My first thought would be AI if no DM were controlling the monsters. (even though that's not technically game rules.)
My second thought is that it would be the scripting necessary for robust readied actions.
Skill challenges.
Disagree. Think Skill challenges would be the easiest thing to computerize. You have stats, you have skills based on stats, and then you have modifiers via feats (which can be done as perks), powers, etc. It might get a little iffy towards the end, but it will still be the easiest.
IMO the most difficult part of making anything a computer version/game tends to be movement rules and sight.
Any computerized version of SCs would be very linear, call for very specific skills, and have limited flexibility, not to mention an absence of the abstract thought needed for good SCs. Sure, you could have the system tell you "You will need to use Skill X and Skill Y, and achieve 3 successes...", but that takes away all of the intuitive use of SCs. As is well known, the best way to use SCs is to make it so the party has no idea they are even using them. They are presented with a situation, and they choose which skills to use, how to use them, and to what end. The DM will then set the DCs based on those choices. Based on the number of successes and failures, the SC itself might evolve and change. Computer games are not capable of that level of AI...at least none that I have ever played. About the best you could hope for from a computer-version of SCs are individual skill checks, and the skills used would be dictated by the writer to achieve the ends he hopes for.
IF one were to make a fully compliant version of 4th ed in 3d, not necessarily super nice art or graphics, which aspect of the rule set do you think would be the most challenging to correctly implement?
My first thought would be AI if no DM were controlling the monsters. (even though that's not technically game rules.)
My second thought is that it would be the scripting necessary for robust readied actions.
Possibly being forced to close some loops, or solve unknown interactions (like multiple interupts per trigger).
No idea how to correctly impliment something that isn't correct.
I'm not so sure about that.
Any computerized version of SCs would be very linear, call for very specific skills, and have limited flexibility, not to mention an absence of the abstract thought needed for good SCs. Sure, you could have the system tell you "You will need to use Skill X and Skill Y, and achieve 3 successes...", but that takes away all of the intuitive use of SCs. As is well known, the best way to use SCs is to make it so the party has no idea they are even using them. They are presented with a situation, and they choose which skills to use, how to use them, and to what end. The DM will then set the DCs based on those choices. Based on the number of successes and failures, the SC itself might evolve and change. Computer games are not capable of that level of AI...at least none that I have ever played. About the best you could hope for from a computer-version of SCs are individual skill checks, and the skills used would be dictated by the writer to achieve the ends he hopes for.
My brother and I were talking about making a very basic rules interpreter. The SC thing could be handled behind the scenes where the players don't even know that the skill checks they are making are compared to a skill challenge goal. Multiple SC's could even be run in parrallel or nested with each other.
Hard part to do "naturally" would be anything dealing with dialog. I cannot see how to do that without branching dialogue trees like practically every other RPG.
If there were a live DM running a DM client then the DM could adjudicate and handle all the RPG aspects, but the CPU would be a very poor substitue.
IF one were to make a fully compliant version of 4th ed in 3d, not necessarily super nice art or graphics, which aspect of the rule set do you think would be the most challenging to correctly implement?
My first thought would be AI if no DM were controlling the monsters. (even though that's not technically game rules.)
My second thought is that it would be the scripting necessary for robust readied actions.
Possibly being forced to close some loops, or solve unknown interactions (like multiple interupts per trigger).
No idea how to correctly impliment something that isn't correct.
Multiple interrupts per trigger IS tricky. How would that resolve in pnp? Lets say two interrupts triggering off an attack.
They both are valid for selection when the attack is made (after targetting lol)-- now what order do they go in (I would say first click first serve), can they invalidate the other (I would say no) hmm any other difficulties? I can see interrupts triggering interrupts or reactions as well. This reminds me a lot of MtG and I seem to recall that in MtG you put things on a stack, much like a CPU, resolve them in a predefined order, in this case LIFO, and as new options pop up allow them to hop on the stack as necessary.
I think this would be a fun open source project to work on actually and thinking about how this would be written you can see a ton of parallels to MtG. One thing that this version of DnD is sorely lacking imo is meta-magic and I wonder if that was left out due to early hints at electronic tools.
My brother and I were talking about making a very basic rules interpreter. The SC thing could be handled behind the scenes where the players don't even know that the skill checks they are making are compared to a skill challenge goal. Multiple SC's could even be run in parrallel or nested with each other.
Hard part to do "naturally" would be anything dealing with dialog. I cannot see how to do that without branching dialogue trees like practically every other RPG.
If there were a live DM running a DM client then the DM could adjudicate and handle all the RPG aspects, but the CPU would be a very poor substitue.
Yes, all of the mechanics could be ran behind the scenes, but in the end there would still be a very linear path or series of paths that could not compensate for player interpretation of how they wish to use a skill or the improvisational use of other skills not directly logical to the SC. Sure, the CPU could be running in the background, keeping track of successes and failures, and alterations of the story could occur based on the overall success or failure of the SC...but...and this is the part that I can't figure a way around...the skills you could use to overcome the SCs would have to basically be stated outright. This means that only the game's writer would have a say in which skills would be useful for any given SC, and no amount of improvisation could take place.
My brother and I were talking about making a very basic rules interpreter. The SC thing could be handled behind the scenes where the players don't even know that the skill checks they are making are compared to a skill challenge goal. Multiple SC's could even be run in parrallel or nested with each other.
Hard part to do "naturally" would be anything dealing with dialog. I cannot see how to do that without branching dialogue trees like practically every other RPG.
If there were a live DM running a DM client then the DM could adjudicate and handle all the RPG aspects, but the CPU would be a very poor substitue.
Yes, all of the mechanics could be ran behind the scenes, but in the end there would still be a very linear path or series of paths that could not compensate for player interpretation of how they wish to use a skill or the improvisational use of other skills not directly logical to the SC. Sure, the CPU could be running in the background, keeping track of successes and failures, and alterations of the story could occur based on the overall success or failure of the SC...but...and this is the part that I can't figure a way around...the skills you could use to overcome the SCs would have to basically be stated outright. This means that only the game's writer would have a say in which skills would be useful for any given SC, and no amount of improvisation could take place.
I see what you mean, the illusion of choice compared to real choice is terribly difficult problem to solve. Sandbox and emergent game play vs scripted is an interesting debate. You ever play any of the Oblivion/Morrowind games on the cpu?
You ever play any of the Oblivion/Morrowind games on the cpu?
Love me some Oblivion.
No, the graphics weren't the very best, but the amount of options was quite large. Many of the "choices" you had were not really choices, though. The story progressed on a fairly limited path, but the illusion of choice was huge and very well done...so it made it tolerable. More tolerable, for me, than the vast majority of computer RPGs.
Also...if this ever were to happen, could it PLEASE not be in the Forgotten Realms? There are OTHER worlds out there...
The real challenge in converting D&D to a computer is in keeping the magic alive. And the magic of D&D isn't in the rules. It's in the freedom, the story, the character interaction, that kind of thing.
I don't really see why you'd want to convert D&D to a computer if you're not interested in keeping that. Though if that's what you're trying then I'd just scrap Ready entirely, along with a bunch of other mostly freeform options and create a rather rigid game. Interrupt triggers would really slow the game down most likely.
It would be taking the game back a little old school, but what would be wrong with a well done tactical game? Turn based combat on a grid? I for one am tired of the Baulders Gate style D&D (PSX not PC version...).
Also...if this ever were to happen, could it PLEASE not be in the Forgotten Realms? There are OTHER worlds out there...
Imagine a game like TOEE only with 4e rules. However, it would still be really difficult to perfectly implement things like interrupts. Even ToEE, as good as it was on the 3rd edition ruleset, couldn't do everything perfectly but it was pretty damn good. On the other hand, it would be much easier to implement encounter powers since in most turn based games the beginning and end of an encounter are easier to define.
Now imagine doing Neverwinter Nights in 4e (yeah, I know that's going to happen but I'm dubious about how close it will really be to the 4e ruleset). In a multiplayer, realtime environment you can pretty much forget anything that take more than 1/2 second to decide on - optional opportunity attacks, interrupts, reactions, choosing where to put someone for forced movement ... all that kind of stuff would have to be heavily abstracted or done away with unless you accept that it's going to be partially a reflex-game. Also, encounter powers would probably have to be set to a cooldown timer since in realtime games it usually becomes trivially easy to bail out of a combat and come back a little later. Not that any of this would necessarily make a bad game, it's just that sacrifices have to be made if you're going to turn a turn based tabletop RPG into a realtime RPG.
All said, I'd love to see a faithful adaptation of 4e rules in a single player turn based game, with the option of multiplayer if you don't mind sitting around waiting for people over the Internet to make up their minds on what they're going to do next.
And finally, I always go back to my old saw that any Dungeons and Dragons game that doesn't have the option of a DM playing along with the PCs is not really Dungeons and Dragons. Once again, that doesn't mean it can't be good - I just believe that if you don't have a DM it's not D&D.
You ever play any of the Oblivion/Morrowind games on the cpu?
Love me some Oblivion.
No, the graphics weren't the very best, but the amount of options was quite large. Many of the "choices" you had were not really choices, though. The story progressed on a fairly limited path, but the illusion of choice was huge and very well done...so it made it tolerable. More tolerable, for me, than the vast majority of computer RPGs.
You ever play Ultima Online, that game was pretty free-form?
Myeah my comment was more on the "fun implementation" then "technical implementation"
The real challenge in converting D&D to a computer is in keeping the magic alive. And the magic of D&D isn't in the rules. It's in the freedom, the story, the character interaction, that kind of thing.
I don't really see why you'd want to convert D&D to a computer if you're not interested in keeping that. Though if that's what you're trying then I'd just scrap Ready entirely, along with a bunch of other mostly freeform options and create a rather rigid game. Interrupt triggers would really slow the game down most likely.
The motivation comes from playing on MapTools. It's 2-d, not 3-d, doesn't implement 4th ed LoS, but it is relatively powerful with it's macroing.
We started playing with Map Tools and adding more and more macros and started wondering how challenging to implement the full rule-set. As is, we have most player powers macroed in the sense that you can click on a button on the token and generate a series of attack rolls with appropriate static modifiers such as what comes off the character sheet and proper damage.
The interaction with the other tokens we manually do. Storytelling is handled via Skype or Vent and so is DM adjudications and any free form stuff. Basically anything outside of combat and damage rolls. Combat rolls also have to be manually modified to take into account situational modifiers from effects, cover, concealment, prone, combat advantage etc.
We felt full-fledged automation would require going to a more robust language such as VB or a C# or something. We were really hoping the VT would have handled this as most of the challenging programming problems have been solved by the MtG online team in their product.
"Free-form" triggers could be handled by a DM manually intercepting or with a scripting solution with drop down lists for a simple grammer, such as When, Who, What, Whom for example and if true react.
Basically whenever anything happens in a game, the state of the game changes. When the state changes check each triggered effect type that's stored in a list to see if the triggering conditions are true:
If triggered effect is interrupt put on top of game effect resolution stack and continue
If triggered effect is reaction put in stack directly after the triggered effect resolves and continue.
Conceptually it doesn't seem super complex. Building the scripting aspect would be the hardest part.
About slowing down, a UI that had action buttons like WoW that flashed when conditions were true for opportuninty actions that gave a player a configurable time (real time) window to act could work. Would give the player a minimum of 5 secs to respond and if the playing group wanted to change the default max_timer that would work as well.
About the magic aspect. I had a lot of fun with old school D&D games like Curse of Azure Bonds and others in the gold box series, I also still play Wizardry 8, and would still play Eye of the Beholder I if I had a copy. I think the market would be terribly small for a game like this and that's why I think WotC hasn't done it themselves.
That said if the animation was really simplistic (i.e. not really animation at all) then this would obviously be less hard to do. Nonetheless if we are talking about having anything that even resembles a modern mass market computer game 4E 'by the rules' is pretty brutal to code compared to even something like 3rd edition.
But you'd probably be battling against the VTT if you're going to make it yourself, I'm assuming they're working on those kind of things as well.
Edit: Make it using essentials classes to cut down on options and just let the player pick which classes s/he wants for the particular combat. Classes like the mage would just have pre-selected powers instead of total player choice. The choices can be built into feat selection, skill selection, and branching story options. Quick time events could be turned into skill challenges.
Could start the whole thing off with the player picking which of the classes to make his main character. Could maybe do some sort of world/dungeon exploration that way but there are a bunch of options that would need to be fleshed out and playtested.
Well if you're going to still have a DM adjucating things it gets a lot easier. You'd need a few overrules in the DM suite, you can program Ready as a simple "when the DM clicks this button, your action goes off" and you might actually be able to support things such as terrain powers (with a simple power editor) and improvisation (by using page 42 and a simple button that lets you make a quick power and throw it on the stack)
But you'd probably be battling against the VTT if you're going to make it yourself, I'm assuming they're working on those kind of things as well.
Well, it's more of an intellectual excercise. It also helps understand the rules better when you think of how a computer would chug through the logic.
With regards to the graphics, that does seem like it would be the lion share of the work in a commercial product. Especially when compared to powerhouses like modern MMOs and the millions they can use on that subject.
Graphically, we were going to use cubes and spheres. Everythings a Modron lol. Not really modrons but I come from an age where 'X' could represent a tank division so a cube is a big step up lol.
Anyone here ever do any mock-ups on the system?
MY huge issue with the VT are the following:
It's 2d.
It's all server side!!!!
No macros.
The art is quite ghetto.
What I love about the VT is the fact that it has a pretty robust importer for chars and monsters. Our Maptools macros is almost as potent at the moment but still not as user friendly.
Edit: Make it using essentials classes to cut down on options and just let the player pick which classes s/he wants for the particular combat. Classes like the mage would just have pre-selected powers instead of total player choice. The choices can be built into feat selection, skill selection, and branching story options. Quick time events could be turned into skill challenges.
This is EXACTLY what I DON'T want.
I want my power choices.
I'm not saying every single power must be in there, but at least all powers form the book that introduces the class, with minor rebalancing of the powers to bring the weaker ones up to par (added damage, etc.)
There's already some pretty in depth 4e macro set's for maptools.
Yeah. I've written a couple of the automation frameworks for MapTool, and the answer is "Time consuming, but not all that hard, rules-wise."
There are some tricky areas - interrupts, fiddly stupid rules elements, stuff like that. But there's a pretty stable core for most things, and the bulk of the game is fairly predictable exceptions to the rules. Character creation would be the harder coding job, I think.
Specifically, you make a system entirely based on 4e rules - so a power gamer comes along with the Blender Mark 2 (or even a charging Kulkor thief/avenger), and one shots everything. When I'm DMing, I can account for this, and modify everything so that he doesn't ruin the game for the rest of the party; and if I'm in particularly good form, I can do it well enough that he's still having fun without having to modify his character, and everyone else is having fun (and maybe not even noticing that the one character is doing more damage in an average round than the rest of them do in the entire encounter).
A computer system would have to allow the DM to change things constantly to account for this kind of thing.
I think the hardest thing would be allowing DM flexibility in the rules.
Specifically, you make a system entirely based on 4e rules - so a power gamer comes along with the Blender Mark 2 (or even a charging Kulkor thief/avenger), and one shots everything. When I'm DMing, I can account for this, and modify everything so that he doesn't ruin the game for the rest of the party; and if I'm in particularly good form, I can do it well enough that he's still having fun without having to modify his character, and everyone else is having fun (and maybe not even noticing that the one character is doing more damage in an average round than the rest of them do in the entire encounter).
A computer system would have to allow the DM to change things constantly to account for this kind of thing.
As a Neverwinter Nights DM you were easily able to do things just like this and with scripting ability you could even prepare widgets ahead fo time that allowed you to have powers not "native" to the DM client. The new Neverwinter game COULD work the same if they wanted it to, but since it's an MMO I'm sure they will straightjacket the DM in some ways, particularly in the realms of XP and treasure rewards and the ability to simply kill off and res characters at will (not good in an MMO).
One of the things you couldn't really do easily was change terrain on the fly and even that was possible with scripting and the right community-created placeable terrain objects. The DM client for Neverwinter Nights was truly godly - you could do pretty much anything except take over and control a PC (and if you needed to make a PC do something there were plenty of other ways to persuade them) ;)
It's a difficult question - in an MMO-type game, what freedoms should a DM have and what things should be restricted? What things could a DM do that would give players an unfair advantage or disadvantage that players without a DM would not have? Technically, anything is possible but ...
A simple 4th ed based tacticalg game on the 3DS or xboxlive/PSN is your best bet IMHO. The best D&D games or d20 based games ( Star Wars KoToR) basically stripped the magic system out. a 4th ed based game would have to strip the powers system out to a point.
They've made comprehensive grid-based combat games - Final Fantasy Tactics.
I think it would be easy to make a 4E game.
Final Fantasy Tactics and similar games (Fire Emblem, Shining Force) also had alot less spells and the like to animate. You could do it in a high budget game but no one is going to spend 20 million+ dollars to sell a 4th ed based game to a fragmented playerbase. KoToR also has several things going for it which 4th ed lacks.
1. d20 was very popular back in 2001/2002.
2. Bioware
3. Star Wars brand name and expanded universe (basically a campaign setting).
4th ed by its nature would have to be a tactical RPG or just be a D&D based game and have nothign to do with 4th ed. Tactical RPGs tend to be nich products as they dont have crossover appeal that KoToR, Oblivion, Final Fanatsy etc tend to have.
Neverwinter (the new game) is going to be a realtime 4e game and a lot of money is getting sunk into it. Last I heard there was a limited list of classes and races (four of each?) and it only went up to 10th level but since the company that was producing it was sold, the new parent company has extended the deadline and invested more money to make it better. My suspicion is that we'll see the full list of E-races and E-classes and play will be extended at least to Paragon tier by the time it's released.
Still, I wish someone would go for a turn-based implementation of 4e ala ToEE.
I don't know ... 20 million seems like a hell of a lot of money to spend on making ANY video game. Show me any video game other than some of the bigger MMORPGS that have sunk 20 million into their production (and that probably only over years of expansions) and I'd be very surprised.
A simple 4th ed based tacticalg game on the 3DS or xboxlive/PSN is your best bet IMHO. The best D&D games or d20 based games ( Star Wars KoToR) basically stripped the magic system out. a 4th ed based game would have to strip the powers system out to a point.
This is why I suspect that by the time Neverwinter is released we will find that it's been implemented with Essentials-only game elements. It will cut down on the amount of stuff to code but still give the player lots of tested, balanced, fun choices. I'm not the BIGGEST Essentials fan in the world but if I were making a 4e computer game I'd go Essentials only.
The best D&D games or d20 based games ( Star Wars KoToR) basically stripped the magic system out. a 4th ed based game would have to strip the powers system out to a point.
You're pulling that from what, just KOTOR? NWN, NWN2, Icewind Dale (1 as well or just 2?), and TOEE are all well regarded, with long spell lists. And that's just for 3.X games.
They had to make concessions, sure, Clairvoyance provided a defense buff not future knowledge, and wish had a limited set of choices, but that's not reason to say they stripped it out.
The real trick is capturing the magic. (As in "the magic of D&D", not the spells)
I think Baldur's Gate and such did it decently well, but I'm not sure if it'd hold up next to current games like Mass Effect or Dragon Age which supposedly take story-centric games to a whole new level.
(Haven't played them yet, though :+ )
Implementing every single power in the game would take about as long as it does for the d&d compendium. However, since you don't have to deal with graphics when implementing them, you ought to be able to do them for an extremely small hard disc size, and so wouldn't have to cost anything more than it takes to put them in. Be downright simple. Keep graphics simple - one for each element keyword, one for each origin keyword, one for each attack type (melee, area, ranged, close burst, close blast) mix and match based on power. Boom, all your animations for every power are done. I hadn't played Neverwinter Nights - if it had a good 'DM toolkit', then use something akin to that. I'd still be leery, but it would probably work just fine. Set it up on a Final Fantasy Tactics engine to get the turn based feel.
I don't know how many spells Neverwinter Nights 2 had but maybe they had 200, no more than 1000 or even 500 would be a safeish bet, probably limited to combat and heal ones for the most part as its a computer game. How many powers does 4th ed have? I'm not saying youneed to drop 20 million to make a 4th ed RPG but you do if you want it to be like Dragon Age or Mass Effect etc. Otherwise a cheaper version on a handheld or Pop Cap type PC game would be more likely. A good 4th ed RPG would be similar to Fire Emblem with several 4th ed powers roughly duplicating the pen and paper based effects in the,. A bad one will have the classses and races with the D&D name slapped on it.
However, you yourself have already shown why we CAN do that with 4th edition D&D.
ALL powers (every single one!) is primarily a combat power. There are a few that enhance skills, but when they do, it's very easy to see how (you gain +5 to x skill. done.). There are probably less than 5 powers that don't do either of those things. In all the splat books combined. So except for those possible 5 powers, we can implement every single power easily, because what it does is extremely defined. Those 5 wierd powers can still be implemented, as they are usually things that would only come up in very specific campaign settings (I don't actually know if those 5 powers exist or not, I don't remember every power from every book offhand), and so we could specifically implement them for our campaign setting - which is the limits of the computer game. If they exist those 5 powers would be things like 'force the target to give you an answer to a question' - in our computer game we could provide a list of 20 questions (or 5) that the user of the power could select from when he uses the power, and then give him the appropriate answer. (If that was actually a power, it would be a pain, since we would have to code 5 questions into every enemy he might meet after getting that power, but it's still not actually a difficult task.)
In previous editions, we couldn't implement all the spells because they did wonky things, like scry, that you just couldn't account for with a computer. In 4th edition, all those wonky things are now 'rituals'. Implementing rituals would take ages - but it's the DM's fiat (specifically because of this! where 'this' is the ability of a ritual to completely disrupt a plotline by doing something entirely unexpected, like scry, or even raise dead on the assassinated king) to disallow any ritual he wants - so in a computer game, you only implement those rituals, that you can actually implement! And bam, you STILL are including all of the core things that are legally allowed in LFR (or similar).
We absolutely CAN implement every single class, race, and power; and it would be mostly a very monotonous task of copy paste, not a difficult coding task, simply because all powers were specifically designed to be used in combat, not anywhere else. (There are a few minor loopholes in the rules that you would have to adjudicate on, like what qualifies as 'an event' for triggering immediate reactions; but that has nothing to do with the powers themselves, and however you decide to rule that particular rule, would then be automatically implemented for all immediate reactions, and so would not cause any further headache in the coding of every single immediate reaction currently available.)
Seriously though, I figured using this as an incentive to learn Visual C# and some OOP principals by making a framework for 4th edition would be fun from a hobbyist's point of view.
Of course the proper solution is to scale down on the graphics. You don't need a different animation for each attack and there's a lot to be done with the same models only different colors and slightly faster/slower movement.
You're all looking from a player perspective and not the DM's perspective. Not only that but I see no definitions of what the end product would look like.
IMO you're better off making a DM tool kit which players interface with and the DM performs the results.
That way you won't have to program all the player options you give the DM the power to ply the results.
I'd tell you more but don't have time at the mo.
Wonder how many people here have tried to make a video game?
I am totally inept at making interactive games.
The closest I ever got was by using RPG Maker 3 back on my Windows XP system.
The result was something like Zelda. And by "like", I mean it had no correllations aside from the basic graphics. The game-play was awful and full of prgramming bugs. I simply have zero aptitude at creating programs for computers. I have this deep desire to make them the most intricate, thought-provoking, and challenging games EVAR...and what I end up with is total rubbish that is all but unplayable. So...I leave video-game creation in the hands of those that actually know what they're doing.
It would be taking the game back a little old school, but what would be wrong with a well done tactical game? Turn based combat on a grid? I for one am tired of the Baulders Gate style D&D (PSX not PC version...).
Also...if this ever were to happen, could it PLEASE not be in the Forgotten Realms? There are OTHER worlds out there...
Athas please.
It would be taking the game back a little old school, but what would be wrong with a well done tactical game? Turn based combat on a grid? I for one am tired of the Baulders Gate style D&D (PSX not PC version...).
Also...if this ever were to happen, could it PLEASE not be in the Forgotten Realms? There are OTHER worlds out there...
Athas please.
Too brutal, would say old timers. ;)
Too alien is maybe as bad as too vanilla.. it may not sell well.
A PoL based game would help it all. Or a future new setting..
There's such a thing as too brutal?
I play videogames a lot, and we have a slang term for it - 'Nintendo Hard'....
There's such a thing as too brutal?
I play videogames a lot, and we have a slang term for it - 'Nintendo Hard'....
Yeaaaaaah. . . No thanks.
Difficulty that hard is for masochists.
There's such a thing as too brutal?
I play videogames a lot, and we have a slang term for it - 'Nintendo Hard'....
I judge how old I'm getting based on my video game prowess.
When I was a little kid playing Asteroids on the Atari 2600, I could rock on for hours without a break.
When I was older and Nintendo came out, I could breeze through level 8 on Super Mario Bros. with a phone to my ear and a sandwich in one hand.
In my teenage years, I could whip anyone's butt in Mortal Kombat with Liu Kang without even batting an eye.
In my 20's, I found fighting games boring. Truth is, I was just getting worse at them. I would've rather played Diablo.
Now, in my mid-30's, I find I can't beat anyone in fighting games anymore. I tried Super Mario on the Wii which lasted about 15 minutes and ended with me swearing violently. I pulled a groin muscle playing UFC on the Kinect. My vision is too poor to enjoy my kid's 3DS. I end up playing DDO with my oldest son who runs around me in PvP matches, laughing and torching me to death while I struggle just to find him.
I think my video game days are coming to an end...but I won't bow out gracefully.
There's such a thing as too brutal?
I play videogames a lot, and we have a slang term for it - 'Nintendo Hard'....
I judge how old I'm getting based on my video game prowess.
When I was a little kid playing Asteroids on the Atari 2600, I could rock on for hours without a break.
When I was older and Nintendo came out, I could breeze through level 8 on Super Mario Bros. with a phone to my ear and a sandwich in one hand.
In my teenage years, I could whip anyone's butt in Mortal Kombat with Liu Kang without even batting an eye.
In my 20's, I found fighting games boring. Truth is, I was just getting worse at them. I would've rather played Diablo.
Now, in my mid-30's, I find I can't beat anyone in fighting games anymore. I tried Super Mario on the Wii which lasted about 15 minutes and ended with me swearing violently. I pulled a groin muscle playing UFC on the Kinect. My vision is too poor to enjoy my kid's 3DS. I end up playing DDO with my oldest son who runs around me in PvP matches, laughing and torching me to death while I struggle just to find him.
I think my video game days are coming to an end...but I won't bow out gracefully.
I sucked and still do at asteroids, Could never get to the real Bowser, and suck at fighting games.
Which would be why I prefer games like Final Fantasy, where with enough patience, I could become unto a god and kill anything. ;)
but I still have fun with them.