211 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Mass Effect 1 dumbed down the shooter elements for the RPG crowd.

...I just love saying that, because on one hand it's true. And on the other hand it tweaks people who think that shooters are dumb.

I don't know that I would say "dumbed down" in specific. They didn't make it dumber, after all, they made it more complex. But complexity is not what makes shooters fun. The fast paced firefights are what make them fun.

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I don't know that I would say "dumbed down" in specific. They didn't make it dumber, after all, they made it more complex. But complexity is not what makes shooters fun. The fast paced firefights are what make them fun.

They didn't dumb it down any more than the introduction of action elements to RPG games is "dumb."  The idea that one genre is inherently dumber than the other grates me. I just co-opt the language to turn the argument on its head. 

But I would dispute that complexity doesn't contribute to the enjoyment of a shooter.  The complexity of destructible terrain, vehicles, teamwork - etc, present in Bad Company 2 makes it more fun for me than say Gears of War.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 novembre 2010 - 11:41 .

[Nerevar-as]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

My evaluation of the strength of ME2's story depends entirely on ME3.

* If the squad returns, more or less intact, making the recruitment and loyalty of the squad the A-plot? ME2's story is great as it sets up ME3.

* If the squad does not return, moving the Collectors to the A-plot when they felt more like a MacGuffin? ME2's story is a waste of time.

Since I don't know yet, I can't really evaluate it.

I´m afraid it´ll be the second point because of the stand alone games thing. Which is silly if they go that way (IMHO). It´s a trilogy with a clear core plot. Reducing continuity hurts the story, and it seems it didn´t help sales that much. Also, reducing so many choices to e-mails and cameos at best with hardly any gameplay consequences wasn´t the best way to go.

DA can work better with that approach. Whatever the core plot is, so far the chapters are pretty different. First it was the Blight, now a big war, and who knows what for DA3. I also hope main characters keep changing (I´m really going to hate Hawke otherwise), with every big player back for the finale. That would be beyond epic.

[upsettingshorts]

That is why I am afraid as well. Does that mean the first point can't happen? No, I can see a number of ways how they could pull it off while still adhering to the "stand alone games" theory. I just don't know if they will. I hope they do.



As far as how DA:2 will handle it, I can't really say as we know next to nothing about the nature of the conflicts Hawke has to resolve except that Qunari and the Chantry are involved.

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
But I would dispute that complexity doesn't contribute to the enjoyment of a shooter.  The complexity of destructible terrain, vehicles, teamwork - etc, present in Bad Company 2 makes it more fun for me than say Gears of War.

But what you're talking about is not a part of the character. In ME they made interaction with/through the character more complex. There is no need for complexity within the character in a shooter. This was one of ME's major flaws. One that they largely fixed in ME2.

[Nerevar-as]

the_one_54321 wrote...

But what you're talking about is not a part of the character. In ME they made interaction with/through the character more complex. There is no need for complexity within the character in a shooter. This was one of ME's major flaws. One that they largely fixed in ME2.

YMMV. To me that was one of both MEs major flaws. They are supposed to be as RPG and shooter, but character advancement(sp?) is poor in ME1 and a joke in ME2 (at least in this one combat actually feels different across classes), always ending with pretty much the same final build in a class. Same with  weapon and armor modding (and plenty of shooters have this). I wonder how they´ll do this with the new builds for DA. I´d like to have at least 2-3 ways to develop a class.

[slimgrin]

ME1- better story arc, much better villian, personally liked the level design of the hub worlds better too.

ME2 - better action, better controls (big time), and better gameplay mechanics all around.

It pains me to say it but ME1 had the bigger flaws while ME2 seems slightly superficial.

Modifié par slimgrin, 03 novembre 2010 - 12:21 .

[the_one_54321]

Nerevar-as wrote...
 To me that was one of both MEs major flaws. They are supposed to be as RPG and shooter, but character advancement(sp?) is poor in ME1 and a joke in ME2 (at least in this one combat actually feels different across classes), always ending with pretty much the same final build in a class. Same with  weapon and armor modding (and plenty of shooters have this). I wonder how they´ll do this with the new builds for DA. I´d like to have at least 2-3 ways to develop a class.

That's because RPGs don't work with shooter mechanics. ME, ME2 and AP. All less than they could be because they tried to mix things that don't mix. AP ended up pretty much just broken, and ME2 played the best because it was almost entirely just a shooter.

[Nerevar-as]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...
 To me that was one of both MEs major flaws. They are supposed to be as RPG and shooter, but character advancement(sp?) is poor in ME1 and a joke in ME2 (at least in this one combat actually feels different across classes), always ending with pretty much the same final build in a class. Same with  weapon and armor modding (and plenty of shooters have this). I wonder how they´ll do this with the new builds for DA. I´d like to have at least 2-3 ways to develop a class.

That's because RPGs don't work with shooter mechanics. ME, ME2 and AP. All less than they could be because they tried to mix things that don't mix. AP ended up pretty much just broken, and ME2 played the best because it was almost entirely just a shooter.

Again, YMMV. That an RPG doesn´t work with shooter mechanincs is like saying controlling melee attacks doesn´t work in RPGs to me. It does work. The game isn´t supposed to play fully as a shooter, but I really couldn´t tell the difference. Really enjoyed things such as weapon skills reducing the kickback and thus the shooting dipersion (is it called like that?). Didn´t mind that gone in ME2 as a skill as in a way it showed Shepard´s progress, but was OK in ME1.

[the_one_54321]

But actual shooters already do those things better in their weapon performance mechanics.

[Nerevar-as]

the_one_54321 wrote...

But actual shooters already do those things better in their weapon performance mechanics.

But we aren´t talking about "actual" shooters... and if we go on they are going to lock this. I´d like some areas of ME would be more RPG, you´d like them more shooter, if I get it right.

[Morroian]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Again, YMMV. That an RPG doesn´t work with shooter mechanincs is like saying controlling melee attacks doesn´t work in RPGs to me. It does work. The game isn´t supposed to play fully as a shooter, but I really couldn´t tell the difference. Really enjoyed things such as weapon skills reducing the kickback and thus the shooting dipersion (is it called like that?). Didn´t mind that gone in ME2 as a skill as in a way it showed Shepard´s progress, but was OK in ME1.

I don't mind the combination of rpg and shooter mechanics in ME or other games such as Borderlands. Both of those games (not inc. ME2 cause I haven't played it) are fully transparent with stats such as accuracy so it doesn't bother me when I miss despite pointing straight at someone.

[cephasjames]

Going back to the OP, I liked DAO far more than I liked ME. I felt like it was done much better and felt less like it borrowed from other stories (like I felt ME really took a lot from KOTOR). So, since ME2 was such a huge improvement, I can only imagine how much of an improvement DA2 is going to be.

[In Exile]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Again, YMMV. That an RPG doesn´t work with shooter mechanincs is like saying controlling melee attacks doesn´t work in RPGs to me. It does work. The game isn´t supposed to play fully as a shooter, but I really couldn´t tell the difference. Really enjoyed things such as weapon skills reducing the kickback and thus the shooting dipersion (is it called like that?). Didn´t mind that gone in ME2 as a skill as in a way it showed Shepard´s progress, but was OK in ME1.

Well, they do and they don't. RPG and action hybris suck when you try and give the perception of player control of actions but then make things like hit% dependent on stats and not skill. That sucks with melee or guns. If they made ME2 a party RPG like DA:O where we could ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL then I'd agree.

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Mass Effect 1 dumbed down the shooter elements for the RPG crowd.

...I just love saying that, because on one hand it's true. And on the other hand it tweaks people who think that shooters are dumb.

My response would be... don't do us any favors.  You can keep your twitchy combat.

[slimgrin]

Addai67 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Mass Effect 1 dumbed down the shooter elements for the RPG crowd.

...I just love saying that, because on one hand it's true. And on the other hand it tweaks people who think that shooters are dumb.

My response would be... don't do us any favors.  You can keep your twitchy combat.

I don't think shooters are dumb, I do think there are far too many of them and they all seem like a bunch of clones anymore.

One thing I hope DA2 doesn't borrow from ME2 is the linear level design and limited number of abilities. Actually, I didn't think there were enough abilities in DA either.

I'll have to play DA2 before I can make a call on the voiced protagonist.

Modifié par slimgrin, 03 novembre 2010 - 01:54 .

[AlanC9]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
 As far as the RPG elements, yeah, ME2 sucked balls. You can't argue that point. There was NO gear progression, no significant development for Shepard, blah blah blah.

Well, you could argue whether RPG elements like gear progression are worth having in the first place. But that argument just gets ugly,

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...
My response would be... don't do us any favors.  You can keep your twitchy combat.

I didn't choose to make the Mass Effect series twitch, Bioware did.  And once they made that choice, shooter mechanics were always going to be the better answer as to how to make exciting gameplay than RPG mechanics.   In cases where they conflict anyway, they don't necessarily have to.

That isn't to say that I wouldn't have liked a non-twitch Mass Effect - Fallout 1&2 did firearms with RPG mechanics just fine - but that's not the way they took the series.  Ergo, borrowing from shooters makes sense.

slimgrin wrote...
I don't think shooters are dumb, I do think there are far too many of them and they all seem like a bunch of clones anymore.

Eh, some are some aren't.  They distinguish themselves in different ways just like RPGs do.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 novembre 2010 - 02:12 .

[slimgrin]

Balancing twitch-based combat with rpg mechanics is well nigh impossible. ME2 comes as close as any game I've played, but I still wanted more rpg elements every time I replayed it.



But enough of that. I'm curious about DA2 in this regard because once again Bioware is blurring the line, this time with melee combat, something dear to my heart. It's why I'm closely watching DA2 and TW2, as both are moving toward twitch-based combat - much more so in TW2, of course.

[upsettingshorts]

slimgrin wrote...
But enough of that. I'm curious about DA2 in this regard because once again Bioware is blurring the line, this time with melee combat, something dear to my heart.

I'm not so sure they are.  The only thing that's definitely changed as far as the PC version is concerned is that it's faster.  Faster doesn't mean they messed with what is under the hood at all.

DA2 only added an attack button, which isn't really twitch, to console versions because it was according to console players, rather needed.  A twitch melee game would be like... Mount & Blade. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 novembre 2010 - 02:20 .

[Lorenna66]

cephasjames wrote...

Going back to the OP, I liked DAO far more than I liked ME. I felt like it was done much better and felt less like it borrowed from other stories (like I felt ME really took a lot from KOTOR). So, since ME2 was such a huge improvement, I can only imagine how much of an improvement DA2 is going to be.

totally agree loved the improvments they made from me to me2

Modifié par Lorenna66, 03 novembre 2010 - 02:49 .

[2papercuts]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

My evaluation of the strength of ME2's story depends entirely on ME3.

* If the squad returns, more or less intact, making the recruitment and loyalty of the squad the A-plot? ME2's story is great as it sets up ME3.

* If the squad does not return, moving the Collectors to the A-plot when they felt more like a MacGuffin? ME2's story is a waste of time.

Since I don't know yet, I can't really evaluate it.

this is pretty much it how relevant ME2's story is in sequels will judge how good it is overall because by itself its not great

[MisterMonkeyBanana]

I enjoyed ME2 and felt that it was on the whole and improvement over ME1, not perfect of course but the only areas it was weaker was variety of gameplay (I didn't know how much I miss the Mako until I didn't have it) and overarching story (but all the plots that make up ME2's various stories were fantastic and delved deeper into who your party members were and the various societies of the galaxy.)



I can't say I'm certain DA2 will be an improvement over DA:O, but generally... if it wasn't called Dragon Age 2 and instead called something like Dragon Age: Rise to Power, I'd have less doubts in my mind about it. Mass Effect 2 for all it's changes still felt and looked like Mass Effect, DA2 doesn't look like how I picture Dragon Age. But generally... I think it will be fun game, it looks kind of like Jade Empire and really loved that game.

[mesmerizedish]

AlanC9 wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
 As far as the RPG elements, yeah, ME2 sucked balls. You can't argue that point. There was NO gear progression, no significant development for Shepard, blah blah blah.

Well, you could argue whether RPG elements like gear progression are worth having in the first place. But that argument just gets ugly,

Haha, true dat, indeed. The facts are the facts, but my interpretation of those facts is very much influenced by my opinion of what a true RPG entails. By my definition, JRPGs are NOT RPGs XD

[casedawgz]

To me, an RPG lives or dies by having a strong story with a focus on player choice. If you give me that, and stellar, action-based gameplay, I'm content. I love the plot of say, Baldur's Gate 2, but there's just too much going on in terms of needless complexity for me to want to replay it over and over like I do ME2.