925 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lusitanum wrote...

Now if only it would be more like ME2 (again) where each weapon has distinct characteristics, strong points and drawbacks that make them more fitting to different situations and gaming playstyles. But of course that you can't have depth when your weapon shoots bullets, only when you have a medieval weapon with lots of numbers attached to it can you have "depth".

I actually quite liked how ME2 handled the different weapons.  As you say, which one was better differed from circumstance to circumstance (though I would have rathered they gave us quantifiable damage and rate-of-fire numbers for each so we could compare them better).  Plus you had realistic limits to how many you could carry at once.  That was terrific.

KotOR managed something similar with lightsaber crystals.  Different crystals did different things, and which one you wanted depended on a wide variety of factors.

Though in ME2, those mid-mission weapon loadout kiosks were absurd.  How did your weapons, which are possibly unique in the galaxy, happen to get there?

Since every - single - boss battle was fought in exactly the same way that you'd faced everything else, then I'd really like to see how those were any better than the rest of the game

I agree that DAO would have benefitted tremendously from more tactical variability.

But at least the core gameplay mechanic was fun.

ME2's combat system actually had tactics, depth, and most important, fun going for it, instead of the same MMO routine done ad infinitum until everything in your path was dead. So, how exactly is ME's combat awful compared to that?

I don't think ME2's combat was fun at all.  There was almost never any thought involved.  The environments were linear, so enemies were always in front of you, they appeared at locations predictable by the availability of cover, and the tactics used to kill them were always the same (and a lot simpler than those tactics that got reused in DAO).  Hide behind cover, pop out to shoot, hide behind cover, pop out to shoot.  Every enemy.  And worse, this was pretty much the only tactic available.  In DAO you could use the same tactic to defeat pretty much any enemy, but what that tactic was would differ based on your party construction or your gameplay preferences.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

AlanC9 wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
One last word of advice for you: If you do not like leveling up, inventory managment, or doing quests, I strongly suggest you stop playing RPG's

So I have to like all three of those in order to play RPGs?

And what about people who like everything else about RPGs but don't like those three things? Or two things, since I'm pretty sure "doing quests" is a red herring.

I would say that it helps to like those things. Most people who don't like those things usually don't like RPG's.

You can play action adventure games that have most of the things you want, minus all the RPG stuff that you seem to not want. RPG's fit a certain criteria, weather people want to believe it or not. People who defend Mass Effect 2 like to believe that an RPG is all about playing as a role. Of course, if we take this route, we then have to admit that almost every game is an RPG because you are almost always playing the role of a specific character. So, how else are we to measure it, and when does it cross the line from being an RPG to something else?

[Pocketgb]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
You can play action adventure games that have most of the things you want, minus all the RPG stuff that you seem to not want.

Point me to an adventure game developer that makes characters, settings, and dialog as awesome as a Bioware game.

You'll have a hard time doing so.

[Valus]

fanman72 wrote...

 Let's be honest here - a lot of elements from  traditional RPGs are really unncessary and don't add to the overall experience of playing a video game.  The strengths of many RPGs - storyline, characters, etc. is something I don't think bioware will be skimping out on anytime soon.  Now don't get me wrong, the gameplay in DA was fun but was overall it wasn't the greatest gameplay experience in the world.  The storyline, mood/atmosphere, and memorable characters more than made up for what I perceived to be technical gameplay shortcomings.  Mass Effect 1 had similar issues, most of which were fixed in ME2.  No I dont' care about dealing with a clunky inventory as long as i can alter my character's equipment's appearance.  No I don't care about dealing with inventory weight.  No I don't care about leveling up.  No I don't care about spending half of my time travelling to different places back and forth for "fetch this" type quests (what I call filler time).  

Keep the characters, story, plot, visuals, graphics, choices etc interesting.  Those are the only elements i really care from an RPG.  Then for all I care it can play like Dragon Effect 2.


*Is a typical Bioware forum posting nerd*



*Enjoys looting a new water bottle from a dead hurlock so that he can sell it for 3 copper*



*Spends 15 minutes getting to appropiate vendor because you're running out of inventory space*





My point is that there are a significant amount of elements among traditional RPGs which are flat out annoying and detract from the gameplay experience, rather than add to it

Totally get what this guy is saying and you aren't the only one who hopes this. Well, maybe I don't HOPE but I certainly don't mind. There is a certain element of fluff we have come to expect from RPGs and it's kind of silly.

"To create an RPG I have to have an inventory because all RPGs have an inventory and if my RPG doesn't have an inventory then it isn't an RPG" It's this train of thought that makes people boo ME2 for no good reason other than that they are traditionalists.

The only argument I have against this is recalling something I read about DA1 before it came out. It seems to me that Bioware intended to create a classic RPG using classic elements...a self proclaimed spiritual successor to BG and a throw back to classic RPGing as a whole. I felt that in this they triumphed. If they feel like moving past that in DA2 I am sure they will do it well and we have every reason to believe they'll still provide a great RPG experience (recent trash DLC aside).

Modifié par Valus, 10 septembre 2010 - 09:19 .

[AlanC9]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
You can play action adventure games that have most of the things you want, minus all the RPG stuff that you seem to not want.

Name three.

RPG's fit a certain criteria, weather people want to believe it or not. People who defend Mass Effect 2 like to believe that an RPG is all about playing as a role. Of course, if we take this route, we then have to admit that almost every game is an RPG because you are almost always playing the role of a specific character. So, how else are we to measure it, and when does it cross the line from being an RPG to something else?

Well, for me the criterion is making real decisions. Even an FPS with a strong SP campaign never does this. Nor do adventure games, obviously.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

AlanC9 wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
You can play action adventure games that have most of the things you want, minus all the RPG stuff that you seem to not want.

Name three.

Point taken. I really don't know what I was thinking when I said that.

AlanC9 wrote...
RPG's fit a certain criteria, weather people want to believe it or not. People who defend Mass Effect 2 like to believe that an RPG is all about playing as a role. Of course, if we take this route, we then have to admit that almost every game is an RPG because you are almost always playing the role of a specific character. So, how else are we to measure it, and when does it cross the line from being an RPG to something else?

Well, for me the criterion is making real decisions. Even an FPS with a strong SP campaign never does this. Nor do adventure games, obviously.

With Bioware, it's more about the illusion of choice. Almost every decision I made in ME1 had very little to no effect at all in ME2. That just doesn't cut it for me and so, decision making in a Bioware game ranks pretty low on my list of features that I truly look forward to. I like all the RPG stuff that you don't like, and because of that, I wouldn't buy DA2 if those mechanics were removed. I didn't play the first one for big decisions, and I wouldn't have purchased ME2 if I knew it was going to take that route.

You have your Mass Effect, and all I ask is that you let me have my Dragon Age. I don't want Dragon Effect just so you can enjoy the game more.

[Lusitanum]

FieryDove wrote...

I would say you are the minority, the complaints were huge all over the net about PS and it took many people many many hours. (pc version was horrible before patch) Also I was talking about all the blasted mini-games vs a real loot system. And no I don't find ammo clip hunting very much fun nor proper loot. With *all* the mini-games taken out and no ammo hunting the game lasts me about 18-20 hours...not that I really care, I never expected it longer.

How am I in the minority? I never said that I liked the stupid and pointless mineral scan mini-game (hell, anything that causes actual physicall pain on my wrists deserves a big, thick shaft up the &$£#@). I just said that it served as lot less padding to the game than DA's combat does, and in no way takes up 2/3 of gameplay time like you said it did (hell, it doesn't even take 1/10 of it ). Oh, and at least importing a character and completing the game gives you bonus resources, meaning that you won't have to worry so much about it in future playthroughs and there's a patch that helps with it. On the other hand, do you know of any achievement or patches that make the slog that is Dragon Age´s combat any less shallow?

Yes, I'd much rather earn my resources in other ways. Like Yahtzee said, "Commander Shepard should get his resources by shooting them out of a monster's face" so... I don't know, make side-missions our way of getting what we need to upgrade our weapons? Though even that can feel forced, Lord knows I always found it odd to find weapon upgrades for my team members "favorite" weapon during their Loyalty missions (Sniper upgrade in Garrus' mission, SMG with Miranda, Pistol with Mordin, etc.) but I bet it could be done.

Bottom line, yes it's a horrible system, but I'll take a couple of hours of mineral scanning over dozens upon dozens of hours of killing the same damned mob with different paint jobs on them (when I'm lucky, mostly it's just Darkspawn over and over).

FieryDove wrote...

As to padding and *utterly predictible and repetitive combat* ...you made a typo and are saying that for ME2 yes?

No, I really meant Dragon Age. And no, I'm not going to repeat myself on how every  single fight in this game can be won using the same tactic over and over again because I've done that before and I'd recommend you refute that instead of just giving me a "no, you are" retort.

FieryDove wrote...

If the UI for the pc was made with the pc strengths in mind I might not have been so harsh. Mouse/keyboard is win/win in shooters...except ME2. ME1 was much better on the PC than #2 (interface/gameplay) and I won't even go into the war which was a better RPG mix. Everyone has an opinion and there is no point trying to sway people to one's own point of view or belittle them for opposing views.

Maybe, but we can discuss our opinions and try to reach a consensus if you're open-minded enough to accept that your opinion may change.

Lord knows I'd like to fall in love with Dragon Age again, but the really good games that I've played lately (you know, the ones with actual depth and fun in them) have kind of spoiled me. And the crappy DLC/expansion for this game haven't helped either. But feel free to try and convince, just so long as you can come up with actual valid points.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I actually quite liked how ME2 handled the
different weapons.  As you say, which one was better differed from
circumstance to circumstance (though I would have rathered they gave us
quantifiable damage and rate-of-fire numbers for each so we could
compare them better). 

Agreed on both counts. I also really love how you have to ponder how accurate a weapon is (for instance, the Revenant is a beast, but the low accuracy means that you have to be dangerously close to your enemies to hit anything), ammo can become a problem with some models (so do you think you can juggle with other weapons or do you prefer something less powerful but with more ammo capacity), different weapons do more damage against specific kinds of protection, etc. etc.

And it's all well and good, but I really wish I didn't have to consult the damned Mass Effect Wiki to make my decisions. Why did Bioware think that the flavour text was more important than actual weapons statistics is beyond me.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Plus you had realistic limits to how many you
could carry at once.  That was terrific.

Even if that Heavy Weapon always seemed incredibly huge and always made me wonder how the hell can you sprint while carying that thing around, but we'll let that one slide.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Though
in ME2, those mid-mission weapon loadout kiosks were absurd.  How did
your weapons, which are possibly unique in the galaxy, happen to get
there?

Yeah, I also thought that was really forced. I understand that Bioware just wanted to give you a chance to outfit yourself with a weapon that you actually liked instead of forcing you to carry the new weapon, but that could have been easily fixed by not automatically changing our weapons. Or giving us the chance of acquiring these new weapons outside of missions.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I agree
that DAO would have benefitted tremendously from more tactical
variability.

But at least the core gameplay mechanic was fun.

I don't really care how fun something might be, if you're forced to do it a thousand times over, then it's going to get really old, really fast.

I also liked the combat system at first, but then I started to realize that there was nothing to it beside what I had been doing since the very start of the game.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't
think ME2's combat was fun at all.  There was almost never any thought
involved.  The environments were linear, so enemies were always in front
of you, they appeared at locations predictable by the availability of
cover, and the tactics used to kill them were always the same (and a lot
simpler than those tactics that got reused in DAO).

Except that different enemies had different strengths and weaknesses. Like I've said before, Blood Pack mercenaries required fire powers to tear throught their armor and prevent regeneration while you kept away from their shotguns and flamethrowers, Blue Suns had shields and mechs that had to be countered with Overload, melee creatures are better fought by holding your ground in open space, etc. etc. On the other hand, I can't name one enemy in DA that didn't fell before the "might" of my "Tank + DPS dealer + Support" routine.

And if you thought that ME2 was too easy, you could always just bump up the difficulty. Believe me, that's when adequate tactics become imperative because bringing the wrong squad or making stupid mistakes costs you dearly. I should know, I kept getting my ass kicked during the final mission on Insanity because I thought that Zaeed and Jack would be a good choice (side-note: thinking that Biotic ammo would be
enough to counter the Harbinger's Barrier was a huge mistake) and I just kept failling over and over again. But then I switched to Grunt and Miranda and things went smoothly.

Again, compare that to Dragon Age where even the Archdemon is a pushover on Nightmare. If all you're going to change from one difficulty setting to the next is the fact that now the enemy has some magical resistance and prioritizes my weaker party members a bit more, then all I need is more brute force and just bombard them with more spells and more aggro.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Hide behind cover,
pop out to shoot, hide behind cover, pop out to shoot.  Every enemy. 
And worse, this was pretty much the only tactic available. 

That's just a generalization. That would be like me saying that I all I do is click on an enemy until it dies. Which actually happened quite often (especially with the annoying Deepstalkers that felt more like a pest that had to be cleaned out rather than an actual enemy) but that was more to speed things up than to actually win the battle.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In DAO you
could use the same tactic to defeat pretty much any enemy, but what that
tactic was would differ based on your party construction or your
gameplay preferences.

But it would still be the same tactic. You could have 3 warriors and one archer, like someone mentioned earlier and you would still be fighting the same way, except that you wouldn't have any spells or backstabs. And, you could also go throught the whole game doing the same thing over and over again, even with a different party because, as I've mentioned time and time again, what works for one enemy, works for every single other thing you face in the game.

[Ayanna Nyx]

I played DAO before ME1&2, and I find myself seriously hoping they make DA more like ME as well (eh, not all sci-fi etc, you know what I mean). I just loved ME, especially the second, unbelievable game, and having recently started to play DA again, I see just how primitive (and sadly even a little boring) it is compared to ME. I still love DA but I really want to see something special in the second game. But I'm hopeful

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lusitanum wrote...

Except that different enemies had different strengths and weaknesses. Like I've said before, Blood Pack mercenaries required fire powers to tear throught their armor and prevent regeneration while you kept away from their shotguns and flamethrowers, Blue Suns had shields and mechs that had to be countered with Overload, melee creatures are better fought by holding your ground in open space, etc. etc.

Except those differences don't actually require a different approach.  Hide behind cover.  Shoot with sniper rifle.  This is pretty much how I approach every encounter in ME2.

Shields just mean I have to shoot them more times.  I can bring Thane and Garrus to shoot them faster, or I can bring Jack and Samara to immobilise them while I shoot them over a longer period.  The only time I ever have to do anything different is when I run out of ammo, but that's not fun - that's just annoying because the whole ammo mechanic is so idiotic.

That's just a generalization.

Doesn't feel like one.

But it would still be the same tactic. You could have 3 warriors and one archer, like someone mentioned earlier and you would still be fighting the same way, except that you wouldn't have any spells or backstabs. And, you could also go throught the whole game doing the same thing over and over again, even with a different party because, as I've mentioned time and time again, what works for one enemy, works for every single other thing you face in the game.

I agree that when you find a winning tactic for your party in DAO it works on pretty much every enemy.  There were only a few boss battles where that wasn't the case (Broodmother, Jarvia, Spider Queen), but radically different party constructions did thrive with different tactics.

I haven't played ME2 more than once (and I can't imagine why I would want to - at least ME's gameplay gave me those fun Mako excursions), so maybe the game would play significantly differently if I didn't use a sniper rifle.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ayanna Nyx wrote...

I played DAO before ME1&2, and I find myself seriously hoping they make DA more like ME as well (eh, not all sci-fi etc, you know what I mean). I just loved ME, especially the second, unbelievable game, and having recently started to play DA again, I see just how primitive (and sadly even a little boring) it is compared to ME.

Whereas, I can't wait to get back to DAO after I finish with ME2.

ME2 is more of a chore to play than it is fun.

[Ayanna Nyx]

Really? I found ME more interesting and challenging, I only realize now how easy DA is in comparison.

[Dave of Canada]

(throws himself into the conversation without much context)

I've found that playing Dragon Age is less of a chore to play than Mass Effect 2 on the condition that I don't redo the Fade or Deep Roads, those two scenes are the only places that when I consider replaying the game for the Xth (going on 7th time) that I'll just drop the idea.

Although playing the game with a save game at the very end of the Deep Roads (before the Caridin / Branka choice) where none of the big plot points have been covered have always been more fun to me than Mass Effect 2.

I loved Mass Effect 2, it's just... there's no big choices in the game itself, it's either blow something up or to not blow it up. Morality choices are based off your current character half the time.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 11 septembre 2010 - 01:03 .

[Ayanna Nyx]

lol Agree about the Deep Roads and The Fade. I do find DA an easier game to play as I said, but I prefer ME now for sure. I usually hate the whole dungeons and dragons theme but Bioware managed to get me to like DA lol Mainly because of the great story and characters, it always wins despite the genre. But concerning interactivity, choices, options etc etc, I prefer ME, and I never thought I would say that before I played the games. For me, nothing could beat DA, well it has.

[2papercuts]

Ayanna Nyx wrote...

Really? I found ME more interesting and challenging, I only realize now how easy DA is in comparison.

um... what did you play setting did you play it on?

and how is ME challenging? you usually don't have to think to win

[Merci357]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Except those differences don't actually require a different approach.  Hide behind cover.  Shoot with sniper rifle.  This is pretty much how I approach every encounter in ME2.

Shields just mean I have to shoot them more times.  I can bring Thane and Garrus to shoot them faster, or I can bring Jack and Samara to immobilise them while I shoot them over a longer period.  The only time I ever have to do anything different is when I run out of ammo, but that's not fun - that's just annoying because the whole ammo mechanic is so idiotic.

It's just my guess, but: isn't that the whole point of the ammo mechanic? To break up the "hide behind cover, pop up with sniper rifle" routine? If a sniper had unlimited ammo, why should I ever use anything else. I may not like the fact that only the shotgun has ammo left, but now I can't stay at max range any longer. A change of pace is a good thing in my book.

[Riona45]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Whereas, I can't wait to get back to DAO after I finish with ME2.

ME2 is more of a chore to play than it is fun.

Then why play it at all?

Modifié par Riona45, 11 septembre 2010 - 01:12 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ayanna Nyx wrote...

Really? I found ME more interesting and challenging, I only realize now how easy DA is in comparison.

Challenging?  In what sense?  I found DAO offered far more interesting roleplaying opportunities.

If they're roleplaying games, then the reason I play them is to roleplay.  I didn't find much (or any) opportunity to roleplay in ME2.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Riona45 wrote...

Then why play it at all?

Because it's an important point of reference for BioWare and their fans.  I can't intelligently discuss their direction and choices if I haven't seen them in action.

RPGs are my hobby.  I put effort into my hobby.

[Dave of Canada]

My problem with Mass Effect is that the character interaction remains fairly minimum, at the very end of the game I just felt like these characters were there for... being there. In Origins, at the very end I felt bad for Alistair and hated putting him on the throne because he was my friend and I knew he didn't want it. I actually felt like Alistair was my character's best friend, ME1 and 2 tried to do this with Kaidan / Jacob and I didn't feel that vibe at all.



Romances also tend to be the shallowest experience in ME, you have a discussion where the person says you're attractive and they want you. You can tell them "Yes", "No" or "No." on if you want to romance them. Using Morrigan, she slept with you and then the entire romance played out afterwards where she changes from since you first met into somebody who's actually loving you. Mass Effect plays out like this, here's Miranda:



[Gender-neutral dialogue]

[Gender-neutral dialogue]

[Gender-neutral dialogue]

[Loyalty mission]

Female: [Thanks but I don't want to say anything more anymore.

Male: [You're hot. confirm/deny?]

Male: [You're hot part 2. Are you sure? yes/no.]

Male: [Sex scene.]



Then nothing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Merci357 wrote...

It's just my guess, but: isn't that the whole point of the ammo mechanic?

To annoy me?  Yes, I think it is.

I like engaging enemies at extreme range.  It's the only part of shooter gameplay I enjoy.  The uncharted worlds in ME were pretty good for offering me that chance.

[addiction21]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

Then why play it at all?

Because it's an important point of reference for BioWare and their fans.  I can't intelligently discuss their direction and choices if I haven't seen them in action.

RPGs are my hobby.  I put effort into my hobby.

Watch yourself. I was flayed for saying the same thing around these boards.

[Andat]

AlanC9 wrote...

Name three.

Based on not much research?  Mass Effect 2, for starters.  Also, Assassins Creed 1 & 2 (play 1 for  the story context), GTA4, Red Dead Redemption, and a few others.

Depends what you want out of an RPG game, but a levelling system, an inventory and quests are pretty much the standard features.  Asking for an RPG without one of those is... well it's asking for something that isn't an RPG.  And I'm speaking as someone who thoroughly enjoyed all the games I listed above, so I'm no elitist...  I just like an RPG to be an RPG.  If you want something else then go play that.

[AndrahilAdrian]

With Bioware, it's more about the illusion of choice. Almost every decision I made in ME1 had very little to no effect at all in ME2. That just doesn't cut it for me and so, decision making in a Bioware game ranks pretty low on my list of features that I truly look forward to. I like all the RPG stuff that you don't like, and because of that, I wouldn't buy DA2 if those mechanics were removed. I didn't play the first one for big decisions, and I wouldn't have purchased ME2 if I knew it was going to take that route.

I'm actually very glad of this, and I'm worried that Dragon Age seems to be going in a different direction with wildly divergant choices. Too many choices means that any one path you take will have less detail and less work. As someone who never replays games, Iam not be able to really tell the difference between fake choice and real choice.

You have your Mass Effect, and all I ask is that you let me have my
Dragon Age. I don't want Dragon Effect just so you can enjoy the game
more.

Well, I do want Dragon Effect just so I can enjoy the game more. So there.

[AndrahilAdrian]

Dave of Canada wrote...

My problem with Mass Effect is that the character interaction remains fairly minimum, at the very end of the game I just felt like these characters were there for... being there. In Origins, at the very end I felt bad for Alistair and hated putting him on the throne because he was my friend and I knew he didn't want it. I actually felt like Alistair was my character's best friend, ME1 and 2 tried to do this with Kaidan / Jacob and I didn't feel that vibe at all.

Romances also tend to be the shallowest experience in ME, you have a discussion where the person says you're attractive and they want you. You can tell them "Yes", "No" or "No." on if you want to romance them. Using Morrigan, she slept with you and then the entire romance played out afterwards where she changes from since you first met into somebody who's actually loving you. Mass Effect plays out like this, here's Miranda:

[Gender-neutral dialogue]
[Gender-neutral dialogue]
[Gender-neutral dialogue]
[Loyalty mission]
Female: [Thanks but I don't want to say anything more anymore.
Male: [You're hot. confirm/deny?]
Male: [You're hot part 2. Are you sure? yes/no.]
Male: [Sex scene.]

Then nothing.

I agree with everything you said, but I still prefer Mass Effect due to its mind blowing cinematic presentation, better graphics, superior plotline, and more imaginative setting.