Return to “Games”

Post

Re: Star Citizen and question for Josh

#781
Talvieno wrote:Lore I'm totally okay with. =P Turning it into a gameplay mechanic, and making it so you can actually lose your third person view, not so much.
Has anyone suggested that? That's not a thing that can happen in EVE Online, and it's not something I propose should happen in LT, nor do I believe this would be the case in E:D even if they did implement third-person view (which I don't believe they should).
Post

Re: Star Citizen and question for Josh

#782
I saw it suggested somewhere... I'd have to go look for it. It's possible it was E:D instead of Star Citizen. It's also possible that I got it from an unreliable source. >.> but it was suggested that they be turned into an actual gameplay mechanic, so that you could lose a "drone cam" just like you might lose any other ship system - in other words, they could be targeted and destroyed. I'm not sure what real point it would be besides annoying the heck out of other players. The people or person suggesting it supposedly justified it with "realism". (I'm sure you can tell by now that I haven't seen these comments firsthand, only secondhand, so keep that in mind. I've never been on any forum except Dwarf Fortress and LT.)
Have a question? Send me a PM! || I have a Patreon page up for REKT now! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: Star Citizen and question for Josh

#783
What's the justification behind the TPS mode on foot with your character? Floating drone behind your back, image directly to optic nerve/retina (since there is no obvious HUD over the model's eyes with the helmet off) ...for no real reason or advantage?
Do we get an explanation to what a 'main menu' is?

I find haphazardly explaining gamey elements with in-game lore a bit silly after a degree. Raises a lot more questions than answers. Why can I do that, what use does my char see from it (would love to turn off grass and particles for better visibility! or RC that drone), why can't I do the other thing (jamming your main menu - where is your god now)?
It's there because it's a convenient gameplay mechanic, and finding ways to explain it, then get that set into lore and gameplay, sounds more trouble than it's worth. *And if you don't do that, it stays immersion breaking. You have to suspend disbelief somewhere.

I like how for example Receiver handled the control scheme tutorial tape though (schematic, with the trigger labeled LMB, etc). Sometimes it just feels a bit too far-fetched.
Last edited by Mistycica on Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
panic
Post

Re: Star Citizen and question for Josh

#784
Mistycica wrote:What's the justification behind the TPS mode on foot with your character? Floating drone behind your back, image directly to optic nerve/retina (since there is no obvious HUD over the model's eyes with the helmet off) ...for no real reason or advantage?
Do we get an explanation to what a 'main menu' is?

I find haphazardly explaining gamey elements with in-game lore a bit silly after a degree. Raises a lot more questions than answers. Why can I do that, what use does my char see from it (would love to turn off grass and particles for better visibility! or RC that drone), why can't I do the other thing (jamming your main menu - where is your god now)?
It's there because it's a convenient gameplay mechanic, and finding ways to explain it, then get that set into lore and gameplay, sounds more trouble than it's worth.
+1, lol

Main menu? Main menus are for pansies that can't handle realism. No, in a good game, there is no main menu. Or options menu. :lol:
Have a question? Send me a PM! || I have a Patreon page up for REKT now! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: Star Citizen and question for Josh

#785
Mistycica wrote:What's the justification behind the TPS mode on foot with your character?
Well, I don't care enough about S:C to be involved in any design/lore-building for it. Third-person view on foot would be very hard to justify. Fortunately, there is no avatar system in LT for this to be an issue, and E:D (which seems to focus more on immersion) forces first-person view.
Mistycica wrote:image directly to optic nerve/retina (since there is no obvious HUD over the model's eyes with the helmet off)
Link. You could even replace something like this with contact lenses if you want to explain a HUD without a helmet, or even build a chip that interfaces with the optic nerve like you suggest.
Mistycica wrote:Do we get an explanation to what a 'main menu' is?
Well, since a main menu has no effect on gameplay, it doesn't need any justification IMO. Only things that have an impact on gameplay need justification in my belief.

Plausibility is not Josh's highest priority for LT, but the lore I've developed over the past six months justifies almost everything that I feel needs to be justified, for me.
Last edited by ThymineC on Tue Jun 03, 2014 6:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
Post

Re: Star Citizen and question for Josh

#789
Talvieno wrote:No, no. Hypothetically, how would you justify changing the difficulty setting ingame, as you can do in some games? Seems like a nice creative exercise, if it's even possible.
For a game like LT, I would say that you can only choose the difficulty of the game from the game creation menu (like in, say, Starsector). That way it wouldn't require any diegetic justification because it's not actively interfering with the gameplay once it's underway. It's like the difference between deism and theism; I don't subscribe to the idea myself, but I'm happy enough with the idea of deism in which some intelligent designer crafted the laws of the universe and then let it unfold on its own, whereas with theism, I find the idea of a designer who actively interferes and routinely contradicts the laws of physics that he supposedly made to be a very inelegant one.

So yeah, I'm happy with a difficulty settings menu with zero lore justification so long as it can only be accessed from the game/universe creation menu.
Post

Re: Star Citizen and question for Josh

#790
ThymineC wrote: Plausibility is not Josh's highest priority for LT, but the lore I've developed over the past six months justifies almost everything that I feel needs to be justified, for me.
That's about what I mean. Don't get me wrong, your walls of text are really entertaining and awfully educational :) I just personally somehow find even harder to suspend disbelief if there's some incomplete explanation behind an obvious gameplay mechanic than nothing at all, magic man did it. Midichlorians are a poor example, but describe the spirit of the issue. Another is Evochron, where you get shallow Dark Matter Magic waved into your face whenever you'd be curious about something.
Of course, admittedly, I'm a hard-SF nut and like my spaceships ceramic plated and rockets chemical, so I don't really care what handwavium makes a transporter tick :P I'm gonna be as goofy and over-the-top a roleplayer in SC as the setting dictates - very, very much.

About that drone-retina thing, it could work, but do I want to have my eye/brain meddled with just to see my luscious ass swaying as I stride down a corridor? Huh. The answer is a definite yes :D
panic
Post

Re: Star Citizen and question for Josh

#791
Mistycica wrote:That's about what I mean. Don't get me wrong, your walls of text are really entertaining and awfully educational :) I just personally somehow find even harder to suspend disbelief if there's some incomplete explanation behind an obvious gameplay mechanic than nothing at all, magic man did it.
I try to make it so that all the lore I put forward is consistent with itself and should completely explain something. If there isn't, feel free to point it out. Heisenberg Drive is the longest thread in the Suggestions forum, and most of the posts are discussions about the plausibility of it all.
Mistycica wrote:About that drone-retina thing, it could work, but do I want to have my eye/brain meddled with just to see my luscious ass swaying as I stride down a corridor? Huh. The answer is a definite yes :D
There's no sufficiently plausible reason why people would want to field camera drones just to watch their backs, so I'm glad it's not a feature of LT.
Post

Re: Star Citizen and question for Josh

#792
ThymineC wrote: I try to make it so that all the lore I put forward is consistent with itself and should completely explain something. If there isn't, feel free to point it out. Heisenberg Drive is the longest thread in the Suggestions forum, and most of the posts are discussions about the plausibility of it all.
Our definitions of 'plausible' don't quite meet. Yes, I'm fun at parties, although people in space sim realms like to call me unimaginative and boring :3
ThymineC wrote: There's no sufficiently plausible reason why people would want to field camera drones just to watch their backs, so I'm glad it's not a feature of LT.
I just gave you one :lol:
panic
Post

Re: Star Citizen and question for Josh

#793
Mistycica wrote:
ThymineC wrote: I try to make it so that all the lore I put forward is consistent with itself and should completely explain something. If there isn't, feel free to point it out. Heisenberg Drive is the longest thread in the Suggestions forum, and most of the posts are discussions about the plausibility of it all.
Our definitions of 'plausible' don't quite meet. Yes, I'm fun at parties, although people in space sim realms like to call me unimaginative and boring :3
Then can you give a more plausible explanation for semi-Newtonian flight mechanics in space?
Mistycica wrote:
ThymineC wrote: There's no sufficiently plausible reason why people would want to field camera drones just to watch their backs, so I'm glad it's not a feature of LT.
I just gave you one :lol:
Like you said, our definitions of 'plausible' don't quite meet.
Post

Re: Star Citizen and question for Josh

#794
ThymineC wrote: Then can you give a more plausible explanation for semi-Newtonian flight mechanics in space?
Sure. Just scrap the 'semi' part and there you have it :3
Now, I understand completely that going omgsoreal not practical in a game for a myriad of reasons, but this is about plausibility and the amount of it I tend to accept as a legitimate explanation. Bending the rules is right out of the question.

Your idea is very much a single invented principle (H-fields), a 'one big lie' used by Mass Effect (Element Zero) and Firefly (gravity projection) for example (or Singularity or Freefall or...). I'm fond of softer sci-fi, have nothing against it, enjoy it a lot, but it doesn't fit into my brackets of 'realistic' or 'believeable'. Practically applied muon-catalysed fusion is one of the far-fetched things I call plausible.

I suspend disbelief, have a blast, and marvel in the ingenuity of fantasy-science writers, be it LT, SC, or something as outrageous as Star Trek - though my focus is rarely on 'what drives this thing', I don't feel it's the point of sci-fi as a whole. But I'm boring when it comes to 'serious' nerding about, because I just leave so little leeway to fantasy.
panic
Post

Re: Star Citizen and question for Josh

#795
Mistycica wrote:
ThymineC wrote: Then can you give a more plausible explanation for semi-Newtonian flight mechanics in space?
Sure. Just scrap the 'semi' part and there you have it :3
Now, I understand completely that going omgsoreal not practical in a game for a myriad of reasons, but this is about plausibility and the amount of it I tend to accept as a legitimate explanation. Bending the rules is right out of the question.
No, I'm asking for a justification of the Limit Theory flight model, where ships act as if they have drag constantly applied to them. How would you explain why ships fly the way they do in Limit Theory? I mean, I guess you would just not want to try and leave it as it is, but I need reasons for things.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron