View Single Post

Default 

March 23rd, 2010, 05:25
Originally Posted by Starwars View Post
No, it's getting through but thanks for the classy comment.
My apologies, mate, that was not intended as an insult of your intelligence or character. It was merely an expression of impatience.

Originally Posted by Starwars View Post
I don't want every game (even set in a semi-real world like AP) to have a stealth approach always be a superior choice.
Nor do I, however, my argument concerns the superiority of the approach given the context of Alpha Protocol: namely, spies. The rest of that particular line of thought ought to be apparent…

Originally Posted by Starwars View Post
This is because gameplay is more important than realism. Some games are more realistic than others, and that does not speak of whether a game is good or not. I for one love playing some realistic games, but just because I like those games does not mean that I think every game should move towards that type of design. And again, very few RPGs have been about realism. This doesn't mean that the games were bad or not fun to play.
I won't argue with your last comment, nor the overarching concept you put forth. That was never my intention, nor is it now. No, the flaw, as I perceive it, is this insertion of a "random dice roll" determining and/or simulating something that need not be portrayed via such. Countless games have shown that shooting mechanics can function perfectly well, some even integrating actual physics into their result, thus, why the insertion of a chance element, a relic from the days of pen-and-paper gaming that was meant to represent what otherwise could not be (namely, the accuracy of the weapon, mean distance of firing, enemy reaction and the countless other factors which can now be simulated via the actual game)?

Originally Posted by Starwars View Post
Because once again, it's a game where character creation is (hopefully) important and will (hopefully) shape how you play. The entire focus of the game is how you will choose to play, reap the benefits of that playstyle and your specialization as well as accept the consequences of the skills you do not choose to raise. If you know that you can dispatch enemies with a weapon you have 0 skill in, then that fact takes away from the specialization.
Not at all, I believe it would add to the experience. Again, I return to the idea of a character's forte versus their alternative options. Sure, they may possess zero skill with a select item (or items) but that in and of itself should be, in nine out of ten cases, reason enough to abstain from using them. After all, if you can sneak up and knife someone to death, given your skillset, only a fool would attempt to use the shotgun they found. Still, I do not believe that particular fool should be prohibited from trying, nor that the result should be determined by a direct violation of the laws of physics. Skill or not skill, a shotgun to the stomach should be game-over for the enemy in question.

Originally Posted by Starwars View Post
Since shotguns are a real thing, you're not gonna get a realistic representation of them in a game where "shotguns" is a seperate skill to raise (if you're arguing against the fact that shotguns are a seperate skill, which I could understand, then that opens up a whole other discussion).
To a certain degree, I am, yet I can also understand the need for such obfuscation as would lead to separate firearm skills. My primary gripe remains the inability to utilize them in a logical fashion, irregardless of skill level.

Originally Posted by Starwars View Post
What are you gonna "fill" the 10 steps of skill allocation with? Reload times, recoils, weapon mods? If the skill allocation scale is actually gonna matter in any way in gameplay (which is obviously important in a RPG), you're gonna have to put in absolutely silly reload times or ginormous recoils.
Not necessarily.
I am reminded of Resident Evil 5, wherein a wide range of weapons were available with various characteristics that might be improved upon: clip size, attack power, penetration and reload time. Now, personally, I thought penetration ought to have been handled via the ammo-type in use, but as RE5 did not differentiate between such (save for select weapons) it was a moot point. Apparently AP does, thus it cannot be used. The remainder, however, could. The reload time need not be, as you said, "absolutely silly," but a difference of a few seconds might be all that stands betwixt life and death. They could also, again, tie in skill-with-a-weapon with the ability to modify such: so you just picked up a great new scope, an extension for clips, a rare ammo type…but what good will that do if your character is so unfamiliar with the weapon-type that they cannot grasp how to mount the scope, how to lock in a clip, how to properly chamber the rounds?

Originally Posted by guenthar View Post
I thought that recoil was effecting my shooting accuracy when I first started shooting but maybe it wasn't. Maybe at first I was jerking on the trigger but it is hard to remember if I was or not. Jerking on the trigger is also a way that a beginner will lose aim while firing.
Indeed, anticipation of the recoil can throw a shot off.

Originally Posted by guenthar View Post
You complain about trying to say he is a beginner because he is supposed to be a "super spy" but that would invalidate your saying that he can be inacurate since he is a "super spy"
Not at all, nor can I understand where you pulled this from.
You profess to have some knowledge about firearms and, thus, must be aware that no amount of expertise allows for a perfect shot every time, correct? The experience garnered from repeated use of guns, however, which we might infer a spy such as Thornton possesses, ought to be sufficient for him to utilize whatever weapon comes to hand.
I, for instance, had never handled a pistol until last summer. My experience with rifles and shotguns, however, allowed me to rapidly progress in skill, while proper gun-safety training, breathing and stance techniques allowed me to circumvent much of what bogs down newcomers.

Originally Posted by guenthar View Post
You also keep talking about "realism" but then you ignore things like usually you wouldn't be able to go up to someone and shoot them in the stomach with a shotgun because you would be dead long before you get close enough to do it. Even if you snuck up and did it you would be dead soon after.
Now you are just flat-out wrong, mate.
First, the part about being "dead long before you get close enough" is a gross assumption. How could you or I possibly know that? Perhaps the NPC is unarmed and has their back turned? Perhaps they're asleep? Perhaps we're discussing an invalid armed with a knife in a wheelchair? Who knows?
Secondly, I already wrote this: "…if you're aware, as a player, that the shotgun you chance across will allow you to level the next few baddies with little to no effort, yet bring the rest of the compound forces down on your head, set off alarms like mad and generally turn your stealth approach from a master stroke into an utter waste, why do it? Stealth kills would be such players natural forte…"

Originally Posted by guenthar View Post
Since you can do that in this game makes the game unrealistic so how can you complain about that shotgun blast doing little damage being unrealistic when actually doing the act is unrealistic.
That's some convoluted and cyclical logic, given that it is based on your past assumption of the initial act being "unrealistic" (which I already addressed) and, even then, that a single unrealistic act validates all others. Come on, really? What's next? It's okay that you can ride around on a magical rainbow-unicorn because, after all, shotguns don't do damage unless you have skill in them?
I'm okay with some representations of real-world concepts, such as health bars and the like. That is game-design over reality, a concession that (generally) must be made in order to preserve the all-important "fun factor" (however you define it). Others, though, I just find bothersome.

Originally Posted by guenthar View Post
Since you want the game to be realistic it sounds like you don't want an rpg but rather a hybrid stealth/fps with rpg elements which this game isn't.
I'm going to stop you there, mate, as I'm in no mood to argue the semantics of the RPG genre. That's a minefield that no one escapes unscathed from. Frankly, where I'm concerned, RPGs are neither defined by their perspective (thus being an FPS does not matter), implementation or focus on select mechanics (thus a heavy emphasis on stealth does not matter), nor does realism even factor into the case.
themadhatter is offline

themadhatter

Philosopher Emeritus

#13

Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 141