99 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

It can exist togther, but it takes time. Different gear accomplishes nothing that different talent trees can't accomplish too... well... aside from different look.

[In Exile]

slimgrin wrote...
If customization is done well in a game, the options offered are never useless. Rather, they offer replay opportunities for different styles of play. That's the whole point.

Which games didn't have clearly obvious uber loot? The Juggernaut armour and the Knight Templar armour are the best in vanilla DA. Warden Commander's armour, Blood Dragon Armour... these all are clearly better than anything else you find.

As for replays... I don't see it. You have a party with all four classes. As long as the best loot doesn't change, at most you've flipped who wears what.

The only style of play that would be accomodated is something like a challenge run.

It's called strategy. Something that can exist alongside story, despite what many on these forums say.

Well, sure. I just don't think it can exist the way you see it.

[Vlainstrike]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It can exist togther, but it takes time. Different gear accomplishes nothing that different talent trees can't accomplish too... well... aside from different look.

Good thing Bioware hired more than one guy eh?

[EmperorSahlertz]

Vlainstrike wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It can exist togther, but it takes time. Different gear accomplishes nothing that different talent trees can't accomplish too... well... aside from different look.

Good thing Bioware hired more than one guy eh?

::crickets::

What? you don't expect me to add anything to that utterly unconstructive comment? No it isn't just 1 guy working on the game. However no matter in which way you put it, time spent developing different sets of loot is time that developer could have spent on numerous way more important stuff.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

I'm having a disconnect with the notion that armor sets are a role-playing element of the game. Is the point that it aids immersion and identification with the character to have more cosmetic choices?

[Onyx Jaguar]

Personally I like my stats to reflect with new looking armor types. For instance I'm not really a fan of getting new versions of say Heavy Chainmail. I'd rather just spend money at an armorer to upgrade that, and leave the loot for the more specialty and rare items with a better stat curve.



Think of it this way



In Fire Emblem I start out with one powerful character and one weak character. However the powerful character has a lower curve and in the end will not be as powerful, while the weak character when leveled will become more powerful. Then there is a third hidden character that starts out more powerful AND has a higher curve than the original weak character.



I don't know why I used Fire Emblem as a reference but anyway transfer that to DA



You have Heavy Chainmail and say Full Plate. The Full Plate starts out with higher stats, but a hit to dexterity. Heavy Chainmail cannot be upgraded to a pure defense but can overall have better stats. Then you find/purchase a specialty uber armor.



That is really just three models and while there is no loot involved there still is a progression curve.



Not really that different from what is in Origins, except it takes out some of the looting aspect.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Tirannos Rex wrote...

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

I'm having a disconnect with the notion that armor sets are a role-playing element of the game. Is the point that it aids immersion and identification with the character to have more cosmetic choices?

It's fun to collect crap. And to have more freedom and options in what crap you choose to wear.

Okay, I grok.  I've just never thought about that as an element of role-playing.  I enjoy customizing a character's look, but I never really thought about it like that.  Now that I'm thinking about it, it sounds fairly significant in a CRPG.  Since plot options are bound to be fairly narrow in a CRPG, ways to customize one's character become more important, I suppose.

[Onyx Jaguar]

You offer some vague rebuttals indeed. Most on these forums prefer story over strategy, so I'm in the minority, no question.

~ All the RPG's I have played, you work up to the best loot. But if you think its best just to offer the best and nothing else, please explain how that works with the concept of leveling you're character.

I don't don't know. Maybe you're right. Just give one set of standard, generic gear for every character with every play through. Nothing you use, armor or weapon-wise, will change.

That way we can all watch teh story.

One group of fans want all story

One want customization

Whoever wins we all lose!

EDIT:  Clarification, I am poking fun at notions direction at some in the ME fanbase (the vocal hate ME 2 anyway) as they I have noticed have a verrrrrrrrrrrry different idea of what an RPG is compared to the DA loyalists, and myself personally.

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 21 juillet 2010 - 03:55 .

[In Exile]

slimgrin wrote...
You offer some vague rebuttals indeed. Most on these forums prefer story over strategy, so I'm in the minority, no question.

I don't think story and strategy are mutually exclusive. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

All the RPG's I have played, you work up to the best loot. But if you think its best just to offer the best and nothing else, please explain how that works with the concept of leveling you're character.

Right, but 90% of the loot you had was nearly identical crap until you got to the irreplaceable game-breaker. I am not saying that there should be less loot, or we ought to start with the best loot (I only said at first our weak loot should look good).

Take dragon age, though. We have four tiers of armour - light, 'medium', heavy and massive. There are only 5, if I recall, unique models for armour. There are, really, only 4-5 clearly great sets of armour that you can get at most 1/3rd through the game. At that point, all of that other loot becomes irrelevant.

Things like material tiers, useless. I would rather there be 4 forms of customizable armour with a few design variations than 182 different kinds of useless armours that I get to upgrade right out of Lothering.

This is what I am refering to.

As for leveling, well, I happen to hate the D&D convention.

I don't don't know. Maybe you're right. Just give one set of standard, generic gear for every character with every play through. Nothing  you use, armor or weapon-wise, will change.

That way we can all watch teh story. 

Well, I'm glad you're agreeing wih some mental representation of me; sladly I happen to disagree with that version of me.

All I said was that I would like for all the armour sets to be aesthetically pleasing, and I would prefer less but more unique armour.

[Vlainstrike]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Vlainstrike wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It can exist togther, but it takes time. Different gear accomplishes nothing that different talent trees can't accomplish too... well... aside from different look.

Good thing Bioware hired more than one guy eh?

::crickets::

What? you don't expect me to add anything to that utterly unconstructive comment? No it isn't just 1 guy working on the game. However no matter in which way you put it, time spent developing different sets of loot is time that developer could have spent on numerous way more important stuff.

This same 'ol false dilemma is perpetrated ad nauseum by ignorant people on gaming forums - people who can't seem to grasp the concept that a game may actually excel in multiple areas, and that not every feature comes at the expense of every other feature.

...you mean we can actually have a game with good voice acting, a wide selection of gear, and somehow manage to also have an indepth and rewarding skill tree system alongside a good story in an immersive world with top notch music and a strategic combat system? How can this be?!?!!!

[Onyx Jaguar]

Well the guns had more feel but you had more variety in stats in the first ME 1. Not that they did anything radically different however. In DA though the weapons actually did work how they said on the stats

[Onyx Jaguar]

slimgrin wrote...

Then take out loot.

But don't take out customization and strategy, unless that is no longer an important part of role playing. After all, RPG's have evolved....and that's straight form the ME2 forums, by the way.

I can agree with this.  Though I'd prefer to find some useful "loot" on levels.  ME 2 did have this in a way with how you acquired weapons.  

[Vlainstrike]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

Vlainstrike wrote...

Don't get me wrong, I loved ME2, but I'm still sore about the very limited selection of weapons and armor.  And the selection that was available lacked any real variation, or noticeable effects from the stats on said equipment.

From what I've read so far I really like where DA2 is going (the Game Informer article put a lot of my fears to rest), but I would really hate if we end up with only like 5 sets of armor, 2 of which must be earned by drinking Dr. Pepper, or whatever..., and each possessing useless stats.

That would be bad.

Um, I'm sure someone else has already posted this but actually ME2 has WAY more guns than ME1.  The only thing that changes on guns in ME1 is some tweaking of how fast a gun overheats and how much damage it does, but every shotgun in the game feels just like every other shotgun.  In ME2, every gun has a distinct and unique feel.  If you use the Widow vs the Viper or the Incisor it feels completely different.  You don't see the "stats" on the guns but they are still very different guns.  ME1 just offered numeric upgrades of the same four models with different paint jobs.

I suppose I should clarify a bit - the overall sense of variety in customization was much better in ME1 than ME2.  However ME1 suffered from an unmanageable & disorganized inventory system; a system that was further hindered by dozens of duplicate drops.  Rather than clean up that system and balance out the drops for ME2 they just gutted the whole thing. And the resulting interface for upgrades in ME2 was still atrociously disorganized imo - they could have easily grouped upgrades by weapon (like all shotgun upgrades fall under one heading, all sniper upgrades grouped under another).  Instead everything is just piled on top of each other in one long list that you have to rummage through. (hopefully ME3 will manage to blend the best of both prior titles, and perhaps they'll include a somewhat organized interface for a change) 

Any sense of customization in ME2 felt shallow & tacked on - you couldn't even alter your whole load out in the same place.  I suppose running around to different parts of the ship to edit different parts of your loadout is nice from an RP perspective, but it is just annoying in terms of gameplay.  I never felt like I had access to what my character's build really was as a whole at any given time, but of course it didn't really matter since the effect of ME2's handful of armors on performance was minimal at best.

The whole thing felt dumbed down almost to the point of being condescending - like the pewpew generation can't handle deep customization.  And it is my fear that DA2 will follow suit in this regard.

Modifié par Vlainstrike, 21 juillet 2010 - 04:41 .

[joriandrake]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Well the guns had more feel but you had more variety in stats in the first ME 1. Not that they did anything radically different however. In DA though the weapons actually did work how they said on the stats

and armors were there for all companions not just player char

[In Exile]

slimgrin wrote...

Then take out loot.

But don't take out customization and strategy, unless that is no longer an important part of role playing. After all, RPG's have evolved....and that's straight form the ME2 forums, by the way.

Who's for less customization or strategy? I was just pointing out that the number of items we have is not equivalent to what it means to customize our items.