Shadowrun: Hong Kong - Campaign Finished

[Ripper]

When I need to pick between what's beneficial and what's polite, politeness will lose more or less every time.

Your writings are objectively beneficial? :lol:

 

[DArtagnan]

Your writings are objectively beneficial? :lol:

I have no way of knowing - but I generally write from a position of hope that goes in that direction

 

[Archangel]

Case in point, YOU seem capable of acknowledging that WL2 complexity can be subjective - and Archangel does not.

Oh I understand that when saying one game is complex or not, that can be subjective.
But when you clearly state that one game has more complex combat than another game, well that can be quantified.

You just don't want to admit you were wrong and now write walls of text that mean nothing to anyone but yourself (and we are not really reading them).

 

[Morrandir]

As I said, I was talking about the quality of a game - which can NEVER be factual.

Your comment I was refering to was this one:

Combat is similar, but simpler.

It is not about quality, but complexity. Generally that's not the same thing.

It's simply impossible to establish for everyone how good something is - or how "complex" a set of systems will be to each and every individual out there.

Yes and no. It's hard for quality to be measured. For complexity it's far more easy.

You really have to accept that, if you want to understand the nature of things.

I never said otherwise.

So no, not really. I think people would do well to stop taking the opinions of other people personally - and deal with how we all like different things for different reasons.

Of course, and I never did otherwise.

In the case of SR, I highly recommend that you don't "combat" the opinions of others - but simply state your own opinion, and you back it up with rational arguments.

I don't see where I've "combated" an opinion. I've said that for me combat seemed more complex to me in SR because I've used more options and varied tactics. I never said that your opinion was wrong.

We're all adult here, and Fluent is fully capable of forming his own opinion. He's just looking for an "idea" of whether the game is worth his time, and the more opinions - the better.

Yes, but imho it's easier form an own opinion if others use words to describe the uncertainty of an opinion, which likewise describes the uncertainty of the issue.

I consider this competitive aspect of exchanging opinions juvenile and a waste of time.

In regards of the original matter (combat complexity) I'm not competing at all. Me trying to explain why I think subjective impressions should be marked as that may seem like I'm trying to compete, indeed. But I'm not.
In fact I often see discussions as competitions. But imho the winner isn't the one who pushes through his own opinition, but the one who changes his opinion.

To keep saying "imo" would only support a level of ignorance that's generally destructive to human interaction,

And that's were we're different appareantly. I think it's a good way in conversations to remind the dialog partner every now and then that a made statement isn't a fact but a subjective opinion.

and there are people who don't even accept that an opinion is ok - when it's very different from his or her own. In that case, I would need to spend an eternity teaching people like Archangel how to be an adult and how to accept and tolerate our differences.

I think we agree on that there are people like this and that it's often tedious to discuss with them. But do I understand you correctly that you rather "disguise" your opinion as a fact (for not having annoying "discussions") than just saying that it's an opinion?

It's not really my responsibility to teach people how things can be perceived very, very differently from person to person - and there's never a "correct" opinion about the quality of a game.

As before, it wasn't about quality, but complexity.

When I'm in the mood to remind people that my opinion is really only an opinion, I'll do that - but I think I should do it less, rather than more.

I think you should do it more, but that's not for me to decide.

I would never tell you what you should do, but I highly recommend you don't assume people are claiming to speak the objective truth when expressing their opinion.

There's only a fine line between "highly recommendating" and "tell sb. what to do."
And well, I think that most people don't see a difference between their own perception (which they think is correct) and the objective truth. So I like to remind them.
You know the difference, but are handling dialogs differently to a certain degree.

Most people are simply so emotionally attached to their own perception of "reality" that they need time to adjust to alternate ways of looking at things.

Once you learn to do so, you'll find it's much, much easier to deal with conflicting opinions - even when the people holding them claim they're "correct".

Yep, I think the allegory of the cave should be tought in schools extensively all around the globe. Imho it's important and fundamental, understanding it makes one's life way more easy.

You don't even say that yourself, so just because you found this specific case especially "impolite" - there's no rule you can follow. In short, you don't even practice what you preach -

Oh, I'm really trying to do so. Of course I may fail one or the other time.

so this is clearly about an emotional response because I didn't agree that SR is the most complex of the two.

Emotions in internet forum discussions? No. These times are long gone.

When I need to pick between what's beneficial and what's polite, politeness will lose more or less every time.

Indeed. I think in this case it would have been polite and benefical. But as said, we're different here and that's ok.

 

[DArtagnan]

Yes and no. It's hard for quality to be measured. For complexity it's far more easy.

Far more easy? Perhaps. Practically impossible? Yes.

Unless, of course, you think you can determine how a game of any significant complexity measures on the "complexity" scale compared to another game of any significant complexity (as in, not tic-tac-toe) - and have it be factual for 6+ billion people, in such a way that they ALL agree one game is more complex than the other.

Can you do that?

You could feasibly create a system of "complexity values" - and spend a few months taking apart SR and WL2 - and determine exactly what features qualify as "complex" to any degree and what features do not. Then you would have to determine EXACTLY which of the "complex" features qualify as part of the combat system, both directly and indirectly - and figure out how values for such features would be accounted for.

The problem with that approach, is that any such system would have to be universally agreed upon as the correct system - and all values for all features must also be agreed upon by 6+ billion people.

Can you do that?

People respond very differently to different kinds of tasks. Some people find it incredibly hard to find their way around a small village, and some people find it easy to work with advanced math and algorithms in their head, WHILE they're finding their way around a small village - easily.

You think you can come up with universally agreed upon values of complexity for everyone?

If so, I congratulate you. I most certainly don't think I could, even if I spent years trying.

I think we agree on that there are people like this and that it's often tedious to discuss with them. But do I understand you correctly that you rather "disguise" your opinion as a fact (for not having tedious discussions) than just say that it's an opinion?

No, you don't understand

I would rather support and work towards that EVERYONE stops having to remind each other in an effort to make the obvious, well, obvious. It can never be a fact - and it's better to work towards a state of affairs where that's commonly agreed upon knowledge.

Indeed. I think in this case it would have been polite and benefical. But as said, we're different here and that's ok.

Agreed

 

[Morrandir]

Far more easy? Perhaps. Practically impossible? Yes.

Unless, of course, you think you can determine how a game of any significant complexity measures on the "complexity" scale compared to another game of any significant complexity (as in, not tic-tac-toe) - and have it be factual for 6+ billion people, in such a way that they ALL agree one game is more complex than the other.

Can you do that?

You could feasibly create a system of "complexity values" - and spend a few months taking apart SR and WL2 - and determine exactly what features qualify as "complex" to any degree and what features do not. Then you would have to determine EXACTLY which of the "complex" features qualify as part of the combat system, both directly and indirectly - and figure out how values for such features would be accounted for.

The problem with that approach, is that any such system would have to be universally agreed upon as the correct system - and all values for all features must also be agreed upon by 6+ billion people.

Can you do that?

If so, I congratulate you. I most certainly don't think I could, even if I spent years trying.

Well, if it was the requirement for any model that all and every people need to agree on it, we wouldn't even be able to measure temperature.
I think it's not necessary for all and every people to agree to the model. Only for those taking part in the discussion.

 

[DArtagnan]

Well, if it was the requirement for any model that all and every people need to agree on it, we wouldn't even be able to measure temperature.
I think it's not necessary for all and every people to agree to the model. Only for those taking part in the discussion.

Temperature value agreement is somewhat more independent from human preferences, wouldn't you say?

But I'm glad to finally see a sign that you really DO understand how hard it is to objectively establish anything. Nevermind the possibility that human beings agreeing on something has little or nothing to do with objective reality.

However, if you can develop a model where you, Archangel and I agree on each and every value - I will also congratulate you.

But can we at least agree that it's not an easy thing to do?

 

[Pladio]

I didn't like WL2 combat system as I've seen it on youtube.
I think SR has a more satisfying combat system, but I don'tl ike the NET combat or whatever. It feels tacky to me and I would have much preferred them having put more effort in making the normal combat better.

I don't think having two actions makes the combat bad in any way though and I thought combat in Expeditions Conquistadors which used that system did it really well.

I think the Wasteland system misses a lot of things it should have had in this day and age of tactical combat sims, such as cover and not have enemies walk 5 million steps making snipers mostly useless.

Basically, they both have their own complexities and their own simplifications, and it's a game.

Some people like it one way and others prefer it otherwise.

I still enjoy Gothic 1 and Gothic 2 combat over many other forms I have seen, but it doesn't mean others would.


Regarding complexity, I agree with DA that you first would need to define what you mean by complexity.

Yes WL2 does not have any cover, but it does have it's AP system, which means you need to decide on which weapon to use, it has different ammo types and different weapon types. SR seems to have much less of that.

So, complexity can probably be quantified, but everyone assigns different weightings to different elements.
For example, the NET combat in SR is different to most games and adds a layer of complexity to the game that other games don't have too

 

[DArtagnan]

Yes WL2 does not have any cover, but it does have it's AP system, which means you need to decide on which weapon to use, it has different ammo types and different weapon types. SR seems to have much less of that.

WL2 has cover - and it also has destructible cover - which SR doesn't have.

But that's really not my point.

My point is that the value of destructible cover will vary from person to person in terms of its "complexity" value.

I would have thought such a thing really simple to understand, but I guess not.

 

[Morrandir]

But can we at least agree that it's not an easy thing to do?

Yep... and more important is that I have neither time nor motivation to do so.

 

[Pladio]

WL2 has cover - and it also has destructible cover - which SR doesn't have.

But that's really not my point.

My point is that the value of destructible cover will vary from person to person in terms of its "complexity" value.

I would have thought such a thing really simple to understand, but I guess not.

Really ? It never seemed to ... I didn't play the game, so I might be wrong of course.

Any my point wasn't that, but that the games may have different elements which have different complexities within them and that some players looks at some more than others

 

[Archangel]

WL2 has cover - and it also has destructible cover - which SR doesn't have.

But that's really not my point.

My point is that the value of destructible cover will vary from person to person in terms of its "complexity" value.

I would have thought such a thing really simple to understand, but I guess not.

And it gives a + to WL2 complexity side. But it still means little when SRR/DF have so many of its own + . It is a drop in the bucket.
(oh and that destructible cover are only boxes and such, not all cover)

 

[DArtagnan]

Really ? It never seemed to … I didn't play the game, so I might be wrong of course.

Any my point wasn't that, but that the games may have different elements which have different complexities within them and that some players looks at some more than others

Then we agree