87 réponses à ce sujet

[Farangbaa]

I'd consider mechanics mastery to be part of the skill of playing the game, though =P
 
You can also abuse things like right hand advantage in the action based combat of Mass Effect 3 to get away with what would otherwise be pretty risky moves.

Yes, but that's skill based. Stat based mastery of the mechanics requires zero skill, it's just adjusting a number to gain an advantage.
 

Knowledge of the mechanics is just as necessary as actual aiming reflexes in a lot of well designed action based games.

I know, trust me. I was extremely good in shooters in the first 1-2 minutes of the game. That time where you can still realistically predict where everyone will be or end up.

I carried the cries of 'cheater' and 'wallhacker' with pride, after I started shooting before someone came around the corner

Though I realize this has nothing to do with reflexes haha.

[Farangbaa]

Let me put it differently:

Stat based games are awesome to learn to play. They get boring after. Learning the mechanics is basically equivalent to breaking the game.

Non stat based games are awesome once you get to know them. The funs tarts after you've learned the mechanics.

[MGW7]

X-com not having a faceroll strategy? Super sniper teams don't count now.

 

I would say the dark souls series pulls the skill based game off best, and emulating it in some regards I feel is desirable.

The meek can kill the mighty, it is immensely harder, but the stats don't render you useless entirely, as every attack can be dodged, all the timings can be nailed down, and with a few exceptions there is a counter to every play.

 

I want many enemies to be counters, with ones that are more threatening to each class, but vulnerable to others.

 

The rock paper scissors balance system makes it much harder for any one thing to be overpowered, as you can buff a specific counter to bring one class down, bring another up, and level the playing field in a less sudden way than simply nerfing and buffing each thing.

[Cyonan]

Let me put it differently:

Stat based games are awesome to learn to play. They get boring after. Learning the mechanics is basically equivalent to breaking the game.

 

The point I've been trying to make is that if this happens then that's the fault of the balance of the game, not the fact that it's stat based.

 

X-com not having a faceroll strategy? Super sniper teams don't count now.

 

I'd argue that on the higher difficulties, sniper teams still aren't faceroll.

 

but yeah, snipers in XCOM were on the overpowered side.

[RoboticWater]

My concern here is that the linear design allows the developer not only to intend a specific solution, but to force that solution.

And that's not fun. I don't want to be told, even implicitly, how to advance through the level. In fact, when I am, I almost always try to disobey.

Linear design may not stifle emergent behaviour by necessity, but I find it makes it too easy for developers not to allow it.

Emergent behaviour is what I want all of my behaviour to be. I don't advance through a Skyrim fort facing enemies at all. I usually find an unassailable position on some nearby mountains and snipe at the enemies until they're all dead, and then I go collect the loot. Linear design would almost never allow that.

Linear games allow this kind of stuff all the time. Plenty of levels in Halo allow you to pick up a sniper and shoot enemies from afar or run in with the assault rifle. You could even try to play the game with almost entirely melee.

 

But regardless, what you're describing is part of my point. Skyrim doesn't push you outside your comfort zone. Ever. It allows the player to accomplish nearly every single quest or dungeon in the exact same way with little to no variance in gameplay. It's worse than linear games, because players are limiting their own fun. The Halo devs place weapons and vehicles intentionally to force players to actually play, use every tool at their disposal and have more fun. If devs don' design a variety of challenges, players will just stick themselves in a rut and stay there. 

Developers are seemingly never trying to leave opportunities for the players to subvert their design, but that's generally what I like doing, so I favour design principles within which developers have trouble closing all those loopholes.

Then you've not played enough linear games.

 

It may just be personal opinion, but I find breaking the rules in a linear game to be far more exciting because you're actually breaking something. It's one thing to scrounge together a method out of a broad rule set, and it's another to forge your own path by adapting the limited rule set you're given. Just look at speed running. It's an entire community based solely around breaking the rules of linear games and beating them in ways the developers wouldn't have imagined.

 

Contrary to what you may believe, linear games do want players to experiment. Limitations are the mother of creativity and good linear games constantly force their players to invent and adapt.

[Spectr61]

Which of these two difficulty system you preffer for MEA and why?
NOTE: We're not talking about difficulty setting(easy, normal, hard, hardcore, ect).
1- STATUS UP DIFFICULTY GAMES.
Games where players gain status up when level up. Enemies also recieve status up when they are leveled. These games' difficulty depend and rely more on the status of player and enemies. Enemies with higher status may be unfairly hard or very hard, but as player levels up the enemies become easy and easier, even boses. Most of these games games color swap enemies(and add a few changes to their basic design) to indicate they have higher status.
Most of these games are played by mashing attacks and receiving damage, relying on stats like Attack, Defense, Life, Evasion etc given by Level(achieved by ExpPoints). Also these kind of games put the player to spend a lot of time grinding and farming ExpPoints just to make the game fair, easy or easier. Some games Level up to 99 or 100, others up to 256 or something. Thats a lot of time spending just leveling up! specially on higher level where players get less and each time lesser ExpPoints! Also worth noting: Leveling Up is OBLIGATORY, player cant refuse or deny to receive ExpPoints and Level Up. Mostly RPGs, and its sub types.
2- SKILL DIFFICULTY GAMES.
In these games the player receives no status up or rarely minimal status up. Player mostly find new weapon and armor, or items that grants new moves, powers or abilities, skill points or ExpPoints to unlock moves. These games' difficulty relies more on the player's skills. Here doesnt matter if the player has the best weapon, armor, equipment, moves, player wont be able to smash attacks and receive attacks because enemies are designed to be stronger. Therfore this games force the player to play smart, to watch carefully, analyze and react, to know the right time to attack, defend, evade, run, etc. So, there are two types of skills in these games, the player natural skill, and the in game characters' skills.
These games therefore dont force players to grind or farm ExpPoint to level up and receive status up to be strongers, and so players can have more time to enjoy directly the adventure itself. Mostly action and adventure games.
Thankfully, MassEffect 3 Multiplayer is SKILL TYPE. We've all seen Lvl 20 people being easily taken down on Bronze, Lvl 01 people on 1st score on Gold, or even Lvl 01 people keeping up in platinum. Thankfully ME3M is based more on the actual player skills than the character's status, and honestly hope MassEffectAndromeda to keep it SKILL TYPE and no STATUS TYPE, so people can enjoy more action itself than ExpPoint farming/grinding.

Damm good post.

Exactly

Look at ME3MP v DAIMP.

The biggest reason ME is so good is that it is skill based.

One of the biggest strategic blunders in DAIMP is that it is not.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Linear games allow this kind of stuff all the time. Plenty of levels in Halo allow you to pick up a sniper and shoot enemies from afar or run in with the assault rifle. You could even try to play the game with almost entirely melee.

But you're facing the same enemies from the same direction with the same resources.

But regardless, what you're describing is part of my point. Skyrim doesn't push you outside your comfort zone. Ever. It allows the player to accomplish nearly every single quest or dungeon in the exact same way with little to no variance in gameplay. It's worse than linear games, because players are limiting their own fun. The Halo devs place weapons and vehicles intentionally to force players to actually play, use every tool at their disposal and have more fun. If devs don' design a variety of challenges, players will just stick themselves in a rut and stay there.

If players stay in a rut, it is because they like it there.

The only way the linear design you describe would work in a rules-based RPG (as opposed to a straight-up action game) is if the ruleset were particularly robust, and we just don't see that a lot in digital games.

There are many ways for me to approach combat in ME3, for example, but none of them are particularly subversive. But both DAI and Skyrim allow exactly that, intended or not.

Then you've not played enough linear games.

I basically don't play action games (unless I can subvert them to eliminate the action elements), so that narrows the field considerably.

It may just be personal opinion, but I find breaking the rules in a linear game to be far more exciting because you're actually breaking something. It's one thing to scrounge together a method out of a broad rule set, and it's another to forge your own path by adapting the limited rule set you're given. Just look at speed running. It's an entire community based solely around breaking the rules of linear games and beating them in ways the developers wouldn't have imagined.

Contrary to what you may believe, linear games do want players to experiment. Limitations are the mother of creativity and good linear games constantly force their players to invent and adapt.

They force us to play the game, which isn't what I want to do. I want to play in their game, and I want as many tools as possible with which to do that. I'll use exploits, and mods, and the developer console, and pretty soon the thing I'm doing might not resemble the developers' intent even vaguely.

[Spectr61]

I'm pretty sure you mean stats, not status. Status in RPG is generally used to refer to any buffs/debuffs a character might have. Stats are your strength, dexterity, intellect, wisdom, etc.
 
Also keep in mind that in most stat based combat systems you do still need to play smart and tactical, on top of being able to build a viable character. The main differences are:
 
Stat based - More tactical skill is required. You need to be smart about where you move your characters and when they use their abilities.
"skill" based - Faster paced and twitch aiming is required.
 
But Mass Effect is meant to be more action based, so it will stray towards that one a bit more. Of course, having the best equipment does make a significant difference still. Have a game of ME3 MP with the Shuriken and another with the Harrier. The Harrier far outdoes the Shuriken.

Yep.

But have you played DAIMP?

After lots of promotions, face tanking bosses is easy.

I much prefer the ME3MP style, where no matter how high you're N7 score was, you still had to play smart.

[RoboticWater]

But you're facing the same enemies from the same direction with the same resources.

Assuming that you want to get anything done, you will always have to face the same enemies open world or not.

Unless the game is composed exclusively of straight hallways (very poor linear level design), then there's always more than a couple directions of attack. You may enter and exit the level from the same door, but there's about as much room for finesse once inside.
 

If players stay in a rut, it is because they like it there.

And my point is that's bad. The player should feel comfortable to a degree, but if they're completely complacent, then I don't believe the game is doing it's job.

Maybe I'm too idealistic, but I believe that good art needs to inspire thought and should challenge at least one aspect of people's existence whether it be their morals, their mind, or their skills. Incidentally, games can do all of those things quite well, and I think that most games should try to engage players to the best extent they can. 
 

The only way the linear design you describe would work in a rules-based RPG (as opposed to a straight-up action game) is if the ruleset were particularly robust, and we just don't see that a lot in digital games.

Says the person who doesn't play many action games. Complex rulesets aren't necessary, just good AI, good level design, and a decent assortment of tools.
 

There are many ways for me to approach combat in ME3, for example, but none of them are particularly subversive. But both DAI and Skyrim allow exactly that, intended or not.

You found a way to play despite the limitations. I'm sure you did that by using the limited tools available to you and formulating a plan to adapt. It may not seem particularly subversive, but that's the beauty of limitations.

 

I basically don't play action games (unless I can subvert them to eliminate the action elements), so that narrows the field considerably.
They force us to play the game, which isn't what I want to do. I want to play in their game, and I want as many tools as possible with which to do that. I'll use exploits, and mods, and the developer console, and pretty soon the thing I'm doing might not resemble the developers' intent even vaguely.

Then my question is: why play Mass Effect? I respect the fact that you don't like action games, but why cling to a series that is fundamentally different from your ideal game? Mass Effect isn't a simulator. It's a game that intentionally puts you in the shoes of a fighter and intentionally challenges the your skills.

[Sylvius the Mad]

And my point is that's bad. The player should feel comfortable to a degree, but if they're completely complacent, then I don't believe the game is doing it's job.

Maybe I'm too idealistic, but I believe that good art needs to inspire thought and should challenge at least one aspect of people's existence whether it be their morals, their mind, or their skills. Incidentally, games can do all of those things quite well, and I think that most games should try to engage players to the best extent they can.

I think that's paternalistic.  The option to be challenged should exist, sure, but each individual play should be trusted to know what he likes.

 

it is not the job of game design (or art, frankly) to protect us from ourselves.  Art teaches us things when we want it to.  Art doesn't make us think thoughts.  They don't dictate to us how we feel or what we consider.  We have to do that ourselves. 

 

Games should be similarly non-dictatorial.

Says the person who doesn't play many action games. Complex rulesets aren't necessary, just good AI, good level design, and a decent assortment of tools.

I would define a "complex ruleset" and a "decent assortment of tools" as synonymous.

You found a way to play despite the limitations. I'm sure you did that by using the limited tools available to you and formulating a plan to adapt. It may not seem particularly subversive, but that's the beauty of limitations.

Their beauty is that they don't give me what I want?

 

Lots of things do that.  Are they all beautiful?

Then my question is: why play Mass Effect? I respect the fact that you don't like action games, but why cling to a series that is fundamentally different from your ideal game? Mass Effect isn't a simulator. It's a game that intentionally puts you in the shoes of a fighter and intentionally challenges the your skills

Mass Effect doesn't challenge our skills at all.  Mass Effect's action elements are wholly optional.  That's the great thing about Mass Effect.

 

Yes, there are shooter mechanics, but we don't need to use them in order to play the game, even on the default difficulty.  There's nothing about Mass Effect that challenges us in this way.

[wolfhowwl]

Man, ME1 was a real mess.

 

The combat felt like they had at some point wanted it to play like a shooter but also tried to pay lip service to the RPG genre and shoved in these RPG elements resulting in a rather terrible version of both. It didn't work and they needed to choose a concrete direction for Mass Effect 2.

 

Obviously they chose the action direction for the sequels and there doesn't seem to be much reason to change the course now.

[Cyonan]

Yep.

But have you played DAIMP?

After lots of promotions, face tanking bosses is easy.

I much prefer the ME3MP style, where no matter how high you're N7 score was, you still had to play smart.

 

DAMP has an issue because they wanted a benefit to encourage promoting, but it allows for infinitely stacking power increases.

 

With ME3 you generally need to play somewhat smart but you do have some setups like the Kroguard which aren't afraid of much.

[AlanC9]

But regardless, what you're describing is part of my point. Skyrim doesn't push you outside your comfort zone. Ever. It allows the player to accomplish nearly every single quest or dungeon in the exact same way with little to no variance in gameplay. It's worse than linear games, because players are limiting their own fun.

Are you sure that isn't what Skyrim fans want?