Marcian Tobay
-
Posts
2463 -
Joined
-
On Kotaku, clicking random stories may turn up a Going Rogue banner with an embedded trailer. The theme of the video is "Defend your city or free it." It even has a really cool moment where the Loyalists are holding a gathering in honor of Emperor Cole, when the camera pans underground suddenly to reveal the Resistance rallying to overthrow Tyrant directly under their feet. The juxtaposition is amazing.
Is there a downloadable version of this video anywhere? I'd like to share it on Facebook and Twitter.
Thanks!
-
This is Going Rogue: Complete Collection, as sold by Barnes & Noble's website. Now, here's the situation:
- I have a $100 Barnes & Noble Gift Card
- I want to buy my partner Going Rogue: Complete Collection
- She wants all of the bonuses that come with GameStop's exclusive version.
Now, Barnes & Noble is affiliated with GameStop. Additionally, the original link says "Available for pre-order from GameStop".
So, here's my question: If I use my Barnes & Noble gift card to buy it from the B&N site, will I get all the GameStop exclusives? Alternatively, may I use the Barnes & Noble card at GameStop's website?
Thanks! -
Quote:There should never be "Stronger" cards. There should be more complicated, more nuanced cards. Check out ManOf's discussion of how "Giant Monster" would cost more. Is it "stronger"? Not to a deck that values efficiency. Then it's just a clunky waste.Originally Posted by The Lone Hero
My game isn't going to have any I Win card. I hate I Win cards and will be doing my best to not only make sure that each Faction has a unique play style, but also that each card is balanced.
However, let me ask you this:
Should I make it so players can get Giant Monsters (The strongest creatures in the game) as easily as they can get Soldiers (The weakest creatures in the game)? It's only natural that I should make the stronger creatures harder to get, if I don't then what's stopping people from packing their decks with nothing but strong creatures since they'll be as easy to get as the weaker ones?
The more thinking a card requires to play properly, the more rare it should be. If any ol' kid can use the card properly (MTG: Lands, Mana), then make it Common. If it requires a smarter lot (Yu-Gi-Oh: Relinquished), it should be more rare.
There should be rares. Giant monsters should be more rare. Design the balance of the game under the assumption that everyone will buy your whole collection, because that is what you want them to do. -
Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal. From worthless fart jokes to expanded philosophy, this series has it all.
-
Order of the Stick. Start with the first one, stay as long as you can. Around #100, he starts heading for a big and epic story and the ride doesn't stop.
-
There you go. Yeah, you need to plan the game as if every player had every card in the game. Why? Because you want them to, as that would mean they bought enough to get to that point. Switch the "greed for money" out for a greed for dedication and addiction, and we have what your free to play version will have.
But yes, if someone has enough copies of every card in the series, they should still be able to consider each and every card valuable. Buying more cards shouldn't obsolete others; it should add to them.
Good luck on your project!
-
"Oy now don't start that again!" ~Vultures, The Jungle Book.
Seriously, I'm leaving this thread if this becomes, once again, a contest of who can poke the other sibling in the face the most. -
Quote:'Course you did. I like it better when you provide conversation rather than "Yah-huh" / "Nu-uh". If you had something to say about horses, we'd still be on it.Originally Posted by Golden Girl
I liked it better when we were talking about horses.
Cited:
"You're wrong"
"You're wrong"
"You're wrong"
"You're wrong"
"You're wrong"
"You're wrong"
I hope this illuminates things. You know I always let you know how I feel Double G. Anyway, as you were.
-
Quote:1)Originally Posted by Manofmanychars
1. That's because I warned you on Skype.
2. I'm actually listing why everyone who has ever posted in CaH/VC's Twilight threads has said they hate Twilight. And me also.
2) Ook, hyperbole looks ugly on you. If it were still the 4th Era, I'm sure I could pull up a suitable number of answers where people use the phrase "Vampires DON'T Sparkle" as the banner for their offense. -
Quote:I'm saying three people in a very specific thread that were pre-warned what the "wrong" answer was before giving the "right" one don't disprove my statement about a population at large.Originally Posted by Manofmanychars
So, you're saying the stance that everyone thus far has taken is not the stance everyone is taking?
Me: "A thousand people picked the blue box. That is wrong."
You: *Picks up Red Box* "See!? A thousand people didn't pick the blue box!"
Me: "..."
---
I just said that I find a certain answer offensive. An answer I've seen across the internet by hundreds (thousands?) of people for years. Do you really think demonstrating that you are capable of parroting what I consider a less-offensive answer proves that I didn't see those things? -
Quote:1) I already took back the Buffy thing. Read the post above yours where I take it back. Smooth stab there, mate.Originally Posted by Manofmanychars
Are you seriously trying to claim Buffy wasn't marketed to young girls? Really?
Buffy was a show for girls. Guys (like myself) may have liked it, but it was aimed at the female audience. Furthermore, it was actually fairly accurate in its portrayal of vampires. The reason so many vampires in Buffy were "pretty" is because, as shown, a lot of vampires-to-be were seduced because they were attractive and their sire wanted some hot arm candy. Plus, when they went all-out, they took on a fairly monstrous appearance, not to mention the way that their leader from the first season looked (which is presumed to be what all vampires will look like after being undead long enough).
They were weak to sunlight, fire, decapitation, holy water, stakes through the heart, crosses, and possibly garlic (don't remember if it ever came up), all the classic vampire weaknesses. They could not enter the home of a living person without being invited in, nor could they cross a threshold marked with a cross. They took most of their mythos from Bram Stoker, granted, but it's basically him and European folklore that stand as the two "true" sources for vampire lore. They were, at most, 10% away from being correct.
This is of course working under the tennant that when it comes to interpreting folklore, one does not need to include every single aspect of the creature discussed, but one should at least hit all the major points, and try to avoid tossing in some random thing that has nothing to do with them (i.e., sparkles).
Twilight vampires are, well, not vampires. Not even close. To imply that Buffy does anything even remotely similar is an insult to the very concept of fiction. Furthermore, Twilight presents several other horrible concepts:
-Breaking into a girl's house and watching while she sleeps is romantic.
-If a boy is verbally abusive and acts like he hates you, it must be TRUE LOVE.
-If said boy gets you teen pregnant, it's not the most horrifying thing ever for the other boy you rejected to mention that he has every intention of getting with your daughter as soon as she's legal.
2) If you are listing why you don't like Twilight, you are missing the entire damn point of my post. I've explained it three times now. Go re-read. -
Quote:Again. I'm not discussing what you, Arkasas, ManOf or any one individual person thinks of the series. I think that they're awful, terrible things. Just... just bad.Originally Posted by Lord_Nightblade
Can't speak for the books, but from what I've seen of the movies they're poorly written, poorly directed, and poorly acted. I've seen more natural acting from Balok.
But that is not the tact people take when taking it down. That isn't the tactic they take. That's my point.
And I think New Moon was very well directed. Even if it was garbage. -
Quote:Yeah, but do people say "I think it's poorly written"? No. They post pictures of Buffy's Angel and angry messages like "Real vampires don't F'ing smile." That's my point.Originally Posted by Lord_Arkasas
I read the first book. It was horrible.
Buffy had comedy. Twilight is dead serious. And ridiculous romances that involve vampires.
Buffy's vamp romance was at least mildly realistic.
Note that I am not calling you out. I'm calling out the general populous. Go look up lolcat pics making fun of Twilight. You'll see what I mean. I'm not calling out you nor ManOf.
Edit: Okay, so I think I was wrong about Buffy not being marketed to young women. That was kind of stupid of me.
-
Quote:I see.Originally Posted by Manofmanychars
No, we get extra Sue-hating priveleges.
Also, the male term is Marty Stu. Or Wesley Crusher.
You know, I'll say what I haven't said on these forums before but I've come to believe is true: By the numbers, the majority of people don't hate Twilight because it's bad; They hate it because the number 1 franchise in America is something marketed to young women. That it's "in" to like cheesy romance and talking about your feelings. The rest came later.
My theory. Now, you know that I Twilight. Viciously. But the things that everybody hates about Twilight is distinctly feminine. The brooding. The emo. The sparkles. These are traditionally girly things. And those are the ones that everyone mentions.
Buffy beats the snot out of vampire mythos something awful. But it does so in favor of grim darkness, an aim at an older audience, fight scenes, and lesbians. Suddenly, no one really minds that one as much.
Yes, I'm playing this card. I've been holding onto it for months.
It's also why I no longer really participate in Twilight Hate-Fests. -
Quote:That's... fascinating!Originally Posted by Manofmanychars
Bit of trivia: traditional folklore actually characterizes vampires as compulsive counters, going so far as to advise people wandering at night to carry boxes of matches or similar items to throw to the ground should a vampire appear, causing him to be forced to count them while you flee. This actually makes Count von Count a more accurate vampire than Edward Cullen.
Well, except for the part about "accurate vampire" which is bull butt. The rest is... hm. I like this. May put it in a certain project. -
Quote:Everyone notices that it's a Mary Sue when it's a girl Mary Sue.Originally Posted by Lord_Arkasas
I don't care, as long as a Twilight character gets beaten up.
Can we really call them characters? They sound more like Mary Sues.
I think comic book geeks pretty much waive the right to wave something off as waves of Mary Sues, be they Twilight's Vampires or the Witches of Waverly Place.
-
Quote:No.Originally Posted by Lord_Arkasas
Well, the song from You Have to Burn the Rope is playing through my head.
Does that count?
He counts!
-
Quote:I know! They can't even scroll down a thread to see if we already covered a joke!Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
Humans.
They are living proof that there is no intelligent life in the universe.
-
All right. New subject, then. Post the last song you listened, too.
Fire, as covered by Matthew Morrison and Kristen Chenoweth of Glee. -
Quote:Lonely farmers do. Gimme some photoshop and a lightning scarred wizard. I'll show ya.Originally Posted by Golden Girl
Goats? Nobody rides goats
-
Now she wants to bake a cake. That's all I know.
-
Quote:No one? Daniel Radcliffe begs fervently to disagree.Originally Posted by Manofmanychars
Okay, if you're gonna start that again, I'm going to have to ask you to leave. Nobody wants to hear about your sick proclivities.
-
This thread is now about diamonds.
-
Quote:When you say "Easier to obtain" do you mean "There will be more of them in booster packs"? If you do, I can't possibly support a game that would intrinsically undermine its own vision for the sake of booster pack selling. I've played 'round a dozen CCGs and practice designing my own in the off-time. What you just described is my number one pet peeve and the only reason I never played Yu-Gi-Oh outside of its GBA Cartridges.Originally Posted by The Lone Hero
Cards lv. 1-4 are free to play. Lv. 1 cards are weaker but will be easier to obtain.
Edit: Another point: Epic Archetypes are very hard to attain in City of Heroes (or were). If they were flat out stronger, the balancing factor wouldn't be "They were hard to attain". The game would simply be on a timer until all that remained were Khledians and newbs.
I strongly encourage and nigh on beg you to reconsider this before you go forward.
Some recommendations to pick and choose as you like:- Maker lower level cards "Weak but spammy". Think of it like sending a thousand Goombas versus sending out Bowser. For example, make a certain Level 1 card's ability "If you play this card, you may also play another card of the same name. This counts as one action."
- Clunky power vs. Steamlined weakness. Look at the power slots in City of Heroes. The first power is utter dreck, but you can use it in almost every situation. The final power is hands down better but very situational with a long recharge time.
- Allow cards that only target characters of "Power level X or greater".
- Simple Example: "All cards below power level 3 may attack twice this turn."
Don't make "How attainable a card is" factor into any facet of card design under any circumstances. Ever. If you do, you're fundamentally designing a game wrong.
Incidentally, I'm working on my own game and have been for months. Some people know scant amounts. I won't talk about it on your thread out of courtesy, but just thought it was relevant to at least mention.
Good luck on your game!
-
Castle, feel the love.
There are a lot of powers where your character stands straight up, legs apart, and their arms held at full length above their head. This makes their arms parallel to their feet and forms an X shape. The powers then fly from their hands. (Can someone get a Picture of this?)
Now, here's my request: I want to have alternate animations for every power that does this. It's dramatic, it's practiced, and it's the opposite of every character I play. I actually don't pick power sets that feature this. I prefer characters that, like Batman or the Daredevil, have a visceral improvisation to their abilities. Think the alternate animations for Martial Arts and Super Strength.
Does this make sense? Golly, I hope so.
Anyway, enjoy, and thanks for asking!