1002 réponses à ce sujet

[Varen Spectre]

Now this disucussion is something.:happy:

Phaedon wrote...

Wait.

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

, this genuine reaction and the way you worded it made me chuckle. In a good way, of course (respect and peace). 

Because it is true. In my opinion you should have used this approach in the first place. But not because it supports or doesn't support your position, but becaue it is a more appropriate (telling) method when it comes to assessing the overall "depth" of games' "stats". As someone, who is willing to efficiently measure the depth of games' stats and consequently convince other forum members about your results and thesis, you would have had a more exact, less subjective and less disputable method and results (pls check the second section of my post about measuring). 

Also, what my previous post does not support, is your use of the size (significance) of differences between individual levels as a main indicator of depth of "stats" in Mass Effects or other games. The reasons are explained in detail in the previous post. 

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: Increases health by 10%.
Level 2: Increases health by 14%.
Level 3: Increases health by 17%.
Level 4: Immunity.
Level 5: Increases health by 20%.
Level 6: Increases health by 22%.

And the "Adrenaline Rush" ability from ME2:

Rank 1 Recharge Time: 5.00 seconds Duration: 5.00 seconds Time Dilation: +50.00% Damage Bonus: +100.00%
Rank 2 Recharge Time: 4.00 seconds Duration: 5.00 seconds Time Dilation: +50.00% Damage Bonus: +100.00%
Rank 3 Recharge Time: 3.00 seconds Duration: 5.00 seconds Time Dilation: +50.00% Damage Bonus: +100.00%

Yup, that’s the way to do a proper comparison of depth of "stats" attached to one variable in my opinion.  

Of course, if we really wanted to make a thorough one, we would have to compare all game elements which have “stats” (all those skills, weapons, armors, powers, etc.) or at least enough of them to conclude that one game has more variables which can be leveled up to greater level than the other one.

And of course, we would have to try to compare powers / talents and other "stats" which have similar effects. E.g. compare adrenaline rush rather with... maybe combination of particular weapon skill + assault training, etc. when it comes to damage or hardened adrenaline rush + barrier + fortification, etc. with Mass Effect 1's talents which provide protection, etc. in order not to compare two different effects of "stats" (damage / time dilation and health in your example). That's why I am saying it would be quite a job.:happy:   

Please note, I am not arguing which one of the Mass Effects has deeper stats and I have never had.

In other words, what I was trying to do all this time was to point out that this approach – i. e. comparing how the differences between the minimum and maximum values influence the gameplay – is better indicator of the depth of “stats” than what you used in the beginning – i. e. comparing the differences between individual levels.

That’s because it takes into account the maximum level to which stats can influence the gameplay instead of partial results / comparisons. That is all… And has always been in this regard (please notify all those “I am not saying which of the Mass Effects has deeper stats...” in my previous posts).
  
Again, if somebody “somehow” wanted to disprove your claim by using the differences between individual levels (for example, if he / she would have perceived the small differences and many options as a good thing and tried to
prove the depth of “stats” by that) I would have done the very same thing – i.e. I would have pointed out that such approach would neglect the overall influence of stats (the difference between minimum and maxed out stats) on gameplay, which I find more important since we are talking about overall "depth" of "stats".

And also, if somebody would like to disprove you now (well always, of course),… in my book, … he (she) would have to point out that the differences between minimum and maxed out variables (weapons, armors, skill, etc.) in Mass Effect 1 are greater than they are in Mass Effect 2.

To sum up, I do not care which one of the Mass Effects will actually end up being considered as the one that has deeper "stats", but it is in my interest that, if somebody wants to claim that he (she) knows the answer, that he (she) has used, what is in my opinion, the most objective methods of measuring possible. 

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.

I understand (at least I hope:blush:).

However, In addition to abovestated reasons, the problem I see, as I have pointed out already, is that, distinguishing between what are meaningful (significant) differences and what are not, is at least to some degree subjective.

I mean, in order to perceive them as significant, maybe you would have to combine 4 – 5 levels in Mass Effect 1 together. Maybe I would only need 2 or 3. Somebody else might need 5 or 6. In conclusion, our perceptions of how many (meaningful) choices Mass Effect 1 actually has, would differ and so would our perceptions of depth Mass Effect 1’s “stats” in comparison to other games.

But why argue? Why base our assessments of game’s overall “depth“ on something that subjective, when we can take a look at something much more exact and much less subjective. And that is the overall influence of “stats“ on gameplay. Technically, we could even try to measure how much time, shots, punches, attacks, etc. does it take to kill certain enemy with certain attack, when the stats are at minimum level and when they are maxed out and compare them.

And we would have a nice exact result. No one could contest that, providing that player plays properly (aims, throws, punches, etc.) in *insert Mass Effect 1 or 2* it takes *insert value of time, shots, punches, etc.* to take
down a particular enemy at minimum level and *insert value of time, shots, punches, etc.*  at maximum level in
comparison to *insert the other Mass Effect*, so that is clear which one of them has more meaningful overall, and therefore in my opinion, deeper “stats”.

Of course, level scaling of opponents might be a problem and may misrepresent the results a little bit, but if I understand correctly, you are pursuing the actual meaningfulness of stats anyway, so it should not be a problem for neither of us.   

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.

Well, again, what does have a meaning in your opinion might be quite subjective in many ways... For example, if we added few more levels (ranks) to some of the current Mass Effect 2’s powers (let's say to shockwave or charge) and the increments between the levels (ranks) would follow the same rules (same percentages or even same mechanisms of growth of percentages) as the current ones do,... to what degree would you consider them significant? Would there be a certain level (rank) after which you would stop considering the further ranks meaningful (because they would be too overpowered)? Or, would some of the highest levels (with relatively large power increases in comparison to some of the first levels) make the lower levels meaningless for you? Or maybe, if there were too many ranks (which again, all would have the same increases of percentages or better said the same mechanisms of growth as the current ones do) would you consider the entire system meaningless? At what point would you do so?

I am pretty sure that answers for these questions would vary in every community.

I mean, it’s really good that you have developed an inner sense that allows you to distinguish between (in your opinion) meaningful and meaningless choices, but for an outsider like me, who might have completely different values, it is quite hard to follow:unsure:, understand, asses and agree or disagree. Especially if you put in such vague way.

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 06 septembre 2011 - 09:38 .

[whywhywhywhy]

Gatt9 wrote...

I'm not watching that,  I already know what it says.  "It's an RPG because there's a story,  and I pretend I'm shepherd".

1.  Narratives don't make games an RPG.

2.  Narrative techniques such as illusionary choices that don't actually have any effect don't make games RPG's or Roleplaying.

3.  There's a difference between those two things,  and if you're not aware of the difference between Roleplaying and a Roleplaying-Game,  respectfully,  you don't know what an RPG is.  This is Roleplaying...



I would be willing to bet 99% of the people who claim Roleplaying and RPG are the same thing don't realize they just defined RPG's as running around a forest with a plastic sword and shield yelling "Lightning bolt!  Lightning bolt!".  I'd be willing to bet an even bigger pile of money that those same people wouldn't willingly do that.

4.  RPG mechanics make things RPG's.  Just like First-person and Shooter mechanics make things FPS's,  just like Real-time and strategy mechanics make RTS.

So allow me to be the first to welcome all of the new members of the LARPSing community to their new home,  you can find the plastic swords and shields at ToysRus.

Or,  OTOH,  we can just admit that ME2 and likely ME3 are TPS's with a narrative.

I agree with you, that me2 and 3 is only or will be a fps's.  I even have to say me1 can only be loosely defined as one as well.  The difference should have been the expansion of game mechanics and design as well as the development of the choices carry over aspect into decisions that carry weight.  Reapercussions:bandit:

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 05 septembre 2011 - 05:56 .

[In Exile]

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.

The doctor is a trained medical professional. 

But that doesn't make the doctor not an outright quack. For example, some doctor could believe that TNF is not involved in autoimmune disorders, and anti-TNF drugs don't work.

Of course, we have peer-reviewed research on this point. So it's easy to point out this doctor is a loon, because there is an agreed upon method of investigation, and a very obvious and agreed upon check: reality.

Good medicine leads to less dead people, and this is easily measurable. 

"What is an RPG," is just a debate about rules and categories, and that's a cluster ****. On any meaningful intellectual level. 

[Bcuz]

In Exile wrote...

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.

The doctor is a trained medical professional. 

But that doesn't make the doctor not an outright quack. For example, some doctor could believe that TNF is not involved in autoimmune disorders, and anti-TNF drugs don't work.

Of course, we have peer-reviewed research on this point. So it's easy to point out this doctor is a loon, because there is an agreed upon method of investigation, and a very obvious and agreed upon check: reality.

Good medicine leads to less dead people, and this is easily measurable. 

"What is an RPG," is just a debate about rules and categories, and that's a cluster ****. On any meaningful intellectual level. 

Here here.

[Phaedon]

Guldhun2 wrote...
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.

The next time you stumble upon a time machine, try not using "The time that there was no fighting about what RPG meant" as a term to describe the timeline you want to travel to, please. We have yet to understand how time travel could work, let alone time and alternate (fictional) universe travel.

Btw, some time ago, "RPG" meant "a meeting in a room similar to a courtroom, to roleplay famous legal cases". That was way before DnD (which Wizards of the Coast describes as "interactive storytelling" in their website) was invented.

[CroGamer002]

Call of Duty Black Ops has ton of stats.
Not an RPG.


Deus Ex Human Revolution doesn't have any stats.
One of the best RPG's of all time.

[Phaedon]

[quote]Varen Spectre wrote...

Now this disucussion is something.:happy:[/quote]
Yeah, it's fun debating with a level headed idividual like you.

[quote]Phaedon wrote...
, this genuine reaction and the way you worded it made me chuckle. In a good way, of course (respect and peace). 

Because it is true. In my opinion you should have used this approach in the first place. But not because it supports or doesn't support your position, but becaue it is a more appropriate (telling) method when it comes to assessing the overall "depth" of games' "stats". As someone, who is willing to efficiently measure the depth of games' stats and consequently convince other forum members about your results and thesis, you would have had a more exact, less subjective and less disputable method and results (pls check the second section of my post about measuring). [/quote]
True enough.

[quote]Also, what my previous post does not support, is your use of the size (significance) of differences between individual levels as a main indicator of depth of "stats" in Mass Effects or other games. The reasons are explained in detail in the previous post. [/quote]
Okay.

[quote]Yup, that’s the way to do a proper comparison of depth of "stats" attached to one variable in my opinion.  

Of course, if we really wanted to make a thorough one, we would have to compare all game elements which have “stats” (all those skills, weapons, armors, powers, etc.) or at least enough of them to conclude that one game has more variables which can be leveled up to greater level than the other one.

And of course, we would have to try to compare powers / talents and other "stats" which have similar effects. E.g. compare adrenaline rush rather with... maybe combination of particular weapon skill + assault training, etc. when it comes to damage or hardened adrenaline rush + barrier + fortification, etc. with Mass Effect 1's talents which provide protection, etc. in order not to compare two different effects of "stats" (damage / time dilation and health in your example). That's why I am saying it would be quite a job.:happy:   

Please note, I am not arguing which one of the Mass Effects has deeper stats and I have never had.

[/quote]
While by no means a small comparison like this is conclusive, we can go over all of the stats of both games. The differences per idividual level are evident. Adding a point in ME2 is more effective than adding a point in ME1.
And that's the point of statistical progression, to diverge from your original role and specialize, statistically.

Yes, you can theoretically replicate that effect in ME1, if you have been saving up on points. How? By assigning multiple points to one or more attributes. Which equals to what ME2 does, but instantly.


[quote]In other words, what I was trying to do all this time was to point out that this approach – i. e. comparing how the differences between the minimum and maximum values influence the gameplay – is better indicator of the depth of “stats” than what you used in the beginning – i. e. comparing the differences between individual levels.

That’s because it takes into account the maximum level to which stats can influence the gameplay instead of partial results / comparisons. That is all… And has always been in this regard (please notify all those “I am not saying which of the Mass Effects has deeper stats...” in my previous posts).[/quote]
And how so?

You can have Level 1 have a much lower value than Level 60 if you wish. Does that mean that that ensures meaningful statistical progression? No.

Specialization doesn't just have to do with which powers you unlock, but how you play. Especially how you play. If the progression from Level 1 to Level 123535 isn't obvious to the player and enough to change their playstyle, then you are creating the illusion of progression, you don't really progress. Especially with enemies with stats that level up just like you do.

And that's the big issue. Progression isn't -nowadays- about becoming better, it's about becoming different. 
  
[quote]Again, if somebody “somehow” wanted to disprove your claim by using the differences between individual levels (for example, if he / she would have perceived the small differences and many options as a good thing and tried to
prove the depth of “stats” by that) I would have done the very same thing – i.e. I would have pointed out that such approach would neglect the overall influence of stats (the difference between minimum and maxed out stats) on gameplay, which I find more important since we are talking about overall "depth" of "stats".[/quote]
I believe I have just addressed that.

[quote]And also, if somebody would like to disprove you now (well always, of course),… in my book, … he (she) would have to point out that the differences between minimum and maxed out variables (weapons, armors, skill, etc.) in Mass Effect 1 are greater than they are in Mass Effect 2.[/quote]
And as I would go on to point out, even with enemies that progress along with you, ME1 was extremely notorious for it's imbalance. Sniper shotguns, high-level run-and-blast characters, Spectre armor, etc. were some of ME1's major issues. And because you don't want that, I think that it's fair to say that you want progression to evolve, not to maintain or simply overall improve your character.

Otherwise, you could very well go old-school and maintain enemy properties and values the same at all times. Or have items that progress as you do.

[quote]To sum up, I do not care which one of the Mass Effects will actually end up being considered as the one that has deeper "stats", but it is in my interest that, if somebody wants to claim that he (she) knows the answer, that he (she) has used, what is in my opinion, the most objective methods of measuring possible. [/quote]
Either way, my point will stand.

Anyone who calls the statistical progression of Mass Effect 2 shallow has a problem at hand.

And that's of course exclusively for character progression. I won't need to mention the items of ME1 that are essentially, just better or worse. That play, sound and look the same.[quote][/quote][quote]However, In addition to abovestated reasons, the problem I see, as I have pointed out already, is that, distinguishing between what are meaningful (significant) differences and what are not, is at least to some degree subjective. [/quote]
I mean, in order to perceive them as significant, maybe you would have to combine 4 – 5 levels in Mass Effect 1 together. Maybe I would only need 2 or 3. Somebody else might need 5 or 6. In conclusion, our perceptions of how many (meaningful) choices Mass Effect 1 actually has, would differ and so would our perceptions of depth Mass Effect 1’s “stats” in comparison to other games.

But why argue? Why base our assessments of game’s overall “depth“ on something that subjective, when we can take a look at something much more exact and much less subjective. And that is the overall influence of “stats“ on gameplay. Technically, we could even try to measure how much time, shots, punches, attacks, etc. does it take to kill certain enemy with certain attack, when the stats are at minimum level and when they are maxed out and compare them.[/quote]
I have already addressed this argument.

[quote]And we would have a nice exact result. No one could contest that, providing that player plays properly (aims, throws, punches, etc.) in *insert Mass Effect 1 or 2* it takes *insert value of time, shots, punches, etc.* to take
down a particular enemy at minimum level and *insert value of time, shots, punches, etc.*  at maximum level in
comparison to *insert the other Mass Effect*, so that is clear which one of them has more meaningful overall, and therefore in my opinion, deeper “stats”.

Of course, level scaling of opponents might be a problem and may misrepresent the results a little bit, but if I understand correctly, you are pursuing the actual meaningfulness of stats anyway, so it should not be a problem for neither of us.  [/quote]
Absolutely not, why?

The game does scale with you, it's just that it doesn't scale properly in some cases *COUGH*. 

If anything a character whose stats remain overall identical, but just improved is a sign of bad statistical progression, not the opposite.

[quote]Well, again, what does have a meaning in your opinion might be quite subjective in many ways... For example, if we added few more levels (ranks) to some of the current Mass Effect 2’s powers (let's say to shockwave or charge) and the increments between the levels (ranks) would follow the same rules (same percentages or even same mechanisms of growth of percentages) as the current ones do,... to what degree would you consider them significant? Would there be a certain level (rank) after which you would stop considering the further ranks meaningful (because they would be too overpowered)? Or, would some of the highest levels (with relatively large power increases in comparison to some of the first levels) make the lower levels meaningless for you? Or maybe, if there were too many ranks (which again, all would have the same increases of percentages or better said the same mechanisms of growth as the current ones do) would you consider the entire system meaningless? At what point would you do so?[/quote]Yeah, here's the problem. You may be able to divide infinitely, but you can NOT add levels infinitely. The levels of statistical progression will still be huge, and very meaningful. A +100% stat upgrade is no petty matter.

But you know where the problem lies? Yes, you could have one more level for each of ME2's attributes. And then the game would end up having broken balance, because you would be too powerful even for you scaled enemies. Add a few more and your game is unplayable.

Another positive of the current system is this. A jack of all trades character doesn't work well, at least not as well as it would if the game had, let's say 10 or 15 levels. A jack of all trades character is not a properly progressed one, imo.

[quote]I am pretty sure that answers for these questions would vary in every community.

I mean, it’s really good that you have developed an inner sense that allows you to distinguish between (in your opinion) meaningful and meaningless choices, but for an outsider like me, who might have completely different values, it is quite hard to follow:unsure:, understand, asses and agree or disagree. Especially if you put in such vague way.[/quote]
It doesn't matter to agree or disagree on which game did a specific element better, because that element, if not combined with the rest, doesn't say much. Gameplay appreciation has to do with how all features work together and how much you enjoyed the gameplay.

The problem lies with people claiming total lack of complexity and depth over the statistics of a game. Those people tend to be the ones who associate "streamlined" to "dumbed down" and use the phrase "dumbed down" in the first place.

I know that you are looking at me. I said that the weapons of ME1 by themselves don't offer any choice. But I think that whichever, your POV is, the numbers will always stay the same, in conbination with others or not, the weapons will still play the same, and they will still not have pros or cons. 

[Almostfaceman]

I agree with your opinion Squee. Good work (edit: to all involved in the making of them) on the videos, they were fun.

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 06 septembre 2011 - 08:48 .

[Phaedon]

I can assure you for one thing.

No Mass Effect game up to date can be classified as an FPS.

Modifié par Phaedon, 06 septembre 2011 - 09:16 .

[Almostfaceman]

Phaedon wrote...

I can assure you for one thing.

No Mass Effect game up to date can be classified as an FPS.

True dat.

[Varen Spectre]

Phaedon wrote...

Yeah, it's fun debating with a level headed idividual like you.

Well, I would like to see more debates like this one. It’s hard to find a discussion with posts as long as these (especially mine:P), which would not involve certain level of hostility (badmouthing, overuse of sarcasm, twisting other posters words, etc.).

I sort of don’t understand that approach, because behaviour like that would most likely cause that mod would lock the thread (discussion) before the posters could reach a conclusion and that would make entire discussion pointless (why would I waste my time and effort on trying to convince somebody about my point of view, knowing that my behaviour and tone would most likely lock the thread before I could achive that...). 

Also, the “worst thing“ “you“ can do to “me“ is prove me wrong in front of other, fortunately anonymous, people about something that hardly matters IRL. No big deal... And even if it was, it would prompt me to post more carefully in the future. So eventually it might be a good thing... But, back to our discourse…
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

… And speaking of our debate, I am glad that we are clearing things out and finding some common points…

Unfortunately,… at the same time we are reaching the limit where the things and opinions would be clear and understood by the other party and yet we would not be able reach a consensus. ¯\\_  _/¯ The way I see it is, that it would have to come down to comparison of subjective interpretations of what does “deep / depth”, “meaningful / meaningfulness” and “good / convenient” mean with respect to game’s “stats” and whether these three (six) terms can be used independently or not. And that is too subjective and abstract topic for me to discuss and enjoy...

So without any desire, like you said, to “argue about semantics” or to asses your interpretations of these 3 terms, I can say that I am starting to have good idea about the ratio behind your posts. But, at the same time I am beginning to understand where are the main differences between your and mine approach and why we are most likely not going to be able to find a mutual agreement.

While by no means a small comparison like this is conclusive, we can go over all of the stats of both games. The differences per idividual level are evident. Adding a point in ME2 is more effective than adding a point in ME1.

And that's the point of statistical progression, to diverge from your original role and specialize, statistically.

Yes, you can theoretically replicate that effect in ME1, if you have been saving up on points. How? By assigning multiple points to one or more attributes. Which equals to what ME2 does, but instantly.

Yup, like I am saying, the question, whether we would need to compare minimum and maximum values attached to particular variable (or variables which have similar effects in both games such as damage protections, etc.) in
order to determine which one of the games has overall deeper ”stats” in that regard or not, is one of the things on which our opinions are going to remain different.

I have already provided one example (the comparison of two fictitious systems [A and B] which not only have different maximum levels [system B – up to level 20, system A – up to level 3], different increments between
levels [system B always: + 1, system A: from level 1 to level 2: + 4, from level 2 to level 3: + 5] - which in itself should determine which one of the systems has deeper “stats” according to you -, but also limits to which they can influence the gameplay in total [system B level 20 – damage 20 units  = 5 attacks to kill an enemy with 100 health units and system A level 3 – damage 10 = 10 attacks to kill the similar enemy in game A]) to present that for me, the way the “stats” can influence the gameplay is more important in determining their overall depth. Like I said, comparing stats solely by comparing differences between levels would IMO work nicely if we were not talking about overall depth but partial,… or if we were comparing the games with the same limits (e.g. system C: max level 10 – damage 10, system A:  max level 3 – damage 10).

I myself find this indicator to be very important and simply, I would not be able to call the stats attached to one variable in one game deeper, knowing that the stats attached to that variable in the other game can allow the player to do more or go further with influencing character’s / weapon’s / item’s / etc. parameters (do greater damage, have larger health, influence the speed of movement more, etc.). Even if the steps by which this influencing is done are smaller.

But, like I said, this approach stems from my philosophy according to which deeper does not necessarily have to mean better.

Therefore, I can clearly see that your line of thought: deeper stats = stats with more meaningful levels (even if the influence of the largest level is smaller than in other games) = better progression = better stats, especially in conjunction with the claim (I am not sure but I have that impression, feel free to correct me) that effects of stats also have to be balanced and appropriate, just to be taken into account by you (which probably excludes the “stats” which may have, in your opinion, too small effects and therefore are according to you not meaningful or too large effects and therefore can break the gameplay, so they are not good (and meaningful either, I guess) … is…

… simply different than mine. Not better, (probably^_^) not worse, but different. It has its ratio, especially when I look at it from practical perspective (I admit, not everyone would like to theorize about “deeper” stats which are actually detrimental to gameplay), but it’s not encompassing enough for me to adopt it. But since now I at least understand it, I see no point in further contesting it. 

You can have Level 1 have a much lower value than Level 60 if you wish. Does that mean that that ensures meaningful statistical progression? No.

Specialization doesn't just have to do with which powers you unlock, but how you play. Especially how you play. If the progression from Level 1 to Level 123535 isn't obvious to the player and enough to change their playstyle, then
you are creating the illusion of progression, you don't really progress. Especially with enemies with stats that level up just like you do.

And that's the big issue. Progression isn't -nowadays- about becoming better, it's about becomming different.

Well, again, this has a lot to do with how you and me understand the terms like “deep”, “meaningful” and maybe even “good”, i.e. about semantics. So bearing in mind that we have different approaches, I would recommend you to take the rest of the post more like explanation of my point of view rather than direct contest of yours. 

As for your question (not sure if it was rhetorical one or not but I'll answer anyway^_^), honestly, I would not dare to answer it on general level and try to speculate how other players would react to particular “stats” systems or how those systems would change their playstyles. I can only speak for myself and I am not sure if actual answers would help you, me or even this discussion.

Based on how I play the games, I would say that the size of individual increments between individual levels would not influence the way I would pick different skills, abilities, weapons, etc. or at least, not much. What would affect my choices are their descriptions in the game, their effects in the game and what I would think would await me in the next level. Based on these three things, I would pick them to the best of my knowledge.

Whether my playstyle would change during the game or whether it would look varied to outside observer would IMO mostly depend on how varied and different the offer of new skills, items, etc. would be – i.e. how many variables the game would have and how different their effects would be… IMO, that is the main source of variety and diversity. But IRC, this has never been a problem in our discussion in the first place. From the beginning, I have agreed that Mass Effect 2 offers more unique abilities which most likely results in more different playstyles.

As for, how the significance of differences between individual levels would affect the variety and changes in my playstyles, like I said, it would not affect them much…

To the contrary, in general, the smaller differences between levels tend to allow me to tailor much more accurate and suitable characters for me (I don’t need to spend significant part of remaining skill points [significant since there are not many] on one ability but I can redistribute them more appropriately) and encourage me to experiment more (I do not have to be worried that I am going to spent entire *insert large fraction of skill points* on one ability I may not even need in the future. So there is a chance, that I would try to use more and more different things in comparison to situation in which the game would have just few levels with large differences.

But,… like I said, that’s just me. Somebody else might have different approach. Maybe even majority of people, I don’t know… However, in order for me to know and acknowledge, that the things work the way you described, I would need to see some kind of polls or inquiry because I am quite skeptical when it comes to individual’s assumptions of how other people would think or react.

Besides, even if it was true, - and here I wil have to mention our different interpretations of  “depth”, “meaningfulness” and ”quality”  again -, IMO it would not have much to do with overall depth of stats system, when it comes to 1 variable.

The fact that people would not want to use the system which has greater difference between the lowest (level 1) value and highest one (the highest level) but also has a lot of small levels in between, because it discourages them to play and use such system for whatever reason,... does not mean that game itself does not offer more and overall "deeper" options than the other one which has more significant level changes, but maximum level to which they can affect gameplay would is smaller (- back to my System A / System B comparison for details if necessary). The actual depth of how far a player could go with developing that variable, would still be there. It would just be unutilized by players, because people would not find it useful.

If I was one such player that would not like that system though (for whatever reason), I would call system like that bad, clumsy, inefficient  or broken (e.g. if it would allow the player to level to the point where the game would be too easy), but definitely not more shallow than the other one which would have more significant differences between the levels, but the influence of its highest level on the gameplay would be smaller. 

Even from mathematical standpoint, if the number of variables in 2 games was the same, but one of them had, not only larger maximum limits to which these variables can be changed than the other one, but also this larger limit was segmented into smaller parts than in the other game (which already has smaller maximum limit), the sheer number of options and playstyles that can utilize them would be larger in that game. And so would IMO be the room for variety and diversity (- back to my explanation about how I can tailor my character to my needs for details if necessary).

And that's of course exclusively for character progression. I won't need to mention the items of ME1 that are essentially, just better or worse. That play, sound and look the same.

I don’t know and kind of never thought about that before, so I am only asking without implying anything, but… Does the sound and look of items, skills, etc. fall within game’s stats? Somehow, I was under the impression, that in gaming communities, this term was usually used only as a summary of attributes (variables and their limits) that are attached to ingame items or mechanics. Though not all of them, only to those that affect gameplay. But I’ve never paid that much attention to it so I might be wrong... 

It doesn't matter to agree or disagree on which game did a specific element better, because that element, if not combined with the rest, doesn't say much. Gameplay appreciation has to do with how all features work together and how much you enjoyed the gameplay.

Of course. For the record, I really love both Mass Effects, but somehow, I like Mass Effect 2, and that includes its gameplay, a little bit more. ¯\\_  _/¯
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So,… 

I don’t know, but I have a feeling that this post is not going to change much… And most likely neither the reply to it 

I can see some nitpicking here an there (don't worry, I am not going to post a monster like this again), but I can't see any big changes in neither of our opinions and perceptions of depth of "stats" attached to one variable...

And without that, the final assesment of depth of Mass Effect 1 and 2's stats will have to be postponed indefinitely.

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 07 septembre 2011 - 07:32 .

[Varen Spectre]

Mesina2 wrote...

Deus Ex Human Revolution doesn't have any stats. 
One of the best RPG's of all time.

... and I am not sure what would you qualify as stats... but many people would say that stats are are also all those changes in gameplay mechanics, even if they are not displayed as graphs or numbers. That would also include few  more.

[Bcuz]

Varen Spectre wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Deus Ex Human Revolution doesn't have any stats. 
One of the best RPG's of all time.

... and I am not sure what would you qualify as stats... but many people would say that stats are are also all those changes in gameplay mechanics, even if they are not displayed as graphs or numbers. That would also include few  more.

I believe he was refering to having reletively few compared to games with heavy "rpg elements" not so much "none at all" or he could have a different opinion on what a stat is, or he could just be uninformed.

[Savber100]

whywhywhywhy wrote...
]I agree with you, that me2 and 3 is only or will be a fps's.  I even have to say me1 can only be loosely defined as one as well.  The difference should have been the expansion of game mechanics and design as well as the development of the choices carry over aspect into decisions that carry weight.  Reapercussions:bandit:

[littlezack]

Why do people keep calling ME a first person shooter? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't being in first person perspective pretty much a requirement?

[Someone With Mass]

FPS (First Person Shooter):


TPS (Third Person Shooter):


Just to get that one clear.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 07 septembre 2011 - 08:26 .

[Phaedon]

@Varen Spectre

Sorry for not being able to post my reply tonight, I was working on a rather nifty one, but I'll do so tomorrow. Just letting you know that I am still interested into the debate.

[Varen Spectre]

Phaedon wrote...

@Varen Spectre

Sorry for not being able to post my reply tonight, I was working on a rather nifty one, but I'll do so tomorrow. Just letting you know that I am still interested into the debate.

Ha. :happy:

That's nice of you. Thank you. I know "some" (more like all) of my posts are quite long so take sa much time as you need.

[Phaedon]

[quote]Varen Spectre wrote...
Yup, like I am saying, the question, whether we would need to compare minimum and maximum values attached to particular variable (or variables which have similar effects in both games such as damage protections, etc.) in
order to determine which one of the games has overall deeper ”stats” in that regard or not, is one of the things on which our opinions are going to remain different.[/quote]
Well, let's just agree that idividual attribute upgrades in ME2 have a greater effect than ME1, and we can argue about the big picture.

[quote]I have already provided one example (the comparison of two fictitious systems [A and B] which not only have different maximum levels [system B – up to level 20, system A – up to level 3], different increments between
levels [system B always: + 1, system A: from level 1 to level 2: + 4, from level 2 to level 3: + 5] - which in itself should determine which one of the systems has deeper “stats” according to you -, but also limits to which they can influence the gameplay in total [system B level 20 – damage 20 units  = 5 attacks to kill an enemy with 100 health units and system A level 3 – damage 10 = 10 attacks to kill the similar enemy in game A]) to present that for me, the way the “stats” can influence the gameplay is more important in determining their overall depth. Like I said, comparing stats solely by comparing differences between levels would IMO work nicely if we were not talking about overall depth but partial,… or if we were comparing the games with the same limits (e.g. system C: max level 10 – damage 10, system A:  max level 3 – damage 10).[/quote]
As I have demonestrated earlier, Systems A and B are in fact, not, representantive of either ME games, but instead, one could say that ME1 shares a couple of elements from Systems A and B. Whether stats are more meaningful and useful in System A or B is hardly important due to the fact that it doesn't really change anything in the debate. But I have already explained my views on this subject a couple of posts before this one anyway.

[quote]
I myself find this indicator to be very important and simply, I would not be able to call the stats attached to one variable in one game deeper, knowing that the stats attached to that variable in the other game can allow the player to do more or go further with influencing character’s / weapon’s / item’s / etc. parameters (do greater damage, have larger health, influence the speed of movement more, etc.). Even if the steps by which this influencing is done are smaller.[/quote]
Not quite sure I am following your logic here...

Upgrading Attribute A is deeper because it is only affects a single variable and hence allows for more customization, even though it has little actual effect?

Well, there are multiple reasons as to why I find this approach flawed, but I will start with a single one. It really isn't. Assigned to a single variable, I mean. The point of adding a point to an attribute or even a single in-game variable, even though that is not practically possible, is to alter multiple programming variables (stats), that end up simulating the effect of the attribute described in-game. And when you blame ME2 for doing just that, when ME1 did it already...I just don't get it, sorry.

[quote]But, like I said, this approach stems from my philosophy according to which deeper does not necessarily have to mean better.

Therefore, I can clearly see that your line of thought: deeper stats = stats with more meaningful levels (even if the influence of the largest level is smaller than in other games) = better progression = better stats, especially in conjunction with the claim (I am not sure but I have that impression, feel free to correct me) that effects of stats also have to be balanced and appropriate, just to be taken into account by you (which probably excludes the “stats” which may have, in your opinion, too small effects and therefore are according to you not meaningful or too large effects and therefore can break the gameplay, so they are not good (and meaningful either, I guess) … is…[/quote]
Yes, I will have to correct you there.
Better Progression =/= Better Stats

Deeper stat upgrades = Meaningful stat upgrades = Effective stat upgrades = Stat upgrades with actual differences from State A to State B = Stat levels with actual progression from State A to B = Attributes which allow as drastic change from State A to State B as possible = Attributes which allow as drastic change from State A to State B without causing balance problems = Attributes which allow the player to not just be static, but diverse from State A to State B without causing balance problems = Attributes that allow diverse and balanced Shepards

Not quite the deductive logic my avatar would approve of, but he isn't a picky eater.

[quote]… simply different than mine. Not better, (probably^_^) not worse, but different. It has its ratio, especially when I look at it from practical perspective (I admit, not everyone would like to theorize about “deeper” stats which are actually detrimental to gameplay), but it’s not encompassing enough for me to adopt it. But since now I at least understand it, I see no point in further contesting it. [/quote]
There you go. Detrimental.

What are your opinions on ME1's balance?

[quote]Well, again, this has a lot to do with how you and me understand the terms like “deep”, “meaningful” and maybe even “good”, i.e. about semantics. So bearing in mind that we have different approaches, I would recommend you to take the rest of the post more like explanation of my point of view rather than direct contest of yours. 

As for your question (not sure if it was rhetorical one or not but I'll answer anyway^_^), honestly, I would not dare to answer it on general level and try to speculate how other players would react to particular “stats” systems or how those systems would change their playstyles. I can only speak for myself and I am not sure if actual answers would help you, me or even this discussion.

Based on how I play the games, I would say that the size of individual increments between individual levels would not influence the way I would pick different skills, abilities, weapons, etc. or at least, not much. What would affect my choices are their descriptions in the game, their effects in the game and what I would think would await me in the next level. Based on these three things, I would pick them to the best of my knowledge.

Whether my playstyle would change during the game or whether it would look varied to outside observer would IMO mostly depend on how varied and different the offer of new skills, items, etc. would be – i.e. how many variables the game would have and how different their effects would be… IMO, that is the main source of variety and diversity. But IRC, this has never been a problem in our discussion in the first place. From the beginning, I have agreed that Mass Effect 2 offers more unique abilities which most likely results in more different playstyles.

As for, how the significance of differences between individual levels would affect the variety and changes in my playstyles, like I said, it would not affect them much…

]To the contrary, in general, the smaller differences between levels tend to allow me to tailor much more accurate and suitable characters for me (I don’t need to spend significant part of remaining skill points [significant since there are not many] on one ability but I can redistribute them more appropriately) and encourage me to experiment more (I do not have to be worried that I am going to spent entire *insert large fraction of skill points* on one ability I may not even need in the future. So there is a chance, that I would try to use more and more different things in comparison to situation in which the game would have just few levels with large differences.

But,… like I said, that’s just me. Somebody else might have different approach. Maybe even majority of people, I don’t know… However, in order for me to know and acknowledge, that the things work the way you described, I would need to see some kind of polls or inquiry because I am quite skeptical when it comes to individual’s assumptions of how other people would think or react.

Besides, even if it was true, - and here I wil have to mention our different interpretations of  “depth”, “meaningfulness” and ”quality”  again -, IMO it would not have much to do with overall depth of stats system, when it comes to 1 variable. [/quote]

Okay then, so what does progression mean if it's isn't specialization? Aka personalization of your character, using the exact process you described earlier in this part of the post. In many ways, the character is just a nifty costume you wear over your actual personality. Her "thought process" is what your is supposed to be when you specialized that Shepard. You read the descriptions, imagine how you want your Shepard to be like, and go ahead with it.

And I am emphasising on the fact that the levels of your enemies scale together with yours.



[quote]The fact that people would not want to use the system which has greater difference between the lowest (level 1) value and highest one (the highest level) but also has a lot of small levels in between, because it discourages them to play and use such system for whatever reason,... does not mean that game itself does not offer more and overall "deeper" options than the other one which has more significant level changes, but maximum level to which they can affect gameplay would is smaller (- back to my System A / System B comparison for details if necessary). The actual depth of how far a player could go with developing that variable, would still be there. It would just be unutilized by players, because people would not find it useful. [/quote]
Depth has nothing to do with balance. It's just that BioWare, if you will allow me to use the term: screwed up big time with the balance in ME1. In comparison to the development time, of course.

[quote]If I was one such player that would not like that system though (for whatever reason), I would call system like that bad, clumsy, inefficient  or broken (e.g. if it would allow the player to level to the point where the game would be too easy), but definitely not more shallow than the other one which would have more significant differences between the levels, but the influence of its highest level on the gameplay would be smaller. 

Even from mathematical standpoint, if the number of variables in 2 games was the same, but one of them had, not only larger maximum limits to which these variables can be changed than the other one, but also this larger limit was segmented into smaller parts than in the other game (which already has smaller maximum limit), the sheer number of options and playstyles that can utilize them would be larger in that game. And so would IMO be the room for variety and diversity (- back to my explanation about how I can tailor my character to my needs for details if necessary). [/quote]
Yep, that's where you are wrong, imo.

That's what I have been explaining for some time now.

Do you have more variety and diversity? Only if you try to stack several points on a single attribute. Otherwise? Nope, you don't. You don't move as a character. You remain in a static position. That's because spreading your points around, yeah, it's nice to do that in ME2, but it doesn't cause any significant change to your character. The Shepard you started with and a Shepard with balanced stats aren't very different.

And let's not argue about how the significance of a change is a subjective matter, please. BioWare has set a very specific limit to the levels, so naming somethig "significant" doesn't make much sense, because you will have to call stacking two points as "very significant", three points as "extremely significant", four points as "ultra super duper significant", five points as "supernova significant", etc, etc.

And if you are going to call a very small numerical change as significant, what do you call ME2, where in some cases, some upgrades can be (statistically) 50 times (actual stat) more significant than ME1's? You must  set some restraints and have a reasonable system.

Oh, and stacking up several points? That's what ME2 does instantly. And even so, sometimes even more effectively. Therefore, you can either remain a more balanced character, who unfortunately doesn't progress much from the starting Shepard, or you can have "wilder" variations of your character, a la ME2.

[quote]I don’t know and kind of never thought about that before, so I am only asking without implying anything, but… Does the sound and look of items, skills, etc. fall within game’s stats? Somehow, I was under the impression, that in gaming communities, this term was usually used only as a summary of attributes (variables and their limits) that are attached to ingame items or mechanics. Though not all of them, only to those that affect gameplay. But I’ve never paid that much attention to it so I might be wrong... [/quote]
It very much has to do with what one considers deep gameplay. But what I was trying to explain in a more casual tone was:

>Every single weapon in ME1 shares the exact same code with every other weapon in it's category, but very slight numerical changes.
>Even so, the freedom of choice is this: Zero.
When you simply acquire weapons that just improve every single of the stats of your previous weapon by the same percentage, you may as well have the player be unable to pick up any weapons and just strengthen the weapon statistically.

Having no choice, and failing even at creating the illusion of one, causes shallow gameplay. Or as axman 13 puts it:

"All you can upgrade is stranth? How is this an arr pee gee!"


[quote]
[quote]It doesn't matter to agree or disagree on which game did a specific element better, because that element, if not combined with the rest, doesn't say much. Gameplay appreciation has to do with how all features work together and how much you enjoyed the gameplay.[/quote]

Of course. For the record, I really love both Mass Effects, but somehow, I like Mass Effect 2, and that includes its gameplay, a little bit more. ¯_  _/¯
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So,… 

I don’t know, but I have a feeling that this post is not going to change much… And most likely neither the reply to it 

I can see some nitpicking here an there (don't worry, I am not going to post a monster like this again), but I can't see any big changes in neither of our opinions and perceptions of depth of "stats" attached to one variable...

And without that, the final assesment of depth of Mass Effect 1 and 2's stats will have to be postponed indefinitely.
[/quote]
I didn't originally want to change anyone's opinion, but I wanted to call out the people who call ME2's stats extremely shallow and shooterish, and yet call ME1's "deep" and "proper". I was directing the initial to post to a specific person anyway.

And in the end, it doesn't really matter for me.
I thought that ME1 was an okay game. Sure, it was imbalanced, and boring, and not fluid at all, but it was a refreshing change from other Action RPGs.

I thought that ME2 was a good game. It is generally more fluid and I actually had fun playing it and "casting" powers to enemies, while finishing them off with that so enjoyable shotgun. Still, it has multiple flaws.

But, I consider both as excellent experiences overall, and while I would probably rate them 5.5/10, and 7/10 as games each, my actual ratings for the experience they offer is well within the 9-10/10 category for both.

[Varen Spectre]

Yay, quick note to myself – I have found a new way how to make fool of myself:

Step 1 – write a long post
Step 2 – put a big red disclaimer that I am not going to write such big post again in that post :happy:
Step 3 – write even larger post ! 
Step 4 – profit ? 

Also BIG Respect for your willpower to just read my posts, let alone answer them.

Phaedon wrote...

Well, let's just agree that idividual attribute upgrades in ME2 have a greater effect than ME1, and we can argue about the big picture.

  

Roger that. 

As I have demonestrated earlier, Systems A and B are in fact, not, representantive of either ME games, but instead, one could say that ME1 shares a couple of elements from Systems A and B. Whether stats are more meaningful and useful in System A or B is hardly important due to the fact that it doesn't really change anything in the debate. But I have already explained my views on this subject a couple of posts before this one anyway.

Yes, I did not intend to present the example I provided as representative of the situation between Mass Effects’ stats systems and I have emphasized that. In order to make it corresponding with them, I would need to know, how far (deep) can variables (or entire groups of variables) be modified in both Mass Effects in comparison to each other.

If I knew this (i.e. if I made that thorough comparison of similar stats head to head that I mentioned in my 2nd post), I would simply tell you – I would either agree that ME 2 has deeper stats than ME 1 in this regard because it
allows me to develop that particular effect of ability or item further than ME 1 or would disagree if it was vice versa.

But, in order to point out and demonstrate my issue with the method you proposed (measuring overall depth by measuring the size of changes between individual levels), I did not need to make it representative.

I simply wanted to point out, - in theory (but that’s sufficient) -, that if we focused only on size of differences between individual segments (levels) into which variables / game elements that have stats** {see point two) are divided,… we would ignore the chance (the danger) that the game with variable(s) segmented into more parts (i.e. game with smaller levels) would actually allow players to modify this variable to greater overall level (i.e. the overall effect of those individually small changes would actually be greater than in the other game).

I am not sure about you, but that would be a problem for me. Like I said, I myself find the overall degree to which elements that have stats** can be modified (developed) to be an important indicator of the depth of stats. So, I would need to see the head to head comparison of  Mass Effect 1’s and 2’s variables / elements that have stats** with similar effects to know and admit which one of them allows to modify them to greater degree..

Not quite sure I am following your logic here...

Upgrading Attribute A is deeper because it is only affects a single variable and hence allows for more customization, even though it has little actual effect?

Well, there are multiple reasons as to why I find this approach flawed, but I will start with a single one. It really isn't. Assigned to a single variable, I mean. The point of adding a point to an attribute or even a single in-game
variable, even though that is not practically possible, is to alter multiple programming variables (stats), that end up simulating the effect of the attribute described in-game. And when you blame ME2 for doing just that, when
ME1 did it already...I just don't get it, sorry.

Fair enough, the term variable is probably not appropriate or at least not encompassing enough. Therefore, I’ll restrict myself to use it to minimum level in order not to confuse you anymore. My ratio though, remains the same.

I am trying to look and compare Mass Effect 1’s and 2’s stats at least from 2 angles:

1. How different individual elements that have stats** from each other are and in how many aspects (damage, range, area of effect, effect on Shepard’s abilities, etc. )

** by elements that have stats I mean things like individual powers, skills, weapons, armors, etc. Honestly, I don’t know how to call them, because they are very different from each other and have different effects. But I would gladly start using whatever term you propose, in order not cause any more confusion.

2. How far / much (I would like to use term “deeply”, but I would not like to argue whether I used it appropriately) can each of those elements that have stats** be modified (how much can weapons be changed by upgrades, how much can powers be changed by leveling up, etc.) and compare these changes wherever is it possible
(compare abilities that increase health, damage, etc.)

1. We, pretty much agree on point 1 – Mass Effect 2 has better variety and more different (unique) weapons, powers, etc.

2. I neither agree nor disagree on this one yet. Like I said, I would need to see a head to head comparison of how far / much can be similar elements** (that have similar effects) modified in both games. And of course, I am convinced that it would have to be comparison of size of differences between lowest and highest levels of such elements, not size of two nearest levels. What we disagree on, is whether we need to make a comparison like that.

Not quite the deductive logic my avatar would approve of, but he isn't a picky eater.

No worries, people can do far worse justice to their avatars / nicks. With the lack of creativity, dexterity and wit, it’s safe to presume that one such is replying to you right now. My only saving grace is, that at least the robustness of my posts resembles some of Spector’s articles / presentations.

There you go. Detrimental.

What are your opinions on ME1's balance?

Mmm, balance of what?

In order to save you time I’ll start answering though. But be warned, I am a quite tolerant guy  and
I only made 3 playthroughs of each ME so my opinion is far from conclusive. I’ll also add my opinion on ME2’s balance as well, so that I am not talking about ME1 abstractly but in relation to something.

1. Balance between character’s growth and gameplay difficulty

I”ll start with this one since IMO it has the closest relationship to my point – i.e. character which could grow too far could become too strong (e.g. according to some reviews, Witcher 2 is actually easier near the end than in the beginning) and the game which would allow to make such strong character would IMO still have deep stats,  but it would not be good for its gameplay (hence the mention of "deeper" stats that could be "detrimental" to gamplay in my previous post). By character’s growth, of course, I mean how far I can develop his (her) abilities or items and how much it will change their effect in the game.

- As for the character’s growth (abilitiy-wise) regadless of whether it was good or bad for gameplay, I can’t help but think that IMO, Mass Effect 1 did a somewhat better job. But that’s only my subjective opinion underlined (or should I say undermined^_^) by the fact that I haven’t played ME1 on insanity. I think that the difference between my Shepard at the beginning of the game (I can’t almost hit anything due to low skills and bad equipment and have like one special power) and at the end of the game (my Shepard hits everything almost immediately and has quite few quite strong powers) is larger in ME1. I am convinced that even without level scaling, and especially on higher difficulties, my maxed out Shepard (or me) would still have some troubles with some of the 1st levels in ME2. In ME1, not so much. Of course there are also story reasons for larger growth in 1st ME, but like I said, purely in terms of characters’ growth, ME 1 satisfied me more – I really felt that Shepard was much more powerful at the end of the game.

- As for how it worked with the rest of the game (was it detrimental?), I think that ME1, was little bit boring or annoying (depending on the difficulty) in the beginning. It wasn’t a big deal because I was used to such mechanic (e.g. from Deus Ex), but, it wasn’t the funniest shooter on the market either. So in this regard, I think that little bit more “shallow” stats (smaller reticule from the start) or like you propose, more meaningful changes between the
levels, would have actually been better.  Gameplay-wise, of course.

- As for how Shepard’s growth worked with enemies, again, I think that ME 1 did it little bit better job. Like I said, I haven’t played ME1on insanity, so my perceptions are by no means conclusive. But from my experience, Shepard really felt like a weak fighter in the beginning but near the end, at least the weakest Geths weren’t a problem or annoyance. In ME2, not so much. On harder difficulties, every single mercenary / Collector could give my maxed out Shepard run for his money.
 
Gameplaywise it was challenging, but rpg-wise, I felt like my Shepard has not improved at all (especiall in terms of health and shields).

Also I am not taking into account how easy it was to abuse ME1’s bugs, level design and weak A.I. so that it would be technically possible to play the game without relying on stats.

2. Balance between usefulness of powers, weapons and other items and their influence on gameplay

Here we have pretty much agreed from the beginning. In terms of variety, ME 2 did overall better job.

- As for the weapons, there is no doubt about it. You’ve already described it properly...

- As for the armors (I don’t have any DLC armors), I would say, that the differences in both games are quite insignificant. Whether it was tradeoff between additional bonuses in ME2 or tradeoff between damage protection / shields / tech – biotic protection in ME1, I did not feel like they mattered (much). So, maybe a tie?

- As for the rest of items such as upgrades, biotic amps, combat sensors, medigels, etc. There are two aspects in which I have to asses them – the balance between themselves (providing that they actually offer any options) and balance between their effects and gameplay. When it comes to 1st aspect, I have a problem, because ME2 moved some of their effects into powers, so the remaining “pure” upgrades are fairly linear without any tradeoffs, or like you say, always better than the previous ones. I’m not sure how to tackle this so I guess the best thing would be to skip this comparison or maybe take it into account in powers comparison. But, my subjective feeling of how much I could toy with them and change them was better in ME1, or better said, would be if it wasn’t for aspect no. 2.

As for the 2nd aspect – i.e. the balance between their effects and gameplay  – I would say that ME2 did it little, but really only a little bit better. I am not sure in which ME can upgrades influence gameplay more (a brief look in ME Wikia 1 2 tells me that for example, when it comes to basic damage of assault rifles [not against shileds, barriers, etc.], the upgrades in ME 1 allow to upgrade it up to 160 %, while in ME2 it‘s only up to 70% - though this is by no
means conclusive, because there are other aspects such as effect on overheating and accuracy which influence the efficiency of rifle as well and also because large part of damage increase can come in ME2 from powers like AR), but yes, I remember that quite often, I have forgotten to switch them because there were too many for me to keep the track of them and I had to do it manually – which I liked though. 

- As for the powers, again it comes down to both, how they compare against each other and how they work in the game. ME2 has increased the variety while reducing their overall number. That’s a pretty big feat which in itself kind of makes the powers in ME2 better. Since we are talking about balance though, I would say that powers in ME1 were more balanced against each other. ME2 has those, like other posters tend to say, “signature moves / powers“ which are far more useful than others (adrenaline rush, cloaking, etc.). This is even amplified by global cooldown which always forces the player to pick only one of them. Therefore the balance between ME2’s powers is IMO worse than ME1’s.

Still, it’s hard to perceive it as bad thing, because the new “overpowered” powers are additions to original ones. They don’t limit the old (remaining) ones, they just provide better alternatives. Not to mention that thanks to them, the classes are far more different now. So in terms of variety I would easily give the edge to ME2 (more different powers = more different effects = more and more different variables used in “stats” system).

In terms of how the leveling of powers influenced the gameplay – i.e. how well the leveling up was balanced with MEs’ world and enemies, well, it’s not so simple for me to say. ME1 did IMO one thing really badly though. That was the fact that the effects of those individual levels were really tiny. The change between level 2 and 3 of assault rifles’ talent was hardly noticeable. And the same could be said about most of the ME1’s talents.

In this regard, ME2 handled the situation much better. The changes between the two levels of the same power were much more different. Even if not in the way they affected enemies (probably thanks to level scaling), than at least in terms of their audio-visual effects.

What ME1 handled better though, was my feeling that Shepard has really improved in comparison to the beginning of the game. Yes, I too found the process (leveling system, upgrading system, etc) through which this was done slow and tedious, but the overall result was quite big – the maxed out Shepard was far more devastating than untrained Shepard. In ME2, he (she) was much better as well, but I did not find that difference to be as big as in ME1 – Shepard was relatively good even in the beginning of the game (which gameplay-wise and story-wise was a good thing) … while at (near) the end of the game, he (she) (or better said I) still had some problems even with supposedly weakest enemies.

I guess, my desire to measure, whether that was just my subjective feeling or whether the stats in ME1 indeed allow the player to make his (her) Shepard more powerful in comparison to individual enemies he (she) faces
at the end of the game than he (she) was at in the beginning, than they can in ME2, lies here. Hence why I am insisting on measuring the overall effects of stats and not only partial ones (from one level to another.)

Okay then, so what does progression mean if it's isn't specialization? Aka personalization of your character, using the exact process you described earlier in this part of the post. In many ways, the character is just a nifty costume you wear over your actual personality. Her "thought process" is what your is supposed to be when you specialized that Shepard. You read the descriptions, imagine how you want your Shepard to be like, and go ahead with it.

And I am emphasising on the fact that the levels of your enemies scale together with yours.

I am not sure I understand how it is related to my previous post but I’ll try to answer in good faith and to the best of my knowledge…I think that progression, with respect to games and game stats, means having the option to repeatedly and continuously choose from several options of how to modify my character, weapon, item, etc.

Based on your post, I think, that we have quite similar opinions about what progression means. What we don’t agree though, is again, whether it is more important how fast / quiclky the changes can happen… or… how far they can go. In other words, you say that it is more important how fast the progression is (how big differences between individual levels are) while I am saying that it is more important how far progression can go (how big the difference between min. and max. level is) regardless of how fast.

The rest is pretty much similar, including the desire to have as different options as possible.

As for the level-scaling. I think it’s a big problem when it comes to assessment of depth of stats. It kind of diminishes their influence on gameplay and makes it hard to measure their actual, ingame, effects. Regardless of whether we look at the size of changes between individual levels or the size of change between minimum and maximum level. It’s a problem.

I would say we don’t have many options how to deal with it. We could either disregard it completely and focus solely on the numbers as if it was turned off (and ignore the actual effects of stats on gameplay though) or we can try to measure the effects of stats in the game on all difficulties or at least on normal since according to Bioware,
that is the baseline Mass Effect experience (but if I understood you properly, you said that there would be too many differences and irregularities, to make a conclusive assessment out of such measurement.). So I don’t know. Since we probably won’t even be able to measure such things properly anyway, let alone to make meaningful conclusions out of such measurement, maybe for the sake of our discussion it would be better to ignore it. But I am open to any ideas how to deal with it.

Depth has nothing to do with balance. It's just that BioWare, if you will allow me to use the term: screwed up big time with the balance in ME1. In comparison to the development time, of course.

I agree. But in my opinion, “balance” has a lot to do with how “good” something is. As a result, something can be “deep” without being “balanced” and / or “good”.

Yep, that's where you are wrong, imo.

That's what I have been explaining for some time now.

Do you have more variety and diversity? Only if you try to stack several points on a single attribute. Otherwise? Nope, you don't. You don't move as a character. You remain in a static position. That's because spreading your
points around, yeah, it's nice to do that in ME2, but it doesn't cause any significant change to your character. The Shepard you started with and a Shepard with balanced stats aren't very different.

And let's not argue about how the significance of a change is a subjective matter, please. BioWare has set a very specific limit to the levels, so naming somethig "significant" doesn't make much sense, because you will have
to call stacking two points as "very significant", three points as "extremely significant", four points as "ultra super duper significant", five points as "supernova significant", etc, etc.

-snip-

 
Well, the use of term “more significant” is / was completely irrelevant for me in that part of the post… If you want, I  can replace it with term “larger” or whatever the term you would find appropriate to describe the situation, that level changes in one game are larger than in another.

Either way, my point was, that if there were two games which would have exactly the same - elements that have stats - (weapons, items, powers, skills, etc.) but one of them would not only allow to modify these elements to higher degree (higher maximum damage, protection, speed, etc.) than the other one, but also would have smaller segments (levels) into which this larger range is divided than the other one… the number of all combinations of
how to play that game would be larger. And so would be room for different playstyles.

IRC, it was a reaction to your claim that smaller changes between levels (smaller segments into which modifying / developing of elements like powers skills, items, weapons is divided) in combination with larger maximum level, could discourage players from trying various and different playstyles – at least I understood that part of your post that way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hopefully that helped clear few things here and there. I'll try to avoid using the terms "variable" and "significant" in inappropriate way and I would gladly use whatever the common term for all those pwers, talents, weapons, upgrades, etc. you recommend. Oh, and I really hope that I'll work on my ability to say things in shorter way. 

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 09 septembre 2011 - 06:49 .

[Gatt9]

Phaedon wrote...

Guldhun2 wrote...
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.

The next time you stumble upon a time machine, try not using "The time that there was no fighting about what RPG meant" as a term to describe the timeline you want to travel to, please. We have yet to understand how time travel could work, let alone time and alternate (fictional) universe travel.

Btw, some time ago, "RPG" meant "a meeting in a room similar to a courtroom, to roleplay famous legal cases". That was way before DnD (which Wizards of the Coast describes as "interactive storytelling" in their website) was invented.

You'll really just pull all kinds of things out of your posterior to make it sound like you understand things you've no clue about won't you?

RPG wasn't coined until D&D came about in the 70's.  You *really* might want to start learning about things before trying to discuss them.

http://ptgptb.org/0001/history1.html

It's getting quite tiring calling you on all the stuff you fabricate to try and justify why ME2's an RPG.  Do me a favor,  when you go get that wikipedia link again,  do try and notice that what you're trying to use as justification is a retrospective on games that were played that were never called or defined as RPG's,  by some random person who just wanted to put that completely unrelated matter into the article.

In fact,  you could even do everyone a favor and notice that what you're trying to quote describes at best early LARPSing and makes use of the words "May have been played"

[Phaedon]

Gatt9 wrote...
You'll really just pull all kinds of things out of your posterior to make it sound like you understand things you've no clue about won't you?

RPG wasn't coined until D&D came about in the 70's.  You *really* might want to start learning about things before trying to discuss them.

http://ptgptb.org/0001/history1.html

It's getting quite tiring calling you on all the stuff you fabricate to try and justify why ME2's an RPG.  Do me a favor,  when you go get that wikipedia link again,  do try and notice that what you're trying to use as justification is a retrospective on games that were played that were never called or defined as RPG's,  by some random person who just wanted to put that completely unrelated matter into the article.

In fact,  you could even do everyone a favor and notice that what you're trying to quote describes at best early LARPSing and makes use of the words "May have been played"

Other than your usual self-contradictive cr@p about LARPs, are you seriosly saying that the term "role-playing game" wasn't coined until DnD ADnD?

Get out. Original role-playing games had NOTHING to do with what you call RPG. 

If you want to post random links of badly done websites, here is another one: http://www.rpg.net/o...pgoverview.html.

I could go as far as post a GeoCities site. 

[Phaedon]

[quote]Varen Spectre wrote...
Roger that. [/quote]
Yeah, as simple as it is to dismiss it like that, that's the entire point.

The kind of elitists who start new topics and posts on this every other week, don't think that. They don't provide any new arguments (as you can see), but stick to their old ones which have been rebutted a dozen times, and that's exactly the problem.

Enjoyment and complexity has nothing to do with genre classification or re-use of generic mechanics. This is the community's problem, and that's exactly why we are debating.

If you are just going to "roger that", then we might as well stop arguing. If someone wants to call ME2 a flight sim because you are in a ship, and you often fly it around, they can go ahead. That's obviously not the issue at hand.


[quote]Yes, I did not intend to present the example I provided as representative of the situation between Mass Effects’ stats systems and I have emphasized that. In order to make it corresponding with them, I would need to know, how far (deep) can variables (or entire groups of variables) be modified in both Mass Effects in comparison to each other.[/quote]And we are still using the term deep which only complicates things further.

Either way, the original examples, I'll have to say, don't provide that much in the debate.




[quote]If I knew this (i.e. if I made that thorough comparison of similar stats head to head that I mentioned in my 2nd post), I would simply tell you – I would either agree that ME 2 has deeper stats than ME 1 in this regard because it
allows me to develop that particular effect of ability or item further than ME 1 or would disagree if it was vice versa.

But, in order to point out and demonstrate my issue with the method you proposed (measuring overall depth by measuring the size of changes between individual levels), I did not need to make it representative.

I simply wanted to point out, - in theory (but that’s sufficient) -, that if we focused only on size of differences between individual segments (levels) into which variables / game elements that have stats** {see point two) are divided,… we would ignore the chance (the danger) that the game with variable(s) segmented into more parts (i.e. game with smaller levels) would actually allow players to modify this variable to greater overall level (i.e. the overall effect of those individually small changes would actually be greater than in the other game).[/quote]
As I have already explained, fine tuning is all nice and good in theory (while not necessarily complex), but in practice, you either maintain static in relation to the original character, or you need to invest several points in a few attributes. What can be replicated, probably better and in a less complicated manner, in a system similar to Mass Effect 2's.

And why would staying static in relation to the original character be valid? It's simple, you don't want to progress and specialize? Good. Don't bother with statistical progression. The enemies properly scale to your level, while you become more experienced with the game. That's the same thing. Heck, when there is more player input the more chance there is to have the minimal specialization you ask for. By the player discovering the tricks of the game.




[quote]I am not sure about you, but that would be a problem for me. Like I said, I myself find the overall degree to which elements that have stats** can be modified (developed) to be an important indicator of the depth of stats. So, I would need to see the head to head comparison of  Mass Effect 1’s and 2’s variables / elements that have stats** with similar effects to know and admit which one of them allows to modify them to greater degree..[/quote]
The point is moot there, because you are claiming that ME1 allows you to customize around stats more. Does it now? It allows you to fine tune stats mostly irrelevant to the actual game. No matter how much effort you put to them, statistically, you aren't moving nowhere.

[quote]
Fair enough, the term variable is probably not appropriate or at least not encompassing enough. Therefore, I’ll restrict myself to use it to minimum level in order not to confuse you anymore. My ratio though, remains the same.

I am trying to look and compare Mass Effect 1’s and 2’s stats at least from 2 angles:

1. How different individual elements that have stats** from each other are and in how many aspects (damage, range, area of effect, effect on Shepard’s abilities, etc. )[/quote]
Not sure what you mean.


[quote]2. How far / much (I would like to use term “deeply”, but I would not like to argue whether I used it appropriately) can each of those elements that have stats** be modified (how much can weapons be changed by upgrades, how much can powers be changed by leveling up, etc.) and compare these changes wherever is it possible
(compare abilities that increase health, damage, etc.)[/quote]
That's easy enough.
Weapons had only three active variables in ME1, and even with upgrades, the statistical difference was hardly impressive.

[quote]2. I neither agree nor disagree on this one yet. Like I said, I would need to see a head to head comparison of how far / much can be similar elements** (that have similar effects) modified in both games. And of course, I am convinced that it would have to be comparison of size of differences between lowest and highest levels of such elements, not size of two nearest levels. What we disagree on, is whether we need to make a comparison like that.[/quote]
Yes, I have yet to understand the logic behind that.
Progression doesn't matter at all if you count it from Point A to Point Z. It can be done so badly that you don't notice the fact that you are progressing in the entire game. It is seamless to a fault. You don't specialize at all.

[quote]
[/quote]
[quote]1. Balance between character’s growth and gameplay difficulty

I”ll start with this one since IMO it has the closest relationship to my point – i.e. character which could grow too far could become too strong (e.g. according to some reviews, Witcher 2 is actually easier near the end than in the beginning)[/quote]
Design flaw also present in ME1 and 2, though for very different reasons in 2, and imo, hardly as noticable.

[quote]and the game which would allow to make such strong character would IMO still have deep stats,  but it would not be good for its gameplay (hence the mention of "deeper" stats that could be "detrimental" to gamplay in my previous post). By character’s growth, of course, I mean how far I can develop his (her) abilities or items and how much it will change their effect in the game.[/quote]
But the game is obviously not aiming at that. Since when are we praising design mistakes that end up being liked by (some) people. The game aims to have enemies in the same level as you. Therefore, it doesn't want you to be more powerful towards them than you were 20 levels ago. In fact, that points out exactly why the game aims and in some cases does, encourage specialization.

[quote]- As for the character’s growth (abilitiy-wise) regadless of whether it was good or bad for gameplay, I can’t help but think that IMO, Mass Effect 1 did a somewhat better job. But that’s only my subjective opinion underlined (or should I say undermined^_^) by the fact that I haven’t played ME1 on insanity. I think that the difference between my Shepard at the beginning of the game (I can’t almost hit anything due to low skills and bad equipment and have like one special power) and at the end of the game (my Shepard hits everything almost immediately and has quite few quite strong powers) is larger in ME1. I am convinced that even without level scaling, and especially on higher difficulties, my maxed out Shepard (or me) would still have some troubles with some of the 1st levels in ME2. In ME1, not so much. Of course there are also story reasons for larger growth in 1st ME, but like I said, purely in terms of characters’ growth, ME 1 satisfied me more – I really felt that Shepard was much more powerful at the end of the game.[/quote]
And that doesn't quite matter. A few shots from an assault rifle, no matter how bad it is, will be able to take down the geth. The same amount of shots (should) take down the enemy some levels later, even though you have progressed and changed your equipment.

And you are mistakingly using the term "growth". If anything, both games are doing a terrible job at that. Surely, you mean "progression", and not "growth"? Otherwise, JRPGs are the deeper kind of RPGs that exist.

[quote]- As for how it worked with the rest of the game (was it detrimental?), I think that ME1, was little bit boring or annoying (depending on the difficulty) in the beginning. It wasn’t a big deal because I was used to such mechanic (e.g. from Deus Ex), but, it wasn’t the funniest shooter on the market either. So in this regard, I think that little bit more “shallow” stats (smaller reticule from the start) or like you propose, more meaningful changes between the
levels, would have actually been better.  Gameplay-wise, of course.[/quote]
I have done 2 playthroughs of the original Deus Ex, didn't notice such serious problems. Might have been the way I played the game, I don't know.

[quote]- As for how Shepard’s growth worked with enemies, again, I think that ME 1 did it little bit better job. Like I said, I haven’t played ME1on insanity, so my perceptions are by no means conclusive. But from my experience, Shepard really felt like a weak fighter in the beginning but near the end, at least the weakest Geths weren’t a problem or annoyance. In ME2, not so much. On harder difficulties, every single mercenary / Collector could give my maxed out Shepard run for his money.[/quote]
Which is a good thing. If that doesn't happen what you have on your hands is a broken scaling mechanic.
 


[quote]
- As for the armors (I don’t have any DLC armors), I would say, that the differences in both games are quite insignificant. Whether it was tradeoff between additional bonuses in ME2 or tradeoff between damage protection / shields / tech – biotic protection in ME1, I did not feel like they mattered (much). So, maybe a tie?[/quote]
Err, not really. The situation is very similar to the weapons. Take a look at the attributes of ME2 armour parts.

[quote]- As for the rest of items such as upgrades, biotic amps, combat sensors, medigels, etc. There are two aspects in which I have to asses them – the balance between themselves (providing that they actually offer any options) and balance between their effects and gameplay. When it comes to 1st aspect, I have a problem, because ME2 moved some of their effects into powers, so the remaining “pure” upgrades are fairly linear without any tradeoffs, or like you say, always better than the previous ones. I’m not sure how to tackle this so I guess the best thing would be to skip this comparison or maybe take it into account in powers comparison. But, my subjective feeling of how much I could toy with them and change them was better in ME1, or better said, would be if it wasn’t for aspect no. 2. [/quote]
Just wondering. What makes ME2's upgrade system more linear, than let's say, a typical RPG level up system? The fact that it underestimates the effects of a Gibbed save editor or of mildy insane planet mining perfectionists?

[quote]As for the 2nd aspect – i.e. the balance between their effects and gameplay  – I would say that ME2 did it little, but really only a little bit better. I am not sure in which ME can upgrades influence gameplay more (a brief look in ME Wikia 1 2 tells me that for example, when it comes to basic damage of assault rifles [not against shileds, barriers, etc.], the upgrades in ME 1 allow to upgrade it up to 160 %, while in ME2 it‘s only up to 70% - though this is by no
means conclusive, because there are other aspects such as effect on overheating and accuracy which influence the efficiency of rifle as well and also because large part of damage increase can come in ME2 from powers like AR), but yes, I remember that quite often, I have forgotten to switch them because there were too many for me to keep the track of them and I had to do it manually – which I liked though. [/quote]
Can't say much here. High-level upgrades in ME1 were ridiculous, like all high-level things. A few proper upgrades and tadaaa, sniper shottie.

[quote]- As for the powers, again it comes down to both, how they compare against each other and how they work in the game. ME2 has increased the variety while reducing their overall number. That’s a pretty big feat which in itself kind of makes the powers in ME2 better. Since we are talking about balance though, I would say that powers in ME1 were more balanced against each other. ME2 has those, like other posters tend to say, “signature moves / powers“ which are far more useful than others (adrenaline rush, cloaking, etc.). This is even amplified by global cooldown which always forces the player to pick only one of them. Therefore the balance between ME2’s powers is IMO worse than ME1’s.

Still, it’s hard to perceive it as bad thing, because the new “overpowered” powers are additions to original ones. They don’t limit the old (remaining) ones, they just provide better alternatives. Not to mention that thanks to them, the classes are far more different now. So in terms of variety I would easily give the edge to ME2 (more different powers = more different effects = more and more different variables used in “stats” system).

In terms of how the leveling of powers influenced the gameplay – i.e. how well the leveling up was balanced with MEs’ world and enemies, well, it’s not so simple for me to say. ME1 did IMO one thing really badly though. That was the fact that the effects of those individual levels were really tiny. The change between level 2 and 3 of assault rifles’ talent was hardly noticeable. And the same could be said about most of the ME1’s talents.

In this regard, ME2 handled the situation much better. The changes between the two levels of the same power were much more different. Even if not in the way they affected enemies (probably thanks to level scaling), than at least in terms of their audio-visual effects.[/quote]
The only thing I'll note here is the fact that it is a common complain that biotics were overpowered in ME1. That's all.

[quote]What ME1 handled better though, was my feeling that Shepard has really improved in comparison to the beginning of the game. Yes, I too found the process (leveling system, upgrading system, etc) through which this was done slow and tedious, but the overall result was quite big – the maxed out Shepard was far more devastating than untrained Shepard. In ME2, he (she) was much better as well, but I did not find that difference to be as big as in ME1 – Shepard was relatively good even in the beginning of the game (which gameplay-wise and story-wise was a good thing) … while at (near) the end of the game, he (she) (or better said I) still had some problems even with supposedly weakest enemies.

I guess, my desire to measure, whether that was just my subjective feeling or whether the stats in ME1 indeed allow the player to make his (her) Shepard more powerful in comparison to individual enemies he (she) faces
at the end of the game than he (she) was at in the beginning, than they can in ME2, lies here. Hence why I am insisting on measuring the overall effects of stats and not only partial ones (from one level to another.) [/quote]
Addressed earlier on.

[quote]I am not sure I understand how it is related to my previous post but I’ll try to answer in good faith and to the best of my knowledge…I think that progression, with respect to games and game stats, means having the option to repeatedly and continuously choose from several options of how to modify my character, weapon, item, etc.

Based on your post, I think, that we have quite similar opinions about what progression means. What we don’t agree though, is again, whether it is more important how fast / quiclky the changes can happen… or… how far they can go. In other words, you say that it is more important how fast the progression is (how big differences between individual levels are) while I am saying that it is more important how far progression can go (how big the difference between min. and max. level is) regardless of how fast.[/quote]
1) They can go as far as they want, only if they don't ruin the balance and learning curve of the game.
2) It's not a matter of how quick they happen, it's a matter of practicality.
3) Having the ability to have a static character in relation to your original one, certainly contradicts you there.

[quote]The rest is pretty much similar, including the desire to have as different options as possible.

As for the level-scaling. I think it’s a big problem when it comes to assessment of depth of stats. It kind of diminishes their influence on gameplay and makes it hard to measure their actual, ingame, effects. Regardless of whether we look at the size of changes between individual levels or the size of change between minimum and maximum level. It’s a problem.[/quote[
Scaling is there for a reason. It works well. ME is not an open world game, it is a modern game, which means that it has to live up to some balance standards to be enjoyable, and has enough player input for a player skill/learning curve to be crucial to the gameplay.

[quote]I would say we don’t have many options how to deal with it. We could either disregard it completely and focus solely on the numbers as if it was turned off (and ignore the actual effects of stats on gameplay though) or we can try to measure the effects of stats in the game on all difficulties or at least on normal since according to Bioware,
that is the baseline Mass Effect experience (but if I understood you properly, you said that there would be too many differences and irregularities, to make a conclusive assessment out of such measurement.). So I don’t know. Since we probably won’t even be able to measure such things properly anyway, let alone to make meaningful conclusions out of such measurement, maybe for the sake of our discussion it would be better to ignore it. But I am open to any ideas how to deal with it. [/quote]
Okay then. Imagine fighting Eden Prime geth in Virmire and Virmire geth in Eden Prime.

[quote]I agree. But in my opinion, “balance” has a lot to do with how “good” something is. As a result, something can be “deep” without being “balanced” and / or “good”.[/quote]Considering that "deep" is used as a compliment, using it to describe a bad system, balanced or not, doesn't make much sense, really.


[quote]Well, the use of term “more significant” is / was completely irrelevant for me in that part of the post… If you want, I  can replace it with term “larger” or whatever the term you would find appropriate to describe the situation, that level changes in one game are larger than in another.[/quote]
As changes, the comparison numbers can talk about themselves. A change is significant is the leap from Point A to Point B are significant. The problem with applying this to Point A to Point Z is this though, if the leaps from Point A to Point B, and from Point B to Point C were not large enough, then they will not appear large enough for the player in the end. It's like cutting up a big pie in 100 pieces and eating it a bit by a bit throughout a day.

[quote]Either way, my point was, that if there were two games which would have exactly the same - elements that have stats - (weapons, items, powers, skills, etc.) but one of them would not only allow to modify these elements to higher degree (higher maximum damage, protection, speed, etc.) than the other one, but also would have smaller segments (levels) into which this larger range is divided than the other one… the number of all combinations of
how to play that game would be larger. And so would be room for different playstyles.[/quote]
How so? A different playstyle requires different conditions. "Bad cloaking" but "good health recharging rate" are different conditions compared to "Good cloaking" but "bad health recharging rate". "51/100 cloaking" but "49/100 health recharching rate" is not different enough a condition from "49/100 cloaking" but "51/100 health recharging rate" to actually create a new playstyle.

[quote]IRC, it was a reaction to your claim that smaller changes between levels (smaller segments into which modifying / developing of elements like powers skills, items, weapons is divided) in combination with larger maximum level, could discourage players from trying various and different playstyles – at least I understood that part of your post that way.
[/quote]
There are two ways to use a system which cuts a pie a bit too much.

You either evenly (relatively) spread the points, therefore, not specializing at all.

or you can unevenly spread the points, therefore, specializing. If you are going to unevenly spread the points in order to offer greater specialization, you are going down ME2's road.