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

[DraQ]

"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.

Actually this does make it different, because it's only statisitically comparable to HP bloat. With "miss when hit" you need to account for more possible outcomes, because you might just as well drop your enemy with your first hit as fail several times in a row and die. This makes it more important to come up with a tactics that will work in the broadest possible range of possible outcomes of your and enemy actions, rather than knowing for sure that backpedalling while swinging for 30s will solve the encounter.

Of course, this applies to any random implementation of accuracy and "hit when miss" is a particularly clunky one.

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.

So, how is it not comparable?

In both cases we have player skill being required for character skill to have the desired outcome. How is, say, right spell selection different from being able to aim accurately?

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

How does it not work?

It's just another kind of stat based failure mechanics - if you don't put points in weapon skill, you won't be able to use it reliably while or immediately after performing other actions (like moving or shooting).

If you ignore weapon skills while relying on them in your playthrough, you're being punished for poor gameplay by missing a lot and dying to return fire. If you don't rely on them, then you have no problem, same when you rely on them and pump your skills.

 

[Average Manatee]

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.

If something isn't determined by character skill then it is determined by player skill. One or the other. Why would you consider my STR controlling my ability to clicking or DEX providing accurate mousing to be player skill, but not my INT in my ability to choose the right location and waiting for the right time to take a shot? Not playing like a retard is a pretty damn huge part of player skill, as evidenced by the legions of retards who fail at any game requiring some manner of intelligence.

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)?

Why isn't gunplay a mechanic that punishes you for poor gameplay? Gunplay works in that it rewards both player skill (good tactical positioning, getting the drop on enemies) and character skill (master level = god), while removing much of the twitch factor (at least pre-master level).

"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.

Actually this does make it different, because it's only statisitically comparable to HP bloat. With "miss when hit" you need to account for more possible outcomes, because you might just as well drop your enemy with your first hit as fail several times in a row and die. This makes it more important to come up with a tactics that will work in the broadest possible range of possible outcomes of your and enemy actions, rather than knowing for sure that backpedalling while swinging for 30s will solve the encounter.

Of course, this applies to any random implementation of accuracy and "hit when miss" is a particularly clunky one.

What you are really saying is that it makes savescumming more important. Because that's what games with highly random factors outside the player's control generally lead to.

 

[Infinitron]

In both cases we have player skill being required for character skill to have the desired outcome. How is, say, right spell selection different from being able to aim accurately?

I'm no neuroscientist, but I'd say these things engage two different areas of the mind. The more "strategic" area of your brain enjoys planning out the tactics and strategic resource management. In a real-time game, this type of gameplay usually happens outside of the real-time action segments. That sort of "player skill" exists on a different plane from the dexterity and quick-thinking type of player skill which is required during real-time combat.

 

[DraQ]

It makes savescumming more important, you mean. Because that's what games with highly random factors outside the player's control generally lead to.

Only if the game doesn't give you enough freedom to create workarounds, leading to effectively a chance-based game.

If you can use means at your disposal to attain a tactical advantage (of course, it shouldn't be easy), then you should be able to outweigh randomness short of complete freak accident.

What randomness does do is preventing you from solving encounter via simple calculation. It also disallows reducing damage to DPS.

I'm no neuroscientist, but I'd say these things engage two different areas of the mind. The more "strategic" area of your brain enjoys planning out the tactics and strategic resource management. In a real-time game, this type of gameplay usually happens outside of the real-time action segments. That sort of "player skill" exists on a different plane from the dexterity and quick-thinking type of player skill which is required during real-time combat.

But why is that a problem?

 

[Infinitron]

I'm no neuroscientist, but I'd say these things engage two different areas of the mind. The more "strategic" area of your brain enjoys planning out the tactics and strategic resource management. In a real-time game, this type of gameplay usually happens outside of the real-time action segments. That sort of "player skill" exists on a different plane from the dexterity and quick-thinking type of player skill which is required during real-time combat.

But why is that a problem?

Why is what a problem?

RPGs are games with "player skill" at the high strategic level and "character skill" at the low levels. However, when discussing "player skill" vs "character skill", people are usually referring only to low-level gameplay. That high-level gameplay is determined entirely by the player is taken for granted, otherwise the game is barely a game.

High-level player skill and low-level player skill are significantly different from each other in terms of "feel" and player engagement, and aren't really comparable except in an abstract semantic sense.

 

[Average Manatee]

Only if the game doesn't give you enough freedom to create workarounds, leading to effectively a chance-based game.

If you can use means at your disposal to attain a tactical advantage (of course, it shouldn't be easy), then you should be able to outweigh randomness short of complete freak accident.

DX already has "use means at your disposal to attain a tactical advantage". But if player's suddenly start missing extra shots, and instead of taking an enemy down in the first shot I require 5 or 10, then there is much more chance to take a random headshot and die in the first half of the game.

In both cases we have player skill being required for character skill to have the desired outcome. How is, say, right spell selection different from being able to aim accurately?

I'm no neuroscientist, but I'd say these things engage two different areas of the mind. The more "strategic" area of your brain enjoys planning out the tactics and strategic resource management. In a real-time game, this type of gameplay usually happens outside of the real-time action segments. That sort of "player skill" exists on a different plane from the dexterity and quick-thinking type of player skill which is required during real-time combat.

This is a complete non sequitur.

 

[Infinitron]

In both cases we have player skill being required for character skill to have the desired outcome. How is, say, right spell selection different from being able to aim accurately?

I'm no neuroscientist, but I'd say these things engage two different areas of the mind. The more "strategic" area of your brain enjoys planning out the tactics and strategic resource management. In a real-time game, this type of gameplay usually happens outside of the real-time action segments. That sort of "player skill" exists on a different plane from the dexterity and quick-thinking type of player skill which is required during real-time combat.

This is a complete non sequitur.

It is not. DraQ asked how two examples of "player skill" differed. I explained. While both are technically "player skill" in the abstract, semantic sense, from the player's perspective they are two very different experiences.

 

[DraQ]

Why is what a problem?

RPGs are games with "player skill" at the high strategic level and "character skill" at the low levels. However, when discussing "player skill" vs "character skill", people are usually referring only to low-level gameplay. That high-level gameplay is determined entirely by the player is taken for granted, otherwise the game is barely a game.

High-level player skill and low-level player skill are significantly different from each other in terms of "feel" and player engagement, and aren't really comparable to each other except in an abstract semantic sense.

But why is that a problem?

Why is game engaging both player and character skill whenever applicable and in non-conflicting manner (which, as I elaborated on, is a given with accuracy/melee skills due to interface limitations) a bad idea or less of an RPG?

 

[Average Manatee]

I'm no neuroscientist, but I'd say these things engage two different areas of the mind. The more "strategic" area of your brain enjoys planning out the tactics and strategic resource management. In a real-time game, this type of gameplay usually happens outside of the real-time action segments. That sort of "player skill" exists on a different plane from the dexterity and quick-thinking type of player skill which is required during real-time combat.

But why is that a problem?

Why is what a problem?

RPGs are games with "player skill" at the high strategic level and "character skill" at the low levels. However, when discussing "player skill" vs "character skill", people are usually referring only to low-level gameplay. That high-level gameplay is determined entirely by the player is taken for granted, otherwise the game is barely a game.

High-level player skill and low-level player skill are significantly different from each other in terms of "feel" and player engagement, and aren't really comparable except in an abstract semantic sense.

So planning a build in an RTS isn't a skill now, because it's high level gameplay that happens outside of the real time environment?

And you are certainly making real time tactical decisions even in an FPS or RPG. If you are fighting a group of enemies and you suddenly hear another enemy coming from your flank, how do you adjust your tactics? Low INT players screw up, high INT players survive.

Saying that they "feel" different and engage players differently is just a retarded cop-out. One that I would expect to hear from Bioware or Bethesda.

 

[Infinitron]

Why is what a problem?

RPGs are games with "player skill" at the high strategic level and "character skill" at the low levels. However, when discussing "player skill" vs "character skill", people are usually referring only to low-level gameplay. That high-level gameplay is determined entirely by the player is taken for granted, otherwise the game is barely a game.

High-level player skill and low-level player skill are significantly different from each other in terms of "feel" and player engagement, and aren't really comparable to each other except in an abstract semantic sense.

But why is that a problem?

Why is game engaging both player and character skill whenever applicable and in non-conflicting manner (which, as I elaborated on, is a given with accuracy/melee skills due to interface limitations) a bad idea or less of an RPG?

Why is what a problem? I wasn't describing a problem. I was defining something.

Saying that they "feel" different and engage players differently is just a retarded cop-out. One that I would expect to hear from Bioware or Bethesda.

Are you kidding me? There's nothing more important in a game than how it engages the player mentally. Games should not be arrays of gameplay conventions thoughtlessly stacked together without regard to how players actually reason about them in their mind. You need to think about the player's experience.

Apropos of Deus Ex, Harvey Smith learned this lesson well:

4:14

 

[DraQ]

DX already has "use means at your disposal to attain a tactical advantage". But if player's suddenly start missing extra shots, and instead of taking an enemy down in the first shot I require 5 or 10, then there is much more chance to take a random headshot and die in the first half of the game.

So what you say is that if Deus Ex had static accuracy rather than shrinking reticle, it would be a luck game? Because I don't see it - you would still have patrol routes to exploit, vents and shadows to skulk in, ability to hack stuff, melee, AoE, distractions, disabling (extinguisher to da face or prod with the prod), and avoidance.

 

[Average Manatee]

DX already has "use means at your disposal to attain a tactical advantage". But if player's suddenly start missing extra shots, and instead of taking an enemy down in the first shot I require 5 or 10, then there is much more chance to take a random headshot and die in the first half of the game.

So what you say is that if Deus Ex had static accuracy rather than shrinking reticle, it would be a luck game? Because I don't see it - you would still have patrol routes to exploit, vents and shadows to skulk in, ability to hack stuff, melee, AoE, distractions, disabling (extinguisher to da face or prod with the prod), and avoidance.

It would be more of a luck game, with less emphasis on either player skill or character skill. Obviously it's still possible to beat the game while killing basically no one.

 

[Average Manatee]

Why is what a problem?

RPGs are games with "player skill" at the high strategic level and "character skill" at the low levels. However, when discussing "player skill" vs "character skill", people are usually referring only to low-level gameplay. That high-level gameplay is determined entirely by the player is taken for granted, otherwise the game is barely a game.

High-level player skill and low-level player skill are significantly different from each other in terms of "feel" and player engagement, and aren't really comparable to each other except in an abstract semantic sense.

But why is that a problem?

Why is game engaging both player and character skill whenever applicable and in non-conflicting manner (which, as I elaborated on, is a given with accuracy/melee skills due to interface limitations) a bad idea or less of an RPG?

Why is what a problem? I wasn't describing a problem. I was defining something.

Saying that they "feel" different and engage players differently is just a retarded cop-out. One that I would expect to hear from Bioware or Bethesda.

Are you kidding me? There's nothing more important in a game than how it engages the player mentally. Games should not be arrays of gameplay conventions thoughtlessly stacked together without regard to how players actually reason about them in their mind. You need to think about the player's experience.

Apropos of Deus Ex, Harvey Smith learned this lesson well:

4:14

Yes, lets listen to the DX:IW guys about how to make good games, even though nothing he says relates to whether a player being smart is a player skill. Next up lets get Bioware to weigh in, they are all about saying engagement is important without actually saying anything useful.

You are completely abandoning any worthwhile discussion and wasting time debating the definition of terms that you yourself are trying to redefine for the purpose of creating something to argue about.

 

[DraQ]

DX already has "use means at your disposal to attain a tactical advantage". But if player's suddenly start missing extra shots, and instead of taking an enemy down in the first shot I require 5 or 10, then there is much more chance to take a random headshot and die in the first half of the game.

So what you say is that if Deus Ex had static accuracy rather than shrinking reticle, it would be a luck game? Because I don't see it - you would still have patrol routes to exploit, vents and shadows to skulk in, ability to hack stuff, melee, AoE, distractions, disabling (extinguisher to da face or prod with the prod), and avoidance.

It would be more of a luck game, with less emphasis on either player skill or character skill. Obviously it's still possible to beat the game while killing basically no one.

But you would still have means to tackle your problems reliably, even without ability to patiently line up your stealth shots at untrained skill.

 

[Average Manatee]

DX already has "use means at your disposal to attain a tactical advantage". But if player's suddenly start missing extra shots, and instead of taking an enemy down in the first shot I require 5 or 10, then there is much more chance to take a random headshot and die in the first half of the game.

So what you say is that if Deus Ex had static accuracy rather than shrinking reticle, it would be a luck game? Because I don't see it - you would still have patrol routes to exploit, vents and shadows to skulk in, ability to hack stuff, melee, AoE, distractions, disabling (extinguisher to da face or prod with the prod), and avoidance.

It would be more of a luck game, with less emphasis on either player skill or character skill. Obviously it's still possible to beat the game while killing basically no one.

But you would still have means to tackle your problems reliably, even without ability to patiently line up your stealth shots at untrained skill.

Do I need to underline and bold the word "more" in "more of a luck game"?

 

[Infinitron]

Average Manatee
The "DX:IW guys" are the same people who made Deus Ex, the game that you're now thoughtlessly white knighting for.

And yeah, mental engagement and challenging different areas of the player's brain is totally the same thing as Bioware-style "emotional engagement".

 

[DraQ]

DX already has "use means at your disposal to attain a tactical advantage". But if player's suddenly start missing extra shots, and instead of taking an enemy down in the first shot I require 5 or 10, then there is much more chance to take a random headshot and die in the first half of the game.

So what you say is that if Deus Ex had static accuracy rather than shrinking reticle, it would be a luck game? Because I don't see it - you would still have patrol routes to exploit, vents and shadows to skulk in, ability to hack stuff, melee, AoE, distractions, disabling (extinguisher to da face or prod with the prod), and avoidance.

It would be more of a luck game, with less emphasis on either player skill or character skill. Obviously it's still possible to beat the game while killing basically no one.

But you would still have means to tackle your problems reliably, even without ability to patiently line up your stealth shots at untrained skill.

Do I need to underline and bold the word "more" in "more of a luck game"?

If you can tackle your problems reliably, then even a game with random components isn't a game of chance and therefore NOT a luck game.

 

[Infinitron]

Why isn't gunplay a mechanic that punishes you for poor gameplay? Gunplay works in that it rewards both player skill (good tactical positioning, getting the drop on enemies) and character skill (master level = god), while removing much of the twitch factor (at least pre-master level).

Gunplay is not a punishment for poor gameplay. Missing when firing your gun can be a punishment for poor gameplay. In Deus Ex's case, it's rewarding a type of gameplay which is not fun, which leads one to conclude that the game's gunplay is broken.

(good tactical positioning, getting the drop on enemies)

Waiting for seconds for reticules to shrink. Complete loss of dynamism in gunfights. Encouragement of popamole gameplay.

Deus Ex is not a stealth game. It's a shooter. You cannot remove "the twitch factor" from a shooter.

 

[Average Manatee]

Average Manatee
The "DX:IW guys" are the same people who made Deus Ex, the game that you're now thoughtlessly white knighting for.

And yeah, mental engagement and challenging different areas of the player's brain is totally the same thing as Bioware-style "emotional engagement".

Which shows that they have no idea what they are doing, and should not be listened to. Were you going to make a point? Because you haven't been making anything relevant to the discussion at all for the last few posts, just leading us off on a tangent into vague babbling retards land. Either provide a substantial concrete reason why player skill isn't ... a player skill, not links to irrelevant youtube videos, or shut up.

If you can tackle your problems reliably, then even a game with random components isn't a game of chance and therefore NOT a luck game.

Again, do I need to underline the word "more" in "more of a luck game"? You do understand that there is more than just black and white, right?

Gunplay is not a punishment for poor gameplay. Missing when firing your gun can be a punishment for poor gameplay. In Deus Ex's case, it's rewarding a type of gameplay which is not fun, which leads one to conclude that the game's gunplay is broken.

Define fun first. I find hiding in the shadows and springing the trap with a single well aimed shot to be more fun and appropriate in a spy-game than Doom-style run and gun everywhere.

(good tactical positioning, getting the drop on enemies)

Waiting for seconds for reticules to shrink. Complete loss of dynamism in gunfights. Encouragement of popamole gameplay.

Deus Ex is not a stealth game. It's a shooter. You cannot remove "the twitch factor" from a shooter.

DX is a stealth game if you play it as one. If you aren't, get the training and you have nothing to bitch about. You can start off with advanced and be halfway to master already.

 

[Infinitron]

Which shows that they have no idea what they are doing, and should not be listened to. Were you going to make a point? Because you haven't been making anything relevant to the discussion at all for the last few posts, just leading us off on a tangent into vague babbling retards land. Either provide a substantial concrete reason why player skill isn't ... a player skill, not links to irrelevant youtube videos, or shut up.

Bottom line: Player skill is player skill, but there are types of player skill which aren't relevant here. Discussing strategic resource management "player skill" is irrelevant in a discussion about the quality of a game's gunplay.

 

[Average Manatee]

Which shows that they have no idea what they are doing, and should not be listened to. Were you going to make a point? Because you haven't been making anything relevant to the discussion at all for the last few posts, just leading us off on a tangent into vague babbling retards land. Either provide a substantial concrete reason why player skill isn't ... a player skill, not links to irrelevant youtube videos, or shut up.

Bottom line: Player skill is player skill, but there are types of player skill which aren't relevant here. Discussing strategic resource management "player skill" is irrelevant in a discussion about the quality of a game's gunplay.

It's irrelevant to gunplay even though the gunplay is made to reward intelligent players over twitch players? You seem to have an improper definition of relevant.

 

[Infinitron]

It's irrelevant to gunplay even though the gunplay is made to reward intelligent players over twitch players? You seem to have an improper definition of relevant.

Sorry to burst your superiority complex, but waiting for reticules to shrink doesn't make you smarter than CoD players.

 

[Average Manatee]

It's irrelevant to gunplay even though the gunplay is made to reward intelligent players over twitch players? You seem to have an improper definition of relevant.

Sorry to burst your superiority complex, but waiting for reticules to shrink doesn't make you smarter than CoD players.

Being hidden in the right position to give you time to make the shot requires intelligence. You realize that if you screw up that enemies will be shooting at you while you aim, and in realistic that generally means you either die or take huge damage?

 

[Infinitron]

Being hidden in the right position to give you time to make the shot requires intelligence.

Eh. You're acting as if DX had some kind of brilliant stealth model. At best you could take down the first guy you met in a group. Then you'd have to deal with the rest of them once they heard his bloodcurdling scream.

waiting...waiting....pew! OH FUCK OH FUCK OH FUCK THERE'S ANOTHER GUY DUCK BEHIND THIS CORNER... TRANQ EM pew! NOW RUNRUNRUNRUNRUNRUNRUNRUN ok phew I think I heard him fall down

 

[Average Manatee]

Being hidden in the right position to give you time to make the shot requires intelligence.

Eh. You're acting as if DX had some kind of brilliant stealth model. At best you could take down the first guy you met in a group. Then you'd have to deal with the rest of them once they heard his bloodcurdling scream.

And if you were in the wrong position to deal with them then you either had to move quickly or you died. Were you trying to make a point? If so then please define it rather than leave us to guess.