138 réponses à ce sujet

[kalle90]

@Lumikki: I don't understand the point.

AdamNW wrote...
You also have to account for how realistic an inventory actually is. You have absolutely no space to store all of those guns in ME1 or 2. At least you had backpacks and other storage devices in other WRPG's.

Now that is something I can agree with (though not all other RPGs have storage). But the "teleporter" loadout boxes placed here and there aren't better. Having loadout box only on Normandy would be really restricting (wouldn't really bother me as long as the game doesn't force me to autoswitch everytime I find a new weapon)

A few thoughts:
- Turn the loadout case into an actual big inventory a la ME1/Morrowind/...
- Keep the scanning new items from ME2 (but have way more stuff to scan like mods, new weapons...) 
- Make us pay for manufacturing items on Normandy
- Allow us to fill our armor weapon slots how we want (ie 3 Heavy Weapons instead of AR, Sniper and Heavy weapon, 2 smgs instead of a pistol and smg), a bit like Borderlands
- Allow us to pick weapons from ground

[joey_mork84]

kalle90 wrote...

@Lumikki: I don't understand the point.

I'm not entirely sure that english is Lumikki's first language (no offense intended to Lumikki if my assumption is wrong).. Just thought I'd throw that out there...

Back on topic: I always felt the inventories in RPGs were a bit.. Off.. If you have a pack/bag and that is all, how on earth can you hold so much equipment? Just never made much sense to me. The inventory in ME2 is almost about right, since they basically only pick up something better or something they need, like medi-gel. Doesn't make it any less of an RPG, though, since you can still roleplay in ME2. But, just like everything else here, that's just my opinion.

Modifié par joey_mork84, 31 octobre 2010 - 06:26 .

[Pacifien]

AdamNW wrote...
You also have to account for how realistic an inventory actually is. You have absolutely no space to store all of those guns in ME1 or 2. At least you had backpacks and other storage devices in other WRPG's.

I always thought Deus Ex did the inventory thing well.

ETA:


Basically, you have a finite sized inventory system. Each item has a designated size and you had to figure out a way to make it fit in the inventory or you simply couldn't keep it.

Modifié par Pacifien, 31 octobre 2010 - 06:26 .

[kalle90]

^^

That still wouldn't really work for ME. The armour seems so streamlined and clean:

- 3 big weapon slots

- 3 small weapon slots (I count shotgun here)

- Medigel, grenades and whatever else small gear



But:

1. We scan stuff in ME2 so not being able to pick them up doesn't mean they're unavailable. I just think we should pay to manufacture them instead of having an infinite supply of them like ME2 has.

2. We should be able to drop our current weapons to pick up new ones

[Fahie]

clennon8 wrote...

Meh. To me, role-playing is about character interactions and moral choices. ME2 got it just about perfect.

I agree

[Shockwave81]

AntiChri5 wrote...

There is an inventory system. It simply isn't the usual invisible magical floating bag following you along and holding 57 different suits of armour.
.

I beg to differ...the Normandy has stealth systems and it's following/waiting for you wherever you go.

Seriously though, what we got in ME2 was hardly more plausible - weapon lockers conveniently placed on the map? So much for innovation - this kind of inventory management was used in Resident Evil about 12-13 years ago. 

Modifié par Shockwave81, 31 octobre 2010 - 07:39 .

[AntiChri5]

For all we know, the gun lockers simply contain the materials (omni-gel amd such) required to make any weapon. You simply upload the shematics and press "make".

[InfiniteCuts]

I think BioWare had the right idea conceptually with streamlining of inventory... they just failed to realize it fully and make the player feel like they had any real choice with the loadout. Random parts purchased in local markets with no drawbacks in terms of use doesn't cut it. It just became a matter of getting enough money to collect as many powerups as possible. This can be resolved by increasing the amount of customization available for weapons. Limit base models of each weapon type to 2 or 3 (as we have now), but allow us to customize them with a decent set of components and even color variety.

I hated that I had no say in how my weapons appeared and functioned (ammo talents were a joke), especially in contrast with my armor. If BioWare were to design a system where you could choose and swap weapon components such as scope, barrel, grip, accessories, etc., much of the complaints from pro-inventory people would cease. They wouldn't even need to make it so you can change this on-the-fly or carry stuff around with you... just limit it to a workbench. I couldn't help but think how much a wasted potential the armory was. Imagine having a true-to-form workbench in ME3 where you get to truly customize your weapons, not just tack on a powerup at mineral cost. Choose a base model (i.e. weapon type, rate of fire) and work your way from their with components built or acquired sparsely throughout the game.

Apply this type of philosophy to armor, although to a lesser degree, and you're set. You give RPG traditionalists the complexity and individuality they're looking for and can offer a "quick set" option for those that would rather not spend much time customizing. Aside from a few things like tech mines (bring them back, please) or other small items, I'd have no need or desire for an inventory if they implemented something like this.

Modifié par InfiniteCuts, 31 octobre 2010 - 09:46 .

[Alex_SM]

Walker White wrote...

These threads always fascinate me. When people talk about "traditional RPGs" they have this notion that was started by CRPGs (Hell yes, I still use that term) in the late 80s and early 90s. They ignore the massive diversity in pen-and-paper RPGs or even much of the experimentation that was going on with adding customization to interactive fiction in the 80s.

Why are we letting our definitions being guided by CRPGs which historically have been much more restrictive and less innovative than the pen-and-papers? These games have focused on item customization and heavy leveling (aspects often de-emphasized by pen-and-papers outside of the D&D mold) because that was all they could do to provide customization given the technology limitations. Now that technology is advancing, why are we still placing these shackles on this genre?

Best answer here, and everyone seems to ignore it. 

"Original" RPGs where not about inventory, skills or clothing, they where about taking the role of a character and getting immerse into a different reality (and PnP RPGs are still about that). ME2 nowadays (as a Computer RPG) is the pinacle of that concept.

[Oblarg]

Alex_SM wrote...

Best answer here, and everyone seems to ignore it. 

"Original" RPGs where not about inventory, skills or clothing, they where about taking the role of a character and getting immerse into a different reality (and PnP RPGs are still about that). ME2 nowadays (as a Computer RPG) is the pinacle of that concept.

Not even close.  I'd say ME1 did a better job of it, and even that isn't my favorite recent CRPG.

[Alex_SM]

ME1 was more limited in the interaction with the crew, the "taking the role" concept and the emotional implication. I've never felt so immersed playing as a character as in ME2.

[SithLordExarKun]

Oblarg wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

Best answer here, and everyone seems to ignore it. 

"Original" RPGs where not about inventory, skills or clothing, they where about taking the role of a character and getting immerse into a different reality (and PnP RPGs are still about that). ME2 nowadays (as a Computer RPG) is the pinacle of that concept.

Not even close.  I'd say ME1 did a better job of it, and even that isn't my favorite recent CRPG.

To famously quote the hypocrite(thats right, its you): Well thats your opinion.

[nat11]

- DO NOT- Bring back the ME1 inventory system .

[piemanz]

It seems to me that people have no idea what a role playing game actually is.The only thing that defines a role playing game is playing the role of a character and making choices that effect the story.

from wikipedia......

A role-playing game (RPG) is a broad family of games in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.[1] Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines

I fail to see how ME2 is not an RPG just because it has less inventory management which is just a percieved 'must have' element of a role playing game, just because other role playing games have used it.The invenotory is the tool of a role playing game not something that defines it.

Modifié par piemanz, 01 novembre 2010 - 01:45 .

[Oblarg]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Oblarg wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

Best answer here, and everyone seems to ignore it. 

"Original" RPGs where not about inventory, skills or clothing, they where about taking the role of a character and getting immerse into a different reality (and PnP RPGs are still about that). ME2 nowadays (as a Computer RPG) is the pinacle of that concept.

Not even close.  I'd say ME1 did a better job of it, and even that isn't my favorite recent CRPG.

To famously quote the hypocrite(thats right, its you): Well thats your opinion.

Indeed it is.

So is the statement that "ME2 is the pinnacle of the concept of RPG," which was precisely the point of my post.

Glad we've sorted that out.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Honestly I always believed that the loadout system of games like Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon were the best of their systems. Of course if you want to go further you could do it like X-COM handles it and in the loadout screen have a finite amount of space (like the Deus Ex picture, except not handled like Deus Ex) to work with instead of being forced to carry a set amount of weapons.

[ScooterPie88]

I tend to agree with what others have stated.  An RPG is not defined by being able to hold tons of items or have hundreds of character points and a skill tree that when you invest 1 point in a skill you might as well not have invested anything at all.  ME1 was really the same way with its skills.  while each point made a SLIGHT statistical difference major improvements only occured every 3-4 points invested.  That side I also get tired of going through hundreds of useless filler items that no one in their right mind would ever use because of their utter worthlessness.  Money was harder to come by in ME2 before the DLCs but now there is more than enough to buy every item in game so that problem is fixed.  ME2 had it right: no on character inventory and significant character development without it getting tedious.  Besides choosing what armor and weapons you use does not define an RPG.  Every shooter out there you choose your weapons and many have skills.  I'm no fan of the game but Modern Warfare series let's you choose your weapons and skills and it's no more an RPG than Need for Speed.

[Lumikki]

kalle90 wrote...

@Lumikki: I don't understand the point.

My point was that you seem to look how different developers have executed they inventory system and then compare them. You say ME1 would been better if it would have done better, like some other games had. How ever, You never say ME2 inventory could have been better if it would have done better. Because there isn't really others to compare.

So, I suggested to compare the base design differences of the inventory systems and not how good or bad they executions as how developers have done it.

In my opinion traditonal RPG inventory system fits very well in traditional RPG's. But Mass Effect serie isn't traditional RPG and it's even science fiction, so you could consider that ME2 system actually fits better in because it's base design. Base design is how everyting function, not how it's executed. By executed I mean UI and how large, handy and diverse it's for player. By function I mean more like what player could do or can do. Like what player picks from loot and how it's handled by system.

Think about story setup and theme, then think about looting in both systems. How it fits. Now the "inventory" execution can be done many ways, like you have seen in many games, some work better than other, so do you actually try to give ME2 system chance or just shut it down, because opinion. How about actually trying to figure out how it can be improved without change of hole base design.

Why?

Because in my opinion ME2 "inventory" system fits better science fiction based theme like Shepard is part in Mass Effect world. Think about the differences. You know the research, not looting every trash and so on. My point is that ME2 system actually make sense, but the execution was way too limited and simplifyed.

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 novembre 2010 - 06:45 .

[Oblarg]

ScooterPie88 wrote...

I tend to agree with what others have stated.  An RPG is not defined by being able to hold tons of items or have hundreds of character points and a skill tree that when you invest 1 point in a skill you might as well not have invested anything at all.  ME1 was really the same way with its skills.  while each point made a SLIGHT statistical difference major improvements only occured every 3-4 points invested.  That side I also get tired of going through hundreds of useless filler items that no one in their right mind would ever use because of their utter worthlessness.  Money was harder to come by in ME2 before the DLCs but now there is more than enough to buy every item in game so that problem is fixed.  ME2 had it right: no on character inventory and significant character development without it getting tedious.  Besides choosing what armor and weapons you use does not define an RPG.  Every shooter out there you choose your weapons and many have skills.  I'm no fan of the game but Modern Warfare series let's you choose your weapons and skills and it's no more an RPG than Need for Speed.

The point is not that an inventory made Mass Effect 1 more of an RPG, the point is that it made it a better game.  It was not the best inventory system I've ever seen, but it's certainly better than the utterly awful planet scanning/upgrade gear progression system in ME2.

Much of the fun in an RPG, for me, comes from seeing my character grow.  If there's no character progression, be it through gear or experience, the game isn't as fun.  In this respect, Mass Effect 1 was much, much better than ME2, even though the inventory was indeed cluttered and there were simply too many items for the game's own good.  BioWare overreacted in ME2 and consequently stripped the game of its inventory and greatly scaled back the leveling mechanics, and for me that really took a lot of the enjoyment out of it.

The main problem with ME1's leveling mechanics was simply that you gained too many skill points overall.  What they should do for ME3 is bring back ME1's ability tree (yes, weapon skills and all), but increase the value of each skill point and give the player fewer overall skill points.

[Lumikki]

Oblarg wrote...

The point is not that an inventory made Mass Effect 1 more of an RPG, the point is that it made it a better game.  It was not the best inventory system I've ever seen, but it's certainly better than the utterly awful planet scanning/upgrade gear progression system in ME2.

Inventory system in ME1 made it more traditional RPG, but not as better game. ME1 was in some ways better, because story and impression details, not because inventory system. Traditional inventory system actually did make ME1 worst, not better.

There was two major problem in ME1 and they where inventory and combat system.

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 novembre 2010 - 07:56 .

[s0meguy6665]

wookieeassassin wrote...

I haven't finished ME2 yet, but from what I've played it seems like a lot of the actual role-playing elements have been taken out. I dont' understand why there couldn't have been an inventory and a skill tree in addition to the other changes they made to the game (the other things they have changed seem to be for the better IMO). The game isn't bad by any means, and what I've played so far I really like but I know that I'm going to miss having multiple skills to upgrade, having an inventory, 'looting'. Without lots of skills and those other elements its just a third person action game with dialogue sequences (again, doesn't mean it isn't a good game, just that its on the edge of not being an RPG anymore).

For Mass Effect 3 please bring the RPG elements back.

Thanks.

they'll never bring those back. they're on a path of dumbing games down further... and tbh while i like to have an inventory system, ME1's sucked.

Modifié par s0meguy6665, 01 novembre 2010 - 11:13 .

[ScooterPie88]

Oblarg wrote...

ScooterPie88 wrote...

I tend to agree with what others have stated.  An RPG is not defined by being able to hold tons of items or have hundreds of character points and a skill tree that when you invest 1 point in a skill you might as well not have invested anything at all.  ME1 was really the same way with its skills.  while each point made a SLIGHT statistical difference major improvements only occured every 3-4 points invested.  That side I also get tired of going through hundreds of useless filler items that no one in their right mind would ever use because of their utter worthlessness.  Money was harder to come by in ME2 before the DLCs but now there is more than enough to buy every item in game so that problem is fixed.  ME2 had it right: no on character inventory and significant character development without it getting tedious.  Besides choosing what armor and weapons you use does not define an RPG.  Every shooter out there you choose your weapons and many have skills.  I'm no fan of the game but Modern Warfare series let's you choose your weapons and skills and it's no more an RPG than Need for Speed.

The point is not that an inventory made Mass Effect 1 more of an RPG, the point is that it made it a better game.  It was not the best inventory system I've ever seen, but it's certainly better than the utterly awful planet scanning/upgrade gear progression system in ME2.

Much of the fun in an RPG, for me, comes from seeing my character grow.  If there's no character progression, be it through gear or experience, the game isn't as fun.  In this respect, Mass Effect 1 was much, much better than ME2, even though the inventory was indeed cluttered and there were simply too many items for the game's own good.  BioWare overreacted in ME2 and consequently stripped the game of its inventory and greatly scaled back the leveling mechanics, and for me that really took a lot of the enjoyment out of it.

The main problem with ME1's leveling mechanics was simply that you gained too many skill points overall.  What they should do for ME3 is bring back ME1's ability tree (yes, weapon skills and all), but increase the value of each skill point and give the player fewer overall skill points.

I don't like planet scanning any more than the next guy but it was still better than driving around in the Mako looking for minerals for hours on end just to complete the side quest.  I for one enjoy Mass Effect 2 much more.  Mass Effect was a chore to be a completionist on.  I actally wanted to do everything in ME2.  I've beaten ME2 twice as many times as the original.  Not that I don't like ME I just find it mechanically irratating.  Both games take about 34 hours for me doing completionist and not skipping dialouge.  ME1 though feels like it takes years whereas I can play ME2 for 10 hours straight and not even realize it.  I just get much more immersed in ME2 as opposed to ME1 where it felt like I was being slowly tortured if I completed everything.

Modifié par ScooterPie88, 01 novembre 2010 - 03:37 .

[Oblarg]

ScooterPie88 wrote...
I don't like planet scanning any more than the next guy but it was still better than driving around in the Mako looking for minerals for hours on end just to complete the side quest. 

You see, this is an invalid comparison - the Mako resource gathering was little more than a minor sidequest for completionists.  The planet scanning was the main method of gear progression in the game.  Tell me, do you enjoy planet scanning more than you enjoyed having an inventory?  I certainly don't, and I cant imagine why anyone else would.

[ScooterPie88]

Oblarg wrote...

ScooterPie88 wrote...
I don't like planet scanning any more than the next guy but it was still better than driving around in the Mako looking for minerals for hours on end just to complete the side quest. 

You see, this is an invalid comparison - the Mako resource gathering was little more than a minor sidequest for completionists.  The planet scanning was the main method of gear progression in the game.  Tell me, do you enjoy planet scanning more than you enjoyed having an inventory?  I certainly don't, and I cant imagine why anyone else would.

No it's a perfectly valid comparison.  Both have to be done to be a completionist or they are completely optional.  No one says you have to scan planets.  You can easily skip it entirely.  Just don't be surprised when the game is harder when you don't.  Also while I dislike planet scanning and ME1's inventory system I definately find planet scanning to be the lesser of the two evils.

[Oblarg]

ScooterPie88 wrote...

Oblarg wrote...

ScooterPie88 wrote...
I don't like planet scanning any more than the next guy but it was still better than driving around in the Mako looking for minerals for hours on end just to complete the side quest. 

You see, this is an invalid comparison - the Mako resource gathering was little more than a minor sidequest for completionists.  The planet scanning was the main method of gear progression in the game.  Tell me, do you enjoy planet scanning more than you enjoyed having an inventory?  I certainly don't, and I cant imagine why anyone else would.

No it's a perfectly valid comparison.  Both have to be done to be a completionist or they are completely optional.  No one says you have to scan planets.  You can easily skip it entirely.  Just don't be surprised when the game is harder when you don't.  Also while I dislike planet scanning and ME1's inventory system I definately find planet scanning to be the lesser of the two evils.

No, it's not - gear progression is a major part of the game.  Minor sidequests are not.  The game is not "harder" if you skip the resource gathering in ME.  The two are in no way analagous, and comparing them simply shows ignorance of the game mechanics.

And if you truly prefer planet scanning for generic +10% damage upgrades over an inventory system, I don't think we have enough in common to meaningfully discuss the game.

Modifié par Oblarg, 01 novembre 2010 - 05:12 .