Let's face it, Erragal, beside being generally very unpleasant, obnoxiously patronizing, incredibly unaware of how ridiculous you can sound every time you try to act as if you had a superior understanding about any topic -across several forums, apparently; see your previous ramblings about what constitutes good writing- you also have the typical habit of rabid fanboys of seeing just what you want to see and constantly distorting reality to fit your bias.
That was quite obvious. The problem is: it shouldn't, because it doesn't work for the best. it trivializes itemization, it doesn't make it more interesting.
I explained perfectly clearly why i mentioned jagged Alliance 2.
Not to mention your whole rant was baseless garbage, since Ultima VII wasn't a case of "emergent gameplay" at all. If anything it's the very model of plot-driven RPG.
Oh, and it didn't even make any use of random loot, by the way, if not for minor things ("trash loot" as argued in the OP).
But what really matters is that I probably played it far more than you and I'm arguably the last person you should teach around about "going back to the old RPGs".
Maybe you are the one who should actually play it more and learn from it.
Did you even read this before you hit submit? I'm going to do this for you once. Consider it a free credit hour.
"That was quite obvious. The problem is: it shouldn't, because it doesn't work for the best. it trivializes itemization, it doesn't make it more interesting."
See, verbiage is the key to saying a whole lot of nothing (The proverbial hot air). Deconstructing the first sentence
"That was quite obvious." Sarcastic depreciation of the opposing individual's point of view: Contains no factual content and is a turn of phrase to imply that the speaker already knew something without ever showing cognition about the subject by delving deeper into critical analysis.
Next line of tripe:
"The problem is: it shouldn't, because it doesn't work for the best." Highly nonspecific meandering propositional phrases. Purely opinion with no discernable rational cognitive platform on which your point of view rests. Inherently rigid and linear thought pattern as it shows no real data in which to have your opinion be countered. Intentionally non-specific to avoid being addressed with factual hooks. Gives opinion but offers no rational groundwork for the reader to relate to. Pushes the narrative into an ideological space as outside viewers can only agree or disagree with you on that framework as you've shown no logical progression.
The last line of this particular pantomime: "
it trivializes itemization, it doesn't make it more interesting."
Statement of apparent opinion. You use the word trivialize but provide no deductive reasoning work as to how you arrived at this conclusion. When presenting a strong, controversial opinion it's customary if you are arguing from a place of discourse to provide your rationale as a courtesy; attempts to provide strong opinions with no details is in contemporary (2014) parlance 'trolling'. A conclusion with no data is a conclusion derived from emotion and intuition alone. Intuition is a viable thought process only when you can then work backwards along your train of thought to reproduce the rational cognitive work that produced it. Very similar to your last line in that you make statements of extreme opinion with no data.
Now lets examine your personal attack of me in detail so we can deconstruct the ways in which you failed to understand the information available to you, and how next time you can better construct your personal attacks on the internet.
"Let's face it, Erragal, beside being generally very unpleasant, obnoxiously patronizing, incredibly unaware of how ridiculous you can sound every time you try to act as if you had a superior understanding about any topic -across several forums, apparently; see your previous ramblings about what constitutes good writing- you also have the typical habit of rabid fanboys of seeing just what you want to see and constantly distorting reality to fit your bias."
One single sentence. So, the whole idea that you would criticize my understanding of composition and style (A weird obsessive reference to a post on a completely different topic...that OCD coming out in very unsubtle ways) in this amateurish run-on sentence is laughable.
Looking more towards the details of your 'content' is more sinister. You look at very detailed arguments of the merits of a particular system as 'rabid fanboyism'. There are real details you could actually attempt to argue with me about.
As an example a realistic argument that HAS been raised; an alternate version of events where you approach this as if my point of view even existed: "Erragal, do you believe that the game already offers a superflous number of tactical options w/respect to scrolls/arrows/skill diversity that the benefits of all this randomized loot may be lost in the shuffle?"
"Excellent point Tuco. I'd say that's why I agree with many people who are asking more for a slight uptick in a few named items at certain points and some adjustments to the way the game seeds things so they don't feel quite as random; On the other hand I believe if you look at the game from an emergent narrative point of view instead of trying to lock it in the box marked "Scripted RPG epic with fixed itemization" your opinion is informed from you will be able to enjoy the diversity of experiences randomization provides both in rewards and in the tactical necessity of adaptation that results."
That's a world that exists, sir. It is your inability to see outside a rigid framework that results in the garbage you choose to spew instead. You want what you want and details that would get in the way of your point of view are shadowy blips in the rearview mirror as cognitive dissonance wills you forward.
So forgive me if I sometimes seem like I'm 'talking down to you'. It's hard not to think poorly of someone that presents themselves the way you've chosen to and ignores data in favor of impulse (All of which has been detailed here).
PS: Ultima VII is highly relevant as the non sequential nature of the quests as well as the high interactivity are a huge component of emergent narrative. Interactivity is valuable for reinforcement of a player's connection with his game world. When you combine interactivity with randomization you create a world that can create original and organic experiences without the input of a designers prior intentions. It's important to understand how these elements all coalesce in order to inform the player about his place/experience within the game world; how they cement his experiences as uniquely personal without bragging about it.
Conversely no matter how many repetitions of the game you went through it's never actually telling you that it's doing this. To assume that you would understand how it works because you've played it the most is a logical fallacy. You must actually think about the way these mechanics interact and communicate with the player before you'll value them.
