1002 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaedon]

jreezy wrote...
I may be mistaken but it seems that the RPG genre is the only one with this problem, at least more than others. People seem to be so caught up in what they think a game classified as an RPG is suppoed to play like that they forget to just enjoy the game for what is, which is a game. 

More than others yes, but it's not the only one.

I can't think of a single genre that doesn't have its elitists.

[Biotic Sage]

I've seen the word "Elitist" used over and over again on these forums like it's a bad thing. It's true, elitist attitudes are often bad, and quite unwarranted. However, the basic idea of elitism should not be thrown out the window. There's a reason why I trust my doctor to diagnose my illness more than my taxi driver. There's a reason why I value Sir Patrick Stewart's views on acting more than the random hipster street performer's. Twilight is not better than To Kill a Mockingbird, no matter how many fans each of them has.

So my point is that video games are not exempt from this concept.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 03 septembre 2011 - 08:22 .

[Varen Spectre]

Phaedon wrote...

@VarenSpectre

Why I believe that the stats of ME2 are deeper?

They aren't deep by themselves, but in comparison to ME1...

Well since the topic is back I may also reply.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friendly warning: I myself find this post rather long and boring (especially point 2). So pls guys, read only if you don't have something better to do. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess, I can agree to large degree (lol, it even rhymes)… I would like to add "few" points though… and maybe my opinion at the end…

For two reasons basically:

1) Items aren't better or worse, they are different, most of the times.

- Items in ME1 have very few statistical variables attached to them. And they are always better or worse. There is no depth. There would be no difference if the game improved the stats, of let's say, your weapon per mission. That is of course not the case in ME2, if you actually look at the stats and the way each weapon plays in-game.

I am not sure what do you mean by “always better or worse” but I presume that it has something to do with the fact that in Mass Effect 1, certain items are better than others in all or almost all areas measured by the game and thus they are more useful in all or almost all given situations.

If that’s the case, I agree. Mass Effect 2’s items have more and more varying parameters (e.g. in case of rifles different rates of fire, size of ammo clips, damage per shot, accuracy, etc.) and thus their usefulness varies much more depending on other circumstances in the game.

2) The stat changes are very significant in numbers, at least.

All stat changes in ME1have an incredibly minor effect on their own. On the other hand, there are items in ME2 that can give you up to +2/30% bonuses in items.

Well, I am not really sure how to interpret the use of word “stats” here – whether you mean all different parameters (variables) that are measured by the game or only some of them or their perceptibility by players (that would explain the comparison of changes between individual degrees of particular variables), etc.

Either way, in my opinion, if we would like to measure the “depth” (the size) of entire category of particular variable (e.g. damage, damage protection, etc.), we should disregard the significance of individual changes between the segments (levels) into which that variable is divided and only focus on the significance of differences between two marginal values.

A simple example of what I mean with one variable: If we had two systems of leveling - up of the damage: System A with few levels but with significant differences between them (lvl 1 – damage 1, lvl 2 – damage 5 and lvl 3 – damage 10) and system B with many levels but with little differences between them (lvl 1 – dmg 1, lvl 2 – dmg 2, … lvl 20 – dmg 20), I would still consider the system B deeper. It may be more clumsy or impractical or people may not be able to spot the differences between individual levels, but the entire spectrum of options and more importantly the size of differences between the two marginal options would be larger.

Now I am not sure which of the Mass Effects has bigger differences between the min. and max. levels of particular variables but if I wanted to make a definitive statement about which one has “deeper stats”, I would focus on this aspect, not on the size of individual steps / changes.

3) One last thing I would like to remind is, that if we would like to compare the “depth” of “stats” systems (now in the meaning of complexity) of both games, we would also have to take into account how many areas have variables and are measured in both games.

In other words, either of the games provide options (and therefore “stats” as well) in areas in which the other one does not. In this regard though, I would probably give the edge to Mass Effect 1. It has options and “stats” for such things as different biotic amps, squad armors, omni tools, a somewhat larger pool of abilities (though not as refined and different as Mass Effect 2's), etc. 

This is definitely not the most important aspect of game’s “stats” system but also can not be disregarded altogether. 

In conclusion, discussing, measuring and comparing “stats” systems of two games is a difficult job.:happy: In order to be able to say that one game has overall “deeper stats system” than the other, we (or you) would at least have to make a detailed comparison and analysis of all the things that have variables and are measured, compare how many options they have and how big are differences between particular marginal options are.

However, I have no doubts that in some areas, Mass Effect 2 has “deeper” and better “stats” system. For now though, I’ll withhold my final judgment.

[KotorEffect3]

jreezy wrote...

azerSheppard wrote...

Let's just all agree that TES has turned into a P.O.S. console **** game simplified for fps noobs on the xbox since the third. Oblivion was a cookie cutter "rpg" (i use rpg losely here) and skyrim will bring the stank to the next level, down that is.

I really hate the mindset of people like you. Sigh...Elitist.

This

[littlezack]

Biotic Sage wrote...

I've seen the word "Elitist" used over and over again on these forums like it's a bad thing. It's true, elitist attitudes are often bad, and quite unwarranted. However, the basic idea of elitism should not be thrown out the window. There's a reason why I trust my doctor to diagnose my illness more than my taxi driver. There's a reason why I value Sir Patrick Stewart's views on acting more than the random hipster street performer's. Twilight is not better than To Kill a Mockingbird, no matter how many fans each of them has.

So my point is that video games are not exempt from this concept.

I think snob is a better term for the sort of people elitist is often tacked to.

[Someone With Mass]

The weapons in ME1 had no identity. I could say "Banshee II" and most people would probably say "Eh?", but when I say "Vindicator", everyone knows which gun I'm talking about.

The only difference between the guns in ME1 is that the higher level one has slightly higher accuracy and damage.

In ME2, they have different rate of fire, different fire modes, different damage multipliers, different sounds, different shapes and even different proximity damage multipliers.

Yes, you could go through the entire game with your start weapons, but that's because the weapons in ME2 are going by preference and not stats. Sure, you can find weapons that are statistically better than the ones you have, but you might like the old one better than the new one, and that's where I think the weapon systems in both ME2 and ME3 are far better than the one in ME1. They're giving the player a choice and is not forcing any weapon change for the player to be effective in a fight.

[JBONE27]

Total agreement. Although, as I ended up posting on your second video the other option is hopeful.

[Varen Spectre]

jreezy wrote...

I may be mistaken but it seems that the RPG genre is the only one with this problem, at least more than others. People seem to be so caught up in what they think a game classified as an RPG is suppoed to play like that they forget to just enjoy the game for what is, which is a game.

Hmm.:unsure:I... really want to hope and believe that you are wrong... Some people may act that way, but hopefuly, most of them still like / love Mass Effects ...

I have seen many posts on many forums pointing out that Mass Effect 2 is not RPG, not traditional RPG, is hybrid, can't be classified, is streamlined (RPG), etc.

But still, IRC, Mass Effect 2's reception was and still is excellent. It has won soo many popularity polls, comments about the game itself were more than optimistic and cheerful, Mass Effect 3 is one of the most followed games when it comes to websites' traffic, bookmarking and other ways of following, etc.

Also the fact that so many people are willing to talk about it soo much is a a proof of their strong connection and emotional investment in this game.

Take me for example, I am not sure how to classify it and based on many of my previous posts, it's obvious that I am quite reluctant to accept big changes in genre definitions - IMO they bring confusion and make genre classification less transparent and thus less useful. But still, even if Mass Effect 2 was classified as a dancing game, it would not fall out of my greatest of all time list.  

Moreover, I am convinced that some of the critics do not point out that Mass Effect 2 is not "traditional" RPG for the sake of having the option to critize and ostracise it from the RPG genre or RPG community but rather to demonstrate their unhappiness about the absence of some of the features and mechanics they deeply miss. I am not defending the way they do it, but obviously there must be more to it thant just desire to badmouth this great game.

Either way, even if it may not look that way now, I have always been one of the guys who prefered the discussion about individual feauters and mechanics (RPG or not) over some vague arguments about genre classification. For me, it's not important whether Mass Effects end up being classified as RPGs or not (personally I would love to see a creation of new genre), but what RPG (and non RPG) features would make these games better ( - now we have a nice discussion about Deus Ex elements, but I can't participate, because I haven't finished Human Revolution yet.).

Edit: Ooo my god, so many typos, this post made me somewhat anxious.

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 03 septembre 2011 - 09:56 .

[Mastone]

I play games because of the story and couldn't care less how it is classified tbh.
One of my most favorite games of all time is Thief 3 deadly shadows ( great player immersion), I liked ME1 storywise as well, ME2 had better gameplay but lacked somewhat on the storyside( to linear/predictable).

[Biotic Sage]

littlezack wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

I've seen the word "Elitist" used over and over again on these forums like it's a bad thing. It's true, elitist attitudes are often bad, and quite unwarranted. However, the basic idea of elitism should not be thrown out the window. There's a reason why I trust my doctor to diagnose my illness more than my taxi driver. There's a reason why I value Sir Patrick Stewart's views on acting more than the random hipster street performer's. Twilight is not better than To Kill a Mockingbird, no matter how many fans each of them has.

So my point is that video games are not exempt from this concept.

I think snob is a better term for the sort of people elitist is often tacked to.

That would be more accurate in most of the cases I've seen on the forums, I agree.

[The Spamming Troll]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Oh no. I don't have those stats that gave the first game the illusion of depth, when they really just gave like 30% boosters to everything at best. What will I do?

Maybe I could buy one of those upgrades, that works the exact same way as those stats, but they're actually permanent, so I don't have to waste my time going through dozens of items to find the right mod so my weapon can hit anything effectively. Yeah, that sounds good.

those new ME3 vids howedthe new modding for weapons in ME3, and all the mods do is add +5ish% boost to a certain stat category. is finding new weapons with +5% boosts better then finding a mod with a 5% boost?

isnt that exactly what you didnt like with ME1s weapons?

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 04 septembre 2011 - 12:31 .

[MiniMosher]

I want to play ME3 because of the experience of exploration and gathering an army of a douzen or so races, then having an epic war with the reapers. I like how the characters are better presented than those found in large budget films being released today, and that ME's universe/lore is so expansive you can spend more time reading a codex/talking to someone than running n' gunning, but even then I think the combat is awesome too... so i dont give a **** if ME3 will be an RPG or not, I give a **** if its going to be a good game and not a micromanaging stats grinding feast

[Someone With Mass]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

those new ME3 vids howedthe new modding for weapons in ME3, and all the mods do is add +5ish% boost to a certain stat category. is finding new weapons with +5% boosts better then finding a mod with a 5% boost?

isnt that exactly what you didnt like with ME1s weapons?

Or not.



25% is a little more than "5%-ish".

[Phaedon]

Varen Spectre wrote...
I am not sure what do you mean by “always better or worse” but I presume that it has something to do with the fact that in Mass Effect 1, certain items are better than others in all or almost all areas measured by the game and thus they are more useful in all or almost all given situations.

ME1 weapons have 3 viewable statistical parameters attached to them.

All of them could have been replaced by a single viewable statistical parameter and it would play the same way. Every weapon is either better or worse.

If that’s the case, I agree. Mass Effect 2’s items have more and more varying parameters (e.g. in case of rifles different rates of fire, size of ammo clips, damage per shot, accuracy, etc.) and thus their usefulness varies much more depending on other circumstances in the game.

Not what I meant, but that is true anyway.
Not only does ME2 have more than three active parameters, the weapons are simply different. You can't just say that "A" is better than "B". Because "A" is better than "B" when it comes to a specific playstyle, and "B" is better than "A" when it comes to another playstyle. A weapon with high accuracy for example, will have lower damage, unlike ME1 were what we got was weapons that were simply better or worse statistically. Because, even if the numbers lied, all weapons work and play the same way.

Well, I am not really sure how to interpret the use of word “stats” here – whether you mean all different parameters (variables) that are measured by the game or only some of them or their perceptibility by players (that would explain the comparison of changes between individual degrees of particular variables), etc.

I use the words "stats" to describe statistics that are common to all items but have differing numbers and affect the way each item is played.

Either way, in my opinion, if we would like to measure the “depth” (the size) of entire category of particular variable (e.g. damage, damage protection, etc.), we should disregard the significance of individual changes between the segments (levels) into which that variable is divided and only focus on the significance of differences between two marginal values.

Why?
A +15% damage upgrade is always more important than a mere +5% upgrade, even if we remove the starting and extremelly high levels of ME1 and only keep levels that matter.

A simple example of what I mean with one variable: If we had two systems of leveling - up of the damage: System A with few levels but with significant differences between them (lvl 1 – damage 1, lvl 2 – damage 5 and lvl 3 – damage 10) and system B with many levels but with little differences between them (lvl 1 – dmg 1, lvl 2 – dmg 2, … lvl 20 – dmg 20), I would still consider the system B deeper. It may be more clumsy or impractical or people may not be able to spot the differences between individual levels, but the entire spectrum of options and more importantly the size of differences between the two marginal options would be larger.

Now I am not sure which of the Mass Effects has bigger differences between the min. and max. levels of particular variables but if I wanted to make a definitive statement about which one has “deeper stats”, I would focus on this aspect, not on the size of individual steps / changes.

That logic is flawed.

System A has a few levels, but with every single one being important, whereas System B has some more levels, but not a single one of them is remotely important.

Therefore, the first system gives you as many choices as it promises, whereas the second one gives you the illusion of choice, when in fact, there is virtually no choice in each level, and you have to condense batches of levels together to see some difference, something that the first system does instantly.

The fact that this logic is flawed is further demonestrated by the fact that, by using the exact same logic, you can have both games start with abilities at 1% and get them to 100%, while splitting each ability/attribute in 100 levels, with the only increase per level being a 1% upgrade.

And what this does? It gives you the illusion of choice, when in fact each of the hundrends of choices you will do will be utterly insignificant. It won't be significant until you start uprading each attribute in "units" which are made up by multiple of levels. In conclusion, there is a natural and automatical progression to fewer levels, with significant changes.

And 100 is just an example. You could further divide each attribute infinitely. Just because it has more "boxes" that you can click, it doesn't mean that it's deeper, because whether you click that box or not, there won't be any difference. After all, the point of statistical progression is to evolve into various roles. Creating the illusion that you are not evolving, and making every choice insignificant is counter-productive.

3) One last thing I would like to remind is, that if we would like to compare the “depth” of “stats” systems (now in the meaning of complexity) of both games, we would also have to take into account how many areas have variables and are measured in both games.

In other words, either of the games provide options (and therefore “stats” as well) in areas in which the other one does not. In this regard though, I would probably give the edge to Mass Effect 1. It has options and “stats” for such things as different biotic amps, squad armors, omni tools, a somewhat larger pool of abilities (though not as refined and different as Mass Effect 2's), etc. 

This is definitely not the most important aspect of game’s “stats” system but also can not be disregarded altogether.

Giving the illusion of choice? How so?

Because that's exactly what you are saying. A quick look at the base powers for each class quickly dismisses this idea. If we leave the weapon skill and charming skills out of this, because they are a different subject and another flaw of ME1 for me (the morality is attached to some other attributes too anyway), the actual effects are almost all there, with the obvious differences here and there. The two basic differences that do exist, however, exist on the fact that every stat upgrade on ME2 has a greater effect than in ME, and that the higher levels are not imbalanced, as every game of this decade should be.

In conclusion, discussing, measuring and comparing “stats” systems of two games is a difficult job.:happy: In order to be able to say that one game has overall “deeper stats system” than the other, we (or you) would at least have to make a detailed comparison and analysis of all the things that have variables and are measured, compare how many options they have and how big are differences between particular marginal options are.

However, I have no doubts that in some areas, Mass Effect 2 has “deeper” and better “stats” system. For now though, I’ll withhold my final judgment.

Deep is something that has an actual effect. I have yet to see that in ME1 unless I attempt to assign several points to one attribute simultaneously, essentially defeating the point of having levels for the sake of having levels.

[Phaedon]

Someone With Mass wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

those new ME3 vids howedthe new modding for weapons in ME3, and all the mods do is add +5ish% boost to a certain stat category. is finding new weapons with +5% boosts better then finding a mod with a 5% boost?

isnt that exactly what you didnt like with ME1s weapons?

Or not.

-snip-

25% is a little more than "5%-ish".

Exactly.

[The Spamming Troll]

Someone With Mass wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

those new ME3 vids howedthe new modding for weapons in ME3, and all the mods do is add +5ish% boost to a certain stat category. is finding new weapons with +5% boosts better then finding a mod with a 5% boost?

isnt that exactly what you didnt like with ME1s weapons?

Or not.



25% is a little more than "5%-ish".

i was going by that little green boost on the end of the damage meter. the one time i looked at that screen, the pic was so small i couldnt read the text. that little green additional part doesnt look like +25%, does it tho?

but in my defense, its not like every weapon you found only jumped 5%, some jumped 25% too. so my point isnt entirely invalid. no matter how you look at it, guns advance very similarly, either by finding an entirely new gun, or a mod that gives the same benefits as a new gun.

i just dont agree with someone trying to complain about ME1s weapons, when ME3s are going to progress very similarly. id rather have ME3s version, because i like having an iconic weapons, like when i get the spectre weapon in ME1, thats  when i feel like i have MY gun. really hope those mods were adding in ME3 allow for grenade launcher attachments, laser sights, and scopes, not just internal +25% damage boosts.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 04 septembre 2011 - 01:04 .

[Nozybidaj]

jreezy wrote...
I may be mistaken but it seems that the RPG genre is the only one with this problem, at least more than others.

I don't think so.  The RPG genre itself doesn't have a problem.  The problem lies with people who want to call stuff rpg's that aren't actually rpg's.  Why they want to do that, I dunno.  I don't understand why folks care if a game is called a rpg or called a conversational shooter.  Who cares?  Its still the same game.

The only thing I tend to roll my eyes at are the folks claiming "the rpg genre is dying" or "we are evolving the rpg genre".  To the first, no its not, there are plenty of great rpg's out there today (Witcher, TES, etc.).  To the second, no you're not, you are just not making an rpg.

When you don't want to make games that are rpg's and you don't want to make games for rpg fans why still hold on so tightly to that rpg label?  That's the only really baffling thing in this whole conversation.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Nozybidaj wrote...

jreezy wrote...
I may be mistaken but it seems that the RPG genre is the only one with this problem, at least more than others.

I don't think so.  The RPG genre itself doesn't have a problem.  The problem lies with people who want to call stuff rpg's that aren't actually rpg's.  Why they want to do that, I dunno.  I don't understand why folks care if a game is called a rpg or called a conversational shooter.  Who cares?  Its still the same game.

The only thing I tend to roll my eyes at are the folks claiming "the rpg genre is dying" or "we are evolving the rpg genre".  To the first, no its not, there are plenty of great rpg's out there today (Witcher, TES, etc.).  To the second, no you're not, you are just not making an rpg.

When you don't want to make games that are rpg's and you don't want to make games for rpg fans why still hold on so tightly to that rpg label?  That's the only really baffling thing in this whole conversation.

Except that there's no consensus on what defines an RPG.  It boils down to a million people certain that their preferences define the genre.  The tabletop genre is the same way.  There seems to pretty much be a consensus that there is a continuum between action games and RPG's, but this implies that the more fiddly the math the more a game becomes an RPG.

In my experience, the people with the most flexible definitions of an RPG are the ones who take them apart and design them.  Maybe it's just the crowd I run with.  Once I started breaking them down and trying to make them, I started seeing a lot of traditional elements as completely optional.  I've heard or read similar sentiments from the pros.  That, however, doesn't prevent anyone else from insisting that certain mechanics define the genre.

[Phaedon]

Nozybidaj wrote...

jreezy wrote...
I may be mistaken but it seems that the RPG genre is the only one with this problem, at least more than others.

I don't think so.  The RPG genre itself doesn't have a problem.  The problem lies with people who want to call stuff rpg's that aren't actually rpg's.  Why they want to do that, I dunno.  I don't understand why folks care if a game is called a rpg or called a conversational shooter.  Who cares?  Its still the same game.

The only thing I tend to roll my eyes at are the folks claiming "the rpg genre is dying" or "we are evolving the rpg genre".  To the first, no its not, there are plenty of great rpg's out there today (Witcher, TES, etc.).  To the second, no you're not, you are just not making an rpg.

When you don't want to make games that are rpg's and you don't want to make games for rpg fans why still hold on so tightly to that rpg label?  That's the only really baffling thing in this whole conversation.

1) You know the definition of RPG? Awesome stuff. Then, if your definition is...definite, why are there still debates about it?

2) It's actually debatable if the Witcher is an RPG, considering that the main character is rather pre-defined. 

3) I have actually rarely seen Marketing use the word "RPG" or "shooter" to define the ME games, mostly idividual devs do that. But I suppose that your definition of RPG is the correct one, and that they should stop using that term, because some wacky forumites on RPG Codex will cry themselves to sleep if they don't.

4) Did anyone think that ME1 or 2 are pure RPGs? Well, umm...cool I guess.

5) If you have such an awesome definition for what an RPG is, would you mind explaining at which point a game is a hybrid and at which it is not?

6) If ME2 is not an RPG, because shooting requires some skill from the player, then what about RPGs that require skill from the player by using tactics, clicking on various parts of the screen fast, etc.

7) Why is by your definition The Sims not an RPG?

[Varen Spectre]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As always guys,:happy: if anyone finds my posts too long or boring, pls don't flame me and just move along. I myslef find it interesting to compare my views with other posters so I would like to continue, even though I am aware that is very... specific topic... 

Also I am not sure if it would not be better to take this conversation to PM section, since it is a little bit off topic and just post the final result of the debate here. But I'll have to think about it... As for the topic itself... well... 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phaedon wrote...

Why?

A +15% damage upgrade is always more important than a mere +5% upgrade, even if we remove the starting and extremelly high levels of ME1 and only keep levels that matter.

That logic is flawed. 

System A has a few levels, but with every single one being important, whereas System B has some more levels, but not a single one of them is remotely important.

Therefore, the first system gives you as many choices as it promises, whereas the second one gives you the illusion of choice, when in fact, there is virtually no choice in each level, and you have to condense batches of levels together to see some difference, something that the first system does instantly.

Well firstly, the differences between what somebody considers an illusion of choice and what he (she) classifies as an actual choice may vary from player to player. While I agree that difference between levels, items, etc. in Mass Effect 1 were sometimes too insignificant, I still find the individual perception of what is “deep” enough not to be considered just an illusion of choice, to be too subjective indicator.

So, I would prefer measuring the differences between min. and max. values of particular variable as I am explaining later.

The fact that this logic is flawed is further demonestrated by the fact that, by using the exact same logic, you can have both games start with abilities at 1% and get them to 100%, while splitting each ability/attribute in 100 levels, with the only increase per level being a 1% upgrade.

And what this does? It gives you the illusion of choice, when in fact each of the hundrends of choices you will do will be utterly insignificant. It won't be significant until you start uprading each attribute in "units" which are made up by multiple of levels. In conclusion, there is a natural and automatical progression to fewer levels, with significant changes.

And 100 is just an example. You could further divide each attribute infinitely. Just because it has more "boxes" that you can click, it doesn't mean that it's deeper, because whether you click that box or not, there won't be any
difference. After all, the point of statistical progression is to evolve into various roles. Creating the illusion that you are not evolving, and making every choice insignificant is counter-productive.

I have to disagree. My goal was exactly to demonstrate that the “stats” system (system B in my example) can be considered deeper despite the fact that, the differences between individual options (levels) are smaller, as long as the difference between the lowest value (in case of system B: level 1 – damage 1) and the highest value (B: level 20 – damage 20) is larger (the difference between 1 and 20 is +19) than in similar system (system A in my example) with more significant changes between levels but with smaller difference between the lowest value (level 1 – damage 1) and the highest value (level 3 – damage 10, which is only + 9).

And why do I think so? Because I find the difference between the lowest value (level) and the highest value to be a more accurate measure of how “stats” can influence the gameplay.

In the example I provided, if I had an opponent in the game with the health 100 and I had an option to attack him, the system B would allow me to attack him with the character (or weapon) which can level up to level 20 and
deal damage 20. The system A can do so only up to level 3 and damage 10. The difference between the attack of character (or weapon) which is on max. level in system B (level 20 and damage 20) and character (weapon) on the lowest level (level 1 damage 1) in this system is larger (+ 19) than the difference between the character (weapon) on max. level in system A (level 3 – damage 10) and character on min. level (level 1 – damage 1) in system A (+ 9).  

In case of system B, I could kill such opponent with 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,12, 13, 15, 17, 20, 25, 34, 50 or 100 attacks depending on the level of my character (weapon) while in system A, I could kill him only with 10, 20 or 100 attacks.

I myself would consider system B to be "deeper" because if I used the “stats” (leveling up) properly, their influence on the gameplay could be more significant than in case of system A (in case of system B, if I leveled up properly and reached max. level, I would require only 5 attacks while in system A, I would still need at least 10).  

Please note, I am not using the percentage (just like Mass Effects don’t in some cases, well at least not in the menus), I am not using the same maximum values for both systems (because I want to demonstrate that they matter more than the values of individual levels) and I am not saying that the things work this way in any of the Mass Effects. I just specifically created an example which should point out that measuring of “stats” by comparing the significance of differences between individual levels can result in omission of an important aspect. And that is the overall level to which they can influence the gameplay.

You on the other hand, … providing that I understand your post… have made an example in which both systems have the same min. and max. values (1% and 100%) and one has less levels with more significant differences while the other is the exact opposite.

Now, if I used the method I propose, I would qualify both systems as equally deep, because the size of the differences between min. and max. level is the same (again 1% and 100%). If I used your method, one of the systems (the one with less levels and more significant changes) would be classified as deeper.

Maybe your method might be little bit more useful in in your example (depending on what we want to find out), but my IMO would still work fine, because at the very least, it would say that both “stats” systems can influence the gameplay to the same degree (from 1% to 100% of whatever the base value actually is), which IMO is still a relevant information.

Where your method does not work IMO, is my example, because it would classify system A as deeper despite the fact that system B:
 
- covers all the options that system A has (damage 1, 5 and 10)
- and more importantly, has options which exceed the maximum set in system A, (damage from 11 to 20) and influence the gameplay even further to the level the system A can’t. 

In conclusion, to me it seems like you are focusing more on how many "meaningful / significant" choices the game actually has while I would like to see a comparison which focuses more on the level to which the “stats system” can influence the gameplay if they are used to their full potential (the differences between character [weapon] on lowest level, with no upgrades, etc. and the “maxed out” character [weapon]).

Like I said, I don't know which of the Mass Effecs would be deeper if somebody tried to use the approach I am proposing. It's just that I find your method to be incomplete and negligent to some aspects, so IMO it shouldn't be used as final indicator.     

Giving the illusion of choice? How so?

Because that's exactly what you are saying. A quick look at the base powers for each class quickly dismisses this idea. If we leave the weapon skill and charming skills out of this, because they are a different subject and another flaw of ME1 for me (the morality is attached to some other attributes too anyway), the actual effects are almost all there, with the obvious differences here and there.

I would say that if we really wanted to at least try to “objectively” measure the “depth” of “stats” systems in both games, we should not disregard any “stats” that are at least in one of the Mass Effects.

Flawed or not, bad or good, or even if they are so insignificant that some players may neglect them or consider them to be just an “illusion of choice”, as long as they exist at least in one of the games, they are (to some degree) relevant to the comparison of "stats" of these games (in this case it would indicate how many areas in Mass Effects have at least some "stats" / options. Even if they are quite shallow.).

In other words, even the most shallow “stats” are deeper than no stats at all (providing that one game has "stats" / options in the area the other one does not have). Besides,... deeper does not necessarily mean better or more useful. But that is another topic for another discussion.:happy:

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 05 septembre 2011 - 08:09 .

[Phaedon]

Varen Spectre wrote...
Well firstly, the differences between what somebody considers an illusion of choice and what he (she) classifies as an actual choice may vary from player to player. While I agree that difference between levels, items, etc. in Mass Effect 1 were sometimes too insignificant, I still find the individual perception of what is “deep” enough not to be considered just an illusion of choice, to be too subjective indicator.

So, I would prefer measuring the differences between min. and max. values of particular variable as I am explaining later.

But the differences per upgrade were exactly the problem that ME1 had.

Deep means meaningful. To have a box that adds a mere +3% on an attribute for the sake of having boxes is not deep. It's derp.

I have to disagree. My goal was exactly to demonstrate that the “stats” system (system B in my example) can be considered deeper despite the fact that, the differences between individual options (levels) are smaller, as long as the difference between the lowest value (in case of system B: level 1 – damage 1) and the highest value (B: level 20 – damage 20) is larger (the difference between 1 and 20 is +19) than in similar system (system A in my example) with more significant changes between levels but with smaller difference between the lowest value (level 1 – damage 1) and the highest value (level 3 – damage 10, which is only + 9).

And why do I think so? Because I find the difference between the lowest value (level) and the highest value to be a more accurate measure of how “stats” can influence the gameplay.

In the example I provided, if I had an opponent in the game with the health 100 and I had an option to attack him, the system B would allow me to attack him with the character (or weapon) which can level up to level 20 and
deal damage 20. The system A can do so only up to level 3 and damage 10. The difference between the attack of character (or weapon) which is on max. level in system B (level 20 and damage 20) and character (weapon) on the lowest level (level 1 damage 1) in this system is larger (+ 19) than the difference between the character (weapon) on max. level in system A (level 3 – damage 10) and character on min. level (level 1 – damage 1) in system A (+ 9).  

In case of system B, I could kill such opponent with 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,12, 13, 15, 17, 20, 25, 34, 50 or 100 attacks depending on the level of my character (weapon) while in system A, I could kill him only with 10, 20 or 100 attacks.

I myself would consider system B to be "deeper" because if I used the “stats” (leveling up) properly, their influence on the gameplay could be more significant than in case of system A (in case of system B, if I leveled up properly and reached max. level, I would require only 5 attacks while in system A, I would still need at least 10).  

Please note, I am not using the percentage (just like Mass Effects don’t in some cases, well at least not in the menus), I am not using the same maximum values for both systems (because I want to demonstrate that they matter more than the values of individual levels) and I am not saying that the things work this way in any of the Mass Effects. I just specifically created an example which should point out that measuring of “stats” by comparing the significance of differences between individual levels can result in omission of an important aspect. And that is the overall level to which they can influence the gameplay.

You on the other hand, … providing that I understand your post… have made an example in which both systems have the same min. and max. values (1% and 100%) and one has less levels with more significant differences while the other is the exact opposite.

Now, if I used the method I propose, I would qualify both systems as equally deep, because the size of the differences between min. and max. level is the same (again 1% and 100%). If I used your method, one of the systems (the one with less levels and more significant changes) would be classified as deeper.

Wait.

If anything, this should be my argument, as it helps my position.

The problem with ME1 is just that, it combines the worst elements of both systems. 

Take a look at the "Fitness" ability from ME1:

Level 1:[/b] Increases health by 10%.Level 2:[/b] Increases health by 14%.Level 3:[/b] Increases health by 17%.Level 4:[/b] Immunity.Level 5:[/b] Increases health by 20%.Level 6:[/b] Increases health by 22%.

And the "Adrenaline Rush" ability from ME2:

Rank 1[/b]Recharge Time[/b]: 5.00 secondsDuration[/b]: 5.00 secondsTime Dilation[/b]: +50.00%Damage Bonus[/b]: +100.00%[/list][/list]Rank 2[/b]Recharge Time[/b]: 4.00 secondsDuration[/b]: 5.00 secondsTime Dilation[/b]: +50.00%Damage Bonus[/b]: +100.00%[/list][/list]Rank 3[/b]Recharge Time[/b]: 3.00 secondsDuration[/b]: 5.00 secondsTime Dilation[/b]: +50.00%Damage Bonus[/b]: +100.00%

[/list][/list]This is exactly what I am saying. To achieve the difference ME2 does, ME1 would have to combine several levels. At once. And at the same time, jumping from one level to another in ME2 has visible effect. And not a weird effect where you are left wondering how the hell you are so powerful just by adding a single point, but the feeling of progression.

That's the point of progression, to cause the player the feeling that they are changing from their original state.
Instead in ME1, you can either micromanage the points so that you retain your previous state even though you are overall more powerful, or you can assign multiple points to a single attribute, essentially turning it into ME2's level up system.

Maybe your method might be little bit more useful in in your example (depending on what we want to find out), but my IMO would still work fine, because at the very least, it would say that both “stats” systems can influence the gameplay to the same degree (from 1% to 100% of whatever the base value actually is), which IMO is still a relevant information.

Where your method does not work IMO, is my example, because it would classify system A as deeper despite the fact that system B:
 
- covers all the options that system A has (damage 1, 5 and 10)
- and more importantly, has options which exceed the maximum set in system A, (damage from 11 to 20) and influence the gameplay even further to the level the system A can’t. 

In conclusion, to me it seems like you are focusing more on how many "meaningful / significant" choices the game actually has while I would like to see a comparison which focuses more on the level to which the “stats system” can influence the gameplay if they are used to their full potential (the differences between character [weapon] on lowest level, with no upgrades, etc. and the “maxed out” character [weapon]).

Like I said, I don't know which of the Mass Effecs would be deeper if somebody tried to use the approach I am proposing. It's just that I find your method to be incomplete and negligent to some aspects, so IMO it shouldn't be used as final indicator.    

1) Mass Effect 2 does, technically, have more "active statistics" than ME1, but that is due to the development of the shooter component. Yes, shooters tend to have more active statistics than RPGs from my experience, but you simply can not change their values.

2) Getting past the overall maximum values of previous systems should NOT be your goal in 9 out of 10 cases, unless the previous game was too difficult in all cases, regardless of the difficulty setting. You must always offer some challenge. Having the players roflstomp their enemies after a certain level is a cheap way to implement progression.

GI would say that if we really wanted to at least try to “objectively” measure the “depth” of “stats” systems in both games, we should not disregard any “stats” that are at least in one of the Mass Effects.

Flawed or not, bad or good, or even if they are so insignificant that some players may neglect them or consider them to be just an “illusion of choice”, as long as they exist at least in one of the games, they are (to some degree) relevant to the comparison of "stats" of these games (in this case it would indicate how many areas in Mass Effects have at least some "stats" / options. Even if they are quite shallow.).

In other words, even the most shallow “stats” are deeper than no stats at all (providing that one game has "stats" / options in the area the other one does not have). Besides,... deeper does not necessarily mean better or more useful. But that is another topic for another discussion.:happy:

We'll end up arguing on semantics if we don't attempt to define depth right now.

For me, a deep concept or action is one with some meaning behind it. By that definition, depth is always good. What I see that you are talking about is complexity.

[SpiffySquee]

I've seen the word "Elitist" used over and over again on these forums like it's a bad thing. It's true, elitist attitudes are often bad, and quite unwarranted. However, the basic idea of elitism should not be thrown out the window. There's a reason why I trust my doctor to diagnose my illness more than my taxi driver. There's a reason why I value Sir Patrick Stewart's views on acting more than the random hipster street performer's. Twilight is not better than To Kill a Mockingbird, no matter how many fans each of them has.

So my point is that video games are not exempt from this concept.

The difference is your doctor has a degree and years of experience saying what make a certain illness. Patrick Stewart has a life time of work to point to when it comes to acting. Both these people can prove that their way of thinking is the correct one. The doctor can cure or treat the illness, proving that he was right, and Sir Stew can show how successful his methods are to the public. What can a "RPG Elitist" do to prove they are right? Nothing. Their opinion of what makes something an RPG is just that... Their opinion. Basically, a doctor is an elitist because people agree and say his opinion is better than others. RPG Elitist tend to be the only ones who say their opinion is better than others.

[Guldhun2]

SpiffySquee wrote...

The difference is your doctor has a degree and years of experience saying what make a certain illness. Patrick Stewart has a life time of work to point to when it comes to acting. Both these people can prove that their way of thinking is the correct one. The doctor can cure or treat the illness, proving that he was right, and Sir Stew can show how successful his methods are to the public. What can a "RPG Elitist" do to prove they are right? Nothing. Their opinion of what makes something an RPG is just that... Their opinion. Basically, a doctor is an elitist because people agree and say his opinion is better than others. RPG Elitist tend to be the only ones who say their opinion is better than others.

Because several years ago RPG meant games like Wizardy, Pool of Radiance, Wizard's Crown. They all had something in common. While today RPGs mean "having a story and choices" making the term Role-playing Video Game so vague it has become worthless.

Modifié par Guldhun2, 05 septembre 2011 - 01:32 .

[Il Divo]

SpiffySquee wrote...

I've seen the word "Elitist" used over and over again on these forums like it's a bad thing. It's true, elitist attitudes are often bad, and quite unwarranted. However, the basic idea of elitism should not be thrown out the window. There's a reason why I trust my doctor to diagnose my illness more than my taxi driver. There's a reason why I value Sir Patrick Stewart's views on acting more than the random hipster street performer's. Twilight is not better than To Kill a Mockingbird, no matter how many fans each of them has.

So my point is that video games are not exempt from this concept.

The difference is your doctor has a degree and years of experience saying what make a certain illness. Patrick Stewart has a life time of work to point to when it comes to acting. Both these people can prove that their way of thinking is the correct one. The doctor can cure or treat the illness, proving that he was right, and Sir Stew can show how successful his methods are to the public. What can a "RPG Elitist" do to prove they are right? Nothing. Their opinion of what makes something an RPG is just that... Their opinion. Basically, a doctor is an elitist because people agree and say his opinion is better than others. RPG Elitist tend to be the only ones who say their opinion is better than others.

Even within those examples, we have a problem. A doctor is an authority figure, able to diagnose your illness, assuming he's been trained properly. If I consider Patrick Stewart a bad actor (which I don't), it's possible to consider his 'authority' worthless.