Umm, Cata is real-world based. You’re never going to see a broadsword +1 -> broadsword +2 type of thing (or a sword->broadsword->longsword one either) simply because that’s not how it works in the real world, which Cata functions identically to except in scenarios where we outline reasons for it not to. Balancing is important, yes, but the ultimate goal is to avoid “gamey” progressions, since you don’t see them in the real world.[/quote]
That’s not what I meant, but to some extent, I think that we may have to agree to disagree on this. Real world arguments are useful as a point of information, but I think can be ultimately rather moot as our knowledge of the “real world” is itself subject to debate. Only one needs to see all of the katana vs longsword arguments to behold that.
Cataclysm may be real-world based for a certain definition of “based”(the Venom Mob skills are standouts); but ultimately games are largely “a series of meaningful choices” as Sid Meier put it.
If there is ever a place where, for example, that cutting weapons universally and completely outclass pole-based weapons at every point in the game, then the series of meaningful choices is null - it is just an obvious choice. The player can only make the “wrong” choice in that scenario. Now this is obviously an extreme example, but it is an useful point to consider from.
Likewise, of course, is the risk of just allowing a player to powerspike at the very beginning of the game - say if the player had the best weapons at the very beginning and the only challenges were combat-focused, and there was no real reason to provide a sense of growth. Of course, the C:DDA draft clearly indicates that is not what is intended and certainly the challenges are not purely hack and slash either. But ultimately, this plays into the same consideration: choices should be relatively balanced, and permit a fashion of forward growth that feels rewarding.
It probably was just a misunderstanding of how I expressed myself.
