161 réponses à ce sujet

[Ecael]

lukandroll wrote...

One word... lazyness... these supposed "RPG" gamers that  don't want to lose their precious time dealing with stats and character building and all the kind of stuff that gives a lot of replayability in RPGs... I just don't get it

I don't mind a return to a simplified inventory system and I definitely do not mind showing actual statistics for weapons, but inventory items ranging from I through X doesn't add replay value any more than the research upgrades from ME2.

Numbers are good. But if they defined what an RPG was, then World of Warcraft would be the best RPG ever. With World of Warcraft, people conjure up complex spreadsheets in Excel to figure out how to save 2 gold on their tradeskills or gain 2 DPS during a boss fight.

[Knifyx]

Ecael wrote...

With World of Warcraft, people conjure up complex spreadsheets in Excel to figure out how to save 2 gold on their tradeskills or gain 2 DPS during a boss fight.

That is so, so sad in so many ways...

[kraze07]

Knifyx wrote...

Ecael wrote...

With World of Warcraft, people conjure up complex spreadsheets in Excel to figure out how to save 2 gold on their tradeskills or gain 2 DPS during a boss fight.

That is so, so sad in so many ways...

No, that is their idea of immersion. I don't want stat tracking and an inventory system on the level of WoW, but some form of it would be nice. Too many games these days are being catered to casuals and simps.

[Ecael]

Knifyx wrote...

Ecael wrote...

With World of Warcraft, people conjure up complex spreadsheets in Excel to figure out how to save 2 gold on their tradeskills or gain 2 DPS during a boss fight.

That is so, so sad in so many ways...

Want worse? People create functions for how quickly something can die or what number of unit they should build for Starcraft, a real-time strategy (RTS) game made by the same company. It's been designated a professional sport in South Korea and there is a 1-credit DeCal class at UC Berkeley on it that requires knowledge of Calculus and Differential Equations.

http://starcraft.inc...ft-for-college/

So you might find simple Starcraft situations resolved purely in mathematics, like this problem:

Problem: How many of 10 Zerglings will survive after fighting 8 enemy Zerglings?

(I took out their derivation of the function):


Answer: 6 Zerglings will survive.

Starcraft's not an RPG though - and it hasn't been made into an RPG... yet.

Modifié par Ecael, 20 mai 2010 - 05:04 .

[Sigma Tauri]

Huh, I wondered if six zerglings were the outcome when they tried it.

[Terror_K]

Kangasniemi wrote...

Having crapload of numerical values which should not be known by the character you are playing (a DPS for a weapon, what the ****) shown to player is the most disastreous way to kill immersion in a game. Sure it's fun for the no-life min-maxers of the game who get their kicks by having a gun that has 0,0000000001 DPS better than some other gun.

All the info you should get from a gun, in numerical form, is rate of fire, clip size, effective range and accurasy (in MOA). Other info (for example if the gun is really effective against shields) should be only in written description.

Giving player some bull**** info that the character he is playing would never have is just idiotic.

Couldn't disagree more. This is supposed to be an RPG, not a straight shooter. Go back to your Halo or Gears of War if that's what you're after. Its shooter fanboys like you that are the reason games lately are getting dumbed down and that we can't have nice things.

[Vicious]

Yeah, because min-maxing gear is what RPGs are about.

/sarcasm off

These forums reek of idiocy. Luckily Bioware doesn't listen to the hardcore number crunching twerps who waste their lives playing MMOs anyway.

Numbers are good. But if they defined what an RPG was, then World of Warcraft would be the best RPG ever.

This poster is a ray of light in the darkness.

Modifié par Vicious, 20 mai 2010 - 06:39 .

[kraze07]

Terror_K wrote...

Kangasniemi wrote...

Having crapload of numerical values which should not be known by the character you are playing (a DPS for a weapon, what the ****) shown to player is the most disastreous way to kill immersion in a game. Sure it's fun for the no-life min-maxers of the game who get their kicks by having a gun that has 0,0000000001 DPS better than some other gun.

All the info you should get from a gun, in numerical form, is rate of fire, clip size, effective range and accurasy (in MOA). Other info (for example if the gun is really effective against shields) should be only in written description.

Giving player some bull**** info that the character he is playing would never have is just idiotic.

Couldn't disagree more. This is supposed to be an RPG, not a straight shooter. Go back to your Halo or Gears of War if that's what you're after. Its shooter fanboys like you that are the reason games lately are getting dumbed down and that we can't have nice things.

Seconded. I had a friend who did nothing but play Halo and Gears of War tell me ME1 was "terrible" because the combat was broken. This way of thinking is spreading like a plague.

[KitsuneRommel]

Vicious wrote...

Numbers are good. But if they defined what an RPG was, then World of Warcraft would be the best RPG ever.

This poster is a ray of light in the darkness.

Actually I'd say that MMOs are the closest thing to pen and paper roleplaying at the moment.

[Terror_K]

Vicious wrote...

Luckily Bioware doesn't listen to the hardcore number crunching twerps who waste their lives playing MMOs anyway.

No. Instead they listen to shooter fanboys and the masses and we end up with "Fisher Price: My First RPG" (otherwise known as Mass Effect 2).

And for the record, I can't stand MMO's... haven't played a single one I liked, though that's been mostly due to the community rather than the games. Secondly, just because the stats are visible to the player doesn't mean minmaxing is suddenly going to happen. It all depends how its built. If the weapons in ME2 simply had the stats visible and was otherwise exactly the same it wouldn't suddenly change the gameplay drastically, now would it?

[Helljumper55]

I have to agree with the Inventory supporters here. I mean, I like my shooters, but When I want to play a RPG, I want a RPG not a FPS/RPG hybrid! As I have said in another thread, I enjoyed trying to find that Colossus X armor! sure the system had kinks, but to get rid of the system entirely is not the answer!

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Vicious wrote...

Luckily Bioware doesn't listen to the hardcore number crunching twerps who waste their lives playing MMOs anyway.

No. Instead they listen to shooter fanboys and the masses and we end up with "Fisher Price: My First RPG" (otherwise known as Mass Effect 2).

Just as example, I don't like first person shooter games at all. I also like RPG's alot. I'm not really roleplayer, even if I have done that too. How ever, I do like many roleplaying impression stuff what brings game alive and good game atmosphere.

How ever, I'm not so blind that I think Mass Effect is somekind pure RPG or pure shooter game. It's combination of cinematic RPG action shooter. I can understand you conserns about RPG part loses in ME2 compared to ME1. So, we all can hope ME3 developers add back more RPG element in the ME3. How ever, ME2 combat changes where improvement compared to ME1. It's the other stuff what got just too simplifyed.

It doesn't do any good yelling in forum ME2 sucks or insulting other players, because it's shooter side is so "strong". It means the shooter side was well done, but the other stuff wasn't, it was too simplifyed. That's why so many RPG people aren't happy. We all get this, we aren't dumm.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 mai 2010 - 09:17 .

[Terror_K]

If they'd only "improved" the combat, then it wouldn't have been as much of an issue. The problem was half of the other stuff either got ditched or oversimplified.



Yes, the game is a hybrid, but ME1 had the balance about right, it just needed some work on some of the broken and dodgy RPG mechanics. ME2 is far too tipped on the shooter side of things, and even then I think some of the shooter stuff is terribly generic and it doesn't even fully pull that aspect off well either.

[kraze07]

Terror_K wrote...

If they'd only "improved" the combat, then it wouldn't have been as much of an issue. The problem was half of the other stuff either got ditched or oversimplified.

Yes, the game is a hybrid, but ME1 had the balance about right, it just needed some work on some of the broken and dodgy RPG mechanics. ME2 is far too tipped on the shooter side of things, and even then I think some of the shooter stuff is terribly generic and it doesn't even fully pull that aspect off well either.

If they'd only "improved" the shooting part of the combat then it wouldn't have been much of an issue. There was no problem whatsoever with  the way Tech and Biotic powers or crouching were used in ME1.

Modifié par kraze07, 20 mai 2010 - 09:25 .

[Massadonious1]

Indeed. Being able to melee Thresher Maws and Geth Primes to death was balanced.

[Icinix]

Terror_K wrote...

If they'd only "improved" the combat, then it wouldn't have been as much of an issue. The problem was half of the other stuff either got ditched or oversimplified.

(Snipped) .

*Nods approvingly*

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

If they'd only "improved" the combat, then it wouldn't have been as much of an issue. The problem was half of the other stuff either got ditched or oversimplified.

Yes, I agree with you. Most of players understand this very well here. We may have little disagreement from small details how it should be done, but major basic, as what happen with ME2 we all know.

Yes, the game is a hybrid, but ME1 had the balance about right, it just needed some work on some of the broken and dodgy RPG mechanics. ME2 is far too tipped on the shooter side of things, and even then I think some of the shooter stuff is terribly generic and it doesn't even fully pull that aspect off well either.

Yes, the balance was not so well done between shooter and RPG in ME2, it was alot better done in ME1. How ever shooter side gameplay was better in ME2, if we compare it to ME1.

Like you and many others have sayed, what was really badly done in ME2 was that they simplified the RPG part way too much, even some features was totally removed. We all know this, but that's not reason to mock other players who still liked to play ME2 or even love it. They aren't all just some shooter lovers, but more flexible as players who can enjoy many different styles of games. Just because you love some other stuff (RPG), isn't reason to mock others or the game. ME2 was and is excelent game.

Now we all can just say and hope that in ME3 the RPG side will be improvement alot. So that balance would be again better with RPG and shooter.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 mai 2010 - 10:35 .

[kraze07]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Indeed. Being able to melee Thresher Maws and Geth Primes to death was balanced.

Vids please. Geth Primes maybe but I haven't heard about anyone meleeing a thresher maw to death without using and kind of mods or glitches.

[SantosCapela]

I'm against an inventory ala me1. No 150 items in the field and magically changing armors and weapons during missions. Sheppard isn't Santa. During missions one should be able to exchange weapons at most but not increase the loadout. Looting of such items as armors and weapons shouldn't be available during the mission but an option could be made to loot the spoils of war afterwards. I wouldn't mind however an inventory if in the armory like special items that can't be mass produced in the normandy.



I also have nothing against stats and mods to weapons. They could be available again in the armory. The I to X shouldn't come back since they are there in the form of upgrades to weapons and armors. I wouldn't however mind some more weapons from more manufacturers if they are indeed different.

[geekeffect]

Terror_K wrote...
If they'd only "improved" the combat, then
it wouldn't have been as much of an issue (...)

Disagree, sorry,
let me say why... I loved ME1. Loved loved loved it, played it to death, favorite game of all time for me... But I've been going through a full ME1+2 playthrough and had the time to experience and analyze the balance between both games.

I also felt, when ME2 came out, that it had been stripped down from some of the depth of gameplay that made the first game so great. But I have now come to realize that, playing ME1, you spend a lot of time managing your inventory, which makes you stray from long periods from actual gameplay... In that regard, ME2 is much more focused in the gameplay and on the evolution of the storyline, so to me it makes a much stronger gaming experience overall. That's not to say ME2 is perfect of course... Planet scanning, if overdone or done wrong, can have that same impact. Oh, and on a personal note, I think ME1's ammo system was much better and made much more sense.

Wrapping things up, when I compare both games in terms of the impact I felt when I played them, I would say ME1 was better - it was more memorable to me. But when comparing in terms of actual gaming structure, I would say ME2 is more balanced and better crafted. Looking at both games, I'd say BioWare is still trying to figure out the right balance, they don't have this game style fully figured out yet (and maybe that will not be resolved with ME3) but I believe they'll sort out the mistakes and keep moving in the right direction.

[Kangasniemi]

Terror_K wrote...

Kangasniemi wrote...

Having crapload of numerical values which should not be known by the character you are playing (a DPS for a weapon, what the ****) shown to player is the most disastreous way to kill immersion in a game. Sure it's fun for the no-life min-maxers of the game who get their kicks by having a gun that has 0,0000000001 DPS better than some other gun.

All the info you should get from a gun, in numerical form, is rate of fire, clip size, effective range and accurasy (in MOA). Other info (for example if the gun is really effective against shields) should be only in written description.

Giving player some bull**** info that the character he is playing would never have is just idiotic.

Couldn't disagree more. This is supposed to be an RPG, not a straight shooter. Go back to your Halo or Gears of War if that's what you're after. Its shooter fanboys like you that are the reason games lately are getting dumbed down and that we can't have nice things.

Well, I hate the whole GOW series and I think that Halo is a meh game at best. Also of the 40ish games installed on my computer there are 4 FPSs. So yes, I truly am a hard core, noob killing shooter machine like you so very elegantly said in your post.

Numerical values or some loot system don't make a game RPG, unless the role you are playing is an accountant. Spread sheets of numbers make it an exel sheet. Only reason to use numerical data to describe something in a game is just lazyness. And so that in old RPG you could min-max your character so you would not have to play the game at all.

And if you look at the weapons of ME2 the numerical values would be a moot point any way, because there is no god weapon, like Spectre gear in ME. The starting weapons can just as well be used through out the game, it's just a player preference which gun to use. Locust is an exception, that is almost a god weapon.

I find it hilarious how the so called, called by them selves actually, "true" "RPG" "fans" are demanding that we have numerical spread sheets so they can min-max their little heart out, where as I, who you so elegantly called a drooling FPS fan, am asking for descriptions in form of text so that we can actually play a role, not do some accounting on my gear. Actually demanding to be able to min-max your character by numbers makes you a hardcore FPS multiplayerplayer in other words, you actually are a Call of Duty sheep.

[Icinix]

geekeffect wrote...
(SNIPPED)
Oh, and on a personal note, I think ME1's ammo system was much better and made much more sense.

*Nods approvingly*

[KitsuneRommel]

ME1 is not a shooter. Really.

Modifié par KitsuneRommel, 20 mai 2010 - 01:13 .

[kraze07]

Kangasniemi wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Kangasniemi wrote...

Having crapload of numerical values which should not be known by the character you are playing (a DPS for a weapon, what the ****) shown to player is the most disastreous way to kill immersion in a game. Sure it's fun for the no-life min-maxers of the game who get their kicks by having a gun that has 0,0000000001 DPS better than some other gun.

All the info you should get from a gun, in numerical form, is rate of fire, clip size, effective range and accurasy (in MOA). Other info (for example if the gun is really effective against shields) should be only in written description.

Giving player some bull**** info that the character he is playing would never have is just idiotic.

Couldn't disagree more. This is supposed to be an RPG, not a straight shooter. Go back to your Halo or Gears of War if that's what you're after. Its shooter fanboys like you that are the reason games lately are getting dumbed down and that we can't have nice things.

Well, I hate the whole GOW series and I think that Halo is a meh game at best. Also of the 40ish games installed on my computer there are 4 FPSs. So yes, I truly am a hard core, noob killing shooter machine like you so very elegantly said in your post.

Numerical values or some loot system don't make a game RPG, unless the role you are playing is an accountant. Spread sheets of numbers make it an exel sheet. Only reason to use numerical data to describe something in a game is just lazyness. And so that in old RPG you could min-max your character so you would not have to play the game at all.

And if you look at the weapons of ME2 the numerical values would be a moot point any way, because there is no god weapon, like Spectre gear in ME. The starting weapons can just as well be used through out the game, it's just a player preference which gun to use. Locust is an exception, that is almost a god weapon.

I find it hilarious how the so called, called by them selves actually, "true" "RPG" "fans" are demanding that we have numerical spread sheets so they can min-max their little heart out, where as I, who you so elegantly called a drooling FPS fan, am asking for descriptions in form of text so that we can actually play a role, not do some accounting on my gear. Actually demanding to be able to min-max your character by numbers makes you a hardcore FPS multiplayerplayer in other words, you actually are a Call of Duty sheep.

You wanting the game to be simpler doesn't mean numerical stats would be useless. I'm not calling you a shooter fan or trying to sound like an ****hole, but if Bioware keeps listening to suggestions like yours then ME3 will be nothing but a Gears of War clone. Stats add depth to gameplay and I fail to see how adding them will take away from anyone "playing a role."

[Kangasniemi]

kraze07 wrote...

Kangasniemi wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Kangasniemi wrote...

Having crapload of numerical values which should not be known by the character you are playing (a DPS for a weapon, what the ****) shown to player is the most disastreous way to kill immersion in a game. Sure it's fun for the no-life min-maxers of the game who get their kicks by having a gun that has 0,0000000001 DPS better than some other gun.

All the info you should get from a gun, in numerical form, is rate of fire, clip size, effective range and accurasy (in MOA). Other info (for example if the gun is really effective against shields) should be only in written description.

Giving player some bull**** info that the character he is playing would never have is just idiotic.

Couldn't disagree more. This is supposed to be an RPG, not a straight shooter. Go back to your Halo or Gears of War if that's what you're after. Its shooter fanboys like you that are the reason games lately are getting dumbed down and that we can't have nice things.

Well, I hate the whole GOW series and I think that Halo is a meh game at best. Also of the 40ish games installed on my computer there are 4 FPSs. So yes, I truly am a hard core, noob killing shooter machine like you so very elegantly said in your post.

Numerical values or some loot system don't make a game RPG, unless the role you are playing is an accountant. Spread sheets of numbers make it an exel sheet. Only reason to use numerical data to describe something in a game is just lazyness. And so that in old RPG you could min-max your character so you would not have to play the game at all.

And if you look at the weapons of ME2 the numerical values would be a moot point any way, because there is no god weapon, like Spectre gear in ME. The starting weapons can just as well be used through out the game, it's just a player preference which gun to use. Locust is an exception, that is almost a god weapon.

I find it hilarious how the so called, called by them selves actually, "true" "RPG" "fans" are demanding that we have numerical spread sheets so they can min-max their little heart out, where as I, who you so elegantly called a drooling FPS fan, am asking for descriptions in form of text so that we can actually play a role, not do some accounting on my gear. Actually demanding to be able to min-max your character by numbers makes you a hardcore FPS multiplayerplayer in other words, you actually are a Call of Duty sheep.

You wanting the game to be simpler doesn't mean numerical stats would be useless. I'm not calling you a shooter fan or trying to sound like an ****hole, but if Bioware keeps listening to suggestions like yours then ME3 will be nothing but a Gears of War clone. Stats add depth to gameplay and I fail to see how adding them will take away from anyone "playing a role."

Wow, where did that come from? Please point out where I said the game should be simplified? Is it simplified because I don't want to see pages and pages of numerical values my character would not know? I mean there is no way Shepard would not know the DPS or some other bull**** "standard RPG value" of the weapon. In stead of lazy numerical values, write detailed descriptions, withouth any made up values like DPS, of the guns in the game. Sure it will take some time to read through those texts but it would be a hell of alot more immersive than looking through some exel sheets of values my character would not know in the first place and then min-maxin my character. Hell, having descriptions in text only would make the game a hell of alot more complicated not simplified.

The whole exel sheet thing is a dead relic from PnP RPGs. It was nessesary in those because you have to do the calculations wheter or not the action was succesfull or not. With computer RPGs you don't need to do the hit or what ever calculations but you are still given exel sheets of item properties because the game developers, and those so called hardcore RPG fans, are too lazy to improve the system and write descriptions of the items. In stead we get a great games that are ****ed up by items like Flaming sword +1 or Shotgun +0,0054 DPS and after those endless values there is a one sentence description of the ultimate new weapon.

So what I am saying is dump the stupid exel sheets of item values and write a detailed description of the item, without some made up numbers, which tells the player all he needs to know and more about the weapon.