S. F. LAVALLE'S PROFILE

comment=37201
See, the thing about profanity is that they are (more often than not) colloquial slang or used as blasphemy (against the local religion). Unless the medieval game is set in Earth (and even more specific - Europe), I find common swear words such as "fuck" or "hell" or "goddamn" to be really out of place, since they are so integrated with our culture.

If you are crafting your own culture and setting, it would be natural to create your own religion and slang and swear words to go with it.

At the same time, I can feel alienated with created slang. I can typically deal with, "By Draco!" where Draco is some culture's deity, but if a character tells my hero to "go stuff a snicker," I'm going to be too distracted by it to follow the flow of the narrative and merely understand that I was told to screw myself. I don't know, that's just me.

I'm sorry you feel that way, Max. I never meant what I said in any negative way, and I know this is a lot more than just me, but does it bother you that much that your game isn't for everyone? Like I said, it's very likely a solid product in its own rite, and I believe every word you said about manhours spent testing, re-testing, and beta-testing the game. I believe everything you said about the perfectly-tuned difficulty and the testers' comments to that effect. I believe you about the stylistic choices in the writing (which is really a non-issue, I honestly feel comments to that effect have kinda degenerated into a "lol, Legion game, gotta have F--K F--K F--K!" of which I am also guilty, but I would never seriously lower my opinion on a game on something like that).

All that being said, is it really important to you to please people like Soli and I who aren't interested in that brand of difficulty? To that end I understand why you might feel it unfair that he post a review if he doesn't like the style of your game, but that's a fault of opinion and free speech, and your testers are welcome to give us more insight on their gameplay experiences in reviews of their own. If you'd really like to, we could discuss further my expectations of difficulty or acceptable standards, but I just don't feel it necessary, compared to Soli's comments and your taut responses to them. The "sweet spot" of difficulty is not universal, and while you may have achieved that in context to the style of gameplay in To Arms!, it's not going to be for everyone.

Let me be clear: I do not doubt the quality of To Arms! as you've described it. I believe every word you've said in its defense. In this tread, I have been provided with enough information to conclude that the game merely isn't one that I'd enjoy. And while I didn't need to create a wall of text explaining that, I wanted to give you the opportunity of witnessing the mindset behind how I came to that conclusion so that I could let you be the judge of whether or not it affects how you design or market your games.

Less importantly:

I acknowledge your accomplishments, and never meant to place you in a level amongst us who are truly amateurs, by definition. Setting aside technicalities and pride, I only meant to suggest that those here who aren't familiar with you and/or your published works are likely to view the game as any other on RMN: an amateur effort. I don't find amateur to be derogatory in any way, but I suppose if I had continued school and obtained a doctorate, I'd probably be a little disappointed when I wasn't addressed as doctor. Regardless, the opinion I gave above has nothing to do with you, and is out of your control, so please don't be disheartened by it.

Back on the topic of stylistic choices regarding dialogue, I want to de-emphasize the impact it really has on me. Yes, I watch movies, TV, read an occasional book, and even play an occasional game with cursing out the ears. I was de-sensitized to it a long time ago. As I got older and more mature, I actually began to re-sensitize. I'll explain, but know that this is just the opinion of a single individual and could be entirely ridiculous to yourself and others. Feel free to ignore.

I don't have unrealistic expectations for cursing and violence. Like you said, I expect stories about soldiers or other bromance ensembles like sports teams to obtain various levels of cursing. It's about immersion, you're supposed to believe characters are acting as they would in real life in the same circumstances. Sometimes it's done well, sometimes it isn't. In particular, there's the PG-13 phenomenon. Generally speaking, you're allowed one or two f-bombs in PG-13 movies without pressure to remove them (very few exceptions to this, like Hardball). Because of that, PG-13 movies always seem to have the one or two f-bombs almost out of obligation. See Yes Man as an example, one is bleeped out for cheap comedy which I thought was a little tasteless, and I think there's another in the movie given by Jim Carrey. Really, the movie isn't made any better by these words, and I think it detracts from the writing and the character, who spends another 90 minutes not saying the word.

You didn't address the fact that this particular case is medieval fantasy, probably because you expect the level of cursing to be the same amongst soldiers and mercenaries, which is fine. As a sidenote, I was also going to comment earlier that I'm not a big fan of made-up curses, or idioms for that matter. The content as a whole needs to be well-written and I need to be drawn in by everything else going on. Then, I will eventually accept the different vernacular (much like you mentioned with Shadowrun). Thing with medieval fantasy, or really anything else that isn't set in the modern world, is that you can define the limits yourself as to what's believable and what's not. I think we as consumers tend to follow archetypes to draw our own conclusions as to what and what isn't acceptable dialogue. For example, Lord of the Rings. The dialogue was written as the consumers might expect to hear from the characters, and the lines were delivered with a weight that also supports our expectations. Personally, I think the dialogue was much too dry and rigid. The only memorable performance was Gandalf, who often spoke and delivered his lines in a whimsical manner that was true to the books.

Anyway, my own thought on the matter is to not add cursing (heavier stuff) unless it's deeply characteristic (and this point is highly arguable, I can hear them now). I'd much prefer to get immersed in the characters by the meat of what they say, but to each his own. Max didn't do anything wrong, it's just a style choice. One screenshot comes to mind where Janos(?) says something like, "Well, what the F--K do you want me to do about it, eh?" It's a very natural sentence, something we'd expect just about any potty-mouth to say. I wonder, though, if "f--k" was left un-capitalized, would it suggest a different intonation? Something that flows uninhibited out of the mouth of a mercenary as easily as the the other words that construct the sentence? Depends on the context, I'm sure. Just a ramble, not a criticism.

My thoughts on stuff that's been discussed (which are worth 38 makerscore more than you other guys).

First, about language. I'm a big fan of A Song of Ice and Fire. I eagerly await the fifth book in the series. The content of the books themselves are very adult, and this comes with its share of profanity, including "f--k." Though it doesn't occur incredibly often, I've seen it used primarily in context to the act of fornicating (thus, as a verb). Even that was a little jarring, but I'm well past that now.

Two things. One, I'm sure that it's been used for centuries, but I'm not quite convinced that it's been used to color sentences so much as it is today, i.e. "what the f--k" and "mind your f--king business." I'm not saying it hasn't, but it does pull me away from my suspension of belief. Which brings me to point two. It's unfair, but I think amateur writers, particularly for amateur games and even more so for writers of medieval fantasy games, are subjected to higher scrutiny for their choices. Language in particular, one who reads hard cursing from an amateur writer becomes critical, wondering if the writer just did it to make it edgy. When you read it in paperback, people aren't that critical, because hey, it's published and sitting in your hands, the guy had to know what he was doing.

It's a design choice, and a valid one. But people bring attention to it because it genuinely does bring them out of the narrative. Like said above, people are used to playing games and reading stories that make no use of this profanity, regardless of historical accuracy. That said, it's a design choice that should best befit the maker's intention, and I don't doubt that's what Max is doing.

Second, while I don't disagree with the concept of the "vx effect," I'm loathe to say it really applies here. I believe that Max is really using the strengths of the maker to produce the product he wants to make. Have what opinion you will about the quality of the games, I think it's more likely that with the much wider boundaries VX has placed on RPG creation, it's more difficult to clearly focus on the creative aspects of doing so.

And lastly, the debate about the gameplay itself. While reading more of Max's comments and his defense of how tight the balance is in the game, something occurred to me. As he asked dissenters to take some more time and try different party make-ups and skill builds and see if you get (un)lucky each time, I had to ask myself: why? It's not that I don't believe Max or think that such a high risk of death was his intent, or anything like that. In fact I'm willing to believe the game plays exactly as Max intended.

So, I'm not going to play it. I'm not going to spend the time to try different class combinations or different builds to see if I will succeed. If I did, then I would be spending x frustrating hours playing the game the way Max wanted it to be played. He would achieve what he sought to do, while I will have gained nothing, or at worst, felt like I had wasted my time. While I would have been willing to do this to offer feedback or a review like the dutiful Solitayre does all the time, I merely don't see the need. Any review I could possibly have to offer would be negative, and feedback would be dismissed (again, not because Max doesn't care, but because the gameplay experience I would have disliked so much is intentional).

We're talking in extremes here. If I may, I'd like to focus this discussion to what Soli feels to be a core issue, and hear Max's response.

Personally, I'd expect someone to get their ass handed to them if they ran into difficult fights with four berserkers (or what have you). 99% of people, I wager, have the intelligence to know that you need balance in a party, even if it boils down to archetypes like the tank, the healer, the damage-dealer, the party support, etc. Soli gets this too. So let's examine his party make-up:

Deciding to branch out and cover a range of classes, I picked a pikeman, a knight, an archer, and a war priest.

Sounds reasonable. There is a variety of offense types, a class that is supposed to be able to draw incoming attacks and take the hits, and a healer. If I were making a new party, this party wouldn't be at all unreasonable, and could very well be my first choice. What I'd like Max to do is explain what the problem is with this set up, if he sees any, and how he would proceed through missions with them.

Another experience with RPG's I have is in regards to character builds. Perhaps Soli could go more into what skills he purchased with his characters. Depending on how the game is built, there's different ways I'd approach building up my characters. If purchased skills unlock the path to more powerful skills, then my builds typically follow that course. That is to say, I will stick with a single progression path to gain the more powerful skills more quickly. If this is not the case with the game, and gaining skills is like Tactics where all skills are available immediately, then I would simply peruse the skills to see what provides the most benefit the soonest. Soli mentioned he purchased a knight skill that increases the knight's threat. I credit Max with the assumption that it does have an effect, and it is functional, but design choice in its implementation could mean the difference between seeing its effect and not.

So, how about it, Max? Using the party make-up above, could you tell us how we could achieve success? Which skills should be learned to make the best use of those classes?

Furthermore, could you go into a little more detail about the change in gameplay experience we can expect with exercising variety with party make-ups? Is there any party with a healer type and another support type character (including either back-up healing or damage mitigation) that couldn't be made to work?

I really fail to see the issue here. That is, I understand what people are saying, but I really don't think it's justified.

Solitayre was very open about his bias to the game's content. It's a bias most of us share. But was that bias the basis for his review score? Did you guys read his review? He pointed out very real and debilitating flaws in the gameplay. Are you saying we should forgive bad game design for serious subject matter? If this game was absolutely harmless, say it were about catching butterflies in various traps, massaging them with fragrant oils that butterflies just happen to love, and releasing them back into the wild. Would you play a game like that with the same gameplay elements described here?

I know there's more to it than that, a lot of games can easily be deemed more enjoyable with a great story and characters. And it sounds as though Calunio factored this in when the game was made, he had intentions for Verge and Daily, and even the victims who were described in a way necessary to provoke a reaction from the player. That being said, I don't find it hard to believe given the subject matter that there was a failure to make the emotional connection with the player. If we're meant to empathize with Verge, but the things said and actions taken in the game give us no reason to do so, then we're left with a protagonist that we're repulsed by. Yes, Calunio took risks in attempting this, but there's an incredibly thin line here if it exists, and I would expect anyone to fail.

There's a feeling in this community like we should give people points for trying. Why? Give points that represent the creation as a whole. RECOGNIZE that the person tried and explain why it failed. Solitayre did exactly this.