What are these so-called stats you want that would increase damage that a larger caliber couldn't do?
Although it might be more "realistic" if all the weapons did identical damage regardless of who wields them, you would lose a potential area to differentiate the classes.
Of course the codex claims that the limit on damage is actually recoil for ME small arms, so you would have to wonder if certain people might not be able to get more damage out of them because they can handle more recoil.
Stat-based accuracy is clearly a non-starter. But as for damage, why are you assuming a steep power curve? Modern CRPGs all have a steep power curve, but I've long been a vocal opponent of that design. A much shallower power curve would solve a great many problems, including this one.
The stats could make small marginal improvements rather than taking the character from being useless to being unstoppable.
I'm using a steep power curve in my example because it better emphasizes my point. Making the numbers less profound merely reduces effect, but the point still stands about characters being able to alter what should be a design of the equipment.
I'd rather be at work than play an action game. Designing relational databases is more fun.
This is how I feel about playing Mass Effect with pause to aim.
I think I would rather put up with KotoR's combat.
I don't see how this means what you're saying it means. In-universe, the character has a level of shooting skill. With traditional RPG mechanics that level of skill is derived from some of the numbers which define the character. With hybrid mechanics such as ME3 that level of shooting skill is derived from the player's skill at the shooting subsystem. Unless I turn over one of my characters to someone else to play, nothing's going to break.To maintain a coherent mental state for the character, which we need if we're trying to adhere to any sort of personality design, we need the character's perception of the world to be comprehensible to that character. And that's why the player's skill shouldn't matter in gameplay, because the player doesn't exist within the setting. Since he doesn't exist, he can't have any characteristics. Player skill having an effect, then, breaks reality.
KotOR's combat was fun.This is how I feel about playing Mass Effect with pause to aim.
I think I would rather put up with KotoR's combat.
If I suffer a wrist injury, or if I'm drunk, why does the character get less good at shooting?I don't see how this means what you're saying it means. In-universe, the character has a level of shooting skill. With traditional RPG mechanics that level of skill is derived from some of the numbers which define the character. With hybrid mechanics such as ME3 that level of shooting skill is derived from the player's skill at the shooting subsystem. Unless I turn over one of my characters to someone else to play, nothing's going to break.
A large calibre would do that, too.What are these so-called stats you want that would increase damage that a larger caliber couldn't do?
Why should it be the design of the equipment?I'm using a steep power curve in my example because it better emphasizes my point. Making the numbers less profound merely reduces effect, but the point still stands about characters being able to alter what should be a design of the equipment.
If I suffer a wrist injury, or if I'm drunk, why does the character get less good at shooting?
The stats persist within the setting. They are a feature of the setting as much as the level geometry is.
From within the setting, player skill has no basis, because the player doesn't exist.
Except player skill does exist. That's inherent to any skill-based game.
Incidentally, if I were drunk, I don't think my character would be doing the same things regardless of the game's combat design. All RPG require player skill (if nothing else, a level head), ARPG just require it to a greater extent.
Why should it be the design of the equipment?
You're making normative claims with no support at all.
It's because the equipment is the thing that can pass from person to person.
A sniper rifle should be exactly what it is in the hands of every character in the game. It shouldn't deal X% more damage on one person because they had the more of the "more damage" stat than I did.
The only way I'd accept character stats that affect guns in a pure shooter would be if every single character in the game had exactly the same amount of the same stat and it was not able to be changed. Basically if character stats granted 10% more gun damage then every single character should grant 10% more gun damage and the player should not be able to increase or decrease that 10%.
In other words, the only way I'd accept character stats is if you made character stats not matter in the slightest.
KotOR's combat was fun.
It would have been even better with move-to-point commands.
KotoR is in the running for the game with the single worst combat I have ever seen in my books.
It's so bad I can't play through the game a second time even though I found everything else really well done. I couldn't even get through KotoR 2 because it features the same combat.
Cannot be a good RPG if it's not a good game. Making a good game must take priority. If you look at Sword Coast Legends, it checks all the boxes of nostalgic old school RPG, and yet it's not very good. Of course I want to shape a character through a CC, dialogue, and actions and have the story react to them. But none of that matters if the game isn't good.
This kinda reminds me of debates about graphic adventures. Some people used to think if it's not point and click, it cannot be a good adventure, it's just the developer selling out to the mainstream market by making an arcade game with adventure elements. I think all that is pointless game puritanism. Dreamfall Chapters and Life is Strange are examples of a positive evolution of graphic adventures that update the genre to current times.
Summary: I pick good game.
If I suffer a wrist injury, or if I'm drunk, why does the character get less good at shooting?
The stats persist within the setting. They are a feature of the setting as much as the level geometry is.
From within the setting, player skill has no basis, because the player doesn't exist.
but player skill enters into even pen and paper games.
There's a very specific reason why in my current campaign I'm the one who always does the diplomacy, and it's not because I have the best roll for it =P
It's because everybody else is terrible at wording things and the last time we let somebody else try he accidentally threatened to drop meteors on the entire nation. I had to intervene and diplomacy that just so they didn't kill us. Except the guy that did the threatening, he got a lot of crossbow bolts in his head for that one.
A large calibre would do that, too.
The stats simulate unrendered details like hitting seams in armour or hitting vital body parts. Unless those are actually modelled by the game's physics (and they're not), something has to control them. Why not stats?
You keep saying stats. What stats?
If two people are trained to use the same weapon, why would the damage be different unless one shoots at this part that causes less damage and the other shoots at this part causing more damage.
It really is a shame that we don't get more in this niche, especially since as far as I know both Deus Ex and Mass Effect sell rather well. At least well enough to get sequels for both games.
and it seems like in Mankind Divided they're looking to refine the action half of the gameplay which is nice seeing as how Human Revolution favoured stealth over action so much.
Agreed. ME1 was ultimately the game that made me realize how much I disliked "traditional" RPG mechanics being applied to shooters. In a lot of ways, it was a really sloppy effort to drop weak RPG mechanics on top of weak shooter mechanics.
Deus Ex however had a completely different take on how an inventory should work - I wish more games (including ME) would follow in its foot-steps. I recall enjoying System Shock 2's inventory system, which I think involved something similar.
KotoR is in the running for the game with the single worst combat I have ever seen in my books.
It's so bad I can't play through the game a second time even though I found everything else really well done. I couldn't even get through KotoR 2 because it features the same combat.
KOTOR combat was just real-time-with-pause. Not much different form the BG games.
KotoR is in the running for the game with the single worst combat I have ever seen in my books.
It's so bad I can't play through the game a second time even though I found everything else really well done. I couldn't even get through KotoR 2 because it features the same combat.
Really? I'd rather play that than ME1 gameplay (if you can even call that "gameplay") any day.
KOTOR is pretty simple.
1) Get Jedi Powers
2) One hit everything.
Really? I'd rather play that than ME1 gameplay (if you can even call that "gameplay") any day.
KOTOR is pretty simple.
1) Get Jedi Powers
2) One hit everything.
KotOR's combat (for me anyway) was an interesting mix of awesome and mediocre. It had some of the most awkward animations I've ever seen, but also some of the coolest lightsaber duel animations. I can't say ever found myself needing to plan out strategies/tactics - the toughest decision was really just deciding what I wanted to destroy my enemies with.
KOTOR combat was just real-time-with-pause. Not much different form the BG games.
Well I'm already on record as saying I think games like Baldur's Gate had pretty clunky combat, and KotoR somehow managed to feel even more clunky than that.
The animations really didn't help either.
Really? I'd rather play that than ME1 gameplay (if you can even call that "gameplay") any day.
KOTOR is pretty simple.
1) Get Jedi Powers
2) One hit everything.
I'd play ME1 a thousand times over before touching KotoR again.
I can even make KotoR basically auto win by just spamming Power Hit on the easiest difficulty, but that only achieves making the combat stupidly boring.
Agreed. ME1 was ultimately the game that made me realize how much I disliked "traditional" RPG mechanics being applied to shooters. In a lot of ways, it was a really sloppy effort to drop weak RPG mechanics on top of weak shooter mechanics.
Deus Ex however had a completely different take on how an inventory should work - I wish more games (including ME) would follow in its foot-steps. I recall enjoying System Shock 2's inventory system, which I think involved something similar.
The main thing I strongly hate about RPG mechanics being applied to shooters is the accuracy being affected by stats in a system where I manually aim. It's infuriating when I'm accurate and then the game takes that away from me.
Human Revolution is one of the few games I can think of in recent memory where I actually had to manage my inventory in a way that didn't make me wish the whole system just wasn't in the game.
Agreed. ME1 was ultimately the game that made me realize how much I disliked "traditional" RPG mechanics being applied to shooters. In a lot of ways, it was a really sloppy effort to drop weak RPG mechanics on top of weak shooter mechanics.
Deus Ex however had a completely different take on how an inventory should work - I wish more games (including ME) would follow in its foot-steps.
Stealth games in general are probably the best realization of an action RPG. They encourage roleplaying organically through level design and AI behavior rather than artificial stat progression and dialog boxes. The most recent Hitman, for example, let's me play an explosion-loving buffoon, a bloodthirsty hitman, an efficient assassin, or most anything in between. DX:HR is a bit less sandboxy, but generally contains a greater amount of reactivity as a result.
In fact, stealth games offer more player freedom in some areas of their design.
I was going to make a more in depth post about this before this thread had moved on to ammo mechanics. Essentially it boiled down to the way stealth games increase player freedom by offering a limited number of utilities that players can combine in different ways for vastly different results. This is in stark contrast to ME1's (and other ARPG's) philosophy of offering a large variety abilities with only a single specific use and giving the player a bunch of pointless skill progression. That method works, but doesn't scale nearly as well in an action context.
The inventory system, however, is something I believe needs to be overhauled in most RPG. Deus Ex and survival horror games have it right: limit our inventory to a reasonable size so we're forced to make critical decisions about our resources at hand. It may also discourage designers from making every RPG a scrounge-fest. The grid-based system might be a bit too much (though I like it because it turns inventory management into a mini-puzzle), but limited resources usually encourages more creative play.
That doesn't address the question.Except player skill does exist. That's inherent to any skill-based game.
Incidentally, if I were drunk, I don't think my character would be doing the same things regardless of the game's combat design. All RPG require player skill (if nothing else, a level head), ARPG just require it to a greater extent.
You still haven't described the basis for that requirement.It's because the equipment is the thing that can pass from person to person.
A sniper rifle should be exactly what it is in the hands of every character in the game. It shouldn't deal X% more damage on one person because they had the more of the "more damage" stat than I did.
The only way I'd accept character stats that affect guns in a pure shooter would be if every single character in the game had exactly the same amount of the same stat and it was not able to be changed. Basically if character stats granted 10% more gun damage then every single character should grant 10% more gun damage and the player should not be able to increase or decrease that 10%.
In other words, the only way I'd accept character stats is if you made character stats not matter in the slightest.
Luckily, KotOR2 is by far the lesser RPG.KotoR is in the running for the game with the single worst combat I have ever seen in my books.
It's so bad I can't play through the game a second time even though I found everything else really well done. I couldn't even get through KotoR 2 because it features the same combat.
That's terrible GMing. The stats should be paramount. All the player's word choice adds is flavour.but player skill enters into even pen and paper games.
There's a very specific reason why in my current campaign I'm the one who always does the diplomacy, and it's not because I have the best roll for it =P
It's because everybody else is terrible at wording things and the last time we let somebody else try he accidentally threatened to drop meteors on the entire nation. I had to intervene and diplomacy that just so they didn't kill us. Except the guy that did the threatening, he got a lot of crossbow bolts in his head for that one.
That doesn't address the question.
What is the in-game justification for any corresponding change in the character's effectiveness?
By what mechanism does an injury to the player have any effect on a world in which the player doesn't exist? This is a serious epistemological problem that action games completely fail to answer.
They don't fail to answer it, they just don't try because no one that actually likes action games cares. However, if they did, they could easily say that the player's avatar shares the disabilities of the player. You're the king of compartmentalization; make something up.
Regardless, what's the in-game justification for my intelligent character acting like an incoherent buffoon when I, the player, get drunk? This problem isn't inherent to action games alone.
For exactly that reason. Because one was more skilled at shooting vulnerable areas.You keep saying stats. What stats?
If two people are trained to use the same weapon, why would the damage be different unless one shoots at this part that causes less damage and the other shoots at this part causing more damage.
If I suffer a wrist injury, or if I'm drunk, why does the character get less good at shooting?
The stats persist within the setting. They are a feature of the setting as much as the level geometry is.
From within the setting, player skill has no basis, because the player doesn't exist.
So if the player suffers an injury, the character suffers an injury?They don't fail to answer it, they just don't try because no one that actually likes action games cares. However, if they did, they could easily say that the player's avatar shares the disabilities of the player. You're the king of compartmentalization; make something up.
It's a problem inherent to any game based on player skill. In a stat-based game, what you describe shouldn't even be possible.Regardless, what's the in-game justification for my intelligent character acting like an incoherent buffoon when I, the player, get drunk? This problem isn't inherent to action games alone.
Retour en haut