone, jumping, falling, attacking, blocking, taking hits, casting spells. So the animations are already there. It would just be a matter of having people hold on to their weapons outside of combat.
That is an approach, one that Solasta takes (outside of cutscenes - but in those characters just stand still), but the question is whether it would be immersive to be in a peaceful village running around with weapons out ready to attack at a moment's notice, and in cutscenes, not reacting naturally, but holding out weapons no matter what is going on in the cutscene. That does not sound like an improvement in immersion compared to "weapons on people's backs".
The amount of effort required to fix weapons "floating by characters backs" is not worth the time and energy cost for such an extremely minor thing. Just get over it, and save your energy for more important things.
DOS1&2 boh have weapon sheeting on the hips
Honestly, I just think they have other priorities, but I'll be really surprised if they don't fix this problem before the final release.
The amount of effort required to fix weapons "floating by characters backs" is not worth the time and energy cost for such an extremely minor thing. Just get over it, and save your energy for more important things.
Games with a fraction of the budget managed it just fine. Like the two Pathfinder.
It doesn't really take rocket science to add scabbards, quivers and shit.
Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Yup, bad GM can make a bad decision ... And also good (or at least not horrible) decision can be made by any GM ... but concidered bad decision by bad player.
I dunno how to say this ... not everything you say is pure gold, just bcs you like it? Something like that ... and yes, i know it apply to me aswell.
Originally Posted by Sharet
In the FR setting, non-magical weapons don't float mid-air in normal circumstances, where "normal"=no magic involved.
Besides, let's face it, weapons are not floating mid-air
Im confused right now ...
Maybe i read it wrong ... But the first sentence is "i dont like weapons floating" ... and second is "weapons dont float" ... so ... ???
Can you please clearly state wich side you stand for? O_o
Originally Posted by Sharet
it's a feature screaming "YOU ARE IN A VIDEOGAME, THIS IS NOT REAL, WEAPONS ARE STICK ON THE BACK BECAUSE WE DIDN'T BOTHER TO PUT A PROPER ANIMATION (THAT WE HAD IN OUR PREVIOUS GAMES BTW)" in your face.
Its certainly one possible way to see it. :-/ I allways thought it just say "we (as Larian) find this looking better".
Originally Posted by Sharet
Now seems to me you are just arguing for the sake of it.
Case in point ... or point in case? I never know ... This is exactly what i was talking about up in the beginning ...
Either someone can make a bad decision (stupid rule, arguing just for the fun, w/e) Or people can falsely judge it as such (dont follow big picutre, missinterpret, w/e)
Originally Posted by Sharet
You are the one who was complaining about people wanting to change the game to their liking to the detriment of your own experience (e.g. fast travel) while they could have "just ignored" those features they were complaining about.
I still do.
Originally Posted by Sharet
And now? Now you are defending a clearly bad feature, that doesn't make any logical sense not in-game nor in the real world and from which NO ONE would suffer if it was corrected.
I know you concider it a "bad feature" ... even tho right now im not exactly sure what about it you mind honestly ... but that doesnt make it bad. :-/ Bad for you (and some others) maaaaybe ... but hardly anything more.
What kind of "logical sense" you want?
Personaly i believe that NO ONE (if you insist on caps lock) would suffer if option to sheat weapons on hips would be simply added to the curent state ... as far as i know, daggers are sheating there (even tho it is some time i used them, so maybe i just have outdated info) ... So the only thing that would hold Larian back (the animation) is allready implemented.
And for the record, this option would be the only ting i would call "correction" in this particular case ... and this is something i keep asking from since the first day "sheat on back stupid" topic was bring up for the first time. :-/ So ... im not against corection at all, mine is dust different from others.
For example GM4Him was strictly against this option ... wonder why to be honest. O_o But doubt he would ever tell me. :-/
Originally Posted by Sharet
Honestly Rag, without malice, name a single negative aspect if the weapons in this game were properly sheeted.
I would not like it ...
Now you! Name a single negative aspect if the weapons in this game would have option to sheet both on the hip or on back, whenever and for whatever reason you choose to ...
And just in case you would like to also turn the game into positive matters: Note that options could include stuff like: Vissible shields (since back slot would be possibly opened), vissible bows while vielding meele, vissible meele while wielding bow, quivers on back or hips, prefferably option to hide daggers ... etc.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
In the FR setting, non-magical weapons don't float mid-air in normal circumstances, where "normal"=no magic involved.
Besides, let's face it, weapons are not floating mid-air
Im confused right now ...
Maybe i read it wrong ... But the first sentence is "i dont like weapons floating" ... and second is "weapons dont float" ... so ... ???
Can you please clearly state wich side you stand for? O_o
I'm pretty sure that Sharet is making a distinction between the fact that we see the weapons floating on the screen and that even though we see that, in the reality of the game the weapons aren't actually floating. She's basically saying that the weapons are entirely normal in the fiction of the game despite how they appear to we the players.
Also this ties into why I thought you thought that the floating weapons were really floating in the fiction of the game. In your past answers you give a lot of reasons to justify why people shouldn't have a problem with the floating blades when things like dragons and githyanki exist. When ultimately, none of those reasons hold water because the floating swords aren't an in-universe feature, but an out of universe abstraction.
Yup, bad GM can make a bad decision ... And also good (or at least not horrible) decision can be made by any GM ... but concidered bad decision by bad player.
I dunno how to say this ... not everything you say is pure gold, just bcs you like it? Something like that ... and yes, i know it apply to me aswell.
Never claimed everything I say is right because it is I who says it. I have admitted my mistakes on more than one topic.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Sharet
In the FR setting, non-magical weapons don't float mid-air in normal circumstances, where "normal"=no magic involved.
Besides, let's face it, weapons are not floating mid-air
Im confused right now ...
Maybe i read it wrong ... But the first sentence is "i dont like weapons floating" ... and second is "weapons dont float" ... so ... ???
Can you please clearly state wich side you stand for? O_o
This is not correct on your part and perfectly shows why you are just arguing in bad faith, only partially quoting what other people say to fit your argument.
This quote:
Originally Posted by Sharet
In the FR setting, non-magical weapons don't float mid-air in normal circumstances, where "normal"=no magic involved. Besides, let's face it, weapons are not floating mid-air
portrays me as an idiot contradicting himself, while the following (the complete one)
Originally Posted by Sharet
In the FR setting, non-magical weapons don't float mid-air in normal circumstances, where "normal"=no magic involved. Besides, let's face it, weapons are not floating mid-air because is a "unique take of the GM on the setting"; weapons are floating mid-air for a technical shortcut, and it shows.
has the full, coherent meaning of my point.
To sum up and respond to the rest of your last post: 1) It's the first time I heard you arguing for an option to have different animations for sheeting and un-sheeting weapons in this thread. Maybe it just passed over me but until now I just saw you arguing about how inconceivable is for people to have their immersion broken from this and not from flying lizards. 2) I'll be more than happy for the game to have an infinite amount of options for an infinite amount of playstyles but this is all but realistic. And even if it was possible, the standard (or "vanilla") version of the game should be the one more faithful to its genre, in this case the RPG one, the one which places the top priority on immersion and roleplaying. 3) I know I'm not an omniscient god and that point 2 is just my personal opinion, but I think is a considerate one. If I order a pizza Margherita, advertised as a pizza Margherita, with a series of pizzas Margherita before it, I expect to receive a pizza Margherita. The waitress gives me the option to put asparagus on it? All the better, but the standard version is still a pizza Margherita.
I think I have spent more than enough time on the topic. People who genuinely wanted to understand my argument have understood it at this point and, even if they have not, I reached the limit on how clear I can be in my exposition. To the others, it seems like I'm not eloquent enough to make you change your mind, it doesn't matter, it's not in my interest nor it's my responsibility.
I just hope the good people at Larian can see the constructive points I was trying to make. I really like this game and badly want it to realise its full potential.
Rag, what is the POINT of you being in these forums? All you mainly do is criticize people making constructed arguments on aspects of the game...whatsmore stuff that are god damm valid RPG related elements...not pointless crap....being like a lawyer and over analyzing sentences and nit picking pointless crap.
And no-thanks to THAT Larian is probably ignoring the entire thread...get a life. Your not the dev. Wether you like it or not let people comment and shut up. Dont agree? Fine. Quickly mention it and keep it at that.
Of course the cart can not enter dungeons, so it will not be possible to loot 20 goblin shields from a dungeon without some serious running back and forth. But I don't think I would miss that.
I would miss it! I would like the opposite: The option to remove encumbrance so that I can carry all my loot!
Watch to about 2:05
This was such a great acknowledgment of the issue (Solasta). The only developers to balance immersion and convenience. I am good with paying "porters".
Rag, what is the POINT of you being in these forums? All you mainly do is criticize people making constructed arguments on aspects of the game...whatsmore stuff that are god damm valid RPG related elements...not pointless crap....being like a lawyer and over analyzing sentences and nit picking pointless crap.
And no-thanks to THAT Larian is probably ignoring the entire thread...get a life. Your not the dev. Wether you like it or not let people comment and shut up. Dont agree? Fine. Quickly mention it and keep it at that.
Sometimes I have the feeling that he's Swen himself (or another head at Larian) defending his baby, trying to explain the inexplicable and trying by all means to dismantle valid arguments to prove that he is right even if he's factually wrong.
Of course the cart can not enter dungeons, so it will not be possible to loot 20 goblin shields from a dungeon without some serious running back and forth. But I don't think I would miss that.
I would miss it! I would like the opposite: The option to remove encumbrance so that I can carry all my loot!
Watch to about 2:05
This was such a great acknowledgment of the issue (Solasta). The only developers to balance immersion and convenience. I am good with paying "porters".
Man do I want to play Solasta again. My gaming PC just completely died on me so I am left with the mac...trying to figure how to play it with Wine...
Rag, what is the POINT of you being in these forums? All you mainly do is criticize people making constructed arguments on aspects of the game...whatsmore stuff that are god damm valid RPG related elements...not pointless crap....being like a lawyer and over analyzing sentences and nit picking pointless crap.
And no-thanks to THAT Larian is probably ignoring the entire thread...get a life. Your not the dev. Wether you like it or not let people comment and shut up. Dont agree? Fine. Quickly mention it and keep it at that.
Sometimes I have the feeling that he's Swen himself (or another head at Larian) defending his baby, trying to explain the inexplicable and trying by all means to dismantle valid arguments to prove that he is right even if he's factually wrong.
I can't see other explanations for his attitude.
Lol, I have had the exact same idea. I've also imagined how annoying it must be if your boss keeps going on these kind of irrational, fallacious, bad faith, and straw man reasoning rants in formal business meetings where everyone has to shut up because they learned long ago that resisting openly is pointless.
I'm pretty sure that Sharet is making a distinction between the fact that we see the weapons floating on the screen and that even though we see that, in the reality of the game the weapons aren't actually floating. She's basically saying that the weapons are entirely normal in the fiction of the game despite how they appear to we the players.
If that is the case, then once again i just cant understand how they break his, or hers, or w/e immersion. O_o
It seemed to me that like the described problem was that they are "supposed" to be entirely normal, regular, nonmagical, not floating weapons ... and yet they are not acting as such. But prehaps i got it wrong. :-/
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
In your past answers you give a lot of reasons to justify why people shouldn't have a problem with the floating blades when things like dragons and githyanki exist. When ultimately, none of those reasons hold water because the floating swords aren't an in-universe feature, but an out of universe abstraction.
Well, more like providing reasons for my point of view ... As i stated countless times i dont try to persuate others ... even tho its just matter of perception ...
And honestly i wouldnt ... If there is a 3,500kg heavy lizard that defiles gravity ... i willingly admit that i would have no problem with 3kg sword defiling gravity. :-/
But if we agree that the fact that they are floating is just abstract ... and i agree with that.
I just get back to my original thought, since i dont really know how sheating weapon on your back is "breaking your immersion" ...
I mean yes i know the usual argument that sheats on back were historicaly inpractical, bcs you would never ever had arm long enough to even draw your sword out ... BUT! (And this is the core of my problem) Have you seen longswords in this game? Are anyone seriously telling me that they have arm long enough to draw a sword that is twice longer than their whole TORSO(!!!), or both arms together ... when sheated on their hip? Seriously?
I can totally understand that people who are used to sheets on hip dislike sheets on back and vice versa ... how could i not, that is exactly my problem, just other way around copared to others. But thats it ... we simply dont like it ... everything abowe that, as you said "dont hold the water".
---
For Sharet:
Originally Posted by Sharet
Never claimed everything I say is right because it is I who says it.
And i never claimed you did ... You asked why i mentioned that there are also bad players ... this was the reason ...
There no relation to your personal integrity or honesty.
Originally Posted by Sharet
This is not correct on your part and perfectly shows why you are just arguing in bad faith, only partially quoting what other people say to fit your argument.
First of all the "bad faith" ... i have heared this therm countless times around here, and still have no idea what does that mean. :-/
Second ... no i dont and here is why: That would be quite poor atempt, since all people need to do (in order to read your full statement) is few scrolls with their mousewhell, woulnt it? :-/
I mean it would make sense to try purposely cut things out of the context, when you dont have source you are quoting on the same page ... or at least same website ... But in situation as this one, where "purposely alterned quote" and the "original one" are right next to each other? O_o What would be the point?
Just for the record, since you allready get that feeling once ... with this question im not trying to make you look bad, or hysteric ... im trying to proove that your conclusions about my intentions were wrong. :-/
Aswell as (as it seems) was my atempt to shorten your statement ... But i can promise you once again, that my intention was not making you (to use your words) "look like an idiot contradicting himself" ... i was honestly confused by the wording, so i just wanted to make it clear.
Originally Posted by Sharet
while the following (the complete one) has the full, coherent meaning of my point.
Wich i didnt understand ... So if you could try to explain it, instead of repeating it ... ti might be more usefull.
Originally Posted by Sharet
1) It's the first time I heard you arguing for an option to have different animations for sheeting and un-sheeting weapons in this thread.
Thats certainly possible. This topic was brought up so many times so even i lost tracks on where i said what.
I thought that since you told me (in other topic i believe?) that you were reading this regulary, just didnt respond ... that you might have seen it. But even if you didnt, and this was first time you have seen it ... i hope that we can agree on that the important part is that we both agree that would be best approach from Larian.
Originally Posted by Sharet
2) I'll be more than happy for the game to have an infinite amount of options for an infinite amount of playstyles but this is all but realistic.
Yup ... "infinite" is indeed all but realistic ... even using the word only figuratively is exaggerated.
But that is the beauty of that option i want ... all Larian need to do, is simply dont remove what they allready did. Therefore it would bring litteraly no additional work.
Originally Posted by Sharet
If I order a pizza Margherita, advertised as a pizza Margherita, with a series of pizzas Margherita before it, I expect to receive a pizza Margherita. The waitress gives me the option to put asparagus on it? All the better, but the standard version is still a pizza Margherita.
I dont like food examples, since they dont really work as well as some people around here think ... But to build on it:
- You also have to take under concideration that your opinion about what is a "pizza Margherita" may differ from the opinion that chef have ... I dont wonder anything in this regard since i have seen people swear that they dont know how to make a gyros in Greece ... and again for the record: I dont say that *YOU* are one of such people ... just pointing out that expectations and reality can easily difer.
- Also you should take under concideration that if you buy two "Margheritas" from two different restaurant (the more distant the better) ... Especialy if one of them is from Italy (aka. BioWare), place that can use "pizza" as their second name, place that is so well known in the world for their skill in making pizza (RPG) so whole world is often using them as an example for how it should look like. And another one of them is from some local cook ... i see you are from Italy, so i use my own homeland, Czech (aka. Larian) ... where they are also able to make pizzas, and those pizzas are tasting great, and people from their neighborhood are loving it ... but you, used to something else, would certainy taste (see, experience, w/e) differences. They dont have to all be bad ofcourse, but they WILL be there.
The point is you dont need to put asparagus on your Margherita to make it different ... All you need to use different flour, cheese, tomatoes, or spice ... but even if you would use the exactly same ingredients ... you can easily achieve at least a little (or a lot, depend how much you would push it) different taste by just baking it longer (or shorter) time ... or in different temperature.
But despite all those differences, it would still be Margherita ... just not the one you expected.
---
For mr_planescapist:
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Rag, what is the POINT of you being in these forums?
You asked me this question several times (as far as i know) and it may surprise you, but the answer is still the same: To provide feedback and my own opinions on stuff that are discuised here ... In other words: Do what this forum was created for.
I wonder what is your excuse for this pathetic parody for post ... can you please point me to that part where you are providing any feedback to game, or any of its mechanic?
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
All you mainly do is criticize people making constructed arguments on aspects of the game...whatsmore stuff that are god damm valid RPG related elements...not pointless crap....being like a lawyer and over analyzing sentences and nit picking pointless crap.
Usualy i tell people as you something like: "Thank you for your opinion, it is important to me and it means a lot that you shared it ... that is the reason i asked for it. Oh wait ... i didnt. Wonder why?"
But this time i actualy have question for you ... What exactly were you hoping to achieve by this?
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
get a life.
Thats rich from someone who apparently have nothing better to do than stalking me on forum and keep repeating the same shit over and over.
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Your not the dev.
Neither are you ... at least i honestly hope so, that would be horrible image. :-/
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Wether you like it or not let people comment and shut up. Dont agree? Fine. Quickly mention it and keep it at that.
Cute ... You know what? I can propose you a deal, same i offered to Maximuuus ... We have expression in Czech: "Sweep in front of your own doorstep first."
So, once i will see that you are able to behave by your own rules ... then (not even a second sooner) we can start talking abot how im suppose to behave, okey? :P
---
For Maximuuus:
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
I can't see other explanations for his attitude.
Have you ever concidered that i simply like the game as it is now? Its nothing too complex.
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 12/05/2203:36 PM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/7QvJxy9/Screenshot-52.png)