"Umm....you're missing the point..."

[Indecipherable]

People who Min/Max in RPGs. You are reducing a RPG to just a G. Try some role-playing.

You are missing the point. People can enjoy the gameplay mechanics as well as the storyline, as it is not a choice that excludes the other. I tend to find people who complain about others enjoying gameplay mechanics are elitists who don't get it.

Me elitist. You Munchkin.

'been RPing for 15 years now, sometimes in games that are entirely freeform with no way of munchkinism. You fail. Keep making badly designed characters in video games because you feel like you have to. Heaven forbid you take an ability because it's useful... which.. you know... you probably would if you were in that character's shoes.

 

[ENKC]

Try as he might, my friend cannot comprehend the point of competitive StarCraft. He tries to express his opinion typically as follows "Yes, but surely you could tell by who had the most dudes or whatever who was going to win the fight?". Good thing I love him like a brother.

Does the one with the most dudes win?

Not if they're playing against Bisu, no.

(I have a man-crush on Bisu)

Does he make his mens rush?

He makes mine rush, that's for sure. Suffice it say his manlots have a lot of man.

 

[Indecipherable]

Time to expand on that too.

Let's say you're in a survival situation, and you come across a pistol and an assault rifle. Sadly there are some people who say "well my character concept is some cool guy with a trenchcoat who is all cowboy-western style so he should use the pistol". 99% of rational real people would pick up the assault rifle and start using that, developing skill (you know, those skill points or attributes you get to spend) by practicing. Funnily enough it's because we don't want to die because we thought we would be cool with a pistol. People who limit themselves to a concept to the point of exclusion of outside forces are doing funny RP business right there. As someone who studies economics, it is a fundamental principle that rational people migrate to choices that are most effective, and so would your in game persona.

 

[Treblaine]

Even the T-"Zombies" weren't even zombie, but researchers that were mutated by the virus, and acted and looked zombie-like.

"All... killed. By Zombie... Like creatures."

Seriously, if you act like a zombie, look like a zombie, and Will Smith himself calls them zombies then god damn it if they aren't zombies then nothing is zombies.

See, I don't give a crap about the "so called fans" who dislike Resident Evil 4+ because "technically they were not zombies" as the entire Romero Living Dead series they were consistently never referred to as zombies, but as "ghouls" or "those... things".

In fact it is a running theme in zombie film to never actually calls zombies, zombies. Which was parodied in Shaun of the Dead in the "don't call them zo-... the Z word" "Why not!??!" "because it's just silly, that's why".

To be honest I settled into Resident Evil 4 just fine, it was different, but you still had large hoards of monstrous and once-human enemies to fight your way through and it still had that Resident Evil charm, though with a more "Indiana Jones-ey" adventure theme rather than "haunted mansion" theme. The characters were no longer merely thrust into a situation but trying to escape but always moving forward.

maybe THAT is the point. it's not about the pedantic details of "is it a Virus?" "is it a voodoo curse?" "is it all a simulation?" is beside the point.

Call of Duty doesn't HAVE to be in WWII, Resident Evil doesn't HAVE to have Virus based zombies, you just have to get the core gameplay elements right and you're set.

 

[Plurralbles]

Time to expand on that too.

Let's say you're in a survival situation, and you come across a pistol and an assault rifle. Sadly there are some people who say "well my character concept is some cool guy with a trenchcoat who is all cowboy-western style so he should use the pistol". 99% of rational real people would pick up the assault rifle and start using that, developing skill (you know, those skill points or attributes you get to spend) by practicing. Funnily enough it's because we don't want to die because we thought we would be cool with a pistol. People who limit themselves to a concept to the point of exclusion of outside forces are doing funny RP business right there. As someone who studies economics, it is a fundamental principle that rational people migrate to choices that are most effective, and so would your in game persona.

I agree with this! But it IS a game, so people can have fun and decide to not do what they noramlly do. They would probably have to say, "NO, YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT!"

 

[Indecipherable]

Time to expand on that too.

Let's say you're in a survival situation, and you come across a pistol and an assault rifle. Sadly there are some people who say "well my character concept is some cool guy with a trenchcoat who is all cowboy-western style so he should use the pistol". 99% of rational real people would pick up the assault rifle and start using that, developing skill (you know, those skill points or attributes you get to spend) by practicing. Funnily enough it's because we don't want to die because we thought we would be cool with a pistol. People who limit themselves to a concept to the point of exclusion of outside forces are doing funny RP business right there. As someone who studies economics, it is a fundamental principle that rational people migrate to choices that are most effective, and so would your in game persona.

I agree with this! But it IS a game, so people can have fun and decide to not do what they noramlly do. They would probably have to say, "NO, YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT!"

Oh indeed, my point is that I will use all the tools to my best ability as an extension of the rational thoughts of my character, rather than because I like to see big numbers on the screen. That and I find people really grind my gears when they think that a good RP character basically has to be totally bollocks and have sh*t stat arrangements. Because heaven forbid you have someone who is capable, THAT JUST WOULDN'T BE RP ANYMORE.

 

[Omikron009]

When I first played Oblivion and decided I didn't like it I was missing the point. I tried to play it as a game driven by making one's own character and interacting with others akin to the Mass Effect games or Fallout 3, but that just doesn't work in a game where pretty much every NPC only exists as a questgiver or place to buy and sell stuff. When I looked at it as a high fantasy hack and slashy dungeon crawler I suddenly loved it.

 

[Browbeat]

Conditionally, it's either uninitiated users viewing a group of fans who were sold an idea about something as being significant or unique (the aforementioned grey box a.k.a. The Aperture Science Weighted Companion Cube)

or

A person who sees a mainstream-absorbed premise for its mechanical flaws but is overpowered by a wave of comfort-defense-driven backlash. ("Hey, ever notice that Halo is a sloppy, repetitive corridor shooter?" "BAN THAT HATING MOTHERF-")

That said, one common game I see misunderstood is Ico. Most people who criticize it for the basis of its gameplay (being basically lashed to a fellow prisoner who has no incentive to actually leave, yet depending on them utterly) fail to see the product as a combination of ambiance, refreshingly different mechanics, and the quiet sentimentalism portrayed within...

 

[Treblaine]

Well actually in the old romero film they were going to be Ghouls not zombies but without telling him they changed it. Hence why they ran instead of shambling like all depictions of zombies back then, his creatures were Ghouls, but they were changed to zombies and the name stuck.

...What!

I'm sorry, maybe I'm too sleepy but that doesn't make any sense.

The old Romero zombie films the zombies DID NOT run, they shambled.

"they were going to be Ghouls not zombies but without telling him they changed it"

They? Who is "They"? Romero had absolute control over the film, who could change it and what did they change exactly?!?! And what the hell IS a Ghoul anyway, it's pretty non-specific, and even back then Zombie was the common term for those creatures.

Look, Romero DID have zombies in his films, he just never had them called that by any of the characters.

 

[Snownine]

Have you ever encountered someone who has just complete missed the point of the game, series, or challenge? Button mashing in a fighting game(though random button-fu does work sometimes), playing a genre like a completely different genre entirely, or just missing the whole meaning of the story.

I have 2 examples that I can share atm.

1)Resident Evil was never about zombies. Now some people complain about the latest 2 RE games not having and zombies in it and it was taking it away from the original concept of the series....well, it wasn't. Like the japanese name of the series, Biohazard, the game has been and most likely always will be about biohazards/bio-logical weapons. Even in the original game, you had enemies like the Hunters, Tyrant, and giant $#%&ing snakes...those were not zombies, they were biological weapons made with the T virus. Even the T-"Zombies" weren't even zombie, but researchers that were mutated by the virus, and acted and looked zombie-like.

2)Why level up any other Pokemon? Maybe this might be something I do, but I have never found a reason to level up any other Pokemon besides my starter, especially with some of the moves they get later on, they can become powerhouses against their weakness types, and can usually steamroll the Elite Four. I've done this so far with every Pokemon game to date without fail...then just go back and put an EXP Share on the Pokemon I want to level up/evolve, and just do constant Elite Four runs....but maybe that just me.

The T-virus does make actual zombies though, not just mutated people. The first ones you encounter in Code Veronica came out of a grave yard. I agree that the series was never about zombies though and thought it was funny that people got pissed.

 

[octafish]

I apologize, the interweb got the best of me, I shouldn't have called you names... or name... whatever. Still... opinions huh?

 

[Treblaine]

Time to expand on that too.

Let's say you're in a survival situation, and you come across a pistol and an assault rifle. Sadly there are some people who say "well my character concept is some cool guy with a trenchcoat who is all cowboy-western style so he should use the pistol". 99% of rational real people would pick up the assault rifle and start using that, developing skill (you know, those skill points or attributes you get to spend) by practicing. Funnily enough it's because we don't want to die because we thought we would be cool with a pistol. People who limit themselves to a concept to the point of exclusion of outside forces are doing funny RP business right there. As someone who studies economics, it is a fundamental principle that rational people migrate to choices that are most effective, and so would your in game persona.

Except games don't have to follow real world physics, that handgun could fire 60mm supersonic mortar sells if you code it into the game. And then people will go for the handgun.

Hell the "magnum" pistol in Halo: CE was ridiculously overpowered with a damn zoom scope on it. It's amazing the effect of labelling a pistol as "magnum" in games, maybe thanks to Dirty Harry people got the impression that "most powerful handgun in the world" extended to "most powerful weapon... full stop".

Thing is, handguns are generally weak as fuck, a magnum revolver gets it's ass spanked by a rifle that is twice it's age.

But, it's a gaming convention, you can make the Magnum more powerful than the 12 gauge shotgun and more accurate than the assault rifle because it is just remotely plausible.

See magnums are "rare" (shiny) while shotguns and shells are cheap and common... you can't make the cheap/common weapon more powerful than the rare weapon, that breaks the game mechanics.

Not saying you can't go the relaisti route.

I'd love a game where the frequency of weapons and ammo in games was relative to their real world prices. Like you'd find way more AK47s ($200 per gun) and AK ammo than M16 rifles ($900-$2000) and pistols will bearley be worth it at $500 per weapon compared to cheap submachine guns.

 

[Indecipherable]

Time to expand on that too.

Let's say you're in a survival situation, and you come across a pistol and an assault rifle. Sadly there are some people who say "well my character concept is some cool guy with a trenchcoat who is all cowboy-western style so he should use the pistol". 99% of rational real people would pick up the assault rifle and start using that, developing skill (you know, those skill points or attributes you get to spend) by practicing. Funnily enough it's because we don't want to die because we thought we would be cool with a pistol. People who limit themselves to a concept to the point of exclusion of outside forces are doing funny RP business right there. As someone who studies economics, it is a fundamental principle that rational people migrate to choices that are most effective, and so would your in game persona.

Except games don't have to follow real world physics, that handgun could fire 60mm supersonic mortar sells if you code it into the game. And then people will go for the handgun.

Hell the "magnum" pistol in Halo: CE was ridiculously overpowered with a damn zoom scope on it. It's amazing the effect of labelling a pistol as "magnum" in games, maybe thanks to Dirty Harry people got the impression that "most powerful handgun in the world" extended to "most powerful weapon... full stop".

Thing is, handguns are generally weak as fuck, a magnum revolver gets it's ass spanked by a rifle that is twice it's age.

But, it's a gaming convention, you can make the Magnum more powerful than the 12 gauge shotgun and more accurate than the assault rifle because it is just remotely plausible.

See magnums are "rare" (shiny) while shotguns and shells are cheap and common... you can't make the cheap/common weapon more powerful than the rare weapon, that breaks the game mechanics.

Not saying you can't go the relaisti route.

I'd love a game where the frequency of weapons and ammo in games was relative to their real world prices. Like you'd find way more AK47s ($200 per gun) and AK ammo than M16 rifles ($900-$2000) and pistols will bearley be worth it at $500 per weapon compared to cheap submachine guns.

"You're missing the point". My point is not specifically about one particular instance, but about what the character's reaction to the world they are in. The original question posed was "why would someone powergame" and my response is the justification for why someone would. It is just like real life - if given two opportunities for survival, one very difficult, and one much more likely, which would you take? Transfer this thought across to the game genre and you'd see why in a "life and death situation in an RPG" you would be likely to take the easiest route.

I don't care about the specific example of pistols versus assault rifles. It could be telepathy versus magic card tricks for all I care. The point behind it is the justification in character for the choices made, and a rational character in the game will gravitate towards the choices with the highest perceived success rate.

Unless they have a deathwish.

I do read your post and wonder how much was a response to mine and how much was just a rant about pistols.

 

[Treblaine]

Spoiler

Time to expand on that too.

Let's say you're in a survival situation, and you come across a pistol and an assault rifle. Sadly there are some people who say "well my character concept is some cool guy with a trenchcoat who is all cowboy-western style so he should use the pistol". 99% of rational real people would pick up the assault rifle and start using that, developing skill (you know, those skill points or attributes you get to spend) by practicing. Funnily enough it's because we don't want to die because we thought we would be cool with a pistol. People who limit themselves to a concept to the point of exclusion of outside forces are doing funny RP business right there. As someone who studies economics, it is a fundamental principle that rational people migrate to choices that are most effective, and so would your in game persona.

Except games don't have to follow real world physics, that handgun could fire 60mm supersonic mortar sells if you code it into the game. And then people will go for the handgun.

Hell the "magnum" pistol in Halo: CE was ridiculously overpowered with a damn zoom scope on it. It's amazing the effect of labelling a pistol as "magnum" in games, maybe thanks to Dirty Harry people got the impression that "most powerful handgun in the world" extended to "most powerful weapon... full stop".

Thing is, handguns are generally weak as fuck, a magnum revolver gets it's ass spanked by a rifle that is twice it's age.

But, it's a gaming convention, you can make the Magnum more powerful than the 12 gauge shotgun and more accurate than the assault rifle because it is just remotely plausible.

See magnums are "rare" (shiny) while shotguns and shells are cheap and common... you can't make the cheap/common weapon more powerful than the rare weapon, that breaks the game mechanics.

Not saying you can't go the relaisti route.

I'd love a game where the frequency of weapons and ammo in games was relative to their real world prices. Like you'd find way more AK47s ($200 per gun) and AK ammo than M16 rifles ($900-$2000) and pistols will bearley be worth it at $500 per weapon compared to cheap submachine guns.

"You're missing the point". My point is not specifically about one particular instance, but about what the character's reaction to the world they are in. The original question posed was "why would someone powergame" and my response is the justification for why someone would. It is just like real life - if given two opportunities for survival, one very difficult, and one much more likely, which would you take? Transfer this thought across to the game genre and you'd see why in a "life and death situation in an RPG" you would be likely to take the easiest route.

I don't care about the specific example of pistols versus assault rifles. It could be telepathy versus magic card tricks for all I care. The point behind it is the justification in character for the choices made, and a rational character in the game will gravitate towards the choices with the highest perceived success rate.

Unless they have a deathwish.

I do read your post and wonder how much was a response to mine and how much was just a rant about pistols.

Yes, sorry about that, it was at least significantly a rant about pistols.

"Unless they have a deathwish."

Some people (and by that I mean what I often do and assume others do) deliberately don't use the most effective weapon in the game because they/I find it too easy.

Like in Bioshock I've been getting most of my kills with the Pistol, I suppose partially I am conserving ammo for bosses or Big Daddy, but in other games I'll use the weaker weapon because I perceive the weaker enemies of the game shouldn't have "high power" weapons/ammo wasted on them.

Or maybe it is that RPGs are significantly different from the action-adventure games I play, I have only played a few J-RPGs (Final-fantasy-alikes) and did find them a bit of a chore. It's not something I'd want to trudge through with a weak ass weapon, ANYTHING to get the battle sequences just bloody well over with as soon as possible.

But in Half Life 2, fucking around with the admittedly less effective Gravity gun to kill zombies is worth it because the challenge is more fun.

 

[Bocaj2000]

My biggest gripe about missing the point is probably these:

It's not about the gear, it's about the challenge and the fun: Just about every game brings up this discussion, but primarily World of Warcraft. I don't car how many lvl 80s the person has. They treat it as if it's a commodity. There's nothing I hate more than lvl 11s with epic gear in pvp. It seems inane to me.

Games are art: I'm not putting this up to debate. More goes into a game than one may think. First, there's the game design- how the game plays. Whether this is an art or not is disputable. However the animation and music score is not disputable. For animation, the character starts as a sketch, then becomes a clay model, and then goes through a rigorous process of being created into the computer. The musical score (any music for that matter), no matter how simple, is an art form -from the final boss theme from Final Fantasy, to the map theme from Lost Odyssey. Anyone who argues otherwise is an ignorant prig.