616 réponses à ce sujet

[lukandroll]

TMZuk wrote...

SSV Enterprise wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

WE can all solve this very easily.

If you want a "realistic", 5 hr jolt. Buy MW2, bad company or what not, dont mess around with RPG's.

Shut up.  I don't really care for MW2.  What I want is a ~30 hour interactive, epic story with memorable characters and relatively realistic yet customizable combat mechanics.   I got that in ME2.  If you want a RPG with plenty of looting and stat number crunching, again, go buy Dragon Age.

..... looting and stat number crushing is not role playing. That is rule playing, something else entirely. I want an open story, choices, freedom, interaction, memorable characters and events and drama. THAT is roleplaying! ME2 had some of this, but was far to limited and linear to be a true rpg, or truly epic, for that matter. Don't get me wrong, I liked it, but I did not fall on my knees in awe.

This is a very tired out argument for me, so I will just post one of my older posts

ME2 is not a true Action RPG. Its a third person shooter with RPG elements.
And this is not because you don't have inventory, stats, dice rolls, or looting.

Its about role playing a character that IS NOT YOU. That's the basic of all role playing games.

In Fallout 3 you create a character, he has his abilities and you play his roll. That means that if your character DOES NOT have enough experience in shooting with a pistol, IT DOESN'T matter if you have pinpoint accuracy as a player; he will miss. You are playing his roll not yourself.

ME2 is a shooter, because it break this mechanic, allowing you to use your actual skill at guns and NOT the character's...

The fact that an engineer can hit a headshot with a pistol at 500 meters
of distance proves this

Battle proficiencies should always be on the side of the character. The action part its just the way to approach the system, the "medium".
And its even more important than choices in the cutscenes, because, you know, the GAMEPLAY its the most important part of a game.

Modifié par lukandroll, 09 juin 2010 - 03:16 .

[tonnactus]

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?

Like i wrote it in another thread?Why those complaints are only made about weapons profiency? Why shepardt has to learn throw then.Or overload? Because its part of all rpgs.You start at a low level and become better.

[Epic777]

lukandroll wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

SSV Enterprise wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

WE can all solve this very easily.

If you want a "realistic", 5 hr jolt. Buy MW2, bad company or what not, dont mess around with RPG's.

Shut up.  I don't really care for MW2.  What I want is a ~30 hour interactive, epic story with memorable characters and relatively realistic yet customizable combat mechanics.   I got that in ME2.  If you want a RPG with plenty of looting and stat number crunching, again, go buy Dragon Age.

..... looting and stat number crushing is not role playing. That is rule playing, something else entirely. I want an open story, choices, freedom, interaction, memorable characters and events and drama. THAT is roleplaying! ME2 had some of this, but was far to limited and linear to be a true rpg, or truly epic, for that matter. Don't get me wrong, I liked it, but I did not fall on my knees in awe.

This is a very tired out argument for me, so I will just post one of my older posts

ME2 is not a true Action RPG. Its a third person shooter with RPG elements.
And this is not because you don't have inventory, stats, dice rolls, or looting.

Its about role playing a character that IS NOT YOU. That's the basic of all role playing games.

In Fallout 3 you create a character, he has his abilities and you play his roll. That means that if your character DOES NOT have enough experience in shooting with a pistol, IT DOESN'T matter if you have pinpoint accuracy as a player; he will miss. You are playing his roll not yourself.

ME2 is a shooter, because it break this mechanic, allowing you to use your actual skill at guns and NOT the character's...

The fact that an engineer can hit a headshot with a pistol at 500 meters
of distance proves this

Battle proficiencies should always be on the side of the player. The action part its just the way to approach the system, the "medium".
And its even more important than choices in the cutscenes, because, you know, the GAMEPLAY its the most important part of a game.

While I agree the me2 is more shooter than rpg, its a shooter/rpg not just an rpg. me1 same thing; it was an rpg, yes BUT its also a shooter, same with bioshock,deus ex, system shock (mostly away but thats another thread). The other point is basic damage is determined by the upgrades you find/buy and the amount of points a player puts in a particular ability. Do none of the above your abilities will never be stronger.

[lukandroll]

I'm not talking about damage...

I talking about proficiencies; accuracy in this case.

[KitsuneRommel]

lukandroll wrote...

The fact that an engineer can hit a headshot with a pistol at 500 meters
of distance proves this

I'm sorry but that's just too retarded.

I served in the military in a damn fire control and yet I scored NEAR PERFECT score on the shooting range wtih an ASSAULT RIFLE. Do you REALLY think ME1 is realistic in that sense? REALLY? I wasn't a grunt, I wasn't a sniper, I didn't get special training, yet I could shoot a damn rifle.

Edit: Just in case you misunderstood. Fire control meaning giving targets to ARTILLERY.

Modifié par KitsuneRommel, 09 juin 2010 - 03:50 .

[AlanC9]

Of course. RPGs with classes typically don't let a single character do everything well or there's no point in having classes, but it's just a balancing mechanism.

[Epic777]

lukandroll wrote...

I'm not talking about damage...
I talking about proficiencies; accuracy in this case.

I understand, the problem is RPG is stat based; where you shoot and if it lands is determined by stats, shooter; where you shoot is where you hit., how do you combine these ideas? In a worse case you get morrowind, untill you put lots of points into lets say long blades, you could swing 100 times trying to kill a rat and miss 100 times.

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

ME2 is a big mess in terms of rpg i´m sorry, its strong in the shooter aspect and i do not like this, combining the ideas will just look like a flawed shooter or a flawed rpg, ME2 had everything to be both pleasing in the story, equipment, customization, character progression, squad management etc, but they chose the quick path and streamlined the game completely.

I still like ME2 but when i wonder about the possibilities wasted i´m a sad panda.

Modifié par MoonChildTheUnholy, 09 juin 2010 - 06:57 .

[FlyingWalrus]

KalosCast wrote...

Kalfear wrote...

*Drivel*

I love that you lack basic reading comprehension or even a tentative grasp on basic English or the simple act of trying to prove a point, yet you still come and try to argue. It's adorable.

No it's not. Kids like that get beaten up on the playground.

I don't see why lukandroll insists that there must be some sort of disconnect between the character and the player? Or at least that's the sentiment I get when he insists that an RPG is about playing a character that isn't you. I thought an RPG was about becoming a character, about assuming control. Especially since one of the common complaints that I see about this game is that it breaks immersion. Are you telling me that you want to play a character with no sense of actually being that character?

I come from the very old school of RPers. I played with friends in created settings and stories without even a rule system or set of statistics to guide us. Then I grew into pen and paper RPGs. All the same, the core of role-playing remained the same: being the character. The numbers and charts and statistics don't matter a whole lot as long as your character is free to make decisions on what he or she does within the milieu. In a rare turnabout, Dragon Age had no gauge on morality whereas the Mass Effect games do. The general consensus is that Dragon Age's morality system is far more preferable because 1. the results are not easily predictable, and 2. morality has no "measuring stick," therefore the outcome is the only reward there is. It's this freedom that makes Dragon Age an RPG, not the endless reams of statistics.

While Mass Effect is a lot more restricted because of the gauged moral responses, it still possesses them to some degree. That said, the Mass Effect series was never intended to be a pure RPG. It's an Action RPG, and don't try to insist otherwise. Kingdom Hearts I and II had far, FAR less control over the direction you took Sora and that's still an Action RPG by definition.

Anyhow, my point in that brief tirade was about how stats can sometimes actually ruin the RPGness of an RPG.

ME2 had many more instances in which you were forced into a situation you might not have wanted to be forced into, but it makes sense somewhat. You're in the Terminus Systems, and in a lawless section of space like this, the violence is probably going to come to you. Not a whole lot of room for diplomacy with thugs, you know.

Modifié par FlyingWalrus, 09 juin 2010 - 07:36 .

[brfritos]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

lukandroll wrote...

The fact that an engineer can hit a headshot with a pistol at 500 meters
of distance proves this

I'm sorry but that's just too retarded.

I served in the military in a damn fire control and yet I scored NEAR PERFECT score on the shooting range wtih an ASSAULT RIFLE. Do you REALLY think ME1 is realistic in that sense? REALLY? I wasn't a grunt, I wasn't a sniper, I didn't get special training, yet I could shoot a damn rifle.

Edit: Just in case you misunderstood. Fire control meaning giving targets to ARTILLERY.

Don't be too harsh on him, I served two years in the army (I'm brazilian, obligatory service) and I only undersdtood what really a weapon do in a human body after this experience in my life.

Mainly after seeing a duchbag having the brilliant idea of finishing his service time earlier by shooting a 7.62mm FN FAL round in his leg, point blank.
Guess what?
His leg was ripped off.

Blame the movies (and computer games) for this kind of thought. 

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

FlyingWalrus wrote...
 The numbers and charts and statistics don't matter a whole lot as long as your character is free to make decisions on what he or she does within the milieu. In a rare turnabout, Dragon

You see it as that, but others don´t think that way, i for one like and want numbers and stats on my rpgs, ME1 was not perfect but ME2 is miles in this department simply because they removed all of it, they didn´t even tried to improve the stats and information to the player, why? because rpgs are just about decisions? bull****!!!!

[FlyingWalrus]

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...
 The numbers and charts and statistics don't matter a whole lot as long as your character is free to make decisions on what he or she does within the milieu. In a rare turnabout, Dragon

You see it as that, but others don´t think that way, i for one like and want numbers and stats on my rpgs, ME1 was not perfect but ME2 is miles in this department simply because they removed all of it, they didn´t even tried to improve the stats and information to the player, why? because rpgs are just about decisions? bull****!!!!

I think we can respectfully disagree and call it a matter of taste then. You like a lot of numbers and stats. That's fine. Hell, I do too, sometimes. I like Dragon Age. I don't think Mass Effect was meant to be that kind of game, though. I think Bioware felt that a lot of the talent levels in the first game were unnecessary and that the gains were so incremental that you had to gain several levels in order to make them count. ME2 makes levels fewer, but it also makes talent points count for more.

All weapons-based stat improvements were moved to research upgrades, too. I think that makes more sense in regards to the setting. Shepard is already a very elite soldier, so why would he need to upgrade his ability to aim and shoot? No. It's the weapons that need to be upgraded to allow him to make the most of his abilities. Or that's the way I see it, anyhow.

Modifié par FlyingWalrus, 09 juin 2010 - 08:32 .

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...
 The numbers and charts and statistics don't matter a whole lot as long as your character is free to make decisions on what he or she does within the milieu. In a rare turnabout, Dragon

You see it as that, but others don´t think that way, i for one like and want numbers and stats on my rpgs, ME1 was not perfect but ME2 is miles in this department simply because they removed all of it, they didn´t even tried to improve the stats and information to the player, why? because rpgs are just about decisions? bull****!!!!

I think we can respectfully disagree and call it a matter of taste then. You like a lot of numbers and stats. That's fine. Hell, I do too, sometimes. I like Dragon Age. I don't think Mass Effect was meant to be that kind of game, though. I think Bioware felt that a lot of the talent levels in the first game were unnecessary and that the gains were so incremental that you had to gain several levels in order to make them count. ME2 makes levels fewer, but it also makes talent points count for more.

All weapons-based stat improvements were moved to research upgrades, too. I think that makes more sense in regards to the setting. Shepard is already a very elite soldier, so why would he need to upgrade his ability to aim and shoot? No. It's the weapons that need to be upgraded to allow him to make the most of his abilities. Or that's the way I see it, anyhow.

It is really nothing more then a matter of taste, i still like playing ME2 and i´m not bothered if we don´t have all the attributes we had, but they removed too much.

How about light, medium and heavy armors? it made sense being the soldier the one to wear the heavy armor no? so whats the excuse here too? Bioware could simplify everything they wanted if they kept the same concept they had on several things from ME1, hell this is a sequel no?

Regarding powers, the global cooldown is just meh, each power should have its cooldown, now its just spam warp profit, even healing is tied to the global cooldown does this make any sense?

I feel like i´m going to other subjects here so i won´t go on with this because its been beaten to death already.

In short ME2 is still great, rpg fans got a bit disappointed in some areas while others consider it an improvement, nothing wrong here as long as a game genre keeps the game genre and not try to be the hybrid type of game that does everything but badly implemented.

[KitsuneRommel]

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

How about light, medium and heavy armors? it made sense being the soldier the one to wear the heavy armor no? so whats the excuse here too? Bioware could simplify everything they wanted if they kept the same concept they had on several things from ME1, hell this is a sequel no?

In the end it hardly made a difference though. Heavy Colossus X armor had 14 more Damage Protection, 75 more Shields and 20 less Tech/Biotic Protection than Light armor.

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

How about light, medium and heavy armors? it made sense being the soldier the one to wear the heavy armor no? so whats the excuse here too? Bioware could simplify everything they wanted if they kept the same concept they had on several things from ME1, hell this is a sequel no?

In the end it hardly made a difference though. Heavy Colossus X armor had 14 more Damage Protection, 75 more Shields and 20 less Tech/Biotic Protection than Light armor.

Yes but i dunno if that difference is or not substantial, its like if a sniper shot takes 100 damage to you if you had light armor you could die, medium escape barely and heavy... you get the point. Imho they should have improved many things like this and not completely remove it, in a kind of lore perspective its weird too.

[AlanC9]

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...
How about light, medium and heavy armors? it made sense being the soldier the one to wear the heavy armor no?

That didn't made sense in the first place. It struck me as a holdover from fantasy RPGs where your fighter-types are in platemail , rogues go about in lighter armor, and wizards typically don't wear armor at all.

Regarding powers, the global cooldown is just meh, each power should have its cooldown, now its just spam warp profit, even healing is tied to the global cooldown does this make any sense?

Healing, No. but having all biotic powers on the same cooldown makes a lot more sense than having them all on different timers. I don't mind it in Dragon Age, but that's supposed to be magic, so I don't expect it to work rationally..

Whether the universal cooldown produces bad gameplay is another question, though. I'm still on the fence, myself.

[Chill 0078]

I stupidly bought alpha protocol it made huge errors in the shooter side but the rpging was amazing not to many stats and just engough decision effects I want mass effect to put more effort into the conversations and realtions like if you meet aria for the first time and you have completed more missions she will complain about your decisions that she did not agree with before you met her and an approval system would help as well

[lukandroll]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

Kalfear wrote...

*Drivel*

I love that you lack basic reading comprehension or even a tentative grasp on basic English or the simple act of trying to prove a point, yet you still come and try to argue. It's adorable.

No it's not. Kids like that get beaten up on the playground.

I don't see why lukandroll insists that there must be some sort of disconnect between the character and the player? Or at least that's the sentiment I get when he insists that an RPG is about playing a character that isn't you. I thought an RPG was about becoming a character, about assuming control. Especially since one of the common complaints that I see about this game is that it breaks immersion. Are you telling me that you want to play a character with no sense of actually being that character?

I come from the very old school of RPers. I played with friends in created settings and stories without even a rule system or set of statistics to guide us. Then I grew into pen and paper RPGs. All the same, the core of role-playing remained the same: being the character. The numbers and charts and statistics don't matter a whole lot as long as your character is free to make decisions on what he or she does within the milieu. In a rare turnabout, Dragon Age had no gauge on morality whereas the Mass Effect games do. The general consensus is that Dragon Age's morality system is far more preferable because 1. the results are not easily predictable, and 2. morality has no "measuring stick," therefore the outcome is the only reward there is. It's this freedom that makes Dragon Age an RPG, not the endless reams of statistics.

While Mass Effect is a lot more restricted because of the gauged moral responses, it still possesses them to some degree. That said, the Mass Effect series was never intended to be a pure RPG. It's an Action RPG, and don't try to insist otherwise. Kingdom Hearts I and II had far, FAR less control over the direction you took Sora and that's still an Action RPG by definition.

Anyhow, my point in that brief tirade was about how stats can sometimes actually ruin the RPGness of an RPG.

ME2 had many more instances in which you were forced into a situation you might not have wanted to be forced into, but it makes sense somewhat. You're in the Terminus Systems, and in a lawless section of space like this, the violence is probably going to come to you. Not a whole lot of room for diplomacy with thugs, you know.

Missunderstood much??

Listen, when you create a character in any RPG, you create something new, with his own abilties, his own background story, his own aligment, his own battle proficiences, actitudes, deciciones, etc, etc, etc.

When you play his role, Its kind of obvious that you become the character... but as you become the character, you have to role play him according to how you create the character.... with HIS abilties, HIS aligment and act on what he will do as a character. This is like an actor job, you put yourself in the role of this imaginary character and you act accordingly to his characteristics. Thats role playing basics, I mean, ultra basics.

If you are mixing you're own personality and abilities when you are role playing the character, you ARE NOT playing this imaginary character; you are using him as an excuse to do what you'll do, given the settings.

I hope its more clear.

Modifié par lukandroll, 10 juin 2010 - 01:48 .

[HTTP 404]

I think some people are confusing the debate with is MAss Effect 2 an RPG or not with is Mass Effect 2 a good game or not.



My stance is that Mass Effect 2 isnt just an RPG but its a good game.



The RPG fans here see it as not an RPG but its a bad game. there is no correlation between Mass Effect 2 being an RPG with it being a good game.

[kraidy1117]

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

How about light, medium and heavy armors? it made sense being the soldier the one to wear the heavy armor no? so whats the excuse here too? Bioware could simplify everything they wanted if they kept the same concept they had on several things from ME1, hell this is a sequel no?

In the end it hardly made a difference though. Heavy Colossus X armor had 14 more Damage Protection, 75 more Shields and 20 less Tech/Biotic Protection than Light armor.

Yes but i dunno if that difference is or not substantial, its like if a sniper shot takes 100 damage to you if you had light armor you could die, medium escape barely and heavy... you get the point. Imho they should have improved many things like this and not completely remove it, in a kind of lore perspective its weird too.

Light armor was ugly and looked like space pyjamas for a female Shepard. I prefer the armor systeim in ME2, it just need ALOT more parts.

[kraidy1117]

slimgrin wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

How about light, medium and heavy armors? it made sense being the soldier the one to wear the heavy armor no? so whats the excuse here too? Bioware could simplify everything they wanted if they kept the same concept they had on several things from ME1, hell this is a sequel no?

In the end it hardly made a difference though. Heavy Colossus X armor had 14 more Damage Protection, 75 more Shields and 20 less Tech/Biotic Protection than Light armor.

Yes but i dunno if that difference is or not substantial, its like if a sniper shot takes 100 damage to you if you had light armor you could die, medium escape barely and heavy... you get the point. Imho they should have improved many things like this and not completely remove it, in a kind of lore perspective its weird too.

Light armor was ugly and looked like space pyjamas for a female Shepard. I prefer the armor systeim in ME2, it just need ALOT more parts.

Agreed. The idea of customizing your armor in ME2 was pretty cool. But there were so few options.

Like if we could toggel the helments off the other armor sets, then I would say the armor system is the best, but we can't, fooken Bioware.

[MassEffect762]

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

ME2 is a big mess in terms of rpg i´m sorry, its strong in the shooter aspect and i do not like this, combining the ideas will just look like a flawed shooter or a flawed rpg, ME2 had everything to be both pleasing in the story, equipment, customization, character progression, squad management etc, but they chose the quick path and streamlined the game completely.

I still like ME2 but when i wonder about the possibilities wasted i´m a sad panda.

Yeah I think bioware knows that , If I was the buisness type I'd figure ME2 saved me some money.

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

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?

Like i wrote it in another thread?Why those complaints are only made about weapons profiency? Why shepardt has to learn throw then.Or overload? Because its part of all rpgs.You start at a low level and become better.

That's not the point of what I was saying.

[HTTP 404]

MassEffect762 wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

ME2 is a big mess in terms of rpg i´m sorry, its strong in the shooter aspect and i do not like this, combining the ideas will just look like a flawed shooter or a flawed rpg, ME2 had everything to be both pleasing in the story, equipment, customization, character progression, squad management etc, but they chose the quick path and streamlined the game completely.

I still like ME2 but when i wonder about the possibilities wasted i´m a sad panda.

Yeah I think bioware knows that , If I was the buisness type I'd figure ME2 saved me some money.

Dont you think it would be cheaper to keep ME1 gameplay rather than change it?