Forgot to mention “shooter” there, my bad.
Which would leave at best RDR2 & Cyberpunk above them, but those are more Adventure/RPG games according to Wikipedia, as they have story-driven decision elements and character building.
2 Likes
Duck Hunt has a story!
It goes;
Quack
Boom
2 Likes
Chronicon is such a gem, its a shame ive played my brains out in that game so dont feel like I have much left to desire to do. But i played like 400 hours of it, and its amazing as hell.
I also love the mastery system. feels like you can grind forever. Eventually you hit extremely steep diminishing returns, the flat health mastery point will be giving like 2hp instead of 10 or whatever, but you can get it anyways if you want. there is theoretically no limit. that kinda stuff is what I feel like LE is missing. LE has a “infinite” corruption, but not really because the player does not scale infinitely. which is what leads to it feeling weird when one build does 3k and one does 300, because your builds maximum has a limit. Where as in chronicon weaker builds just need more mastery points.
I have like an 1800 mastery character and its just fucking amazing
like to this day, chronicon is just what i consider my ideal for an arpg, I really want more games to explore infinite player scaling letting them put in infinite hours if they so desire.
1 Like
I usually have an “endgame doesn’t matter, I just want to make new builds.” but chronicon makes new builds so easy and the endless progression makes me feel like I don’t need new characters. I can just export my current spec and try something new as many times as I want, then just import the one I was using and re-equip the gear.
I’ve gotten Berserker, Templar, and Warden to 100, working on Warlock then Mechanist.
Depending on skill Last Epoch actually has that. For example Mana Strike is superior with controller when you build it for the ranged option since it guarantees a 100% hit-rate, auto-targeting (as mentioned above being an upside for controller since the downsides enforce implementing it) enemies and hence having a major upside compared to mouse & keyboard or a potential WASD movement since then you need to personally target and hence you’ll miss hits regularly.
Also, once more, 8 directions provides one absolutely doable and fairly precise input measure, while the dodge can’t be further fractioned down (like SSW movement) it’s in 99,5% of the times as good as a controller, which is fairly close. And it offers the option of looking in a different direction compared to movement (Pressing S while looking upwards with the mouse) compared to mouse-control which needs bigger motions hence.
The answer of ‘imagining it like a little tank’ is a nonsensical answer to quote though… a person does that, ok? But it’s not the norm to do because it’s a wrong comparison anyway. Likely written like that from a personal lack of understanding of the details from the topic. So I would take it with a major grain of salt.
They are extremely similar.
Controller is miniscule in terms of being better, but thumb precision is generally lower then mouse precision, so targeting is far inferior.
Oh, I played them all with Controller too! And Mouse & Keyboard… and had no issues with either!
So… does that mean they are equivalent? Nah in no way 
You just get used to things to manage ‘adequate’ control, which nonetheless someone with a specific learning speed and the same time using a specific control scheme will showcase differences to someone with the same learning speed and using another control scheme.
And that’s the adequate benchmark, not personal experience.
Auto-target is a simplification of the controls because of the downsides of a controller input scheme. It’s like saying ‘Yeah, but a controller is superior for FPS games!’ when you have auto-aim for the head implemented because of the inherent downsides it has.
The devs put in measures to help the player out because players would otherwise suck with it… that’s a obvious reason to deem it ‘inferior’ in that regard.
CS: Global Offensive sold more. But I get the gist of what you wanna say. Also the price-range was really low back then and the SNES was the only reliable available gaming option back then (albeit also less people playing games overall).
Also you’re actually underlining my statement that mechanical games are better selling despite not being as invested in story and graphical fidelity. I mean… Cobra Command was obviously better graphical + story-wise at the time but sold worse compared to this game which focuses 100% on mechanical mastery. So I don’t get why you’re using it as an example, it goes actively counter to your argument. Same as the following ones.
As for your examples: Halo is a mechanically very balanced shooter without becoming too complex and precise (like CS in comparison), that allowed them to sell well. The secondary aspect is that the replay-value of the campaign is surprisingly high with the unlocks (even in Halo 2 already by collecting the skulls) and hence allowing challenge runs.
That’s replay-value, on a mechanical basis. Which reinforces my statement.
As for BG 3, the variety in story outcomes is sufficient to allow replay-value to see ‘new’ content. The mechanical aspect is complex on a turn-based basis since it builds on a very compley system (AD&D rules are surprisingly complex to adjust to a game after all, and very strict). Hence it’s a middling mix between mechanical depth of the build for characters (which offers a surprisingly wide variety to play around with) and a ‘fresh’ experience related to story to boot.
Once more, mechanical depth causing the replay-value, and the story not hindering it in this case since it works well in tandem with the replay value there since it gives you tidbits of new experiences.
Both examples you provided are based primarily on their mechanical depth though and hence my argument of ‘mechanics take long to master and hence engage long’. If it would’ve been solely the - fantastic - BG 3 story without the aiding mechanical depth then the game would’ve been a failure for the massive investment of time and effort. Those devs know exactly what they do, and they do it well.
Shiny games sold… not sell. Those times are over. ‘AAA’ gaming reduced their standing in the eyes of customers so much that graphical fidelity alone is not reliable measurement of overall product quality… which was the case though back in 2010 still, albeit starting to fail gradually by then.
Because you basically can, even if nothing changes anymore 
I’m not sure you have reading comprehension skills, or if you just skim what you read.
To reiterate, you need aim at mouse to make WASD better than mouse click, otherwise it’s inferior.
Right. So there’s no issues with aiming on controller because of the handicaps put in place. You’re complaining about stairs not being wheelchair accessible while pointing at the access ramp and saying “see, they had to add an access ramp!”
1 Like
Obviously? Which is what’s done in PoE 2? Have you actually tried it out?
That’s a given, otherwise the control scheme is not complete after all.
To put your argument in perspective what you said would be something like this:
‘Using a wheelchair is superior because the can use ramps and don’t need to use stairs’
Which obviously… nah. Someone in a wheelchair needs extra measures to handle the same task while someone which walks could also sit in a wheelchair and do the same.
That’s the sole difference I’m trying to highlight.
If you agree with what I’ve been saying this entire time, then why are you arguing with me?
More like I’m saying “using a wheelchair is superior to walking” and you said “no, because of stairs! They had to add ramps to go around them.” While ignoring the fact that wheelchairs can rely on momentum while moving and the only negative, verticality, was solved with a handicap access ramp.
In controller terms, you have 360 degree movement and aiming with the only drawback being a lack of precision compared to using a mouse… Which is fixed with the handicap features of Aim-assist and target locking.
You said that WASD in an isometric POV game is a problem.
I’ve said it’s fine.
Now you’re agreeing as long as the targeting via mouse is there - which is the case - then it’s fine.
You’re contradicting yourself, obviously people argue then.
In the example mentioned it absolutely makes no sense, 100% true. Because as someone walking you can do it nonetheless. As someone with a handicap you are enforced to do it since it doesn’t work otherwise which is the core of the topic.
Same with input schemes. And even then:
This comes with inherent drawbacks as well.
In a shooter for example the majority of auto-aim goes for either torso or head. Target leading is impossible this way, which is a detriment, not an upside. It’s a measure to alleviate the downsides inherently existing. Which is a massive one after all.
And in a top-down PoV Hack’n’Slash game the downside is that you target the closest enemy, not the most dangerous one automatically. Which is obviously a bad thing to happen if you got a weak-hitting tanky enemy in close range but a hard-hitting squishy ranged enemy dismantling you from range.
Target priority is not realistically manageable without very very complex systems that are situational though and taking away a vast amount of player-choice.
Neither keyboard+mouse nor WASD have those downsides. The design choices for a game made for a controller are severely different from one which is made with mouse+keyboard in mind for a reason. The faster the reaction time needed and the more available varied targets the less viable controller becomes.
That’s why the aiding mechanics - which could be implemented in the other schemes too, but for the reason of them being OP instead of a crutch not being done - are implemented in the first place.
Because it is, by design, an inferior method of controlling as a baseline.
360 degree precision is nigh never needed in the first place, and pixel-perfect controls are harder to achieve with a controller anyway related to movement, with both WASD and keyboard generally doing a better job unless there’s inertia of some kind implemented on top (Like start/stop inertia or turning the character).
PS: related to the ‘OP for other schemes’ argument. That comes from the effect that controller sticks have a limit on action speed. You either loose significant control swiftly at higher speeds (and hence less precision) or you are slow to move. A mouse has a significantly faster way of ‘targeting’ then a controller can handle.
I’m not talking about PoE2, I don’t know why you think I am? Aside from my very first comment in response to someone else saying they pictured themselves as a little tank to help visualize twin-stick WASD in PoE2, I’ve only been talking about the implementation of WASD as a concept. Unless you use mouse-aim it’s strictly inferior to mouse-click and considering that adding mouse-aim invalidates mouse-click as a control method and it’s hard to retroactively add later, adding WASD to a game that wasn’t designed with it in mind will result in an inferior control method. Therefore, WASD should not be added to ARPGs as it either is strictly worse or strictly superior with very little overlap. You’re going to gimp yourself by using it or gimp yourself by not using it and that’s not good for player choice.
This isn’t something like Halo’s different controller layout configurations that don’t add any majorly direct advantage over the others. Bumper Jumper is arguably the best because you can jump with the left bumper meaning you can aim, jump, and shoot at the same time. But it’s not so significantly better that you’re gaining an unfair advantage over someone not using it.
I don’t have anything else to add on the matter.
I’ve already addressed this.
1 Like
because sone people just like to argue.
Not me though. No.
I really want to make a comment about Daleks there. One particular scene in Remembrance of the Daleks was brown-trouser time.
2 Likes
Not gonna quote all the tidbits, but …
Original Halo had no skull system, only the remastered / MCC version does. It had 4 difficulty levels, that was it. 80% of my playtime was spent in only 1 of those. And yet, I played it far more than any old DOS-based shooter I have on my PC. (Except maybe Blood)
The point was; player-base are maintained by replayability and providing a fresh, but engaging experience. ONE of the ways to add replayability is mechanics. In Pokemon, it’s collecting them all. In MOBAs, it’s probably farming skins & lootboxes. In PvP shooter games, it’s mainly playing against others, or with friends if it’s a team shooter. Games like CoD or Overwatch don’t generally add a lot of game mechanics to the genre, yet they’re also in that top sales list.
I remember Jessie Cox saying before Overwatch’s initial release: “You know the game is going to be successful because there’s tons of porn of it already.” I doubt those artists made those drawings thinking of game mechanics they never seen yet. (I mean, I’m sure there is some art like that out there somewhere, but so far it hasn’t managed to pop up on my reddit feed!)
Heck, people still play chess and that game’s not been update in aaaaaages. Plus there is no theory-crafting left to do on it, the computer will always win if you don’t handicap it. Yet people still play it, right?
So no, games aren’t more ‘true’ because of their mechanical complexity. People like different stuff than you or me, and that’s fine. Acknowledging that is the first step towards actually creating a larger long-term player base.
1 Like
Technically, Chess isn’t a “Solved Game” yet. According to this Wikipedia article on the topic, only 23 (unless I miscounted) games are listed as “Solved Games” (and technically Pokémon Platinum could be on that list as a guy recently did an amazing video where he simultaneously played and beat all 4 billion possible seeds with nuzlocke rules through emulation and coding the exact inputs to play them all perfectly at once, here’s the video and it’s excellent!)
Anyway, because Chess isn’t a Solved Game (though it is partially solved) that means that there’s potentially some solutions that haven’t been experienced, likely because of random choices leading to different board states than would ever naturally occur.
1 Like
Technically, I didn’t call it a Solved Game, I said there was essentially no analysis of the game mechanics left. In the last 30 years, the most significant progress in chess computers has been optimalisation of the available game-tree, not the way board states are evaluated.(*) The main limiter to solving chess is time, not knowledge of the game mechanics.
(*) I mean the logic behind how the board should be evaluated, not the concrete values assigned to specific board states.
1 Like
See thread title: “About POE 2 and Last Epoch”
This inidcates the differences of both games to be taken into consideration.
Hence if you start talking about WASD in isometric bird-eye PoV then obviously you’ll have to take into consideration the created control scheme of PoE 2, otherwise it’s nonsensical.
Which… includes it as a concept, because that’s the concept behind it there.
And yes, without mouse-aim you would need a tank-control scheme, which we already spoke about being inferior. That’s self-explanatory hence.
The mechanical mastery is what keeps them alive there. Same as with MOBA games. Generally the mechanical mastery is the defining aspect of competitive games in general, for obvious reasons.
Also:
Which relates to selling numbers based on shelf-price. Which is not an indicator of how well received a game is, how much it keeps your attention or even a relevant metric to decide the success if it includes a live-service factor.
So, you’re saying the personal mastery of the chess system against other people for a competitive aspect is of no meaning?
Like in Go?
Or in Othello?
Or in Poker?
Or in… you get the gist? By that metric a runner also shouldn’t compete because cars are always faster. It’s a nonsensical argument as a baseline.
And to repeat once more since it seems to not get into some skulls here: That’s 100% and absolutely fine.
Doesn’t change what ‘a game is or not is’ in any way. When does a interactive story turn into a game? When does a game turn into a interactive story? Think about that for the next answer. Then you might realize what the tell-tale sign of a game is and what it defines it compared to other mediums.
A game has inherently something to ‘overcome’, which held true from the first games in the world up to date, it has never changed. It’s different from things which provide you with information. Fun can be derived from both, it’s nonetheless not the same.
Sounds like the average 80s action flick.
To say something about LE and PoE2, aka staying on topic:
I love the slower speed of PoE2 if one keeps the character on the lower end of damage. It plays mechanically very well, WASD is no problem at all. That it feels very different from LE or PoE1 is a good thing - for the sake of feeling different.
For me, switching between the games heightens the enjoyment of both games.
I am just always instinctively reaching for WASD when starting LE, now.
Right, and POE2 implemented WASD “correctly” with mouse-aim, and by proxy invalidated Mouse-click as a control scheme. If you’re not using WASD in PoE2, you’re making the game harder for yourself. This type of self-imposed challenge is fine, but shouldn’t be portrayed as “equally good control schemes the player can choose from”. Which is why I don’t want WASD to be added to games that weren’t designed for it, and if you did design for it, you shouldn’t offer mouse click as an alternative control scheme.
Ironically, I found out that Chronicon handles this in an acceptable manner. The game was designed for WASD w/ mouse aim and Controller, but there’s a “click to move” option in the settings for players who want it, it’s just not the default because it’s designed for WASD. But Chronicon also doesn’t let you move and attack and the same time so the disparity between WASD w/ mouse aim and click to move shouldn’t be too great, even if the WASD controls are better do the ease of kiting.
When you can make choices that influence the story. Which is why the old “Choose your own adventure” books were considered games, even though they were books.
If a visual novel has no options at all, then it’s a kinetic novel and isn’t a game. If a visual novel has options that change the story, then it’s a game.
That is why Until Dawn is a game, but Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is a movie. And why Bandersnatch is also a game.
1 Like
Chess mastery is completely different against another player vs a computer. Psychology takes a major role in one’s ability to become a Grand Master.
Haven’t played enough Go to comment on it.
Othello has been solved. No human can win from a perfect (computer) opponent, so you’re essentially only playing your opponent’s memory flaws, not the mechanics of the game.
Poker is inherently a game you can’t play purely on the mechanics. Bluffing is an essential part of the game. If you want pure mechanics, you should’ve used Blackjack as an example, which is exactly why casinos throw you out if you’re too good at it.
As for running: You can’t win at running, ever. You can win a competition of which running is a part, but nobody ever has ran so fast they ‘won it’. How you run also has no matter on a competition, so you lack the interactivity of the player with the “mechanics” anyway.
game: an activity that one engages in for amusement or fun.
Games do not inherently need to overcome anything. (Original) SimCity doesn’t have a win condition to overcome, Tetris can’t be actually won (not even with the bugs fixed), Simon Says is a game one can only ever lose, …
If you insist that there must be something to overcome in a game, do tell me what that something is in Last Epoch.
Which absolutely doesn’t hold true at all, dunno where you got that from.
A substantial range of builds don’t fare as well with WASD as with keyboard&mouse, and some don’t fare as well with keyboard&mouse then with WASD,
Much like in LE there’s a few specific builds which function better with controller then with keyboard&mouse and the majority simply works better with without a controller.
It’s as ‘equal’ as the power level between different builds. You can’t create a perfect fit, it’s not in the range of possibilities. You can solely make it so all input schemes are viable, at the top-end differences always appear because of the subtle details.
Which is a meta-mechanic outside of the intrinsic rules of the card-game itself. Much like mental pressure being an aspect of many other competitions. Also used in chess or Go at times btw. Especially in Go. You win a game as much by giving an opponent the ‘wrong’ signals as you do by playing a game.
Obviously you can win. If you’re the fastest runner world-wide then you’ve ‘won’ it. Competition is always a measure of comparing yourself to something else.
If you compete against a computer on Othello for example then you won’t win, or at best get a draw, hence there is no reason for competing. If you compete against a Computer in Chess you have a chance of winning still, albeit miniscule. If you compete against another person though your metric of measurement moves away from the technical solutions and puts yourself in comparison to other people, hence you once more can ‘win’ there as well.
It’s a psychological measure of perception which makes the difference. Hence why I used the runner example as the nonsensical approach to comparing yourself to a PC, otherwise we wouldn’t see anyone competing in chess anymore… but it hasn’t changed at all for that to happen out of a good reason.
That’s a wrong statement.
A win-condition /= overcoming an obstacle.
If you need to jump over a sizeable obstacle in reality then managing to do so can provide you with enjoyment from it, the same goes for everything else you ‘gamify’ in your mind.
Work can become a game for people, life can become a game for people… the definition of something becoming a game to someone is if they’re deriving enjoyment from overcoming something without being ‘enforced’ to actually win (but having an incentive to do so).
In SimCity it’s to build a city which functions first off. Then it becomes open ended relative to your personal goals, which is the first bar which weeds out individuals simply enjoying the part of overcoming a pre-prepared challenge and people which want to master one or several aspects beyond.
If you want to have a specific layout and get it to function, have as many citizens as possible or anything else is up to you in that case, the developers don’t set a definite end-term though, hence there simply isn’t a ‘win condition’ presented. The overcoming of an obstacle is still there.
And for the Last Epoch answer it’s really really easy:
The provided content. Be it the story, be it beating Monoliths, be it beating all provided content in the game once or beyond be it reaching a specific level of gear, a specific amount of corruption or arena-waves or even setting a time-limitation for yourself on beating specific content. All of that are obstacles, you need to put effort into it to overcome them, because they don’t finish themself.
So yeah… it’s really not a hard answer to give, children learn to do that instinctively after all, it’s a part of our most basic survival instincts to learn, as it is for the majority of animals (outside of very simple ones like worms, insects and so on). Basically every advanced enough lifeform has a similar concept of rewarding overcoming hurdles or learning things by providing a reward in our brain with the output of some form of pleasure or at least calming hormone.