Nor has he even addressed the restrictions of levels, classes, forced developer content and etc. Just you can do things which really amount to killing and quest that 90% involve killing.
Your thread is "progression through achievements". It didn't expansively describe a lot of other game features beyond your quest-based progression (and even if it had, that portion of the game would still inarguably lack freedom.)
Who cares about offtopic discussions? We're talking about progression systems. One system gives you freedom (centralized), yours doesn't.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Nor has he even addressed the restrictions of levels, classes, forced developer content and etc. Just you can do things which really amount to killing and quest that 90% involve killing.
Your thread is "progression through achievements". It didn't expansively describe a lot of other game features beyond your quest-based progression (and even if it had, that portion of the game would still inarguably lack freedom.)
Who cares about offtopic discussions? We're talking about progression systems. One system gives you freedom (centralized), yours doesn't.
Well this claim was already proven wrong, on this page alone as per Cameltosis post and my own last post.
You're free to assert that you prefer a particular system, but please don't insert your opinion over fact.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You are saying that in the proposed achievement system, there is only one way to progress - that is a flat out lie used to distort the argument. There are as many ways to progress as there are achievements. What you are saying is as absurd as me saying that a centralised XP system is restrictive because there is only one way to progress - earn XP!
Ultimately, it is implementation that matters. I prefer skill-based progression systems like Morrowind because I believe they offer me more freedom than centralised xp level-based systems. In a centralised xp level-based system, I'm restricted to a very narrow band of content in order to progress and the progression is usually linear.
In a skill-based system, I can progress in numerous ways and usually in a far greater variety of locations. Sure, if I want to progress my sword skill, I have to use a sword, but assuming I haven't capped out any skills then I have numerous additional ways to progress my character by switching weapons/armour/magic etc and progressing my character in a different direction. Centralised XP progression systems can't say the same thing.
My arguments are consistently the same, constant truth.
Tell me:
How many ways can I earn progression towards sword skill in his system?
How many ways can I earn progression towards the equivalent in WOW? (Basically what are all the activities that provide XP, which combined will level up to 90 where I'll unlock Bladestorm?)
(Answers: There is one way to advance in the first system, and about four (combat, quests, crafting, exploration, and dungeon XP) in the centralized system.)
It doesn't matter if other achievements exist. I don't want Mace skill or Athletics right now, I want Sword skill. With centralized progression I can get it from my choice of several activities. With his system, I'm locked into just one activity.
My focus is on player freedom. So saying something stupid like "you can only advance by earning XP" wouldn't necessarily infringe on players' freedom -- it doesn't relate to what players can choose to do to advance. Meanwhile my argument is "you can only advance sword skill by swinging swords" which does relate to players' available choices.
We've been focus on the inputs of the system, where his system is objectively less free. Progression through achievements specifically refers to the inputs of the system (how progression is gained.)
If you want to talk about outputs, then a system like Path of Exile will be more free than a system like WOW. (Basically asking "What can you do with the XP/Levels after you've earned them?" and measuring the amount of freedom involved in spending your progression.) But that doesn't change the fact that his inputs are objectively less free.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You are saying that in the proposed achievement system, there is only one way to progress - that is a flat out lie used to distort the argument. There are as many ways to progress as there are achievements. What you are saying is as absurd as me saying that a centralised XP system is restrictive because there is only one way to progress - earn XP!
Ultimately, it is implementation that matters. I prefer skill-based progression systems like Morrowind because I believe they offer me more freedom than centralised xp level-based systems. In a centralised xp level-based system, I'm restricted to a very narrow band of content in order to progress and the progression is usually linear.
In a skill-based system, I can progress in numerous ways and usually in a far greater variety of locations. Sure, if I want to progress my sword skill, I have to use a sword, but assuming I haven't capped out any skills then I have numerous additional ways to progress my character by switching weapons/armour/magic etc and progressing my character in a different direction. Centralised XP progression systems can't say the same thing.
My arguments are consistently the same, constant truth.
Tell me:
How many ways can I earn progression towards sword skill in his system?
How many ways can I earn progression towards the equivalent in WOW? (Basically what are all the activities that provide XP, which combined will level up to 90 where I'll unlock Bladestorm?)
Again, your making false comparisons
In WoW, the only way to progress (levels) is to gain XP. In achievements, the only way to progress (sword skill) is to gain sword XP.
In both systems, there is only one input for progression (XP).
So, we can then take it the next step down - how to earn XP in both systems. This is where the implementation comes into force. In something like WoW, you're very restricted on earning XP: you may have more activities (combat, quests, exploration, achievements) but in a vastly restricted area. In an achievement system, there are less activities per skill, but much more freedom in where you can perform those achievements. I know you like to avoid other skills in this example, but they are relevant because it is all progression. You've included crafting in your example despite crafting being 100% separate from character progression in the majority of games.
Finally, you're focusing on one specific, very narrow example - swinging a sword to gain sword skill. This is where implementation comes in. Maybe in a new game, you can gain sword XP through combat (1), maintenance (2), crafting (3), trading (4), training (5) and socially (6). Using your logic, that system would be more free than a centralised xp system.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
You are saying that in the proposed achievement system, there is only one way to progress - that is a flat out lie used to distort the argument. There are as many ways to progress as there are achievements. What you are saying is as absurd as me saying that a centralised XP system is restrictive because there is only one way to progress - earn XP!
Ultimately, it is implementation that matters. I prefer skill-based progression systems like Morrowind because I believe they offer me more freedom than centralised xp level-based systems. In a centralised xp level-based system, I'm restricted to a very narrow band of content in order to progress and the progression is usually linear.
In a skill-based system, I can progress in numerous ways and usually in a far greater variety of locations. Sure, if I want to progress my sword skill, I have to use a sword, but assuming I haven't capped out any skills then I have numerous additional ways to progress my character by switching weapons/armour/magic etc and progressing my character in a different direction. Centralised XP progression systems can't say the same thing.
My arguments are consistently the same, constant truth.
Tell me:
How many ways can I earn progression towards sword skill in his system?
How many ways can I earn progression towards the equivalent in WOW? (Basically what are all the activities that provide XP, which combined will level up to 90 where I'll unlock Bladestorm?)
(Answers: There is one way to advance in the first system, and about four (combat, quests, crafting, exploration, and dungeon XP) in the centralized system.)
It doesn't matter if other achievements exist. I don't want Mace skill or Athletics right now, I want Sword skill. With centralized progression I can get it from my choice of several activities. With his system, I'm locked into just one activity.
My focus is on player freedom. So saying something stupid like "you can only advance by earning XP" wouldn't necessarily infringe on players' freedom -- it doesn't relate to what players can choose to do to advance. Meanwhile my argument is "you can only advance sword skill by swinging swords" which does relate to players' available choices.
We've been focus on the inputs of the system, where his system is objectively less free. Progression through achievements specifically refers to the inputs of the system (how progression is gained.)
If you want to talk about outputs, then a system like Path of Exile will be more free than a system like WOW. (Basically asking "What can you do with the XP/Levels after you've earned them?" and measuring the amount of freedom involved in spending your progression.) But that doesn't change the fact that his inputs are objectively less free.
And herein we see the assumptions skewing reality again.
The feature of a centralized system is only that it utilizes a single pool XP for all character progression.
Your example immediately breaks away from that fact by talking about differing means to obtain XP, of which none of the provided options necessarily contribute to XP gain in even a centralized system. Those are all secondary features (questing, achievements, crafting, combat, etc) to which you have to ascribe a relationship to the rest of the game's systems. There is no inherent relationship between those mechanics where you can simply assume they contribute to a specific system such as centralized progression.
Seeing as you called out WoW in particular, we can immediately address this in the case of Profession skills (crafting, gathering, etc). Seeing as traditionally professions gave little to no XP and instead exist within their own microcosm defined by proficiency levels. On top of that there is an exceptionally finite quality to reward XP for activities like exploration as that's largely distributed only from WoW's achievement system for first-time zone exploration and list completion.
Advancement can be then noted as primarily coming from two sources. Quests which railroad you into specific duties whether you like them or not, and combat.
The reality we can see unwinding as we disassemble this is that in a game like WoW with centralized progression, and more importantly the features you have elected to support that element, the freedom of choice for players has been excessively strangled.
Given we've already done the comparison and breakdown of the opposing case for skill systems, we can already note that your argument was predicated on a lot of false assumptions.
It offers players freedom of choice in picking the elements of the game for which their interest actually rests. The fact that they can choose any and all input as it applies to their interest already denotes more freedom over the input of a game in an immediate sense in trade-off to the discrete rewards. Objectivity would keep sight of this and not disregard facts for opinion.
And as Cameltosis pointed out, the same excuses you are trying to establish for your argument apply equally effectively to a skill progression system, as an individual skill such as swordsmanship can have multiple means to obtain XP.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
In WoW, the only way to progress (levels) is to gain XP. In achievements, the only way to progress (sword skill) is to gain sword XP.
In both systems, there is only one input for progression (XP).
So, we can then take it the next step down - how to earn XP in both systems. This is where the implementation comes into force. In something like WoW, you're very restricted on earning XP: you may have more activities (combat, quests, exploration, achievements) but in a vastly restricted area. In an achievement system, there are less activities per skill, but much more freedom in where you can perform those achievements. I know you like to avoid other skills in this example, but they are relevant because it is all progression. You've included crafting in your example despite crafting being 100% separate from character progression in the majority of games.
Finally, you're focusing on one specific, very narrow example - swinging a sword to gain sword skill. This is where implementation comes in. Maybe in a new game, you can gain sword XP through combat (1), maintenance (2), crafting (3), trading (4), training (5) and socially (6). Using your logic, that system would be more free than a centralised xp system.
Sometimes I can't tell if posters honestly believe the nonsense they're saying.
Being able to choose what you do is real, meaningful freedom.
Whereas making gross oversimplifications prevents any meaning from being discussed. Saying "it's all XP" is as useless as some derp coming in and saying "no games ever offer any freedom because they're all about 'doing things'. Fighting? That's doing a thing. Crafting? Doing a thing. Exploration? Doing a thing. Notice a pattern? It's all the same thing with no variance!" Instead of blindly oversimplifying, why not admit the plain truth that centralized progression allows players more freedom to choose what they do than an achievement-based system where if I want to increase Sword Skill I'm stuck doing just 1 activity?
It's not a false comparison. Asking "how many activities can I choose from to level this skill?" is literally the most meaningful measure of a game's freedom.
Your concluding paragraph is FANTASTIC, because you literally describe a Centralized Progression system (many inputs all producing Sword XP, and it's your choice which ones you engage with.) So yes, I absolutely agree that such a system would involve a great deal of freedom, because it's exactly the same superior system I've been posted repeatedly about!
Alas, Vermillion's system isn't like that and so we must repeat the constant truth that his system lacks the freedom of your proposal.
Post edited by Axehilt on
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
In WoW, the only way to progress (levels) is to gain XP. In achievements, the only way to progress (sword skill) is to gain sword XP.
In both systems, there is only one input for progression (XP).
So, we can then take it the next step down - how to earn XP in both systems. This is where the implementation comes into force. In something like WoW, you're very restricted on earning XP: you may have more activities (combat, quests, exploration, achievements) but in a vastly restricted area. In an achievement system, there are less activities per skill, but much more freedom in where you can perform those achievements. I know you like to avoid other skills in this example, but they are relevant because it is all progression. You've included crafting in your example despite crafting being 100% separate from character progression in the majority of games.
Finally, you're focusing on one specific, very narrow example - swinging a sword to gain sword skill. This is where implementation comes in. Maybe in a new game, you can gain sword XP through combat (1), maintenance (2), crafting (3), trading (4), training (5) and socially (6). Using your logic, that system would be more free than a centralised xp system.
Sometimes I can't tell if posters honestly believe the nonsense they're saying.
Being able to choose what you do is real, meaningful freedom.
Whereas making gross oversimplifications prevents any meaning from being discussed. Saying "it's all XP" is as useless as some derp coming in and saying "no games ever offer any freedom because they're all about 'doing things'. Fighting? That's doing a thing. Crafting? Doing a thing. Exploration? Doing a thing. Notice a pattern?" Instead of blindly oversimplifying, why not admit the plain truth that centralized progression allows players more freedom to choose what they do than an achievement-based system where if I want to increase Sword Skill I'm stuck doing just 1 activity?
It's not a false comparison. Asking "how many activities can I choose from to level this skill?" is literally the most meaningful measure of a game's freedom.
Your concluding paragraph is FANTASTIC, because you literally describe a Centralized Progression system (many inputs all producing Sword XP, and it's your choice which ones you engage with.) So yes, I absolutely agree that such a system would involve a great deal of freedom, because it's exactly the same superior system I've been posted repeatedly about!
Alas, Vermillion's system isn't like that and so we must repeat the constant truth that his system lacks the freedom of your proposal.
That's a whole lot of irrational going on.
Being able to choose what you do is exactly the point of the advocacy of a skill based progression system, as explained by the last multiple posts in how they offer players more choice in picking the activities and progression they have an interest in as opposed to following defined paths they aren't necessarily interested in.
And that's your repeated mistake about centralized progression. A centralized progression mechanic only dictates that character's progress via a single/primary XP pool.
Skill based progression is the use of many discrete branches which gain their own XP through applicable activities.
Neither one mandates how many activities feeds into that progression, and each mechanic can be consequently broad or narrow in it's functionality.
Your next claim that the system Cameltosis suggested is a central progression mechanic is false as it relates to this matter. What he explained with multiple elements feeding into "Sword XP" is not a centralized progression mechanic because it is not feeding into any singular or primary XP pool, but is instead simply multiple activities that all feeds one of many discrete branches as is the nature of a skill progression system.
You are very simply failing to understand the difference between the core progression mechanic and the supporting features of those mechanics and how changing those features while preserving the core mechanic can yield vastly different results.
So if you agree that it works as he suggested, then you have agreed skill based progression system works.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
In WoW, the only way to progress (levels) is to gain XP. In achievements, the only way to progress (sword skill) is to gain sword XP.
In both systems, there is only one input for progression (XP).
So, we can then take it the next step down - how to earn XP in both systems. This is where the implementation comes into force. In something like WoW, you're very restricted on earning XP: you may have more activities (combat, quests, exploration, achievements) but in a vastly restricted area. In an achievement system, there are less activities per skill, but much more freedom in where you can perform those achievements. I know you like to avoid other skills in this example, but they are relevant because it is all progression. You've included crafting in your example despite crafting being 100% separate from character progression in the majority of games.
Finally, you're focusing on one specific, very narrow example - swinging a sword to gain sword skill. This is where implementation comes in. Maybe in a new game, you can gain sword XP through combat (1), maintenance (2), crafting (3), trading (4), training (5) and socially (6). Using your logic, that system would be more free than a centralised xp system.
Sometimes I can't tell if posters honestly believe the nonsense they're saying.
Being able to choose what you do is real, meaningful freedom.
Whereas making gross oversimplifications prevents any meaning from being discussed. Saying "it's all XP" is as useless as some derp coming in and saying "no games ever offer any freedom because they're all about 'doing things'. Fighting? That's doing a thing. Crafting? Doing a thing. Exploration? Doing a thing. Notice a pattern?" Instead of blindly oversimplifying, why not admit the plain truth that centralized progression allows players more freedom to choose what they do than an achievement-based system where if I want to increase Sword Skill I'm stuck doing just 1 activity?
It's not a false comparison. Asking "how many activities can I choose from to level this skill?" is literally the most meaningful measure of a game's freedom.
Your concluding paragraph is FANTASTIC, because you literally describe a Centralized Progression system (many inputs all producing Sword XP, and it's your choice which ones you engage with.) So yes, I absolutely agree that such a system would involve a great deal of freedom, because it's exactly the same superior system I've been posted repeatedly about!
Alas, Vermillion's system isn't like that and so we must repeat the constant truth that his system lacks the freedom of your proposal.
That's a whole lot of irrational going on.
Being able to choose what you do is exactly the point of the advocacy of a skill based progression system, as explained by the last multiple posts in how they offer players more choice in picking the activities and progression they have an interest in as opposed to following defined paths they aren't necessarily interested in.
And that's your repeated mistake about centralized progression. A centralized progression mechanic only dictates that character's progress via a single/primary XP pool.
Skill based progression is the use of many discrete branches which gain their own XP through applicable activities.
Neither one mandates how many activities feeds into that progression, and each mechanic can be consequently broad or narrow in it's functionality.
Your next claim that the system Cameltosis suggested is a central progression mechanic is false as it relates to this matter. What he explained with multiple elements feeding into "Sword XP" is not a centralized progression mechanic because it is not feeding into any singular or primary XP pool, but is instead simply multiple activities that all feeds one of many discrete branches as is the nature of a skill progression system.
You are very simply failing to understand the difference between the core progression mechanic and the supporting features of those mechanics and how changing those features while preserving the core mechanic can yield vastly different results.
So if you agree that it works as he suggested, then you have agreed skill based progression system works.
Pretty much sums up everything. He can only argue by ignoring freedom of choice of the initial interest of doing what you want. Instead he focuses on the action being singular.
It's akin to saying you could for travel for free anywhere in the US but having to use a freely given visa card is restrictive. This is because there is only one means of pay to travel you don't have freedom.
Being able to choose what you do is exactly the point of the advocacy of a skill based progression system, as explained by the last multiple posts in how they offer players more choice in picking the activities and progression they have an interest in as opposed to following defined paths they aren't necessarily interested in.
Players already have choices of not playing the game. It is just like saying you need to have branching endings in a movies to give viewers more choices.
Well .. more choices does not equate better. Take DOOM (the recent). Highly rated game. There is not many choices of what to do except to shoot different guns .. still highly successful.
A devs just have to make the restricted single path fun for their audience ... and there are plenty of good examples. Choices just for the sake of it are no good.
The binary choice of playing or not playing a game is a choice no matter what anyone does. It is not in any way a choice related to the discussion we've been having about the actions available within a game.
The matter of choice in a game is the matter of what kind of engaging decisions and interesting content players can have available at any given time. "More choice" as it relates to any of the content shared so far is the availability of gameplay options for which the player actually has an interest in and the subsequent ability to play that content rather than be blocked from it due to another mechanic.
Just as DOOM is highly reviewed, so is the ES series and it is one that is predicated very much on skill based progression mechanics. Just because one game can deliver a finite user experience that is fun for a select audience does not make that narrow band of play interesting for all users, variety offers choice and choice offers the ability to find the type of play you prefer.
Post edited by Vaross on
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Pretty much sums up everything. He can only argue by ignoring freedom of choice of the initial interest of doing what you want. Instead he focuses on the action being singular.
It's akin to saying you could for travel for free anywhere in the US but having to use a freely given visa card is restrictive. This is because there is only one means of pay to travel you don't have freedom.
If you want to level sword skill, you don't have freedom.
His point is faulty as usual. If I made an argument equally ignorant I'd be saying that a lack of freedom is utterly impossible in gaming, because if you don't like the amount of freedom in Game A you can freely choose Game B. Meanwhile, the lack of freedom in Game A actually matters to players, and the lack of freedom in how you level your Sword Skill actually matters to players.
I'm speaking to the real, meaningful freedoms that make a game feel like it's heavily characterized by player choice. I've pointed out that the core of your system isn't freedom; no matter which way you try to spin it, you cannot choose your activity when it comes to leveling sword skill in your system because it's a static Achievement.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Pretty much sums up everything. He can only argue by ignoring freedom of choice of the initial interest of doing what you want. Instead he focuses on the action being singular.
It's akin to saying you could for travel for free anywhere in the US but having to use a freely given visa card is restrictive. This is because there is only one means of pay to travel you don't have freedom.
If you want to level sword skill, you don't have freedom.
His point is faulty as usual. If I made an argument equally ignorant I'd be saying that a lack of freedom is utterly impossible in gaming, because if you don't like the amount of freedom in Game A you can freely choose Game B. Meanwhile, the lack of freedom in Game A actually matters to players, and the lack of freedom in how you level your Sword Skill actually matters to players.
I'm speaking to the real, meaningful freedoms that make a game feel like it's heavily characterized by player choice. I've pointed out that the core of your system isn't freedom; no matter which way you try to spin it, you cannot choose your activity when it comes to leveling sword skill in your system because it's a static Achievement.
Meanwhile in game b the lack of freedom in how you progress is still equally relevant, and you have actively chosen to ignore the many ways in which it impacts the user.
"Speaking to the real, meaningful freedoms" is exactly what you're avoiding. If you want a game ot feel free then the user needs freedom of choice. Freedom to follow events and activities they prefer rather than perpetually chasing a list being handed to them from question marks.
If you cannot choose your activity when it comes to playing the game, then you have no freedom.
The problem with the system you have countered with constantly is that you are relying on your centralized progression happening through the use of a finite set of activities which are being largely dictated to you, meaning you don't have a choice in how you progress because you either go to zone A to do task list A or zone B to do task list B, when you would rather be doing C. That's not freedom.
But a skill system where if want to be a badass swordsman? Grab a sword and start swinging. Cleave those foes, duel those masters, find those teachers and mythical hermits, hone your own blade, swap skills with other players, find secret skillbooks, or even use your weapon in creative solutions (bash lock?) for progression of your sword skill. Is that gonna make you a better cook or a better archer? No, but any variety of these activities may contribute to your swordplay in an achievement/skill progression mechanic. It need not be only stabbing monsters, which is the failing of your logic (alongside the other failing that "freedom to choose what you do/play" is another form of freedom which players value greatly that skill system provides over the themepark experience you're promoting).
We can see again that with the sword skill claim we've had a fun time dissecting just how your claim "they can only gain xp from hitting things with a sword" in no way reflects the nature or possibilities of an achievement/skill based progression system as you can gain "sword xp" from multiple activities, and during the natural course of play if you are using a sword you are more than likely to be mixing many activities together which include some rewarded amount going into your sword skill.
Your argument only works when you take the most extreme and isolated concept and try to apply it. That's why it doesn't work in any realistic scenario.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
It bothers me that your post is empty. Kinda hoping you didn't give up your ideas. Or was this a decision on the part of not arguing with him since the other is pretty adamant in not acknowledging anything outside their opinion?
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
It bothers me that your post is empty. Kinda hoping you didn't give up your ideas. Or was this a decision on the part of not arguing with him since the other is pretty adamant in not acknowledging anything outside their opinion?
I wrote something long but my phone ate most of it. I think the thread derailed far enough though. I will come back to it at some point.
Pretty much sums up everything. He can only argue by ignoring freedom of choice of the initial interest of doing what you want. Instead he focuses on the action being singular.
It's akin to saying you could for travel for free anywhere in the US but having to use a freely given visa card is restrictive. This is because there is only one means of pay to travel you don't have freedom.
If you want to level sword skill, you don't have freedom.
His point is faulty as usual. If I made an argument equally ignorant I'd be saying that a lack of freedom is utterly impossible in gaming, because if you don't like the amount of freedom in Game A you can freely choose Game B. Meanwhile, the lack of freedom in Game A actually matters to players, and the lack of freedom in how you level your Sword Skill actually matters to players.
I'm speaking to the real, meaningful freedoms that make a game feel like it's heavily characterized by player choice. I've pointed out that the core of your system isn't freedom; no matter which way you try to spin it, you cannot choose your activity when it comes to leveling sword skill in your system because it's a static Achievement.
If you want to level sword skill, you have to do activities that give you sword xp, and the specific implementation will determine how many different activities give you sword xp. The final implementation determines how much freedom you have.
If you want to be truely objective (which you dont), you'd need to take two games (one centralised, one skill-based) and compare specific activities to get from one arbitrary point to another.
So, starting off as lvl 1 in WoW and lvl 1 in Morrowind, what content can you complete to advance?
In WoW, I expect you have 4 or 5 different types of NPCs to kill and 2 or 3 quests. In Morrowind, you have a few hundred different types of NPCs to kill
WoW offers you more activities (quest or grind) but less freedom (actual gameplay is restricted) whereas Morrowind offers you less activities (grind) but more freedom (actual gameplay is open and varied).
Finally, I'll go back to your fallacy of earlier: you shouldn't be comparing progression of the whole of your character in one system to part of your character in another. Its a false comparison. Either compare total progression in both, of specific progression in both.
You're basically saying that making a pie is better than making a pie crust, because making a pie involves making the crust, the filling and cooking it, whilst ignoring the fact that the person making the pie crust is also going to be making filling and cooking it.
In a progression system, the person leveling sword skill is also going to level other weapon types, armour types, magic, crafting and whatever else has been put in the game, giving them many ways to progress their overall character.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Pretty much sums up everything. He can only argue by ignoring freedom of choice of the initial interest of doing what you want. Instead he focuses on the action being singular.
It's akin to saying you could for travel for free anywhere in the US but having to use a freely given visa card is restrictive. This is because there is only one means of pay to travel you don't have freedom.
If you want to level sword skill, you don't have freedom.
His point is faulty as usual. If I made an argument equally ignorant I'd be saying that a lack of freedom is utterly impossible in gaming, because if you don't like the amount of freedom in Game A you can freely choose Game B. Meanwhile, the lack of freedom in Game A actually matters to players, and the lack of freedom in how you level your Sword Skill actually matters to players.
I'm speaking to the real, meaningful freedoms that make a game feel like it's heavily characterized by player choice. I've pointed out that the core of your system isn't freedom; no matter which way you try to spin it, you cannot choose your activity when it comes to leveling sword skill in your system because it's a static Achievement.
If you want to level sword skill, you have to do activities that give you sword xp, and the specific implementation will determine how many different activities give you sword xp. The final implementation determines how much freedom you have.
If you want to be truely objective (which you dont), you'd need to take two games (one centralised, one skill-based) and compare specific activities to get from one arbitrary point to another.
So, starting off as lvl 1 in WoW and lvl 1 in Morrowind, what content can you complete to advance?
In WoW, I expect you have 4 or 5 different types of NPCs to kill and 2 or 3 quests. In Morrowind, you have a few hundred different types of NPCs to kill
WoW offers you more activities (quest or grind) but less freedom (actual gameplay is restricted) whereas Morrowind offers you less activities (grind) but more freedom (actual gameplay is open and varied).
Finally, I'll go back to your fallacy of earlier: you shouldn't be comparing progression of the whole of your character in one system to part of your character in another. Its a false comparison. Either compare total progression in both, of specific progression in both.
You're basically saying that making a pie is better than making a pie crust, because making a pie involves making the crust, the filling and cooking it, whilst ignoring the fact that the person making the pie crust is also going to be making filling and cooking it.
In a progression system, the person leveling sword skill is also going to level other weapon types, armour types, magic, crafting and whatever else has been put in the game, giving them many ways to progress their overall character.
That's not even mentioning the limitations placed by classes. Players who choose to play Wizards can never level swords nor than warriors level magic.
If you want to level sword skill, you have to do activities that give you sword xp, and the specific implementation will determine how many different activities give you sword xp. The final implementation determines how much freedom you have.
If you want to be truely objective (which you dont), you'd need to take two games (one centralised, one skill-based) and compare specific activities to get from one arbitrary point to another.
So, starting off as lvl 1 in WoW and lvl 1 in Morrowind, what content can you complete to advance?
In WoW, I expect you have 4 or 5 different types of NPCs to kill and 2 or 3 quests. In Morrowind, you have a few hundred different types of NPCs to kill
WoW offers you more activities (quest or grind) but less freedom (actual gameplay is restricted) whereas Morrowind offers you less activities (grind) but more freedom (actual gameplay is open and varied).
Finally, I'll go back to your fallacy of earlier: you shouldn't be comparing progression of the whole of your character in one system to part of your character in another. Its a false comparison. Either compare total progression in both, of specific progression in both.
You're basically saying that making a pie is better than making a pie crust, because making a pie involves making the crust, the filling and cooking it, whilst ignoring the fact that the person making the pie crust is also going to be making filling and cooking it.
In a progression system, the person leveling sword skill is also going to level other weapon types, armour types, magic, crafting and whatever else has been put in the game, giving them many ways to progress their overall character.
Examining things objectively doesn't require two specific games. It only requires the straightforward logic showing that in System A you have freedom and in System B you don't.
System A (Vermillion's) doesn't allow any freedom in how you improve Sword Skill. Swing a sword or get out.
System B (Centralized Progression) allows you to choose between 2-5 activities that earn XP that can be used to improve sword skills.
We don't need specific games to understand that "you can only advance via this achievement" is objectively more restrictive than "you can advance via any XP-generating activity".
We only need basic common sense.
The WOW vs. Morrowind example isn't a comparison of the progression systems involved. Therefore it's off-topic. Why bring it up? The thread is about progression through achievements, it's not about the other factors to a game's overall level of freedom.
Your claim that I've presented a fallacy is completely wrong. What's the closest equivalent to sword skill in WOW? Things like Bladestorm, a warrior talent unlocked by leveling. How do you unlock it? By leveling. How can you level? Via any XP-generating activities (your choice.)
In your pie analogy, I'm pointing out that if you poison the crust the crust is poisoned. You're trying to claim that it's less poisoned than some other pie where the filling was poisoned. But that doesn't matter because the pie crust is still poisoned.
Nobody said you couldn't progress other facets of your character. I'm only pointing out the straightforward, obvious, common-sense truth that the system allows less freedom to advance any given skill.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Your claim that I've presented a fallacy is completely wrong. What's the closest equivalent to sword skill in WOW? Things like Bladestorm, a warrior talent unlocked by leveling. How do you unlock it? By leveling. How can you level? Via any XP-generating activities (your choice.)
This is your fallacy.
How do I level sword skill? By earning sword xp. How do I earn sword xp? Via any sword-xp-generating activities (your choice).
This is why implementation matters. If the only way to generate sword-xp is to swing a sword then there is only one activity you can do, but you can do it wherever you want.
The same limitation you are placing on achievements can also apply to centralised XP. If the only way to earn XP is by completing quests, then that is also very limited (according to your logic).
Implementation matters.
You're also ignoring the other arguements and think that by throwing the word "objectively" at me, you'll somehow win. Killing a single NPC solo is objectively different than killing a boss in a raid. Its still combat, but a different type of combat with different rules, mechanics, tactics etc, yet both would earn me sword xp.
You're still ignoring the fact that you're comparing complete character advancement vs a single aspect of character advancement. You should be comparing the same type of advancement in two systems. In an achievement based system, you can advance your character in as many ways as there are achievements. Achievement systems only become limited if the player is restricting the way in which they want to advance.
You're basically saying "Centralised XP character progression sucks because the only way I can advance my weaponsmith skill is to craft weapons".
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Your claim that I've presented a fallacy is completely wrong. What's the closest equivalent to sword skill in WOW? Things like Bladestorm, a warrior talent unlocked by leveling. How do you unlock it? By leveling. How can you level? Via any XP-generating activities (your choice.)
How does a wizard pick up sword skills if centralized exp offers freedom? You can't in WoW because implementation of systems determine freedom in a centralized exp system.
Usage or achievement based games automatically start from a point of freedom and reigned in because you're doing what the game offers. Meaning if I want to pick up illusion magic I can just cast those spells while doing any activity it's naturally useful for.
You're framing the whole thing as player choice is secondary to progression mechanic when it comes to freedom. Your gameplay can be totally restricted as long as you have more than one progression mechanic. You're level 1... you can only play content your level allows, abilities your class can use and but gaining centralized exp means you're free?
I've wondered if such an achievement-based progression system would be worth exploring myself. I find that the strength of achievements isn't in x_kills (or other typical tasks) but more specific goals that spawn a meta-game that didn't already exist(unlocking ships in FTL, the HL2 gnome achievement, or pacifist runs in other games). As a result, you do end up with a more decentralized form of progression instead of the opposite intention. Instead of 10 kills with a spear, it's 10 kills with a spear without taking damage. Or a more challenging achievement of defending yourself from 10 attacks from giants with a spear by causing them to flee by only poking their toenails. It's a crappy example but the point is more specific goals, even if there are 100s of them, prove to be an ineffective or unintuitive system.
So in my case of attempting to put in challenge-skill checks by achievements it became too bloated.
How do I level sword skill? By earning sword xp. How do I earn sword xp? Via any sword-xp-generating activities (your choice).
This is why implementation matters. If the only way to generate sword-xp is to swing a sword then there is only one activity you can do, but you can do it wherever you want.
The same limitation you are placing on achievements can also apply to centralised XP. If the only way to earn XP is by completing quests, then that is also very limited (according to your logic).
Implementation matters.
You're also ignoring the other arguements and think that by throwing the word "objectively" at me, you'll somehow win. Killing a single NPC solo is objectively different than killing a boss in a raid. Its still combat, but a different type of combat with different rules, mechanics, tactics etc, yet both would earn me sword xp.
You're still ignoring the fact that you're comparing complete character advancement vs a single aspect of character advancement. You should be comparing the same type of advancement in two systems. In an achievement based system, you can advance your character in as many ways as there are achievements. Achievement systems only become limited if the player is restricting the way in which they want to advance.
You're basically saying "Centralised XP character progression sucks because the only way I can advance my weaponsmith skill is to craft weapons".
Implementation matters but Vermillion's system implies an implementation of zero freedom. His specific example (Sword Man achievement) can only be earned by killing enemies with a sword. The word "achievements" implies you can only unlock the achievement by doing one specific task. That's a lack of freedom.
He didn't describe an open-ended system which allowed the possibility of freedom. He described achievements, whose very nature implies that you must do X (and only X) to unlock the achievement.
"Sword XP" is a Straw Man. It's not the system Vermillion described. Points for creativity though: normally straw men fallacies are Person A arguing with a mis-stated Argument B, but in this case you're Third Party C arguing in favor of a mis-stated Argument A. It's also ironic since sword XP earned from a variety of activities is actually the contrasting example I've been using to prove Argument B is right (and Argument A is wrong.)
The word "centralized" in centralized progression literally implies multiple inputs contributing to the same progression. Without multiple inputs, it wouldn't be centralized. So your argument about only earning XP one way is nonsensical. It's another Straw Man: 'if you were arguing what you aren't arguing, then you'd be wrong!' Well yeah, but I'm not.
"you can advance your character in as many ways as there are achievements" isn't an argument against my argument. You're essentially saying 'well let's ignore that fact he said about the system Vermillion described and instead focus on how these games can have overall freedom apart from Vermillion's system.'
In terms of the feather and weight analogy, I've told you the feather is light (his system lacks freedom) and you somehow think it's a counterargument to point out the overall system weighs over 200 lbs. I've never implied the overall game couldn't involve freedom, I've only pointed out one simple fact: his system lacks freedom.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
How do I level sword skill? By earning sword xp. How do I earn sword xp? Via any sword-xp-generating activities (your choice).
This is why implementation matters. If the only way to generate sword-xp is to swing a sword then there is only one activity you can do, but you can do it wherever you want.
The same limitation you are placing on achievements can also apply to centralised XP. If the only way to earn XP is by completing quests, then that is also very limited (according to your logic).
Implementation matters.
You're also ignoring the other arguements and think that by throwing the word "objectively" at me, you'll somehow win. Killing a single NPC solo is objectively different than killing a boss in a raid. Its still combat, but a different type of combat with different rules, mechanics, tactics etc, yet both would earn me sword xp.
You're still ignoring the fact that you're comparing complete character advancement vs a single aspect of character advancement. You should be comparing the same type of advancement in two systems. In an achievement based system, you can advance your character in as many ways as there are achievements. Achievement systems only become limited if the player is restricting the way in which they want to advance.
You're basically saying "Centralised XP character progression sucks because the only way I can advance my weaponsmith skill is to craft weapons".
He didn't describe an open-ended system which allowed the possibility of freedom. He described achievements, whose very nature implies that you must do X (and only X) to unlock the achievement.
You realize there can be multiple achievements that all grant XP/reward(s) into the same skill grouping plus and/or type achievements, no?
Also the assumption of no flexibility is a statement on your part, not a reflection of any system ver or others mentioned.
This is just you repeating the same fallacy all over again...
EDIT: Or for more clarification;
If you take ver's description at face value, he only gives two examples for achievements and skills. Unless that's the entirety of the game right there, then it is fair to assume ver only was offering a basic principle of how his system would work, and the further details are somewhat nebulous until he more rigidly defines the scope of the system.
Hence then, the ability for others to offer up different iterations and solutions, as they all fall within the principle of ver's design and offer ways to absolve perceived "problems" (even though said problems are largely caused by the apparent assumption by you that the entirety of the game mechanic suggested by ver contains naught but two achievements and two skills).
Post edited by Deivos on
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Comments
Games can evolve.
Believe it.
Who cares about offtopic discussions? We're talking about progression systems. One system gives you freedom (centralized), yours doesn't.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You're free to assert that you prefer a particular system, but please don't insert your opinion over fact.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Tell me:
- How many ways can I earn progression towards sword skill in his system?
- How many ways can I earn progression towards the equivalent in WOW? (Basically what are all the activities that provide XP, which combined will level up to 90 where I'll unlock Bladestorm?)
(Answers: There is one way to advance in the first system, and about four (combat, quests, crafting, exploration, and dungeon XP) in the centralized system.)It doesn't matter if other achievements exist. I don't want Mace skill or Athletics right now, I want Sword skill. With centralized progression I can get it from my choice of several activities. With his system, I'm locked into just one activity.
My focus is on player freedom. So saying something stupid like "you can only advance by earning XP" wouldn't necessarily infringe on players' freedom -- it doesn't relate to what players can choose to do to advance. Meanwhile my argument is "you can only advance sword skill by swinging swords" which does relate to players' available choices.
We've been focus on the inputs of the system, where his system is objectively less free. Progression through achievements specifically refers to the inputs of the system (how progression is gained.)
If you want to talk about outputs, then a system like Path of Exile will be more free than a system like WOW. (Basically asking "What can you do with the XP/Levels after you've earned them?" and measuring the amount of freedom involved in spending your progression.) But that doesn't change the fact that his inputs are objectively less free.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
In WoW, the only way to progress (levels) is to gain XP. In achievements, the only way to progress (sword skill) is to gain sword XP.
In both systems, there is only one input for progression (XP).
So, we can then take it the next step down - how to earn XP in both systems. This is where the implementation comes into force. In something like WoW, you're very restricted on earning XP: you may have more activities (combat, quests, exploration, achievements) but in a vastly restricted area. In an achievement system, there are less activities per skill, but much more freedom in where you can perform those achievements. I know you like to avoid other skills in this example, but they are relevant because it is all progression. You've included crafting in your example despite crafting being 100% separate from character progression in the majority of games.
Finally, you're focusing on one specific, very narrow example - swinging a sword to gain sword skill. This is where implementation comes in. Maybe in a new game, you can gain sword XP through combat (1), maintenance (2), crafting (3), trading (4), training (5) and socially (6). Using your logic, that system would be more free than a centralised xp system.
The feature of a centralized system is only that it utilizes a single pool XP for all character progression.
Your example immediately breaks away from that fact by talking about differing means to obtain XP, of which none of the provided options necessarily contribute to XP gain in even a centralized system. Those are all secondary features (questing, achievements, crafting, combat, etc) to which you have to ascribe a relationship to the rest of the game's systems. There is no inherent relationship between those mechanics where you can simply assume they contribute to a specific system such as centralized progression.
Seeing as you called out WoW in particular, we can immediately address this in the case of Profession skills (crafting, gathering, etc). Seeing as traditionally professions gave little to no XP and instead exist within their own microcosm defined by proficiency levels. On top of that there is an exceptionally finite quality to reward XP for activities like exploration as that's largely distributed only from WoW's achievement system for first-time zone exploration and list completion.
Advancement can be then noted as primarily coming from two sources. Quests which railroad you into specific duties whether you like them or not, and combat.
The reality we can see unwinding as we disassemble this is that in a game like WoW with centralized progression, and more importantly the features you have elected to support that element, the freedom of choice for players has been excessively strangled.
Given we've already done the comparison and breakdown of the opposing case for skill systems, we can already note that your argument was predicated on a lot of false assumptions.
It offers players freedom of choice in picking the elements of the game for which their interest actually rests. The fact that they can choose any and all input as it applies to their interest already denotes more freedom over the input of a game in an immediate sense in trade-off to the discrete rewards. Objectivity would keep sight of this and not disregard facts for opinion.
And as Cameltosis pointed out, the same excuses you are trying to establish for your argument apply equally effectively to a skill progression system, as an individual skill such as swordsmanship can have multiple means to obtain XP.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
- Being able to choose what you do is real, meaningful freedom.
- Whereas making gross oversimplifications prevents any meaning from being discussed. Saying "it's all XP" is as useless as some derp coming in and saying "no games ever offer any freedom because they're all about 'doing things'. Fighting? That's doing a thing. Crafting? Doing a thing. Exploration? Doing a thing. Notice a pattern? It's all the same thing with no variance!" Instead of blindly oversimplifying, why not admit the plain truth that centralized progression allows players more freedom to choose what they do than an achievement-based system where if I want to increase Sword Skill I'm stuck doing just 1 activity?
It's not a false comparison. Asking "how many activities can I choose from to level this skill?" is literally the most meaningful measure of a game's freedom.Your concluding paragraph is FANTASTIC, because you literally describe a Centralized Progression system (many inputs all producing Sword XP, and it's your choice which ones you engage with.) So yes, I absolutely agree that such a system would involve a great deal of freedom, because it's exactly the same superior system I've been posted repeatedly about!
Alas, Vermillion's system isn't like that and so we must repeat the constant truth that his system lacks the freedom of your proposal.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Being able to choose what you do is exactly the point of the advocacy of a skill based progression system, as explained by the last multiple posts in how they offer players more choice in picking the activities and progression they have an interest in as opposed to following defined paths they aren't necessarily interested in.
And that's your repeated mistake about centralized progression. A centralized progression mechanic only dictates that character's progress via a single/primary XP pool.
Skill based progression is the use of many discrete branches which gain their own XP through applicable activities.
Neither one mandates how many activities feeds into that progression, and each mechanic can be consequently broad or narrow in it's functionality.
Your next claim that the system Cameltosis suggested is a central progression mechanic is false as it relates to this matter. What he explained with multiple elements feeding into "Sword XP" is not a centralized progression mechanic because it is not feeding into any singular or primary XP pool, but is instead simply multiple activities that all feeds one of many discrete branches as is the nature of a skill progression system.
You are very simply failing to understand the difference between the core progression mechanic and the supporting features of those mechanics and how changing those features while preserving the core mechanic can yield vastly different results.
So if you agree that it works as he suggested, then you have agreed skill based progression system works.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
It's akin to saying you could for travel for free anywhere in the US but having to use a freely given visa card is restrictive. This is because there is only one means of pay to travel you don't have freedom.
Well .. more choices does not equate better. Take DOOM (the recent). Highly rated game. There is not many choices of what to do except to shoot different guns .. still highly successful.
A devs just have to make the restricted single path fun for their audience ... and there are plenty of good examples. Choices just for the sake of it are no good.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
His point is faulty as usual. If I made an argument equally ignorant I'd be saying that a lack of freedom is utterly impossible in gaming, because if you don't like the amount of freedom in Game A you can freely choose Game B. Meanwhile, the lack of freedom in Game A actually matters to players, and the lack of freedom in how you level your Sword Skill actually matters to players.
I'm speaking to the real, meaningful freedoms that make a game feel like it's heavily characterized by player choice. I've pointed out that the core of your system isn't freedom; no matter which way you try to spin it, you cannot choose your activity when it comes to leveling sword skill in your system because it's a static Achievement.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"Speaking to the real, meaningful freedoms" is exactly what you're avoiding. If you want a game ot feel free then the user needs freedom of choice. Freedom to follow events and activities they prefer rather than perpetually chasing a list being handed to them from question marks.
If you cannot choose your activity when it comes to playing the game, then you have no freedom.
The problem with the system you have countered with constantly is that you are relying on your centralized progression happening through the use of a finite set of activities which are being largely dictated to you, meaning you don't have a choice in how you progress because you either go to zone A to do task list A or zone B to do task list B, when you would rather be doing C. That's not freedom.
But a skill system where if want to be a badass swordsman? Grab a sword and start swinging. Cleave those foes, duel those masters, find those teachers and mythical hermits, hone your own blade, swap skills with other players, find secret skillbooks, or even use your weapon in creative solutions (bash lock?) for progression of your sword skill. Is that gonna make you a better cook or a better archer? No, but any variety of these activities may contribute to your swordplay in an achievement/skill progression mechanic. It need not be only stabbing monsters, which is the failing of your logic (alongside the other failing that "freedom to choose what you do/play" is another form of freedom which players value greatly that skill system provides over the themepark experience you're promoting).
We can see again that with the sword skill claim we've had a fun time dissecting just how your claim "they can only gain xp from hitting things with a sword" in no way reflects the nature or possibilities of an achievement/skill based progression system as you can gain "sword xp" from multiple activities, and during the natural course of play if you are using a sword you are more than likely to be mixing many activities together which include some rewarded amount going into your sword skill.
Your argument only works when you take the most extreme and isolated concept and try to apply it. That's why it doesn't work in any realistic scenario.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
If you want to be truely objective (which you dont), you'd need to take two games (one centralised, one skill-based) and compare specific activities to get from one arbitrary point to another.
So, starting off as lvl 1 in WoW and lvl 1 in Morrowind, what content can you complete to advance?
In WoW, I expect you have 4 or 5 different types of NPCs to kill and 2 or 3 quests.
In Morrowind, you have a few hundred different types of NPCs to kill
WoW offers you more activities (quest or grind) but less freedom (actual gameplay is restricted) whereas Morrowind offers you less activities (grind) but more freedom (actual gameplay is open and varied).
Finally, I'll go back to your fallacy of earlier: you shouldn't be comparing progression of the whole of your character in one system to part of your character in another. Its a false comparison. Either compare total progression in both, of specific progression in both.
You're basically saying that making a pie is better than making a pie crust, because making a pie involves making the crust, the filling and cooking it, whilst ignoring the fact that the person making the pie crust is also going to be making filling and cooking it.
In a progression system, the person leveling sword skill is also going to level other weapon types, armour types, magic, crafting and whatever else has been put in the game, giving them many ways to progress their overall character.
- System A (Vermillion's) doesn't allow any freedom in how you improve Sword Skill. Swing a sword or get out.
- System B (Centralized Progression) allows you to choose between 2-5 activities that earn XP that can be used to improve sword skills.
We don't need specific games to understand that "you can only advance via this achievement" is objectively more restrictive than "you can advance via any XP-generating activity".We only need basic common sense.
The WOW vs. Morrowind example isn't a comparison of the progression systems involved. Therefore it's off-topic. Why bring it up? The thread is about progression through achievements, it's not about the other factors to a game's overall level of freedom.
Your claim that I've presented a fallacy is completely wrong. What's the closest equivalent to sword skill in WOW? Things like Bladestorm, a warrior talent unlocked by leveling. How do you unlock it? By leveling. How can you level? Via any XP-generating activities (your choice.)
In your pie analogy, I'm pointing out that if you poison the crust the crust is poisoned. You're trying to claim that it's less poisoned than some other pie where the filling was poisoned. But that doesn't matter because the pie crust is still poisoned.
Nobody said you couldn't progress other facets of your character. I'm only pointing out the straightforward, obvious, common-sense truth that the system allows less freedom to advance any given skill.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
How do I level sword skill? By earning sword xp. How do I earn sword xp? Via any sword-xp-generating activities (your choice).
This is why implementation matters. If the only way to generate sword-xp is to swing a sword then there is only one activity you can do, but you can do it wherever you want.
The same limitation you are placing on achievements can also apply to centralised XP. If the only way to earn XP is by completing quests, then that is also very limited (according to your logic).
Implementation matters.
You're also ignoring the other arguements and think that by throwing the word "objectively" at me, you'll somehow win. Killing a single NPC solo is objectively different than killing a boss in a raid. Its still combat, but a different type of combat with different rules, mechanics, tactics etc, yet both would earn me sword xp.
You're still ignoring the fact that you're comparing complete character advancement vs a single aspect of character advancement. You should be comparing the same type of advancement in two systems. In an achievement based system, you can advance your character in as many ways as there are achievements. Achievement systems only become limited if the player is restricting the way in which they want to advance.
You're basically saying "Centralised XP character progression sucks because the only way I can advance my weaponsmith skill is to craft weapons".
How does a wizard pick up sword skills if centralized exp offers freedom? You can't in WoW because implementation of systems determine freedom in a centralized exp system.
Usage or achievement based games automatically start from a point of freedom and reigned in because you're doing what the game offers. Meaning if I want to pick up illusion magic I can just cast those spells while doing any activity it's naturally useful for.
You're framing the whole thing as player choice is secondary to progression mechanic when it comes to freedom. Your gameplay can be totally restricted as long as you have more than one progression mechanic. You're level 1... you can only play content your level allows, abilities your class can use and but gaining centralized exp means you're free?
Instead of 10 kills with a spear, it's 10 kills with a spear without taking damage. Or a more challenging achievement of defending yourself from 10 attacks from giants with a spear by causing them to flee by only poking their toenails. It's a crappy example but the point is more specific goals, even if there are 100s of them, prove to be an ineffective or unintuitive system.
So in my case of attempting to put in challenge-skill checks by achievements it became too bloated.
He didn't describe an open-ended system which allowed the possibility of freedom. He described achievements, whose very nature implies that you must do X (and only X) to unlock the achievement.
"Sword XP" is a Straw Man. It's not the system Vermillion described. Points for creativity though: normally straw men fallacies are Person A arguing with a mis-stated Argument B, but in this case you're Third Party C arguing in favor of a mis-stated Argument A. It's also ironic since sword XP earned from a variety of activities is actually the contrasting example I've been using to prove Argument B is right (and Argument A is wrong.)
The word "centralized" in centralized progression literally implies multiple inputs contributing to the same progression. Without multiple inputs, it wouldn't be centralized. So your argument about only earning XP one way is nonsensical. It's another Straw Man: 'if you were arguing what you aren't arguing, then you'd be wrong!' Well yeah, but I'm not.
"you can advance your character in as many ways as there are achievements" isn't an argument against my argument. You're essentially saying 'well let's ignore that fact he said about the system Vermillion described and instead focus on how these games can have overall freedom apart from Vermillion's system.'
In terms of the feather and weight analogy, I've told you the feather is light (his system lacks freedom) and you somehow think it's a counterargument to point out the overall system weighs over 200 lbs. I've never implied the overall game couldn't involve freedom, I've only pointed out one simple fact: his system lacks freedom.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Also the assumption of no flexibility is a statement on your part, not a reflection of any system ver or others mentioned.
This is just you repeating the same fallacy all over again...
EDIT: Or for more clarification;
If you take ver's description at face value, he only gives two examples for achievements and skills. Unless that's the entirety of the game right there, then it is fair to assume ver only was offering a basic principle of how his system would work, and the further details are somewhat nebulous until he more rigidly defines the scope of the system.
Hence then, the ability for others to offer up different iterations and solutions, as they all fall within the principle of ver's design and offer ways to absolve perceived "problems" (even though said problems are largely caused by the apparent assumption by you that the entirety of the game mechanic suggested by ver contains naught but two achievements and two skills).
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin