Okay, lets get this back on topic a little bit.
The OP's argument is that ME1 had more complex combat than ME2. We disagreed by pointing out that ME1 could easily be completed by spam, and that spam was the most efficient way to play through the game.
He disagreed by saying that he purposefully avoids the spam in the first game to make it play tactically.
However, by that same logic, we could purposefully avoid simplicity in this game too and create arbitrary rules to make our game more complex to reach the same end.
The only way we can create an objective understanding of how complex a game system is, we need to look at the same type of player playing both games. Lets look at three catagories of players and see how they will tend to react to each game:
For the first category lets look at the metagamers. These are the type of player who care about efficiency above all else. As time goes by, the way each metagamer plays becomes more similar to each other metagamer. This is because they are discovering the most efficient ways to maximize dps, healing, and mitigation.
We all know how metagamers played ME1. They spammed every ability at once and ran in and held the trigger until everything died. (Immunity, singularity, marksman, etc.) In ME2 we're seeing them use cover and picking different skills based on the situation. For them, ME2 is unquestionably much more complex and strategic. (Especially as a vanguard!)
If we take your example of someone who makes up rules on how to play and doesn't mind being less efficient, then they will bring complexity into any game they play, whether the game encourages it or not. Lets call them "choice gamers" for the moment, because they want to choose exactly how to play, usually for roleplay reasons.
Now, if a choice gamer decides like you, to play in a complex fashion, (lets call these "complexity choice gamers.") they will bring complexity to any game they might play. Looking at how this subgroup plays a game only shines light on how much playing in a complex fashion is punished in a game. (They might use a weak gun in multiplayer, for example, because they like the way it feels, or because it fits their character, and get mauled for it.) I feel that this category won't have any trouble adapting to ME2 because it encourages complex play. In fact, they will be more comfortable with it, because they will feel less encouraged to play the spammy way.
However, there is a group of choice gamers who choose to play in a very simple way. (Lets call them "simplicity choice gamers.") These are the people who remember ME1 in the fondest light. They are the ones who complained about the ammunition change, and they complain about losing immunity and weapon skills. They were rewarded for playing in the way they liked to play in ME1, and had an ego boost on top of it because they were able to do this on the hardest difficulty modes with no problem. (They are restricted to easier difficulties in most games because of their simple style of play.) In ME2, they are heavily encouraged to play in a more complex fashion and think tactically, because otherwise they die. Some of them just lower the difficulty, some of them l2p, and some of them turn the game off and go onto the forums to complain.
So! To sum it up, lets look at the 3 groups briefly and come to a conclusion.
Metagamers in ME1 played simply because it was efficient. They play in a more complex way in ME2 now because that is efficient.
Complexity choice gamers played in a complex way in ME1. They play in a complex way in ME2 now, because they do that in any game, because that's their style.
Simplicity choice gamers played in a simple way in ME1 and were rewarded. They try to play in a simple way in ME2 and die. Then they improve/lower difficulty/complain.
Therefore, if we define a game's complexity by how much complexity most players put into the combat, I think we can safely argue that ME2 is a more complex game than ME1 was.
Modifié par Soruyao, 30 janvier 2010 - 06:19 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
