Three thoughts:
1) hiding the "hard numbers"
As pointed out, the numbers are always there. And there are some hard-core gamers who want to see every little number.
One thought might be to have a "self introspection" statistic. If yours is high, you get a good impression of the numbers. If it''s low, you might *think* your strength is 8 -- but really it might be 5 or 11. Or maybe you just get descriptors. Number freaks would shove points into this stat, giving them the out-of-game bonus of knowing exactly what''s going on -- but other gamers might ignore it, allowing them to bump up other stats and have an in-game bonus to balance it out.
And I''ve always thought that things like HP/MP and damage should never be visible as numbers. Now that most CRPGs have graphics that can be better than reality, there''s no reason not to show damage graphically.
Still, I don''t think number hiding completely addresses the roleplayingness of the game.
2) +/- traits you select
I''m going from memory, but about twenty years ago there was a series of CRPGs out that had insane numbers of stats, skills, etc. Something of Arkana, maybe? In any case, you could choose positive traits (regeneration, feats of strength, etc), but would have to choose negative ones (always picks fights, disease prone, etc) to balance it out.
The problem I had with it was that it did not make me bond with my characters at all. All I thought was "damn that Fafhyr, getting me into a fight again". Made me feel even more outside the game. It''s possible it just wasn''t done well in that game, but it sure didn''t add much for me.
It''s also possible it was the sheer number of characters; my role playing limit is about three party members, and this one had 6-8. I can''t get attached to my people if I can''t even remember which one of them has which spell!
On the other hand -- suppose negative traits were self-inflicted? For example, at character generation you select "picks fights in bars". While playing, if you''re in a bar and pick a fight, you get some form of experience (and a higher score in the negative trait). If you choose to ignore your trait, there could be a slight negative influence. This would only work for situational traits; constitutional traits (like "prone to catch colds") would need to be handled by the system. But by rewarding the player for play acting correctly, you almost force a binding...
Alignment/faction is sort of a situational trait. Some of the roguelikes use alignment in a neat way (even though I don''t buy into the way good/evil is done).
3) forcing actions
In (2) I mentioned not liking actions being forced on me. This kind of ties into the OP: "Idiots don''t use tactics, and sicklings don''t do hard drinks knowingly." The problem is that the player needs to be in control, otherwise it''s more that the game is playing them.
Now, I''m okay if the characters refuse to act out of character. I''m not sure why, but I''m okay with my character telling the rest of the party "take your hands off my stuff!" during inventory changes. Even though in reality the game is forcing the action, it''s presented in an in-game manner. Similarly, even if you command Thundra to slash, parry, step to the side, and attack the third giant rat, perhaps he''ll forget and just berzerk.
And, of course, it can be used positively. Thundra might be stupid, but he''s been a fighter for a while, and might just choose a better tactic. Or the learned party member might refuse to open a door because of runes noticed in the wood. If the player is in charge of several characters, I''d love to see some inter-character interaction. Most games that have this only have it in a very limited sense (clip sequences and "my condition changed" side comments) that might add to the atmosphere, but not to role playing.
Just make sure the manual states explicitly that your orders are merely suggestions to the characters, and that they may choose their own path occasionally...
12 users logged in
Proud partner of GDC 2025
Before posting, review our community guidelines.
Support GameDev.net with a monthly GDNet+ subscription!
[RPG Design Theory]Statistic-Controlled PC Perspective
122
November 20, 2003 07:20 PM
Ho man. What a disclaimer. At the risk of being edited, man, I must retort with my own.
I don''t know if I''m a serious member, but I''m pretty sure I''m a serious designer, but I may not make the criteria. But that''s not what I''m here for. I nearly fell asleep scanning the posts because it reminded me all too much of days when I fought long and hard on pen and paper rpg forums, and all those stats just kind of turned into a big blur, and it''s come to me in a revelation, you cannot make a person role play. No matter what happens, if you aren''t the DM, and if you''re a DM who will not reach across the table, tear up your aberrant player''s character sheet right before their eyes and kick them out of your house, laughing as you say, "in a freakish accident, the skies darkened, and LO!!! your mortal body was smitten with great lightning from heaven and you are NO MORE!!! Begone to the realms of the abyss from which there is no return." then you have NO REAL POWER.
That''s the end of the disclaimer. Dude. Don''t take offense. Laugh, please. I haven''t been around this forum for as long as probably everyone who will read this post.
Players will always play their characters by the numbers, because they like to win. And the numbers determine performance in a game. That''s the long and short of it. If you want to take away the numbers, then you need to create a game that doesn''t care about the numbers.
I imagine an rpg which is fully interactive- you can interact with the environment, you can interact with people, and you can see the short term and long term results of your actions, for better or for worse. However, to really make it fully interactive, you''d have to, as a game designer, make the world and npcs customizeable by game, or by server in an mmorpg. The task is not only daunting, from the sheer attention to detail required, but it is also, sadly, expensive to think about. The maintenance, customer service, and mindstrain on the development team would be so severe. It''s hard enough to maintain worlds and come out with expansions on a regular basis. Imagine an mmorpg where each server had a history. Npc''s had memories of past characters, evil and good deeds were remembered, moments were cherished, and good jokes were passed on in the local tavern. The scars of battle would remain on the land and in the memories of the survivors. It''s alot to think about, and even if that were possible, and a reality, the players would still care about the numbers. And, you know, I''d be happy if an awesome mmorpg just had a reasonable monthly fee.
I''ve never actually called down lighting on one of my players, but I have looked at them like I was about to.
Incidentally, I am working on an RPG using the ogre engine, and I could use some help. If anyone would like to hear more and consider contributing, email me at Ironotaku@msn.com
Edit away.
I don''t know if I''m a serious member, but I''m pretty sure I''m a serious designer, but I may not make the criteria. But that''s not what I''m here for. I nearly fell asleep scanning the posts because it reminded me all too much of days when I fought long and hard on pen and paper rpg forums, and all those stats just kind of turned into a big blur, and it''s come to me in a revelation, you cannot make a person role play. No matter what happens, if you aren''t the DM, and if you''re a DM who will not reach across the table, tear up your aberrant player''s character sheet right before their eyes and kick them out of your house, laughing as you say, "in a freakish accident, the skies darkened, and LO!!! your mortal body was smitten with great lightning from heaven and you are NO MORE!!! Begone to the realms of the abyss from which there is no return." then you have NO REAL POWER.
That''s the end of the disclaimer. Dude. Don''t take offense. Laugh, please. I haven''t been around this forum for as long as probably everyone who will read this post.
Players will always play their characters by the numbers, because they like to win. And the numbers determine performance in a game. That''s the long and short of it. If you want to take away the numbers, then you need to create a game that doesn''t care about the numbers.
I imagine an rpg which is fully interactive- you can interact with the environment, you can interact with people, and you can see the short term and long term results of your actions, for better or for worse. However, to really make it fully interactive, you''d have to, as a game designer, make the world and npcs customizeable by game, or by server in an mmorpg. The task is not only daunting, from the sheer attention to detail required, but it is also, sadly, expensive to think about. The maintenance, customer service, and mindstrain on the development team would be so severe. It''s hard enough to maintain worlds and come out with expansions on a regular basis. Imagine an mmorpg where each server had a history. Npc''s had memories of past characters, evil and good deeds were remembered, moments were cherished, and good jokes were passed on in the local tavern. The scars of battle would remain on the land and in the memories of the survivors. It''s alot to think about, and even if that were possible, and a reality, the players would still care about the numbers. And, you know, I''d be happy if an awesome mmorpg just had a reasonable monthly fee.
I''ve never actually called down lighting on one of my players, but I have looked at them like I was about to.
Incidentally, I am working on an RPG using the ogre engine, and I could use some help. If anyone would like to hear more and consider contributing, email me at Ironotaku@msn.com Edit away.
140
November 20, 2003 08:04 PM
quote:
Original post by IronOtaku
... NO REAL POWER
What does that have to do with anything? You create the system and it is your job to both pick the players (for a prpg, as opposed to having unbreakable rules in a crpg) and immerse them enough to make them want to fond out what the bartender was hinting at or help the beggar woman etc etc.
quote:
Original post by IronOtaku
Players will always play their characters by the numbers, because they like to win. And the numbers determine performance in a game. That''s the long and short of it. If you want to take away the numbers, then you need to create a game that doesn''t care about the numbers.
I think you''re stereotyping both games and players here. First, you''re saying that scores will help you to win, which doesn''t have to be the case. Also, you''re saying that all players just want to win when in reality I have a great deal of friends who just want to experience new and exciting things. If they win, then great, but if the game was really immersing and they lost then they''ll leave with a certain sense of loss, though not the shallow "if I had only another +2 bonus I could''ve won!" sense. Ultimately I think that you''re thinking in terms of the stereotypical games that dominate the crpg as well to some degree the prpg market.
quote:
Original post by IronOtaku
I imagine an rpg which is fully interactive- you can interact with the environment, you can interact with people, and you can see the short term and long term results of your actions, for better or for worse. However, to really make it fully interactive, you''d have to, as a game designer, make the world and npcs customizeable by game, or by server in an mmorpg. The task is not only daunting, from the sheer attention to detail required, but it is also, sadly, expensive to think about.
Read this thread as well as some of the links I provided there. It''s the approach to the problem as well as your attitude abouts its possibility that determines its level of difficulty.
quote:
Original post by IronOtaku
The maintenance, customer service, and mindstrain on the development team would be so severe. It''s hard enough to maintain worlds and come out with expansions on a regular basis. Imagine an mmorpg where each server had a history. And, you know, I''d be happy if an awesome mmorpg just had a reasonable monthly fee.
You shouldn''t be thinking about these things at this point.
234
November 20, 2003 11:20 PM
I see this thread is starting to get a little lively.
Inmate 2993: Whether the player is cast into a role at the beginning, or starts out with a blank slate is not the issue. They either start with completely neutral stats, or stats in some setup to represent their character. From this point they can influence their stats by their actions. The idea is that the character becomes what the player makes him act as. If he starts as a knight, and proceeds to spend all of his time studying magic, he''ll become a wizard. He''ll probably still retain some skill with a sword, but not like if he worked a being a knight. I don''t know if anybody here plays tabletop strategy games (I imagine most computer ones are similar), but you generally start out with a predetermined set of units deployed at predetermined locatons. Also, the board doesn''t usually change from game to game either. Yet every game, the commanders can play with a myriad of different strategies from offensive to defensive using different units and moves every time. Similarly, the stats should be representations of the player, not tools he uses.
In a more general response, the numbers are hidden because they are not meant to be there. In the same way that there are no numbers in real life, there "aren''t" any in the game. Obviously, the computer needs some numerical representation, but that''s not the player''s business. Think of it as data abstraction. Secondly and connected to this, stats aren''t chosen, again because they "don''t exist". There are skills and traits that can be learned, acquired, taught, and practiced. Thirdly, in relation to forced actions, the computer should "never" have to force a players actions. I realize this is completely unrealistic and that a compromise has to be reached, especially if the designer wants to include story and flow. However, idealy the character the player controls would reflect the player well enough that the computer wouldn''t have to. Again, this is unrealistic, but rather than a fixed path, it''s more like bowling with bumpers. You have free reign until the game''s going into the gutter, at which point it''s gently nudged back in.
In response to some of the other comments, check out the thread linked by kordova, and I''ll add that a world with completely freedom will end up as either a sandbox or real life. Both of which are alright, but neither of which are really the goal. On one hand you''re free to do whatever you want with no real effect other than having done it, and on the other hand you''ve got...well, real life. Also, just as a final note, more options don''t necessarily mean more gameplay.
tj963
Inmate 2993: Whether the player is cast into a role at the beginning, or starts out with a blank slate is not the issue. They either start with completely neutral stats, or stats in some setup to represent their character. From this point they can influence their stats by their actions. The idea is that the character becomes what the player makes him act as. If he starts as a knight, and proceeds to spend all of his time studying magic, he''ll become a wizard. He''ll probably still retain some skill with a sword, but not like if he worked a being a knight. I don''t know if anybody here plays tabletop strategy games (I imagine most computer ones are similar), but you generally start out with a predetermined set of units deployed at predetermined locatons. Also, the board doesn''t usually change from game to game either. Yet every game, the commanders can play with a myriad of different strategies from offensive to defensive using different units and moves every time. Similarly, the stats should be representations of the player, not tools he uses.
In a more general response, the numbers are hidden because they are not meant to be there. In the same way that there are no numbers in real life, there "aren''t" any in the game. Obviously, the computer needs some numerical representation, but that''s not the player''s business. Think of it as data abstraction. Secondly and connected to this, stats aren''t chosen, again because they "don''t exist". There are skills and traits that can be learned, acquired, taught, and practiced. Thirdly, in relation to forced actions, the computer should "never" have to force a players actions. I realize this is completely unrealistic and that a compromise has to be reached, especially if the designer wants to include story and flow. However, idealy the character the player controls would reflect the player well enough that the computer wouldn''t have to. Again, this is unrealistic, but rather than a fixed path, it''s more like bowling with bumpers. You have free reign until the game''s going into the gutter, at which point it''s gently nudged back in.
In response to some of the other comments, check out the thread linked by kordova, and I''ll add that a world with completely freedom will end up as either a sandbox or real life. Both of which are alright, but neither of which are really the goal. On one hand you''re free to do whatever you want with no real effect other than having done it, and on the other hand you''ve got...well, real life. Also, just as a final note, more options don''t necessarily mean more gameplay.
tj963
tj963
November 21, 2003 11:39 AM
NO REAL POWER indeed. It''s a very important point, but it seems you missed it. Alas...
I wish it was really possible to make someone want to be immersed in a world. But the reality is that many gamers do not care about being immersed. Many do, but let me tell you something. Immersion is what the reviewers rave about. The numbers are what the hardcore players rave about. You may believe I am stereotyping players, but the fact is that there are many, many players who support this stereotype. I know that there are exceptions to this stereotype and we all know these people, we as designers are drawn to these people, because it is through them that our true visions can be expressed. But they''re not the majority, I''m sorry, and I think you know that.
Kordova, I don''t think you can assume what my attitude is, and if you really think I shouldn''t be concerned with cost at the design phase, then I doubt that you have much to say that will really help me. I''m not trying to oughtright dismiss everything you have to say about the matter, but a designer should always have cost in mind. Games are a business, and although I believe there is an art to making a great game, and I am an artist, I might add, the business side of things cannot be ignored.
I wish it was really possible to make someone want to be immersed in a world. But the reality is that many gamers do not care about being immersed. Many do, but let me tell you something. Immersion is what the reviewers rave about. The numbers are what the hardcore players rave about. You may believe I am stereotyping players, but the fact is that there are many, many players who support this stereotype. I know that there are exceptions to this stereotype and we all know these people, we as designers are drawn to these people, because it is through them that our true visions can be expressed. But they''re not the majority, I''m sorry, and I think you know that.
Kordova, I don''t think you can assume what my attitude is, and if you really think I shouldn''t be concerned with cost at the design phase, then I doubt that you have much to say that will really help me. I''m not trying to oughtright dismiss everything you have to say about the matter, but a designer should always have cost in mind. Games are a business, and although I believe there is an art to making a great game, and I am an artist, I might add, the business side of things cannot be ignored.
140
November 21, 2003 01:35 PM
quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
NO REAL POWER indeed. It''s a very important point, but it seems you missed it. Alas...
I wish it was really possible to make someone want to be immersed in a world. But the reality is that many gamers do not care about being immersed. Many do, but let me tell you something. Immersion is what the reviewers rave about. The numbers are what the hardcore players rave about. You may believe I am stereotyping players, but the fact is that there are many, many players who support this stereotype. I know that there are exceptions to this stereotype and we all know these people, we as designers are drawn to these people, because it is through them that our true visions can be expressed. But they''re not the majority, I''m sorry, and I think you know that.
Did I miss it at all? Or was I simply disagreeing with you. And I brought up worrying about costs etc as I don''t see any ideas presented here fleshed out enough to start figuring machine load etc.
You tell me all of this as though I am unaware of it. Well I don''t recall anyone saying that we were trying to cater to anyone, as opposed to just getting our thoughts out on the issue. As for majority; No one thought that deer hunters were a majority of gamers and yet thousands of the game and its quickly following clones practically flew off of the shelves. I think the problem is that everyone sees that certain situations work so we confine our thoughts and ideas to that system and quickly brush aside any contrary ideas, as you basically just did. I, for one, would rather sit in idle thought and try to invent something rather than manipulate a given genre, stick on some graphics and package it as is the unarguable formula at present.
So no. I don''t think I missed anything. I think you may''ve, though. I, personally, would like to create a game that doesn''t exist simply to fuel ones ego and challenge their basic math skills as they figure out how they can max out their character in x number of stats. I''d rather give them immersive and responsive world. I''m not looking to cater to the mass market, which seems to be your main argument.
122
November 21, 2003 05:31 PM
No, I'm sorry, kordova. I just stated in plain english that I thought you WERE aware of it. I just don't understand why you attack my position so vehemently when you can see that I'm on the same page as you. Perhaps you would like to spend one of those idle moments of thought re-reading my initial post.
Just to clarify my position, I would very much like to see a game do that very thing- Immerse a player in another world, and maybe go beyond the ego gratification thing. However, in the past, I have seen games accomplish the beyond-ego gratification only through things like a compelling story- something that we're trying to make more interactive today. A compelling story may have a good message, or teach you something about yourself. Once again, it probably depends on the player more than the game if they get something like that out of it- you don't have control over it. And if you thought you did, isn't that more of an ego issue than maxing out scores?
In older games, everything was scripted and laid out for you in a story that you experience as if through a novel instead of a pen & paper role playing game, which is run by a live person, where the NPCs talk to you directly, and then you must respond using your own words, which is what we're going for, correct?
But that's all content. It's not gameplay. This post seems to focus on creating a game that somehow takes min/maxing (an old pen & paper rpg term) out of a game, which is all gameplay related. Here's two game conventions that while annoying, are what most gameplay in rpg's, and some other genres are founded upon. This is just to clarify my point of view, not to condescend or state anything that would possibly be redundant, as I'm sure everyone who reads this post knows more than I.
1. Leveling up. You have to spend time fighting so you can get stronger, so you can defeat the great evil force and save the world. Sometimes, you have to go out of your way to do this, for hours. This is all about numbers. So, throw out leveling up first.
2. Collecting Powerful Items (Loot) You have to get the best weapons and equipment if you're going to win. EverQuest has taken this about the furthest that I've seen, and frankly, I think this is terrible. Monty Haul is the p&prpg label for this kind of game, and the entire game is built around it, besides being built around guilds, which are set up to, besides organize group events, CONTROL ITEM DISTRIBUTION. I've heard of EQ as a gigantic virtual rat race, which I find to be a great tragedy, even though so many people play it. So, you can throw great loot out of the equation and that might help.
These are some ideas which I am not interested in implementing in my current project, but may be useful to others. And no, dude. My main argument is not that we need to cater to a mass market. We're not even sure what the mass market is. But I've found that some of these games that fit a certain mold really are fun to play. There is also room for improvement within those games, so the format need not change completely. As with most people who come out flaming, as you have, kordova, you're mainly calling the kettle black, brushing aside my ideas, while not offering much explanation of why they trouble you so, and not even coming close to understanding what I'm really saying.
Besides, why am i going to flesh out ideas to anyone but the people who I am working with? Seems like I'm getting no help and all heat here.
[edited by - ironotaku on November 21, 2003 6:35:43 PM]
Just to clarify my position, I would very much like to see a game do that very thing- Immerse a player in another world, and maybe go beyond the ego gratification thing. However, in the past, I have seen games accomplish the beyond-ego gratification only through things like a compelling story- something that we're trying to make more interactive today. A compelling story may have a good message, or teach you something about yourself. Once again, it probably depends on the player more than the game if they get something like that out of it- you don't have control over it. And if you thought you did, isn't that more of an ego issue than maxing out scores?
In older games, everything was scripted and laid out for you in a story that you experience as if through a novel instead of a pen & paper role playing game, which is run by a live person, where the NPCs talk to you directly, and then you must respond using your own words, which is what we're going for, correct?
But that's all content. It's not gameplay. This post seems to focus on creating a game that somehow takes min/maxing (an old pen & paper rpg term) out of a game, which is all gameplay related. Here's two game conventions that while annoying, are what most gameplay in rpg's, and some other genres are founded upon. This is just to clarify my point of view, not to condescend or state anything that would possibly be redundant, as I'm sure everyone who reads this post knows more than I.
1. Leveling up. You have to spend time fighting so you can get stronger, so you can defeat the great evil force and save the world. Sometimes, you have to go out of your way to do this, for hours. This is all about numbers. So, throw out leveling up first.
2. Collecting Powerful Items (Loot) You have to get the best weapons and equipment if you're going to win. EverQuest has taken this about the furthest that I've seen, and frankly, I think this is terrible. Monty Haul is the p&prpg label for this kind of game, and the entire game is built around it, besides being built around guilds, which are set up to, besides organize group events, CONTROL ITEM DISTRIBUTION. I've heard of EQ as a gigantic virtual rat race, which I find to be a great tragedy, even though so many people play it. So, you can throw great loot out of the equation and that might help.
These are some ideas which I am not interested in implementing in my current project, but may be useful to others. And no, dude. My main argument is not that we need to cater to a mass market. We're not even sure what the mass market is. But I've found that some of these games that fit a certain mold really are fun to play. There is also room for improvement within those games, so the format need not change completely. As with most people who come out flaming, as you have, kordova, you're mainly calling the kettle black, brushing aside my ideas, while not offering much explanation of why they trouble you so, and not even coming close to understanding what I'm really saying.
Besides, why am i going to flesh out ideas to anyone but the people who I am working with? Seems like I'm getting no help and all heat here.
[edited by - ironotaku on November 21, 2003 6:35:43 PM]
140
November 21, 2003 06:20 PM
quote:
Original post by IronOtaku
No, I''m sorry, kordova. I just stated in plain english that I thought you WERE aware of it. I just don''t understand why you attack my position so vehemently when you can see that I''m on the same page as you. Perhaps you would like to spend one of those idle moments of thought re-reading my initial post.
I just reread it and it seemed that because the majority wouldn''t choose immersion over numbers that you thought that wouldn''t be a very good idea. Admittedly, I''ve had very little sleep for the past week so I could be misreading, and I realize I also came off as rather opinionated and hot-headed. I think the latter is one half tiredness and one half dealing with 12 year old designers in the help wanted. In any event I apologize.
quote:
Original post by IronOtaku
In older games, everything was scripted and laid out for you in a story that you experience as if through a novel instead of a pen & paper role playing game, which is run by a live person, where the NPCs talk to you directly, and then you must respond using your own words, which is what we''re going for, correct?
To some degree that is my aim, though I can''t speak for everyone.
But that''s all content. It''s not gameplay. This post seems to focus on creating a game that somehow takes min/maxing (an old pen & paper rpg term) out of a game, which is all gameplay related. Here''s two game conventions that while annoying, are what most gameplay in rpg''s, and some other genres are founded upon. This is just to clarify my point of view, not to condescend or state anything that would possibly be redundant, as I''m sure everyone who reads this post knows more than I.
quote:
Original post by IronOtaku
These are some ideas which I am not interested in implementing in my current project, but may be useful to others. And no, dude. My main argument is not that we need to cater to a mass market.
Point taken and this probably fits into my first response.
quote:
Original post by IronOtaku
As with most people who come out flaming, as you have, kordova, you''re mainly calling the kettle black, brushing aside my ideas, while not offering much explanation of why they trouble you so, and not even coming close to understanding what I''m really saying.
I didn''t, or perhaps at this point don''t, intend to flame, but again I read it as you thought that many ideas weren''t doable etc, which is a common defeatist attitude that I''ve encountered here.
133
November 22, 2003 07:51 AM
quote:
In a more general response, the numbers are hidden because they are not meant to be there. In the same way that there are no numbers in real life, there "aren''t" any in the game. Obviously, the computer needs some numerical representation, but that''s not the player''s business. Think of it as data abstraction. Secondly and connected to this, stats aren''t chosen, again because they "don''t exist". There are skills and traits that can be learned, acquired, taught, and practiced. Thirdly, in relation to forced actions, the computer should "never" have to force a players actions. I realize this is completely unrealistic and that a compromise has to be reached, especially if the designer wants to include story and flow. However, idealy the character the player controls would reflect the player well enough that the computer wouldn''t have to. Again, this is unrealistic, but rather than a fixed path, it''s more like bowling with bumpers. You have free reign until the game''s going into the gutter, at which point it''s gently nudged back in.
why arent more designers thinking like this, it would open a whole new level of experience....
quote:
..., and I''ll add that a world with completely freedom will end up as either a sandbox or real life. ...
not sure if i understand fully what you mean here but take for instance morrowind.
you have complete freedom, including the "form character based on player", yet are somewhat bound to the story. honestly i havent played it much as it got boring after some hours because the land was sooo empty (needing a quarter hour to get from one city to another and just one enemy every 5 minutes is not really what i want
), but still it features a great system to base on.
http://mitglied.lycos.de/lousyphreak/
122
November 24, 2003 04:54 PM
Kordova,
It takes a big man to apologize, and take an attitude of working things out and communicating, when it''s sometimes easier to just let pride have it''s way. You''ve truly impressed me, and I hope you find a way to achieve your goals.
I apologize for my gruff responses. I''m a veteran of heated discussions, and so I''m also quick to respond in kind. Good luck.
It takes a big man to apologize, and take an attitude of working things out and communicating, when it''s sometimes easier to just let pride have it''s way. You''ve truly impressed me, and I hope you find a way to achieve your goals.
I apologize for my gruff responses. I''m a veteran of heated discussions, and so I''m also quick to respond in kind. Good luck.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
Recommended Tutorials
Advertisement