quote:
Originally posted by nunix:
<STRONG>And yet, people seem to have no trouble carrying around a bunch of statues...I choose to think of the @mode characters as a kind of cross between your more brutish cartoon heroes ... It's not "realistic" and that is okay. If you want something approaching the natural physical laws of the universe you're going to just have to stop playing games, because it's impossible to program. You're asking, essentially, for another copy of the universe. And unless you know some fantastically intelligent mice that no one else has met, that's pretty much out of the question.
[ February 19, 2008: Message edited by: nunix ]</STRONG>
The whole "it's just a game!" or "its fantasy, anything goes!" is a lame cop-out. A game such as @mode is fun because it is a challenge to develop a formidable fighter based on a fixed and well-balanced set of rules. The point of a video game is that it poses an inflexible system (while in play), thereby forcing the player has to apply his skills (in this case, brains in the form of strategy and resourcefulness) to overcome a challenge or series of challenges. You might say "limit yourself to doing the things that you think are fair", but that is also a copout, and it ruins the game in question. You should not have to limit yourself, the game itself should limit what you can do. When you start limiting yourself, when you are successful in overcoming a challenge, you don't feel any satisfaction- because you don't know if it is just because you didn't set enough limits on yourself, or if you really did come up with a winning strategy. In order for there to be a satisfying gaming experience, you must be forced to compete with an antagonistic force, either another player, the computer, or in an adventure game, the author of the game.
This of course is assuming that overcoming challenges is what you want in a video game. These days, it seems like people sometimes just want to watch a pretty graphics or exercise their creative powers at whim (the whole sandbox mentality)... to each his own. But I believe that this particular game mode, like most roguelikes, is meant to pose challenges.
It is fair to say that the dragon is super-powerful when compared to the PC, and if the game was not broken in this regard you probably still would want to use a strategy that does not involve running up to it and whacking it with a sword... but wouldn't it be more fun to have something that isn't quite as easy as an instakill via thrown coin?
Regardless, I'm not trying to give the OP a hard time... I just don't like the whole "it's a video game, it doesn't have to be realistic" defense for bad balance/bugs/poor game features. The point isn't about realism, it's about a consistent level of challenge.
In any case, it is pretty obvious that the throwing feature is broken, and we know that some day Toady will get around to correcting it. Until then, adventure mode is in super-alpha mode as far as I am concerned.
[ February 19, 2008: Message edited by: Misterstone ]
Author
Topic: Aweme Romimiluthama, dragon (Read 4697 times)