Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

A bit more realism please.

SengiSengi HamburgPosts: 350Member

Almost every video game is a simulation to some extent. In games like lets say Super Mario World the whole game world does not make much sense at all but there are at least basic laws of physics in place like gravity.

Your standard sword & sorcery mmo on the other hand is much more based in reality. Everything is basically the same as in our world except there is magic and dragons and stuff. There is suspension of disbelief, but the world in itself makes sense. Magic is not just there but it influences many aspects of the world. Also not everything has to be diehard realistic but basically a sword is a sword and a guy us a guy.

 

But my point is that there are many game mechanics in place that are so blatantly unrealistic and contradict basic laws of physics or human endurance. Some are there for convenience and some are just here because it has always been that way I think.

 

My favourite one is the heath mechanic. This is really an important part in a game that evolves around fighting. Mmos borrow the concept of health points from D&D, and this is already an extreme simplified and artificial system. Mmos add to this that you replenish health absurdly fast. The character goes from near dead to full health in 5 seconds without any magic involved. I can’t see how this resembles someone having a sword run thought his shoulder in any way. It would be ok if there was at least an in game explanation for this. Imagine what impact it would have on the world if everyone was essentially like Wolverine.   

Of course no one wants a diehard realistic system, but there must be a way to represent wounds in a way that at least make it recognisable what this mechanic resembles. Also there are no visible wounds or disability caused by being almost dead. The character is well up with 1 hp, and then he suddenly drops dead.

 

I have made a list of other mechanics that are also inconsistent in the same way:

  • Respawning: No one wants permadeath so the character needs to come back to life somehow. But there needs to be an in game explanation. Don’t you think that people would at least talk about it if people would be resurrected all the time?
  • Food: In mmos food either replenishes health or it grants buffs, but this is not what food actually does, right? There could be a lot of gameplay about producing food and starvation, and this would also be a nice gold-drain.
  • Fall damage: Why are character able to drop from absurd heights without damage, just to make it easier to get around?
  • Endurance: Why not have an endurance mechanic? No one can run and fight forever. This would apply to mobs and make some interesting fighting tactics
  • Mob and npc behaviour: Does the game really need mobs that are as dump as a bucket of shrimp even if the resemble a sane human, and npcs that stand in one spot for eternity? Ultima 5 hat npcs go to bed at night.
  • Too many trash-mobs: A monster is only worth of its name if it is dangerous; otherwise we normally refer to it as vermin. What is the point of being attacked by all this pushover mobs all the time? Why don’t they run away?
  • Unrealistic loot drops: Why did this wolf have 30gp and a pair chain gauntlet? 
  • Too few usable items: I still can’t get over it how gw2 is missing something as basic as sitting in chairs. There are a lot of chairs everywhere even thrones but no one can sit in it.
  • Overscaled Buildings: The camera position over the characters head makes is necessary for every doorway to be 15 foot high.
  • Swimming and jumping around in full platemail

I’m sure there are lots of other game mechanics like this but ill leave it with that for now.

«13

Comments

  • asdarasdar Tequesta, FLPosts: 662Member Uncommon

    I agree with your first sentence or two and not with almost every other comment. Some of the examples I don't so much as disagree as think the devs do have them in game, such as falling damage in most games.

    For me the realism that I want is damage, like you said and I want them to take away everything that glows or floats in the air. No floating exclamation marks for quests, no anything.

    I also do agree with you on the stationary NPCs, and NPC behavior.

    Asdar

  • StonesDKStonesDK SomewherePosts: 1,805Member

    Although I don't agree with your examples I do agree with the overall sentiments. Things have to make sense in the world they are created. It doesn't have to mimic real life but it does have to make sense within the realm it exist.

     

    Just to give an example: Wizards being physically weak because they spent lifetimes researching scrolls and reading books, not having time to go to the gym and lift weights to become strong enough to wield a 2h axe. Same goes for a warrior who spent his life training with various weapons building his strength and stamina not having time to go to the library. It makes zero sense to me to see a wizard in plate fighting with heavy swords while casting fireballs and lightning, simply because little jimmy wants total freedom in his games to make characters the way he wants them to.

  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member
    Go support project universe dude, that's what you mostly want.

    image
  • VaporsVapors Fr.Posts: 407Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Sengi

    Almost every video game is a simulation to some extent. In games like lets say Super Mario World the whole game world does not make much sense at all but there are at least basic laws of physics in place like gravity.

    Your standard sword & sorcery mmo on the other hand is much more based in reality. Everything is basically the same as in our world except there is magic and dragons and stuff. There is suspension of disbelief, but the world in itself makes sense. Magic is not just there but it influences many aspects of the world. Also not everything has to be diehard realistic but basically a sword is a sword and a guy us a guy.

     

    But my point is that there are many game mechanics in place that are so blatantly unrealistic and contradict basic laws of physics or human endurance. Some are there for convenience and some are just here because it has always been that way I think.

     

    My favourite one is the heath mechanic. This is really an important part in a game that evolves around fighting. Mmos borrow the concept of health points from D&D, and this is already an extreme simplified and artificial system. Mmos add to this that you replenish health absurdly fast. The character goes from near dead to full health in 5 seconds without any magic involved. I can’t see how this resembles someone having a sword run thought his shoulder in any way. It would be ok if there was at least an in game explanation for this. Imagine what impact it would have on the world if everyone was essentially like Wolverine.   

    Of course no one wants a diehard realistic system, but there must be a way to represent wounds in a way that at least make it recognisable what this mechanic resembles. Also there are no visible wounds or disability caused by being almost dead. The character is well up with 1 hp, and then he suddenly drops dead.

     

    I have made a list of other mechanics that are also inconsistent in the same way:

    • Respawning: No one wants permadeath so the character needs to come back to life somehow. But there needs to be an in game explanation. Don’t you think that people would at least talk about it if people would be resurrected all the time?
    • Food: In mmos food either replenishes health or it grants buffs, but this is not what food actually does, right? There could be a lot of gameplay about producing food and starvation, and this would also be a nice gold-drain.
    • Fall damage: Why are character able to drop from absurd heights without damage, just to make it easier to get around?
    • Endurance: Why not have an endurance mechanic? No one can run and fight forever. This would apply to mobs and make some interesting fighting tactics
    • Mob and npc behaviour: Does the game really need mobs that are as dump as a bucket of shrimp even if the resemble a sane human, and npcs that stand in one spot for eternity? Ultima 5 hat npcs go to bed at night.
    • Too many trash-mobs: A monster is only worth of its name if it is dangerous; otherwise we normally refer to it as vermin. What is the point of being attacked by all this pushover mobs all the time? Why don’t they run away?
    • Unrealistic loot drops: Why did this wolf have 30gp and a pair chain gauntlet? 
    • Too few usable items: I still can’t get over it how gw2 is missing something as basic as sitting in chairs. There are a lot of chairs everywhere even thrones but no one can sit in it.
    • Overscaled Buildings: The camera position over the characters head makes is necessary for every doorway to be 15 foot high.
    • Swimming and jumping around in full platemail

    I’m sure there are lots of other game mechanics like this but ill leave it with that for now.

    I really hope TESO will be like Skyrim, which had realistic loots and not so many trash mobs at all.

    This is really a good point you mention there.

  • StonesDKStonesDK SomewherePosts: 1,805Member
    Originally posted by Sengi
    • Too many trash-mobs: A monster is only worth of its name if it is dangerous; otherwise we normally refer to it as vermin. What is the point of being attacked by all this pushover mobs all the time? Why don’t they run away?

    Trash mobs has several purposes. One of them is an arbitrary way to make a character feel he is growing stronger when he advances. Many MMOs have mechanics that turns aggression off when you out-level it. WoW for instance will let you walk past trivial mobs once you are X amount of levels ahead.

     

    I can understand why people dislike these "pointless" encounters but the fact is, there are a lot of people who actually likes the idea of having trivial encounters they can steam-roll once they level past it. Just like there are a lot of people who likes the idea of having content that's too hard, motivating you to level up and advance. There's a reason why a lot of people hate level scaling

     

    If you want a "realistic" reason why trash mobs attack you when they are clearly outmatched is simple. They have no concept of strong vs weak. Plenty of things will attack you in nature even though you are the top of the food chain.

  • austriacusaustriacus limaPosts: 624Member
    Originally posted by StonesDK

    Although I don't agree with your examples I do agree with the overall sentiments. Things have to make sense in the world they are created. It doesn't have to mimic real life but it does have to make sense within the realm it exist.

     

    Just to give an example: Wizards being physically weak because they spent lifetimes researching scrolls and reading books, not having time to go to the gym and lift weights to become strong enough to wield a 2h axe. Same goes for a warrior who spent his life training with various weapons building his strength and stamina not having time to go to the library. It makes zero sense to me to see a wizard in plate fighting with heavy swords while casting fireballs and lightning, simply because little jimmy wants total freedom in his games to make characters the way he wants them to.

    Why? Those ideas are made up in your head. In reality a lot of the greatest warriors have been great thinkers and had a balanced life of swordpractice and dwelled in the arts.

    Julio Cesar, Miyamoto Mushashi, Richard I, hell you think Sun Tzu was a weaksauce person? Most generals were great warriors and great thinkers

    So why cant a Strong warrior be smart and know magic in his world and a magician be physically fit? Humans are not so black n white.

    Solely focusing on something like you suggest is very min maxy and only happens in games, not int he real world.

  • asrlohzasrlohz UddevallaPosts: 645Member

    Some of those ideas were alright but a lot of them would alienate a great portion of the market. I would love to get debuffs for not eating and increase the usefulness of a chef profession but I'm afraid that most people just find that boring. Some may even compare it to a virtual pet system.

     

    And extreme fall damage will be really problematic to design because most MMO's (and games) can't differ falling from skidding down a slope. I'd say that the best way to handle these things are by debuffs. If you take a critical hit to a certain bodypart you receive a debuff for say left-handed shieldblocks or something. But in the end it would become massively annoying for people because five lucky hits could spell doom for any skirmish. I might love playing stealth classes but I shiver at what imbalance backstabbing would bring.

    image
  • asrlohzasrlohz UddevallaPosts: 645Member
    Originally posted by austriacus
    Originally posted by StonesDK

    Although I don't agree with your examples I do agree with the overall sentiments. Things have to make sense in the world they are created. It doesn't have to mimic real life but it does have to make sense within the realm it exist.

     

    Just to give an example: Wizards being physically weak because they spent lifetimes researching scrolls and reading books, not having time to go to the gym and lift weights to become strong enough to wield a 2h axe. Same goes for a warrior who spent his life training with various weapons building his strength and stamina not having time to go to the library. It makes zero sense to me to see a wizard in plate fighting with heavy swords while casting fireballs and lightning, simply because little jimmy wants total freedom in his games to make characters the way he wants them to.

    Why? Those ideas are made up in your head. In reality a lot of the greatest warriors have been great thinkers and had a balanced life of swordpractice and dwelled in the arts.

    Julio Cesar, Miyamoto Mushashi, Richard I, hell you think Sun Tzu was a weaksauce person? Most generals were great warriors and great thinkers

    So why cant a Strong warrior be smart and know magic in his world and a magician be physically fit? Humans are not so black n white.

    On the other hand, all of those people lead armies as well. Any man can fall prey to bad luck. Attila the Hun wasn't necessarily any stronger than his soldiers.

    image
  • LivnthedreamLivnthedream Salt Lake City, UTPosts: 555Member

    Except all games are not simulation. Some games are art. Some games are designed to evoke certain feelings. Some games are nothing but a dialogue between the creator and the player working through a particular problem. Dr Mario for example was most certainly not a simulation of how to be a doctor.

    As for your list, generally most of that is skipped because frankly, most do not find them fun. Look at http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/260688528/clang for example. Its a neat idea, but to the vast majority it does not look like fun. There is far too much Hollywood ninja bullshit in the general populace to think that looks badass.

  • austriacusaustriacus limaPosts: 624Member
    Originally posted by asrlohz
    Originally posted by austriacus
    Originally posted by StonesDK

    Although I don't agree with your examples I do agree with the overall sentiments. Things have to make sense in the world they are created. It doesn't have to mimic real life but it does have to make sense within the realm it exist.

     

    Just to give an example: Wizards being physically weak because they spent lifetimes researching scrolls and reading books, not having time to go to the gym and lift weights to become strong enough to wield a 2h axe. Same goes for a warrior who spent his life training with various weapons building his strength and stamina not having time to go to the library. It makes zero sense to me to see a wizard in plate fighting with heavy swords while casting fireballs and lightning, simply because little jimmy wants total freedom in his games to make characters the way he wants them to.

    Why? Those ideas are made up in your head. In reality a lot of the greatest warriors have been great thinkers and had a balanced life of swordpractice and dwelled in the arts.

    Julio Cesar, Miyamoto Mushashi, Richard I, hell you think Sun Tzu was a weaksauce person? Most generals were great warriors and great thinkers

    So why cant a Strong warrior be smart and know magic in his world and a magician be physically fit? Humans are not so black n white.

    On the other hand, all of those people lead armies as well. Any man can fall prey to bad luck. Attila the Hun wasn't necessarily any stronger than his soldiers.

    Neither is one character fom one another save some overpowered loot, for all intent and purposes our characters are just strong and dedicated soldiers,  and leaders. After all what is a hero if not someone who leads the rest of the world to the light?

    Also Attila de Hun was indeed stronger that a bunch of his soldiers, the Huns wouldnt follow a weak leader. He wasnt the best of the best, but by no means was he average.

  • StonesDKStonesDK SomewherePosts: 1,805Member
    Originally posted by austriacus
    Originally posted by StonesDK

    Although I don't agree with your examples I do agree with the overall sentiments. Things have to make sense in the world they are created. It doesn't have to mimic real life but it does have to make sense within the realm it exist.

     

    Just to give an example: Wizards being physically weak because they spent lifetimes researching scrolls and reading books, not having time to go to the gym and lift weights to become strong enough to wield a 2h axe. Same goes for a warrior who spent his life training with various weapons building his strength and stamina not having time to go to the library. It makes zero sense to me to see a wizard in plate fighting with heavy swords while casting fireballs and lightning, simply because little jimmy wants total freedom in his games to make characters the way he wants them to.

    Why? Those ideas are made up in your head. In reality a lot of the greatest warriors have been great thinkers and had a balanced life of swordpractice and dwelled in the arts.

    Julio Cesar, Miyamoto Mushashi, Richard I, hell you think Sun Tzu was a weaksauce person? Most generals were great warriors and great thinkers

    So why cant a Strong warrior be smart and know magic in his world and a magician be physically fit? Humans are not so black n white.

    Solely focusing on something like you suggest is very min maxy and only happens in games, not int he real world.

    It has nothing to do with intelligence really but the time and commitment, plus it was an example not a universal rule. A developer can easily create a world where magic flows through everyone making everybody magic users in some way. As long as it makes sense in that particular universe and is explained well

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,672Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Sengi

     

    • Respawning: No one wants permadeath so the character needs to come back to life somehow. But there needs to be an in game explanation. Don’t you think that people would at least talk about it if people would be resurrected all the time? Most MMOs (and some shooters) do offer an explanation of how or why this happens.
    • Food: In mmos food either replenishes health or it grants buffs, but this is not what food actually does, right? There could be a lot of gameplay about producing food and starvation, and this would also be a nice gold-drain. Most players dislike mechanics that are basically maintenance timers, so over time things like that have been done away with, although you do have games like Salem where you can find yourself dragging ass through the forest trying to find anything to replenish your saliva. You're in the minority, however, when it comes to adoring starvation and exhaustion game mechanics, which is why they are present but very limited. File eating in the same bin as crapping and sleeping - assume your character is doing that on their time, not yours.  
    • Fall damage: Why are character able to drop from absurd heights without damage, just to make it easier to get around? Most MMOs have fall damage. IMO, if it doesn't add to gameplay or proves a hindrance to exploration/travel then I'm all for it being absent. 
    • Endurance: Why not have an endurance mechanic? No one can run and fight forever. This would apply to mobs and make some interesting fighting tactics See point 2.
    • Mob and npc behaviour: Does the game really need mobs that are as dump as a bucket of shrimp even if the resemble a sane human, and npcs that stand in one spot for eternity? Ultima 5 hat npcs go to bed at night. UO had NPCs that went to bed at night. Players didn't enjoy standing around waiting for shops to open. I think AC had that, as well. 
    • Too many trash-mobs: A monster is only worth of its name if it is dangerous; otherwise we normally refer to it as vermin. What is the point of being attacked by all this pushover mobs all the time? Why don’t they run away? Mobs in most mainstream MMOs are a means to an end, which is levelling. Change the end goal and you can easily change the mobs. 
    • Unrealistic loot drops: Why did this wolf have 30gp and a pair chain gauntlet? Because if it didn't you either wouldn't kill it or would consider it far less valuable than the mob with the same xp return and a loot drop. 
    • Too few usable items: I still can’t get over it how gw2 is missing something as basic as sitting in chairs. There are a lot of chairs everywhere even thrones but no one can sit in it. If devs found that MMO players were sitting in chairs and it had gameplay value for the players, they would add it. 
    • Overscaled Buildings: The camera position over the characters head makes is necessary for every doorway to be 15 foot high. Is this really an issue for you?
    • Swimming and jumping around in full platemail It's magical. If you want realism, platemail would probably be almost non-existent, as it was too cumbersome and too expensive. One way to solve your problem is to play female characters - their armor is often anything but cumbersome or restrictive. 

    Almost all of what you point out are changes made to support what most players wanted or didn't want in their gameplay. Check out Salem. You'd probably like it. 

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • austriacusaustriacus limaPosts: 624Member
    Originally posted by StonesDK
    Originally posted by austriacus
    Originally posted by StonesDK

    Although I don't agree with your examples I do agree with the overall sentiments. Things have to make sense in the world they are created. It doesn't have to mimic real life but it does have to make sense within the realm it exist.

     

    Just to give an example: Wizards being physically weak because they spent lifetimes researching scrolls and reading books, not having time to go to the gym and lift weights to become strong enough to wield a 2h axe. Same goes for a warrior who spent his life training with various weapons building his strength and stamina not having time to go to the library. It makes zero sense to me to see a wizard in plate fighting with heavy swords while casting fireballs and lightning, simply because little jimmy wants total freedom in his games to make characters the way he wants them to.

    Why? Those ideas are made up in your head. In reality a lot of the greatest warriors have been great thinkers and had a balanced life of swordpractice and dwelled in the arts.

    Julio Cesar, Miyamoto Mushashi, Richard I, hell you think Sun Tzu was a weaksauce person? Most generals were great warriors and great thinkers

    So why cant a Strong warrior be smart and know magic in his world and a magician be physically fit? Humans are not so black n white.

    Solely focusing on something like you suggest is very min maxy and only happens in games, not int he real world.

    It has nothing to do with intelligence really but the time and commitment, plus it was an example not a universal rule. A developer can easily create a world where magic flows through everyone making everybody magic users in some way. As long as it makes sense in that particular universe and is explained well

    Maybe i didnt explain it well, sorry english sint my first language. What i mean is that if magic existed in this world all those great leaders would also be great magic users, maybe one focusing on one over the other slightly but still adept at both.

    Because our characters are heroes like the ones in our history, changinc history and such it is actually realism to expect that we should be adept at everything, we can wield magic and wear plate armor, because we are HEROES.

    This goes against classic DnD rules and the like, but this is what realism trully is. 

  • asrlohzasrlohz UddevallaPosts: 645Member
    Originally posted by austriacus
    Originally posted by asrlohz
    Originally posted by austriacus
    Originally posted by StonesDK

    Although I don't agree with your examples I do agree with the overall sentiments. Things have to make sense in the world they are created. It doesn't have to mimic real life but it does have to make sense within the realm it exist.

     

    Just to give an example: Wizards being physically weak because they spent lifetimes researching scrolls and reading books, not having time to go to the gym and lift weights to become strong enough to wield a 2h axe. Same goes for a warrior who spent his life training with various weapons building his strength and stamina not having time to go to the library. It makes zero sense to me to see a wizard in plate fighting with heavy swords while casting fireballs and lightning, simply because little jimmy wants total freedom in his games to make characters the way he wants them to.

    Why? Those ideas are made up in your head. In reality a lot of the greatest warriors have been great thinkers and had a balanced life of swordpractice and dwelled in the arts.

    Julio Cesar, Miyamoto Mushashi, Richard I, hell you think Sun Tzu was a weaksauce person? Most generals were great warriors and great thinkers

    So why cant a Strong warrior be smart and know magic in his world and a magician be physically fit? Humans are not so black n white.

    On the other hand, all of those people lead armies as well. Any man can fall prey to bad luck. Attila the Hun wasn't necessarily any stronger than his soldiers.

    Neither is one character fom one another save some overpowered loot, for all intent and purposes our characters are just strong and dedicated soldiers,  and leaders. After all what is a hero if not someone who leads the rest of the world to the light?

    What you just said was completely irrelevant to what you claimed previously.

    There is a reason why you don't see bodybuilders in the League of Legends tournaments. If you are to become an expert at any craft you need to focus on it. War-tactics and arcane knowledge are two very different things. A leader would learn tactics from his craft, but he wouldn't learn magic from it. Most great generals had strategists by their sides as well. It was never a one-man-work.

    image
  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member
    Originally posted by austriacus
    Originally posted by StonesDK
    Originally posted by austriacus
    Originally posted by StonesDK

    Although I don't agree with your examples I do agree with the overall sentiments. Things have to make sense in the world they are created. It doesn't have to mimic real life but it does have to make sense within the realm it exist.

     

    Just to give an example: Wizards being physically weak because they spent lifetimes researching scrolls and reading books, not having time to go to the gym and lift weights to become strong enough to wield a 2h axe. Same goes for a warrior who spent his life training with various weapons building his strength and stamina not having time to go to the library. It makes zero sense to me to see a wizard in plate fighting with heavy swords while casting fireballs and lightning, simply because little jimmy wants total freedom in his games to make characters the way he wants them to.

    Why? Those ideas are made up in your head. In reality a lot of the greatest warriors have been great thinkers and had a balanced life of swordpractice and dwelled in the arts.

    Julio Cesar, Miyamoto Mushashi, Richard I, hell you think Sun Tzu was a weaksauce person? Most generals were great warriors and great thinkers

    So why cant a Strong warrior be smart and know magic in his world and a magician be physically fit? Humans are not so black n white.

    Solely focusing on something like you suggest is very min maxy and only happens in games, not int he real world.

    It has nothing to do with intelligence really but the time and commitment, plus it was an example not a universal rule. A developer can easily create a world where magic flows through everyone making everybody magic users in some way. As long as it makes sense in that particular universe and is explained well

    Maybe i didnt explain it well, sorry english sint my first language. What i mean is that if magic existed in this world all those great leaders would also be great magic users, maybe one focusing on one over the other slightly but still adept at both.

    Because our characters are heroes like the ones in our history, changinc history and such it is actually realism to expect that we should be adept at everything, we can wield magic and wear plate armor, because we are HEROES.

    This goes against classic DnD rules and the like, but this is what realism trully is. 

    Lad you do know the difference between myth and legend/history written by the victor and realism, right? Hint: World War 2 sherman tanks were death traps, T-34s were shittier tanks than all their german adversaries, the only reason most think either of those tanks were any good was because history was rewritten to suit the victors.

    image
  • austriacusaustriacus limaPosts: 624Member
    Originally posted by asrlohz
    Originally posted by austriacus
    Originally posted by asrlohz
    Originally posted by austriacus
    Originally posted by StonesDK

    Although I don't agree with your examples I do agree with the overall sentiments. Things have to make sense in the world they are created. It doesn't have to mimic real life but it does have to make sense within the realm it exist.

     

    Just to give an example: Wizards being physically weak because they spent lifetimes researching scrolls and reading books, not having time to go to the gym and lift weights to become strong enough to wield a 2h axe. Same goes for a warrior who spent his life training with various weapons building his strength and stamina not having time to go to the library. It makes zero sense to me to see a wizard in plate fighting with heavy swords while casting fireballs and lightning, simply because little jimmy wants total freedom in his games to make characters the way he wants them to.

    Why? Those ideas are made up in your head. In reality a lot of the greatest warriors have been great thinkers and had a balanced life of swordpractice and dwelled in the arts.

    Julio Cesar, Miyamoto Mushashi, Richard I, hell you think Sun Tzu was a weaksauce person? Most generals were great warriors and great thinkers

    So why cant a Strong warrior be smart and know magic in his world and a magician be physically fit? Humans are not so black n white.

    On the other hand, all of those people lead armies as well. Any man can fall prey to bad luck. Attila the Hun wasn't necessarily any stronger than his soldiers.

    Neither is one character fom one another save some overpowered loot, for all intent and purposes our characters are just strong and dedicated soldiers,  and leaders. After all what is a hero if not someone who leads the rest of the world to the light?

    What you just said was completely irrelevant to what you claimed previously.

    There is a reason why you don't see bodybuilders in the League of Legends tournaments. If you are to become an expert at any craft you need to focus on it. War-tactics and arcane knowledge are two very different things. A leader would learn tactics from his craft, but he wouldn't learn magic from it. Most great generals had strategists by their sides as well. It was never a one-man-work.

    I dont thimnk you people are getting it. We are Heroes, not just one random bodybuilder. We are gifted and unique, Just like they were were a lot of gifted individuals in history that could do it all.

    Also are you implying we can only be experts of one craft? 

  • austriacusaustriacus limaPosts: 624Member
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by austriacus
    Originally posted by StonesDK
    Originally posted by austriacus
    Originally posted by StonesDK

    Although I don't agree with your examples I do agree with the overall sentiments. Things have to make sense in the world they are created. It doesn't have to mimic real life but it does have to make sense within the realm it exist.

     

    Just to give an example: Wizards being physically weak because they spent lifetimes researching scrolls and reading books, not having time to go to the gym and lift weights to become strong enough to wield a 2h axe. Same goes for a warrior who spent his life training with various weapons building his strength and stamina not having time to go to the library. It makes zero sense to me to see a wizard in plate fighting with heavy swords while casting fireballs and lightning, simply because little jimmy wants total freedom in his games to make characters the way he wants them to.

    Why? Those ideas are made up in your head. In reality a lot of the greatest warriors have been great thinkers and had a balanced life of swordpractice and dwelled in the arts.

    Julio Cesar, Miyamoto Mushashi, Richard I, hell you think Sun Tzu was a weaksauce person? Most generals were great warriors and great thinkers

    So why cant a Strong warrior be smart and know magic in his world and a magician be physically fit? Humans are not so black n white.

    Solely focusing on something like you suggest is very min maxy and only happens in games, not int he real world.

    It has nothing to do with intelligence really but the time and commitment, plus it was an example not a universal rule. A developer can easily create a world where magic flows through everyone making everybody magic users in some way. As long as it makes sense in that particular universe and is explained well

    Maybe i didnt explain it well, sorry english sint my first language. What i mean is that if magic existed in this world all those great leaders would also be great magic users, maybe one focusing on one over the other slightly but still adept at both.

    Because our characters are heroes like the ones in our history, changinc history and such it is actually realism to expect that we should be adept at everything, we can wield magic and wear plate armor, because we are HEROES.

    This goes against classic DnD rules and the like, but this is what realism trully is. 

    Lad you do know the difference between myth and legend/history written by the victor and realism, right? Hint: World War 2 sherman tanks were death traps, T-34s were shittier tanks than all their german adversaries, the only reason most think either of those tanks were any good was because history was rewritten to suit the victors.

    Im not following, are you saying that theres is not one  great heroe in the history of humanity that was trully gifted and could do it all? Because thats the kind of heroes we are suposed to be in our games 

    Ps: according to your profile we got the same age so you might want to change that....or calling me lad sounds weird

  • asrlohzasrlohz UddevallaPosts: 645Member
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by austriacus
    Originally posted by StonesDK
    Originally posted by austriacus
    Originally posted by StonesDK

    Although I don't agree with your examples I do agree with the overall sentiments. Things have to make sense in the world they are created. It doesn't have to mimic real life but it does have to make sense within the realm it exist.

     

    Just to give an example: Wizards being physically weak because they spent lifetimes researching scrolls and reading books, not having time to go to the gym and lift weights to become strong enough to wield a 2h axe. Same goes for a warrior who spent his life training with various weapons building his strength and stamina not having time to go to the library. It makes zero sense to me to see a wizard in plate fighting with heavy swords while casting fireballs and lightning, simply because little jimmy wants total freedom in his games to make characters the way he wants them to.

    Why? Those ideas are made up in your head. In reality a lot of the greatest warriors have been great thinkers and had a balanced life of swordpractice and dwelled in the arts.

    Julio Cesar, Miyamoto Mushashi, Richard I, hell you think Sun Tzu was a weaksauce person? Most generals were great warriors and great thinkers

    So why cant a Strong warrior be smart and know magic in his world and a magician be physically fit? Humans are not so black n white.

    Solely focusing on something like you suggest is very min maxy and only happens in games, not int he real world.

    It has nothing to do with intelligence really but the time and commitment, plus it was an example not a universal rule. A developer can easily create a world where magic flows through everyone making everybody magic users in some way. As long as it makes sense in that particular universe and is explained well

    Maybe i didnt explain it well, sorry english sint my first language. What i mean is that if magic existed in this world all those great leaders would also be great magic users, maybe one focusing on one over the other slightly but still adept at both.

    Because our characters are heroes like the ones in our history, changinc history and such it is actually realism to expect that we should be adept at everything, we can wield magic and wear plate armor, because we are HEROES.

    This goes against classic DnD rules and the like, but this is what realism trully is. 

    Lad you do know the difference between myth and legend/history written by the victor and realism, right? Hint: World War 2 sherman tanks were death traps, T-34s were shittier tanks than all their german adversaries, the only reason most think either of those tanks were any good was because history was rewritten to suit the victors.

    History is adapted to fit the nation's perspective. And those tanks were revolutionary for their time, hence that's how they will be remembered. Our modern-day cars would be considered deathtraps in 50 years as well.

    image
  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member
    Originally posted by austriacus
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by austriacus
    Originally posted by StonesDK
    Originally posted by austriacus
    Originally posted by StonesDK

    Although I don't agree with your examples I do agree with the overall sentiments. Things have to make sense in the world they are created. It doesn't have to mimic real life but it does have to make sense within the realm it exist.

     

    Just to give an example: Wizards being physically weak because they spent lifetimes researching scrolls and reading books, not having time to go to the gym and lift weights to become strong enough to wield a 2h axe. Same goes for a warrior who spent his life training with various weapons building his strength and stamina not having time to go to the library. It makes zero sense to me to see a wizard in plate fighting with heavy swords while casting fireballs and lightning, simply because little jimmy wants total freedom in his games to make characters the way he wants them to.

    Why? Those ideas are made up in your head. In reality a lot of the greatest warriors have been great thinkers and had a balanced life of swordpractice and dwelled in the arts.

    Julio Cesar, Miyamoto Mushashi, Richard I, hell you think Sun Tzu was a weaksauce person? Most generals were great warriors and great thinkers

    So why cant a Strong warrior be smart and know magic in his world and a magician be physically fit? Humans are not so black n white.

    Solely focusing on something like you suggest is very min maxy and only happens in games, not int he real world.

    It has nothing to do with intelligence really but the time and commitment, plus it was an example not a universal rule. A developer can easily create a world where magic flows through everyone making everybody magic users in some way. As long as it makes sense in that particular universe and is explained well

    Maybe i didnt explain it well, sorry english sint my first language. What i mean is that if magic existed in this world all those great leaders would also be great magic users, maybe one focusing on one over the other slightly but still adept at both.

    Because our characters are heroes like the ones in our history, changinc history and such it is actually realism to expect that we should be adept at everything, we can wield magic and wear plate armor, because we are HEROES.

    This goes against classic DnD rules and the like, but this is what realism trully is. 

    Lad you do know the difference between myth and legend/history written by the victor and realism, right? Hint: World War 2 sherman tanks were death traps, T-34s were shittier tanks than all their german adversaries, the only reason most think either of those tanks were any good was because history was rewritten to suit the victors.

    Im not following, are you saying that theres is not one  great heroe in the history of humanity that was trully gifted and could do it all? Because thats the kind of heroes we are suposed to be in our games 

    They were either ambitious, smart or both. Truly gifted is stretching it, Julius Caesar used existing mechanism to do what he did, Alexander The Great exploited the status quo, most of the Hellenic heroes likely have hyperinflated deeds attributed to them, they likely did something but nowhere near as epic (example: Troy was hardly a city defended by cyclops built walls, it was likely one of a handful of cities in the early bronze age that had stone or stone augmented walls), every modern hero had maybe one attribute and allot of flaws (the genius Rommel was hamstrung by his own loyalty, Patton was a good tactician but was lousy when it came to being patient, MacArthur was a good general but an utter numbskull in terms of politics,  Simo Häyhä was a massively efficient marksman but was kinda of a simple person intellectually, etc). What we term as heroes are regular humans in the right place with the right skillset, they were not supermen, in fact if we take a look at Alexander the Great... that guy died either due to alcohol poisoning or just poisoned and his empire fell apart within a few months and whatever was left was dead and gone within half a century.

     

    Edit: To the guy who said the tanks were revolutionary: They weren't, the sherman was such a flawed design it took 20 years for it to be shown just how much the americans botched their own tanks when the ISD took surplus shermans and turned them into proto-MBTs capable of taking on T-55 and T-62 tanks. The T-34 was shit, it was less reliable than a panther tank and far worse than a Tiger 1, it was only marginally better than the Tiger 2 and the Ferdinand, the reason they were so deadly was there were around 10-20 of them for every enemy tank.

     

    image
  • EvilestTwinEvilestTwin New York, NYPosts: 286Member
    Originally posted by StonesDK
    Originally posted by austriacus
    Originally posted by StonesDK

    Although I don't agree with your examples I do agree with the overall sentiments. Things have to make sense in the world they are created. It doesn't have to mimic real life but it does have to make sense within the realm it exist.

     

    Just to give an example: Wizards being physically weak because they spent lifetimes researching scrolls and reading books, not having time to go to the gym and lift weights to become strong enough to wield a 2h axe. Same goes for a warrior who spent his life training with various weapons building his strength and stamina not having time to go to the library. It makes zero sense to me to see a wizard in plate fighting with heavy swords while casting fireballs and lightning, simply because little jimmy wants total freedom in his games to make characters the way he wants them to.

    Why? Those ideas are made up in your head. In reality a lot of the greatest warriors have been great thinkers and had a balanced life of swordpractice and dwelled in the arts.

    Julio Cesar, Miyamoto Mushashi, Richard I, hell you think Sun Tzu was a weaksauce person? Most generals were great warriors and great thinkers

    So why cant a Strong warrior be smart and know magic in his world and a magician be physically fit? Humans are not so black n white.

    Solely focusing on something like you suggest is very min maxy and only happens in games, not int he real world.

    It has nothing to do with intelligence really but the time and commitment, plus it was an example not a universal rule. A developer can easily create a world where magic flows through everyone making everybody magic users in some way. As long as it makes sense in that particular universe and is explained well

    Wizards being able to use plate and greatswords is pretty rare in MMOs actually.   Most MMOs are pretty restrictive when it comes to the kind of gear and weapons certain classes can wear.   In those less restrictive games, you do need to spec strength and dex in order to wear plate or hit with swords, so there's definitely a trade off.  

    Also, the player is usually some kind of demi-god equivalent in most MMO settings anyways, so a lot of those 'unrealistic' attributes can be explained away with just that.   

  • austriacusaustriacus limaPosts: 624Member
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by austriacus
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by austriacus
    Originally posted by StonesDK
    Originally posted by austriacus
    Originally posted by StonesDK

    Although I don't agree with your examples I do agree with the overall sentiments. Things have to make sense in the world they are created. It doesn't have to mimic real life but it does have to make sense within the realm it exist.

     

    Just to give an example: Wizards being physically weak because they spent lifetimes researching scrolls and reading books, not having time to go to the gym and lift weights to become strong enough to wield a 2h axe. Same goes for a warrior who spent his life training with various weapons building his strength and stamina not having time to go to the library. It makes zero sense to me to see a wizard in plate fighting with heavy swords while casting fireballs and lightning, simply because little jimmy wants total freedom in his games to make characters the way he wants them to.

    Why? Those ideas are made up in your head. In reality a lot of the greatest warriors have been great thinkers and had a balanced life of swordpractice and dwelled in the arts.

    Julio Cesar, Miyamoto Mushashi, Richard I, hell you think Sun Tzu was a weaksauce person? Most generals were great warriors and great thinkers

    So why cant a Strong warrior be smart and know magic in his world and a magician be physically fit? Humans are not so black n white.

    Solely focusing on something like you suggest is very min maxy and only happens in games, not int he real world.

    It has nothing to do with intelligence really but the time and commitment, plus it was an example not a universal rule. A developer can easily create a world where magic flows through everyone making everybody magic users in some way. As long as it makes sense in that particular universe and is explained well

    Maybe i didnt explain it well, sorry english sint my first language. What i mean is that if magic existed in this world all those great leaders would also be great magic users, maybe one focusing on one over the other slightly but still adept at both.

    Because our characters are heroes like the ones in our history, changinc history and such it is actually realism to expect that we should be adept at everything, we can wield magic and wear plate armor, because we are HEROES.

    This goes against classic DnD rules and the like, but this is what realism trully is. 

    Lad you do know the difference between myth and legend/history written by the victor and realism, right? Hint: World War 2 sherman tanks were death traps, T-34s were shittier tanks than all their german adversaries, the only reason most think either of those tanks were any good was because history was rewritten to suit the victors.

    Im not following, are you saying that theres is not one  great heroe in the history of humanity that was trully gifted and could do it all? Because thats the kind of heroes we are suposed to be in our games 

    They were either ambitious, smart or both. Truly gifted is stretching it, Julius Caesar used existing mechanism to do what he did, Alexander The Great exploited the status quo, most of the Hellenic heroes likely have hyperinflated deeds attributed to them, they likely did something but nowhere near as epic (example: Troy was hardly a city defended by cyclops built walls, it was likely one of a handful of cities in the early bronze age that had stone or stone augmented walls), every modern hero had maybe one attribute and allot of flaws (the genius Rommel was hamstrung by his own loyalty, Patton was a good tactician but was lousy when it came to being patient, MacArthur was a good general but an utter numbskull in terms of politics,  Simo Häyhä was a massively efficient marksman but was kinda of a simple person intellectually, etc). What we term as heroes are regular humans in the right place with the right skillset, they were not supermen, in fact if we take a look at Alexander the Great... that guy died either due to alcohol poisoning or just poisoned and his empire fell apart within a few months and whatever was left was dead and gone within half a century.

     

    Edit: To the guy who said the tanks were revolutionary: They weren't, the sherman was such a flawed design it took 20 years for it to be shown just how much the americans botched their own tanks when the ISD took surplus shermans and turned them into proto-MBTs capable of taking on T-55 and T-62 tanks. The T-34 was shit, it was less reliable than a panther tank and far worse than a Tiger 1, it was only marginally better than the Tiger 2 and the Ferdinand, the reason they were so deadly was there were around 10-20 of them for every enemy tank.

     

    Im sorry but im not as pessimist as you seem to be.  You are practically saying there has never been an outstanding human that has been better than the rest of us and been able to do multiple things well.

    We can only go by what we are told or find about these people called heroes and we could all day come up with theories of why they are not or why they might be but i go by "Hero until proven otherwise"

  • DamonVileDamonVile Vancouver, BCPosts: 4,818Member

    the game features your asking for would be tedious and boring. no I don't want to take off my armor when I swim. I'm totally fine with a wolf dropping loot I can use rather than a pelt.

    Games that only let you run a little ways then make you "rest" are annoying. I'm not looking for a real life simulation. When that oger hits my shield I know something that big hitting with that much force would crush whatever is behind it....

    I'm a big fan of removing the tedious parts of real life out of games. If I want a real life sim, I'll just go outside.

  • WizardryWizardry Ontario, CanadaPosts: 8,461Member Uncommon

    I( agree on the realism and imo everyone wants it even the ones who don't acknowledge it.There always has to be a limit,somewhere a line drawn.Also it has to make sense,if not then why even have weapons,why not just press a key and the dmg is done.

    As to trash mobs,they are suppose to be there as part of a living world.The choice is always suppose to be the players,it is after all your game you are playing.

    FFXI did it properly anyhow,even the simplest fights are a challenge to varied degrees.When you hit an area of choice,the mobs are not all identical,some are easy prey some even match some very good,some incredibly tough.Once again you have choice,you can choose to go the easier less rewarding ep mobs or the much more challenging.Where the skills are added is in determining when to fight each type of mob.I will use an example.You fight 2x EP to build your TP up ,then you take on the tougher foe.There are also bonuses to fighting in succession under a time limit,so again thought goes into your fighting.

    In most every game i have seen,there is no thought,run in as a group or solo and just zerg it.Unless we are simulating or role playing the cave man days when a caveman might run straight at a wild boar because he was just too stupid to know better,it is an unrealistic combat design.

    Another point is weapon of choice.Once again FFXI made a slight impact,as weapon could definitely matter at times.In most games,you simply walk around with the exact same weapon all the time.Again unless this si a caveman theory and we all walk around with a rock or a stick spear,it does't make sense.

    Trying to over analyze really is not necessary,fact is developers are looking to just whip games together.Dot mobs around then tie them into linear quests and that is your game in a nutshell.


    Samoan Diamond

  • devacoredevacore Somewhere, NWPosts: 401Member Uncommon
    • Respawning: No one wants permadeath so the character needs to come back to life somehow. But there needs to be an in game explanation. Don’t you think that people would at least talk about it if people would be resurrected all the time?
    Don't die, just be critically injured and be forced to crawl your way back to a safe spot. You can work around the 'pit falls' but death should suck but just not to a point where the game just isn't fun. Crawling back is like ghost mode (in some games) but more realistic.
    • Food: In mmos food either replenishes health or it grants buffs, but this is not what food actually does, right? There could be a lot of gameplay about producing food and starvation, and this would also be a nice gold-drain.
    Mechanic that are designed purely as 'gold-drains' or sinks suck.. period. Although, that doesn't mean having your character eating couldn't be fun. Buffs are nice but you could do many interesting things with social activities like eating. Food gives a flat bonus of increased ability to learn (xp or skills) since if you are straving you're probably not at your peak mental state. For the fun factor, have mini games built in that would use cooking skill to either earn money or charm npc or whatever just as long as it's fun.
    • Fall damage: Why are character able to drop from absurd heights without damage, just to make it easier to get around?
    • Endurance: Why not have an endurance mechanic? No one can run and fight forever. This would apply to mobs and make some interesting fighting tactics
    Many games do these, I guess the game you're playing doesn't.
    • Mob and npc behaviour: Does the game really need mobs that are as dump as a bucket of shrimp even if the resemble a sane human, and npcs that stand in one spot for eternity? Ultima 5 hat npcs go to bed at night.
    Yea, I completely agree with you. Game companies need to unlock a new paradigm to allow this mechanic. It's not hard once you shift how mmo are presented. Short version is have the world tied more directly to the characters themselves, i never find running around in an open city the reason why I play an mmo. Designers are lazy and think 'if everyone is in an open area, the players will interact on there own.' That's just lazy game design, if you ask me... plus doesn't always work.
    • Too many trash-mobs: A monster is only worth of its name if it is dangerous; otherwise we normally refer to it as vermin. What is the point of being attacked by all this pushover mobs all the time? Why don’t they run away?
    Same reason as above. Think how complex the computer would have be to calculate more advance A.I for around 2000 -3000 ppl at the same time. Just think about it for a second, hell some ppl computers can get locked up on A.I for non online games and you're the only one accessing it. Solution? Tie the environment to the character thus you're pc is doing the work. Wait you say! what about hackers??? Yea, It would be more like Diablo II but people seemed to enjoy that game just fine. The game company can track them, just takes time.
    • Unrealistic loot drops: Why did this wolf have 30gp and a pair chain gauntlet? 
    He ate it.. haha, yea make more skinning skills that turns around the coin the designers wish to drop. 
    • Too few usable items: I still can’t get over it how gw2 is missing something as basic as sitting in chairs. There are a lot of chairs everywhere even thrones but no one can sit in it.
    Goes back to the server; ever see in SWG the character would sit but the chair was totally a mile away. Designers cut what isn't adding X amount of value to the game.
    • Overscaled Buildings: The camera position over the characters head makes is necessary for every doorway to be 15 foot high.
    • Swimming and jumping around in full platemail
    Yea, DDO does the swimming thing but overal they don't really add that function. Designers are always pressed what to cut and what to add. Some realism stuff is cut d/t the fact it just isn't fun. To that I agree but designers could add a vast amount of freedom if they changed from the current way of gutting the fish.
     
    P.s. I'm not going to proof read! life is so much fun!!!
  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,751Member Uncommon

    Generally realism is something you kinda want to have in a game, but which should always take a back seat to fun gameplay.

    1. Respawning: Certainly it's better to have a rationalized death system, but it's not that much better and players generally accept that the tradeoff for a game allowing you more than one failure is to allow you to die-and-reset in some fashion.  Another take on it is that death is permadeath, but extremely rare -- most failure results in simply being knocked out unconscious on the ground for a while.  While this rationalizes death better, it also breaks realism in other ways (why did that monster knock me out then just leave me lying unconscious?)  But I think for some games' fictions it might work.
    2. Food: Starvation isn't really fun at all unless it's the core premise of your game (like, say, if your game's title was "Don't Starve".)  I mean I guess you could make it a very light point of failure where you only need to address it every 6 hours of play, but at that point it's not really adding anything to the game (and a feature which doesn't add to a game tends to take away from it by making it feel scatterbrained, unfocused, and unpolished.)
    3. Fall Damage:  Giving players the correct perception of height in a 3D world is difficult.  It's a combination of the perspective being hard to communicate, and people generally not being good on picking up on it (oh, wow...well I guess that was a 20 foot drop.)  This makes it a really crappy point of failure unless it's obvious.
    4. Endurance:  It might work as long as recovering endurance wasn't non-gameplay.  Carefully managing character resources (like endurance but also mana/energy/whatever) can certainly be an interesting system if well-designed.  But if it's just some alternate form of a mana bar which requires you to sit around "resting" between combat, then that's just not very fun sounding at all.
    5. Mob AI: Yes, the genre really needs mobs which are designed to lose in an interesting fashion.  Some forms of improved mob AI could certainly help the game provide deeper combat puzzles.  But most of the typical basic forms of intelligence wouldn't.  Do you really want that keep of orcs to realize it's under attack and organize into the same room and then advance on you and kill you?  Let's inform them of where the graveyard is and let them be smart enough to corpse camp players as a giant NPC army!  No, that wouldn't be fun.
    6. Too many trash mobs: This one I mostly agree with.  As the OP says, it's not too many mobs which is the problem, but when the mobs are both required to kill and trvially easy to kill.  That's just boring. It's actually fine (probably even desirable) for low-challenge-low-reward sections of a game to exist, they just can't be part of the mandatory path.
    7. Unrealistic Loot: This one is tricky to solve without basically saying to players, "Want to be rewarded for your kills?  Never kill animals."  But some reasonable solutions exist.  My friend's RPG (Titan Quest) solved it by having animal fetishes drop which were the only way to craft one type of powerful craftable, so you always had a need for them and it didn't matter that coin and item drops weren't part of those animals' loot tables.  So solutions exist, but aren't always particularly easy to implement.
    8. Usable Items: This type of thing is really hard to rationalize the ROI of.  Spending a few days of dev time on something which is unlikely to keep a player engaged with the game tends to be a rather risky move.  I don't think anyone ever got their friend to buy a game by saying, "You've got to try this game out: you can sit in the chairs!"  I mean a certain amount of downtime emotes and animations are worth budgeting for in a game, but they tend to not have a clear benefit (and they do have a clear cost.)
    9. Overscaled Buildings:  Yes.  The camera position over the characters head does make it necessary for every doorway to be 15 feet high.  You're right.  This sort of goes back to #3 in regards to games adapting to how players perceive virtual worlds.
    10. Swimming/Jumping in Fullplate:  Maybe someday someone will figure out how to make this fun.  But it is not this day.  (Less jokingly, I really do think you could create a game where there's an interesting balance between the disadvantages and advantages of each armor type, and that's probably a strong direction for a new MMORPG to create a really different-feeling game system that players are interested in exploring.
    So overall I guess I don't necessarily strongly disagree with the idea that games should pursue realistic mechanics, but that it can harm the fun of the game to singlemindedly pursue realism.  And at the same time there are paths left to explore in regards to mechanics which not only play well (priority #1) but are also realistic.

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

«13
Sign In or Register to comment.