Visually, it’s like two staircases going up, one for your stats/abilities, one for the monsters. I prefer less frequent, more impactful upgrades that do not directly overlap with how content (i.e., enemies) progresses. inconsequential, especially if enemies gain HP at a rate that matches your progression.Īll of this amounts to a linear “ramp” incline where your numbers go up but the feeling of efficacy/”time to kill” is largely the same and you’re not usually gaining any new mechanics or different ways to engage with the content. So if you take another perk that increases damage by 10 or 15% under certain circumstances, you’re not comparing its efficacy to the old rifle, before you took the first perk. Then, after taking that perk, you upgrade to a different weapon, which becomes your new baseline inclusive with the perk. Unless the per-shot damage increase from the perk results in fewer bullets to take out an enemy, that is completely imperceptible. You take a perk that increases damage from cover by 10%, so that goes up to 110 DPS. This is exacerbated by the fact that the pace at which you will upgrade or swap out weapons is much faster than the pace at which you gain perks. It looks like the perks get more useful / interesting later on, but when base level perks are giving things like 3% increases to damage, it falls into the same pit of “this makes no difference in gameplay”. It’s not gameplay I personally find enjoyable or interesting. Yes, I understand this is how many looter shooters work and also how The Outer Worlds works. If it doesn’t make any perceptible difference to the action economy or the utility of how I use the gear, it doesn’t matter to me and the process is just tedious. I need to play more with the RPG systems as well, but I don’t like sifting through half a dozen variants of the same pistol or scope mod that differ in DPS or ADS time by single digit percentages or literally hundredths of a second, respectively. When you force the controls to support every interaction you could possibly want to do at a single point, the mapping gets complicated, crowded, and unwieldy.
That’s usually not good, because every interaction doesn’t have equal importance, frequency, or even similar use cases. Sometimes designers develop controls to give equal access to every interaction at a given point. M3 and keystrokes are not the same as 3rd and 4th face buttons on a controller, but controls have to go somewhere.Ģ) Overloaded controls. I need to actually play around with the inventory and other interfaces in CP2077 more to do a full critique of them, but I think there are two root problems from which most other UI/UX issues stem:ġ) Inconsistent and/or unexpected control mapping for keyboard and mouse, which feels like a consequence of designing and playing with controllers exclusively/dominantly until late in development.
0 kommentar(er)
