Negatempest said:
cursedseishi said:
Negatempest said:
cursedseishi said:
Alpha Maeko said:
A thief who doesn't steal.
Er... I suppose you can play it that way.
Honestly u find it hilarious that these guys thought the players, the very people expecting to be able to steal stuff, wouldn't want to steal stuff.
And that's ignoring some of the painfully obvious fixes available for the system, that doesn't require dropping the idea. Like, oh I don't know, having said loot award large chunks of xp when stolen, and award no-detect or no-kill playthroughs, kind of like how other stealth based games handle it. Then again, I'm not entirely sure about the competence (or sanity) of these Devs just yet so... Yeah.
Bht he is already the best there is, its kinda in his title. XP is merely a method to show progression of a weak character grow in strength. XP in theif would be like XP in COD story mode. They are already the best, what is xp supposed to prove?
Xp isn't a method to show weak to strong, it's merely progression. Apply that to the mass effect games, or any MMO, and you'll see just how pointless that definition is. It's nothing more than a way to gate progress or allow customization of a characters capabilities while also limiting just how high it can go.
It has nothing to do with a title, sorry to say.
And that example of xp in CoD is pointless. Again, it's a way of gating progress in multiplayer. A 10th prestige Players only real advantage is his available time in the real world, it has NOtHING to do with his characters capabilities.
And i can put that in ME. In terms that if shepard is the best in his field before being a spectre, the entire military is incompetent if shepard is one of the elite with storm trooper aim. XP has started as a progression of a weak player to an elite one. XP in shooters was changed to nothing more than a time sink method of play. Yet a title of spectre or master thief essentially means being elite in their respective field. So if they are elites in their field than XP progression is pointless and a time sink.
Again, title means NOTHING. Shepard was already singled out as being better than normal, due to the story. Experience points earned in-game means nothing to his relative capabilities within said story, hence it does not show progression from weak to strong. The idea of him having "storm trooper" aim means nothing as well, as that is reliant solely on the player's ability to aim. Just because you, for instance, can't aim for crap, means nothing to his actual ability.
And I'm sorry, but when has XP in a game like Call of Duty ever been for anything more than a time sink? It hasn't, and that's a bloody fact. At most Battlefield used it to differentiate classes, but even then it served as nothing more than a gate, and meant nothing to actual skill of the character or player, as with time anyone can get anything through it.
So again I'll say this, wrong. Wrong.
Wrong. The title of "master" serves only the narrative. It represents nothing of the character outside of pre-scripted events that the player has no bearing what so ever on. Experience earned serves as an ingame form of progression, outside of the narrative, with no hold over it.
You have a serious issue here with being able to disassociate the meaning of XP, and its hold on the narrative. A shepard who has been imported through all 3 games has no real advantage over a freshly made character. It's a separation of story and mechanics, learn it.
You also seem to be managing confusing the definition of "Master" with "Perfect". Shepard isn't a perfect soldier, Garret isn't a perfect thief, and any of the other innane examples you can bring up are not perfect either. Even if we take experience and leveling as progression of the narrative, it fits perfectly fine. It represents honing and learning from what has happened, if you want to get into semantics, and there's a saying in real life buddy.
"You're never done learning."