Roguey vs the Grognards Thread

[NotAGolfer]

Interesting interview with Josh:
Unmasking the Gamers: JE Sawyer – game developer, biker, and cat lover

Some quotes:
... I’m a fan of ... Assassin’s Creed

Fuck this idiot.

 

[Roguey]

Josh is a history major and loves historical settings.

I'd give AC2 a try based on Josh's (and Lesi's) recommendation, except apparently I'd have to deal with UPlay nonsense and it's not worth the hassle just yet.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

Dungeon Crawlers like Wiz1 are not cRPGs anymore...

About him saying that games like Wizardry are not RPGs anymore (apparently you can lose this monocled status, did you know) if the general public calls other types of games RPGs, which is plain fucking retarded.
And yes, calling player choice in the narrative an essential thing is a kind of storyfaggotry.

So the main reason he is against Grognards, who advocate complex character creation (which is a part of gameplay requiring active player input as opposed to passively watching cutscenes), is that because it delays the casual masses to get into the emoshunally engaging storyline.

 

[Onholyservicebound]

Cancer

Is this what posts look like in GD?

 

[Menckenstein]

Cancer

Is this what posts look like in GD?

It's what a quality fucking post looks like, I can understand your confusion as your post history is bereft of them.

 

[CyberP]

Josh is a history major and loves historical settings.

I'd give AC2 a try based on Josh's (and Lesi's) recommendation, except apparently I'd have to deal with UPlay nonsense and it's not worth the hassle just yet.

Don't do it. Not if you care for that thing unique to games called gameplay anyway. Mind you I remember you arguing why " Bioshock is better than System Shock 2 in core gameplay" so going off of that you'll probably love it.

 

[Seaking4]

Josh is a history major and loves historical settings.

I'd give AC2 a try based on Josh's (and Lesi's) recommendation, except apparently I'd have to deal with UPlay nonsense and it's not worth the hassle just yet.

Don't do it. Not if you care for that thing unique to games called gameplay anyway. Mind you I remember you arguing why " Bioshock is better than System Shock 2 in core gameplay" so going off of that you'll probably love it.

What is meant by core gameplay when you are referring to Bioshock/SS2? As in what you spend most of your time doing (i.e shooting)? Or something like the attribute system in SS2? Although I'm not sure how that could be compared to Bioshock considering it didn't have any.

 

[coldcrow]

Railroading players into their visions of good/evil tainted mediocrity. What a joke is this.
I had the most satisfying experiences of "reactivity" (whatever that means in a game context anyways) in games like Wiz8, Arcanum, Dominions to name a few. It doesn't matter if the character system are broken (Arcanum), solid (Wiz8) or quite complicated (Dominions) - they provide freedom to master or gimp my game like I want. Needless balanced mediocrity enforced through MOBA systems thus taking the fun out of managing ressources is bad in my book. I hate it.

And yes, I can LARP like I want in these games - even Dominions. But please leave the choice to me and do not abandon the root of what defines a CRPG.

 

[CyberP]

Josh is a history major and loves historical settings.

I'd give AC2 a try based on Josh's (and Lesi's) recommendation, except apparently I'd have to deal with UPlay nonsense and it's not worth the hassle just yet.

Don't do it. Not if you care for that thing unique to games called gameplay anyway. Mind you I remember you arguing why " Bioshock is better than System Shock 2 in core gameplay" so going off of that you'll probably love it.

What is meant by core gameplay when you are referring to Bioshock/SS2? As in what you spend most of your time doing (i.e shooting)? Or something like the attribute system in SS2? Although I'm not sure how that could be compared to Bioshock considering it didn't have any.

More off topic antics? OK.

No matter one's difference of opinion on the game's systems, Bioshock's lack of depth, lack of elaborate simulation design & C&C, what makes Bioshock a bad game first and foremost is the lack of challenge, so much so that I struggle to recognise it as a game. Look up the definition of "game" and challenge is one of the first things listed. It's a vital component that so many underestimate today.
There are vita chambers that revive the player immediately with no consequence: all enemies retain hp. There is no notable challenge to be found in the game. Sure there are individual challenges such as trying not to die regardless, and aiming for the head, or even the notably easy hacking, but overall it's safe to say a vital component that makes up a game is missing.
That would be OK if the game didn't pretend to be a System Shock successor, and actually feature gameplay. Other games are more honest & straightforward. You can spot a psuedo-intellectual storyfag "game" immediately, because they know what they are.

Secondary argument: Bioshock is a bad game because...well it simply lacks great content in comparison to it's predecessor. We are not all about to start going back to solely using wired home phones now we have portable internet-connected "smart" phones now are we? Or dial-up for that matter. System Shock 2 was clearly more "smart" and "advanced" in it's design, and provided more functionality whilst still remaining relatively easy to use.
If it were a new IP and not so insanely successful I'd be forgiving. When you make your art intentionally lacking and it becomes a hit...sigh. It's not just games though. Twilight is a great successful decline in literature, or so I hear. I guess I should just be grateful that they haven't started burning the classics and forcing us into mindless mediocrity.

 

[Volourn]

"Josh has never insulted anyone."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[AN4RCHID]

Doesn't make it a good game, let alone an RPG. I have a lot of hours in that game, it's a time waster, like an mmo. It's really easy to jump into, but doesn't leave a lasting impression.(Isn't very replayable, and doesn't have a definite end) Also he's right in the Oblivion comparison, but you could also take that as an insult for what is a truly awful game.

There has to be something more here to explain why it sold so many more millions over Oblivion, Fallout 3, and New Vegas, and I'm going to try to find it.

The world looks about 1000x better and combat/movement isn't as shitty feeling as in those games. It probably also helped that they turned the addictivity up to 11 with the skill system and the bite-sized dungeon every ten feet.

 

[Immortal]

The world looks about 1000x better and combat/movement isn't as shitty feeling as in those games.

You mean like if you max your aerobics stat it feels like your hopping around in a Counter Strike Server with no gravity turned on?

 

[Seaking4]

More off topic antics? OK.

No matter one's difference of opinion on the game's systems, Bioshock's lack of depth, lack of elaborate simulation design & C&C, what makes Bioshock a bad game first and foremost is the lack of challenge, so much so that I struggle to recognise it as a game. Look up the definition of "game" and challenge is one of the first things listed. It's a vital component that so many underestimate today.
There are vita chambers that revive the player immediately with no consequence: all enemies retain hp. There is no notable challenge to be found in the game. Sure there are individual challenges such as trying not to die regardless, and aiming for the head, or even the notably easy hacking, but overall it's safe to say a vital component that makes up a game is missing.
That would be OK if the game didn't pretend to be a System Shock successor, and actually feature gameplay. Other games are more honest & straightforward. You can spot a psuedo-intellectual storyfag "game" immediately, because they know what they are.

Secondary argument: Bioshock is a bad game because...well it simply lacks great content in comparison to it's predecessor. We are not all about to start going back to solely using wired home phones now we have portable internet-connected "smart" phones now are we? Or dial-up for that matter. System Shock 2 was clearly more "smart" and "advanced" in it's design, and provided more functionality whilst still remaining relatively easy to use.
If it were a new IP and not so insanely successful I'd be forgiving. When you make your art intentionally lacking and it becomes a hit...sigh. It's not just games though. Twilight is a great successful decline in literature, or so I hear. I guess I should just be grateful that they haven't started burning the classics and forcing us into mindless mediocrity.

Ok... neat. But that doesn't really answer my question. What does core gameplay refer to when speaking about Bioshock and System Shock 2?

Because if you are referring to the shooter components of the game (which I would consider a core activity of both games) then Bioshock is definitely better (although neither are particularly good at it). However, that wouldn't make Bioshock a better game.

 

[CyberP]

Because if you are referring to the shooter components of the game (which I would consider a core activity of both games) then Bioshock is definitely better (although neither are particularly good at it). However, that wouldn't make Bioshock a better game.

.... not this discussion again.

No shooting is not the core activity in System Shock 2 (though it was more so in SS1 arguably). Firstly shooting/meleeing/psiing are your options to dealing with enemies. You never even have to fire a gun if you so choose.
But hey, as you wish: let's narrow both of the games down and focus solely on the shooting. You say Bioshock features better shooting (or lets say everything gun-related). I not sure I agree. Yes it has better animations, meshes, & effects. The AI move more fluidly and intelligently, the guns can be used in combination with the plasmids, yet this narrow focus is a little futile without that all-important challenge component, and it also lacks some features and systems of SS2 too. Examples: Mechanics: alt-fire. Systems: ammo conservation resulting in strategy, standard design for shooters that Bioshock does not feature. The things that in your opinion make Bioshock a "better" shooter are the result of technical innovation & natural progression in the game industry. An actual System Shock 3 would have featured betteranimations, smarter AI, better meshes and so on, so it's moot really. There should be consideration for the times when comparing graphics and AI-related design, especially since these are the only aspects of design that has universally inclined in today's industry.

Overall if you are in it only for the shooting you may as well play an actual shooter. Not a game that intentionally sold itself out and is just a devolution (all things considered) of a previous entry in it's respective series.

I have a hell of a time playing Brutal Doom or Duke Nukem, or even a more modern shooter like...STALKER or even FC3. I j'adore First Person RPGs with guns like SS2 or Deus Ex.
Bioshock is neither a good shooter, simulation nor RPG. It is an artsy-fartsy sellout pseudo-game. There's worth to be found in it, sure, but so little...unless you are new to gaming and susceptible to influence of course.

 

[Onholyservicebound]

Cancer

Is this what posts look like in GD?

It's what a shitpost looks like, I can understand your confusion as your post history is bereft of them.

Cheers.

 

[Abelian]

People with delusions of grandeur often talk of themselves in the third person

 

[CyberP]

Bioshock.

Ken Levine got his wish: for more people to take games seriously as an art form...a dumb goal if you ask me: this will happen naturally over time, it's inevitable. And ignorant people are not deserving of the fruits of this art form if they cannot see it has been an art form since the very beginning. Technically speaking it is the art form with the most potential, bar none, objectively.
It (Bioshock) was probably all about that money in reality, and hey people love the decline and give little support to incline so it seems the only wise decision would be to sell out and make decline. It's all that seems viable without support, let alone money.

 

[evdk]

Cancer

Is this what posts look like in GD?

It's what a shitpost looks like, I can understand your confusion as your post history is bereft of them.

Cheers.

This is a Roguey attention whoring thread. You are shitposting just by taking part, friend, reevaluate your choices.

 

[AN4RCHID]

The world looks about 1000x better and combat/movement isn't as shitty feeling as in those games.

You mean like if you max your aerobics stat it feels like your hopping around in a Counter Strike Server with no gravity turned on?

Yeah and even more so the way enemies (don't) react to getting hit in the older games. The shield blocking and bashing especially made the combat feel way more physical in Skyrim. Also enemies tend to move around more like real people and less like quake bots (e.g., a little slower, less strafing, putting momentum behind attacks). Morrowind released a year after Halo. Oblivion released the same year as Gears of War. Fallout 3 was a year after Modern Warfare. New Vegas was the same year as Arkham City, Human Revolution and Rage. Bethesda's been catching up, but Skyrim was their first game where they weren't notably behind the times in terms of polish. That kind of sloppy-feeling gameplay is especially a turn-off among the console set, which is the audience that made Skyrim blow up.

Because if you are referring to the shooter components of the game (which I would consider a core activity of both games) then Bioshock is definitely better (although neither are particularly good at it). However, that wouldn't make Bioshock a better game.

 

[Seaking4]

Because if you are referring to the shooter components of the game (which I would consider a core activity of both games) then Bioshock is definitely better (although neither are particularly good at it). However, that wouldn't make Bioshock a better game.

.... not this discussion again.

No shooting is not the core activity in System Shock 2 (though it was more so in SS1 arguably). Firstly shooting/meleeing/psiing are your options to dealing with enemies. You never even have to fire a gun if you so choose.
But hey, as you wish: let's narrow both of the games down and focus solely on the shooting. You say Bioshock features better shooting (or lets say everything gun-related). I not sure I agree. Yes it has better animations, meshes, & effects. The AI move more fluidly and intelligently, the guns can be used in combination with the plasmids, yet this narrow focus is a little futile without that all-important challenge component, and it also lacks some features and systems of SS2 too. Examples: Mechanics: alt-fire. Systems: ammo conservation resulting in strategy, standard design for shooters that Bioshock does not feature. The things that in your opinion make Bioshock a "better" shooter are the result of technical innovation & natural progression in the game industry. An actual System Shock 3 would have featured betteranimations, smarter AI, better meshes and so on, so it's moot really. There should be consideration for the times when comparing graphics and AI-related design, especially since these are the only aspects of design that has universally inclined in today's industry.

Overall if you are in it only for the shooting you may as well play an actual shooter. Not a game that intentionally sold itself out and is just a devolution (all things considered) of a previous entry in it's respective series.

I have a hell of a time playing Brutal Doom or Duke Nukem, or even a more modern shooter like...STALKER or even FC3. I j'adore First Person RPGs with guns like SS2 or Deus Ex.
Bioshock is neither a good shooter, simulation nor RPG. It is an artsy-fartsy sellout pseudo-game. There's worth to be found in it, sure, but so little...unless you are new to gaming and susceptible to influence of course.

Just to start off, I think System Shock 2 is a much better game than Bioshock so you can take it down a few notches. I don't disagree with the bold part at all. However, just because it's better because of "technical innovation and natural progression" doesn't mean that the shooter parts of the game aren't better. You are essentially saying that I believe Bioshock is a better shooter because Bioshock is a better shooter.

You are correct that SS2 emphasizes survival and scavenging alongside shooting. The difference between the two games in my experience is that Bioshock seems to rely entirely on shooting which is why it ultimately becomes a boring game (far too early on). In fact, I read an interview with Ken Levine recently that said he was surprised that people complained that Bioshock was too similar to System Shock 2. He thought that the 'shock' part would make it obvious. I believe that the game would have been much better had it been more similar to SS2 and emphasized survival horror instead of action.

Also, I don't think it's fair to criticize Bioshock for Vita chambers when SS2 had the resurrection chambers as well. In both games they can be turned off/not turned on (SS2 by never activating them and in Bioshock by using the menu).

Anyways, none of this answers my question. When people are saying that Bioshock has better core gameplay than System Shock 2 what exactly are they referring to? Because SS2 had a stat system that one could be referring to (which I'm sure Sawyer would point out is terribly imbalanced).

 

[CyberP]

In fact, I read an interview with Ken Levine recently that said he was surprised that people complained that Bioshock was too similar to System Shock 2. He thought that the 'shock' part would make it obvious.

The only person I've heard make such a complaint was Yahtzee, who's opinions are sometimes outlandish.

Also, I don't think it's fair to criticize Bioshock for Vita chambers when SS2 had the resurrection chambers as well. In both games they can be turned off/not turned on (SS2 by never activating them and in Bioshock by using the menu).

Not this again...there's major differences between the two.

SS2:

1. Have to be turned on first.
2. Costs nanites each death, # increasing with difficulty.
3. There's few to be found per deck also.
4. You respawn, but so do enemies, sometimes at a frequent rate.

And as a added Simulationist bonus: believable existence in the game world to some degree. We can assume that such tech is feasible in the future. Steam-powerred tech? Just what the fuck is a vita chamber anyway?

Personally I am not a HUGE fan of SS2's system either, but it's certainly acceptable and was a novel concept. RThe system is slightly worse in SS1 too, though still not Bioshock levels of BS.

Anyways, none of this answers my question. When people are saying that Bioshock has better core gameplay than System Shock 2 what exactly are they referring to? Because SS2 had a stat system that one could be referring to (which I'm sure Sawyer would point out is terribly imbalanced).

It's usually the shooting. Yet as I said even the shooting action I do not believe to be better overall. System shock's shooting involves shooting, as do all good shooters. Bioshock's shooting leans towards Modern Military shooters in concept: nice presentation, but barely engaging. And apologies for the attitude. Call it fanboy fluster clouding my judgement temporarily, and a continually degrading lack of patience.

 

[CyberP]

As for the ability to turn off Bioshock's chambers, that's not really an ideal solution (but would certainly make a difference) and it still wouldn't solve the game's overall lacklustre design and lack of challenge in systems design, such as ammo conservation.
Also this option was not available on the platform I owned the game on (not PC).

Personally I am not a HUGE fan of SS2's system either, but it's certainly acceptable and was a novel concept (or at least it was in SS1, but they made it a little better in SS2 by making it cost nanites).

Anyways, none of this answers my question. When people are saying that Bioshock has better core gameplay than System Shock 2 what exactly are they referring to? Because SS2 had a stat system that one could be referring to (which I'm sure Sawyer would point out is terribly imbalanced).

It's usually the shooting. Yet as I said even the shooting action I do not believe to be better overall. System shock's shooting involves strategy, as do all good shooters. Bioshock's shooting leans towards Modern Military shooters in concept: nice presentation, but barely engaging.
And apologies for the attitude. Call it fanboy fluster clouding my judgement temporarily, and a continually degrading lack of patience.

 

[CyberP]

"System shock's shooting involves shooting, as do all good shooters. "

Argh. It involves strategy.
Sorry, the codex admins are corrupt lunatics who thought it would be funny to take away my ability to edit for enlightening them with objective truth, then label me as "possibly retarded" when typos turned up as a result of this...

 

[Nuclear Explosion]

" Bioshock is better than System Shock 2 in core gameplay".

Bioshock 1 does have bad gunplay but Bioshock 2's is actually good which is more than can be said about SS2's.

 

[CyberP]

Sigh, look at this mess. I achieve perfection with the ability to edit. Especially a necessity after a couple of pints.