Scarecrow_ES wrote...
I'll field that last question Soruyao... should every strategy be viable? Yes. Absolutely. This is an RPG, which means developing a character to specialize in a certain type of gameplay, and becoming so good at it that it allows you to deal with any situation. It's the reason we have skill trees. It's the reason we can choose different weapons. It's the reason we gain experience points. It's the reason we choose our squadmates at the beginning of every mission. Never in an RPG should you EVER be forced to play the game a certain way to be effective. If there was only ever one right combination of skills and tactics by which a player could succeed in a game, then why present him with any other options at all?
Okay, I hear where you're coming from, but I counter with this: You say that because this is an rpg, every strategy should allow a player to be successful, even on the hardest difficulties. Now, based on what you know of my personal favored strategy, to pick the best weapon for a job and then fire as fast as possible until it isn't the best weapon for the job any more or I'm out of ammo, do you think that your system would allow me to be successful without forcing me to change the way I play?
Here's a scenario for you. I'm playing ME3 on insanity on launch day. All of your changes came true exactly as you explained them. I fight the blood pack and fire really quickly to take out a pack of vorcha, burning through all my clips. Suddenly I'm fighting some krogan and I have no clips and I overheat all my weapons and get killed. Then lets say I go on the forums and rage a little. The first reply reads "Lol! L2P. Space your shots out, noob! Maybe you're not skilled enough to play on insanity."
Indeed, for your system to work, thermal clips would have to be much less common, effectively reducing my ammunition by 1/2 or even 3/4ths. Of course, I'd never end up in a situation like that, because I'd know about the change in advance and modify my playing to adapt to the change, just like I adapted to the current change. The hybrid system would eliminate the way I like to play as a viable strategy, which is exactly what you say you don't want to happen.
"Players should be forced to be careful and use their skills creatively to survive."
Now, you said that Soruyao, and I couldn't put it any better myself. This is EXACTLY the arguement for my system that I've been leveling. Under the current system, as you've pointed out, only a certain set of tactics and gameplay actions are catered to. Because of the ammo system and it's gearing toward automatic weapons... because of the severe limits on semi-automatic weapon ammo... because of the strict gameplay balancing of weapon effectiveness... regardless of player choice, they are funneled into one specific gameplay formula. Players should not only be FREE to act creatively in terms of how they play the game, but should be ENCOURAGED to do so by design - this is echoing your own sentiment. Again by your own sentiment, the current system does NOT allow for that.
"Players should be forced to be careful and use their skills creatively to survive." That is exactly what my system allows for. I'm not going to FORCE a player to use different weapons because the ones he wants to use run out of ammo halfway through a fight. I'm going to encourage him to use other weapons by allowing him to approach battles creatively without punishing him for choosing a strategy he likes. If you give players a lot of options, you give them the ability to find their own path. Some individuals are going to immediately find that their path means using many powers at in a way that takes advantage of each's specific strengths. Some individuals are going to find that their path means using a very select group of powers repeatedly regardless of what the situation might call for because they've mastered how to put those select powers to good use. If either path allows the player to succeed, then who is to say either path is wrong?
In order for a game to have difficulty and a learning curve, there -has- to be right ways of doing things and wrong ways of doing things. If you name any game ever made, there are strategies that simply will not work. In super mario world, a player who has a strategy that doesn't include jumping will not even clear the first level. In final fantasy seven, a player who does not use materia will struggle MUCH more than a player who does. In fallout 3, someone who refuses to use vats and play like it's a FPS will have a much more difficult time than a player who uses vats. (I tried to do that for awhile, it was very painful.)
The harder a difficulty level is, the more stringent it's strategy requirements are going to be. On normal mode for instance, a soldier who uses nothing but concussive shot and melee might actually be able to complete the game. (Albeit very slowly.) On insanity, it's very unlikely, though I suppose it's still technically possible. In halo 3's campaign, on easy or normal mode, you can run into enemies and kill them all with melee. On legendary, this isn't a viable strategy because you die if you try to do that. In world of warcraft, you can have a group of people who haven't invested in the talent tree for the role they're providing and succeed only in easier low level groups. In higher level 5man groups and raids, you die very quickly if your healers/tanks/dps aren't specced as healers tanks and dps.
You say that every strategy should be viable, and I agree that this is true in a sense. At least, it is more true the lower your difficulty setting goes. However, as long as insanity mode is hard, then there will be right and wrong ways of playing. The important choice that falls to the game design team is about which strategies should be viable. I argue that a player who uses a variety of weapons is putting more effort and thought into the way they are playing than a player who only uses one, and should therefore be more successful.
One more super important point I want to add to this:
The gaming community is lazy. They do everything they can do to avoid thinking, challenge, and effort. Lets say we have two strategies, one complex and one simple. For instance: lets take a classical wizard class who has an array of elemental attacks. Lets say his fireball does half damage to fire type targets and double damage to water type targets, while his water ball does double damage do fire and half damage to water targets. Many players will use fireball even against water targets, and they will clear the game this way if at all possible. Then they will go on the forums and complain that the wizard class was boring (if they were successful), or weak (if they weren't).
I can point to several examples of this happening with ME2, including the fact that the community pretty much spits on anyone who says they use cryo anything or adepts who use anything other than warp.
I think better game design (assuming we're making a challenging game) would be to make fireballs heal fire targets, and water balls heal water targets. Then, the player is forced to actually think in elemental terms to complete the game. They will use an entire repertoire of skills instead of just one and in the process of putting more effort and thought into the game, I argue that they will get more out of the game in return. On top of that, they will clear every fight twice as fast and the combat won't seem so slow and boring!
(Incoming runon sentence!) If challenging difficulty limits the number of successful strategies in a game by nature/design, and players have a tendency to stick with a simple and ineffective strategy, and those same players will then complain that the game/class is boring, then it's the game designer's job to make sure not only that complex and interesting strategies are superior to spammy and simple ones, but also that spammy and simple strategies are so much less effective that the community will tend to avoid them.
I feel the ammo system accomplishes this, almost. Rock paper scissors balance has heavily encouraged players to swap their weapons around a lot, however because ARs and SMGs aquire ammunition about twice as fast as they should, players have the opportunity to use nothing but them. (Then they complain the game is simple and boring.) I feel that the hybrid system would be a step in the other direction because it would make simple and spammy play (using one weapon for everything) even more viable. Players will ignore all their other weapons and then complain that insanity mode is boring.
On an aside, I also think people will always try and hold on to their thermal clips if they're rare, because they'll always worry that they'll need them even more in the next fight. This is a trap I'm more likely to fall into myself. I'd tend to ignore them unless absolutely forced to use them in order to never be put in a situation where I need one and don't have one.
Modifié par Soruyao, 01 mars 2010 - 01:53 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
Nicely said. 
