Let Me Erase Quests From My Journal

[ffordesoon]

Surprisingly little. It's not hard to create a thread and a Google Moderator post.

Just because I want a game I paid $280 for (which I don't believe gives me more of a right to contribute than anyone else; I'm just saying) to do something I think would make it more fun doesn't mean I think my word is law or anything. Look how much the idea changed from the first post in this thread to the post on Google Mod, for example. That change was based on feedback from this thread.

Besides, it's self-seriousness and elitism I abhor, not actual seriousness. Speaking of which, are you going to explain where you're coming from at some point, or is this back-and-forth pointless?

[cah]

It's not hard to create a thread and a Google Moderator post.

And it's even easier to post a response to one. Or do you find that surprising too?

something I think

And now you can see that it doesn't mean that everyone necessarily has the same thoughts as you.

make it more fun

"more fun" is not a synonym for "better"

Look how much the idea changed from the first post in this thread to the post on Google Mod, for example. That change was based on feedback from this thread.

What change? Aside from the amount of text it's the same.

Besides, it's self-seriousness and elitism I abhor.

The whole concept of "old-school" is pretty much elitism.

are you going to explain where you're coming from at some point, or is this back-and-forth pointless?

You need to be more concrete.

[ffordesoon]

And it's even easier to post a response to one. Or do you find that surprising too?

So you're, uh, mad at me for not posting a response to a thread that doesn't, as far as I know, exist...?

And now you can see that it doesn't mean that everyone necessarily has the same thoughts as you.

...?

Uh, I kind of knew that. I'm certainly not suppressing anyone's thoughts on the matter. I'd've reported you long ago if that was the case. But now I just want to understand you.

"more fun" is not a synonym for "better"

I never said it was. Although, in this case, I actually think it would make the game better. But, shit, I'm not a game designer. If they don't put it in there, hell, I'll still play it. Maybe I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time, and it won't be the last.

What change? Aside from the amount of text it's the same.

Incorrect. I said that erasing quests would be a good idea, and proposed a narrative consequence for same. When someone proposed an ignore list, I thought that was an even better idea than the one I had, and that was the one that ended up in the Google Mod poll.

The whole concept of "old-school" is pretty much elitism.

Not really. It just has a lot of elitist adherents. You know, like academia or the two American political parties.

The idea that something has been lost in games' transformation from nerdy passion projects to mass-market transmedia tentpoles, though? That may be a little nostalgic, but it's also true, and certainly not elitist.

You need to be more concrete.

So do you. But fair enough: why do you feel that the implementation of my idea would significantly detract from your experience? Why do you feel that "old-school" means keeping the stuff I listed on the last page?

(Oh, about that list: after having considered it further, I could really take or leave "limited save slots".)

What is "old-school gaming" to you, and why do you think it's worth protecting?

And I want a concrete, long answer, not a pithy one-line retort. If you can't articulate why I'm wrong and you're right, I'll be forced to conclude that you're a silly person, if not an outright troll.

[cah]

So you're, uh, mad at me for not posting a response to a thread that doesn't, as far as I know, exist...?

That was to address your assumption that I feel about this issue more strongly than you do.

I'd've reported you long ago

That would have been plain stupid.

"more fun" is not a synonym for "better"

I never said it was.

Then why did you use this word?

Incorrect. I said that erasing quests would be a good idea, and proposed a narrative consequence for same. When someone proposed an ignore list, I thought that was an even better idea than the one I had.

Which is still the same thing. It's like the infamous discussion about the color of the boots.

The idea that something has been lost in games' transformation from nerdy passion projects to mass-market transmedia tentpoles, though? That may be a little nostalgic, but it's also true, and certainly not elitist.

If you think that mass-market is not good enough for you then that''s the definition of elitist.

What is "old-school gaming" to you, and why do you think it's worth protecting?

For me, the old-school games can be defined as often challenging, inflexible and unforgiving, contrasting with the modern-day malleable mass whose only purpose is to provide continuous enjoyment and rewards for the player.
The former features ensure that the player does not take everything for granted and learns to respect the game. Then the whatever rewards are earned are being valued higher and bring more satisfaction.

Now to your suggestion.
There are 2 common types of quest record mechanics:
a) No records at all. Here the game does not give you a helpful list of things to do, but it also does not force you to do them. Looks reasonable to me.
b) All records are managed by the game. You get a list, but the game also gets to monitor your progress. I find it fair too.

Whereas, what you are suggesting, would rob the game of both the quest list and the control over it. And I don't find such indignification neither useful nor acceptable for an old-school game.
I say, if you have OCD then try to fix it instead of the games that are not broken.

[ffordesoon]

@cah:

Lovely of you to imply that I'm somehow "broken" because I have a minor mental disorder that I joke about a lot. That's really tolerant and understanding of you.

Aside from that, fair enough. I don't see it as a defining feature of old-school games, obviously, but now that I can see where you're coming from, my curiosity is relatively sated. It would seem the majority is in favor of my idea, if Google Mod votes are anything to go by, so I see no reason to prolong this discussion. Thank you for answering my questions!

[cah]

That's really tolerant and understanding of you.

Don't take it too seriously though. That was just to demonstrate another thing that I associate with old-school games: bluntness instead of bunch of tolerance and PC.

It would seem the majority is in favor of my idea, if Google Mod votes are anything to go by, so I see no reason to prolong this discussion. Thank you for answering my questions!

You are welcome . I wouldn't place too much hope into the votes system, though. It's discussion that will probably get more attention from the devs than some votes (well, at least not with the ratio like that :p ).

[Plasmablaster]

So, asking for being able to erase quests from the journal is analogous to removing the status of vegetables from tomatoes?

Indeed, your vegetable analogy didn't seem to bear any relevance to the topic at hand. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

My analogy had indeed meaning and relevance that either you didn't understand or you did indeed understand but just refused to accept its implications (that what you are saying is basically wrong). And I'll explain:

Just because some specific guy makes a certain statement about a specific subject doesn't mean you can generalise and deem that "old school stuff is only for fanatics" in the same way (and hence the relevance) that you can't generalise that all vegetables are red just because tomatoes (which is a specific type of vegetable) are red. I used this particular analogy because it is used in elementary logic tests.

You see it now or need I explain any further?

[cah]

Just because some specific guy makes a certain statement about a specific subject doesn't mean you can generalise and deem that "old school stuff is only for fanatics"

Wait, so the whole issue is that you take offense when the fans of old school games are referred to as fanatics?

[Plasmablaster]

Just because some specific guy makes a certain statement about a specific subject doesn't mean you can generalise and deem that "old school stuff is only for fanatics"

Wait, so the whole issue is that you take offense when the fans of old school games are referred to as fanatics?

I didn't take any offense anywhere, especially with your initial claim. Maybe you took offense with my disagreement? Apart from this, the answer to the above question is yes. A fan is someone who likes something a lot, a fanatic is much more. Just because I like fallout 1 & 2, Heroes of Might And Magic 3, Battlezone, Total Annihilation and Unreal doesn't make me an "old school game" fanatic. Apart from a handful of games I don't really give a damn about old games. I only care about classics (meaning of top quality), either old or new. The problem is that since I don't consider myself a fanatic, your comment "old school stuff is only for fanatics" means that I shouldn't like or play these kind of classic albeit old games. It's like deeming "old school" as something that only some special fraternities of fanatics have the right to spend time on.

[cah]

A fan is someone who likes something a lot, a fanatic is much more.

The only difference is who you are asking: some will themselves "fans", whereas others will call them "lunatics" or "fanatics"(myself using the latter instead in the reply was an honest mistake, I hope it doesn't make a huge difference)

I like fallout 1 & 2, Heroes of Might And Magic 3, Battlezone, Total Annihilation and Unreal

Is Wasteland somewhere on the list too?

I only care about classics (meaning of top quality), either old or new.

What are the defining qualities for that? And which new games would you consider classic?

The problem is that since I don't consider myself a fanatic, your comment "old school stuff is only for fanatics" means that I shouldn't like or play these kind of classic albeit old games.

Awww, so it did hurt your feelings. Sorry about that. I didn't mean that some people shouldn't be allowed to play. If you like them then great. My point was that such games shouldn't be specifically tailored so that everybody (or even the majority of population) would enjoy them.

[Plasmablaster]

A fan is someone who likes something a lot, a fanatic is much more.

The only difference is who you are asking: some will themselves "fans", whereas others will call them "lunatics" or "fanatics"(myself using the latter instead in the reply was an honest mistake, I hope it doesn't make a huge difference)

There might be a degree of variation between interpretations about what a "fan" and what a "fanatic" is but so far in my life I've always been thinking (judging by how most people use them) that a fanatic is the next step of being a fan, the greatest difference being that a fanatic verges at the brink of being irrational about what he likes (and usually acts as a "fundamentalist" of sorts when it comes to defending his gusto).

I like fallout 1 & 2, Heroes of Might And Magic 3, Battlezone, Total Annihilation and Unreal

Is Wasteland somewhere on the list too?

Nope. Never played that. I started gaming with a 80286 PC and my first "classics" were Civilisation, Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe, Wing commander, X-Wing, Dune 2, etc. Wouldn't play any adventures or RPGs back then. I didn't like the riddles of adventures and didn't like the constant dungeon crawling of titles like "The Eye of the Beholder". Still, If I knew what Wasteland was about and how it played (now through the forum I know some bits about it) I think I would want to play it.

I only care about classics (meaning of top quality), either old or new.

What are the defining qualities for that? And which new games would you consider classic?

The defining qualitites of a "classic" is that it stands head and shoulders above its contemporaries in quality. Quality is difficult to define, let's just say that it is the successful manifestation of an artistic vision through masterful use of the medium avaliable. To me, "classic" is the highest "award" that can be given to any piece of art, (or game thereof although I think games can be pieces of art, and without them having to be "artistic"). About new games I would consider being "classic": Ha, difficult one this! I don't play that much so I don't really have enough data to answer your question but from what I have played, I would consider as classic. Half-Life 2 was very good, so was Portal, but Portal lacked seriously in the intellectual department, it was just a platformer albeit a brilliant one.

The problem is that since I don't consider myself a fanatic, your comment "old school stuff is only for fanatics" means that I shouldn't like or play these kind of classic albeit old games.

Awww, so it did hurt your feelings. Sorry about that. I didn't mean that some people shouldn't be allowed to play. If you like them then great. My point was that such games shouldn't be specifically tailored so that everybody (or even the majority of population) would enjoy them.

My feelings weren't hurt at all, alas! I just raised an eybrow and got alienated by what I now see was meant as something completely different than what i understood. I got somewhat annoyed by your replies as our argument got further but this now is irrelevant. So I'm glad this was a misunderstanding and even gladder we managed to iron it out.

[cah]

There might be a degree of variation between interpretations about what a "fan" and what a "fanatic" is but so far in my life I've always been thinking (judging by how most people use them) that a fanatic is the next step of being a fan, the greatest difference being that a fanatic verges at the brink of being irrational about what he likes (and usually acts as a "fundamentalist" of sorts when it comes to defending his gusto).

And what's considered irrational heavily depends on who you ask. E.g. (assuming you played FO3, but do not consider it classics) if you told a someone, who only played FO3 and thinks it's the best thing ever, that you prefer a turn-based, isometric, graphically poor predecessor games, then it's very likely that you would be considered irrational.

Nope. Never played that. I started gaming with a 80286 PC and my first "classics" were Civilisation, Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe, Wing commander, X-Wing, Dune 2, etc. Wouldn't play any adventures or RPGs back then. I didn't like the riddles of adventures and didn't like the constant dungeon crawling of titles like "The Eye of the Beholder". Still, If I knew what Wasteland was about and how it played (now through the forum I know some bits about it) I think I would want to play it.

If you never get around to play Wasteland then be sure to at least view a walk-through session of the entire game, such as this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvYcu5qa ... 6E726A508F

Half-Life 2 was very good

How do you compare it to the original?

Portal lacked seriously in the intellectual department, it was just a platformer albeit a brilliant one.

From what I recall, there were higher difficulty modes, which made things much trickier

even gladder we managed to iron it out.

That's the part I love about arguments.

[Plasmablaster]

If you never get around to play Wasteland then be sure to at least view a walk-through session of the entire game, such as this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvYcu5qa ... 6E726A508F

Thanks but I don't think I can bear the graphics now.

Half-Life 2 was very good

How do you compare it to the original?

I think the first was better. I didn't like the "dark zombie thriller" part of No2, was kinda out of place. What I like and is omnipresent throughout the entire series is an eerie feeling of cold alienation, really manages to produce a feeling of solitude, oppression, danger and technological terror, they were all true sci-fi thrillers.

My favorite FPS of all time though is Unreal. It gave an unprecedented sense of wonder and exploration, unimitated ever since. Its set-pieces were phenomenal, truly pieces of flourishing and orgasmic imagination that took the player through a journey full of wonder, mystery, darkness and danger. It lacked the "scientific" approach to gameplay of Half-life but more than made up for that with the wonderful exploration it offered (and with abundance). Who can forget its wonderful castles or its mysterious and cavernous spaceships?

Portal lacked seriously in the intellectual department, it was just a platformer albeit a brilliant one.

From what I recall, there were higher difficulty modes, which made things much trickier

Yeah, what I meant was the absence of a chunky story or the interaction with a character or, in general it lacked the stimulation of other parts of my brain apart from the "solve the level" parts. The song at the end with the cake was a nice touch though

[alanschu]

Uh.... no?

Then someone has been lying about it being an old-school type game.

Or someone is using a nebulous term like fanatic. Being a fanatic doesn't mean "I only want what was precisely in this older game and ignore features from other games that I consider to be value added."

An old school style game doesn't preclude Fargo and Co. for using other features that they like and think are great for the game that didn't exist in that game. Especially given the removal of a lot of technical limitations that would have innately prevented things from working in 1988.

Even if Fargo felt that an in game journal would have been the BEST IDEA EVER in 1988, in a game where the space was so tight they required players to refer to the manual for descriptions, it just wasn't going to happen for the original Wasteland.

[cah]

What I like and is omnipresent throughout the entire series is an eerie feeling of cold alienation, really manages to produce a feeling of solitude, oppression, danger and technological terror, they were all true sci-fi thrillers.

Did it help to discover and spend time with all the new (or apparently old) close friends?

Or someone is using a nebulous term like fanatic.

Like I said, I mistakenly used it instead of the "lunatic" in the original post.

Even if Fargo felt that an in game journal would have been the BEST IDEA EVER in 1988, in a game where the space was so tight they required players to refer to the manual for descriptions, it just wasn't going to happen for the original Wasteland.

It neither happened 10 years later. Or do you consider that time to be technologically insufficient too?

[alanschu]

It neither happened 10 years later. Or do you consider that time to be technologically insufficient too?

Are you referring to Fallout which did in fact automatically log entries for quest objectives into your Pipboy? Not to mention created auto maps, and even had an archives button?

[cah]

Are you referring to Fallout which did in fact automatically log entries for quest objectives into your Pipboy? Not to mention created auto maps, and even had an archives button?

And never allowed the player to change those. That's what the topic is about, i believe.

[alanschu]

Are you referring to Fallout which did in fact automatically log entries for quest objectives into your Pipboy? Not to mention created auto maps, and even had an archives button?

And never allowed the player to change those. That's what the topic is about, i believe.

Maybe you should remember the things you talk about in this thread, then you could understand where the discussion is going.

Since you can't keep up:

"How about you never get automatic quest notes in the first place?"

And when he replied he still wanted to have quest entries occur because in general he found them to be value added (he just wanted additional functionality on the feature. In other words, feature iteration), you were dismissive by stating: "Wasteland 2 is intended to be made for fanatics" and when someone said no, you went all "Then someone has been lying about it being an old-school type game. Remember, as you have clearly demonstrated, your understanding that this thread is about erasing quests from your journal, obviously your discussion about the game being for fanatics in response to someone that feels removing journals is not a solution is an indication that having journals prevents the game from being old school.

You presented the option "none at all" as the only alternative to the OP's suggestion and then had the arrogant audacity to insinuate that Wasteland 2 is being built specifically for people that don't want journals in game, lest it not be old school enough.


Furthermore, the fact that you couldn't possibly have felt that my comment regarding Wasteland's technical limitations having an issue with journal removal (since the game doesn't have an in game journal), I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't THAT stupid and just trying to backpedal now that you've painted yourself into a corner with no recourse but to misdirect the conversation to something else.

[cah]

Maybe you should remember the things you talk about in this thread, then you could understand where the discussion is going.

And if you move into a thread then you should read it entirely rather just the first page before starting to add comments. Had you done so you would have known that the discussion has gone many ways since and even that argument has already been resolved.

[Plasmablaster]

What I like and is omnipresent throughout the entire series is an eerie feeling of cold alienation, really manages to produce a feeling of solitude, oppression, danger and technological terror, they were all true sci-fi thrillers.

Did it help to discover and spend time with all the new (or apparently old) close friends?

I think yes, because it helped focus things a bit. A purpose is much stronger if you share it with others, just like any revolutionist will constantly remind you