411 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaelducan]

Vena_86 wrote...

LogosDiablo wrote...

TheNexus wrote...

I really like the idea of the persuasion mechanic, because in any given situation you should be able to either choose the paragon or renegade option as it's indicative of the two sides of human nature in every human being. That to me is far more indicative of human nature than the current system. No matter how heavenly a character you may be, there is always temptation. It doesn't make sense to have a paragon option and not a renegade one or vice versa.

I disagree. The paragon/renegade option ARE the persuasion mechanics, you just aren't allowed to attempt a persuasion that you will fail. You can always capture the opposite side of things, as you say, with the non-alignment responses. Persuasion is entirely unnecessary.

In ME2 at one point or the other you will only have one choice (either paragon or renegade). Since the colored dialogue options are always better than the standard ones, this leaves only one valid dialogue "option" for the player, which equals hitting "continue" rather than roleplaying. Beeing railroaded into a one-dimensional stereotype character is not good roleplaying in times of The Witcher and Dragon Age. What is even worse is that you can not solve crew problems later on, as a punishment for ever trying to play a more realistic, balanced character.
If you look at the Shepard in the first character screen, she is mostly paragon and somewhat renegade. I could not solve the Miranda/Jack disagreement, resulting in the loss of loyalty and the death of two crew members. It would be fine if I would have to deal with the consequences of my decisions, but I never even had the choice of making different decisions, except for the first few hours! Ideally my Shepard would have been much more renegade than that, but the game stopped giving me the options. That is frustrating and I know that many others feel the same.

The persuasion trait does not increase the chance of success for dialogue options, it only decides if you get the "advanced" dialogue options (paragon/renegade) or not, depending on your investment in a persuasive Shepard and the game progress. With maximum persuasion you would always have the ability to choose between all the options that BioWare implemented. If your Shepard only focusses on the combat related traits, he/she will use the standard options most of the time. Either way, no redundant dialogue options are left, no useless voice acting and animating and alot more freedom of choice. 

Ecael came up with an alternative, which is also linked, and I'm open to other ideas but I strongly disagree that it is "entirely unnecessary". 

Whoa whoa whoa... if that is how you feel about the system no wonder you are frustrated. The colored response is always better? That's the exact OPPOSITE of a role-playing experience, that's pure meta-gaming. If you are primarily paragon, why on earth would you throw someone out of a window or kill them them with an electrical charge just because the red response is "better?" For crying out loud, just work through the extra defenses on the gunship or let the merc go in the tower.

If your approach is that you have to take the "best" option then you are already ruining your own RPG. Take the one you want for your Shep.

[Phaelducan]

Again? What is this gold standard of RPG then everyone so wants ME2 to be? It's a straight up lie that ME2 doesn't have advancement and customization, so anyone claiming that it's system sucks should have something to compare it to, right?



Put up or be quiet. What's the standard? Go obscure if you want, I don't care. I (like most people on this thread I would guess) have played tons of RPG's for years. If you want anyone to take your argument seriously and not just as fan-boy whining, then lets get specific. HOW does ME2 fail to advance the character and inventory? It's more diverse than a treasure chest system as you actually have to choose what to upgrade, and it's more diverse then a static leveling system as you get to choose anything at all (and for the love of god please acknowledge this fact.... YOU CAN'T MAX EVERYTHING IN ME2).



So what do you want? Do you want the Final Fantasy IV/II method where you just level up, get better stats and possibly learn a new ability?



Do you want Fallout3 only a small number of fixed abilities that never increase and instead progress through perks/skills?



What do you want? This *blah blah blah* ME2 stinks and I could do it better discussion is pointless. If it's just a matter of preference (like with Vena's trait system) then just say so. Say you like leveling, or skill points, or whatever better... but stop with the general statements about how it's not an RPG and doesn't have any real RPG elements.



It is... it does... and it's absurd to keep arguing otherwise.



Oh, and stop condemning DA2 before you play it (unless you don't plan on playing it all anyway, but then why do you care and why post about it?).



God, it's like a sports forum in here. No logic or reason at all. We might as well start arguing about the BCS, it would be more productive.

[Nohvarr]

Gleym wrote...

Just wanted to point out, Phaelducan, that the 'vocal minority' that I'm a part of is only a 'minority' on this board. I've seen bountiful other places geared more towards RPGs that agree with the views that I, and many others, share. *Shrug*

There you go 'geared more towards RPGS', or more accuratly a specific type of RPG. I know the hard core set is unlikely to embrace these changes as they don't fit with their particular standards. That's normal, and expected. I still recall being on a Star Trek Forum that was in favor of the new movie, and being amazed at people who registered in a failed attempt to make everyone on that forum hate it as much as they did. When they're arguments failed they dismissed the forum as an anomaly and assured us that other forums were in agreement with them. The same thing is happening here.

You can always find a forum that will cater to whatever rpg you favor. I know that there are forums that will hold current gen Final Fantasy games up as the gold standard of RPGs. I would respectfully disagree, but that dosen't prevent the places from existing.

BW has been moving in this direction since Jade Empire, and by that I mean trying to fuse customization & Roleplay with exciting gameplay and visuals. Since I was brought into RPG's by 'Deus Ex' I see no reason for BW to continue trying to perfect this blend.

Edit: SR-2 also has the better introduction. Seeing her for the first time, then launching felt even more thrilling then when the council bestowed Spectre status ME 1.

Shepard: (observing the ship as it's revealed) "Ladies & Gentlemen....welcome home..."

Modifié par Nohvarr, 06 décembre 2010 - 03:49 .

[uzivatel]

Vena_86 wrote...

In ME2 at one point or the other you will only have one choice (either paragon or renegade). Since the colored dialogue options are always better than the standard ones, this leaves only one valid dialogue "option" for the player, which equals hitting "continue" rather than roleplaying. Beeing railroaded into a one-dimensional stereotype character is not good roleplaying in times of The Witcher and Dragon Age. What is even worse is that you can not solve crew problems later on, as a punishment for ever trying to play a more realistic, balanced character.
If you look at the Shepard in the first character screen, she is mostly paragon and somewhat renegade. I could not solve the Miranda/Jack disagreement, resulting in the loss of loyalty and the death of two crew members. It would be fine if I would have to deal with the consequences of my decisions, but I never even had the choice of making different decisions, except for the first few hours! Ideally my Shepard would have been much more renegade than that, but the game stopped giving me the options. That is frustrating and I know that many others feel the same.

Alpha Protocol I would understand, but The Witcher or Dragon Age? 

You are punished for playing "more realistic" character? Well, I dont remember being punished, but isnt it "more realistic" for them not to buy your ultra Paragon / Renegade options?

Sure, BioWare should have allowed all the options for all players, but use the existing conditions for "success", but they did not back in 2006(?), when the dialogue system was finalized and the should not change it in the middle of the series (unless you really want people crying on these forums about failing dialogues).

[The Spamming Troll]

Phaelducan wrote...

Having played both of the aforementioned games to completion, ME2 has more options, is harder (read, impossible) to max everything, and allows more choice, variation, and differs the order in which you advance.

maybe i read this wrong but i dont think ME2s leveling system is great at all. i really liked ME1s leveling up bcaue there was more leveling up, more time looking over skills, more time spent making my character. i go hours without realizing ive leveled in ME2. i dont think theres much choice in leveling your character in ME2 either. have you noticed there isnt much build discusion? its becasue every level 30 character roughly looks exactly the same.

[Phaelducan]

Hmm, I'm fairly confident that responding to a post from "The Spamming Troll" is probably unwise.



On the off chance you are being serious, though...



I have no problem with folks not liking ME2's leveling system. It wasn't my absolute favorite of all time either, and I actually preferred ME1 as well. However, in not liking it one should at least be fair in the critique.



Most of the criticism about leveling in ME2 stems from there being no variety (false) and easy to max everything (false).



No two classes can be the same, by definition in that every class has a unique skill that no other class can get. Want to be a Soldier with Biotic Charge? Tough, you can't.



Want to max everything? Tough, you can't, even at level 30 (I can't understand why the criticisms continue to include the assumption that you can do something patently impossible within the game mechanics).



Again, it's totally cool not to like something, but what isn't cool is to use false information or patently incorrect "facts" to sway someone to a point of view (and again, I like ME1 leveling more than ME2 as well).

[Googlesaurus]

Phaelducan wrote...

ME2 has more options, is harder (read, impossible) to max everything, and allows more choice, variation, and differs the order in which you advance.

...

So what? I want him to explain how he can consider the advancement system in ME2 complex, not more complex than two games criticized for a lack of complexity in said area. When I claim Shadowrun was a great FPS I don't justify it by saying "It was better than Daikatana."

The Spamming Troll's name deceives. His second-to-last sentence has merit. 

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 06 décembre 2010 - 05:28 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...
That's why games like Black Ops sells so much even if the formula has been done to death and has no depth whatsoever in any way.

  Just wondering, have you actually played black ops or are you just pulling this out of your arse? Black ops SP was much more focused on the story when compared to other games of the series and had some much more compelling characters than some of the cast in the ME games.

Its true that the mechanics are largely the same, but black ops had a very interesting story imo and not simply a copy of the crap fest that was MW2. It had a good story and had great likable/belivable characters with fleshed out personalities.

When I play a shooter, any type of game where it puts you in the shoes of a character, I want to feel immersed, I want good gameplay, good story, good pacing, good atmosphere, etc... Every CoD game since 4 are plagued with the American action movie syndrome; movie-like pacing, cinematics, atmosphere, gameplay, everything. When I play a mission, I want to feel there, to feel a sense of scale and environment/purpose, I don't want to walk along a corridor, kill people with poor shooting mechanics, get a scripted in-game happening which is always the same and can get too cinematic. I don't want designers to hold my hand and take me across a movie, I want to walk around, experience things, feel a certain atmosphere and not have a ridiculous pacing where the moment you feel immersed in the game/mission they take control out of you, there's a next mission or you're leaving this huge building you just entered after 5 minutes, etc... Take Halo CE for example, that's probably one of my favourite shooters and I think it has one of the best pacing in the whole genre, you feel like playing the MC, you feel like exploring a mysterious alien world, you feel like trying to rescue trapped marines or your captain, the whole thing is much more immersive than a game where missions last 20 minutes and everything you could think of happens. Halo 2 also had a similar pacing.

Otherwise we're getting off topic, but it can help tell that I'm not the kind of person who seeks video games for a movie-like experience and that I think the lack of control in an RPG (well, any game) hurts it a lot, and that's something which I think ME2 suffers from.

[Phaelducan]

"have you noticed there isnt much build discusion?"

That one? Well I won't say that it doesn't have merit, but I do disagree that there isn't a lot of build discussion. If you go just a few threads over in gameplay, there is quite a lot of material there on build discussion. That's not really here nor there though...

As to your point Googlesaurus? Complexity is subjective, I don't feel that any game out there is "complex," RPG or otherwise. Funny you should mention Shadowrun.... I played Shadowrun PnP for years and years and that's what I think of when I think of a complex game. Multiple sources of core material to read through, infinite variations of archetypes... almost limitless equipment choices.

Anyway, not to digress, but complexity in the modern era as far as video games is sort of a misnomer. The advancement system in ME2 wasn't any more or less complex than a number of its peers (I include ME1 in that). You had decisions to make, abilities to improve or not, abilities you had to neglect if you wanted to max others, etc. In as far as it is more complex in some ways, the fact that you had to evolve a power in one of two ways, permanently, is something that ME1 didn't do, shrug.

Hard to find complexity in any console game, really.

@Evil Johnny: Your description of "things you don't like" includes cinematic experiences? Why in god's name did you even want to play ME2 then? It's all about cinematic experiences. Yes... you are Shepard.... but you are Shepard in a heavily scripted and cut-scene laden cinematic game. No wonder you don't like it.

Modifié par Phaelducan, 06 décembre 2010 - 06:20 .

[LogosDiablo]

Phaelducan wrote...

...The advancement system in ME2 wasn't any more or less complex than a number of its peers (I include ME1 in that). You had decisions to make, abilities to improve or not, abilities you had to neglect if you wanted to max others, etc. In as far as it is more complex in some ways, the fact that you had to evolve a power in one of two ways, permanently, is something that ME1 didn't do, shrug...

I have agreed with much that you've said so far, but this statement is disingenuous. Regardless of the subjective quality of complexity, it is impossible to argue that ME2 is just as complex as ME1. Yes, the same types of considerations must be made in the two games (regarding the leveling system), but ME1 requires many more of them and offers so many more choices at each decision points (where you spend your points). More choices, and more that affect different parts of your character (particularly the non-combat ones), and more options at each choice reeks of greater complexity. 

I like certain elements of both systems. Hacking and Bypassing are FAR better in ME2, and artificially ruining a skilled player's aim simply because they haven't purchased the skills always seemed wrong to me. On the other hand, ME2 oversimplified combat skills to four levels, and it simply does not have non-combat skills, and that makes me sad.

My problem is not the streamlining of the game. The game is just as fun to play, and lacks several of the frustrating parts of the first game (like hacking and bypassing). My problem is that ME2 seems to have lost the satisfaction in leveling. I gain a level and go, "Yay. I got a point." What am I gonna do with a point?

I understand that this is entirely opinion here, but I want a more granular leveling system, if only to make me feel better, and make it seem like I'm constantly advancing. It doesn't necessarily have to offer more power. Instead of giving me a power that does 6 damage at level 4, broken into 4 levels of 1.5 damage each, give me that same power broken into 6 levels. It just makes me feel like I'm doing something more. Give me the illusion of greater advancement - not necessarily the reality.

I cut my RPG teeth on FFIV and 7th Saga. In my experience, the success of an RPG comes from great storytelling, interactivity and the illusion that characters are meaningfully advancing at a good clip. Both ME titles accomplished the former two exceptionally well. ME1 does the latter well, ME2 not so much, for the reasons given above.

All of this, of course, in my opinion.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

RPG.

Sorry, but you aren't even talking same thing I do. Roleplaying doesn't require stats or numbers at all. That's kind of thinking what belongs to traditional RPG. There is at least two ways to look situation.

I have to do something and get points X to adjust ability B. (matematic)
I do B to improve my ability B. (natural learning)

Both allows customation, but different ways. One is about stat sheets and other is more natural learning, but both provide equal amount of customation. Stat sheets is more matematic ways to do it, while natural learning ways is more impresion way.  Meaning after doing something, do you stop playing and go to character sheet to adjust you abilities or could you do it in more natural way? You can just choose what you do and it will directly affect you abilities without need to go any stats screen.

My point is that you people are so damm stuck you traditional RPG design that you can't even think other possibilities what provides same customation without some other sertain negative aspect to gameplay. Like traditional RPG design is only way to do roleplaying in your peoples mind, because that's how you have done it 20 years. In my opinion, that sad way to look RPG and you people should wake up and see other possibilities.

I have no problem if you people say I want more traditional RPG, that is fine if you want it. But please don't use roleplaying as excuse for it, because roleplaying is a LOT more than some traditional RPG style.

You miss my point, natural learning has character progression tied to stats, as when you improve an ability, you change this ability's stats. Oblivion - I know I like to bring it up - has you only alloting attributes (strength, intelligence, agility, endurance) each time you level up. But you level up by "natural learning", you run 5 minutes? You may increase your athethics stats, you keep jumping? Acrobatics. Retrieving plants and making potions? Alchemy. Etc... Everything you do is tied to your skills which are made of changing stats which affects gameplay. JRPG kind of work like this too, as I said several times, there's no skill allotment whatsoever, but each time you finish a combat you gain EXP which can make you level up and gain better stats, as you can use items, armor whatever that increases defense stats for example. But for your character to have skill progression (skill because people might argue there's character progression in other games without your character ever getting better, ie shooters) NEEDS changing stats in a way, hidden or not. ME2 has stats for paragon/renegade, you can only see a bar, but everything is still quantified in the game itself, but that doesn't mean that something that takes skill like persuasion being tied to a moral stance with changing stats (what the hell?) makes sense. If something is about skill, it's about skill. You'd need to put skill points for persuation or actually practice persuading people to get a better skill, not tie it with something totally unrelated.

And if you compare with Morrowind or Oblivion for persuasion for example, you can still practice it and even pay for it to become better, but if you didn't make the choice to be better at persuasion, the drawback is that it doesn't make you level up as it can be either very expensive or very time consuming as well as you get a lower skill from the get go. There's a mini-game anyone can do tied to persuasion, but you weaker in persuasion characters need to bribe at some point and can't use some tools in the mini-game to make it both easier and faster. And this has nothing to do with "traditional rpgs" like you like to point out, it's a core element that is in any RPG. If an element can't be found in every RPG, it's not one, you shoot in every shooter. You get a character that gets increasingly better in RPGs if you let me rephrase it, which is tied with stats in a way, stats is only the link between someone playing and getting it translated into the game so your character gets better. I saw a lot of people posting as RPG definitions the one of modern western rpgs, which is obviously in minority.

The problem with ME2, is that there is too few elements that count towards your character progression (or not enough stats) in a meaningful or sensical manner. As I said, something like a moral stance which you have or not shouldn't drastically change over time. You can't start off as a good guy, and then gain "bad guy points" and become one because the game says your morality choices are ****ed up and you are both a good guy and a bad guy and can't persuade some people because of this, this is ridiculous. It's all the more evident when you are deemed as a bad guy if you tell The Illusive Man you feel good, or a good guy if you tell Jacob you trust him. And you can't even tell Jacob you trust him without telling him you think he works for the wrong person. So in short, you can't trust TIM, talk without hate to him AND trust everyone else in Cerberus without having "conflicting views". If you want to be a renegade in ME2, you NEED to trust no one and always act like a douche, like to be a paragon you need to be a saint, and this is reflected in every of the few choices you have in conversations. Tell me about role playing! You can't even decide what you want to say without the game deciding which of the 3 Shepard personalities the game will use to reply. You either have to "choose" one of the 3 personalities or live with a Shepard with a personality disorder.

This is role playing, choice. [/sarcasm] So then, your ability to persuade comes from ONE choice you make in the beginning of the game (remember when you talked about creating a new character in Kotor because you missed something? What if you didn't know the developers were dumb enough to tie morality with persuasion skills? You're ****ed.) to either be a certain pre-determined character and instanteanously be able to use every (or almost which is even more stupid than not having enough skill points, since it's about a morality stance you already choose in the beginning of the game) persuasion dialog choice. It's dumb and useless, if you have a persuasion system as non-sensical and shallow as this one, why not just give the player the ability to say anything all the time? You better come up with a non-existent very good reason to why persuation skill points makes less sense and is not preferable. And then, it can be made in a different way than alloting skill points, just not how they did it here.

And then, the only character progression you have are those infamous skill points, but the system is so shallow it frankly sucks. And after this, what have you? Research? Seriously, I wonder why they bothered with such a system when I got ALL the ship upgrades and more than a handful of other ones without doing planet scanning (which is also a very shallow game mechanic). There's no disadvantage in upgrading any instead of one, and anyone with half a brain won't enter the suicide mission without upgrading most of the items, so there's no customisation or character progression in relation to this, only a time sink. What you're left with is very limited and shallow core RPG mechanics.

I have no problem with not using "traditional" methods, but at least please, make something worthwhile and meaningful. ME2 is one of the RPGs with the least customization and character progression I have ever played. Hell, even JRPGs have a lot more of this than ME2. I never felt my Shepard was improving over time, as I got better abilities through skill and research, missions became harder (which makes sense obviously), the problem is that it's the only place where you can see Shepard's progression and that even then it seriously gets stale, it's like playing a shooter too long for its own good with several non shooting sections to make the game more interesting. And I want to add, I'm not saying ME1 was perfect, far from it, but it's a case of "all the little things" that made it such a great game, not its RPG mechanics. Plus, ME2 is separated in two sections: the shooting and the rest, only the shooting has your character actually progressing in any way.

I don't only play RPGs and enjoy a big variety of games, but when a game is marketed as an RPG, or RPG/TPS hybrid, I expect to experience this, good or bad. Giving me the illusion of choice (most of the time, there's still real choices), a poorly customizable character, almost non-existant character progression, and one dimensional shooter gameplay that quickly gets stale after repeated play, ME2 almost feel like it's too long for its own good as well as a glorified shooter. At least when I recently finished ME2 on insanity it felt too long, when it doesn't do this to me when I play shooters on the highest difficulty even if I die a lot, but to me you really need to breeze through on casual to not think the gameplay is repetitive and not varied at all. This is even more evident on insanity as you always use the same tactics and it works ALL the time. Missions are less tied with the story which doesn't help either.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 06 décembre 2010 - 08:07 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

LogosDiablo wrote...
I understand that this is entirely opinion here, but I want a more granular leveling system, if only to make me feel better, and make it seem like I'm constantly advancing. It doesn't necessarily have to offer more power. Instead of giving me a power that does 6 damage at level 4, broken into 4 levels of 1.5 damage each, give me that same power broken into 6 levels. It just makes me feel like I'm doing something more. Give me the illusion of greater advancement - not necessarily the reality.

And with the poor skill system we have, levellling up and attributing points is solely a way to keep up with the difficulty of the missions. I know it's the case to some extent in several RPGs, but in ME2, you don't feel like advancing at all. No new ways to do things or anything, levelling up changes nothing. I know it wasn't perfect in ME1, but at least it had more depth and it showed.

[Googlesaurus]

Phaelducan wrote...

As to your point Googlesaurus? Complexity is subjective, I don't feel that any game out there is "complex," RPG or otherwise. Funny you should mention Shadowrun.... I played Shadowrun PnP for years and years and that's what I think of when I think of a complex game. Multiple sources of core material to read through, infinite variations of archetypes... almost limitless equipment choices.

Then we agree that Shadowrun is complex. Obviously we have some shared values on that subject. 

If complexity is subjective then this entire discussion is moot. 

Phaelducan wrote...

Anyway, not to digress, but complexity in the modern era as far as video games is sort of a misnomer. The advancement system in ME2 wasn't any more or less complex than a number of its peers (I include ME1 in that). You had decisions to make, abilities to improve or not, abilities you had to neglect if you wanted to max others, etc. In as far as it is more complex in some ways, the fact that you had to evolve a power in one of two ways, permanently, is something that ME1 didn't do, shrug.

I'm not concerned about how it stacks to its peers. That's a poor way of judging good complexity.

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 06 décembre 2010 - 07:22 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Phaelducan wrote...
@Evil Johnny: Your description of "things you don't like" includes cinematic experiences? Why in god's name did you even want to play ME2 then? It's all about cinematic experiences. Yes... you are Shepard.... but you are Shepard in a heavily scripted and cut-scene laden cinematic game. No wonder you don't like it.

That's why I wrote "movie-like" in parenthesis, but I agree that may have been not accurate to write it that way. But true, sometimes I feel it's a tiny too cinematic but it often is either in the beginning of the game or end, so it doesn't really matter. Anyway, it's about the whole game having a movie-like approach rather than having influences. All the dialogs have you choosing lines from a fixed perspective, there's no fancy cinema trics in any of the dialogs, and real cinematics are few in between and often may be just your ship approaching a planet which only adds to the immersion since there's no real teleportation. Plus, if you take ME1 for example, with all the elevators and de-pressurization, it's obvious Bioware wanted the experience to be immersive, to give you control. A movie-like experience takes you away from control, while video games are about giving control to players, that's more precisely why I don't like a too movie-like cinematic experience.

I never said I don't like ME2, I like the game but I'm still highly disapointed in several things. Less immersion, no more planet exploration, shallow campaing/main quest with one-dimensional level design with no questing during missions, poor dialog system, Shepard sucks even more than in ME1. And yes, ME2 was a bit too movie-like as in how the story progresses. Assemble a team. Mission. Continue to assemble your team. Mission, etc. So you get barely any real mission so they condense the whole plot into these while they could have make you trying to find information about the Collectors without knowing right out the bat who they are and what they look like. Instead, TIM knows everything, you learn everything in gulps rather than bites making any sense of mystery or wonder is non-existent. It feels like a dumbed down campaign made to fit in 2 hours movie. No wonder you need so many teammates, oh and the suicide mission is absolutely like any other mission and doesn't feel like what you were hyped for.

Saying this, while I thought hub worlds were too small, I thought they were very well made and had some very nice quests. Omega is awesome, the Garrus mission is awesome as the Thane one and his loyalty quest and others. Ilium has a very Blade Runner feel and is just great for numerous reasons. So places are still good looking, the universe is still the one I've come to love, some characters have very nice conversation, the shooting is fun if you don't play for too long too often, but the game still lacks a lot of things.

Certainly not worth all the praise it gets though. Just about the dialog system, anyone just actually thinking about it rather than just using it and having fun knows it doesn't make any sense. But in our time, too many people just consume the game and don't even play it enough to discover themselves the flaws. If I only played ME2 once, I may not have realised how the dialog system is broken since I thought it was pretty good except the lack of choices. Still reviewers give them scores when sometimes not even getting through the whole thing (particularly RPGs. So insane praise from people who made one playthrough and who are still on their first impression means nothing. Maybe if these guys actually got some quality time with the games, were real critics and not just people who like video games and have writing skills, people who actually think about games rather than consume then like too many people, maybe I could trust them. Okay, they're not all like this of course, but I doubt everyone takes this particularly seriously and they certainly not have the time to truly get that quality time and think about it for a certain time since they need to be either playing games or writing about what they just played. It shouldn't work like this and unfortunately it does. This coupled with the fact that we don't know how many of them are bought and/or how many developers buy reviews, they can't be trusted.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 06 décembre 2010 - 07:50 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Phaelducan wrote...

I think we are arguing two different things. I don't maintain that old games are bad, or that new games don't need innovation or excitement. I absolute love my GOG.com subscription because my crappy netbook has Torment, Baldur's Gate I and II, and NWN I and II on it. I have like 500 hours of gameplay for 50 bucks. Win.

However, I also maintain that new games can be equally enjoyable, for different reasons. ME1 and 2 (I thought) were excellent RPG's in a non-traditional format. Consumption aside, they were good games. Even if they sold poorly I would maintain they were excellent games (such as Too Human, which was critically and commercially unsuccessful, but I enjoyed and thought was well done).

The only thing I find incorrect and unfortunate is the stubborn refusal of many of this threads posters to acknowledge that ME2 actually had fleshed out RPG elements. Having played Fable 3 and Final Fantasy XIII, I can honestly say that ME2 is far and away better than either of them in development of a good and complex RPG advancement system.

It is false to say that ME2 doesn't offer character advancement. It is also false to say that ME2 doesn't offer equipment upgrades. It has both, and both were integrated fully into the gameplay. I get that people have opinions and preferences... but it is patently false to say that the elements weren't there.

Well, it's a fact that there's elements in there, I just think (like others I supposed) that they're weak and limited. But I don't want to delve in this since I already wrote almost my whole opinion on the matter on several posts and particularly my last reply to Lumikki which is just up here.

Damn, sorry for the double post.

Terror_K wrote...
The problem is when you automate a process like that and take away player control and choice it defeats the whole purpose of it.

Well said, I think this sums well a lot of ME2's problems. Why make a research mechanic when the only thing you can do is research? After the first playthrough, it's more a bore and a time sink than anything else. Also, take hacking and bypassing, taking out your characters skills out of it makes these features useless. Why bother making hundreads of boring mini-games (each two minute you can hack or something) when you can't miss them or fail them? Take the mini game out and able us to open whatever the thing is would be the same thing, except you don't loose your time doing it. Or persuasion, if Shepard is such a pre-determined character (3 of them), why not ask you right of the bat which you want to be and automate everything? Why make us gain paragon points with a system that doesn't make sense for dialogs when you're always going to be able to get certain dialog options or not? Too many elements in ME2 are like this, streamlined to a point which makes them totally useless.

LogosDiablo wrote...

TheNexus wrote...

I
really like the idea of the persuasion mechanic, because in any given
situation you should be able to either choose the paragon or renegade
option as it's indicative of the two sides of human nature in every
human being. That to me is far more indicative of human nature than the
current system. No matter how heavenly a character you may be, there is
always temptation. It doesn't make sense to have a paragon option and
not a renegade one or vice versa.

I disagree. The
paragon/renegade option ARE the persuasion mechanics, you just aren't
allowed to attempt a persuasion that you will fail. You can always
capture the opposite side of things, as you say, with the non-alignment
responses. Persuasion is entirely unnecessary.

Why would you fail? Rhetoric skills has nothing to do with morals. Plus, a moral stance doesn't change, well your views may change over time, but not in a matter of days or weeks, an certainly not with a character like Shepard in a game like Mass Effect. So not only your morality is ties with your ability to persuade someone, but your morality itself is something gradable over a short period of time? What the hell. A morality is binary, you think a certain way or not, you can't grade this and then say it makes you able to say a specific thing...

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 06 décembre 2010 - 08:41 .

[LogosDiablo]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Why would you fail? Rhetoric skills has nothing to do with morals. Plus, a moral stance doesn't change, well your views may change over time, but not in a matter of days or weeks, an certainly not with a character like Shepard in a game like Mass Effect. So not only your morality is ties with your ability to persuade someone, but your morality itself is something gradable over a short period of time? What the hell. A morality is binary, you think a certain way or not, you can't grade this and then say it makes you able to say a specific thing...

What you are failing to understand is that Paragon and Renegade are not simply good/evil moral stances. They would be called good/evil in that case. They represent the degree to which Shepard is invested in his beliefs, and do carry some moral charge, but are far from good and evil. 

Now morality may have anything to do with rhetorical skills, but the degree to which you clearly believe what you are saying does influence how persuasive you are. You can see the phenomenon in the real world when a friend talks excitedly about a game he's played, and you by proxy become excited, too. This is the same thing happening with the Paragon/Renegade conversation options.

If you want, you can think of Shepard's Paragon/Renegade status as his ness - that something that makes him him. It is the intensity with which he carries himself, and intense people, if done in the right way, can be far more persuasive than lukewarm people. This is why the dialog system is designed the way it is, and this is why it works.

[kalle90]

This is the least ME3 must have

[Evil Johnny 666]

LogosDiablo wrote...

What you are failing to understand is that Paragon and Renegade are not simply good/evil moral stances. They would be called good/evil in that case. They represent the degree to which Shepard is invested in his beliefs, and do carry some moral charge, but are far from good and evil. 

Now morality may have anything to do with rhetorical skills, but the degree to which you clearly believe what you are saying does influence how persuasive you are. You can see the phenomenon in the real world when a friend talks excitedly about a game he's played, and you by proxy become excited, too. This is the same thing happening with the Paragon/Renegade conversation options.

If you want, you can think of Shepard's Paragon/Renegade status as his ness - that something that makes him him. It is the intensity with which he carries himself, and intense people, if done in the right way, can be far more persuasive than lukewarm people. This is why the dialog system is designed the way it is, and this is why it works.

Because you can't be particularly invested from the get go? How someone evil can't get more invested in his evil beliefs? Paragon/Renegade are just synonyms or metaphors for good/evil. Good, good guy, evil, bad guy, is there really such a difference? At least not in relation to gameplay. Those thigns are subjective anyway which Bioware failed to realise. Worse, is that it's so, so streamlined that things that can't possibly be considered paragon or renegade are.

Wikipedia wrote...
Renegade is a synonym for turncoat.
A turncoat is a person who shifts allegiance from one loyalty
or ideal to another, betraying or deserting an original cause by
switching to the opposing side or party. In political and social
history, this is distinct from being a traitor, as the switch mostly takes place under the following circumstances:

• In groups, often driven by one or more leaders.
• When the former cause driving and benefitting the person becomes inviable or too fraught with danger.

A paragon is a large, flawless diamond.
The title is now used figuratively to denote a model of excellence or
perfection of any kind; one having no equal; a perfect embodiment of a
concept.

The thing is, someone with good rhethoric skills can think logically from both sides of the coin as well as bluff. Well, it's not always about rhethorics. You need enough renegade points to point out a gun to a dangerous mercenary in Omega, nothing to do with rhethorics. But I don't see how anyone can be hard to take seriously when you point a gun on his face, and when the face is from a dangerous person. Unless Shepard lacks self-esteem when he's not suffisently "invested" in his beliefs, he should be able to do this.

And anyway, what's the deal about being invested in his beliefs? Shepard is a pre-determined character mostly, with a background and all, you save the galaxy once and all, if Shepard isn't already invested in his beliefs, I surely wouldn't want to work with him. Any good commander shouldn't have such problems and always be sure of what he's doing. Shepard having an increasingly investment in his beliefs is as non-sensical as him changing his moral stance or it being graded, he's no teen or whatever. And trust me, you get fully invested in your beliefs pretty young, unless you have an illlumination or something.

You're telling me Shepards gets more intense as the game unfolds when he consistently talks along a pre-determined moral stance which you don't know what it really is unless you try, or only if it is at the top or bottom, that he gets less intense as the game unfolds if you follow a certain moral stance which is yours, but inconsistent with the game's already established ones? Again, you have a stance or not, you are invested in beliefs, unless you're young or something life changing just happened, they don't change, even more as you get older and older. And if you can really get more invested over time (pass a certain age Shepard passed for sure), well I don't see how anyone's character can't get more invested because the game doesn't think he should. This is just stupid, bad writing, poor concept. At least ME1 tied this to persuasion skills even if it was still tied to your character's moral stance.

Maybe Shepard isn't good at bluffing, but he should always be able to persuade someone (if he has the skills) accordingly to him staying true to his beliefs. And this, the developers have no way to find it out, I'd rather have a single persuasion skill than a very one-dimensional character like the Shepard we have. Again, it's not just about a stereotypical shallow character, it's about the system not making any sense. At least in Kotor it kind of makes sense since you feel like an new person since you don't remember a thing. Then I can understand someone's beliefs changing and you getting more invested in them. Plus, the Force is known to be kind of like a drug, someone falling in temptation may turn out pretty bad (evil). But there's no such thing as the Force in Mass Effect and Shepard is a well defined characters with ton of history.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 06 décembre 2010 - 09:49 .

[Vena_86]

Phaelducan wrote...

Vena_86 wrote...

LogosDiablo wrote...

TheNexus wrote...

I really like the idea of the persuasion mechanic, because in any given situation you should be able to either choose the paragon or renegade option as it's indicative of the two sides of human nature in every human being. That to me is far more indicative of human nature than the current system. No matter how heavenly a character you may be, there is always temptation. It doesn't make sense to have a paragon option and not a renegade one or vice versa.

I disagree. The paragon/renegade option ARE the persuasion mechanics, you just aren't allowed to attempt a persuasion that you will fail. You can always capture the opposite side of things, as you say, with the non-alignment responses. Persuasion is entirely unnecessary.

In ME2 at one point or the other you will only have one choice (either paragon or renegade). Since the colored dialogue options are always better than the standard ones, this leaves only one valid dialogue "option" for the player, which equals hitting "continue" rather than roleplaying. Beeing railroaded into a one-dimensional stereotype character is not good roleplaying in times of The Witcher and Dragon Age. What is even worse is that you can not solve crew problems later on, as a punishment for ever trying to play a more realistic, balanced character.
If you look at the Shepard in the first character screen, she is mostly paragon and somewhat renegade. I could not solve the Miranda/Jack disagreement, resulting in the loss of loyalty and the death of two crew members. It would be fine if I would have to deal with the consequences of my decisions, but I never even had the choice of making different decisions, except for the first few hours! Ideally my Shepard would have been much more renegade than that, but the game stopped giving me the options. That is frustrating and I know that many others feel the same.

The persuasion trait does not increase the chance of success for dialogue options, it only decides if you get the "advanced" dialogue options (paragon/renegade) or not, depending on your investment in a persuasive Shepard and the game progress. With maximum persuasion you would always have the ability to choose between all the options that BioWare implemented. If your Shepard only focusses on the combat related traits, he/she will use the standard options most of the time. Either way, no redundant dialogue options are left, no useless voice acting and animating and alot more freedom of choice. 

Ecael came up with an alternative, which is also linked, and I'm open to other ideas but I strongly disagree that it is "entirely unnecessary". 

Whoa whoa whoa... if that is how you feel about the system no wonder you are frustrated. The colored response is always better? That's the exact OPPOSITE of a role-playing experience, that's pure meta-gaming. If you are primarily paragon, why on earth would you throw someone out of a window or kill them them with an electrical charge just because the red response is "better?" For crying out loud, just work through the extra defenses on the gunship or let the merc go in the tower.

If your approach is that you have to take the "best" option then you are already ruining your own RPG. Take the one you want for your Shep.

Uhm...that was exactly my point. I can't make the choice I see fit because it is greyed out. Apparently you completely missunderstood. I usually want to make the paragon choices for the bigger things that matter, like saving a species and gaining potential allies, but when dealing with murdering, honorless scum, my Shepard knows no mercy...atleast for the first half of the game, when I still have both options. After that only one "color" is left and usually much more usefull than the standard responses, hence there beeing only one viable "choice". One way or the other, I lose control over the character.
I want to play a Shepard that saves the galaxy and makes the right decisions towards that goal. I don't want him or her to be either a naive good guy stereotype or a shortsighted, racist jerk. Dragon Age gives me control and the ability to make choices how I see them fit and shape a diverse and deep character, Mass Effect 2 doesn't and Mass Effect 1 is also too restrictive. What works in Dragon Age with a single speech skill (or talent?) can work in any other game as well, only that I called it persuasion in this case.

[Phaelducan]

LogosDiablo wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

...The advancement system in ME2 wasn't any more or less complex than a number of its peers (I include ME1 in that). You had decisions to make, abilities to improve or not, abilities you had to neglect if you wanted to max others, etc. In as far as it is more complex in some ways, the fact that you had to evolve a power in one of two ways, permanently, is something that ME1 didn't do, shrug...

I have agreed with much that you've said so far, but this statement is disingenuous. Regardless of the subjective quality of complexity, it is impossible to argue that ME2 is just as complex as ME1. Yes, the same types of considerations must be made in the two games (regarding the leveling system), but ME1 requires many more of them and offers so many more choices at each decision points (where you spend your points). More choices, and more that affect different parts of your character (particularly the non-combat ones), and more options at each choice reeks of greater complexity. 

I like certain elements of both systems. Hacking and Bypassing are FAR better in ME2, and artificially ruining a skilled player's aim simply because they haven't purchased the skills always seemed wrong to me. On the other hand, ME2 oversimplified combat skills to four levels, and it simply does not have non-combat skills, and that makes me sad.

My problem is not the streamlining of the game. The game is just as fun to play, and lacks several of the frustrating parts of the first game (like hacking and bypassing). My problem is that ME2 seems to have lost the satisfaction in leveling. I gain a level and go, "Yay. I got a point." What am I gonna do with a point?

I understand that this is entirely opinion here, but I want a more granular leveling system, if only to make me feel better, and make it seem like I'm constantly advancing. It doesn't necessarily have to offer more power. Instead of giving me a power that does 6 damage at level 4, broken into 4 levels of 1.5 damage each, give me that same power broken into 6 levels. It just makes me feel like I'm doing something more. Give me the illusion of greater advancement - not necessarily the reality.

I cut my RPG teeth on FFIV and 7th Saga. In my experience, the success of an RPG comes from great storytelling, interactivity and the illusion that characters are meaningfully advancing at a good clip. Both ME titles accomplished the former two exceptionally well. ME1 does the latter well, ME2 not so much, for the reasons given above.

All of this, of course, in my opinion.

Wow, 7th Saga reference. Old school, and also gets my vote for single most frustrating RPG ever created. Good story though....

As for FFIV I agree that it's one of the best ever made. In fact for my preferences it's the best FF, I loved it. With that said... you had ZERO choices in leveling. Not a one. Ding = more stats, and at certain fixed intervals new abilities. Also, the equipment system was static. You progressed, opened chests, and got upgrades. Simple. If you REALLY wanted to try to farm a rare drop weapon, there were a few, but 99% of the equipment in the game was found along normal plot progression.

That isn't bad, and as stated it's probably my favorite all time RPG. However, the topic we are discussing are the RPG elements of ME2. The argument has been made that ME2 has no real advancement or customization, both of which have also been argued are staples of an RPG.

All I claim is that even if you don't like how ME2 does things (and many don't), the elements are still there. ME2 does allow you to customize and advance your Shep, and in fundamentally more diverse ways that a slew of old-school RPG's (which as aforementioned might not allow you to choose anything... at all).

My support for believing that the ME2 advancements are tangible are in the differences between your Shep on the Cerberus station vs. on the Collector Station. The 30 levels PROFOUNDLY change what your character is able to do. You simply would not be able to survive the Collector Ship without upgraded abilities and equipment. At level 1, you don't have the skills to complete the game. You have to level and allocate skill points to reach that point, as well as achieving substantial equipment upgrades.

It might not be the same as some RPG, but it is definitely the same result. You have to upgrade Shep to beat the game. It's an identical scenario to a Lv 10 Dark Knight and level 10 Dragoon fighting Zeromus. 

[MasterSamson88]

I don't really like the idea of an accuracy trait. I despised the fact in ME1 that you had to level up your gun abilities to about half in order to be able to hit darn near anything. It was to the point where the game-play only really got good when you started hitting higher levels and were able to actually hit things with your sniper and or Assault rifle.

[Phaelducan]

Googlesaurus wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

As to your point Googlesaurus? Complexity is subjective, I don't feel that any game out there is "complex," RPG or otherwise. Funny you should mention Shadowrun.... I played Shadowrun PnP for years and years and that's what I think of when I think of a complex game. Multiple sources of core material to read through, infinite variations of archetypes... almost limitless equipment choices.

Then we agree that Shadowrun is complex. Obviously we have some shared values on that subject. 

If complexity is subjective then this entire discussion is moot. 

Phaelducan wrote...

Anyway, not to digress, but complexity in the modern era as far as video games is sort of a misnomer. The advancement system in ME2 wasn't any more or less complex than a number of its peers (I include ME1 in that). You had decisions to make, abilities to improve or not, abilities you had to neglect if you wanted to max others, etc. In as far as it is more complex in some ways, the fact that you had to evolve a power in one of two ways, permanently, is something that ME1 didn't do, shrug.

I'm not concerned about how it stacks to its peers. That's a poor way of judging good complexity.

But we have to compare it to something. I keep asking for people to provide an example for what they want. This vacuous "ME2 sucks!!!" logic is all well and good, but again without an adequate comparison it's a one-sided equation. What is the gold-standard? Is it FO3? Is it Oblivion? Is it Kotor?

Look, there are a ton of great games out there, and a lot of different systems. What I feel is being missed here is that ME2 stands tall against any other RPG out there in sales and reviews because it actually DOES have a working and valid upgrade system. If it was just some schlocky shooter no one would care and it wouldn't have done this well. There is variety, people DO purchase instead of rent, and replay it pretty often. 

It's successful for a reason... and no one is willing to admit it's anything other than "the mass market is stupid and don't know what a REAL RPG is!!!"

Edit: Just as a follow-up to several of the last posts... seriously? Rhetoric? Logic? It's a video game guys. You pay your 50 bucks, play it, then get a different one. This is not The David. If your level of expectation is that high for ME3 I'll save you the suspense... don't buy it and play something else.

Modifié par Phaelducan, 06 décembre 2010 - 10:45 .

[Vena_86]

MasterSamson88 wrote...

I don't really like the idea of an accuracy trait. I despised the fact in ME1 that you had to level up your gun abilities to about half in order to be able to hit darn near anything. It was to the point where the game-play only really got good when you started hitting higher levels and were able to actually hit things with your sniper and or Assault rifle.

*sigh* Next time please look closer or atleast read the explanation. Seriously, how much more obvious can I make it? The forum does not allow gigantic font sizes.

[MasterSamson88]

I apologize for that, reading further I do like some or your idea's, Especially the weapon screens. The way they put it in ME2 was kind of confusing, It wasn't really spelled out what weapon was good at what, just suggested, and then that suggestion could be totally false.



However in some ways I do think that this is basically just making the current leveling system more elaborate, which isn't necessarily a good thing. A lot of the traits you have listed (persuasion, power cool-down, durability) are basically all in your base trait in ME2. While splitting it up gives one more to pick and choose to upgrade I'm not really sure if it's a needed change.



I'm more for upgrading weapons individually and perhaps being able to change what they're capable of doing like in ME1.

[LogosDiablo]

Because you can't be particularly invested from the get go?

You can. Shepard begins ME2 with a significant chunk of Paragon or Renegade points, depending on ME1 Shepard.

...Paragon/Renegade are just synonyms or metaphors for good/evil...Worse, is that it's so, so streamlined that things that can't possibly be considered paragon or renegade are.

Please explain to me then, how kneeing a well-meaning but misguided man in the balls for trying to help people is good act. It is not. Many of the Paragon acts involve death threats. You say that many things can't possibly be considered paragon/renegade, but that is because of a fundamental misunderstanding of what those words mean, in this context.

Wikipedia wrote...

Irrelevant. Bioware co-opted these words to mean something different within the context of the game.

The thing is, someone with good rhethoric skills can think logically from both sides of the coin as well as bluff.

Rhetorical skills are unrelated to an ability to lie.

-...Shepard is a pre-determined character mostly...
-...if Shepard isn't already invested in his beliefs, I surely wouldn't want to work with him.
-Any good commander shouldn't have such problems and always be sure of what he's doing.
-Shepard having an increasingly investment in his beliefs is as non-sensical as him changing his moral stance or it being graded...
-...And trust me, you get fully invested in your beliefs pretty young...

-Not really. Shepard has a vague background at Mindoir. You decide how Shepard handled that situation, and you play the rest. Not nearly as defined as you claim.
-I didn't say Shepard wasn't invested in his beliefs. I said he grows more strongly invested. Big difference.
-Your ideal commander doesn't exist. It's a fairy tale. Everyone in a position of authority questions their decisions. It's a part of the job.
-People change. It is fact. They grow more assured as they meet with success, and change tactics and ideas with failure. It is naive to claim otherwise.
-Why should I trust you? Do you have a degree that would give you a keen insight into the human condition?

-You're telling me Shepards gets more intense as the game unfolds when he consistently talks along a pre-determined moral stance...[but less intense as you deviate from that prescribed path? *My paraphrase for clarity] 
-Again, you have a stance or not...
-well I don't see how anyone's character can't get more invested because the game doesn't think he should.
-This is just stupid, bad writing, poor concept. At least ME1 tied this to persuasion skills even if it was still tied to your character's moral stance.

-You confine yourself by insisting on selecting only red or blue option - it is not the game's doing. I absolutely do not claim that Shepard loses intensity when a mostly Renegade Shepard makes a Paragon decision. The two are not mutually exclusive. Mechanically, they exist on separate continua. Gaining points in one does not cause you to slide away from the other. Shepard simply becomes more well-rounded.
-People are not black and white. They are shades of gray.
-Clearly, the game does think you should, as there are mechanics in place to track said progression - Paragon and Renegade points.
-Perhaps this is small point of fanboyism on my part, but Bioware is a master at storytelling through the video game medium. They have been doing it for quite a while, and have a long history of great works. To me, you just accused Cirque du Soleil of poor acrobatics, or the Trans-Siberian Orchestra of being tone-deaf. All this does is show that you are ignorant of what makes quality art.

-...At least in Kotor it kind of makes sense since you feel like an new person since you don't remember a thing. Then I can understand someone's beliefs changing and you getting more invested in them.
-Plus, the Force is known to be kind of like a drug, someone falling in temptation may turn out pretty bad (evil).
-...Shepard is a well defined characters with ton of history.

-Assuming I were to accept your logic up to this point, you don't thinking dying and being brought back to life - not to mention being awakened prematurely twice during the procedure - would be enough to cause a person to question their world view? I do not accept your logic, but if I did, it defeats itself here.
-The force has no such intoxicating power. Fallen Jedi are that way because they allowed themselves to be. A middle path is possible, regardless of what Jedi Masters claim. Case in point - Jolee Bindo.
-Shepard is very well defined...in ME1 and ME2. His backstory, however, is nebulous, as mentioned above.