RPGs that are unanimously praised by people of refined taste that you never could finish.

[LoPan]

I'm trying to think of any benefits of accuracy in First Person, but I'm coming up short. Can the supporters come up with any besides faux-realism?

I think accuracy does belong in first person games, but only in a very limited, "physical simulation" sense, not the traditional RPG "to-hit roll" numerical stat-based sense.

I agree, and as regards the use of accuracy, hidden or reticule-thinning, it depends on the game, it would, for instance, destroy the gameplay of Painkiller but aided the feeling of caution in Joint Ops. The weird thing is that though it was somewhat offensive in VtM, who successfully played through the game, and enjoyed it, with guns pre-fan patch, and who played Deus Ex as a run-n-gun rather than a sneaking game? Neither dealt in 'to-hit-rolls' in their mechanics, however, and besides Morrowind I can't think of another game which did and was also first person.

I'm interested in this topic but now I am unsure if there is even a subject matter to begin with.

 

[GordonHalfman]

Accuracy limitations aren't about realism, although neither are they especially unrealistic. They are about having a meaningful model of your character's skills, forcing you to play around your limitations until your character develops, completely appropriate for an RPG.

 

[Roguey]

Except all those people that have been playing Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat, and Team Fortress for more than a decade straight.

His issue was with having a ridiculously large spread that forces you to wait to get an accurate shot. New Vegas, which he worked on, has individual weapon spread stats on guns and anything from extreme-to-light iron sight-wobbling depending on how high your skill/strength is.

So, you are a retarded person, then.

Because that sounds a lot like real life. I aimed my gun at the bird 100 yards away but I didn't hitted it! How can such a thing happen?

Of course if you fail at DE even a little you're already hopelessly retarded anyway, but you really take the cake boy.

This is funny, particularly how I already mentioned that "realistic aiming" is dumb as a goal, and how having to wait before you fire doesn't make it any more intelligent than any other shooter. It just means you have more patience. I've also completed all those games and they're some of the easiest things ever.

They are about having a meaningful model of your character's skills, forcing you to play around your limitations until your character develops, completely appropriate for an RPG.

The "You're playing a character, not you" ship sailed as soon as they decided to make a game where your reflexes matter when it comes to aiming and dodging. You're not playing a character, you're playing a handicapped version of yourself.

 

[RK47]

Metallic Drones. Immune to my Masterful Gunnery skill. (Are they completely immune or do I have to hit a weak point?)
Looks like JC Shepard has met his match folks. Time to bust out the LAMs and GEP.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Something I remember doing in DX was playing it proto-popamole on Realistic difficulty. I'd carry around crates to where enemies hanged around, put them down and duck behind them during firefights. It worked well.

"Pfeh. In MY day, we carried our own chest-high cover with us, and we loved it!"

"JC, you're from the future."

 

[RK47]

uh...adam can do it as well to stealth from cams. >_>

 

[sgc_meltdown]

 

[visions]

The "You're playing a character, not you" ship sailed as soon as they decided to make a game where your reflexes matter when it comes to aiming and dodging. You're not playing a character, you're playing a handicapped version of yourself.

Shit argument. Char vs player skills is a matter of degree, not a black/white distinction. Your performance being influenced by both the attributes of your char and your own twitch skills is not dissimilar to your performance being influenced by both your own and your character's intelligence (spell slots determined by char int, spell selection by player int, etc).

Char skills give you the boundaries within which your own qualities affect the outcome. The player with significantly better twitch skills but slightly worse relevant char stats will have an easier time than a player with shit twitch skills but slightly better char stats in an fps/rpg hybrid, just like how the more intelligent player is better off than a dumb player in a game in which int determines the amount of spell slots, despite the dumb player's char having noticeably (yet not extremely) better INT stat.

 

[LoPan]

Examples are required, otherwise you are merely playing with words.

For instance, twitch skills are irrelevant in a game with a reticule-enlargement system of accuracy such as that of VtM since they negate the benefits of reflexes.

 

[Roguey]

The "You're playing a character, not you" ship sailed as soon as they decided to make a game where your reflexes matter when it comes to aiming and dodging. You're not playing a character, you're playing a handicapped version of yourself.

Shit argument. Char vs player skills is a matter of degree, not a black/white distinction. Your performance being influenced by both the attributes of your char and your own twitch skills is not dissimilar to your performance being influenced by both your own and your character's intelligence (spell slots determined by char int, spell selection by player int, etc).

Char skills give you the boundaries within which your own qualities affect the outcome. The player with significantly better twitch skills but slightly worse relevant char stats will have an easier time than a player with shit twitch skills but slightly better char stats in an fps/rpg hybrid, just like how the more intelligent player is better off than a dumb player in a game in which int determines the amount of spell slots, despite the dumb player's char having noticeably (yet not extremely) better INT stat.

You're still playing a handicapped version of yourself. That's like playing a platformer RPG where you start off with input lag and you have to hold down a button for x seconds to jump properly but hey this game with shit controls is supposed to be this way because that's how RPGs work. Instead of doing things a bit more sanely, like say, how the handheld Castlevanias work.

 

[GordonHalfman]

Deus Ex doesn't have shit controls though, so the platformer analogy doesn't work at all.

There's still no explanation for how it's logically distinct from any of the other ways action rpgs "handicap" you through your character skills. Unless you just think the entire genre is shit?

 

[Infinitron]

Deus Ex doesn't have shit controls though, so the platformer analogy doesn't work at all.

Are you daft? No, it doesn't have shit controls - that was the analogy. The shit controls in the hypothetical platformer are analogous to Deus Ex's shit gunplay (because of having to wait for the damn crosshair)

 

[Infinitron]

There's still no explanation for how it's logically distinct from any of the other ways action rpgs "handicap" you through your character skills. Unless you just think the entire genre is shit?

There is absolutely a distinction between "handicapping" (hamstringing player skill) and an effective abstraction of the limited capabilities of a character who isn't the player (ie, character skill).

The problem is when a game ends up representing character skill by fucking up player skill. To avoid this, character skill-based mechanics need to be divorced as completely as possible from player skill-based mechanics, and not interwoven with one another.

 

[GordonHalfman]

The shit controls in the hypothetical platformer are analogous to Deus Ex's shit gunplay (because of having to wait for the damn crosshair)

Well fine, but it's not making the point I thought it was trying to make i.e. "input lag==objectively bad and everyone must hate it" as opposed to just "I don't like the gunplay".

To avoid this, character skill-based mechanics need to be divorced as completely as possible from player skill-based mechanics, and not interwoven with one another.

But why? Say you made a weapon skill that actually reduces the start up of your attacks, or a dodge skill that makes your rolls faster or have more invincibility or whatever. Would that be interwoven in a bad way? I think it's a good thing if the character system lets you play differently as you level up, as opposed to doing the same thing but with bigger numbers attached. (Especially in the context of a game with multiple ways to progress.)

In any case what does a non-interwoven version of a rifles skill look like?[/quote]

 

[Roguey]

Deus Ex doesn't have shit controls though, so the platformer analogy doesn't work at all.

Waiting for your character to catch up with your aiming is functionally no different than playing a game with input lag.

There's still no explanation for how it's logically distinct from any of the other ways action rpgs "handicap" you through your character skills. Unless you just think the entire genre is shit?

There are ways of showing character progress without feeling terrible. Improving reload speed, rate of fire, recoil, range, accuracy-while-moving-and-or-hip-firing, and handling feel fine to me (I'm not fond of the damage treadmill). Deus Ex even uses some of those, but they're improved by individual weapon mods and not by skills at all.

 

[Infinitron]

What Roguey said.

I should add that to an extent this is a matter of degree rather than kind. Character skill interwoven with player skill isn't so bad if it doesn't have a crippling effect on the gameplay. That's why I suggested that speeding up the crosshair convergence and making it invisible would be a decent fix for the game - even though the basic mechanic would still be preserved in this case.

To avoid this, character skill-based mechanics need to be divorced as completely as possible from player skill-based mechanics, and not interwoven with one another.

I think I'll retract this statement. While it has some truth to it, I find it on second thought to be too categorical.

 

[Average Manatee]

Deus Ex doesn't have shit controls though, so the platformer analogy doesn't work at all.

Waiting for your character to catch up with your aiming is functionally no different than playing a game with input lag.

They are totally different. Waiting to improve accuracy would equate towards holding the jump button in a platformer to charge your jump and jump higher. Which happens to be a mechanic perfectly normal to platformers. You can take the shot, or jump, instantly if you want. If you want a better shot or a better jump, you need to have some preparation. You can't just make those uber-actions instantly. Considering that headshots are basically an I-Win button in shooters, letting players effortlessly accomplish them from the first level would be removing almost every challenge and most character advancement.

There are ways of showing character progress without feeling terrible. Improving reload speed, rate of fire, recoil, range, accuracy-while-moving-and-or-hip-firing, and handling feel fine to me (I'm not fond of the damage treadmill). Deus Ex even uses some of those, but they're improved by individual weapon mods and not by skills at all. .

Except all of those either make no sense or do very little. Reload speed? At best marginally useful IF fighting 5 or more enemies at once. Rate of Fire? How does training make a gun shoot faster? Recoil? An OK idea, but that makes player skill far more important, not less. Accuracy while moving? Why would anyone move around and make aiming harder for themselves when standing still and scoring perfect headshots would be far more effective? You really don't seem to be thinking though an

I should add that to an extent this is a matter of degree rather than kind. Character skill interwoven with player skill isn't so bad if it doesn't have a crippling effect on the gameplay. That's why I suggested that speeding up the crosshair convergence and making it invisible would be a decent fix for the game - even though the basic mechanic would still be preserved in this case.

I wouldn't say there is a crippling effect on gameplay though. Master training gets master performance, as expected. Untrained makes you a retard. If you want to complain about anything complain that a super-spy starts out with untrained.

Making accuracy invisible is the dumbest possible thing you could do in this instance. No game became better by trying to hide vital gameplay mechanics from the player.

 

[GordonHalfman]

What Roguey said.

I should add that to an extent this is a matter of degree rather than kind. Character skill interwoven with player skill isn't so bad if it doesn't have a crippling effect on the gameplay. That's why I suggested that speeding up the crosshair convergence and making it invisible would be a decent fix for the game - even though the basic mechanic would still be preserved in this case.

I can agree with this actually. Although in practice I think it's only the trained skill level could use a tweak. Untrained is supposed to be unusable and I thought advanced was fine.

 

[Infinitron]

I wouldn't say there is a crippling effect on gameplay though.

Well, it looks like many people disagree with you.

Making accuracy invisible is the dumbest possible thing you could do in this instance. No game became better by trying to hide vital gameplay mechanics from the player.

It is not vital. When you shoot people you don't have perfect accuracy. Millions of FPS gamers accept this, from games with no accuracy indicators whatsoever.

You don't need to see an indicator on screen telling you to WAIT FOR PERFECT ACCURACY. You should just shoot and let the game's physical simulation model - which may or may not take waiting into account - calculate accuracy.

 

[Roguey]

They are totally different. Waiting to improve accuracy would equate towards holding the jump button in a platformer to charge your jump and jump higher. You can take the shot, or jump, instantly if you want. If you want a better shot or a better jump, you need to have some preparation.

Choosing between failure and success isn't a choice at all. You either max your jump or fail 4 times out of 5 and maybe get lucky once. You either wait a few seconds for an accurate shot or fire blindly hoping maybe some of your bullets will hit (Deus Ex never puts you in a situation where this would even be necessary).

You can't just make those uber-actions instantly. Considering that headshots are basically an I-Win button in shooters, letting players effortlessly accomplish them from the first level would be removing almost every challenge and most character advancement.

Deus Ex is still easier than many shooters that let you pop heads right from the beginning. So are the other games that use the shrinking reticule. It's true that they would be even easier if you cheated yourself 100% accuracy (or immediately equip the laser in Liberty Island) but that's because they were balanced with the shrinking reticule in mind. And I've already listed ways you can have non-randomized-accuracy-based character advancement in a shooter.

 

[Grunker]

Well, it looks like many people disagree with you.

"Well, many people agree that..."

When did abstraction suddenly become a problem for Codexers? Abstractions and making you into a handicapped/superman version of yourself is what RPGs are all about. I find just as many problems with cross-hair-latency as I do with "missing-when-hit". Both are abstractions and do not translate directly to player input. But that's not an issue if you accept the very basis of stat-abstraction.

 

[Infinitron]

I find just as many problems with cross-hair-latency as I do with "missing-when-hit". Both are abstractions and do not translate directly to player input. But that's not an issue if you accept the very basis of stat-abstraction.

Thing is, they don't have "just as many problems". Cross-hair latency is more problematic than "missing-when-hit", because it turns what should be dynamic real-time gunfights into a series of awkward waits, which isn't fun. At least "missing-when-hit" lets you spam the awesome button and see the cool attacks, even if you aren't always hitting.

 

[Average Manatee]

They are totally different. Waiting to improve accuracy would equate towards holding the jump button in a platformer to charge your jump and jump higher. You can take the shot, or jump, instantly if you want. If you want a better shot or a better jump, you need to have some preparation.

Choosing between failure and success isn't a choice at all. You either max your jump or fail 4 times out of 5 and maybe get lucky once. You either wait a few seconds for an accurate shot or fire blindly hoping maybe some of your bullets will hit (Deus Ex never puts you in a situation where this would even be necessary).

Firing 5 times to hit once is perfectly acceptable. Why would you think it isn't? This is not directly comparable with platformers. You can carry hundreds of bullets. If anything this makes character stats improving reload rate (one of your suggestions) actually useful, because needing a new clip during battle is actually a semi-common occurrence. With perfect accuracy a 30 round clip is enough to drop 5 or 6 enemies. That would make clip mods and reload mods mostly useless.

You can't just make those uber-actions instantly. Considering that headshots are basically an I-Win button in shooters, letting players effortlessly accomplish them from the first level would be removing almost every challenge and most character advancement.

Deus Ex is still easier than many shooters that let you pop heads right from the beginning. So are the other games that use the shrinking reticule. It's true that they would be even easier if you cheated yourself 100% accuracy (or immediately equip the laser in Liberty Island) but that's because they were balanced with the shrinking reticule in mind. And I've already listed ways you can have non-randomized-accuracy-based character advancement in a shooter.

You've listed poor ways that would either be derp or remove what last vestiges importance of character development still has in DX.

Thing is, they don't have "just as many problems". Cross-hair latency is more problematic than "missing-when-hit", because it turns what should be dynamic real-time gunfights into a series of awkward waits, which isn't fun. At least "missing-when-hit" lets you spam the awesome button and see the cool attacks, even if you aren't always hitting.

"miss when hit" is no different from HP-bloating enemies. HP * 100 / accuracy = New effective HP. Now I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that HP bloat is shit. Missing while hitting happens to be even more shit, because it combines all the bullshit of HP bloat and adds an extra random factor to the mess.

Also, I'm pretty sure anyone who mentions "spamming the awesome button to see cool attacks" as an advantage deserves a dumbfuck tag.

 

[DraQ]

It's a failure of an abstraction because the game is already expecting you to use your reflexes to aim in their general direction and then undermining it.

It's not a failure of abstraction because aiming with mouse is quite a bit different from aiming with actual gun, it's also much easier.

If I (or any reasonably competent FPS player) could aim IRL as well as in games I would be able to hit anything large enough to register on my retina provided the weapon would allow that, because aiming with mouse allows for pixel accuracy in non-consolized games.

And since thanks to the interface using mouse and KB as input devices there is an inevitable layer of abstraction in any, even most simulation-heavy (obviously not DX1) FPP game in existence there is always room to put accuracy/melee stats in it without messing anything up.

Plus waiting seconds for a reticule to close has never been enjoyable, ever.

Neither has been dying, healing, failing quests, getting injured, running out of ammo, buying ammo, repairing your weapon, etc.

Mechanics does not have to be enjoyable to have a point in game and does not need to be enjoyable on its own to make the game enjoyable.

Fallout - tactical view, you command another person, you tell him to use his skills, you need an indication of those skills.

Deus Ex - first person, you control yourself, you're aiming, player skill.

You still need an indication of some sort. Aiming IRL gives you a whole lot more feedback than just having a gun-in-hand model in the lower right corner of your view doing idle anim.

So, you are a retarded person, then.

Because that sounds a lot like real life. I aimed my gun at the bird 100 yards away but I didn't hitted it! How can such a thing happen?

Of course if you fail at DE even a little you're already hopelessly retarded anyway, but you really take the cake boy.

This is funny, particularly how I already mentioned that "realistic aiming" is dumb as a goal, and how having to wait before you fire doesn't make it any more intelligent than any other shooter. It just means you have more patience.

It's hard to have patience when you're being shot at, or when what you're trying to do relies on moving in and shooting the target in quick succession. It's also hard to have patience between shots from automatic weapon.

It doesn't make DX "a more intelligent shooter", but it imposes limitations on your playstyle depending on your stats, which is the whole point of having stats in the first place. In other words, it might not make DX a more intelligent shooter, but it does make DX an RPG.

I've also completed all those games and they're some of the easiest things ever.

And this proves what?

They are about having a meaningful model of your character's skills, forcing you to play around your limitations until your character develops, completely appropriate for an RPG.

The "You're playing a character, not you" ship sailed as soon as they decided to make a game where your reflexes matter when it comes to aiming and dodging. You're not playing a character, you're playing a handicapped version of yourself.

The "You're playing a character, not you" ship sailed as soon as they decided to make a game where your intellect matters when it comes to strategy and tactics. You're not playing a character, you're playing a handicapped version of yourself.

Therefore the ideal RPG is non-interactive right from the beginning of chargen, to avoid involving player's skill.

Could you people please stop being retarded? RPGs are not made by what they aren't (like "no player's skill"), they are made by what they are - they are games where your character has stats that determine what they can do, those stats can differ between characters, they cannot be changed freely and in consequence determine how the game can be played. DX fits this definition.

 

[Infinitron]

The "You're playing a character, not you" ship sailed as soon as they decided to make a game where your intellect matters when it comes to strategy and tactics. You're not playing a character, you're playing a handicapped version of yourself.

Therefore the ideal RPG is non-interactive right from the beginning of chargen, to avoid involving player's skill.

Not buying it. To me, high-level strategic and tactical decisions exist on an entirely different tier from what we consider to be "player skill". It's not comparable.

Mechanics does not have to be enjoyable to have a point in game and does not need to be enjoyable on its own to make the game enjoyable.

You're comparing a fundamental game mechanic that doesn't work (gunplay) to the consequences of being punished for poor gameplay (dying, failing quests)?