147 réponses à ce sujet

[JonDoe297]

Felfenix wrote...

JonDoe297 wrote...

It is an RPG and a shooter...

... they were dispersed and made more accessible.

QFT

A lot of the people on these forums are just too dumb to get it.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'QFT' considering the different and contradictory meanings for this acronym.

[InvaderErl]

quoted for truth.

[InvaderErl]

quoted for truth.

[Shotokanguy]

ThePatriot101 wrote...

I'd like to add something to this.

If I were to say anything on comparing the proportions between the RPG and Shooter aspects, I think that an actual proportion of the two in Mass Effect is close to 55% Shooter, 45% RPG. I say this largely because of what happened with Alpha Protocol, which had a solid RPG half, probably more than half, with a minority shooter aspect. Not to mention when comparing ME1 and AP, AP gives you the stat-based firing circle so that your chances of nailing a headshot in AP are much lower than what you'd get in a more accurate shooter like ME1. Any game that blends the two big elements while giving you a fairly typical shooter mechanism should be consider predominantly shooter as it its providing stats for how much damage you deal and to a degree how accurate you are but doesn't put making headshots out of your reach for a good deal of time until you raise up.

With that I'd say ME2 is closer to 60-65% Shooter, 35-40% RPG, because they removed excess bits from the RPG elements but also upped the ante on the characters and conversations. And because of that streamlining of the mechanical RPG elements it helped make the shooter elements more predominant.

This game series was designed to be a heavier shooter vs. RPG because they maintained basic norms associated with shooters and then tacked on a decent load of RPG material. It's also what sets this game apart from other RPGs and hybrids.

There's no reason to bring up Alpha Protocol, really. AP is purely RPG - they aren't trying for your typical shooter experience. It's entirely devoted to being an RPG.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Shotokanguy wrote...

There's no reason to bring up Alpha Protocol, really. AP is purely RPG - they aren't trying for your typical shooter experience. It's entirely devoted to being an RPG.

Neither was ME1 but as we all know ME2 was, but of course once that happened the game was praised and the shooter fans had an orgasm playing it.

[Pocketgb]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]

They
can be and are one in the same.

That's akin to saying people who wanted better RPG elements and people who wanted better shooter elements are the same because they both want better combat.

Manypeople have expressed concern over the emphasis on building a team moreso than a plot.

Orchomene wrote...

About the development effort to have a global variable for RPG/shooter mode.
Well, let's have a look. Imagine we have ten developpers coding for a year, that's 2000 MDs (men days). Consider now what can do a modder having only some setting access to the engine. What do you think someone can do in 20 days having full access to the code ? Or even only 10 days

It depends entirely on the knowledge of the person and how well-versed they are into game modification (or programming in general) and the tools they've been given to modify the game.

Orchomene wrote...

For the balance, there can be beta test sessions for some that preorder the game. It's very common.

I can't recall any game that's come out of a beta to be 'balanced'. The most resourceful and most difficult feedback to gather is when after the game is released and people have played it extensively. But it's difficult to acquire because a forum is general full of a lot of crap posts.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 19 juin 2010 - 07:46 .

[Lumikki]

Orchomene wrote...

RPG is also a lot about combat.

Yes, RPG can have combat too, but it's not required.
How ever, is combat shooter or not, is very easy to determine.

Is it  the player or character doing the shooting as aiming. If character is doing the aiming/shooting and player just selects the targets, then it's consider RPG combat system. How ever, if player does the aiming and shooting, then it's consider as Shooter. Like you understand the difference, is the character doing actions or player it self.

Character does the shooting = RPG
Player does the shooting (aiming) = Shooter.

Now how much RPG and Shooter is on the game is totally different issue. Both Mass Effect games has ALOT of combat. How ever, I would say ME2 has even more than in ME1. Mostly because Mako driving is missing and little bit less non-combat situations. Also RPG elements affecting to combat side was redused alot in ME2.

In my opinion both Mass Effect games had little too much combat. Of course I'm more a RPG player, so I can like games even without combat at all. How ever, Mass Effect story is about wars, so combat is expected.

Shotokanguy wrote...

I've felt this way for a while, and I was curious if I was right.

Yes, it seems that in both games they tryed to do good shooter combat. As for redusing rpg on ME2, I don't think that was plan, more like consequences when they tryed to polish and simplifying, combat, inventory and character development system.

Combat system needed to make seperation from character and player skills. Good shooter doesn't work well, if character skills have negative affect to shooter combat.

Inventory I can also understand well, because what they did is consequence when it's done better. How ever, redusing customation and choises it self, wasn't really necassary. Like it become little too general and lost the personality.

As for redusing character development as example skills. I'm not sure if it was good thing to do. Sure, many of the skills in ME1 wasn't really needed and after ME2 combat and inventory change, they become even less needed.

In general players like choises more than too simplifyed situations. Complicated is only bad when it has no real reason or meaning to exist.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 juin 2010 - 08:09 .

[InvaderErl]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Shotokanguy wrote...

There's no reason to bring up Alpha Protocol, really. AP is purely RPG - they aren't trying for your typical shooter experience. It's entirely devoted to being an RPG.

Neither was ME1 but as we all know ME2 was, but of course once that happened the game was praised and the shooter fans had an orgasm playing it.

Hah, ME1 was clearly trying desperately to be a shooter, I remember even back then people were complaining that it was too much of a shooter and not enough of an rpg, its just that they didn't know how to actually design a shooter and what came out was all muddled and confused.

You can see them stripping away the RPG elements even from the start to make the combat more fluid and gears like.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 19 juin 2010 - 08:02 .

[Pocketgb]

InvaderErl wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Shotokanguy wrote...

There's no reason to bring up Alpha Protocol, really. AP is purely RPG - they aren't trying for your typical shooter experience. It's entirely devoted to being an RPG.

Neither was ME1 but as we all know ME2 was, but of course once that happened the game was praised and the shooter fans had an orgasm playing it.

Hah, ME1 was clearly trying desperately to be a shooter, I remember even back then people were complaining that it was too much of a shooter and not enough of an rpg.

You can see them stripping away the RPG elements even from the start to make the combat more fluid and gears like.

ME1's combat was just confusing - not confusing in the "how i do good" sense rather "what kind of game are they trying to make" confusing.

[InvaderErl]

I actually made a last minute edit reflecting just that point.

The only game thus far that I think has had any success in blending the FPS
gameplay with RPG dice rolling was Fallout and that was due to V.A.T.S

Alpha Protocol, Mass Effect 1 and Hellgate London all had weak gameplay. ME1
obviously being the best of bad bunch.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 19 juin 2010 - 08:07 .

[WilliamShatner]

Pocketgb wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Shotokanguy wrote...

There's no reason to bring up Alpha Protocol, really. AP is purely RPG - they aren't trying for your typical shooter experience. It's entirely devoted to being an RPG.

Neither was ME1 but as we all know ME2 was, but of course once that happened the game was praised and the shooter fans had an orgasm playing it.

Hah, ME1 was clearly trying desperately to be a shooter, I remember even back then people were complaining that it was too much of a shooter and not enough of an rpg.

You can see them stripping away the RPG elements even from the start to make the combat more fluid and gears like.

ME1's combat was just confusing - not confusing in the "how i do good" sense rather "what kind of game are they trying to make" confusing.

Their OWN game, not a Gears of War clone.

[Pocketgb]

WilliamShatner wrote...

Their OWN game, not a Gears of War clone.

If ME2 is a GoW clone, than ME1 was a terribad GoW clone.

[JonDoe297]

WilliamShatner wrote...

Their OWN game, not a Gears of War clone.

Just because it's a third-person cover shooter doesn't make it a GoW clone. There are dozens of other games out there that are 3rd-person cover-shooters, i.e. Uncharted. If you say its a GoW clone then I can say that CoD is a Golden Eye clone, or that Grand Turismo is a Need for Speed clone.

[InvaderErl]

WilliamShatner wrote...

Their OWN game, not a Gears of War clone.

I must have missed the part where Shepard chainsaw'd a Geth.

Or when he headstomped a Krogan.

Or when he had to rush up to an ally to revive them.

Or when he flung various grenades out.

Or when he could crawl to an ally to be revived.

Or when Marcus could control his teammates.

Or when Marcus had to wait for cooldown on his powers.

Or when Marcus leveled up his abilities.

[Seipher05]

JonDoe297 wrote...
While it appears that some of you may enjoy fumbling through excessively long lists of weapons and upgrades, when you look at it ME1 really only had 4 or 5 different ammo types, and the rest of the weapon upgrades were simple increase damage or accuracy type upgrades, rather useless overall considering each weapon is basically a rail gun; seriously a +5% dmg is irrelevant when you’re dealing with weapons like these, and there is that headshot thing that makes people die fast.

Some of us enjoy having more than 2-3 weapons to choose from, and the ability to customize them to increase their performance in certain areas. While I agree that ME1 didn't do a great job in this area, ME2 has such a linear system that's it's even worse than ME1's endless "I-X" variant system, at least IMO.

JonDoe297 wrote...
ME2 didn't get rid of any of the ammo upgrades, it just put them in your skill bar, i.e. Incendiary Ammo, Cryo Ammo, Shredder, AP, Warp so they didn't get rid of any of the ammo types, they just made them accessible. I much preferred being able to take out a mech's shields and then switch to incendiary ammo at the touch of a button to take out its armour rather than going to my inventory to switch the ammo type to level V Incendiary ammo every time I want to switch weapon types.

In ME1 every class could use every ammo type; now, ammo types are only "accessible" to specific classes. I have no idea how you can tell me that Incendiary Ammo, which my Adept could freely use in ME1, is now "more accessible" in ME2 because it's a power that I can't use at all.

JonDoe297 wrote...
The biotic abilities in ME2 are also improved over those in ME1. For one, there are more biotic abilities in ME2, although you may not be able to unlock them all, or get them all to level 4 they are still never the less there. But your adept doesn't need every biotic ability at max because you can use multiple biotic abilities together to deal much more damage, plus you have teammates like Miranda and Samara who have biotics as well, which can be used in combination with your own to devastate any enemy on the field.

Too bad biotics are almost completely useless against shielded and armored enemies in ME2, which means bitoics have become glorified "finishing moves" that depend on small arms fire to reduce enemy shield, and Warp spam to reduce enemy armor.

In addition, teammates are, again IMO, far less useful than in ME1. For example, Kaiden has the possability of having access to:

- Throw
- Barrier
- Decryption
- First Aid
- Lift
- Stasis
- Electronics
- Medicine

In contrast, Miranda has possibile access to:

- Warp
- Overload
- Slam

So, Miranda can lower Shields and Armor, and can severely damage one enemy (with Slam). In contrast, Kaiden can lower Shields, disable enemy weapons, neutralize rushing enemies, protect himself if he's under fire, heal teammates, and freeze enemies.

The same applies for nearly all ME2 characters, they're less useful than their ME1 counterparts, especially since Shields/Barrier nulify biotic abilities now.

JonDoe297 wrote...
There are less weapons and equipment in ME2 but in its defence ME1’s weapons were not all that different, each simply added a damage or accuracy increase. The weapons in ME2, the assault rifle for example, are different weapons. The first is full-auto, and the second is a burst-fire so each is useful in different situations.

Such as? What situation does either of them present a significant advantage over the other? Why ever select the Avenger over the Vindicator? Why select the Shuriken SMG over the Tempest? Why select the Predator over the Hand Cannon?

Like I said, ME1 didn't do a great job at making the weapons have advanatges and disadvantages, but ME2 doesn't even try IMO, it's just a straight, linear upgrade system.

JonDoe297 wrote...
Not to mention that in ME1 basically every weapon other than the assault rifle was more-or-less useless.

I found the Sniper Rifle to be very useful, unless I was in close quarters, in which I found the shotgun to be useful. I really wish I had something clever to say about the "different situations" I used these weapons in...

JonDoe297 wrote...
As for armour, ME2 still has a good variety; about 5 different chests, arms, legs and helmets which can all be combined and all have their own unique effect.

The armor pieces give you bonuses equivalent to ME1 skill bonuses, which I believe you said were too incremental to be useful. How is an armor piece that gives you +5% to health an innovation, but the bonus granted from increasing the Fitness skill in ME1 was too small to matter? Why is the Archon Visor, which gives +5% to power recharge speed, characterized as having a "unique effect", but adding a point in the Adept skill, which gave you a 4% recharge speed bonus and a 6% increase in Biotic protection, is dismissed as irrelevant? 

[WilliamShatner]

JonDoe297 wrote...

WilliamShatner wrote...

Their OWN game, not a Gears of War clone.

Just because it's a third-person cover shooter doesn't make it a GoW clone. There are dozens of other games out there that are 3rd-person cover-shooters, i.e. Uncharted. If you say its a GoW clone then I can say that CoD is a Golden Eye clone, or that Grand Turismo is a Need for Speed clone.

You picked a pretty poor example because Uncharted is indeed a Gears of War clone with some Tomb Raider thrown in there and plots cribbed from the geniuses behind National Treasure.  Possibly the most overpraised, derivative games of all time.

A better example would have been James Bond: Everything or Nothing. probably.

[tonnactus]

Seipher05 wrote...


In contrast, Miranda has possibile access to:

- Warp
- Overload
- Slam

So, Miranda can lower Shields and Armor, and can severely damage one enemy (with Slam). In contrast, Kaiden can lower Shields, disable enemy weapons, neutralize rushing enemies, protect himself if he's under fire, heal teammates, and freeze enemies.

The same applies for nearly all ME2 characters, they're less useful than their ME1 counterparts, especially since Shields/Barrier nulify biotic abilities now.

And to make things even worser, they could use loyality talents only very late in the game. Someone would expect that squadmembers would use all their talents from the beginning of the game and shepardt could learn those talents after he/she gained their trusts,
This would make sense.
But no...

Squadmates were nearly equal compared with shepardt in the first game.Wrex was even superior compared with a pure soldier shepardt.(without warp or an other usefull biotic talent)
But those "best specialists" in the galaxy...

Something to laugh about.

Modifié par tonnactus, 19 juin 2010 - 09:17 .

[JonDoe297]

Some of us enjoy having more than 2-3 weapons to choose from, and the ability to customize them to increase their performance in certain areas. While I agree that ME1 didn't do a great job in this area, ME2 has such a linear system that's it's even worse than ME1's endless "I-X" variant system, at least IMO.

Yes the system in ME2 isn't amazingly innovative, but at least the vindicator is notiably different from the first rifle, where as in ME1 there are so many different types that are not neccesary.

In ME1 every class could use every ammo type; now, ammo types are only "accessible" to specific classes. I have no idea how you can tell me that Incendiary Ammo, which my Adept could freely use in ME1, is now "more accessible" in ME2 because it's a power that I can't use at all.

In ME2 you have to use your squadmates, like Jacob who has Incediary ammo, which can be upgraded to apply to the whole squad. Each teammate in ME2 is unique with their own abilities that have to be used in certain situations. In ME1 it was basically, combat, biotic or tech and some chracters were just better than others, rendering some chracters kinda useless.

Too bad biotics are almost completely useless against shielded and armored enemies in ME2, which means bitoics have become glorified "finishing moves" that depend on small arms fire to reduce enemy shield, and Warp spam to reduce enemy armor.

So now your adept cant solo everything he sees. Once again, squad based tactical combat. Use your team to deal with what they are good at. Use your own abilites for what they are good at, instead of just nuking everything with biotics.

In addition, teammates are, again IMO, far less useful than in ME1. For example, Kaiden has the possability of having access to:

- Throw
- Barrier
- Decryption
- First Aid
- Lift
- Stasis
- Electronics
- Medicine

In contrast, Miranda has possibile access to:

- Warp
- Overload
- Slam

So, Miranda can lower Shields and Armor, and can severely damage one enemy (with Slam). In contrast, Kaiden can lower Shields, disable enemy weapons, neutralize rushing enemies, protect himself if he's under fire, heal teammates, and freeze enemies.

The same applies for nearly all ME2 characters, they're less useful than their ME1 counterparts, especially since Shields/Barrier nulify biotic abilities now.

They aren't less usefull, now you just have to think of them as a squad and use them accordingly. There isnt't a character like Kaiden who can do everything pretty well, now you need all three members of your team to do things.

Such as? What situation does either of them present a significant advantage over the other? Why ever select the Avenger over the Vindicator? Why select the Shuriken SMG over the Tempest? Why select the Predator over the Hand Cannon?

Like I said, ME1 didn't do a great job at making the weapons have advanatges and disadvantages, but ME2 doesn't even try IMO, it's just a straight, linear upgrade system.

And the system in ME1 wasn't linear?? I think picking up a gun that is better than the last sounds pretty linear. 

I found the Sniper Rifle to be very useful, unless I was in close quarters, in which I found the shotgun to be useful. I really wish I had something clever to say about the "different situations" I used these weapons in...

In ME1 you could easily use the assault rifle in any situation and win. You didn't need to use the shotgun upclose, and you didnt need to snipe the enemy from far with the sniper rifle, the assault did just fine. You cannot deny that the shooting mechanics in ME2 are better in almot every concieveable way. Accuracy and skill actually matter.

The armor pieces give you bonuses equivalent to ME1 skill bonuses, which I believe you said were too incremental to be useful. How is an armor piece that gives you +5% to health an innovation, but the bonus granted from increasing the Fitness skill in ME1 was too small to matter? Why is the Archon Visor, which gives +5% to power recharge speed, characterized as having a "unique effect", but adding a point in the Adept skill, which gave you a 4% recharge speed bonus and a 6% increase in Biotic protection, is dismissed as irrelevant? 

Which goes back to my point that the RPG elements are still present in ME2, they are just found in different locations.

[Shotokanguy]

Seipher05 wrote...

JonDoe297 wrote...
As for armour, ME2 still has a good variety; about 5 different chests, arms, legs and helmets which can all be combined and all have their own unique effect.

The armor pieces give you bonuses equivalent to ME1 skill bonuses, which I believe you said were too incremental to be useful. How is an armor piece that gives you +5% to health an innovation, but the bonus granted from increasing the Fitness skill in ME1 was too small to matter? Why is the Archon Visor, which gives +5% to power recharge speed, characterized as having a "unique effect", but adding a point in the Adept skill, which gave you a 4% recharge speed bonus and a 6% increase in Biotic protection, is dismissed as irrelevant?

I'd say because levelling up your character should provide noticeable and enjoyable improvements or additions to your abilities. Items are just for extra bonuses.

[SFKNIGHT]

 I consider ME1 and ME2 to be hybrids wtih rpg and shooter elements ( A common enough opinion ).  Furthermore i think the most essential part of both of these games is the branching story that allows the player to make important decisions that may influence the outcome of the story and/or affect the numerous characters that are apart of the story.  I'm not sure if this crucial element to the franchise is classified as being pure "RPG" but i don't think that it matters.  The gameplay, the shooting, the inventory etc...   are all secondary to this one element (IMO).  Thus i think the most important think is for Bioware to nail the conclusion to the story no matter what, even if other elements "rpg" or others wise suffer and are underdeveloped.

BTW, when i say hybrid i mean somewhat along the lines of how Borderlands (an excellent game that i wish i had played more of) declared itself to be a hybrid.  Obviously ME and Borderlands are significantly different games but i see them as being unique as it is difficult to label them along traditional genre labels.   Hope this makes sense .

[JonDoe297]

WilliamShatner wrote...

JonDoe297 wrote...

WilliamShatner wrote...

Their OWN game, not a Gears of War clone.

Just because it's a third-person cover shooter doesn't make it a GoW clone. There are dozens of other games out there that are 3rd-person cover-shooters, i.e. Uncharted. If you say its a GoW clone then I can say that CoD is a Golden Eye clone, or that Grand Turismo is a Need for Speed clone.

You picked a pretty poor example because Uncharted is indeed a Gears of War clone with some Tomb Raider thrown in there and plots cribbed from the geniuses behind National Treasure.  Possibly the most overpraised, derivative games of all time.

A better example would have been James Bond: Everything or Nothing. probably.

The point is that just because it has the same style gameplay doesnt mean it is a rip off. You cant say that every FPS is a ripoff of some other FPS because there are so many. The same applies to every game genre.

BTW, both Gears of War and Uncharted were released in the same month, so I doubt Uncharted ripped off a game that was released a week before it.

[JonDoe297]

SFKNIGHT wrote...

 I consider ME1 and ME2 to be hybrids wtih rpg and shooter elements ( A common enough opinion ).  Furthermore i think the most essential part of both of these games is the branching story that allows the player to make important decisions that may influence the outcome of the story and/or affect the numerous characters that are apart of the story.  I'm not sure if this crucial element to the franchise is classified as being pure "RPG" but i don't think that it matters.  The gameplay, the shooting, the inventory etc...   are all secondary to this one element (IMO).  Thus i think the most important think is for Bioware to nail the conclusion to the story no matter what, even if other elements "rpg" or others wise suffer and are underdeveloped.

BTW, when i say hybrid i mean somewhat along the lines of how Borderlands (an excellent game that i wish i had played more of) declared itself to be a hybrid.  Obviously ME and Borderlands are significantly different games but i see them as being unique as it is difficult to label them along traditional genre labels.   Hope this makes sense .

QFT

[InvaderErl]

The old Biotic system required less thinking.

It was just spam/spam/spam until everything around you was dead. I would just roll out Liara anytime I had a problem fight because by the halfway mark she was utterly unstoppable.

With armor/shields/barriers you need to use teammates and your own abilities to actually combat their defenses.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 19 juin 2010 - 09:38 .

[tonnactus]

JonDoe297 wrote...

So now your adept cant solo everything he sees.

Oh, really not???

[JonDoe297]

InvaderErl wrote...

The old Biotic system required less thinking.

It was just spam/spam/spam until everything around you was dead. I would just roll out Liara anytime I had a problem fight because by the halfway mark she was utterly unstoppable.

With armor/shields/barriers you need to use teammates and your own abilities to actually combat their defenses.

Exactly, in ME2 no one is superpowered, they're usefull when used as a team. In ME1 you just need Liara and someone like Wrex and nothing has a hope of living.