Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Arkane PREY - Arkane's immersive coffee cup transformation sim - now with Mooncrash roguelike mode DLC

RoSoDude

Arcane
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
727
Also, surprised noone has mentioned the actual broken OP build of SS2 you can be running in medsci: Having multiple laser pistols all set to overcharge. Probably the only way you can completely avoid melee in an SS2 impossible run.
Uh, where are you getting multiple laser pistols in MedSci? You can get one from character creation, next available is the broken one in the Cargo Bays. Then another in Hydroponics, etc.

It's true that this is one of the better strategies available, as overcharge shots drain the same amount of durability as a normal shot, and carrying two or more means double, triple, etc. capacity to avoid the drawbacks of using overcharge (high energy drain per point of damage, cool down time).
 

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
All that said, as far as I understand your argument it's that ultimately Fun trumps Balance, and I very much agree with that (I actually made the same point in my mini-review of Mooncrash earlier in this thread). I just think you and I have different ideas of Fun in this context.

Fair enough. I played it more as a sneaky shooter than a Doom shooter anyway, I was more just using examples. I just think any "balance" adjustment inherently biases one way or the other, as in a game like this it's pretty much impossible to have all avenues be perfectly equal, and I prefer Arkane's compromises to what I'm reading from RoSoDude.

But again, it's really cool he can make a mod for people who want what he wants. I'd never say otherwise.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
14,152
Also, surprised noone has mentioned the actual broken OP build of SS2 you can be running in medsci: Having multiple laser pistols all set to overcharge. Probably the only way you can completely avoid melee in an SS2 impossible run.
Uh, where are you getting multiple laser pistols in MedSci? You can get one from character creation, next available is the broken one in the Cargo Bays. Then another in Hydroponics, etc.

It's true that this is one of the better strategies available, as overcharge shots drain the same amount of durability as a normal shot, and carrying two or more means double, triple, etc. capacity to avoid the drawbacks of using overcharge (high energy drain per point of damage, cool down time).

I think there's one in the first area of Medsci? It's possible it's one of the things added in one of the fan patches though, not sure.

Maybe I'm totally misremembering and it does take until Cargo Bays to find your 2nd one. Still, running back and forth between a recharger and where you want to go is quite effective. Enemies don't respawn that quickly to really make a difference when you are gun-hoing and single shotting everything, unlike when you are sneaking around trying to get the drop on things with a wrench. And all of the big early game obstacles (turrets, bots) are weak to laser pistol.

Just 2 laser pistols with some maintenance and upgrades can clear out a lot of stuff before needing a recharge. 3 is almost overkill. If/when you get Psi Recharge you've basically won the game and don't even need to remember where rechargers are, because the hypo:damage ratio you'll get out of it is insane. Throw some excess points into standard or heavy weapons to use on the rumblers and stuff (though maxed out laser pistol on overcharge still isn't that awful on them if you are swapping to avoid downtime).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 5, 2021
Messages
405
I'm new here. I registered specifically because of this thread because of the insane amount of insanity going on here.

Yeah, it's a common tendency about Sawyerites - they don't like YOUR fun, they'd like to force you to play in one specific fashion that they believe it should go. It's borderline acceptable in MMOs (where creative gameplay is usually considered an exploit and is patched ASAP and you might even get punished for discovering it), but I don't see how it applies to purely single player game.

Someone buying Prey expecting a System Shock 2 like experience, only to get an easy to complete RPG with almost no resource management, will be disappointed. Their playstyle is not being validated or catered to. But don't worry, a community member is here to save the day by providing them with a choice to play the game in a new way that was previously unavailable.

Tell me again how this has anything to do with restricting anyone's fun.

You claim to be for more choices, but it seems very obvious - and quite ironic - that you only seem to approve of gameplay styles YOU care for. Everything else is "Sawyerites".

But this "not forcing anyone to play a specific way" argument is bullshit anyway. Should we cater to the people who want to play Dark Souls as a racing game? Would the game somehow be improved if there was a go-kart at the Firelink Shrine? What if it takes development time away from other features? What if every weapon now needs to be designed with regards to how it will handle on a race track?

Games cannot, by their very nature, cater to everybody. And not all playstyles are equal. People like to think there's no way to play a game wrong, but if I go into System Shock 2 looking for a colony simulator, I'm simply playing the game wrong and have no right to complain that the game is not catering to me.

But mods change thing significantly. If a third party wants to add a feature to a game, that's a net positive thing. Like it or not, there are plenty of people (myself included) that found the survival/hardcore options in Prey extremely lacking. Having a mod to fix these problems is important to many people. And for someone like you to swoop in and proclaim that someone is forcing this playstyle on you is both asinine and insulting.

Go play the Vanilla game if it upsets you that much.


As I said - is the alien dildo + adrenaline overproduction + agility buff combo in SS2 balanced in any ways or fashion? Or just replace the dildo with the wrench (and the related OS upgrades), it'd do the same in the first half of the game, especially if you played it already and memorized most of the dangers and monster movesets. How are you supposed to fix it without making the melee worthless for anything else? Also, as a player who is on his first playthrough, you can't really __see__ the balance between things, discovery of what is "overpowered" and what is "underpowered" for your current playstyle / RP limitations is a vital part of the game itself.

There are plenty of ways to fix this issue. Game balance is a standard problem that can be analysed and solved just like any other. You seem to be pretending that game balance is some sort of arcane art, where it all depends on playstyle and RP and we can't possibly know how to fix these problems.

Which is weird because you follow up with this...

What is really unbalanced is the Mooncrash where the game is engaging, challenging and fun until you find the hourglass recipe, then it's just a boring mop up operation.

How do you know this? What if it's just boring for YOUR playstyle? Besides, to quote a balance expert, "discovery of what is "overpowered" and what is "underpowered" for your current playstyle / RP limitations is a vital part of the game itself."

This is what I find so disingenuous about these types of discussions. People always see games they like as perfect, and any balance complaints are always met with this strange argument about how "it's nuanced" and "difficult to understand" and "oh but someone might find it fun anyway"

But then when they see a genuine balance issue in a game they are less invested in, it's always objective. Always matter of fact.

Which is it?

Because fixing the clearly identifiable and well defined balance issues in System Shock 2 and Prey is a matter of problem solving. Nothing more. It's more helpful to suggest genuine solutions to these problems, rather than sitting around ponitificating about "how can we ever solve these?". If you think the shard + Adrenaline Overproduction + Agility Buff combo is overpowered, then suggest a solution. If you don't think it's overpowered, too bad, I can prove objectively that it is.

Or, to put it in a way far better than I could...

It's absurd to treat balance as some unknowable thing that ought not be bothered with because it would ruin the "fun".

---

So basically, let's fuck up every other strategy that relies on any of those components just to make sure that this one particular combination isn't OP? Very balanced indeed

Yes actually. That's sort of the point of balance. You say this like it's a bad thing.

Lets take a hypothetical game. This game has 15 weapons and 2 support skills. By using weapon A and power B, you can completely trivialise the game. Every other weapon combination is balanced.

Now, here's a genuine question. How many playstyles are there?

The answer: 1.

Now before you butt in and say "oh but you can still use the other things". Yes. I can play Doom with fists only. I can complete Dark Souls with a guitar hero controller. That's irrelevant. Games are constructed in a way so as to allow the maximum number of playstyles within a given set of conditions. Any combination that is not viable may as well not exist. If a game clearly offers the player a choice, and one of the options is clearly superior to the others, what was the point of the choice.

As a developer, this gets even worse, because now I have an important decision to make: do I balance the game around the common use case (the balanced weapons), reducing the fun of the overpowered combo because all the challenge is trivialized, or do I balance around the clearly overpowered weapon and make every other combination unviable, reducing the total number of genuine player options?

Now let's say an anonymous third party, let's call him DaRuDe makes a mod. Let's call the mod "sandstorm", and it does many things, including bringing the clearly superior weapon combination in line with the others. Now everything is balanced.

As a developer, we are satisfied. Our choices have depth and value.

As a player, we are satisfied. Our choices have depth and value.

And before you say "but trivializing the challenge can be fun for some people", go play any FPS with godmode for 45 minutes and come back and make that argument with a straight face. I would wager the vast majority of people wouldn't be able to make it through that play session genuinely wanting more. Because they will be bored. Because there's no engagement, no challenge, and no fun to be had.

I understand you may LIKE the overpowered combo. You can always play vanilla. But a balanced game is always, in every case, superior to an unbalanced one, and I can guarantee you will have more fun and find more meaning overall playing a balanced one over and unbalanced one. And you can take that to the bank.

The game is designed to allow you to play it your way. That's one of the biggest assets of the genre. If someone wants to play it like Doom, and play it like Doom on hard, that's their choice. Your idea of balance is to make people play it your way, which many don't want to do. Yes it is tricky to balance for both Doom players and survival players, but that's the goal you opt into when you design a game like this. I think they did a good job overall, personally, but it's cool you can mod it to be more like you want. I think the issue is you present that mod as a balancing and overall improvement, rather than a "more survival mod" or whatever.

Do I have to go back to the Dark Souls Firelink Shrine rally again? The idea that "games are designed to allow you to play your way" is bogus. Games have a predetermined set of mechanics the player is forced to play within. If someone wants to play Prey like Doom, they are simply playing the game wrong. And I can say that objectively, because Arkane themselves have explained what the game is all about and how it's meant to be approached and played (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VeMnngn2UM). If these mechanics are unbalanced, while the player can technically still utilise them, their enjoyment is significantly likely to be hampered, as they will either feel like they are being punished for playing a certain way (by an underpowered mechanic), or the game will not feel compelling as it lacks challenge (by an overpowered mechanic).

When you implement a feature or a mechanic in the game, you are effectively signalling to a player that "yes, it's okay to play this way". If playing that way feels unsatisfied because of balance issues, you have failed in your design. If you have not intended a game to be played a certain way, and given no signal, and the player chooses to do it anyway, that's on them, and an intelligent player will realise that they are likely not getting the intended experience and that's okay. This is why your "Playing PREY like Doom" comparison is flawed. People who play Prey like Doom have no right to expect a balanced experience. But people who play Prey they way it's intended, and they turn on the hardcore options, they should expect the game to be actually hardcore.

Now, if someone was to release a "Prey, but now it's like Doom" mod, then more power to them. But complaining that wanting a balanced game is taking away player choice or enforcing a certain playstyle? I don't buy it for a second.

Absolutely not -- you clearly just don't know the game well enough. Crystal Shard getting too much damage from Smasher is widely acknowledged to be a bug. Most players will have never benefitted from it in the first place, and the wider problem is that investing into Exotic + Research was a waste for other reasons. Buff Exotic and Research and fix the damage bug, Crystal Shard is still amazingly good for melee with or without further investment. As for the Wrench, the Standard skill is widely known to be overpowered already. Removing the free damage bonus for the Wrench means the player isn't wasting their time investing into Energy for the Laser Rapier or Exotic + Research for the Crystal Shard, and the Wrench retains its value as the backup/starter option. Psychogenic Agility and Adrenaline Overproduction remain 2 of the best psi disciplines regardless of minor nerfs. No build or strategy is being significantly harmed in this exchange, while other options have a chance to shine (along with other buffs).

There's really no point trying to determine if a piece of bad design is a bug or not. It doesn't matter. If I accidentally type "2000" instead of "200" for the damage value of a weapon, and as a result it's overpowered, that's functionally identical to if I intentionally made it 2000. I understand that pointing out that it's a bug improves your credibility, but the reality is, it's not something you should have to improve in the first place. The game is clearly broken. Whether the designers failed or the programmers failed doesn't really matter.

Not sure how it is with various mods, but in vanilla SS2 I basically killed everything with one empowered strike not bothering switching to rapier for robots, even the shambler type monster that's ever present in the last levels of the game and is supposed to drain my resources did not do anything that really bothered me. Only reavers presented a mere annoyance as I've saved all the ammo I needed to comfortably get rid of them (by the way, I've maxed out basically everything I needed to be proficient with most weapons, spells and melee without really scrounging and recycling everything). Sorry, I simply don't see anything drastically different system-wise between the games, it's just SS2 had more oppressive atmosphere, better sound design and character acting that might have created an impression of being extra difficult. We all know this is not Arkane's best forte, they were never really into setting the mood or writing a good plot.

"System shock 2 also had major balance issues. Therefore Prey is off the hook"

lol okay.

Maybe a Prey modder should also invest some time into making a System Shock 2 balance mod....maybe improve 2 games rather than leaving them fundamentally broken and using them to justify each others brokenness.


The question was somewhat different - why you even have to do that? It's not a competitive game, no one really forces you to choose the most OP options, but they are available if you need it (and know that they exist). What is the purpose of balance in the single player game? For instance, what is actually the meaning of this:


I thought, when we play some non-competitive game (especially if we re-play it and know __something__ about the balance and relative usefulness of options), we simply __choose__ our way to play, what is the matter if "build A" is better than "build B"? What is the difference in challenge if, for example, a D&D bard would be as versatile as wizards in solving encounters / social challenges and so on? Just look at the Pillars of Extreme Boredom where this approach leads.

The purpose of balance in a single player game is identical to the purpose of balance in a multiplayer game.

The point of competing in a game is to be engaged and challenged.

And multiplayer developers know this. This is why so many games now use matchmaking to match you against people of your own skill level, even in unranked modes. Because what's the point of playing if you're crushing the opposition to the point where they aren't a challenge? And what's the point of playing if you're being crushed by the opposition to the point where there's no way to beat the challenge?

Why would any of this suddenly change when the enemy team (or your team) are AI's instead of enemy players? Sure, there might not be an end score anymore but to think people aren't going to move towards the best strategy is frankly silly.

I have played through the entirety of Dark Souls using cheese strats. Kapra Demon stair hugging. Taurus Demon bridge fall. And you know what? It's not fun.

Do you know why that is? Because the entire point of playing Dark Souls is to be challenged and have fun overcoming obstacles, engaging your brain, and fulfilling an epic quest. And getting a lot of "deep lore lol" along the way.

Dark Souls is not a competitive game. And don't think for a second that just because it has PVP that it's competitive. Dark Souls has some of the most broken PVP in the industry and if anyone genuinely thinks it's stable enough or well made enough to even be remotely fair, then they are fooling themselves.

This is why, despite almost all singleplayer games incorporating cheats, the vast majority of players don't use them. Because they aren't fun. They were never fun.

This balance sperging is fine and all but pretty much all of my favorite RPGs have "customize your difficulty" balance between various upgrades in them. I'm just used to that. When I like the game enough I will replay it with harder underpowered styles.
Perhaps I will give Rosodude's mod another try sometime with weapon degradation disabled, that thing was annoying me too much with his mod so I didn't get far. Or maybe I sucked at handling it. Anyway, I found myself preferring unbalanced vanilla to that tedium.
I'm definitely a lot more forgiving when it comes to balance in single player games. When I play Starcraft II ladder then I am happy to have balance.

"Do you want to enable hardcore mode" is exactly the kind of "customize your difficulty" balance you're talking about. It's just a shame that the hardcore mode stuff is total weaksauce.

And I know I told you before that it's cool you made some of it modular. Like I said above, I'm well aware we had this debate a few pages ago. My point is more about the overall concept of adding "balance" to a game where you're supposed to be able to play it a zillion different ways. Whatever you change from Arkane's settled on compromises will have its own compromises, and it's patently obvious which playstyle you prefer. Weapon degradation for example is a batshit thing to include in a Doom style game, which this is supposed to be able to be, which is probably why it was taken out in the first place. Again though it's cool its modular, and I am glad you worked hard to offer changes many might prefer, I just kinda bristle at the idea of a "Prey balance mod" in total.

DalekFlay You’re ignoring the fact that Colantonio basically came out and said “Yeah. The game was taken away from us by marketing suits during play testing. They dictated various changes to game systems, all of which reduced difficulty and/or complexity, and the final product was not indicative of our original vision regarding balance”.

Keep in mind that while standard weapons or adrenaline overproduction are a bit OP in SS2, Prey is explicitly designed to be completable with no upgrades

I mean if Bethesda forced them to remove weapon degradation then good on you Bethesda. Not every note from on high is a wrong one.

To be fair I'm not really a fan of balance mods in general usually, because as Multidirectional just said they tend to add tedium rather than interesting challenges.

1. Balance and Choice are not mutually exclusive. In fact they serve each other as I have explained above. Please drop this argument because it's wrong.
2. Your position has changed from "why do you have to force this on us" to "I know it's modular but I hate balance mods because it's unintended" to "I don't care if Bethesda forced them and it literally is unintended, it's still a good thing they did". Do you actually have a position, or are you simply arguing in bad faith?
3. What makes you say weapon degredation is batshit in a Doom style game? What if I want to play it a zillion different ways? More playstyles is good, you said so yourself. The fact that this last sentence exists makes me think even you believe your argument is bullshit.
 

Zboj Lamignat

Arcane
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
5,523
Not sure how it is with various mods, but in vanilla SS2 I basically killed everything with one empowered strike not bothering switching to rapier for robots, even the shambler type monster that's ever present in the last levels of the game and is supposed to drain my resources did not do anything that really bothered me. Only reavers presented a mere annoyance as I've saved all the ammo I needed to comfortably get rid of them (by the way, I've maxed out basically everything I needed to be proficient with most weapons, spells and melee without really scrounging and recycling everything). Sorry, I simply don't see anything drastically different system-wise between the games, it's just SS2 had more oppressive atmosphere, better sound design and character acting that might have created an impression of being extra difficult. We all know this is not Arkane's best forte, they were never really into setting the mood or writing a good plot.
Not this again, please. You're talking about 20y+ old game that everyone knows inside out. SS2 isn't some ultimate hardcore experience, but it was plenty demanding on the first playthrough and the higher difficulties made the resource economy absolutely legit. There's no comparison to Prey whatsoever, with things like hands down the best weapon, ability to craft ammo for it, tool that immobilizes enemies and much more available at the start, with absolutely no meta required. I can repeat what I wrote in this thread previously: even Bioshock, so hated here, was smart enough to avoid shit as dumb as crafting level up currency in general, let alone early game. Yeah, all (quasi)rpgs can be broken, but it's always the same question: do you need to play and learn the game to break it or does it break itself for you as soon as you step into the lobby. In case of Prey, literally.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
14,152
Did a quick test run and the first laser pistol to be found is indeed in cargo bay. But you can definitely get by with one laser pistol until then. If you savescum a bit to upgrade with level 2 modify you have 9 shots on your laser pistol when you go down to engineering. Might want/need to double back to Medsci for a recharge or two if you don't want to start using up pistol ammo in order to get to the recharger in cargo bay, but once you do clearing out cargo bay is easy and with 2 laser pistols the rest of the game is now a cakewalk. When you get your 3rd laser pistol in hydroponics you'll be running around with like 45 overcharged shots in your pocket. Honestly don't need anything else at this point, you can snap off overcharged shots quickly and barely need to take into account finding a recharger before you run out while exploring.
 
Last edited:

Israfael

Arcane
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
3,580
The purpose of balance in a single player game is identical to the purpose of balance in a multiplayer game.

The point of competing in a game is to be engaged and challenged.
Competing in single player games - I rest my case, ladies and trannies :lol: Maybe they need to add some achievements for that so that your personal victory against the AI, this incredible feat of strength, would be seen by all and eternally remembered. (There is such a thing, actually, no mods achievo, 1.1% of game owners have it)

Dark Souls is not a competitive game. And don't think for a second that just because it has PVP that it's competitive. Dark Souls has some of the most broken PVP in the industry and if anyone genuinely thinks it's stable enough or well made enough to even be remotely fair, then they are fooling themselves.

Sure it isn't, they nerfed many weapons and sorcery/miracles wholesale in ds2 and ds3 (multiple times even) just for no reason, not because PVPers complained that their precious skills amounted to nothing if a sorcerer could catch them unawares :hahano: It's very amusing how people who probably haven't played real competitive multiplayer games in a serious fashion try to educate us peasants here why challenge is important. :salute:

This is why so many games now use matchmaking to match you against people of your own skill level, even in unranked modes.
Not really, it's just a way of sucking out the maximum amount of money in P2W games like World of Tanks or just keeping people in the game in WoW and other games with subs. And if we talk about WoW, because real "balance" between classes did nto exist, you had to demand people to play certain specs in order to complete the raids in the most efficient way possible.

The idea that "games are designed to allow you to play your way" is bogus. Games have a predetermined set of mechanics the player is forced to play within.
You could simply say that instead of all this wall of text and we'd accept that your opinion is different than ours. Why bother with us "casuls" in any way, as a balance conossieur you surely understand that it's impossible to "fix" us.

You're talking about 20y+ old game that everyone knows inside out.
I was comparing my first playthrough in both and I played SS2 blindly, without any online "strategies" and "builds" that some people here seem to think are somehow neccessary to exist. For me, there was no _substantial_ difference in difficulty - it might be different for the others, that's why all this "balance n shiet" talk is kinda pointless. Just type in "prey playthrough" in youtube and watch how people play, you'd see how easy it is for them.

You claim to be for more choices, but it seems very obvious - and quite ironic - that you only seem to approve of gameplay styles YOU care for. Everything else is "Sawyerites".
Well, if you read with your ass, as we say here, maybe, but in actuality I meant one simple thing - you don't have to scrounge everything, you don't have to use the fabricator at all, you don't have to spend any amount of resources on leveling to up the ante. I even offered an example - after trying the skills in combat tree I simply ignored it as I deemed them (too OP) unnecessary for my playthrough.
 
Last edited:

Israfael

Arcane
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
3,580
>"Arkane aren't known for setting the mood". Lol Arx Fatalis weeps
Is it theirs, actually? Garriott would probably object to this and Colantonio and pals said it so a zillion times that AF is the direct homage to UU (not that this somehow diminishes the game - it's great). And Arx is far from "You are alone and you will die here" mood of System Shock 2.

>Somehow completed Prey (first playthrough on higher difficulties) and didn't completely steamroll through it.
Who told you so? If you were actually able to read instead of constantly raging, I said both games were easy on max difficulty. Making them "hard" is subjective and as some people here said, it just makes them more tedious, not fun for them. If you are really into survival type of shooters, you can try Escape from Tarkov, Arma3 mods or Rust and the other Eastern European jankware of that type.
 

A horse of course

Guest
Why are you Arkanecucks always fighting with each other? Is it because you never received proper guidance in your lives?
 

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
Do I have to go back to the Dark Souls Firelink Shrine rally again? The idea that "games are designed to allow you to play your way" is bogus. Games have a predetermined set of mechanics the player is forced to play within. If someone wants to play Prey like Doom, they are simply playing the game wrong. And I can say that objectively, because Arkane themselves have explained what the game is all about and how it's meant to be approached and played (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VeMnngn2UM). If these mechanics are unbalanced, while the player can technically still utilise them, their enjoyment is significantly likely to be hampered, as they will either feel like they are being punished for playing a certain way (by an underpowered mechanic), or the game will not feel compelling as it lacks challenge (by an overpowered mechanic).

I pay pretty much zero attention to video game marketing, I never even watched a trailer for Cyberpunk after the first one. So I don't really know how they sold the game, it being an Arkane game was enough for me and if it wasn't I would have just watched a gameplay video on release. So... however they sold it, what matters is the game, and there is absolutely nothing in the game stopping you from playing it as a dude running around with a shotgun blasting aliens. That's not a "wrong" way to play it at all, in fact I'd say the game is more catered to that than a deep survival experience or a stealth experience.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
7,308
System Shock 2 is definitely a much more difficult game than Prey, even on medium difficulty compared to Prey on hardest. The fact that you can figure out how to be op in it does not mean it's a good comparison to Prey. I do welcome the attempts to give power curve in Prey better pacing, and I will have to have a better look at Core Balance mod next time I feel like installing the game.
 

V_K

Arcane
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
7,714
Location
at a Nowhere near you
I think Prey is easy if you have good twitch reflexes. SS2, while probably being harder in terms of its RPG mechanics, is a lot more dyspraxic-friendly - at least that's how I remember it. So for me personally Prey feels harder than SS2 (also possibly because my favorite mage playstyle isn't immediately available and I'm not used to others).
 
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
4,101
Location
Chicago, IL, Kwa
Eh. Prey is just a lot easier to break than SS2. It’s not about finding an OP build in Prey, it’s just “oh lol I specced into combat focus and it turns out this one single skill trivializes absolutely every enemy in the game” as an example, and there are other single skills besides Combat Focus that just as easily break the game.
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2021
Messages
405
Competing in single player games - I rest my case, ladies and trannies :lol: Maybe they need to add some achievements for that so that your personal victory against the AI, this incredible feat of strength, would be seen by all and eternally remembered. (There is such a thing, actually, no mods achievo, 1.1% of game owners have it)

I love how in order to win the argument you basically have to invalidate singleplayer games as a thing. Why would anyone even bother putting their quarter in the arcade machine and getting the high score when it was all just singleplayer anyway?


Sure it isn't, they nerfed many weapons and sorcery/miracles wholesale in ds2 and ds3 (multiple times even) just for no reason, not because PVPers complained that their precious skills amounted to nothing if a sorcerer could catch them unawares :hahano: It's very amusing how people who probably haven't played real competitive multiplayer games in a serious fashion try to educate us peasants here why challenge is important. :salute:

Just because FROM tried to occasionally cater to the PVP crowd doesn't mean Dark Souls is a good - or even passable - competitive game. In every single DS game it's trivial to twink builds, the matchmaking is a laggy mess to the point where people can stab you from across the room, and - at least on the PC - matchmaking is completely full of hackers. Surely you've experienced the, now infamous, invasion at the Undead Parish where you die in 1 hit and get instantly cursed by someone using hacked equipment. FROM can try balancing all they want, but Dark Souls does not have the core functionality required to actually work as a competitive game. They have no anti-cheat, a completely peer-to-peer system, and no built-in checks for file consistency between players. All of these are antithetical to a competitive game. The only way to even get a remotely decent Dark Souls PVP match going is to organize one yourself, where you both put down your summon signs at a predetermined place, and you both agree to not completely break the game. That's hardly the sign of a functional PVP experience, and definitely not the sign of a competitive experience.

I really, really never understood the "But Dark Souls PVP!" argument. Spend even a second playing literally any other competitive multiplayer game and you will see just how borked Dark Souls multiplayer is. It's patently obvious that it's designed as a single player game first (this is okay), as a coop PvE game second, and a PVP game last. You cannot make a handful of balance adjustments and add a few token PVP items and magically call your game competitive.

I honestly don't know if people just really don't see how broken it is, or if people defending Dark Souls PVP do it in bad faith.


Not really, it's just a way of sucking out the maximum amount of money in P2W games like World of Tanks or just keeping people in the game in WoW and other games with subs. And if we talk about WoW, because real "balance" between classes did nto exist, you had to demand people to play certain specs in order to complete the raids in the most efficient way possible.

Do you have a single fact to back that up? From my experience, players generally engage with matchmaking quite well because it makes every match genuinely challenging rather than a stomp. I don't know where this idea that "oh but some P2W games use it therefore you're wrong" idea comes from. Even if you were completely right, it doesn't change the objective fact that matchmaking generates more consistently fair games.

There are plenty of games that don't have subscription models that have skill-based matchmaking for both ranked and casual matches.


You could simply say that instead of all this wall of text and we'd accept that your opinion is different than ours. Why bother with us "casuls" in any way, as a balance conossieur you surely understand that it's impossible to "fix" us.

It's definitely starting to get to this point, yes. When people handwaive away legitimate arguments with "oh lol I don't care" or "lol but pay to win developers do that", then maybe it is time to abandon all hope.


Well, if you read with your ass, as we say here, maybe, but in actuality I meant one simple thing - you don't have to scrounge everything, you don't have to use the fabricator at all, you don't have to spend any amount of resources on leveling to up the ante. I even offered an example - after trying the skills in combat tree I simply ignored it as I deemed them (too OP) unnecessary for my playthrough.

So let me get this straight.

You tried some skills. Found them lacking.
Because you're "oh so good you can beat the game without them"
But you somehow have a problem with people wanting to make the game actually difficult?

I mean this is literally the same as someone playing through on Easy and saying "wow why would anyone want to play through a game on Hard! That's stupid! I beat the game without taking any of the special stuff! That's just my PlaYsTyLe"

Prey literally offers the option to have "hardcore mode" with things like oxygen requirements, status effect, etc. Most people who pick that option want that stuff to actually mean something. So why are you so against that? Literally what is the point of having a suit repair system if you're going to flood the game so much with suit repair kits that the mechanic becomes trivial?

This is why the mod is not just "a different playstyle". It's literally fixing the game. The playstyle was already intended, the developers just screwed it up.

My original point still stands. You disagree with every playstyle you deem unnecessary. Stop being a Sawyerite.

I pay pretty much zero attention to video game marketing, I never even watched a trailer for Cyberpunk after the first one. So I don't really know how they sold the game, it being an Arkane game was enough for me and if it wasn't I would have just watched a gameplay video on release. So... however they sold it, what matters is the game, and there is absolutely nothing in the game stopping you from playing it as a dude running around with a shotgun blasting aliens. That's not a "wrong" way to play it at all, in fact I'd say the game is more catered to that than a deep survival experience or a stealth experience.

"I don't care what their intention was, therefore it doesn't matter"

okay. Cool. Thanks for your valuable contribution.
 
Last edited:

gurugeorge

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
7,437
Location
London, UK
Strap Yourselves In
Don't mind me, I'm just a guy pretending I'm stuck in a weird space station, trying to survive with whatever's available. Turns out some of this shit lying around is pretty effective :)
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,235
Why do I get the feeling the new guy isn't going to last long here?

Because it is increasingly becoming infested with dumb, shit taste casuals and he will want to leave? Some 50% of general gaming is decline/popamole worship and discussion so low quality it doesn't see the very high importance of challenge and balance in a singleplayer game :roll: You guys do realize the vast majority of design decisions in nearly every game ever is heavily dictated by challenge and balance, right? There are exceptions, like adventure games, but they're more interactive stories than games.
 
Last edited:

Israfael

Arcane
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
3,580
I love how in order to win the argument you basically have to invalidate singleplayer games as a thing. Why would anyone even bother putting their quarter in the arcade machine and getting the high score when it was all just singleplayer anyway?
No, I just say that you can't really crank up the difficulty in a single player game as compared to comp multiplayer. It will just become tedious and will shoehorn you into a specific type of behaviour without variations that are provided by human opponents.

I really, really never understood the "But Dark Souls PVP!" argument
Yeah, because for some reason you can't accept the fact that all the balance changes in DS games stem from PVP crowd (which is very loud and obnoxious). Other arguments you offer are simply not related to the issue and no one disagrees with them. Yet for some reasons people still play this game specifically for PVP interactions and demand the developers to cater to their interests.

It's patently obvious that it's designed as a single player game first
Who told you so? Invasions and so on are heavily built into the game world, there are even quest chains related to them. In any case, it's not related to the matter at hand.

Even if you were completely right, it doesn't change the objective fact that matchmaking generates more consistently fair games.
Yes, fair, but not challenging. If you are a baddie, you'd constantly play with baddies and learn nothing and acquire bad in-game habits that will be exploited by a more experienced opponent if you meet him. There are also smurfs and other people who grief the system as well as newcomers. Also, this system ruins your precious desire to get noticed, you will always be at 50% win-loss rate no matter what (unless you are the worst or the best player in the ladder).

But you somehow have a problem with people wanting to make the game actually difficult?
I'm tired of repeating this, I don't want to prohibit YOU to do anything with the game. I just think it's wrong to shove your ideals of balance into the throats of everyone. There's no "objective" balance, there's just your gaming experience and ideals and the developers have to keep that in mind. Things like Doom Eternal's TAG are a rare phenomenon for that reason.

My original point still stands. You disagree with every playstyle you deem unnecessary. Stop being a Sawyerite.
It was not me that said that you have to decrease the choice repertoire and purposefully lock players out of certain playstyles, NO YOU, I say :lol:

Yeah, very new :hahano:
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,235
Stop posting. It's like you're a bot designed to spew trash.

There's no "objective" balance

Lol. Game design is magic! Not primarily math, logic and common sense. Somehow devs pump out games decade after decade that just so happen to be mostly well balanced, and when the games are not well balanced they're widely recieved as such. No objectivity whatsoever.

You have two starter pistols offered to you, identical in every way except one deals 12 damage instead of 11. I'm making this very simple for you. This is unbalanced and verifiable mathematically. One is greater than the other. Zero subjectivity involved. Of course it gets way more involved when interacting with many systems and variables in a even remotely complex game, but it for the most part can be measured with some notable degree of objectivity.
 
Last edited:

Israfael

Arcane
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
3,580
when the games are not well balanced they're widely recieved as such.
Yeah, tell that to Avellone's wolves in PF:KM, Arcanum and various reviewers including ggshillman who whined about the difficulty in Doom Eternal and its DLC. Objective my ass :lol:
 

Israfael

Arcane
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
3,580
Not primarily math, logic and common sense.
Yeah, compare fun, balanced Sawyer's system for Eternity (in which Str is the main damage stat for casters as the common sense demands it) and completely boring, unbalanced mess of 3.5/PF1.x
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,235
when the games are not well balanced they're widely recieved as such.
Yeah, tell that to Avellone's wolves in PF:KM, Arcanum and various reviewers including ggshillman who whined about the difficulty in Doom Eternal and its DLC. Objective my ass :lol:

Players have differing skill levels. That's why there is a standardised method of accounting for this in the form of difficulty levels. Why do all devs take a very similar approach to this very subjective problem? :M
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom