Company News Bethesda buys the Fallout IP

[kingcomrade]

 

[taxacaria]

<snip>

I'm tired of this. I'm tired of your word-splitting and of your distortion of words.
If you simply ignore all and everything that could disturb your dubious fantasies of a Daggerfall stats implementation in Fallout, which has no need at all for them, I can't help you.
If you find DF's combat great, it's just your opinion - nothing else and not of relevance.
If you think, clicking and moving of the mouse cursor is a proof for the great usage of char's stats in DF, then your char is equipped with a mouse apparently.
If you find DF's poorly designed char system better than Fallout's, you're kidding.
You know how it works - so don't try to fool people with half-truths about the perk system, the char creation and the char advancement.
I assume that you know the facts, and that you're unwilling to accept them.
But that's not my problem any longer.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

1. denizsi knows what he's talking about.
2. denizsi is right.
3. No-one cares. It's what we call "isometric" and everyone knows what we're talking about (except retards).

 

[denizsi]

I'm tired of this. I'm tired of your word-splitting and of your distortion of words.

I'm not enjoying your retarded and irrelevant "but teh advan-sement suckes!1" shit either.

If you simply ignore all and everything that could disturb your dubious fantasies of a Daggerfall stats implementation in Fallout, which has no need at all for them, I can't help you.

Show me what I ignored. I consistently brought up how stats factored into the combat so "teh player skillz!1" didn't matter while you brought up the flaws of character advancement like a retard. You are the one constantly ignoring what I've been saying all along, which is simply the quality of interaction of stats for final outcome. Also, read this over for your "your dubious fantasies of a Daggerfall stats implementation in Fallout" comment:

don't make it sound like I'm suggesting "all they need to do is to take Daggerfall's base rules intact and put them in F3!" (I already said this but I don't want to press hard on the mentally challenged).

You don't even fucking read or comprehend what you read.

If you find DF's combat great, it's just your opinion - nothing else and not of relevance.

Ok, I could do without saying "DF's combat is great", as it's obviously a matter of personal preference, but to say it employs player skills over stats for outcomes is retarded. I showed you all the reasons why player skills doesn't mean a shit in the game, which you ignored.

If you find DF's poorly designed char system better than Fallout's, you're kidding.

Except that I'm not, because I never said I find DF's char system better than Fallout's. Here is what I said: "Daggerfall's advantage/disadvantage system is more advanced and character-defining than Fallout's perks," which is true. In case you repeat yourself in being a moron, let me repeat (for the third time) myself in showing *you* why you are being a moron: "I can't say perfectly balanced though, but I can't say that for Fallout either. Obviously, both games have their flaws. "

You know how it works - so don't try to fool people with half-truths about the perk system, the char creation and the char advancement.
I assume that you know the facts, and that you're unwilling to accept them.

I know but apparently you don't. There are no half-truths in there. All you need to do here for resolution is (1) to get a fucking clue so that you can actually address the answers and reasons I gave instead of bragging about different subjects, (2) cut the shit about player skills as it's untrue and I gave you the reasons regarding why, which you have consistently ignored and are yet to answer, (3) also cut the shit about character advancement because it was never a subject of my arguement nor it had a point, (4) practice on reading comprehension; if you are unable to get the point into your thick skull even after so many repeats and explanations (stat-interaction and not an intact implementation of the existing rule-set. Yes, I wrote this.), there is bound to be some issues with reading comprehension you should accept, lest you become a true illiterate.

Using "they're" correctly is one thing. Berating others for failing to do so is another. Besides, all mistakes aren't equal. Not being able to use "they're" correctly is pathetic, not knowing the correct definition of "isometric" isn't. It's merely ignorant.

And it's bad whenever someone tries to correct such little mistakes? I'm not suggesting or acting like it's a horrible travesty, some pathetic mistake either. If the sole point is to get the message across, then the pathetic millions misusing "they're" are also doing just fine, understanding each other. Talk about genre definitions and the attempts going on here at defining what is or should an RPG be. Who gives a fuck; there are hundred-thousands of people playing Oblivion and feeling happy thinking they're elite and cool playing an RPG.

3. No-one cares. It's what we call "isometric" and everyone knows what we're talking about (except retards).

See the Oblivion reference

 

[aries202]

hmmm ---

As I a language person myself, I don't really care about the more technichal explanation(s) about isometric or project parallels tech stuff.

I do care aboyt the story, the plot, and characters, as well as for the character interaction and if the npcs in a game are well-written or not.

NB:
On a side note, I think that every teacher and every faculty language should & ought to have
an example of the 'mathjoke' in Kingcomrade's post from 12.04 AM, April 17th 2007.

This shows that even if you go through the lesson plan, the students will learn, what they learn - and it is not always that what is in the lesson plan, the students learn

 

[Ekodas]

Wrong. Parallel projection is the common name of multiple projection types, of which Isometric is a sub-type. The "iso" reference there isn't a reference to the constant size in projection through out the projection plane, but the angles between the X,Y,Z axes, which are 60º each in an isometric projection. Also, there are two "brothers" of isometric, named dimetric and trixonometric, so if the "iso" reference in isometric was supposed to mean constant size through the projection plane, then what could possibly dimetric or trixonometric mean?

Isometric projection. Ok, my bad - I should read carefully next time.

Anyway, to answer your last question, yes iso is a reference to a constant size in isometric projection : that's actually one of the problem of isometric projection : objects do not appear to get bigger as they get closer to 'you'. (specifically : iso-metric, 'cause you got the same scale for the 3 axis - to put it another way the 3 axis are equally forshortened. The fact that objects got a constant size is a consequence).

Trixotronic - you mean trimetric right ? (axonometric is the generic name for the 3 kind of projections : 'axono'-'metric, because each type of projection is based on scale or measure along the axes ; sorry if i'm not clear, i'm struggling with the words here heh.) In a trimetric projection, the 3 axes are unequally foreshortened - it depends of the angle of viewing (hence tri-metry : 3 scales : one per axis). Dimetric : the scale of 2 axes are equally determined, the scale of the 3rd is determined separetelay (hence the di- metry : you got 2 scales). Alright, back to lurking these boards and reading your posts & newspost about RPGs.

/end of the mathematic hijack.
(edit to boost the geekiness of § 2 ).

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Geek alarm!

 

[galsiah]

NB:
On a side note, I think that every teacher and every faculty language should & ought to have
an example of the 'mathjoke' in Kingcomrade's post from 12.04 AM, April 17th 2007.

But it sucks: the limit doesn't exist. :D

 

[elander_]

Of course it doesn't and that's what it mean when people write lim something = infinity. That's a convention to say something doesn't have a limit.

But shouldn't we be bitching about Bethesda and how they are raping everything we love?

This thread is priceless:

http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index ... pic=678621

Look how some people are making a fool of themselves. Apparently nobody else can make a TES game besides Bethesda but in relation to Fallout they are the only exception. Just look at the fucking amount of luck we had people.

Some morons and even some moderator morons think that this team as anything to do with the guys that created the Elderscrolls series.

Ken Rolston must have his reasons to pretend he wanted to retire. He must have seen so much noobiness and retardation in the design phase of Oblivion he just couldn't stand it.

 

[Claw]

And it's bad whenever someone tries to correct such little mistakes?

Not bad, just irrelevant. In repetition, it can become annoying however.

Besides, can you offer a practical substitute for the incorrect use of isometric? A term that expresses the same idea correctly and will be commonly understood?

Talk about genre definitions and the attempts going on here at defining what is or should an RPG be. Who gives a fuck;

Ah, well. That's just the point. We here care about what defines an RPG. Maybe you are looking for a different forum do discuss graphical projection?

If the sole point is to get the message across, then the pathetic millions misusing "they're" are also doing just fine, understanding each other

Even thought hat may largely be true, I've been in situations where it was no longer clear what someone else is trying to say. That's not really the point though.

 

[galsiah]

A term that expresses the same idea correctly and will be commonly understood?

What idea exactly? The point is that the "incorrect" use of isometric has no clear idea/definition (or if it does, please enlighten me) - just a load of you-know-what-I-mean hand waving.

If you're only comparing first-person views with non-first-person, non-over-the-shoulder views, that's fine - any vague notion of "isometric" will do fine. If you're trying to discuss the full range of viewing possibilities - rather than simply two extremes -, then it helps to be clear about what you mean.

If the you-know-what-I-mean usage of isometric does have any clear meaning, then I'm not aware of it. If it did, the fact that it isn't technically correct wouldn't matter. What matters is the lack of clarity. This is only a non-issue in comparing/contrasting viewing extremes. It'd be nice to get away from entrenched extremes occasionally, and discuss a wider range of possibilities. To do that you need to be clearer about the concepts involved.

Maybe you are looking for a different forum do discuss graphical projection?

That's hardly a valid criticism. The gameplay implications of viewpoints are a frequent area of discussion here. It's simply that most people delight in condemning/praising the extremes, rather than discussing the tradeoffs of a wide range of solutions.
Of course things get a little more technical in the middle ground - but that's the price that you pay in order to have a meaningful viewing discussion that goes beyond FP vs Iso.

 

[Claw]

The point is that the "incorrect" use of isometric has no clear idea/definition

That is the point.

 

[aries202]

NB:
On a side note, I think that every teacher and every faculty language should & ought to have
an example of the 'mathjoke' in Kingcomrade's post from 12.04 AM, April 17th 2007.

But it sucks: the limit doesn't exist. :D

erm ---

As a language person myself, I don't know this. The point was that, as a teacher, you can try to teach students something. And suddenly, you'll find that the student have learned something completely different that what they should have - according to your or the school's lesson plans. And that's where the learning, imo, really can begin.

 

[elander_]

Actualy it has (just couldn't resist) and it is exactly what denizes described, in both contexts of a 3d world or a technical drawing. It's just that the word isometric has been adopted by game reviewers to meen any view above the player that isn't top view or side view. The right word would be axonometric game and i think it's more cool to say axonometric game ... Fallout is an axonometric game or better yet Fallout uses an axonometric view over the player character. The situation is just like i don't give a damn if i'm spelling the double tt and ' correctly in english most people don't give a damn if the camera isn't exactly 45 degress so the term was generalized by lazyness to search for the right word in wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axonometric_projection

NOTE: The term isometric perspective as i have read so many times is also a moronic for reasons you can check the article above. Now can we go back to serious Bethesda bitching?

 

[denizsi]

By the way, I made a mistake; I wrote 60° for each angle in isometric projection. It should have been 120°.

Besides, can you offer a practical substitute for the incorrect use of isometric? A term that expresses the same idea correctly and will be commonly understood?

Catering to the common denominators, are we. That's so not Codex.

that's actually one of the problem of isometric projection : objects do not appear to get bigger as they get closer to 'you'.

Why do you think it's a problem? It's just a specific method of projection suited to specific uses where perspective is insufficient or useless, like technical drawings, schematics etc. It's not like the whole world of pictorial projections are trapped within the boundaries of isometric projection. That's why we have all other types of projections techniques.

(specifically : iso-metric, 'cause you got the same scale for the 3 axis - to put it another way the 3 axis are equally forshortened. The fact that objects got a constant size is a consequence).

That doesn't make sense because all three axes are equally foreshortened in both dimetric and trimetric projections as well. Equal foreshortening is the basic principle of parallel projections in general. All that changes in regard to specific subtypes is the representation of real-world right (90°) angles between surfaces in relation to the projection plane. If you draw a isometrically projected a cube with a side length of 10 cm on a paper, it will still have a side length of 10 cm when drawn dimetrically and trimetrically (yes, it should be trimetric. I was probably thinking of axonometry as a whole while writing that) projected.

In a trimetric projection, the 3 axes are unequally foreshortened - it depends of the angle of viewing (hence tri-metry : 3 scales : one per axis). Dimetric : the scale of 2 axes are equally determined, the scale of the 3rd is determined separetelay (hence the di- metry : you got 2 scales).

Again, doesn't compute. Yes, it depends on the angle of viewing, but foreshortening is still equal. If it's not equal, it's no longer isometric, dimetric or trimetric; not parallel projection in short but some other type of perspective / oblique projection. The whole point of all parallel projections is to present constant proportions so it's readable and processable by whoever needs those techniques (engineers, architects etc.), so 12,25 cm line is 12,25 cm without exception in all presentations of the drawing, from all angles.

If you are in further disagreement, search for some academic guides on projection types (adding a +".edu" to the search should make it easier to find one). Either way, I'll be happy to carry this debate to PMs, citing sources without derailing the thread into geeky boredom.

But shouldn't we be bitching about Bethesda and how they are raping everything we love?

What, they lobotomised Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky and the co and are raping their bare-brains?

 

[denizsi]

The right word would be axonometric game and i think it's more cool to say axonometric game ...

Judging from the sources I've read on the subject, there seems to be some blur on distinction or synonymity on exact hierarchy of projection types, and the exact structure changes from one country to another, but for all intents and purposes, it's safe to treat the two as synonym, or use either one to imply the same thing (family of parallel/axonometric projections). So it's correct despite the blur which is mostly caused by the the varying usages of the technique in varying times, depending on the geography. So, there is your answer, Claw. Would you be happy with axonometric?

 

[galsiah]

The point is that the "incorrect" use of isometric has no clear idea/definition

That is the point.

What? To preclude meaningful discussion on anything but caricatured extremes?
Again - in some contexts that's fair enough; in the context of a non-trivial discussion on [the gameplay implications of] viewing projections, it isn't.


@aries202
I know - it's an in 'joke' relating to a farcical thread in general discussion a while back. KC's just implying that absurd derailment might be over-due by re-posting that joke.

 

[Admiral Rimjob POOBUM]

NB:
On a side note, I think that every teacher and every faculty language should & ought to have
an example of the 'mathjoke' in Kingcomrade's post from 12.04 AM, April 17th 2007.

But it sucks: the limit doesn't exist. :D

PLEASE STOP THERE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.

 

[Claw]

Good news! Half 3D is now the accepted substitute for isometric.

Everyone is happy now.

 

[Amasius]

Claw, you are a true warrior of the wastes, but your fight is doomed. Nothing can beat such stupidity.

 

[MacBone]

Half 3D, eh? Is that like being half pregnant?

 

[Elwro]

Sounds like 1.5 D - it's just space and ti.

 

[psycojester]

Space and Tea? Isn't that what England is comprised of?

 

[Sitra Achara]

NB:
On a side note, I think that every teacher and every faculty language should & ought to have
an example of the 'mathjoke' in Kingcomrade's post from 12.04 AM, April 17th 2007.

But it sucks: the limit doesn't exist. :D

It does exist when you study complex analysis.