211 réponses à ce sujet

[FDrage]

I had my issues with ME1 and I had my issues with ME2 some of the things in ME2 got improved over ME1 (from my point of view ... I have to stress) and some worked a lot less. So ideal ME3 would be somewhere in between ME1 and ME2. e.g. ME3=(ME1+ME2)/2

[Gtdef]

The thing I loved about ME2 was that itemization favored specializations, unlike ME that made you a godamn superhero. Altough armors lacked edge and never made a real difference imo (I only used the the +damage pieces), weapons had character. An infiltrator had to use a bolt action sniper while a warrior was better of with the semi-automatic that had more dps but less damage per shot.



I hope for the same in DA2. Items that favor specializations.

[Harid]

Soldier was arguably better at Sniping than an Infiltrator. . .wut?

The only reason Soldier would use another weapon (not Widow) is if that particular Soldier player did not want to play as a sniper.

Modifié par Harid, 04 novembre 2010 - 09:57 .

[upsettingshorts]

I used the Revenant...

[In Exile]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
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.

But Bioware doesn't have this history. I mean, if you came into Bioware with NWN or BG/BG2, maybe they have an archaic history.

But if you're like me, you started with KoTOR. There, the focus was on the all-encompasing star wars cinematic experience, not the statistical mechanism. It was an aurora engine game with no isometric and (on the PC) no point-and-click. It was pure console.

Bioware followed up KoTOR with Jade Empire. That's even less of an RPG. Almost no character customization. Less inventory than ME2. 3 Statistics. Pure beat-em-up twich combat. And an awesome and cinematic story.

Then, we have ME. And we all know what that was.

Since 2003, almost 7 years ago, Bioware has not been making turn-based cRPGs. DA:O is a totally different kind of game. It's an awesome game, and as it turns out I love the combat system and want more games like that.

But things like silent VO - these are features that aren't core to me, because I didn't come onboard as a consumer a the same time. And I would bet this is true for a lot of Bioware fans. We congregated on ME, for example, because of how much it was pitched like a "spiritual successor to KoTOR". A big part of the old team, sci-fi space opera, etc.

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.

KoTOR. Jade Empire. Mass Effect. All Bioware. No EA.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I don't enjoy any game that requires the player provide his answers in a limited time.  RTS and twitch games would both count.

I have the same attitude, but I like shooters, so let me see if I can provide a perspective.

An RTS I do not like because it requires me to actively think and plan and react. I can outline a great strategy (or a great tactical maneuver) and then fail because my reacton time is poor. I dislike having to bring my reflexes up to par with my thoughts, which is why I think RTSs are poor.

With a shooter, this is a game (like any genuine single player twitch) that I feel can be plain on reflex.

But generally I dislike this sort of thing. This is why the only sport I'm into is rock climbing. It's very cerebral, and physically demanding.

[upsettingshorts]

In Exile wrote...

Since 2003, almost 7 years ago, Bioware has not been making turn-based cRPGs.

Ah, but the whole "spiritual successor" marketing gimmick has propped up more specious arguments regarding Dragon Age than "promote the general welfare" in the preamble of the US Constitution.

In Exile wrote...

But generally I dislike this sort of thing. This is why the only sport I'm into is rock climbing. It's very cerebral, and physically demanding.

Sports are actually a good metaphor to use to respond to Sylvius question about the appeal of shooters.  It's very much the same kind of feel.  Especially in multiplayer, the most popular feature of shooters, competition is the hook that pulls players in.  Certainly, as in sports, skill and reflex are of considerable importance - but also gamesmanship, situational awareness, and quick tactical thinking are often rewarded and can make up for or augment ones physical abilities.  Putting it all together gets you called a "pro" or "hacker" depending on your opponent's mood.  

My preference when it comes to shooters are similar to my preference in terms of sports - to watch and play - and that's team sports.  So shooters that have team objectives that reward cooperation and combined arms are my favorites, because I can contribute to winning beyond simply killing the same way I could contribute to winning a basketball game beyond simply scoring the ball.

In such games I might have a strategy for a map, but they're simple.  Like, "This is an urban map with lots of cover, I will be able to approach my enemy much more safely and use terrain to my advantage, aiming to fight short, fierce battles at close range" and pick a shotgun as my weapon, for example.  A tactic might be, "I think he saw me, so I'm going to do something he might not expect and hope to catch him unaware."  A more general tactic I like in Bad Company 2 is selecting a Sniper Kit (providing a sort of radar gadget that puts foes on my map) and the Shotgun weapon (the radar allows me to get close to them and shoot them in the back of the head, heh) No plan survives contact with the enemy, however, and that's where reflex and skill starts to come in.

I'd simply count myself as competent, leaning more on the thinking than the skill side, though I wouldn't say I'm deficient in either.  But I've played enough shooters to know I do infinitely better - occasionally topping scores in fact - on maps I'm familiar with and am shockingly mediocre - average to below average scores - on ones I'm not.

In short, if I manage to outsmart an opponent in a shooter leading to some advantage over them - I earn a feeling of accomplishment (as much as video games can offer, anyway).  If I just run into someone and engage them on equal terms, that's basically a failure - even if I win and get them before they get me, even if I could point to superior reflexes as the reason when I'm still standing, it still feels like I got lucky.  The fast pace of shooters means there are lots more of opportunities within a given timeframe to test ones ability in just that way than more deliberate games like RPGs or turned-based strategies can offer.

So... there you go Sylvius.  My explanation of how shooters can appeal to me.  It also shows why multiplayer is the favored arena for most people who play shooters, because humans - however mediocre - are more challenging and unpredictable opponents than AI.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 novembre 2010 - 12:20 .

[Gtdef]

Harid wrote...

Soldier was arguably better at Sniping than an Infiltrator. . .wut?

The only reason Soldier would use another weapon (not Widow) is if that particular Soldier player did not want to play as a sniper.

I'm not going to get into an argument about dps, the numbers say that soldier with viper has higher dps than soldier with widow adrenaline rush or no,

But that's the point anyway. Different items favor different specializations. You want soldier sniper, go soldier sniper. Use the weapon that suits you the most. In my soldier runs I wanted a bullet spraying maniac and I got revenant. But revenant is bad at long range, so I had the viper with me. In my infiltrator run, the viper was most useless. I used Mantis till I got Widow. For SMGs I prefered Shuriken to Tempest for infiltrator, Tempest to Shuriken for Adept. That's because for infiltrator I used shuriken at middle/close range. It does not have that great accuracy, but it does more damage per bullet. For adept I wanted tempest for better accuracy cause it was my main weapon and I used it at all ranges. Later when I got Kasumi I used Locust for everyone cause it was better dps wise and accuracy wise.

[upsettingshorts]

Gtdef wrote...
Later when I got Kasumi I used Locust for everyone cause it was better dps wise and accuracy wise.

Well yeah, the Locust is the noob gun of Mass Effect 2. 

[Gtdef]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Gtdef wrote...
Later when I got Kasumi I used Locust for everyone cause it was better dps wise and accuracy wise.

Well yeah, the Locust is the noob gun of Mass Effect 2. 

Yep, had a cheesy introduction as well.
Kasumi: "Omagad, is that THE LOCUST?"
Shepard: "What? Where?"
Kasumi: "Overthere next to the head of the Statue of Liberty"
Shepard: "What is the statue of liberty?"

^^

I have the same attitude, but I like shooters, so let me see if I can provide a perspective.

An RTS I do not like because it requires me to actively think and plan and
react. I can outline a great strategy (or a great tactical maneuver)
and then fail because my reacton time is poor. I dislike having to bring
my reflexes up to par with my thoughts, which is why I think RTSs are
poor.

With a shooter, this is a game (like any genuine single player twitch) that I feel can be plain on reflex.

But
generally I dislike this sort of thing. This is why the only sport I'm
into is rock climbing. It's very cerebral, and physically demanding.

Having played a lot of rts games and once cared about ladder rating and competitive rts gaming, I can tell you that you actually need more strategy in shooter deathmatches than rts. In competitive level, rts is all about canned material, map layout and cookie cutter builds. There is no guessing involved. You know that if you play against race x on map y, he will do z. Most games even give you the opportunity if you happen to make an error in judgement , to use the so called "lame tactics" like building spamming, gold siphoning, fast wonder victory etc that require less skill to perform, while giving you an advantageous position every time. Where there is money involved, people will use any lame tactic and any exploit available to win. It's like professional athletics. It's more about drugs and how to avoid detection than anything else.

When I play LAN with my "not-that-good-at-rts" friends I make fun of them when they talk about strategies. I tell them to build a strong ecomony, a lot of buildings and use the most powerful units and forget about lets say attacking fast. To rush you have to practise 8 hours/day if you want to be effective.

[Ortaya Alevli]

I wouldn't be "all" in, myself. Both Mass Effect games are amazingly gorgeous, but while both were shooters gameplay wise, ME1 at least helped a lot with aiming and felt more like MDK in that regard. ME2, on the other hand, involved precise aiming and reflexes and such, which is not my cup of tea, personally. I'm all for roleplaying and story, not for headshots. Not because I fail at aiming or anything -I play on Insanity all the time- but rather that the reflex-based gameplay is not what I'd prefer in a roleplaying game personally. ME2 was more of a criminal than ME1 when it comes to shooterization. Now, it suits Mass Effect series well, I guess, but I'm not sure if it'd work just as well with Dragon Age.

[Eldragon]

For me, there is a long list of things that ME2 changed over ME1 that I didn't like. There were of course changes that I liked a great deal. But on the whole I liked ME1 much better. I will eventually buy ME3, but I'm not in the least bit excited for it, and will wait until it hits the $20 bargain bin.

So if DA2 got the same treatment I will be very disappointed. E.g. more streamlined, loyalty missions instead of side quests, more action oriented, terrible mini-games, etc.

I'm still quite nervous about DA2, and the total lack of info about what has changed (or what has stayed the same) does not help matters.

Modifié par Eldragon, 04 novembre 2010 - 01:19 .

[Lumikki]

For me what was problem in ME1 they fixed in ME2, but what wasn't problem in ME1 they changed that too and not all in better direction. DA2 situation is little bit same as ME1 and ME2 relation. They made changed and some good, but not all. So even if DA2 has something similar and familiar to DAO, there is also something what change the feeling and style of the game too. Just like happen with ME2, just different ways.

[maxernst]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I don't enjoy any game that requires the player provide his answers in a limited time.  RTS and twitch games would both count.

I have the same attitude, but I like shooters, so let me see if I can provide a perspective.

An RTS I do not like because it requires me to actively think and plan and react. I can outline a great strategy (or a great tactical maneuver) and then fail because my reacton time is poor. I dislike having to bring my reflexes up to par with my thoughts, which is why I think RTSs are poor.

With a shooter, this is a game (like any genuine single player twitch) that I feel can be plain on reflex.

But generally I dislike this sort of thing. This is why the only sport I'm into is rock climbing. It's very cerebral, and physically demanding.

I'm actually close to you on this.  I like some shooters, but the ones I like tend not to be the very fast-paced run and gun style.  I like ones which work well with stealth and cat-and-mouse tactics.  I absolutely loathe respawning enemies because they put you under pressure to get defeat enemies quickly.  In fact, I don't think I've ever actually completed a shooter that made extensive use of them (ME1 didn't have them that I can recall, ME2 does, but I haven't completed it).

And I don't like multiplayer, just as I'm not fond of competitive sports (individual OR team).  I don't like losing.  In a single player shooter, if you die you reload and try again; death is merely an obstacle on your route to completion,  like slipping back a bit for a rockclimber.  Whereas in multiplayer, you've simply lost.

One of the things that I found appealing about  RPG's in the first place was their openended game play.  RPG's are about the play not about achieving victory conditions.  You could lose a combat and die in an RPG, but the game wasn't about winning.  The gamesmaster plays the opposition, but he's not playing to "beat" the players.

[Sylvius the Mad]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

For a development company with a history of making generally turn based to some extent classic CPRG's

I don't understand this claim at all.  BioWare has never made a turn-based RPG.

They've made games with round mechanics under the hood (BG, NWN, KotOR) and games without round mechanics (JE, ME, DAO), but they've all been real-time.

In Exile wrote...

But Bioware doesn't have this history. I mean, if you came into Bioware with NWN or BG/BG2, maybe they have an archaic history.

But if you're like me, you started with KoTOR.

But this is just insane.  Whether you experiences the history doesn't change whether it's there.

There, the focus was on the all-encompasing star wars cinematic experience, not the statistical mechanism. It was an aurora engine game with no isometric and (on the PC) no point-and-click. It was pure console.

Bioware followed up KoTOR with Jade Empire. That's even less of an RPG. Almost no character customization. Less inventory than ME2. 3 Statistics. Pure beat-em-up twich combat. And an awesome and cinematic story.

Then, we have ME. And we all know what that was.

Since 2003, almost 7 years ago, Bioware has not been making turn-based cRPGs. DA:O is a totally different kind of game. It's an awesome game, and as it turns out I love the combat system and want more games like that.

But things like silent VO - these are features that aren't core to me, because I didn't come onboard as a consumer a the same time. And I would bet this is true for a lot of Bioware fans. We congregated on ME, for example, because of how much it was pitched like a "spiritual successor to KoTOR". A big part of the old team, sci-fi space opera, etc.

Whereas, I would count the core features of all the pre-ME games as the same.  There was a free-form roleplaying opportunity revolving around the silent protagonist.

ME changed that.  ME is different in kind.

You're drawing arbitrary lines and then using them to categorise the games (just as arbitrarily).

I will agree with you that blaming EA for anything at this point is absurd - they've released two games with EA: one of them was a classic old school RPG, and the other was a sequel to a pre-EA game from which it didn't differ meaningfully.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

The more DA2's game play and story/action balance is like ME2, the better the game will be.



Cannot freaking wait. :-D

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

With a shooter, this is a game (like any genuine single player twitch) that I feel can be plain on reflex.

Based on our previous discussions, that makes it clear why I would dislike them.  I object to relying on reflex.  I want conscious control of everything, all of the time.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sports are actually a good metaphor to use to respond to Sylvius question about the appeal of shooters.  It's very much the same kind of feel.  Especially in multiplayer, the most popular feature of shooters, competition is the hook that pulls players in.  Certainly, as in sports, skill and reflex are of considerable importance - but also gamesmanship, situational awareness, and quick tactical thinking are often rewarded and can make up for or augment ones physical abilities.  Putting it all together gets you called a "pro" or "hacker" depending on your opponent's mood.

I don't like multiplayer.  I play games partly to get away from people.  I never want multiplayer in games.  Any games.  I've enjoyed some racing games, but never multiplayer.  I've enjoyed some shooters, but never multiplayer.  And I've even enjoyed some MMOGs, but my play has always been purely solo (I think online games often do a better job of providing me with a setting that doesn't feel contrived).

If multiplayer is what makes modern shooters fun, then I simply cannot find modern shooters fun.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't like multiplayer.  I play games partly to get away from people.  I never want multiplayer in games.  Any games.  I've enjoyed some racing games, but never multiplayer.  I've enjoyed some shooters, but never multiplayer.  And I've even enjoyed some MMOGs, but my play has always been purely solo (I think online games often do a better job of providing me with a setting that doesn't feel contrived).

If multiplayer is what makes modern shooters fun, then I simply cannot find modern shooters fun.

I like to play with myself too!  :lol:

Actually, I'm only vaguely kidding.  I hate multiplayer.  If I want to work with a team to solve problems, I go to work. 
With that said, there are some experiences you will never, ever get in a single player game.  One is apples, the other is apple pie.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I don't like multiplayer.  I play games partly to get away from people.  I never want multiplayer in games.  Any games.  I've enjoyed some racing games, but never multiplayer.  I've enjoyed some shooters, but never multiplayer.  And I've even enjoyed some MMOGs, but my play has always been purely solo (I think online games often do a better job of providing me with a setting that doesn't feel contrived).

If multiplayer is what makes modern shooters fun, then I simply cannot find modern shooters fun.

This is the first time I've found myself nodding in agreement with you.

Good on those who enjoy the multiplayer experience but I can't stand it, even with things as simple as Mario Party. Game time is me time, not teach the guy next to me how to play time, or lose to somebody with enough free time to become ridiculously skilled time.

[maxernst]

The only computerized multiplayer I've ever really enjoyed is Neverwinter Nights persistent worlds.

[Meltemph]

I love multiplayer games... I love single player ones to though. However just because I love multiplayer games does not mean I would want DA to turn multiplayer. I will say, though, while I don't have plans to buy the new Assassins Creed, I am interested in seeing how well it is done and seeing how well it is received.



Wondering that if AC does good, it may give other companies the green light.

[saruman31]

And i`m all out.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Meltemph wrote...

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.

This post here is a perfect example of what I was saying To AngryPants earlier in the thread. Bashing people's opinions because they don't agree with them. Then again I keep forgetting that posting displeasure with the direction the game appears to be taking is frowned upon these days.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

For a development company with a history of making generally turn based to some extent classic CPRG's

I don't understand this claim at all.  BioWare has never made a turn-based RPG.

They've made games with round mechanics under the hood (BG, NWN, KotOR) and games without round mechanics (JE, ME, DAO), but they've all been real-time.

In Exile wrote...

But Bioware doesn't have this history. I mean, if you came into Bioware with NWN or BG/BG2, maybe they have an archaic history.

But if you're like me, you started with KoTOR.

But this is just insane.  Whether you experiences the history doesn't change whether it's there.

There, the focus was on the all-encompasing star wars cinematic experience, not the statistical mechanism. It was an aurora engine game with no isometric and (on the PC) no point-and-click. It was pure console.

Bioware followed up KoTOR with Jade Empire. That's even less of an RPG. Almost no character customization. Less inventory than ME2. 3 Statistics. Pure beat-em-up twich combat. And an awesome and cinematic story.

Then, we have ME. And we all know what that was.

Since 2003, almost 7 years ago, Bioware has not been making turn-based cRPGs. DA:O is a totally different kind of game. It's an awesome game, and as it turns out I love the combat system and want more games like that.

But things like silent VO - these are features that aren't core to me, because I didn't come onboard as a consumer a the same time. And I would bet this is true for a lot of Bioware fans. We congregated on ME, for example, because of how much it was pitched like a "spiritual successor to KoTOR". A big part of the old team, sci-fi space opera, etc.

Whereas, I would count the core features of all the pre-ME games as the same.  There was a free-form roleplaying opportunity revolving around the silent protagonist.

ME changed that.  ME is different in kind.

You're drawing arbitrary lines and then using them to categorise the games (just as arbitrarily).

I will agree with you that blaming EA for anything at this point is absurd - they've released two games with EA: one of them was a classic old school RPG, and the other was a sequel to a pre-EA game from which it didn't differ meaningfully.

I should have said round mechanics, you're right. What I meant by the mention of EA is just how much more vague and cloak and daggerish the marketing has become with the 2 releases  under EA. 

[In Exile]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sports are actually a good metaphor to use to respond to Sylvius question about the appeal of shooters.  It's very much the same kind of feel.  Especially in multiplayer, the most popular feature of shooters, competition is the hook that pulls players in.  Certainly, as in sports, skill and reflex are of considerable importance - but also gamesmanship, situational awareness, and quick tactical thinking are often rewarded and can make up for or augment ones physical abilities.  Putting it all together gets you called a "pro" or "hacker" depending on your opponent's mood. 

I wonder if this is why I don't like mutliplayer games. I'm a very compettive person, but I just can't honestly stand the people. There is a certain... alpha male attitude, with a loud-in-your-face type of persona around team sports I just cannot tolerate. To be perfectly honest, I think people who are like that are just bullies.

My preference when it comes to shooters are similar to my preference in terms of sports - to watch and play - and that's team sports.  So shooters that have team objectives that reward cooperation and combined arms are my favorites, because I can contribute to winning beyond simply killing the same way I could contribute to winning a basketball game beyond simply scoring the ball.

That's really interesting. With shooters, it's the same with me. Except I like solo sports, like skiing, swimming or rock climbing (well, it's not fair to say rock climbing is a solo sport; but the connection that you have with a rope partner is very different from team sports).