5anitybane wrote:I think the idea of giving an NPCs a lifespan in this sort of data-heavy game is nitpicking, to be honest. Just my viewpoint. Otherwise we might as well introduce hunger, having to work actual jobs in the game instead of flying around, getting fat because of snack food and having to go to space gyms.
If you disagree with the idea that NPCs in Limit Theory might have finite lifespans, that's fine, but the rest is just
Domino Fallacy. Why not let other people explain which option they prefer without trying to dismiss the discussion entirely?
For what it's worth, I don't suggest anything simply "because it would be cool." I created an opportunity for people to say what they think about different NPC lifespans because enabling limited lifespans creates some interesting gameplay possibilities. If NPCs automatically expire, that implies an expanding culture would replace them with new NPCs that potentially have different personalities, and who thus may make different choices than their predecessors. That's especially useful for shaking up established factions so that the world of Limit Theory remains dynamic.
Possibly some here might think that kind of effect is worth seeing in a game with Limit Theory's features. Others may prefer NPCs to be ageless for different positive reasons. I believe that kind of constructive discussion would be more helpful than extending "I don't like it" (which is a perfectly fair reaction) into the equivalent of "and therefore we shouldn't even be talking about it" (which IMO is not appropriate for any of us non-moderators to say to each other).
5anitybane wrote:There are things to have in these games, and things to not have. I think those notions, and the topic at hand, are superfluous; LT is not first and foremost a simulation.
I'll agree with you on the first part of that, politely disagree with you on the second part, and take strong exception to that last assertion.
Firstly, and I'm phrasing this as civilly as possible, it's not your call to say what LT is or isn't. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen someone in a game forum attempt to dictate to other interested fans what some game "isn't" going to be... meaning nothing other than "I don't want that and I don't want you even talking about it in case you accidentally convince the developer to do it." I've never cared for that kind of unauthorized effort to control a public discussion. You're free to believe whatever you like about what you think LT is or isn't going to be -- I don't plan on letting that stop me from continuing to offer courteous and constructive suggestions on this subject or anything else, as well as encouraging others to do exactly the same.
Secondly, I've also seen that specific "it's not going to be a simulation" crack made elsewhere, too, and I've never much cared for that, either. The computer game industry is staggering under the weight of one hardcoded, linear, loot-heavy, achievement-focused, grindy, mechanics-centric game-y game after another. I think it's safe to say that those games will still be there tomorrow if Limit Theory or any other game offers a more interestingly simulated world in which to play.
In fact, Limit Theory as Josh has shown it so far already has strongly simulationist features in its economy; it may also simulate some elements of hierarchical organizations. Those are more than a lot of games offer, and I think it's reasonable to believe that they open the door to other suggestions for systemic simulations of other parts of the gameworld to make them more dynamically responsive to player choices. Of course those suggestions need to make good design and practical sense... but simulationism is play. It may not be your preferred style of play, but you're not going to be the only person playing Limit Theory, nor will you be the most important player -- that would be Josh himself. He may agree with you that LT "isn't going to be a simulation" -- heck, I also assume that will be a true statement -- but "not a simulation" does not mean LT can't or won't include (and benefit from having) more strongly simulated features than most games.
Limit Theory "is" whatever Josh decides it is as he continues to develop it. If you prefer specific mechanics or anything else, awesome; suggest them. I'll do likewise for the simulationist and other features for which I think an objective case can be made that they fit this game and would improve it for many of its potential players. And then Josh can consider those suggestions, or ignore them. What I don't think we need to be doing as not-Joshes is trying to dictate to each other what kinds of suggestions are, in our opinions, out-of-bounds for this game and thus need not be posted. That's not our call, and it does nothing to promote a spirit of friendly conversation about a game we're all here to help support.
Now. Back to positive exchanges on what NPC lifespan choice we think would make LT most enjoyable for many of its players, and why, please.