211 réponses à ce sujet

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Come to think of it, I'm hard-pressed to see many changes to combat gameplay between the two.

They were both pause-and-play.  They both reduced player input to target selection.  The only real difference was that in ME2 Shepard couldn't miss (the loss of stat-driven aiming is perhaps ME2's greatest failing compared to ME).

Inventory changed rather dramatically.  Weapon performance between firearms of the same type - aside from non-Viper sniper rifles as we've discussed - changed.  Customization of squad equipment was removed.  The number of skills were streamlined rather significantly.  Paragon/Renegade dialogue checks were completed based on percentage of available points and not Charm/Intimidate.  Reload mechanics were introduced.  Heavy Weapons were introduced.  

And I think the loss of stat-driven aiming was probably ME2's greatest triumph compared to ME.  The fact my awesome, decorated space marine worthy of the Spectres from the very start of the game yet couldn't shoot was incredibly immersion killing to me.

It goes back to my theory that once Mass Effect was designed to be a twitch game, shooter mechanics were always going to be preferable to RPG mechanics in all cases where they conflict.  And skill based aiming was one of them.  Does that I mean I want Mass Effect to be more of a shooter with a story than it is?  Sure does.  But if they had made it a Fallout 2 turn-based combat RPG I woulda been fine with that too.  Twitch changes things.

Just out of curiosity AngryPants, if you hate CPRG's with classic stat driven gameplay so much, why would you be on Bioware forums of all places?

[upsettingshorts]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Just out of curiosity AngryPants, if you hate CPRG's with classic stat driven gameplay so much, why would you be on Bioware forums of all places?

Read this paragraph again:

Upsettingshorts wrote...
It goes back to my theory that once Mass Effect was designed to be a twitch game, shooter mechanics were always going to be preferable to RPG mechanics in all cases where they conflict.  And skill based aiming was one of them.  Does that I mean I want Mass Effect to be more of a shooter with a story than it is?  Sure does.  But if they had made it a Fallout 2 turn-based combat RPG I woulda been fine with that too.  Twitch changes things.

I don't support "dumbing down" shooter mechanics for people who can't play shooters any more than you would say, support "dumbing down" RPG mechanics for people who can't figure out how attributes work.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 novembre 2010 - 11:57 .

[slimgrin]

Some people just don't want fast twitch in their rpg. Bioware is one the few devs left doing games that are a step removed from turn based tactics.

I happen to love fast twitch play, but I'd rather not see trends that homogenize genres, as Brockolloly put it. Games end up being too much alike and we all know how infectious trends are in the gaming industry

Modifié par slimgrin, 04 novembre 2010 - 12:09 .

[upsettingshorts]

Good thing DA:2 isn't twitch, then. Except only vaguely on consoles.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Just out of curiosity AngryPants, if you hate CPRG's with classic stat driven gameplay so much, why would you be on Bioware forums of all places?

Read this paragraph again:

Upsettingshorts wrote...
It goes back to my theory that once Mass Effect was designed to be a twitch game, shooter mechanics were always going to be preferable to RPG mechanics in all cases where they conflict.  And skill based aiming was one of them.  Does that I mean I want Mass Effect to be more of a shooter with a story than it is?  Sure does.  But if they had made it a Fallout 2 turn-based combat RPG I woulda been fine with that too.  Twitch changes things.

I don't support "dumbing down" shooter mechanics for people who can't play shooters any more than you would say, support "dumbing down" RPG mechanics for people who can't figure out how attributes work.

Thats all well and good, but seriously, this is what I just flat out don't understand about a good number of the current social site posters, please believe me when I say I'm not even mentioning it in a "trying to be typically snarky Sarah" like I usually am.

For a development company with a history of making generally turn based to some extent classic CPRG's, for a growing portion of the posting base to continually encourage Bioware to "twitch up" their games and move everything to full voice overs etc etc while  being actively hostile to those who have been Bioware fans for a decade who would perfer they not go the Diablo or Mass Effect2 route, I just don't get the shift to try and completely please those people. 

It's almost as if once the sale to EA went through there's been a complete 180 in design philosophy and marketing to some extent and I'm honestly having a hard time wondering if I can even consider myself a fan of the games Bioware is currently making.

Not to say that I'm including you in that because you've been a fairly rational person to debate with, but I hope you can get the jist of where I'm coming from.

[upsettingshorts]

Well, just to answer the specific point it appears my post is raising about twitch. The greater issue of Bioware's overall direction isn't really something I can do more than idly speculate on. However, I would point out that some of the trends you are placing after the EA purchase actually began before it.

I don't think my point was that I encourage twitch gameplay at the expense of RPGs. My point is that if you're starting with the premise of a twitch game in the first place, shooter mechanics make more sense than RPG ones in cases where they conflict, because the latter is about taking direct control out of the player's direct hands and abstracting it through a system of rules - D&D or proprietary - and twitch more or less translates to "player's direct hands." 

If Mass Effect had not been twitch, I wouldn't have been arguing for it to become twitch. But it is twitch, so I'm going to evaluate it on that standard.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 novembre 2010 - 02:01 .

[Meltemph]

For a development company with a history of making generally turn based

What game did Bioware make that was turn based?

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Meltemph wrote...

For a development company with a history of making generally turn based

What game did Bioware make that was turn based?

You need to ask that? You realize any of the D&D based titles were essentially semi turnbase with a 6 second delay between attacks? 

[Meltemph]

You realize any of the D&D based titles were essentially semi turnbase with a 6 second delay between attacks?

Delay's between attacks is turn based? I think your definition of turn based is silly, and generalizes it to the point os useless. Turn based to me at the least would be Fallout. BW's older games have a hell of a lot more in common with point and clicks then turn based.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Meltemph wrote...

You realize any of the D&D based titles were essentially semi turnbase with a 6 second delay between attacks?

Delay's between attacks is turn based? I think your definition of turn based is silly, and generalizes it to the point os useless. Turn based to me at the least would be Fallout. BW's older games have a hell of a lot more in common with point and clicks then turn based.

Most of Biowares titles, with the exception of Jade Empire and ME2 use some form of semi turned based combat. Thats fact.

[upsettingshorts]

Mass Effect 1 had turns?

[maxernst]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Not that it would have been, as both ME and ME2 allowed you to aim while paused.  If they took that feature away, that would be a dramatic change (and likely render the game unplayable for me).

I never even actually considered that option.  I had to read about people doing it on the internet.  Especially in ME1, when there was no difference in damage between a shot to center mass or the head, so accuracy was basically moot.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Always for the worse, in my opinion.

Eh you can like shooters or not.  I do, though I took a break from the genre for years until getting back into it recently.  Still, once twitch is introduced shooter mechanics become superior simply because they've been designed around being twitch and RPG ones are not, so they aren't well suited for it.  

Did you find them hard to get back into?  I ask because after a stretch where I quite liked a lot of shooters (Half-Life, the Deus Ex I & II, the No One Lives Forever I & II, Jedi Knight) between 2003 and 2009 I played only one shooter (Half-Life 2) and it seems like my skills have just deteriorated to the point that I basically can't play them anymore.  Or maybe I've just grown more impatient?  Anyway, though I picked up Bioshock & the Mass Effect games, ME1 is the only one I've actually made it all the way through...somehow or other I always seem to hit a roadblock and get too annoyed to continue.  I'm stuck on Horizon in ME2 at the moment.  Bioschock--I can't remember what happened.  I remember liking the game but I stopped playing.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Mass Effect 1 had turns?

No but there was still stat rolls going on in the background as far as I know.

[upsettingshorts]

maxernst wrote...
Did you find them hard to get back into?

Nah.  But I've only really gotten back in to Bad Company 2, and it's very much the kind of shooter I like.  Vehicles, teamwork, destructible terrain... good times.

In that game the key I think to getting back "in the saddle" as it were is sticking to your role and not trying to do too much, and hugging the hip of another player and helping them out.  They probly know the maps better than you, and teamwork is pretty much consistently rewarded (quite literally with XP rewards for doing so), you'll get the hang of it.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 novembre 2010 - 02:44 .

[maxernst]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

maxernst wrote...
Did you find them hard to get back into?

Nah.  But I've only really gotten back in to Bad Company 2, and it's very much the kind of shooter I like.  Vehicles, teamwork, destructible terrain... good times.

In that game the key I think to getting back "in the saddle" as it were is sticking to your role and not trying to do too much, and hugging the hip of another player and helping them out.  They probly know the maps better than you, and teamwork is pretty much consistently rewarded (quite literally with XP rewards for doing so), you'll get the hang of it.

Ah, my preferred gameplay style was sneak & snipe--hence my preference for Deus Ex and the NOLF games.  Never really got into multiplayer.

[slimgrin]

After seeing the latest gameplay vid, I'm less concerned about twitch creeping into DA2. It really does look like Origins, just sped up.

That said, I can't help but get a little miffed at the 'ME2 is the next evolution in rpg's' crowd. This assessment is wrong, it's uninformed, and it's annoying as hell. I loved ME2. I don't need other rpg's to be just like it.

Modifié par slimgrin, 04 novembre 2010 - 02:59 .

[Saibh]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Mass Effect 1 had turns?

No but there was still stat rolls going on in the background as far as I know.

That isn't turn-based combat. Turn-based combat is, in simple terms, "my turn" then "enemy's turn" or the variations in party thereof. Delays between attacking (which, by the way, there was no delay in attacking in DAO--there were cooldowns, but characters simply whacked at enemies in between in auto-attack) is not turn-based.

Pokemon is turn-based. The FF series before XII is turn-based. I've never played a BioWare game pre-BGII, but none of them are turn-based.

Modifié par Saibh, 04 novembre 2010 - 03:00 .

[Meltemph]

use some form of semi turned based combat. Thats fact.

To label the game-play turn based, because it uses some background framework/math that is common in turn based game, is taking major liberties. Either way, to assume one should not be as interested in your perception of a company is laughable, specially when the company has done enough to show that they are not a 1 trick(sub-genre) pony.

It's almost as if once the sale to EA went through there's been a complete 180 in design philosophy and marketing to some extent and I'm honestly having a hard time wondering if I can even consider myself a fan of the games Bioware is currently making.

Over attachment maybe? Either you like the games they make or you don't. The idea that EA has made them do a 180, simply because you deem it so, shows your obnoxious bias toward anything you do not approve of. If you don't like the product presented, then why are you showing interest?



Or are you simply "stiffening your neck" for the sake of making sure everyone knows you are disappointed they are not making a game with, specifically, your desires in mind?



I honestly sometimes wonder if this is something to the equivalent of the MW2 crap. Where you had some noisy "unhappy fans", with the direction of the game and then come launch they end up buying it anyway, essentially making their arguments null and void.

[slimgrin]

Seems to me I remember reading that Baldur's gate was in fact influenced by Diablo. Kind of funny, given how unpopular that game is around here.

[Saibh]

slimgrin wrote...

Seems to me I remember reading that Baldur's gate was in fact influenced by Diablo. Kind of funny, given how unpopular that game is around here.

I've never heard that, but maybe. I mean, there was about a year's difference in between their release dates, but I suppose it's possible.

Modifié par Saibh, 04 novembre 2010 - 03:06 .

[maxernst]

Saibh wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Mass Effect 1 had turns?

No but there was still stat rolls going on in the background as far as I know.

That isn't turn-based combat. Turn-based combat is, in simple terms, "my turn" then "enemy's turn" or the variations in party thereof. Delays between attacking (which, by the way, there was no delay in attacking in DAO--there were cooldowns, but characters simply whacked at enemies in between in auto-attack) is not turn-based.

Pokemon is turn-based. The FF series before XII is turn-based. I've never played a BioWare game pre-BGII, but none of them are turn-based.

Other than Fallout 3 with VATS (innovative if a little weird), the last truly turn-based RPG I can think of was Arcanum.  BG2 did have an option to pause at the end of each round, so you could argue that it is genuinely turn-based, since combat still took place in distinct rounds.

Sadly turn-based games of any kind seem to be a dying breed.  This doesn't bother me so much for RPG's but I loathe real-time strategy games, other than the ones made by Paradox, which are a totally different sort of game. 

[maxernst]

slimgrin wrote...

Seems to me I remember reading that Baldur's gate was in fact influenced by Diablo. Kind of funny, given how unpopular that game is around here.

Other than the isometric view (which didn't originate with Diablo), I can't see much similarity.

[upsettingshorts]

maxernst wrote...
Sadly turn-based games of any kind seem to be a dying breed.  This doesn't bother me so much for RPG's but I loathe real-time strategy games, other than the ones made by Paradox, which are a totally different sort of game. 

The Total War series incorporates turn based and real time very well, as an obvious example.

[Lyssistr]

Saibh wrote...
Pokemon is turn-based. The FF series before XII is turn-based. I've never played a BioWare game pre-BGII, but none of them are turn-based.

Technically speaking BG/BG II use Real Time with Pause (RTwP). Now how close is RTwP to turn based depends on two factors

* Overall difficulty, on hardmode BG/BG II do ask for turn based play.

* A combination of core combat mechanics and the chosen party. In BG/BG II melees have (almost) no reason to pause, so a mostly melee party may be closer to RT, however due to need for repositioning etc, still there is allot of pausing, at least on hardmode, it's been quite a bit since I first played the games so can't recall how ez the ez mode was. A caster-oriented party is as close to turn-based play as it gets. The most usual party, a balanced one, is quite close to turn-based.

 So while BG/BG II don't force turn based play via the game engine, they're as close to turn based as it gets.

[maxernst]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

maxernst wrote...
Sadly turn-based games of any kind seem to be a dying breed.  This doesn't bother me so much for RPG's but I loathe real-time strategy games, other than the ones made by Paradox, which are a totally different sort of game. 

The Total War series incorporates turn based and real time very well, as an obvious example.

I suppose if you wish to be jesutical, you could say that their strategic game is turn-based and their tactical game real time.  I have Total War: Rome but didn't really get into it for some reason.  Still, with the exception of the venerable Civilization series, there aren't a lot of turn-based strategy games being made these days.  Disciples (which I never got into), I guess.  Heroes of Might & Magic, if another one appears, though it's a series that peaked a long time ago.