161 réponses à ce sujet

[Nuit_Shu_Heru]

Having back an Inventory to customize your gear would be great, having back an overloaded amount of things not even making a difference like in ME1 would not.



Need for something like 10 Assault Rifles that actually make a DIFFERENCE: Yes

Need for 15 different named assault rifles with 10 versions each, finally just being different for a tiny percentage in some stats: definatly NO



For me ME1 inventory was much too overloaded, ME2 much to simplified.

Something in between would be best I think. Some weapon options that make a difference in gameplay behavior (not just in minimaxing stats).

What I really like about the current ME2 "inventory" ist the fact that you can only change your gear on your ship (an option to change your armor when starting a mission would have been nice too) and not actually carry around 30 different guns, 15 sets of armor and 50 different upgrades .



So short to say: I prefer the way the inventory is managed in ME2 but I miss some more options for customizing the gear according to your playing style like in ME1.



-Nuit-



P.S.:

And I hate the heat sink solution. If the heat sinks are universally usable, why cant I just waste all my sinks with a single weapon ? Having an all total heat sink count instead of the ammo count for each weapon would have been a better and more logical solution. I can't remember how often I have cursed about the fact that I could not use the sinks from my sniper rifle to fill up my Submachingun that just got empty.

[CatatonicMan]

Nuit_Shu_Heru wrote...

And I hate the heat sink solution. If the heat sinks are universally usable, why cant I just waste all my sinks with a single weapon ? Having an all total heat sink count instead of the ammo count for each weapon would have been a better and more logical solution. I can't remember how often I have cursed about the fact that I could not use the sinks from my sniper rifle to fill up my Submachingun that just got empty.

The answer you are looking for is 'Game Balance'.

Alternatively, they couldn't come up with a system that actually made sense without making individual weapons 'unbalanced' and/or 'overpowered. Supposedly this was done to encourage the use of multiple different weapons, each with strengths and weaknesses, but in practice there was still the 'best gun' in each category. 

[Kangasniemi]

Terror_K wrote...

Kangasniemi wrote...

Or if you really want to make **** load of random items, do it like Diablo, Borderlands or Torchlight. They are all awesome games but none of them is an PRG.

Uh... yes they are. They actually do a better job of being an RPG than ME2 does. They all have leveling up, skills you invest points in, and items with stats on them. They're RPG's. Action RPG's, but still RPG's. They've always been officially considered RPG's and generally accepted as them.

As for the "text vs. stats" arguement, the text as in ME2 is almost meaningless. If I have a half a dozen similar weapons to choose from that all have a vague blurb that say "good at damage, weak at shield and armour bypass" how the hell am I supposed to know which one does the most damage or has the best bypass or has the most accuracy without stats to compare with? A blurb isn't enough information for that, and the only reason ME2 "gets away" with it is because the amount of items is so pathetic that it doesn't matter. ME1 had stats on its weapons, and 90% of RPGs do. Heck, even some shooters and action games do. ME2's method is pathetic and dumbed-down; its basically just a shooter system slapped into an RPG.

Nice snippet quoting!

Slapping some RPG-elements on a game doesn't make it an RPG. Diablo, Torchlight and Borderlands have some elements that are considered being RPGish but that doesn't make then RPGs. So comparing 3 non RPG games and a RPG game ,ie. ME2, is pointless.

The problem with you is that you only think the guns in ME2 have only max damage and nothing more. Well they do have a hell of alot more important features. For example fire fare and fire mode, if I pick up Tempest my tactics will be completely diffenrent than with Locust. Same goes for every single weapon in the game, they are all individuals and THERE IS NO GOD GUN IN ME2.

Where as in ME where the guns were reduced to just one number my tactics never changed one bit. By the way, ME has god items which make the whole item system a waste. There is no reason to use anything else than these god items.

I know this is a hard thing to understand for a min-maxer, but some of us want more from our game than just a list of maxed you skills and items. For example items that actually feel unique and different. It's really funny how die hard "RPG" fans, who are most of the time complaining about games dumbing down, only want their games in simple exel sheets where you only need to pick the largest number. And an idea that would break away from this accounting gaming, and actually making you think, not just pick the biggest number, is faced with biblical ammount of rage. Does thinking for yourself actually hurt you that much?

[Terror_K]

Kangasniemi wrote...

Nice snippet quoting!

Slapping some RPG-elements on a game doesn't make it an RPG. Diablo, Torchlight and Borderlands have some elements that are considered being RPGish but that doesn't make then RPGs. So comparing 3 non RPG games and a RPG game ,ie. ME2, is pointless.

They are RPGs. Have always been considered as such and categorised as such. Just because you see them as not being RPGs doesn't make it so... especially when the rest of the world does, particularly in official channels. 

The problem with you is that you only think the guns in ME2 have only max damage and nothing more. Well they do have a hell of alot more important features. For example fire fare and fire mode, if I pick up Tempest my tactics will be completely diffenrent than with Locust. Same goes for every single weapon in the game, they are all individuals and THERE IS NO GOD GUN IN ME2.

Where as in ME where the guns were reduced to just one number my tactics never changed one bit. By the way, ME has god items which make the whole item system a waste. There is no reason to use anything else than these god items.

I am against the idea of god items in games too though. The Spectre weapons in ME1 were a mistake and broke the game, and I've admitted as such on several occasions. But just because stats are present doesn't automatically mean god items are. And, as I've said repeatedly, the items and system in play need not be like ME1 exactly to satisfy me or work.

I know this is a hard thing to understand for a min-maxer, but some of us want more from our game than just a list of maxed you skills and items. For example items that actually feel unique and different. It's really funny how die hard "RPG" fans, who are most of the time complaining about games dumbing down, only want their games in simple exel sheets where you only need to pick the largest number. And an idea that would break away from this accounting gaming, and actually making you think, not just pick the biggest number, is faced with biblical ammount of rage. Does thinking for yourself actually hurt you that much?

Okay... wow! What's the matter... can't back up a point without meaningless insults and childish branding?

Moving along, I'm not a fan of min-maxing myself, and just because I like RPG elements doesn't mean I (or others unsatisfied with ME2's ways) do. If you had bothered to actually look into the arguments and opinions of your opponent instead of just branding them and forming an inaccurate picture of them you would know that I've often stated that I believe a good RPG system when it comes to items should have things mixed and balanced, having items that are strong in some areas and weak in others, while there are other items to compensate these factors by having different strengths and weaknesses, with no items that are all powerful and better than all others.

The bars themselves being visible to the player doesn't change the items themselves at all, and from the sounds of it you're afraid that the system in ME2 might not seem as flawless and well-balanced if things were shown to us. Good balanced items are good balanced items, and bad unbalanced items are bad unbalanced items whether one shows what they're capable of or not, and whether one represents it as text or boxes with scary, scary numbers.

If thinking hurt me I'd love Mass Effect 2: the so-called RPG with the most linear, shallow and thoughtless weapon system that's no more complex than finding the weapons as one plays through a game of Doom or Quake, and that practically manages itself with no effort on the part of the player. Where the choices are easier than choosing to breathe and blink, and there's no real choice or tradeoffs with anything: just inevitably get the weapon in the same place every time and max the research on it. Perhaps the reason so many complain about the planet scanning is because its the one thing that gets in the way of their ADD-riddled brains from just cruising through even this aspect. Oh teh noes! Effort!

[Kangasniemi]

@Terror_K, your last post is way too long to quote here but this is a response.

First of all, I never ment to offend you. Those min-max comments were never directed at you. They were directed at the min-max gamers in general. Though if you did get offended, well they do say that the truth always stings the most...

Second, you do make alot of good points in your post. Yes ME2 is too linear, yes you practically trip over the weapons you get. But I disagree with the weapons system being simple, the way you find the weapons is simple but the weapons themselves are anything but simple. Each weapon is unique which is a hell of a lot better than having 100 identical clone weapons.

Showing bars to players does change the items. Lets say you get weapon A. Weapon A works like a charm. Then you get weapon B. B is in every way a crappy weapon but it has a magical bar that is bigger than A's bar. All of a sudden weapon A becomes verdor trash. And this cylce continues ad naseum. On the other hand if that bar is removed, and the player is forced to actually test the weapon himself, I know, it is a proposterous idea to have a player to make his own decisions, but bear with me. Now the player will notice that weapon B is a crappy gun and will continue to use weapon A. The player must make his own decision in the game, not just blindly follow bigger numbers from start to finish.

Oh and you did make a fine joke in your post. Saying Diablo, Torchlight and Borderlands are RPG because they are widely regarded as one and after that calling ME2 a non RPG. That was priceless.

Modifié par Kangasniemi, 21 mai 2010 - 06:50 .

[sanadawarrior]

All this game needs is a call of duty style weapons selection where you end up with 7-8 of each type of weapon with their own stats and you just use what you like instead of making a progression of weapons.

[LadyAlekto]

Terror_K wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...
You did that mock-up inventory image? I tried to find it earlier.

Yes, though its more of a mock-up weapons loadout image technically. Here it is:-

Did stop reading there, but yes, weapon mods, weapon overview, and the character in the armor that is chosen

Its a shame me2 has such a bad inventory system

[Ecael]

Terror_K wrote...

If thinking hurt me I'd love Mass Effect 2: the so-called RPG with the most linear, shallow and thoughtless weapon system that's no more complex than finding the weapons as one plays through a game of Doom or Quake, and that practically manages itself with no effort on the part of the player. Where the choices are easier than choosing to breathe and blink, and there's no real choice or tradeoffs with anything: just inevitably get the weapon in the same place every time and max the research on it. Perhaps the reason so many complain about the planet scanning is because its the one thing that gets in the way of their ADD-riddled brains from just cruising through even this aspect. Oh teh noes! Effort!

So... Diablo, Torchlight and Borderlands are RPGs because "They are RPGs. Have always been considered as such and categorised as such. Just because you see them as not being RPGs doesn't make it so... especially when the rest of the world does, particularly in official channels."?

...But Mass Effect 2 isn't? Every official channel recognizes Mass Effect 2 as a high-quality RPG.

I've played Diablo 1/2 and Torchlight. They're very addictive, but they feel more like pure action games than actual RPGs - even more so than Mass Effect 2!

Spam left-click button, and sometimes right-click button.
Go back to town to buy and sell stuff.
Go back to dungeon and repeat.

...Just like any other RPG. Mass Effect 2 took out the "sell stuff in town" option and now the game is for children with ADD?

I can't seem to wrap my head around why people think putting points into 12 different bars is progression - but 5 bars and two separate bars is not - and managing an inventory of weapons labeled "I, II, III... X" is automatically an RPG. But once that inventory system is taken away in favor of putting points into upgrades like "Assault Rifle Damage I, II, III... VI", they accuse it of being just another shooter game.

Both games are RPGs, regardless of what anyone's opinion of their quality is.

Modifié par Ecael, 21 mai 2010 - 06:56 .

[Terror_K]

I've never claimed that Mass Effect 2 isn't an RPG. What I claim is that the weapons system is not an RPG system, but a standard shooter style one slapped into an RPG. My other claim is that, yes, Mass Effect 2 IS an RPG... but its a shallow one that does a poor job at being an RPG. As a standalone game and as a shooter its very good... as a sequel to the original game and as an RPG its very poor.



Incidentally, from the first lines of their appropriate wikis:-



* Diablo II is a dark fantasy-themed action role-playing game, with elements of the hack and slash and "dungeon roaming" genres



* Torchlight is an action role-playing game developed by Runic Games.



* Borderlands is a science fiction first-person shooter with RPG elements.



The latter may be debated, but the rest are definitely RPGs. I also brought up the comment about them supposedly not being RPGs at work while some regulars were in, and they laughed at the comment, though we did debate Borderlands and came to the conclusion that it's more of a hybrid... kind of like ME2 is.

[Shotokanguy]

Ecael wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

If thinking hurt me I'd love Mass Effect 2: the so-called RPG with the most linear, shallow and thoughtless weapon system that's no more complex than finding the weapons as one plays through a game of Doom or Quake, and that practically manages itself with no effort on the part of the player. Where the choices are easier than choosing to breathe and blink, and there's no real choice or tradeoffs with anything: just inevitably get the weapon in the same place every time and max the research on it. Perhaps the reason so many complain about the planet scanning is because its the one thing that gets in the way of their ADD-riddled brains from just cruising through even this aspect. Oh teh noes! Effort!

So... Diablo, Torchlight and Borderlands are RPGs because "They are RPGs. Have always been considered as such and categorised as such. Just because you see them as not being RPGs doesn't make it so... especially when the rest of the world does, particularly in official channels."?

...But Mass Effect 2 isn't? Every official channel recognizes Mass Effect 2 as a high-quality RPG.

I've played Diablo 1/2 and Torchlight. They're very addictive, but they feel more like pure action games than actual RPGs - even more so than Mass Effect 2!

Spam left-click button, and sometimes right-click button.
Go back to town to buy and sell stuff.
Go back to dungeon and repeat.

...Just like any other RPG. Mass Effect 2 took out the "sell stuff in town" option and now the game is for children with ADD?

I can't seem to wrap my head around why people think putting points into 12 different bars is progression - but 5 bars and two separate bars is not - and managing an inventory of weapons labeled "I, II, III... X" is automatically an RPG. But once that inventory system is taken away in favor of putting points into upgrades like "Assault Rifle Damage I, II, III... VI", they accuse it of being just another shooter game.

Both games are RPGs, regardless of what anyone's opinion of their quality is.

Great post. This is exactly my stance in the onslaught of whiners and RPG fanatics.

[Terror_K]

Kangasniemi wrote...

But I disagree with the weapons system being simple, the way you find the weapons is simple but the weapons themselves are anything but simple. Each weapon is unique which is a hell of a lot better than having 100 identical clone weapons.

And if ME1 had only one Shotgun, one Assault Rifle, one Sniper Rifle and one Pistol each of its weapons would have been unique too.

See how that works?

Ecael wrote...

So... Diablo, Torchlight and Borderlands are RPGs because "They are RPGs. Have always been considered as such and categorised as such. Just because you see them as not being RPGs doesn't make it so... especially when the rest of the world does, particularly in official channels."?

...But Mass Effect 2 isn't? Every official channel recognizes Mass Effect 2 as a high-quality RPG.

I never said that at all. I was just defending the statement that the above examples were. ME2 wasn't even part of the argument.

I've played Diablo 1/2 and Torchlight. They're very addictive, but they feel more like pure action games than actual RPGs - even more so than Mass Effect 2!

Spam left-click button, and sometimes right-click button.
Go back to town to buy and sell stuff.
Go back to dungeon and repeat.

...Just like any other RPG. Mass Effect 2 took out the "sell stuff in town" option and now the game is for children with ADD?

No, but compare something like Diablo 2 where if you don't invest your points and skills wisely and choose the right gear that compliments your class and build, etc. that you'll be screwed in late Nightmare and Hell. Diablo 2 punishes a player for spreading their points between too many skills and not building a character well, as well as having at least three distinctly different builds for every class, along with variations between these builds too.

ME2 lacks this entirely: a player is never punished for just bunging their points willy nilly. A player pretty much ends up with almost every skill with points in it and most of them maxed out, and it doesn't matter what they do or how they build their character it'll basically be the same in the end by the time Level 30 hits. There's no need to choose ones gear wisely because everybody will just get everything without fail, and upgrading is easy and with a good import one can upgrade everything with next to no scanning required. All gear is in the same place and the only real variation between classes in the end is which of the two options one chose when they maxed out their skills... which  comes down to little difference when its either "more damage to one target" or "spread the damage more" in 90% of cases.

Simply put: Diablo 2 and RPGs of that nature require somebody with something between their ears to succeed at. Mass Effect 2 could be played by a three year old chimpanzee without problems, because he'll just get everything handed to him on a platter in the same tedious order and places as the last time, choosing where to put ones points doesn't even matter that much and the linear upgrading has no trade-offs and is only limited by your supply of minerals, which is dead easy to acquire, so maxing out everything is easier than shooting fish in a barrel.

I can't seem to wrap my head around why people think putting points into 12 different bars is progression - but 5 bars and two separate bars is not - and managing an inventory of weapons labeled "I, II, III... X" is automatically an RPG. But once that inventory system is taken away in favor of putting points into upgrades like "Assault Rifle Damage I, II, III... VI", they accuse it of being just another shooter game.

5 bars is pathetic though, and you can max out most of those five by the time you hit Level 30. ME1 at least had a few different builds you could do with a single class; ME2 really only has two at the most, and even they tend to crossover, so it's really just one build for each class with one simply choosing which skill is left behind more than the others. In ME1 you had to worry about things like your armour class, your defense, healing, hacking, decryption, persuasion ability, etc. but that's all out the window now and pretty much everything is reduced to combat, combat, combat when it comes to skills. ME2 basically pulled another Deus Ex: Invisible War on us, but for some reason that's perfectly acceptable now.

As for the upgrades, they're linear, inevitable and too easy to max out across the board. There are no trade-offs or limits, and every player just ends up getting them all. I'll bet half the players out there don't even pay attention to them and just go to the research station after every mission and just upgrade as many as they can with the resources at hand until they're either all done or they run out of elements. It's not like one needs to be careful here after all, and it's not like they'll not be able to research X because they researched Y or that they'll never have enough elements to get everything. Its shallow and inevitable and requires no thought on the part of the player. They may as well just let everything upgrade itself... why not, everybody seems to like games these days who do half the work for you and act like the annoying big brother who wrestles the control off you because he doesn't think you can do it right. ME2's instructions should simply read "Press forward. Shoot baddies. Succeed"

Both games are RPGs, regardless of what anyone's opinion of their quality is.

Agree. But just because something fits the definition, doesn't mean it does a good job at it.

Modifié par Terror_K, 22 mai 2010 - 10:59 .

[KitsuneRommel]

Terror_K wrote...

No, but compare something like Diablo 2 where if you don't invest your points and skills wisely and choose the right gear that compliments your class and build, etc. that you'll be screwed in late Nightmare and Hell. Diablo 2 punishes a player for spreading their points between too many skills and not building a character well, as well as having at least three distinctly different builds for every class, along with variations between these builds too.

You mean D2 is a game where you have to read guides or your character will suck in Hell difficulty. There's no way you can know how effective certain skills will be when maxed and how useful they are on higher difficulties.

ME2 lacks this entirely: a player is never punished for just bunging their points willy nilly. A player pretty much ends up with almost every skill with points in it and most of them maxed out, and it doesn't matter what they do or how they build their character it'll basically be the same in the end by the time Level 30 hits.

It's pretty much the same with ME1 and DA:O too. It's impossible to "screw up" your character.

[Terror_K]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

You mean D2 is a game where you have to read guides or your character will suck in Hell difficulty. There's no way you can know how effective certain skills will be when maxed and how useful they are on higher difficulties.

There's no way in any game to know until you get there and you've tried it out. But the descriptions given of each skill, what's required for them and what fuels them is all there, and you don't need guides to do well, you just need to put some thought into things and plan your class out ahead of time. The point is, you can't just spend points anywhere and spread them around too much without being punished, and you certainly can't max almost every skill, even in the massively high levels.

It's pretty much the same with ME1 and DA:O too. It's impossible to "screw up" your character.

No it's not. With ME1 you can miss out on dialogue by not choosing to invest in your persuasion skills, or can't hack or decrypt without either having a tech or investing in those skills. If you spend too many points on powers early and don't invest in your weapons you'll feel the pinch, and not all your skills will be used at all let alone maxed, even at Level 60, let alone Level 30. It's not until the high 40's that the different class builds start to blend; something ME2 doesn't even avoid before Level 20 is reached. You can't totally screw your character completely in ME1, but you can make them less than ideal, and put them into situations that make you feel the pinch early on in the game.

DAO is easy to screw up. Make a Rogue that's dual-wielding, archery and sword+shield and you'll either be half-assed at all of them or you'll have no non-weapon skills, and on harder difficulties that'll be nasty. I actually screwed up building Allister on the first playthrough I did because I tried to change him from a defensive tank into a double-handed sword wielding DPS'er, and he turned out horribly for it. One can't just simply upgrade any base stat without thought in DAO either (i.e. make a rogue and spend their points all over the place instead of mostly in Dex and Cunning).

[Ecael]

[quote][quote]Ecael wrote...

So... Diablo, Torchlight and Borderlands are RPGs because "They are RPGs. Have always been considered as such and categorised as such. Just because you see them as not being RPGs doesn't make it so... especially when the rest of the world does, particularly in official channels."?

...But Mass Effect 2 isn't? Every official channel recognizes Mass Effect 2 as a high-quality RPG.[/quote]

I never said that at all. I was just defending the statement that the above examples were. ME2 wasn't even part of the argument.[/quote][/quote]
Except you were saying that Mass Effect 2 isn't anything close to an RPG.

[quote][quote]I've played Diablo 1/2 and Torchlight. They're very addictive, but they feel more like pure action games than actual RPGs - even more so than Mass Effect 2!

Spam left-click button, and sometimes right-click button.
Go back to town to buy and sell stuff.
Go back to dungeon and repeat.

...Just like any other RPG. Mass Effect 2 took out the "sell stuff in town" option and now the game is for children with ADD?[/quote]

No, but compare something like Diablo 2 where if you don't invest your points and skills wisely and choose the right gear that compliments your class and build, etc. that you'll be screwed in late Nightmare and Hell. Diablo 2 punishes a player for spreading their points between too many skills and not building a character well, as well as having at least three distinctly different builds for every class, along with variations between these builds too.

ME2 lacks this entirely: a player is never punished for just bunging their points willy nilly. A player pretty much ends up with almost every skill with points in it and most of them maxed out, and it doesn't matter what they do or how they build their character it'll basically be the same in the end by the time Level 30 hits. There's no need to choose ones gear wisely because everybody will just get everything without fail, and upgrading is easy and with a good import one can upgrade everything with next to no scanning required. All gear is in the same place and the only real variation between classes in the end is which of the two options one chose when they maxed out their skills... which  comes down to little difference when its either "more damage to one target" or "spread the damage more" in 90% of cases.

Simply put: Diablo 2 and RPGs of that nature require somebody with something between their ears to succeed at. Mass Effect 2 could be played by a three year old chimpanzee without problems, because he'll just get everything handed to him on a platter in the same tedious order and places as the last time, choosing where to put ones points doesn't even matter that much and the linear upgrading has no trade-offs and is only limited by your supply of minerals, which is dead easy to acquire, so maxing out everything is easier than shooting fish in a barrel.[/quote]
Completely wrong. Having to plot out which points you're going to take because there's only one correct route is imbalance and forces linear progression.

Blizzard almost screwed this up in World of Warcraft when they tried to satisfy everyone by attempting to make every single class capable as every other class in any role that they're specialized for. BioWare is copying that non-linear progression in The Old Republic - every class can now be an effective healer, tank or DPS.

How is it called a Role-Playing Game if your skill tree forces you to play only "one" correct role?

[quote][quote]I can't seem to wrap my head around why people think putting points into 12 different bars is progression - but 5 bars and two separate bars is not - and managing an inventory of weapons labeled "I, II, III... X" is automatically an RPG. But once that inventory system is taken away in favor of putting points into upgrades like "Assault Rifle Damage I, II, III... VI", they accuse it of being just another shooter game.[/quote]

5 bars is pathetic though, and you can max out most of those five by the time you hit Level 30. ME1 at least had a few different builds you could do with a single class.[/quote]
No, just no.


Would you like to argue which Mass Effect logo is better next?

Modifié par Ecael, 22 mai 2010 - 11:52 .

[Terror_K]

Ecael wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Ecael wrote...

So... Diablo, Torchlight and Borderlands are RPGs because "They are RPGs. Have always been considered as such and categorised as such. Just because you see them as not being RPGs doesn't make it so... especially when the rest of the world does, particularly in official channels."?

...But Mass Effect 2 isn't? Every official channel recognizes Mass Effect 2 as a high-quality RPG.

I never said that at all. I was just defending the statement that the above examples were. ME2 wasn't even part of the argument.

Except you were saying that Mass Effect 2 isn't anything close to an RPG.

No... read it properly next time. What is said is that the weapons system within Mass Effect 2 isn't an RPG system. There's a difference between a system within a game and the game itself.

Completely wrong. Having to plot out which points you're going to take because there's only one correct route is imbalance and forces linear progression.

Blizzard almost screwed this up in World of Warcraft when they tried to satisfy everyone by attempting to make every single class capable as every other class in any role that they're specialized for. BioWare is copying that non-linear progression in The Old Republic - every class can now be an effective healer, tank or DPS.

How is it called a Role-Playing Game if your skill tree forces you to play only "one" correct role?

Except there isn't. Each class has three different trees, and each tree has 2-3 different routes. There isn't only one correct route, there are at least three in each one. I can build at least three different Paladins in Diablo 2 that are completely different from each other and share next to no major skills.

And how exactly does Mass Effect 2 buck this "imbalance" and "linear progression" trend? Pretty much every class is going to end up exactly the same by the time the game is over. The entire system is so limited and the skills so few that it forces linearity simply because there is no choice to deviate, whether it screws you or pays off or not.

Modifié par Terror_K, 22 mai 2010 - 12:12 .

[Ecael]

Terror_K wrote...

Ecael wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Ecael wrote...

So... Diablo, Torchlight and Borderlands are RPGs because "They are RPGs. Have always been considered as such and categorised as such. Just because you see them as not being RPGs doesn't make it so... especially when the rest of the world does, particularly in official channels."?

...But Mass Effect 2 isn't? Every official channel recognizes Mass Effect 2 as a high-quality RPG.

I never said that at all. I was just defending the statement that the above examples were. ME2 wasn't even part of the argument.

Except you were saying that Mass Effect 2 isn't anything close to an RPG.

No... read it properly next time. What is said is that the weapons system within Mass Effect 2 isn't an RPG system. There's a difference between a system within a game and the game itself.

So labeling people brainless monkeys with ADD for liking ME2 (even they loved ME1 enough to buy ME2 right away) and then saying that ME2 is a "so-called" RPG is only criticizing the system?

Completely wrong. Having to plot out which points you're going to take because there's only one correct route is imbalance and forces linear progression.

Blizzard almost screwed this up in World of Warcraft when they tried to satisfy everyone by attempting to make every single class capable as every other class in any role that they're specialized for. BioWare is copying that non-linear progression in The Old Republic - every class can now be an effective healer, tank or DPS.

How is it called a Role-Playing Game if your skill tree forces you to play only "one" correct role?

Except there isn't. Each class has three different trees, and each tree has 2-3 different routes. There isn't only one correct route, there are at least three in each one. I can build at least three different Paladins in Diablo 2 that are completely different from each other and share next to no major skills.

You said - "No, but compare something like Diablo 2 where if you don't invest your points and skills wisely and choose the right gear that compliments your class and build, etc. that you'll be screwed in late Nightmare and Hell."

And there are people on the Blizzard forums and in Diablo II guides who will argue (or used to argue) that the Hammerdin is the only viable build for Paladins in Nightmare and Hell, for the sole fact that they consider any other route to be "messing up" or inferior - just like you said.

You can give people the right to mess up by imbalancing the skill trees so that there are non-viable options, but that just forces linearity above anything else.

Modifié par Ecael, 22 mai 2010 - 12:15 .

[Terror_K]

Ecael wrote...
So labeling people brainless monkeys with ADD for liking ME2 (even they loved ME1 enough to buy ME2 right away) and then saying that ME2 is a "so-called" RPG is only criticizing the system?

I see we are unfamiliar with sarcastic hyperbole.

Also, just because a game is aimed more at a particular audience, doesn't mean all who like said game fall into that audience. Technically I like ME2 myself... I just find it could have been done a lot better and that the RPG side of things is terribly weak. I still gave it an 8/10, which is a good score, but for BioWare that's well below average (in fact its at the bottom for them).

To me, BioWare were known for making games that were a cut above everything else out there, and Mass Effect 2 simply wasn't. And the main reason why is because its so much like everything else out there. If it wasn't for the great presentation, cinematography and writing it would be, quite simply, generic.

You said - "No, but compare something like Diablo 2 where if you don't invest your points and skills wisely and choose the right gear that compliments your class and build, etc. that you'll be screwed in late Nightmare and Hell."

And there are people on the Blizzard forums and in Diablo II guides who will argue (or used to argue) that the Hammerdin is the only viable build for Paladins in Nightmare and Hell, for the sole fact that they consider any other route to be "messing up" or inferior - just like you said.

You can give people the right to mess up by imbalancing the skill trees so that there are non-viable options, but that just forces linearity above anything else.

There's a difference between "screwing up" and making an inferior build. Yes there are builds for each class that are generally considered better than others, or the strongest build and thus best one to go with if you simply want to survive or do more damage, etc. but that doesn't mean the other builds are messed up, it merely means they're not as good. ME2 doesn't really even have multiple builds, and even if I agreed with you that would only prove more that its possible to screw up a character you make in Diablo 2, while its not in ME2.

[Lumikki]

Ecael wrote...

No, just no.


Would you like to argue which Mass Effect logo is better next?

I'm gonna comment this picture. Not, what you two where discussing.

If You look closely ME2 side on picture, you will notice that 3 of those powers are actually ammo selections. That's right, ME2 did move the ammo choise from weapon mods to character powers.

Now then look ME1 side of picture and you see weapons and some other stuff. How ever in ME2 they where moved in research upgrades side. You know those 1/5 add shotgun damage and so on. That's why it's really hard to compare character power and skill selection, because now they are done different ways.

Compare this picture:


Hole idea behind ME2 was that you don't manipulate so much in personal level, expect characters personal powers. Everyting else is more like you advances as research in general level. Like how far you have become technology level on the game. Affects every squad members powers, weapons armors. In some way this is good idea, but not to everyting.

Example if I have more powerfull version of same weapon, no point to make it personal choise, everyone will use best weapon possible. How ever, I may want to select what weapon, armor and ammos someone is using. I also like to develop everyones personal powers and skills. I think there is differences when something need to be personal choise and just general affect.

Modifié par Lumikki, 22 mai 2010 - 12:42 .

[Ecael]

Terror_K wrote...

Ecael wrote...
So labeling people brainless monkeys with ADD for liking ME2 (even they loved ME1 enough to buy ME2 right away) and then saying that ME2 is a "so-called" RPG is only criticizing the system?

I see we are unfamiliar with sarcastic hyperbole.

Also, just because a game is aimed more at a particular audience, doesn't mean all who like said game fall into that audience. Technically I like ME2 myself... I just find it could have been done a lot better and that the RPG side of things is terribly weak. I still gave it an 8/10, which is a good score, but for BioWare that's well below average (in fact its at the bottom for them).

Should I just assume that everything you're saying is sarcastic, then? After all, most of what you're using (and what a lot of unsatisfied people here are using) is hyperbole anyway.

Approximately 97% of game critics gave Mass Effect 2 an A grade or higher. That is not hyperbole speaking, that is fact.

Why can't people admit that both Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 are solid shooter-RPGs?

You said - "No, but compare something like Diablo 2 where if you don't invest your points and skills wisely and choose the right gear that compliments your class and build, etc. that you'll be screwed in late Nightmare and Hell."

And there are people on the Blizzard forums and in Diablo II guides who will argue (or used to argue) that the Hammerdin is the only viable build for Paladins in Nightmare and Hell, for the sole fact that they consider any other route to be "messing up" or inferior - just like you said.

You can give people the right to mess up by imbalancing the skill trees so that there are non-viable options, but that just forces linearity above anything else.

There's a difference between "screwing up" and making an inferior build. Yes there are builds for each class that are generally considered better than others, or the strongest build and thus best one to go with if you simply want to survive or do more damage, etc. but that doesn't mean the other builds are messed up, it merely means they're not as good. ME2 doesn't really even have multiple builds, and even if I agreed with you that would only prove more that its possible to screw up a character you make in Diablo 2, while its not in ME2.

If you've ever scanned the class forums of any RPG or MMORPG like Diablo II, Torchlight, EverQuest, Dark Age of Camelot or World of Warcraft, there will be several people who believe that only ONE build is perfect for PvE or PvP.

That is not the result of choice, but the result of imbalance.

Also, Mass Effect 1 is just as linear in builds as Mass Effect 2 is, but they decided to have the player put points into weapons (we should assume Shepard knows how to use a weapon now) and have points in Charm/Intimidate (which can be passively filled up with successive playthroughs).

Like that picture I posted above, the choice of builds become very limited by the end.

Modifié par Ecael, 22 mai 2010 - 12:44 .

[Tlazolteotl]

Ecael wrote...

And there are people on the Blizzard forums and in Diablo II guides who will argue (or used to argue) that the Hammerdin is the only viable build for Paladins in Nightmare and Hell, for the sole fact that they consider any other route to be "messing up" or inferior - just like you said.

You can give people the right to mess up by imbalancing the skill trees so that there are non-viable options, but that just forces linearity above anything else.

That's totally wrong!
Hammerdin was only good pre Lord of Destruction, as the expansion (approximately) halved the damage of Blessed Hammer.

There are a bunch of viable builds, from conviction/vengeance (costs way too much mana) to fanaticism/Zeal (suicide vs. any type of damage reflection) ...
Personally, my favourite pally build was concentration/charge .. with a huge ass spear, for horrendous one-shot damage with reach. Rarely got hit by melee, and the variation in my tactics was rapid aura switching (prayer, salvation, redemption, vigor) ...

[Ecael]

Lumikki wrote...

Now then look ME1 side of picture and you see weapons and some other stuff. How ever in ME2 they where moved in research upgrades side. You know those 1/5 add shotgun damage and so on. That's why it's really hard to compare character power and skill selection, because now they are done different ways.

Compare this picture:


Hole idea behind ME2 was that you don't manipulate so much in personal level, expect characters personal powers. Everyting else is more like you advances as research in general level. Like how far you have become technology level on the game. Affects every squad members powers, weapons armors. In some way this is good idea, but not to everyting.

Example if I have more powerfull version of same weapon, no point to make it personal choise, everyone will use best weapon possible. How ever, I may want to select what weapon, armor and ammos someone is using. I also like to develop everyones personal powers and skills. I think there is differences when something need to be personal choise and just general affect.

There is skill selection in both games, but they result in the same builds by the end.

Even comparing inventory to upgrades, by the end of the game there will only be one powerful set of armors and weapons worth using (this is almost always the case in RPGs anyway) as there is with powerful sets of upgrades.

After you select your class in ME1/ME2, your character develops along the path that BioWare desires. There isn't any choice. If you want choice, that's what we should be campaigning for in ME3 - not saying "Be more liek ME1" or "Be more liek ME2".

[Ecael]

Tlazolteotl wrote...

Ecael wrote...

And there are people on the Blizzard forums and in Diablo II guides who will argue (or used to argue) that the Hammerdin is the only viable build for Paladins in Nightmare and Hell, for the sole fact that they consider any other route to be "messing up" or inferior - just like you said.

You can give people the right to mess up by imbalancing the skill trees so that there are non-viable options, but that just forces linearity above anything else.

That's totally wrong!
Hammerdin was only good pre Lord of Destruction, as the expansion (approximately) halved the damage of Blessed Hammer.

But you agree that before Blizzard brought down the nerf-hammer, Hammerdins were the most viable build of all, yes?

I don't expect BioWare to do the same with game balance or options until their first true multiplayer game with The Old Republic.

[Terror_K]

Ecael wrote...

Should I just assume that everything you're saying is sarcastic, then? After all, most of what you're using (and what a lot of unsatisfied people here are using) is hyperbole anyway.

No, but I thought it was pretty obvious given the overall style of the sentence in question. Tone is a hard thing to "hear" in text only of course.

And the pro-ME2 group are no better when it comes to hyperbole either.

Approximately 97% of game critics gave Mass Effect 2 an A grade or higher. That is not hyperbole speaking, that is fact.

Why can't people admit that both Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 are solid shooter-RPGs?

Yes. Yes, they did. They also gave high scores to Halo 3, Modern Warfare 2, Gears of War, etc. as well. Aside from the fact that game critics these days hand out 9's and 10's more than Starbucks hands out coffee, they mostly evaluated it as a standalone game on its own merits. They didn't evaluate it as a sequel, and didn't evaluate it as an RPG. In fact, most reviews I've read even have them commenting that the RPG factors were cut back. Proper fans are always going to be more critical of a product than general reviewers.

Also, Mass Effect 1 is just as linear in builds as Mass Effect 2 is, but they decided to have the player put points into weapons (we should assume Shepard knows how to use a weapon now) and have points in Charm/Intimidate (which can be passively filled up with successive playthroughs).

Like that picture I posted above, the choice of builds become very limited by the end.

That may be so, but ME1 at least doesn't have the builds converging until the mid 40's or so level wise. For most of the game you can play your classes in different ways, and its not until the later part that things start to meld, and by that point you likely still play your class in the same manner as you have been up until then. I've built three different Vanguards that play four different ways in ME1, and sure they ended up with similar points at the end, but for most of the game their builds were structured differently. ME2 starts converging by the time your in your teens level wise.