Either way, it's a shallow criticism.
Here's the thing saying something is like some video game does not tell us anything useful about it. It would be more useful to tell us why you think it is bad for the game.
But just because you produced a shallow prosaic opinion does not make it truth. Be honest, Parmandur. It's just a cheap shot lacking substance.Truth is often prosaic.
How does this break verisimilitude?It breaks immersion, drawing attention to the artificial game construct at the cost of versimillitude.
But just because you produced a shallow prosaic opinion does not make it truth. Be honest, Parmandur. It's just a cheap shot lacking substance.
How does this break verisimilitude?
One of the problems I am having with 5e is a little similar. 5e is very low magic. My players are 8th level and not all of them even have magical weapons*. (I've Been running Tomb of Annihilation). So now in earnest I need to get them something but the last two PCs use an axe and a spear. Well if +1 swords are rare +1 spears are pretty much mythical. If and when they do find those weapons it will totally feel like I just handed them weapons. I have laid the groundwork for a narrative reason to introduce these weapons but it has nothing to do with the adventure itself.
ANYWAY back to Pathfinder 2e. What I love is that weapons become magical due to runes... runes that can be transferred! Presto problems solved. The spear guy finds the body of a fallen knight with a magically flaming sword.. and after a bit of downtime crafting.. his spear is now a flaming spear.
That also means that they can keep their favorite weapons longer, and get them more powerful as time progresses. I love this system for that so much!
*At one point I offered all the players their choice of magic item as a reward, the PC's who don't have a magic weapon chose a +1 shield and a immovable rod. Nice, but it would have been easier if they would have asked for their odd weapon choices.
It's a criticism being used in a manner that precludes video games from having verisimilitude, simulationism, or admirable features. But you have not demonstrated how it fails in simulating anything. Just because something draws you out of immersion does not mean that something isn't simulationist. It means that you were drawn out of immersion. Hence why saying that it's video gamey is an empty criticism that's just meant to serve as a cheap shot.The Starfinder system, as described, bears a strong similarity to video games I have played (it give ame bad Hellgate: London PTSD flashbacks, particularly).
[MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] gave his account of the system upthread: this satisfies me as neither a simulation of a Sci-Fi/Fantasy world, nor good narrative form. Hence, versimillitude is not there.
One of the problems I am having with 5e is a little similar. 5e is very low magic. My players are 8th level and not all of them even have magical weapons*. (I've Been running Tomb of Annihilation). So now in earnest I need to get them something but the last two PCs use an axe and a spear. Well if +1 swords are rare +1 spears are pretty much mythical. If and when they do find those weapons it will totally feel like I just handed them weapons. I have laid the groundwork for a narrative reason to introduce these weapons but it has nothing to do with the adventure itself.
ANYWAY back to Pathfinder 2e. What I love is that weapons become magical due to runes... runes that can be transferred! Presto problems solved. The spear guy finds the body of a fallen knight with a magically flaming sword.. and after a bit of downtime crafting.. his spear is now a flaming spear.
That also means that they can keep their favorite weapons longer, and get them more powerful as time progresses. I love this system for that so much!
*At one point I offered all the players their choice of magic item as a reward, the PC's who don't have a magic weapon chose a +1 shield and a immovable rod. Nice, but it would have been easier if they would have asked for their odd weapon choices.
It's a criticism being used in a manner that precludes video games from having verisimilitude, simulationism, or admirable features. But you have not demonstrated how it fails in simulating anything. Just because something draws you out of immersion does not mean that something isn't simulationist. It means that you were drawn out of immersion. Hence why saying that it's video gamey is an empty criticism that's just meant to serve as a cheap shot.
But just because you produced a shallow prosaic opinion does not make it truth. Be honest, Parmandur. It's just a cheap shot lacking substance.
How does this break verisimilitude?