Iznaliu
Arbiter
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2016
- Messages
- 3,686
remove larpers from the premises
Hardcore min-maxing can almost be as bad as hardcore LARPing in the right circumstances.
remove larpers from the premises
Hardcore min-maxing can almost be as bad as hardcore LARPing in the right circumstances.
Why the hell is your character intent on going to Abu Dhabi anyway?
Not really ... most RPGs are easily "winnable" without searching every trash can and killing every rat. The Shadowrun games absolutely are, for example; and the option to not "do it all" is absolutely intentional to their design. Often in gaming, in fact, doing every side quest etc. will mean you are comically overlevelled for the final battle, effectively ruining the endgame. Min-maxing isn't actually playing to win; it's simply playing to min-max, entirely for its own sake.That's just playing to win, no more, no less.
Not really ... most RPGs are perfectly "winnable" without searching every trash can and killing every rat.
Sure, but that's not playing to win; it's playing to optimize. Two very different things. My whole point is that optimizing is unnecessary.It's not only about winning, it's how well you play and how strongly you win. Germany didn't stop playing when they were 4-0 against Brazil in the world cup finals.Not really ... most RPGs are perfectly "winnable" without searching every trash can and killing every rat.
My whole point is that optimizing is unnecessary.
If that were true, this conversation would never have started.I am fairly certain this is not news to anyone ITT.My whole point is that optimizing is unnecessary.
I don’t understand this train of thought: “These stupid quests are all over the game, but they are skippable”. I heard the same excuses about the filler loot in W2. It doesn’t matter whether you can choose to ignore the quests or most of the filler content. The exploration of the world, with all its filler content, was intended as one of the core elements of the gameplay. The fact that it is a chore shows that there is a deep flaw in the game.
There's a qualitative difference between quests and loot.
It can be argued that "filler loot" exists in the world not for the purpose of you taking every single bit of it, but to serve as a kind of "residual resource" which you partake of only as necessary, like resources in a strategy game, a survival game, or a procedurally generated roguelike.
"Filler quests" are harder to justify, because they incorporate actual plot and lore content, which a player of a story-driven RPG should want to see as much of as possible.
I think that in oldschool games that had a more abstract representation of things, it was more common for the player to treat randomly generated loot not as something that needs to be sucked dry out of the world, but more as a kind of residual resource to be selectively "foraged" as necessary.
You do see this in modern open world games as well. For example, a non-completionist player in Fallout 3 might realize he's low on money at some point, and go on a selective "scavenging expedition" in D.C. to get some loot and sell it. After he's done that, he goes back to non-completionist mode, following the main quest and not looting everything he sees.
I do agree that this is a somewhat "casual"/non-hardcore way of playing RPGs, but it is a valid way of playing, and something that "filler loot" can support.
Hardcore min-maxing is simply roleplaying the actual game in front of you.remove larpers from the premises
Hardcore min-maxing can almost be as bad as hardcore LARPing in the right circumstances.
But that's part of the problem, what you describe is anticlimatic because side content must be about your mage becoming an archmage and finding some spell or the best axe to become able to beat the endgame, not about kitten. If you don't solve much of it then you're not strong enough and that's the point, becoming strong enough to beat the endgame is and must be more satisfying than reaching the endgame ; otherwise, I mean if reaching the endgame is the only goal, and it works too, then there's no need for side content at all.Often in gaming, in fact, doing every side quest etc. will mean you are comically overlevelled for the final battle, effectively ruining the endgame.
So, Zombra , I agree with what you've said here, but does it also mean that all this highminded talk about roleplaying and knowingly skipping content also applies to savescumming those pesky locked containers in a game where there's an RNG skilltest for opening it? It's about the same thing afterall, avoiding compulsive completionism and letting go.
I don't oppose savescumming because it's 'degenerate' play or whatever, I think it's just usually silly because it's so boring and destroys any sense of coherent gameplay. Why do you really need whatever's in that chest? Why do you effectively want to be able to open more chests than you're entitled via your skill level? Why is it fun to sit there reloading all day long? If I thought the game was great but I really hate how lockpicking is chance-based, I'd just cheat myself some lockpicking and move on - or ignore some of the chests, and probably never miss the extra goodies.
ot really ... most RPGs are easily "winnable" without searching every trash can and killing every rat.
Often in gaming, in fact, doing every side quest etc. will mean you are comically overlevelled for the final battle
And I find it continually amazing that anyone persistently objects to trying to enjoy RPGs any other way, as if no other way can exist
Because you see I have tried it both ways