19,602
edits
Oni2 talk:Slaves of War/Polylectiloquy: Difference between revisions
Oni2 talk:Slaves of War/Polylectiloquy (view source)
Revision as of 02:15, 7 July 2011
, 7 July 2011somewhere, a Russian sneezes...
Paradox-01 (talk | contribs) (question) |
(somewhere, a Russian sneezes...) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
geyser once said that explanation and possibilities of control demystify the Daodan. Do you think that can be ... a threat? --[[User:Paradox-01|paradox-01]] 00:36, 7 July 2011 (CEST) | geyser once said that explanation and possibilities of control demystify the Daodan. Do you think that can be ... a threat? --[[User:Paradox-01|paradox-01]] 00:36, 7 July 2011 (CEST) | ||
:Re: explanation being a threat -- I know that geyser enjoys considering ambiguities and multiple answers, but I still feel that in order to write a coherent plot for a game, you need to explain some things to the player outright. Oni got away with ambiguity because it was so short (in play time and also story time). In order for me to accept a "mystical" approach to Oni 2, someone would have to explain to me how the game would actually function under that approach. What sort of plot could it support? All due respect to geyser's explorations of truth throughout the wiki, but I haven't seen him actually write any clear proposal for [[Oni2:Truth_Number_Zero#After_Oni|the plot of a sequel]]. Whereas the ideas I'm in the midst of putting down are designed to lead to the creation of real design docs for a game, in terms of plot and gameplay mechanics. I just don't see any other way to do it, than to decide on some clear answers to our questions. | |||
:Re: control being a threat -- I tend to agree with this. I don't plan on introducing a way to actually control the Daodan. Temporarily slowing it down, on the other hand.... --[[User:Iritscen|Iritscen]] 04:15, 7 July 2011 (CEST) | |||