Originally posted by VengeSunsoar He didn't say it was a bug. He said it was clunky then further defined what he meant.
I doubt they planned it to be clunky.
1. in all honesty all I personally want to talk about is the bug statement. I would prefer to stay away from phrase like clunky.
2. I am just touching on Mount and Blade to bring up the point that the clunkyness he is experiencing IS BY DESIGN and yes, they did design it that way.
as far as Mount and Blade specifically what you are calling clunky is actually designed that way on purpose. Its supposed to be more realistic.
no, there is a difference between "realistic" and "clunky".
Mount and Blade felt clunky.
Bodies moving oddly, weird animations, not connecting when I should have connected, especially on the mount. Odd lighting issues.
I thought the game design, what they were going for was great. But the implementation wasn't.
There is a difference between "realistic" where you have combatants that are hitting, bobbing and weaving as a combatant would do and having the combatants move oddly, feel slidey n the ground, etc.
the core point I am making with Mount and Blade is that its designed EXACTLY AS THEY HAD PLANNED.
you might not agree with the method of combat but its not a bug nor was it lazy design, its was EXPLICTLY done that way on purpose and many people understand why. That is light years away from bug
You and I seem to have a communication problem. I'm not sure of any other way to say it.
they did not plan to make the game awkward and clunky. Being "realistic" does not mean "odd animations" or "weird ligthing" or "not connecting".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
as far as Mount and Blade specifically what you are calling clunky is actually designed that way on purpose. Its supposed to be more realistic.
no, there is a difference between "realistic" and "clunky".
Mount and Blade felt clunky.
Bodies moving oddly, weird animations, not connecting when I should have connected, especially on the mount. Odd lighting issues.
I thought the game design, what they were going for was great. But the implementation wasn't.
There is a difference between "realistic" where you have combatants that are hitting, bobbing and weaving as a combatant would do and having the combatants move oddly, feel slidey n the ground, etc.
the core point I am making with Mount and Blade is that its designed EXACTLY AS THEY HAD PLANNED.
you might not agree with the method of combat but its not a bug nor was it lazy design, its was EXPLICTLY done that way on purpose and many people understand why. That is light years away from bug
You and I seem to have a communication problem. I'm not sure of any other way to say it.
they did not plan to make the game awkward and clunky. Being "realistic" does not mean "odd animations" or "weird ligthing" or "not connecting".
yes they did.
the way you walk is by design, the fact that combat is 'clunky' is also by design. Clearly I wouldnt use the word 'clunky' but he felt that it was only becuase he didnt understand what they game was trying to do. as far as lighting I dont know what he is talking about.
Have you played the game? Do you understand that it does combat BY DESIGN completely different and more detailed then other games
example, when you get hit in the face with a polearm you are going to wobble..why? because in real life you would be disorentied.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar He didn't say it was a bug. He said it was clunky then further defined what he meant.
I doubt they planned it to be clunky.
1. in all honesty all I personally want to talk about is the bug statement. I would prefer to stay away from phrase like clunky.
2. I am just touching on Mount and Blade to bring up the point that the clunkyness he is experiencing IS BY DESIGN and yes, they did design it that way.
instead of "clunky" substitute "awkward". Maybe that would help.
They don't feel "natural and realistic" (the animations). They feel awkward and stilted.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar He didn't say it was a bug. He said it was clunky then further defined what he meant.
I doubt they planned it to be clunky.
1. in all honesty all I personally want to talk about is the bug statement. I would prefer to stay away from phrase like clunky.
2. I am just touching on Mount and Blade to bring up the point that the clunkyness he is experiencing IS BY DESIGN and yes, they did design it that way.
instead of "clunky" substitute "awkward". Maybe that would help.
They don't feel "natural and realistic" (the animations). They feel awkward and stilted.
the take away is that its by design, not because of lazyness or bad programming. At least I mean the combat. I am not sure what animations you are talking about but walking around and fighting is supposed to be disorienting and hard.
some people just find 1st view to be clunky or awkward simply because they are not used to it.
Pure sandboxes don't make money. AAA titles are run by big companies who like to make money. Pretty simple, when you think about it.
The pure sandbox game is reserved for the indie developers whose main goal is to draw some interest through niche marketing since they don't have the funds to provide that big budget feel in their games.
Pure sandboxes don't make money. AAA titles are run by big companies who like to make money. Pretty simple, when you think about it.
The pure sandbox game is reserved for the indie developers whose main goal is to draw some interest through niche marketing since they don't have the funds to provide that big budget feel in their games.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I bet they hoped and believed it eiuld be a lot smoother. No one designs something to be awkward. Awkward was unintended.
wrong
they HAD to expliclty make it that way, it doesnt happen on its own.
Walking, running and combat is hard in that game and its that way for a reason. the code didnt just write itself that way by accident.
What makes Mount and Blade what it is and why its such a cult hit is BECAUSE of how combat works.
now...can we move on to something else like the statment 'bugs' because right now we are not talking about bugs we are talkinga about game design choices.
Hard and clunky are not the same. I believe they made it hard. I believe clunky was unintended. Yes they deliberate write code so the actions would be done a certain way. They did not believe that would be awkward.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Hard and clunky are not the same. I believe they made it hard. I believe clunky was unintended. Yes they deliberate write code so the actions would be done a certain way. They did not believe that would be awkward.
I believe you are wrong.
either way, its by design and the reason people like it is BECAUSE of how it works.
You might think its a bad design choice but that is a different matter than what you guys are suggesting.
I dint believe was by design just a dude effect if their design. This is the discussion. You want to limit it to bugs. We weren't talking only about bugs just you were.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Pure sandboxes don't make money. AAA titles are run by big companies who like to make money. Pretty simple, when you think about it.
The pure sandbox game is reserved for the indie developers whose main goal is to draw some interest through niche marketing since they don't have the funds to provide that big budget feel in their games.
UO did pretty well for itself. And sandboxes are very popular in other genres, just look on Minecraft, Skyrim, GTA and The Sims. Eve is still doing pretty fine as well, particularly for an 11 years old game. Even SWG did at least do acceptable for the first 2 years.
I think it more have to do with quality than actual game mechanics, games that isn't fun enough will very rarely make money no matter the mechanics.
With MMOs sandboxes are pretty far between compared to themepark games which make the sample size rather small as well. I am not so sure than sandboxes fail more often if you count in percentage.
But sandbox MMOs can use new thinking, trying to remake UO with modern graphics is hardly new thinking and would probably be as much financial success as remaking Meridian 59.
And far from all sandboxes need to have FFA PvP with full loot no matter what the UO fans think. Sandboxes needs to have mechanics for players to create the content, that's it. FFA full loot PvP games tend to do pretty badly as themeparks as well so they are hardly any good if you want to make a large commercial game.
Nah, it is too bad that CCP canceled WoDO, the only interesting sandbox MMO on the horizon right now is probably Undead labs Class 4.
Wow kinda messes up any figures as it pulled in such huge amounts of money, no other game have ever been close to get that type of income. Could Blizzard have gotten such a huge income if they instead had relied on player created content? Very hard to say really, but it isn't impossible.
I can tell you one thing: If Blizzard made a sandbox MMO and put it in one of their famous IPs I can promise you they would make money, plenty of money.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I dint believe was by design just a dude effect if their design. This is the discussion. You want to limit it to bugs. We weren't talking only about bugs just you were.
fuck it maybe I will try and contact the developers and ask them to respond. this is silly
Do you really believe that anyone that takes pride in their work ever at any time deliberately tries to make it awkward? The awkwardness wad a side effect of whatever their intentions were.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Is that what you are talking about? lets use some video to explain EXACTLY what we are talking about. To the casual observer that video can look clunky. To those who have seen real sword combat (not on TV) they might find it interesting.
Pure sandboxes don't make money. AAA titles are run by big companies who like to make money. Pretty simple, when you think about it.
The pure sandbox game is reserved for the indie developers whose main goal is to draw some interest through niche marketing since they don't have the funds to provide that big budget feel in their games.
Minecraft not worth money btw.
Microsoft got sooo ripped off......
It's also not an mmo
It's massive.
It's multiplayer.
It's online. It is a MMO. Just cuz you don't have to grind for faction armor shouldn't leave it out.
Concerning clunky versus hard, developers do not try to make things clunky. Clunky means it does not work quite right, or one piece of a game does not mean well with another. That is not how developers want things to be. On the other hand, they might want things to require a lot of time, research or effort on the part of the player, making things hard to accomplish, but everything still works properly and each part of the game meshes with the rest of the game well. That is how developers want their game to turn out.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Concerning Minecraft, it does not have a persistent, shared world. It has many worlds and most of them have one player in them. Vanilla Minecraft has zero RPG features so it is not an mmorpg. Minecraft does not have a lobby on the PC so it does not fit neatly into the general mmo category either. Mods can change all of this but vanilla Minecraft seems to be much more its own thing.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by lizardbones Concerning clunky versus hard, developers do not try to make things clunky. Clunky means it does not work quite right, or one piece of a game does not mean well with another. That is not how developers want things to be. On the other hand, they might want things to require a lot of time, research or effort on the part of the player, making things hard to accomplish, but everything still works properly and each part of the game meshes with the rest of the game well. That is how developers want their game to turn out.
there appears to be a lot of confusion here.
1. 'clunky' is an abstract term. its more of a feel. Its perfectly possible (and in this case HIGHLY likely) that a different approach to combat may feel 'clunky' to those who do not understand what a game is trying to do.
mount and blade to the casual observer does look very clunky but its design that way for a specific reason I can get into if anyone gives a shit to know why...
Originally posted by lizardbones Concerning Minecraft, it does not have a persistent, shared world. It has many worlds and most of them have one player in them. Vanilla Minecraft has zero RPG features so it is not an mmorpg. Minecraft does not have a lobby on the PC so it does not fit neatly into the general mmo category either. Mods can change all of this but vanilla Minecraft seems to be much more its own thing.
I think the very idea that we can not talk about non-mmos yet in an mmo context depending on what we are talking about specifically to be well...insane.
when talking about sandboxes, indies and who understands what it makes very little sense to pull minecraft out of the conversation because it has 64 players instead of 6400 players because that issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the root conversation.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I bet they hoped and believed it eiuld be a lot smoother. No one designs something to be awkward. Awkward was unintended.
wrong
they HAD to expliclty make it that way, it doesnt happen on its own.
Walking, running and combat is hard in that game and its that way for a reason. the code didnt just write itself that way by accident.
Just for the record Willow I wanted to say I agree with you, even though I have not played the game, I did watch the video.
And I did not see clunky.
I think what we are talking about is, is that most people think fighting in an MMO should look like a Kung Fu movie where all the moves are executed perfectly and it looks more like a ballet, than a fight.
Mount and Blade looks more like UFC fighting which is obviously the more realistic fighting, but compared to stylized Kung Fu fighting in a movie, I suppose you could call it "clunky". I think in this case people are mistaking design decisions, for bad animation.
However like Willow says, I believe that is what the Devs were going for in Mount and Blade, therefore it is by design as he said. I would not see this as a negative in a game, because personally I like watching both styles of fighting.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Comments
1. in all honesty all I personally want to talk about is the bug statement. I would prefer to stay away from phrase like clunky.
2. I am just touching on Mount and Blade to bring up the point that the clunkyness he is experiencing IS BY DESIGN and yes, they did design it that way.
You and I seem to have a communication problem. I'm not sure of any other way to say it.
they did not plan to make the game awkward and clunky. Being "realistic" does not mean "odd animations" or "weird ligthing" or "not connecting".
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
yes they did.
the way you walk is by design, the fact that combat is 'clunky' is also by design. Clearly I wouldnt use the word 'clunky' but he felt that it was only becuase he didnt understand what they game was trying to do. as far as lighting I dont know what he is talking about.
Have you played the game? Do you understand that it does combat BY DESIGN completely different and more detailed then other games
example, when you get hit in the face with a polearm you are going to wobble..why? because in real life you would be disorentied.
instead of "clunky" substitute "awkward". Maybe that would help.
They don't feel "natural and realistic" (the animations). They feel awkward and stilted.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
the take away is that its by design, not because of lazyness or bad programming. At least I mean the combat. I am not sure what animations you are talking about but walking around and fighting is supposed to be disorienting and hard.
some people just find 1st view to be clunky or awkward simply because they are not used to it.
Minecraft not worth money btw.
Microsoft got sooo ripped off......
a yo ho ho
It's also not an mmo
wrong
they HAD to expliclty make it that way, it doesnt happen on its own.
Walking, running and combat is hard in that game and its that way for a reason. the code didnt just write itself that way by accident.
What makes Mount and Blade what it is and why its such a cult hit is BECAUSE of how combat works.
now...can we move on to something else like the statment 'bugs' because right now we are not talking about bugs we are talkinga about game design choices.
I believe you are wrong.
either way, its by design and the reason people like it is BECAUSE of how it works.
You might think its a bad design choice but that is a different matter than what you guys are suggesting.
we are WAY off topic here.
UO did pretty well for itself. And sandboxes are very popular in other genres, just look on Minecraft, Skyrim, GTA and The Sims. Eve is still doing pretty fine as well, particularly for an 11 years old game. Even SWG did at least do acceptable for the first 2 years.
I think it more have to do with quality than actual game mechanics, games that isn't fun enough will very rarely make money no matter the mechanics.
With MMOs sandboxes are pretty far between compared to themepark games which make the sample size rather small as well. I am not so sure than sandboxes fail more often if you count in percentage.
But sandbox MMOs can use new thinking, trying to remake UO with modern graphics is hardly new thinking and would probably be as much financial success as remaking Meridian 59.
And far from all sandboxes need to have FFA PvP with full loot no matter what the UO fans think. Sandboxes needs to have mechanics for players to create the content, that's it. FFA full loot PvP games tend to do pretty badly as themeparks as well so they are hardly any good if you want to make a large commercial game.
Nah, it is too bad that CCP canceled WoDO, the only interesting sandbox MMO on the horizon right now is probably Undead labs Class 4.
Wow kinda messes up any figures as it pulled in such huge amounts of money, no other game have ever been close to get that type of income. Could Blizzard have gotten such a huge income if they instead had relied on player created content? Very hard to say really, but it isn't impossible.
I can tell you one thing: If Blizzard made a sandbox MMO and put it in one of their famous IPs I can promise you they would make money, plenty of money.
fuck it maybe I will try and contact the developers and ask them to respond. this is silly
is this video what you are talking about?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9jHcZjWw9U
If you ask them did you intend to make it awkward. Do you honestly expect them to say yes? At best they'll say we don't think it us awkward.
when you get a chance I would like you to watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9jHcZjWw9U
Is that what you are talking about? lets use some video to explain EXACTLY what we are talking about. To the casual observer that video can look clunky. To those who have seen real sword combat (not on TV) they might find it interesting.
It's massive.
It's multiplayer.
It's online. It is a MMO. Just cuz you don't have to grind for faction armor shouldn't leave it out.
a yo ho ho
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
there appears to be a lot of confusion here.
1. 'clunky' is an abstract term. its more of a feel. Its perfectly possible (and in this case HIGHLY likely) that a different approach to combat may feel 'clunky' to those who do not understand what a game is trying to do.
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9jHcZjWw9U
mount and blade to the casual observer does look very clunky but its design that way for a specific reason I can get into if anyone gives a shit to know why...
I think the very idea that we can not talk about non-mmos yet in an mmo context depending on what we are talking about specifically to be well...insane.
when talking about sandboxes, indies and who understands what it makes very little sense to pull minecraft out of the conversation because it has 64 players instead of 6400 players because that issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the root conversation.
Just for the record Willow I wanted to say I agree with you, even though I have not played the game, I did watch the video.
And I did not see clunky.
I think what we are talking about is, is that most people think fighting in an MMO should look like a Kung Fu movie where all the moves are executed perfectly and it looks more like a ballet, than a fight.
Mount and Blade looks more like UFC fighting which is obviously the more realistic fighting, but compared to stylized Kung Fu fighting in a movie, I suppose you could call it "clunky". I think in this case people are mistaking design decisions, for bad animation.
However like Willow says, I believe that is what the Devs were going for in Mount and Blade, therefore it is by design as he said. I would not see this as a negative in a game, because personally I like watching both styles of fighting.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!