Shadowrun: Hong Kong - Campaign Finished

I don't care why you think so, you told Fluent it has simpler combat then WL2 which is a lie (maybe not intentional one). I understand you don't like SRR as a whole package and I accept that (we talked about it already) but saying WL2 combat is more complex? Lol.
Not on this world or any other.
He and others needs to understand that factually that is not true, not even close.
Main complaint by LOTS of people on WL2 forums (both inxile and steam) was combat being boring and simple.

Barely anyone complained about that on SRR and DF forums.

WL2 has better inventory and loot system, you can customize weapons and you got lots and lots of noncombat skills. It is also a more open world experience with more story and quest branching.

But combat? No, SRR is just way more complex here. More options more types of enemies. Even Matrix that although is not awesome, is still a combat scenario that changes the experience so much WL2 has nothing even remotely similar in its system.

JDR13 said:

I thought some of them seemed excessive for what they offered. For instance, $400k just to add another NPC, and $550K to add some more spells and items. I wasn't impressed.

Click to expand...

It was +50K to add the companion and +50K to add spells and items. Basically what? 500-1,000 hours of labor to create the new companion art assets, animate, record voice sounds(?), think up and write the background and dialogue interactions, test/QA, plus all the usual infrastructure extras. Is that too much? I don't know.

Archangel said:

I don't care why you think so, you told Fluent it has simpler combat then WL2 which is a lie (maybe not intentional one). I understand you don't like SRR as a whole package and I accept that (we talked about it already) but saying WL2 combat is more complex? Lol.
Not on this world or any other.
He and others needs to understand that factually that is not true, not even close.
Main complaint by LOTS of people on WL2 forums (both inxile and steam) was combat being boring and simple.

Barely anyone complained about that on SRR and DF forums.

WL2 has better inventory and loot system, you can customize weapons and you got lots and lots of noncombat skills. It is also a more open world experience with more story and quest branching.

But combat? No, SRR is just way more complex here. More options more types of enemies. Even Matrix that although is not awesome, is still a combat scenario that changes the experience so much WL2 has nothing even remotely similar in its system.

Click to expand...

That's certainly a bunch of interesting opinions - and we still don't agree.

I get the feeling that you think your opinion is fact to other people than yourself. Better prepare for disappointment then - but I will let experience teach you about that one.

But it's amusing to hear you talk about people who disagree as "liars" - and you feel capable of saying that "barely anyone" complained about complexity as some kind of evidence that your opinion is the correct one. Actually made me laugh out loud

You have to be able to argue your case rationally to be convincing, and you're failing. Also, if you want to be taken seriously around here - I highly recommend you don't use expressions like "lol" every time you fail to provide a decent argument. It's not a forum full of juvenile hotheads - and most of us are past that stage.

I recommend that Fluent tries out the game for himself, as that's always the best way to get at the truth.

But, as I said, I don't want to waste more time on this - and I'm done with you here.

Do you agree that combat in SR may seem more complex than in WL2 depending on playing style and/or difficulty setting?

Morrandir said:

I think that perceived complexity has to do with personal playing style and the difficulty setting as well. I've played both (or all 3 if you split SR) in normal difficulty.
For me combat in WL2 was quite easy. So I didn't have to vary tactics, so I haven't and so combat seemed simple to me.
In the Shadowrun games, combat for me was a little more difficult, so I needed to vary my tactics, so for me combat seemed to be more complex.

If we're not talking about subjective, but objective complexity… well, that's to complex for me to spend my freetime with.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't advise trying to objectively establish the truth about much at all

To me, these things are obviously subjective - which is why I would never speak about them as anything but opinions.

Some people don't understand this - and that's ok.

To me, combat complexity is often about mechanics and how elaborate they are. It's not about the amount of classes - because you could have a rock, paper, scissors combat system with a thousand classes, and it would still be incredibly simple.

SR mechanics are simplified and streamlined - and while WL2 most definitely isn't a shining example of complex combat, I personally enjoy the old-school "messy" approach with action points, elaborate stats, destructible cover, height advantages, advanced damage states (requiring different kinds of healing), and so on.

It reminded me of games like X-Com and Jagged Alliance.

SR has a flat plane and rather small combat arenas. It has a simplified "two actions" system - and just felt extremely straightforward.

That's not a bad thing, but it's not what I consider to be a meaty complex system.

I also found SR somewhat challenging on occasion - but I don't equate difficulty with complexity. They CAN be related - but they're certainly not the same thing.

Morrandir said:

Do you agree that combat in SR may seem more complex than in WL2 depending on playing style and/or difficulty setting?

Click to expand...

Of course I do.

To me, it's one of the most fundamental truths about people and their preferences. They're NOT the same across the human race

Then you perhaps shouldn't answer in such an absolute manner when you're asked a question.

Morrandir said:

Then you perhaps shouldn't answer in such an absolute manner when you're asked a question.

Click to expand...

Why not? He's asking for opinions.

My opinion is absolute in that it's absolutely my opinion - but it's not necessarily shared by everyone in the world.

Everyone should understand that, and I'm not going to make it my problem that people don't understand the obvious. That's going to have to be their problem.

You, however, said my opinion was "wrong" - and I'm not saying that about your opinion. Your opinion is totally and fully valid - as is the opinion of Archangel. I simply don't agree with you.

Perhaps I'm not the one who needs to adjust here

DArtagnan said:

I recommend that Fluent tries out the game for himself, as that's always the best way to get at the truth.

Click to expand...

I will do that, but as I said, it's low on my list right now. I did enjoy Wasteland 2 quite a bit, though. All the aspects you named about the combat system were great fun for me.

Fluent said:

I will do that, but as I said, it's low on my list right now. I did enjoy Wasteland 2 quite a bit, though. All the aspects you named about the combat system were great fun for me.

Click to expand...

I knew I wasn't the only one

Oh, I've enjoyed it as well. Less complex doesn't mean it's bad.

Morrandir said:

Oh, I've enjoyed it as well. Less complex doesn't mean it's bad.

Click to expand...

Aren't you being a bit absolute again?

I'm guessing that's his opinion.

rjshae said:

It was +50K to add the companion and +50K to add spells and items. Basically what? 500-1,000 hours of labor to create the new companion art assets, animate, record voice sounds(?), think up and write the background and dialogue interactions, test/QA, plus all the usual infrastructure extras. Is that too much? I don't know.

Click to expand...

The goal for the entire base game was only 100k. The stretch goal for the first additional NPC was 200k. That was the 2nd stretch goal overall. The first was an additional 50k for... animatic scene transitions!

I guess I'm not that easily impressed.

JDR13 said:

I'm guessing that's his opinion.

Click to expand...

That was the joke - as he seems to think opinions are supposed to be objective truths

I don't.
But opinions can match with objective truth. And by the right wording you can make people think your opinion matches the objective truth. And imho when answering questions like this, it should be made more clear, that it's just an opinion.

Morrandir said:

I don't.
But opinions can match with objective truth. And by the right wording you can make people think your opinion matches the objective truth. And imho when answering questions like this, it should be made more clear, that it's just an opinion.

Click to expand...

You really need to research the concept of objective truth. If you think such a thing can be established about the quality of a game - then you have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't mean to be rude, but you don't seem to have ANY idea.

As for people asking openly on a forum what a game is like - they need to understand that ANY response will be an opinion, as it could never be anything else.

So, I don't agree that it's necessary - but it can be added as a polite reminder for people who don't understand the concept. I don't always do that, but I often do.

DArtagnan said:

That's certainly a bunch of interesting opinions - and we still don't agree.

I get the feeling that you think your opinion is fact to other people than yourself. Better prepare for disappointment then - but I will let experience teach you about that one.

But it's amusing to hear you talk about people who disagree as "liars" - and you feel capable of saying that "barely anyone" complained about complexity as some kind of evidence that your opinion is the correct one. Actually made me laugh out loud

You have to be able to argue your case rationally to be convincing, and you're failing. Also, if you want to be taken seriously around here - I highly recommend you don't use expressions like "lol" every time you fail to provide a decent argument. It's not a forum full of juvenile hotheads - and most of us are past that stage.

I recommend that Fluent tries out the game for himself, as that's always the best way to get at the truth.

But, as I said, I don't want to waste more time on this - and I'm done with you here.

Click to expand...

There are opinions when you talk about over impressions or if you liked something or not.

But things like if something is more simple than something else or not is quantifiable and it is not an opinion.
Well you can pretend like it is, but I proved you wrong and your defense is "but it is my opinion".
You might as well scream that 1+1=3 because "it is my opinion" but nobody but you will take your seriously.

DArtagnan said:

You really need to research the concept of objective truth. If you think such a thing can be established about the quality of a game - then you have no idea what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

I knew that you'd say something like this.
And no, I don't need to research this. I just think that a thread like this is not the right place to talk about epistomology.

As for people asking openly on a forum what a game is like - they need to understand that ANY response will be an opinion, as it could never be anything else.

Click to expand...

Imho it's not that easy. There are "opinions" where it's virtually certain that they match objective truth - or better: that they match everybody's opinion. Like saying that WL2 has turn based combat. That's hardly a matter of interpretation or personal taste. Describing stuff like this you can say "it is" without constraint. But when it comes to issues that may be interpreted differently and where this isn't obvious to everybody, I think we should use words to describe this uncertainty.

So, I don't agree that it's necessary - but it can be added as a polite reminder for people who don't understand the concept. I don't always do that, but I often do.

Click to expand...

Imho it would have been necessary for reasons of politeness.

As I said, I was talking about the quality of a game - which can NEVER be factual. 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. You really have to accept that, if you want to understand the nature of things.

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.

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

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

That's not going to happen.

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 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. Sure, a lot of people are arrogant enough to do that - even around here. But never assume so, unless the person in question specifically says he's right and you're wrong.

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".

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

To me, it really makes no difference. The only thing that matters is exchanging opinions and supporting them with rational arguments. I would NEVER assume someone's opinion is going to be my opinion. That's ignorant and destructive - and I refuse to support it by saying "in my opinion" with every sentence.

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

Imho it would have been necessary for reasons of politeness.

Click to expand...

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