616 réponses à ce sujet

[kraidy1117]

MassEffect762 wrote...

lazorexplosion wrote...

Anyone who thinks the true RPG experience is, for example, sorting through piles of crap to see if you can upgrade 'blahblah V' to 'blahblah VI' for each of half a dozen items for half a dozen characters to get slightly better numbers is completely exasperating. Is that a deep and interesting RPG experience? Really?

Or having the combat feel like crap in the early game because the 'elite' commander Shepard hasn't maxed a weapon accuracy skill yet? Is that really adding to your enjoyment of the game? Really?

No. Just no.

Have to say though, it does give you a sense of progress, didn't feel that in ME2.(imo)

How was sorting throught crap making progress? Yes the inventory system was simple in ME2 and could have been better but it's alot better then the one in ME.

[Chuvvy]

kraidy1117 wrote...

Only game that has no flaws is OoT.

Sup?

I need to play this again, I need to find my N64.

Modifié par Slidell505, 05 juin 2010 - 06:26 .

[CatatonicMan]

Pocketgb wrote...
 In this sense I find what ME2 is attempting to do much more fitting: unlock variety as opposed to straight upgrades, acquiring more choices and not better stats. These were things I'd like to see emphasized on in ME3, moreso since Shepard is supposed to be a complete badass at this point.

If choice was what they were trying, they didn't do a very good job at it.

They dropped out weapon mods and customization completely (the generic buffs don't qualify in this respect), which is a perfect example of how to inject tradeoffs into the game.

They had more weapon variety (good for choice), but ended up tossing upgraded weapons in anyway (bad for choice). Everyone ends up using the best weapon for their build, with probably a secondary weapon for backup. The heavy weapons were a joke, being both numerous and useless (though this is more of a gameplay issue than a choice issue).

The universal cooldown certainly doesn't encourage using multiple skills, instead allowing the constant spam of single abilities. It doesn't really discourage it, either, but there's usually the 'one best skill' that will be used constantly.

The ammo system does promote switching guns, but in the least sensible and most asinine way possible. Why does continuity or logic or background matter when it's the easiest way to artificially enforce weapon switching? The tiered health should have been the only carrot needed to promote weapon switching, but apparently the effort of balancing the weapons properly proved too difficult.

The modular armor was a good touch, but even it failed to be of any real importance. The mods had so little effect that any choice they added was basically cosmetic. There's also the fact that they completely failed the DLC armor, but that's a separate issue).

Can't forget to mention the unique class abilities, which was a good choice. I do wish the classes had more of an effect on the story than a single skill, though. That lack has always troubled me.

Ultimately, Bioware was so focused on making the shooter half of ME2 work (it does, to a point), that they managed to neglect the rest of it in the process. Maybe they'll shape up for ME3. Maybe.

Modifié par CatatonicMan, 05 juin 2010 - 06:46 .

[KitsuneRommel]

Pocketgb wrote...

MassEffect762 wrote...

Have to say though, it does give you a sense of progress, didn't feel that in ME2.(imo)

Honestly, the gear progression just didn't really "fit".

In a standard RPG setting you usually start out modest: you always start out wet behind the ears with little experience in the world. Starting out with a set of leathers and finally happening upon a set of awesome platemail has always been an enjoyable sense of achievement in RPGs.

But with ME's theme it just never really fit. If you started out as someone completely different, as someone who has rarely ever used a gun and had not seen combat, the gear curve becomes understandable and even immersive.

In Mass Effect, you're not that kind of person. You start out highly ranked and sought after, and when you finally become a Spectre you're given even more inside info. In this sense I find what ME2 is attempting to do much more fitting: unlock variety as opposed to straight upgrades, acquiring more choices and not better stats. These were things I'd like to see emphasized on in ME3, moreso since Shepard is supposed to be a complete badass at this point.

+10. Every time I start ME1 I can't shake the feeliing that it's just a video game. Your war hero, elite force trained infiltrator can't even use a sniper rifle properly. At least some games try to explain it away with some lame amnesia excuse.

[KitsuneRommel]

CatatonicMan wrote...

They had more weapon variety (good for choice), but ended up tossing upgraded weapons in anyway (bad for choice). Everyone ends up using the best weapon for their build, with probably a secondary weapon for backup. The heavy weapons were a joke, being both numerous and useless (though this is more of a gameplay issue than a choice issue).

"Everyone ends up using the best weapon for their playstyle" would be more correct.

[Pocketgb]

CatatonicMan wrote...

If choice was what they were trying, they didn't do a very good job at it.

They didn't do a good job of it in any of their games. Bioware is pretty good at making "fun", but not very functional. I can't recall any games of theirs that didn't suffer from a gross imbalance. That's generally why when I'm speaking of a Bioware game I don't get too involved into the actual mechanics of their games.

Slidell505 wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Only
game that has no flaws is OoT.

Sup?

I need to play this again, I need to find my
N64.

THAT WAS THE MEANEST THING ON THE N64 THAT I TOTALLY FORGOT BECAUSE I BURIED IT WITH MY ANGER. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Modifié par Pocketgb, 05 juin 2010 - 07:46 .

[HTTP 404]

CatatonicMan wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...
 In this sense I find what ME2 is attempting to do much more fitting: unlock variety as opposed to straight upgrades, acquiring more choices and not better stats. These were things I'd like to see emphasized on in ME3, moreso since Shepard is supposed to be a complete badass at this point.

If choice was what they were trying, they didn't do a very good job at it.

They dropped out weapon mods and customization completely (the generic buffs don't qualify in this respect), which is a perfect example of how to inject tradeoffs into the game.

They had more weapon variety (good for choice), but ended up tossing upgraded weapons in anyway (bad for choice). Everyone ends up using the best weapon for their build, with probably a secondary weapon for backup. The heavy weapons were a joke, being both numerous and useless (though this is more of a gameplay issue than a choice issue).

The universal cooldown certainly doesn't encourage using multiple skills, instead allowing the constant spam of single abilities. It doesn't really discourage it, either, but there's usually the 'one best skill' that will be used constantly.

The ammo system does promote switching guns, but in the least sensible and most asinine way possible. Why does continuity or logic or background matter when it's the easiest way to artificially enforce weapon switching? The tiered health should have been the only carrot needed to promote weapon switching, but apparently the effort of balancing the weapons properly proved too difficult.

The modular armor was a good touch, but even it failed to be of any real importance. The mods had so little effect that any choice they added was basically cosmetic. There's also the fact that they completely failed the DLC armor, but that's a separate issue).

Can't forget to mention the unique class abilities, which was a good choice. I do wish the classes had more of an effect on the story than a single skill, though. That lack has always troubled me.

Ultimately, Bioware was so focused on making the shooter half of ME2 work (it does, to a point), that they managed to neglect the rest of it in the process. Maybe they'll shape up for ME3. Maybe.

I disagree

[Pocketgb]

EA_BiowareAccount wrote...
I disagree

[Orchomene]

Evolution of skill of the character is a part of RPGs since Gary Gigax. RPGs come from Wargames and were at the origin highly focused on strategy and tactic. But having to learn how to play different characters, with magic, rogue talents or other talents, requires some learning curve.

It's the same in computer game. The more the mechanics are developped and complicate and the more you need to introduce "leveling" to allow the players to learn how to play. It's evident in games with magic or powers since if you take a character from the begining that has like 20 powers, it's hard to know what to do in the first play through.

Then of course, a "leveling" of a character that suits well to the learning curve of a game gives a lot more satisfaction to players : not only the player does less mistakes and does better but the character also. That gives a higher feeling of mastering the game.

[Pocketgb]

Orchomene wrote...

Evolution of skill of the character is a part of RPGs since Gary Gigax. RPGs come from Wargames and were at the origin highly focused on strategy and tactic. But having to learn how to play different characters, with magic, rogue talents or other talents, requires some learning curve.
It's the same in computer game. The more the mechanics are developped and complicate and the more you need to introduce "leveling" to allow the players to learn how to play. It's evident in games with magic or powers since if you take a character from the begining that has like 20 powers, it's hard to know what to do in the first play through.
Then of course, a "leveling" of a character that suits well to the learning curve of a game gives a lot more satisfaction to players : not only the player does less mistakes and does better but the character also. That gives a higher feeling of mastering the game.

I don't know if that was in response to me or anyone else, but I fully appreciate and respect character skill progression. There's quite a few many reasons why Daggerfall is my favorite RPG, and the mechanics definitely fill the bulk of them..

But the only way the leveling made sense to me in ME1 was if I did it on a second playthrough. Maybe this is why the 'sole survivor' was the most popular starting story: the other two options simply didn't make sense. You either held off an enemy force or invaded enemy territory, yet you're still level 1???

It's less that I have a problem with the way progression and systems worked in ME1, rather the setting that they were put in. In ME2 it's much more immersive and much more convenient for a new system: You die. You get spaced. You've been sitting largely inactive as a corpse for quite a few years on a table. It's amazing Shepard is still able to walk under such a condition, let alone use any biotic powers.

[KalosCast]

Pocketgb wrote...

But the only way the leveling made sense to me in ME1 was if I did it on a second playthrough. Maybe this is why the 'sole survivor' was the most popular starting story: the other two options simply didn't make sense. You either held off an enemy force or invaded enemy territory, yet you're still level 1???

Well, honestly "surviving about 30 thresher maws" is actually a hell of a lot more skillful than the other ones. The hero setting just basically puts you in the right place at the right time during the Skyllian Blitz, You served with distinction, but without the oppurtunity, you would have faded into obscurity like everyone else there. In the Torfan, you gained your acclaim for... ordering everyone else to their deaths. But helped win the day. So you're still the famous one.

But either way, you were just a soldier then, this is the beginning of you doing some serious special ops work. Just think of "Level 1" as "access to level 1 gear" as in the standard-issue crap that every cannon-fodder grunt gets.

[Pocketgb]

If it was "just me" holding off bad guys during the Skyllian Blitz, that in itself should've been a lot of XP, no? If I had the skills to hold off a lot of seasoned mercenaries, I'd have to be quite skilled myself.

While the story tells you this, your level does not. If your level isn't actually representative of your capabilities, then what's the point?

[KalosCast]

Pocketgb wrote...

If it was "just me" holding off bad guys during the Skyllian Blitz, that in itself should've been a lot of XP, no? If I had the skills to hold off a lot of seasoned mercenaries, I'd have to be quite skilled myself.
While the story tells you this, your level does not. If your level isn't actually representative of your capabilities, then what's the point?

Except the game points out that the Skyllian blitz was a total slaughter. Simply because you fired from a fixed position alone doesn't make you that much better than the guy shooting the same gun just because Ensign Ricky was there to make him a sandwich when the battle was over.

If your level was representative of your capabilities, then you would have started the game at level 60 because you're Commander Mother****ing Shepard. You level up because it's a fun and interesting game mechanic.

[Pocketgb]

Exactly, it's a fun mechanic.
Just not portrayed in an actual RPG-sense.
This is largely enforced by encounter scaling, as well: It's not RPG-like at all, just provides a fun and more open-ended style of play.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 05 juin 2010 - 08:58 .

[KalosCast]

Pocketgb wrote...

Exactly, it's a fun mechanic.
Just not portrayed in an actual RPG-sense.
This is largely enforced by encounter scaling, as well: It's not RPG-like at all, just provides a fun and more open-ended style of play.

I dunno how many Roleplaying games you've played (as in actual role playing games, not video games) but generally the encounters do scale with the players, because having it be an interesting challenge is half the point of playing a game.

[Pocketgb]

I mainly play Amber, which is diceless roleplaying Current campaign is in 1940's (yes, still doing it!) and based off of Lovecraft's work. We don't do DnD as much since 4th hit, though.



In regards to how level-scaling hurts: heck, just search these forums for it. There was a huge thread for it in the DA:O forums, and I'm pretty sure a hefty one right around the ME1 forums.



Personally? I'm an open-ended gamer so I didn't have the RAAAGEfuel to really get a grasp at what bothered everyone thus, but a staticly leveled world can feel much more crafted than a scaled one (Morrowind vs. Oblivion).

[KitsuneRommel]

KalosCast wrote...

But either way, you were just a soldier then, this is the beginning of you doing some serious special ops work. Just think of "Level 1" as "access to level 1 gear" as in the standard-issue crap that every cannon-fodder grunt gets.

[/b]N7 is a vocational code in the Systems Alliance military. The 'N' designates special
forces and the '7' refers to the highest level of proficiency. It
applies to marines who have graduated from an elite training program.

The game background really does present you as some sort of super soldier.

[HTTP 404]

If you guys convince me that Mass Effect is not an RPG, I will stop playing it! Im kidding, I don't care what its called I still like it all the same.

However there are some RPG elements involved in the game, there is still a leveling system and different character classes but its definitely less than your standard RPG and I think bioware did that intentionally.

I do agree with Pocketgib about ME1 and lack of ability to use a gun. Shepard is an N7 soldier which is an equivalent to a Navy Seal in Space. A navy seal sniped the head off a Somali pirate while he was on one boat and his target was on the other. Shepard Infiltrator who specializes in sniper rifles at level 1 couldnt hit the broad side of a barn.

The leveling up progression that Orchomene talked about to introduce a player into the universe and leveling as a part of allowing players to learn how to play so you don't have a character with tons of powers right at the start and not learning how to use them could ruin first play through. That makes sense, you learn the game and your character grows and form a connection. However we as players already know how to shoot a gun in gaming universe why should we have to wait for Shepard to catch up with us in ME1?

I love RPG games but there's no need to dumb down and castrate character skills to a point where it doesnt make sense. level 1 characters should start at a point that makes sense to where the game is at and where the player is at more importantly. IMO, Shepard should be able to use a gun with reasonable accuracy at the start and then grow more proficent with it as he levels up (increasing firerate, lower overheat rate, etc what it did already).

Remember this is just my point of view and opinion, you don't have to agree with me.

Modifié par EA_BiowareAccount, 05 juin 2010 - 04:35 .

[Alex_SM]

ShepardWrex wrote...

Both games have flaws? Then they're both bad.

Square Enix set the bar for flawless RPGs with Final Fantasy. A tried and tested system that always works.

And Final Fantasy showed that not everyone has to have a gun in order to fight stuff.

Final Fantasy flawless RPG?

Good stories but absolutely boring combat system, absolutely annoying random combat zones (that's maybe the worst idea ever). 

And I can't consider them RPGs because you can't take decisions or consider the character "your character" because is just a defined character (like in point and click adventures).

[Alex_SM]

Orchomene wrote...

Evolution of skill of the character is a part of RPGs since Gary Gigax. RPGs come from Wargames and were at the origin highly focused on strategy and tactic. But having to learn how to play different characters, with magic, rogue talents or other talents, requires some learning curve.

And in D&D is clearly exposed that if you start at level 1 you are really far from any elite. You are just a newbie. Campaigns with heroes should start at a level around 10. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense .A great wizard that actually can't do anything but some weird lights and annoying noises? That is clearly wrong. 

And even if the proggresion is something usual, it's not needed. 

-Id Dragon Age makes sense (you are a newbie). 
-In Fallout (1,2 and 3) you are a newcomer to the real world, so makes sense.
-In Baldur's Gate 1 you just leave your town, so makes sense. 
-In Baldur's Gate 2 you are experienced, so you start a higher level to maintain coherency. 
-In ME you are going to be the first human spectre, so you must be some kind of supers soldier, so don't makes sense to start at so low level. You should be able to fire a gun with accuaracy. 
-In ME2 you have been 2  years dead, so it makes more sense to start a low level (not the same for Miranda for example) but still you are able to fire a gun with accuaracy. 


But still, I don't think this is a key point.

Carrying an Assault Rifle, a shotgun, a pistol, a sniper rifle and a nuke launcher, the medkits, the minerals you found, and still being able to run; that doesnt make sense 

Or finding credits on Prothean ruins or a Collector ship.  But that's "videogame life". 

Modifié par Alex_SM, 05 juin 2010 - 05:54 .

[Alex_SM]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

But either way, you were just a soldier then, this is the beginning of you doing some serious special ops work. Just think of "Level 1" as "access to level 1 gear" as in the standard-issue crap that every cannon-fodder grunt gets.

[/b]N7 is a vocational code in the Systems Alliance military. The 'N' designates special
forces and the '7' refers to the highest level of proficiency. It
applies to marines who have graduated from an elite training program.

The game background really does present you as some sort of super soldier.

You are candidate to be the first human spectre. You MUST be a super soldier. 

[Alex_SM]

slimgrin wrote...


They're too enamored with dialogue choices and cut scenes to recognize the fact RPG's were born of strategy.

It's written on every pencil and paper RPG book; the game is about playing the role of a character, every other rule is optional.

You can remove everything else and it's still an RPG, you remove this and leave everything else and it isn't. 

Modifié par Alex_SM, 05 juin 2010 - 05:43 .

[BlackyBlack]

kraidy1117 wrote...

Only game that has no flaws is OoT.

No voice acting is a HUGE flaw

[KalosCast]

Alex_SM wrote...
-In ME you are going to be the first human spectre, so you must be some kind of supers soldier, so don't makes sense to start at so low level. You should be able to fire a gun with accuaracy. 
 

It makes plenty of sense, really. Think of it as being a "level 1 spectre" (even if you're not quite a spectre yet, all it takes is a tutorial and a few conversations) you're among the best in the galaxy, but the Asari have had centuries to hone their powers, the Turians are bred in a highly militaristic society, they both have natural advantages over your relatively short military career. If you pay attention to the game you're playing, you and two other people who's only notable achievements are having outdated (if more powerful) biotic tech, and running a away from a geth ambush proceed to tear through an entire Geth strike force as if they were made from tissue paper, then proceed to gun down an entire bar filled to the brim with armed men. All of this without really even breaking a sweat.

You already start the game as a badass, you just start at level one because starting it an an arbitrary higher number is just a stupid meta-game concept that would do nothing other than stroke your e-peen.