Yess, finally the post that is not bigger than the previous one.
I guess it means that at worst, we are past the halfway...
[quote]Phaedon wrote...
While I don't blame you for anything, beating around the bush less and focusing on the point on the debate more would stop this. And so:[/quote]
I really like (no sarcasm) that "And so:
" It has that "Here it comes - brace for it!" feeling.
But more on topic... I would like to stop beating around the bush, but by far the most important points have been discussed long ago - why do you consider the stats in Mass Effect 2 deeper than in Mass Effect 1 and what do you mean by deeper… In comparison to that, everything else looks like beating around the bush, well unless you really want me to adopt your approach...
[quote]1) For starers, your suggestion is completely flawed when it comes to the character becoming stronger and we have discussed this in the past.
Scaling methods or levels are not consisent between the two games, so any comparison is utterly useless.[/quote]
I am glad that you start to realize how tricky and difficult the calculations, measurements and comparisons of stats of two games the level-scaling systems of which we do not know and which are very likely different from each other can be.
I have been pointing out this problem for a very long time in our discussion while you resisted quite heavily (let me remind you your: “
I am not sure it complicates the calculations, I'd say it does the exact opposite.” or more recent “
Not when you are comparing individual changes from one game to another based on percentages, not at all.”).
Going from claims that level scaling does not complicate comparisons at all, to assertion that level scaling renders any comparisons of stats utterly useless is a quite a change of opinion. But I don’t blame you. To the contrary, as someone who is most likely responsible for it, I can say that I like this approach much more and I am convinced that you are much closer to truth than before.
Still, it’s not completely where I would like it to be. Why? Because you were able to perceive that level-to-level or item-to-item changes in Mass Effect 2 are generally larger than they are in Mass Effect 1, right? You were able, if not knowingly, then at least intuitively perceive that Shepard can kill the enemy faster after you upgraded the
damage of his (her) assault rifles or after you invested another point in some of his (her) skills at least in Mass Effect 2, right? Despite the fact that Mass Effects have (most likely different) level-scaling.
If so, then my approach can’t be that far from yours. It’s based on the same principles (that my perception that after
leveling up my MC was able to kill enemies little bit faster or die little bit slower than before is correct) but instead of relying on my own impressions, I want to verify it by exact methods (measuring and calculating).
You as a person who likes to tell other people or say about other people (even developers) that they have rose tinted glasses by nostalgia or other positive feelings
should support my approach which prevents it (e.g. You said that weapons from Collectors’ ship can give player impression of growth which actually is false - I don’t know so I won’t commentate on this, but it is an example of situation in which exactly the measurement or calculation would provide definitive and uncontestable answer).
And last but not least, like you said –
the levels between the games are not consistent. That might be another reason why comparison of level – to – level changes is not a good method of comparing depth of stats between two games. Therefore I prefer comparison of differences between minimum and maximum levels since it represents the comparison of limits of what stat systems can offer to player.
[quote]Number of character levels is completely irrelevant to how strong the PC will get.[/quote]
I agree. It’s not the number of levels (or number of choices) that determines the depth of stat(s) for me either. Though, I am convinced that there is even a decently large group of people who use the number of levels [options] as their indicator of depth of stats (e.g. I have seen people describing simulators as games with deep stats not because the differences between individual options were big or meaningful, but exactly because of opposite - that the player was able adjust the stats to the smallest degree and they brought this habit into assessing the depth of stats in RPGs as well.), but I have decided not to take number of levels (or options) into my account.
My reason was that the mere number of levels (or options) does not indicate the size of effect on gameplay – i.e. I do not care how many levels does it take for main character to kill enemies twice as fast, I care whether killing
enemies twice as fast is the maximum, that the stats of the game allow or whether the maximum limit is even higher.
[quote]And, therefore, you are suggesting at this point, that a feature that creates a conflict and diminishes the value of multiple other features is meaningful, when in fact the other features are becoming progressively less meaningful by the model you suggest?[/quote]
I am not sure whether I understand your point, because you are using very abstract language here, but I’ll try to answer anyway…
The only thing that can look like contradiction at first glance (especially to a person who uses depth in metaphorical way), is that my perception of depth does not correlate with my (or your) perception of good and balanced gameplay. However, it is not a contradiction at all.
I have said from the beginning that my deeper does not (necessarily) mean better. Why? Because instead of pursuing that, like you said, metaphorical use of words “deep” and “depth” which are usually used to describe attributes that can not be measured (deep story, character, love, etc.) I wanted to go after, like you said literal meaning, which is often used when the difference between two states can be quantified and measured (deep water, tone, field of view, etc.) and that is IMO possible in case of stats.
I guess, I like the exactness and non-questionability of using “depth” this way too much to abandon it.
I mean, just like it is possible to say which one of two seas is deeper, it is possible to say in which game the maxed out stat has bigger effect. When one game allows increasing shield by 100% and the other by 200% and it turns out that indeed in the 2nd game, main character’s shield lasts longer in comparison to un-upgraded shield than in the 1st game, then there is no question, in which game the maxed out stat has greater effect (of prolonging the time during which the shield is active under fire).
Like I said, I leave the question whether this bigger effect of stat on gameplay is a good thing out of my perception of depth in the same I would leave out the question whether it is a good thing that particular sea, tone, field of view, etc. is deeper than the other one.
Moreover,
I don’t even know how I would use words “deep” and “depth” in metaphorical way, if I had to incorporate my personal preferences. Like I said, the effects of individual levels in Mass Effect 1 were too small for me to like them. At the same time, the levels in Mass Effect 2 were too big. I would like to have 8-9 levels each adding around 10% to particular ability. In other words, I as a fan of somewhat slower progression, did not enjoy the big levels in Mass Effect 2 that much. Should I call them deep despite it? Would not that contradict your 2nd rule that deep can’t be used in negative way? Because, too deep levels in Mass Effect 2 kind of is a negative thing for me (of course not to the point that I would actually want to complain about it) in the same way that too shallow levels in Mass Effect 1..
[quote]2)You may use the term "depth" incorrectly as a compliment or you may use it as the dictionary proposes, and by that, I obviously mean the metaphorical definition, which means "something meaningful". [/quote]
I am not sure I can see the difference between using the term deep incorrectly as a compliment and using it as an expression, that something is meaningful for the user. I mean when you want to compliment somebody or something by saying that it is (has) “deep” (something), don’t you mean that it is meaningful for you?
How and why I have decided to use words “deep” and “depth” in different way was explained in previous paragraph.
[quote]Plato's Republic wouldn't be more deep if instead of having specific positions to present it had more that although they diminish the value of the original one, can attract a greater reading crowd that will agree with the variety.[/quote]
Wow. That’s pretty … umm… deep.
And I don’t mean it solely as a compliment (hopefully:innocent:). Really, from wording to point, it’s quite sophisticated and seems to fit your point. As for the topic, I haven’t read Republic, so I can’t say whether it would have been perceived as deeper if Plato has... proposed or discussed more positions. Still, given how philosophy is about approaching problems from different perspectives :innocent:... No. JK. I really don’t know, but nice example anyway...
[quote]3)You are asking me to define "specialization" and "growth". Sorry, but...seriously? In my posts I even gave you examples of their executions in WRPGs and JRPGs, what are you on about?
You are either going to focus on picking a specific character build or you will allocate points to the "ATK" attribute until you get bored to death.[/quote]
So what does focusing on picking specific character build mean in terms of leveling up characters in Mass Effect 1 and 2 and what role do the differences between individual levels, between minimum and maximum level and level-scaling play in it?
[quote]6) So, you are saying that ME1 may as well be a JRPG with interactive roleplaying elements then?[/quote]
Well, you will have to give me more information about JRPGs. Like I said, I have never played any. So far you only said, and please correct me if I interpreted you in a wrong way, that JRPGs allow player to make main character progressively stronger and stronger in comparison to the same enemies (well that is only my guess based on how you started to compare Mass Effect 1 to JRPG after I mentioned that this might be quite probable possibility) and that they replace the weaker enemies with new stronger ones as the game progresses.
Based solely on this characteristics,… I don’t know. IMO, Mass Effect 1 does allow player to create a main character that becomes slowly stronger and stronger in comparison to the same enemies (enemies do not scale at the same speed as main character on majority of difficulties and even if they did, some items or abilities, at
least IMO, would still give Shepard the advantage). As for replacing enemies,... I don't know. I would say that obviously there were some replacements throughout the game, but whether it would suffice to qualify Mass Effect 1 as JRPG,... I have no clue. ¯\\_
_/¯
However, according to this characteristics, games like Fallout 1 and 2 meet requirements to be classified as JRPGs much more than any of Mass Effects. Their main characters indeed became stronger and stronger (try to fight Metzeger and his band on lvl. 3 and on lvl. 50 and see the difference) and the enemies were slowly replaced with different ones (as you went to the south from Aroyo, the system of random encounters as well as habitants in predefined locations was quite obvious: from bandits / dogs / geckos /scorpions through supermutants / floaters / centaurs to enclave soldiers / deathclaws, put in a very simple way) and yet almost no one claims that Fallouts were JRPGs.
[quote]7) Yes, you don't understand. Specialization isn't about NOT spending points, it's about spending points in a manner that ends up with you specializing in a character build.[/quote]
So then please help me understand this concept… Can you make an example of how you make a specialized character build in Mass Effect 2 and 1 (providing that Mass Effect 1 even allows it according to you, which I am not sure based on your posts:?) and say where, how and how many points you have invested to make your character specialized and how do you know that at that point, your character was indeed specialized or more specialized than before?
[quote]8) You don't have a choice not to invest in the level up menu in order to maintain your level as you suggest. The level continues going up as long as you keep gathering XP by killing geth or completing mission objectives. Not a choice.[/quote]
But how does this affect the ability of Mass Effect 1 or 2 or both to create conditions in which player’s character can “grow” or “specialize” or both?
[quote]9) The fact that I was able to blast through geth in level 40 as much as I was able to in level 20 or level 10 doesn't mean that progression exists, it's the exact opposite. It's you who is saying that ME1 does not have WRPG progression.[/quote]
Mmm, could you please explain (preferably with example) what is WRPG progression in greater detail? So far you only said that JRPGs allow the player to “go higher” while WRPGs allow player to “go deeper”. I simply don’t understand what you mean by that. ¯\\_
_/¯
[quote]Check your posts. You are saying that specialization is sacrificed for JRPGish growth (and JRPGs are popular for adding new enemies, so that's not really the case either), and by growth you are suggesting a model where the characters just keeps becoming more powerful, while the enemies don't scale evenly. That's just wrong. Even JRPGs scale enemies, they just do it with a different method. The reason that ME1's balance is terrible is because BioWare failed on a concept level, if what you claim is true.[/quote]
I do not think that the option to allow or even support “specialization” has to be sacrificed in order to allow “growth”. Well, I am still not sure that I understand your definition of specialization (besides the fact that requires or at least works better with larger individual levels) let alone you definition of growth but still, from what you have stated
about them, they do not look like mutually exclusive alternatives to me. Still, I would need to understand these two concepts better to make any judgment about them.
[quote]11) ME1 has largest idividual levels? What. You are using the word "idividual" and "level" when you mean "total" and "attributes/skills/powers". There is no question that ME2 has the largest idividual levels. An upgrade from Adrenaline Rush x to y means +100% improval of some sub-characteristic.[/quote]
I am not sure what part of my post you are refereeing to.
[quote]13) "However, I do not see a reason why shouldn’t I, as a player who is supposed to control powers, skills, armours, weapons etc., be interested in overall effect of my maxed out ability even if I am not a modder. " No, you won't even be able to reach them as a modder. And for the umptillionth time, no, you have no control over coding attributes. None. It's just that
ME2's powers have greater diversity (and possibly affect more coding attributes, though that is not necessary at all),
which you went ahead and
praised. Surely
you are being hypocritical if you actually
CRITICIZE this diversity or even go ahead and claim that almost identical attributes allow more freedom?[/quote]
So do I criticize diversity or do I praise it?
If so where and how?
Secondly, speaking of taking into account things over which player does not have control over and accusing from hypocrisy, let me remind you:
Ph: ”
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.” VS: “
Does the sound and look of items, skills, etc. fall within game’s stats?” Ph: “
It very much has to do with what one considers deep gameplay.” That was one of your first explanation why you consider
stats in Mass Effect 2 deeper than stats in Mass Effect 1.
I am still not sure what do you mean by not having control over stats, but it surely wasn’t me who started with taking into account things over which player does not have any control whatsoever (
sound), unlike in case of stats.
As for not having control itself, is being able to decide whether and to what degree (to what predefined level from offered ones) the player can up-grade certain ability, not a sufficient level of control to justify an interest in what is the maximum effect of such maxed out power, weapon, item, etc.?
[quote]14) "it can be batch of variables – e.g. damage + area of effect + some drawbacks. Sometimes not – health
increase" I am pretty convinced at this point that you are not investing necessary attention at paying attention to what I am saying. All of those which you have listed? Not idividual attributes, just sub-patches.[/quote]
If I really decided to calculate or measure the depth of individual stats, I surely would be open to proposals of what variables should I measure (calculate) and how. After all, all powers, weapons, items and all their changes have exact values in registered in games’ codes and can be measured, so it would be just a question of appropriate allocation.
[quote]15) " it was you who wanted to deny Mass Effect 2 getting points for having much diverse powers" No, it was me who said that doesn't give "RPG points" to ME2. Just because ME1 had another terrible game design feature, that doesn't mean that ME2 deserves to be called more of an RPG or to have a better level-up system because of that. You are actually crossing the line as we speak for actually cutting points for ME2 having a good design feature, when in fact you praised it a minute ago. And you even use it as an argument![/quote]
Well, firstly what is and what is not a good design is again quite subjective and like I said I tried to avoid incorporating mine or anyone else’s subjective preferences into my definition of depth.
Secondly, in case of more varied powers or items in Mass Effect 2, which affect more variables, I did not give Mass Effect 2 “good points“ because it was a good design choice in my book (and it was), but simply because Mass
Effect 2 used more variables (e.g. adrenaline rush does not only effect the damage but also the speed of game, so in terms of influencing the speed of game Mass Effect 2 would win) or allowed to modify them to greater degree.
In another situation, if what I might have considered a good design choice was accomplished by using less variables or not allowing to modify them to a such degree (e.g. the accuracy of assault rifles IMO), I did not give Mass Effect 2 “good points” for it, because in the end it was still a result of reducing the effect of stats on gameplay and reducing the size of differences between the lowest an highest level in comparison to Mass Effect 1.
[quote]16) Yes you have. "Freedom = Better". As for the direct conflict, you have said by now, that what...is it 5, 6 times? I don't know even more? "Yes, I find this to be deeper, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good thing!" as a line of argumenting, although it's an obvious argument shield. That's not how debates can work...[/quote]
I would like to ask, what part of “… it would be possible say that the 1st game gives player greater overall freedom in developing the attributes of main character.
What it does not tell though is if the people would enjoy this freedom. I’ll leave that to individual preferences.” in my previous post implied that “Freedom = Better”? As for some of my other thoughts on the relationship between my perception of freedom and my enjoyment from game, please check point 18.
[quote]17) That's not how...err, physics work? Or English? Volume may refer to marginal or total states based on the reference system you are using. In fact, volume is just about perfect. Not only does it show the difference between total values, but also everything in between. And this actually can work as a small theoretical experiment that proves your suggested system wrong.
As I have noted already, your system is extremely flawed, as you have agreed on me on this matter: You can divide the space between two total values using any natural number (other than zero, obviously). You can for example, go ahead and divide the total values in ME1 in a trillion levels. And according to you, it will still be a better system than
the one ME2 uses, because it allows more "freedom".[/quote]
No, I have said that number of states (choices) between two marginal states does not indicate the depth of stats for me.
You have already tried to accuse me of this claim twice (first time when I gave you an example of two statistical systems [A and B] which had different sizes between lowest and highest levels to which you replied as if they had the same differences between them, so you basically made another example instead of replying to mine and the second time when you made an example about two pies to which I immediately replied that I do not care into how many pieces they are divided, but how big they are) and I have always strongly disagreed.
I have always focused on the size of differences between the lowest and highest level, not on how many levels between them are or how big these individual levels are.
So whether I would consider particular stat in Mass Effect 1 (e.g. barrier) deeper than in Mass Effect 2, would not depend on number of segments (levels) into which that stat is divided, but on the overall effect of leveling that stat up on gameplay.
Secondly I have never said that deeper automatically equals better.
As for your example, my perception of Mass Effect 1’s depth would not change because it is not dependent on number of choices but on size of effects of maxing out stats on gameplay. Also, I have never heard anyone to say that for example Fallout 2 has shallow stats, despite the fact that skills are divided into 300 segments.
[quote]18) "Because what is and what is not practical is quite subjective. I wanted to take personal preferences out of the calculations."
That's interesting, seeing as how you keep saying "I personally see more freedom of choice as depth"[/quote]
And at the same time I always add that more freedom (just like more depth) is not necessarily always a good thing (according to me or other people or both). I have already given you an example (accuracy of rifles which was
represented by size of reticule and spread of shots) in which I have stated, that I would have been happier if Mass Effect 1 had little bit smaller reticules and spread of shots – i.e. ”less freedom“ (if the accuracy rating would not have varied from 1 to 81 but for example from 21 to 81).
Another example might be that barrier I mentioned. I think that addition of 20 shield points per most of levels is little bit too small. But at the same time I do think that if barrier in Mass Effect 1 can be maxed out to greater
degree than in Mass Effect 2, then it’s safe to conclude that Mass Effect 1 does give player greater freedom in deciding to what degree he (she) wants to develop that barrier. E.g. does player want to increase barrier by 25%? Sure, he (she) can do that both in Mass Effect 1 and 2. Does he (she) want to increase it by 50% or 75%? Sure, he (she) can do that in both games. But does he (she) want to increase it by 150%? Well, he (she) can’t do that in Mass Effect 2. Only in Mass Effect 1.
So no, I have not incorporated my subjective preferences (what I find useful, practical or enjoyable) into my perception of depth. Just like, I would not put them in my perception of depth of other measurable objects.
[quote]"Each idividual attribute change in ME2 could have been theoretically game-breaking, yes. Is it? I have yet to see a complaint over ME2's balance.""Unfortunately, it is. " You are not reading what I am posting. The only complaint about ME2's balance is that Insanity can get a bit too easy after multiple playthroughs. That's it. ME2 is without a contest, the more balanced game according to public opinion.[/quote]
Well, I have already pointed out in what ways individual perceptions of Mass Effect 2's ballance can differ. As for the fact that there are less complaints - sure, I have never disagreed with that. The original problem was your claim that your perception of balance is not subjective.
[quote]I found everything else just to be repeats of the already mentioned arguments. Let me know if I am missing anything.[/quote]
I guess you’ve answered or at least offered your opinion on majority of my points. If something important has been omitted, I am sure it will come back in one way or another.
I might have omitted two - three points as well, because I considered them too unrelated to current discussion, but if they turn out to be important, they will be surely back as well.
Modifié par Varen Spectre, 16 octobre 2011 - 01:49 .
Retour en haut
But, you did not notify me about your reply either.
But I could not have known, that you can't keep track of what has been said and how the discussion has evolved.
