Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsSHINAN'S PROFILE
Shinan
4314
Close
I'm Shinan.
Search
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
NPC Dialogue.
I'd say the best thing for unimportant NPCs to go for is the Baldur's Gate way where they all say the same thing and you get the same information from them. Such as you go to random peasant #5 they say something like "hi" and the dialogue options are "rumours" and "thxbye". And then you have a set number of rumours they say randomly.
Five Random Thoughts About Video Games.
- I wish games had more humour. Genuinely funny games are so rare. Portal was a great exception and it got lots of love. Before that there were LucasArts' adventure games and that's about it.
- Hardcore games suck.
- Loading times before the games start. How I hate them. I know there has to be some kind of loading for everything nowadays but I remember back in the NES days where, once you pressed POWER, were half a second away from getting going at the first level. Nowadays there are fifteen splash screens before you even get a chance at pressing start. And that's after going through all the interfaces to start the games.
- Hardcore gamers whine too much.
- Music games is the best thing since sliced bread. If only they didn't need hundreds of periferals.
- Co-op is the new black.
- Games take too much space. 8+GB to install is just stupid. Why can't people make smaller games?
- Hardcore games suck.
- Loading times before the games start. How I hate them. I know there has to be some kind of loading for everything nowadays but I remember back in the NES days where, once you pressed POWER, were half a second away from getting going at the first level. Nowadays there are fifteen splash screens before you even get a chance at pressing start. And that's after going through all the interfaces to start the games.
- Hardcore gamers whine too much.
- Music games is the best thing since sliced bread. If only they didn't need hundreds of periferals.
- Co-op is the new black.
- Games take too much space. 8+GB to install is just stupid. Why can't people make smaller games?
The Sword or the Pen: Your Character's Weapon Preference in RPGs
I like swords.
Sword have no place in modern settings though. Except ornamental swords of course. But they're not really useful for anyone except obsessive people. Even in close quarters knives are usually better. Though I suppose swords have a deterring effect. No one gets in a bar brawl with someone who is wearing a sword.
In fantasy I love swords. A sword is the ultimate back-up weapon. Weapon for those with slightly more money than the peasants. I can't imagine an officer without some kind of sword. (even if it's just a short one to be combined with his mighty longbow) I understand that the peasants can get their spears and that's that but if you're a hero you're nothing if you don't have a sword.
Except if you're carrying a battleaxe, have a beard and like to chew on mushrooms of course.
Axes have one advantage over swords in that they can be used for other stuff than battling. But actually even better is one of those shovels with one sharp end that you can cut firewood with. With a shovel like that you can dig a trench, chop firewood AND cut off people's heads.
All you need to be armed with after that is a bucket.
Sword have no place in modern settings though. Except ornamental swords of course. But they're not really useful for anyone except obsessive people. Even in close quarters knives are usually better. Though I suppose swords have a deterring effect. No one gets in a bar brawl with someone who is wearing a sword.
In fantasy I love swords. A sword is the ultimate back-up weapon. Weapon for those with slightly more money than the peasants. I can't imagine an officer without some kind of sword. (even if it's just a short one to be combined with his mighty longbow) I understand that the peasants can get their spears and that's that but if you're a hero you're nothing if you don't have a sword.
Except if you're carrying a battleaxe, have a beard and like to chew on mushrooms of course.
Axes have one advantage over swords in that they can be used for other stuff than battling. But actually even better is one of those shovels with one sharp end that you can cut firewood with. With a shovel like that you can dig a trench, chop firewood AND cut off people's heads.
All you need to be armed with after that is a bucket.
History of RPG's Part I: Early RPG's
Story Developement: Killing off Characters
author=Shadowtext link=topic=1441.msg23180#msg23180 date=1215558858There is a slight missing of the point there I think. Of course the assumption I make is that the game's story and the gameplay are fairly separate (they usually are. I'm all for integrating them as much as possible but let's be honest it never happens). How does a game sequence become less fun if the payoff at the end is the death of a character compared to if the payoff at the end is the survival of a character?author=Shinan link=topic=1441.msg23179#msg23179 date=1215557685So what you're saying is that the player has to bust his ass to save a character who ends up dying anyway? Yeah, making a player waste his time sounds like a great way to keep them entertained.
Also my favourite deaths are the pointless ones. Some character has been captured and you have to save him before he is executed. Well guess what he was executed before you got to him. Your unit is fighting in a battle and some people died in that battle. Just pierced by a random arrow or impaled by a knight's lance.
If you take the storytelling perspective offing a character or two will always affect the survivors. Their demeanor change. Their goals in life change. Everything changes. If you don't off the character things will go an as they had before. Offing is probably the easiest way of doing character development (it might be a substitute for good writing even. And usually a pretty good substitute "Everything is too static. Let's kill someone")
So yeah. It is a great way of keeping them entertained.
Story Developement: Killing off Characters
I really like it when people die. In books, movies, TV-series...
Games? I probably would. If it ever happened. Gameplay permanent character death is something I support except for the fact that I always end up doing the whole "reload routine" if that happens. Iron Man mode is good and all but sometimes you just have to have certain people around. (usually a game balance issue. Nine times of ten you need a full party to have any chance of survival anywhere. Which is unfortunate).
Of course this topic was about story offings. Which I fully support even more so than gameplay character death because you can't reload a story offing. Except if it's an optional offing in which case the cause for it should be so far back and dependent on so many choices that reloading shouldn't be an option until you play the second time with the walkthrough that tells you "how to play the game without X dying".
Whenever important characters a killed off in books, movies and TV-series it's always pretty heavy (except in TV-series where all offings always happen near the season finale if they happen at all. This completely understandable because of contracts and stuff)
I think that if you are going to kill off major character you need to set it up so that minor characters die first. That means that you need to establish that this is an environment where people actually die. I find that this is very rarely the case in games. No one except those enemies on the world map seems to die anywhere which makes the impact of Important Character Death seem weird and out of place.
If you've established early on that people in this setting WILL die from time to time (apart from the mandatory Attack on Home in the beginning) an important death will not seem out of place.
Also my favourite deaths are the pointless ones. Some character has been captured and you have to save him before he is executed. Well guess what he was executed before you got to him. Your unit is fighting in a battle and some people died in that battle. Just pierced by a random arrow or impaled by a knight's lance.
Deaths without meaning are the best deaths. They are not part of any grander scheme but they show that death is very real and is a real threat in the world. And is something that makes the player character more careful.
Of course main characters should rarely be killed off. Everyone around him (or her) may die but not the main character. Even if he survives the strangest of events you can always think of it as the main character telling a story. Which means that he survived all of this and is now telling the story in question. There's always a couple of survivors, no matter how unlikely it may be.
Of course occasionally the point of the game is to change main characters and kill off people a bit like in some kind of relay run, focusing on an area or an object that gets passed around instead. But you should probably kill off the first main character very early on to show the player what kind of game it is. Because if you do it too far in the player will only be pissed.
So yeah. I like death. In huge amounts preferably.
Games? I probably would. If it ever happened. Gameplay permanent character death is something I support except for the fact that I always end up doing the whole "reload routine" if that happens. Iron Man mode is good and all but sometimes you just have to have certain people around. (usually a game balance issue. Nine times of ten you need a full party to have any chance of survival anywhere. Which is unfortunate).
Of course this topic was about story offings. Which I fully support even more so than gameplay character death because you can't reload a story offing. Except if it's an optional offing in which case the cause for it should be so far back and dependent on so many choices that reloading shouldn't be an option until you play the second time with the walkthrough that tells you "how to play the game without X dying".
Whenever important characters a killed off in books, movies and TV-series it's always pretty heavy (except in TV-series where all offings always happen near the season finale if they happen at all. This completely understandable because of contracts and stuff)
I think that if you are going to kill off major character you need to set it up so that minor characters die first. That means that you need to establish that this is an environment where people actually die. I find that this is very rarely the case in games. No one except those enemies on the world map seems to die anywhere which makes the impact of Important Character Death seem weird and out of place.
If you've established early on that people in this setting WILL die from time to time (apart from the mandatory Attack on Home in the beginning) an important death will not seem out of place.
Also my favourite deaths are the pointless ones. Some character has been captured and you have to save him before he is executed. Well guess what he was executed before you got to him. Your unit is fighting in a battle and some people died in that battle. Just pierced by a random arrow or impaled by a knight's lance.
Deaths without meaning are the best deaths. They are not part of any grander scheme but they show that death is very real and is a real threat in the world. And is something that makes the player character more careful.
Of course main characters should rarely be killed off. Everyone around him (or her) may die but not the main character. Even if he survives the strangest of events you can always think of it as the main character telling a story. Which means that he survived all of this and is now telling the story in question. There's always a couple of survivors, no matter how unlikely it may be.
Of course occasionally the point of the game is to change main characters and kill off people a bit like in some kind of relay run, focusing on an area or an object that gets passed around instead. But you should probably kill off the first main character very early on to show the player what kind of game it is. Because if you do it too far in the player will only be pissed.
So yeah. I like death. In huge amounts preferably.
What makes you play an RPG more than once?
Length and alternative paths are the major factors in me replaying an RPG. The longer the RPG the less likely I am to ever play it again. The more alternative paths there are the more likely I am to play it again.
There's really only been a few RPGs I've replayed from start to finish. However there are many I have restarted multipler times. The ones I've played through more than once are Vampire Bloodlines and Deus Ex. Both were short enough to replay and also had action elements making it fun to play. And while both were a bit linear they had loads of alternative paths to take (playing Vampire as a Malkavian or Nosferatu changed it a lot)
The games I've restarted a lot are the Fallouts and Arcanum, where I tend to start up to try out a new character, play for a while. Then forget. Then when I come back some ages later I restart it again because I can't remember what I was supposed to do.
My ideal RPG would be a multiple-path two-hour RPG with loads and loads of character builds and meaningful choices.
There's really only been a few RPGs I've replayed from start to finish. However there are many I have restarted multipler times. The ones I've played through more than once are Vampire Bloodlines and Deus Ex. Both were short enough to replay and also had action elements making it fun to play. And while both were a bit linear they had loads of alternative paths to take (playing Vampire as a Malkavian or Nosferatu changed it a lot)
The games I've restarted a lot are the Fallouts and Arcanum, where I tend to start up to try out a new character, play for a while. Then forget. Then when I come back some ages later I restart it again because I can't remember what I was supposed to do.
My ideal RPG would be a multiple-path two-hour RPG with loads and loads of character builds and meaningful choices.
Moon-hoax hoax
author=myersguy link=topic=1188.msg17842#msg17842 date=1211859877I doubt you have more than this though.
I have a lot more evidence against the moon landing than anything of which has been said here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_conspiracy_theories#Hoax_claims_examined
Guess the Game!!!
Indigo Prophecy my ass. Syberia is what it's called. (Or actually I think this is Syberia 2 if google images are correct)
Edit:(And Sion, your pic doesn't show up for me but the game is Rondo of Swords)
Edit2: I bet you can't guess this one:
Edit:(And Sion, your pic doesn't show up for me but the game is Rondo of Swords)
Edit2: I bet you can't guess this one:
Games - Tester
Games - Other
