411 réponses à ce sujet

[Googlesaurus]

Phaelducan wrote...

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?

Fair point, but I am not looking for an "ideal" advancement system from another game that doesn't deal with the same mechanisms. If anything I would use Starcraft 2 for a comparison of what I am looking for. 

Phaelducan wrote...

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.

 

Has anyone actually claimed otherwise? That's not the root of the argument.  

Phaelducan wrote...

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!!!"

Because the first game was popular. Because most reviewers focused on the character interaction, combat and aspects that were improved from the first game. There's very little talk concerning character advancement other than it's much simpler than before. 

[Lumikki]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

I have no problem with not using "traditional" methods, but at least please, make something worthwhile and meaningful.

*snip*

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.

What I can I say, You say you are fine with not using traditional RPG methods and you acccept hybrid RPG/TPS, but all what you suggest and comments here are about  full traditional RPG features, it's conflict. So, my point is that when game is actually hybrid, you still except it to have ALL full blood traditional RPG features, just because game has been sayed been partialy RPG. So, why don't you just say it, you want traditional RPG because that's what you want ME serie to be. Why deny what you really say?

PS: I also disagree you estimate of persuation, because ME2 did not have persuation, it had moral reputation system.

Googlesaurus wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

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!!!"

Because the first game was popular. Because most reviewers focused on the character interaction, combat and aspects that were improved from the first game. There's very little talk concerning character advancement other than it's much simpler than before.

Are you saying that second game isn't equal popular?

Next is more general comment, not just for who I quoted.

There is different wanting something, because person likes something and deny that something what they don't like so much, can be equal popular. My point is that, I liked both ME games so far, they both have weakness and strong points, even if those are in different features. People here say that they likes both, but they talk and opinion doesn't go hand to hand what they say. There was problems in ME1 what got fixed in ME2, but ME2 also created it's own problems, what wasn't problem in ME1. So, you opinions here in forum just show how one sided you are with liking ME games. All you suggestion is make it more traditional, because in your opinons that is what RPG is. You may not say it as directly I say it here, but that is what you people really say all the time.

In truth, you don't accept ME2 as it is, you want traditional RPG, even how equal popular ME2 is, even as how it is now.

If we want ME3 to be better for most of us, that requires that you people accept that something isn't gonna be full traditional RPG like feature, even some RPG feature could be missing or be simplifyed. ME serie is hybrid, not just RPG. Also remember traditional RPG is not same as roleplaying, because roleplaing is alot wider consept, than some narrow traditional RPG style.

Now the base idea of this suggestion was nice, as add something more, but how it was done isn't that good at all. Because you wanted major traditional style. Adding points to skills, what cause major metagaming features. Like example the persuation skill. That's not good skill at all, because it works agaist what dialogs is trying to do. Reduse the effects of consequences, as allowing bypass all negative consequences on dialog outcomes and give allways optimal result, exactly what metagaming is.

Metagaming in roleplaying games is consider bad roleplaying. So, why you add metagaming features and talk about improving roleplaying?

If you add new "skills" then add something what makes class more different from eatch others. Not some general skills what everyone has to allways improve, because they provides advances. Variety as different is allways better than general advances.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 décembre 2010 - 03:41 .

[Phaelducan]

Googlesaurus wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

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?

Fair point, but I am not looking for an "ideal" advancement system from another game that doesn't deal with the same mechanisms. If anything I would use Starcraft 2 for a comparison of what I am looking for. 

Phaelducan wrote...

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.

 

Has anyone actually claimed otherwise? That's not the root of the argument.  

Phaelducan wrote...

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!!!"

Because the first game was popular. Because most reviewers focused on the character interaction, combat and aspects that were improved from the first game. There's very little talk concerning character advancement other than it's much simpler than before. 

I haven't played Starcraft 2 yet, so can't comment there. 

As to anyone claiming otherwise? Yes it has been inferred more than once that ME2 does not have valid RPG conventions, and when pressed those two are the referenced.

As to ME2 being popular? I don't buy it. It isn't just the strength of the first game, and it isn't just erroneous reviews. People DO like the system, and enjoy the advancement.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

I have no problem with not using "traditional" methods, but at least please, make something worthwhile and meaningful.

*snip*

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.

What I can I say, You say you are fine with not using traditional RPG methods and you acccept hybrid RPG/TPS, but all what you suggest and comments here are about  full traditional RPG features, it's conflict. So, my point is that when game is actually hybrid, you still except it to have ALL full blood traditional RPG features, just because game has been sayed been partialy RPG. So, why don't you just say it, you want traditional RPG because that's what you want ME serie to be. Why deny what you really say?

Tell me what is RPG about not being able to see your character progress in a way. The ONLY real character progression is combat based and is seriously dumbed down. Customization is almost non-existent (please don't tell me research is customization, it's a time sink which serves no purpose whatsoever but take more of your time), real quests are minimal (N7 missions, gathering squad or loyalty as well as Cerberus missions are NOT quests, you just shoot from point A to point B, nothing into actually doing something, even if it involves shooting), choices are minimal, is this deep RPG elements? No. It's not because you don't like a more traditionally implemented elements à la ME1 that it makes ME2's deeper.

Again, I talked about implementing RPG elements in other ways than a skill allotement system, I thought it was what you found to be "traditional". A game where you walk around talking to people and then from time to time get missions and shoot people is NOT an RPG, it's not because you play a character, have dialog "choices", can choose weapons, outfits and such that it's an RPG, otherwise Red Dead Redemption would be an RPG. Obviously this is what a dumbed down version of ME2 would be and not an actual depiction of the game, but what I want to tell, is that ME2's lack depth in its RPG elements. I still don't get what you're obsession with not wanting to play a "traditional" rpg experience is, it's not about being traditional to have deep core mechanics, what is traditional is how its pulled off rather than features. You always shoot in shooters, what is modern or traditional is how it's pulled off.

I never said I wanted a traditional experience from ME2 and it's certainly not what I think the ME series should be a bout. And exactly, a hybrid should be that, a hybrid, a mix of two genres. Nothing in the definition excludes such games from having deep RPG elements and deep shooter elements, if to you an hybrid means having half assed elements of each game genre, 1 1/2 assed + 1 1/2 assed still = 1 1/2 assed, if both elements suck, the game isn't better for having two different game types or whatever, this excuses nothing. In other words, the shooting elements can't replace what the RPG elements lack, but if taking off elements of one of the genres out makes both the other genre better as the overall game, there's no problem, thing is Bioware removed or dumbed down RPG elements which didn't affect negatively the shooting experience. While I won't talk about how the shooting of ME2 isn't on par with other TPSs (like how each mission are designed the very same way and make players use the very same tactics time after time with no variation), but when one of the genre the hybrid is constituted of is much more weaker than the other, you start to wonder why they talk about an hybrid and not just a TPS with RPG elements, because that's what ME2 is, it's more of a shooter than an RPG while a hybrid should be a mix of strong elements of both genre. I don't want a traditional RPG experience, I want a deep RPG experience as Bioware marketed ME as an RPG/shooter hybrid and not a shooter with RPG elements. You always seem to see me talking about any sort of character progression as a traditional RPG element, but it's a core element. What you feel are the biggest RPG elements are those of western rpgs in particular, and even then they're weak (some of them being almost as weak as in ME1, ie. dialog system). What's the point of role playing when you can't see the consequences of you actually role playing? What's the point of role playing when you can't make real choices with drawbacks? I'm not saying ME2 doesn't let you see consequences and such, but they are minimal, thus they lack depth.

PS: I also disagree you estimate of persuation, because ME2 did not have persuation, it had moral reputation system.

So tell me why these blue or red choices featured such thing as pointing your gun in one's face or persuading someone to do something? And what the **** does a moral reputation system do with dialog choices? If anything it should make people react differently to any line of dialog, rather than your ability to say something. It makes even less sense if it was truly that. Plus, morals are subjective, every one has his own, there can't be a moral reputation system.

PS. Can someone tell me what is Renegade about telling TIM that you feel well?
PPS. Can someone tell me why can't I tell Jacob I trust him without Shepard telling him he works for the bad guys? I thought I was supposed to role play...

Metagaming
in roleplaying games is consider bad roleplaying. So, why you add
metagaming features and talk about improving roleplaying?

No such thing as metagaming features exists. It's like saying games have game features, it's just a way to do things. Metagaming exists in every game, according to wikipedia, metagaming could be using glitches and bugs. So what, bugs are a metagaming feature :innocent:. In ANY rpg you can do somthing which your character shouldn't know, it's inevitable. Like I can decide to keep my money and element zero in ME2 for something I know I will have later, but Shepard doesn't know this.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 07 décembre 2010 - 03:50 .

[Lumikki]

Why you think ME serie is ONLY hybrid as RPG vs shooter? How about adventure game?

Not sure what you ask about persuation stuff? Moral reputation means that you past choises in dialogs as what you do, has affect in future dialog possibilities. Meaning some npcs have heard you reputation and it affects how they react to you.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 décembre 2010 - 03:55 .

[The Spamming Troll]

Phaelducan wrote...

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).

i disagree. my problem with ME2s leveling is that theres not much difference between my level 10 shepard and my level 30. the only thing that changes with leveling up in ME2 is your weapons, and finding weapons in ME2 is already completely rediculous. in contrast, ME1s leveling system meant alot more to the character. a level 20 ME1 character is vastly differnet then a level 60 character. i also dont think ME2s classes offer variety as well. i dont think a heavy/wide choice means variety. im not saying that clases dont play differnetly, which they do, im saying my vangaurd and your vangaurd play the same and most likely are leveled up the same.

i dont really know where youve even heard these critisisms before.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...

Why you think ME serie is ONLY hyprid as RPG vs shooter? How about adventure game?

Because it was marketed as being a hybrid of both? And because the adventure elements aren't numerous and deep enough to be an important part of the game? Or that since the matter at hand is rpg elements, we should compare them to its counterpart?

Not sure what yoiu ask about persuation stuff. Moral reputation means
that you past choises in dialogs as what you do, has affect in future
dialog possibilities. Meaning some npcs have heard you reputation and it
affects how they react to you.

 So you can't say something? Because they think you haven't stayed true to a moral which isn't yours? Even then, your reputation should have no effect on what you're going to say. And so I can't point my gun to someone's face because of my reputation someone may not even know of (even then I don't see how Shepard's reputation can change over the course of the game, saving the galaxy is big enough for anything to be trivial about it. either what people should see you as either a good or a bad person, and not good enough to be able to tell me this) yet I can't punch someone without this "moral reputation system"? How does telling TIM I feel good or I trust Jacob change my reputation? Can't you see this makes no sense?

Also, I wanted to add about this "traditional RPG" thing. What is traditional about a game isn't about the core features, but how you make them. You never stop shooting in modern shooters, it's just that things are made a different way with minimal removal of features. Removing/dumbing down character progression isn't a minimal removal/dumbing down of features, it's removing/dumbing down THE core element, like removing shooting from shooters or driving from driving games. Take it out and it's an action/adventure game (in ME's case it would be a shooter/adventure game).

Oh, and if you haven't read my metagaming response that I added late.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 07 décembre 2010 - 04:05 .

[Googlesaurus]

Phaelducan wrote...

I haven't played Starcraft 2 yet, so can't comment there.

I'll give an example. 

In the 1.1.2 patch, Roach range was increased from 3 to 4. One part of the total patch that upped one unit's statistic by 1. 

This changed multiplayer in many ways:
- Early Roach aggression became a much more viable strategy in the early game, a cumulative effect of many other factors listed below. 
- The Protoss wall-in strat for PvZ took a big hit. Before, cannons could be positioned behind the gateway and hit roaches attempting to break through; afterwards, they couldn't. Etc., etc.
- Stalker vs Roach micro got a lot more evened out, especially on creep. Sentry/Stalker builds used to decimate Roaches with FFs. 
- It became easier to counter early Hellion rushes with Roaches. 

You get what I'm saying. Something that sounded relatively unimportant and simple ended up having so many effects on how to approach and implement strategies in-game because no part of the multiplayer was isolated from another. I would like the advancement system in ME3 to be somewhat similar (with a lot less ripples), with player choices allowing great changes in how to win a fight. 

Phaelducan wrote...

As to anyone claiming otherwise? Yes it has been inferred more than once that ME2 does not have valid RPG conventions, and when pressed those two are the referenced.

I've seen people complaining about ME2 refer to the inventory system as a glorified set of loadouts, but no serious arguments about gameplay balance using that as an argument. For all intents and purposes ME2 does have an inventory system, and the upgrade system shows obvious improvement in the effectiveness of weapons and powers. 

Phaelducan wrote...

As to ME2 being popular? I don't buy it. It isn't just the strength of the first game, and it isn't just erroneous reviews. People DO like the system, and enjoy the advancement.

One of the reasons ME2 sold so well is that players were expecting a quality game from hearsay and experience. It's part of a franchise, same as Halo and Call of Duty. 

Who said the reviews were erroneous? For all intents and purposes character advancement is simpler in ME2 by virtue of how powers upgrade and having less categories to manage.

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 07 décembre 2010 - 04:28 .

[Googlesaurus]

Lumikki wrote...

Are you saying that second game isn't equal popular?

No. 

Lumikki wrote...

Next is more general comment, not just for who I quoted.

There is different wanting something, because person likes something and deny that something what they don't like so much, can be equal popular. My point is that, I liked both ME games so far, they both have weakness and strong points, even if those are in different features. People here say that they likes both, but they talk and opinion doesn't go hand to hand what they say. There was problems in ME1 what got fixed in ME2, but ME2 also created it's own problems, what wasn't problem in ME1. So, you opinions here in forum just show how one sided you are with liking ME games. All you suggestion is make it more traditional, because in your opinons that is what RPG is. You may not say it as directly I say it here, but that is what you people really say all the time.

I like ME1, I thought it could be better. I like ME2, and once again I thought it could have been better. 

Lumikki wrote...

In truth, you don't accept ME2 as it is, you want traditional RPG, even how equal popular ME2 is, even as how it is now.

Never played them. 

Lumikki wrote...

Now the base idea of this suggestion was nice, as add something more, but how it was done isn't that good at all. Because you wanted major traditional style. Adding points to skills, what cause major metagaming features. Like example the persuation skill. That's not good skill at all, because it works agaist what dialogs is trying to do. Reduse the effects of consequences, as allowing bypass all negative consequences on dialog outcomes and give allways optimal result, exactly what metagaming is.

Which occurs in all games whether or not they are traditional RPGs. It's a vital component of multiplayer competition, and anyone who's played a game more than once or tries to play one game particularly well will metagame. It's certainly not this horrible thing you're pretending it to be. 

Lumikki wrote...

Metagaming in roleplaying games is consider bad roleplaying. So, why you add metagaming features and talk about improving roleplaying?

Wrong definition. Does ME2 look like it has a gamesmaster to you? 

Lumikki wrote...

If you add new "skills" then add something what makes class more different from eatch others. Not some general skills what everyone has to allways improve, because they provides advances. Variety as different is allways better than general advances.

Nobody has suggested implementing those in ME3. 

[Terror_K]

Re: Paragon and Renegade



The problem in ME2 with the self-feeding, reputation-based variant is you can't really truly play a character very well beyond being either full-on Paragon or full-on Renegade unless you max both sides and end up skewing your character's reputation in order to do it. You can't easily play the game as, for example, a pro-human Paragon or an understanding Renegade. You can't decide to create a character who is mostly Paragon, but may simply hate turians, or a Renegade who may hate slavery, etc. because when those options end up coming up they're often greyed out because they apparently clash with your current alignment. The game basically forces you to either pick one side or the other in order to succeed and punishes you if you don't. A key example is one my flatmate wondered: "why does my 100% bar-filled Paragon Shepard get an option to kill Samara, but my 80% Renegade one doesn't?"

[Johnsen1972]

Vena_86 wrote...

Christina Norman stated that deeper RPG elements are one of the goals for Mass Effect 3.
These are some rough sketches of how I think the usabilty of ME2 could be maintained while adding more depth and diversity (currently lacking on the long run).
You are welcome to post your elaborate opinion, but please don't do it based on wrong assumptions. The explanations to the pictures are there for a reason.

Character Screen with "Traits"


full version here: http://img192.images...raitsshepsm.jpg

Character Screen for Squad Mates


full version here: http://img843.images...raitsgrunts.jpg

Explanation:

Durability - Increases character health and health regeneration.

Agility - Increases sprint speed, the speed of cover interaction, ability use (not the cooldown), reloading and switching weapons speed. This all refers to the animations speed (not responsiveness), so that for instance high agility will make taking cover, leaving cover and jumping over cover faster.
Imagine beeing able strip down the shields of an enemy and almost instantly change to a pistol, to line up some headshots.
For squad mates it is the same, only that additionally the general movement speed during combat is increased.
It does not change control responsiveness, it only increases the speed at which the animations are performed! Not investing in the trait would not make Shepard slower than in ME2. I only intend a possible improvement and possibly faster more responsive gameplay for experienced shooter players who can handle it, without making it overpowered, or forcing it on all players.


Power Cooldown - guess what it does...

Persuasion - Determines how adept Shepard is at negotiating with or intimidating dialogue partners. Paragon and Renegade options will always be available at the same time to actually allow making choices, aka roleplaying. Who does not invest in the skill enough will have to stick with the standard dialogue options, giving them an actual purpose. Alternatively, Ecael has already made good suggestion for this matter: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/105/index/2656020

Accuracy (SQUAD MATES ONLY!!!) - Increases the chance of a squad member to hit an enemy with their ranged weapons. Becomes more important at greater distances, making it essential for snipers.
The actual damage of the weapons is increased through weapon upgrades/mods.
Now please pay attention, there is no stat that changes accuracy for the player (Shepard). I don't intend any change to that over ME2.

Choosing weapons and weapon balance


full version here: http://img18.imagesh...ect2weapons.jpg

Goals for weapons:
-fast, intuitive and easy way of comparing weapons without number crunching (could be added though)
-balanced weapons, meaning no weapon is clearly better than the other, but rather fills certain roles better than others

Note that accuracy is not skill based and only refers to the weapons. Weapons in ME2 already have differing accuracy (Locust SMG is much more accurate than the other SMGs). This, among other things, should be visible to the player without inspecting game files, forums or the Mass Effect wiki.

Also, please check out Ecael's inventory/mod/armor suggestions:
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/105/index/2917490
and Terror_K's weapon info screen:
img535.imageshack.us/img535/7189/me3idea.png

Thats awesome, very good suggestions! I fully support it!

Modifié par Johnsen1972, 07 décembre 2010 - 05:11 .

[lazuli]

Terror_K wrote...

Re: Paragon and Renegade

The problem in ME2 with the self-feeding, reputation-based variant is you can't really truly play a character very well beyond being either full-on Paragon or full-on Renegade unless you max both sides and end up skewing your character's reputation in order to do it. You can't easily play the game as, for example, a pro-human Paragon or an understanding Renegade. You can't decide to create a character who is mostly Paragon, but may simply hate turians, or a Renegade who may hate slavery, etc. because when those options end up coming up they're often greyed out because they apparently clash with your current alignment. The game basically forces you to either pick one side or the other in order to succeed and punishes you if you don't. A key example is one my flatmate wondered: "why does my 100% bar-filled Paragon Shepard get an option to kill Samara, but my 80% Renegade one doesn't?"

Agreed.  I'm glad Bioware tried something new, but given the choice, I think I'd take the old system of Charm vs. Intimidate over ME2's setup.  I'm not a huge supporter of non-combat skills, but I do believe we should either return to the older system or develop something new.  Either way, I'd like to see a change of some sort.

[Omega-202]

lazuli wrote...

Agreed.  I'm glad Bioware tried something new, but given the choice, I think I'd take the old system of Charm vs. Intimidate over ME2's setup.  I'm not a huge supporter of non-combat skills, but I do believe we should either return to the older system or develop something new.  Either way, I'd like to see a change of some sort.

Why is returning to the old system even an option?  

I dislike the rigidity of the ME2 system as much as the next guy, but I HATE the "handcuffing" that the ME1 system put on you for the first few playthroughs (before maxing out Charm and Intimidate through NG+).  

There has to be another way for them to do it and moving backwards should NOT be something to consider.

My suggestion: a second set of "non-combat" skills.  The points for these skills would not overlap with any combat related powers, abilities or traits.  Some suggestions:

- Persuasion (as has been previously suggested)
- Hacking (provides bonuses for hacking minigame)
- Mineral/Resource gathering (provides bonuses for scanning/mining/other)
- Research Discount (similar to the Engineer's class talent bonus, decreases resource cost)
- Barter (sell higher/buy lower, preferrably with a more flexible economy than 2, but more balanced than 1)

Would that help the situation?  Make it so you can max out 2-3 of these at most through a separate set of points earned similarly to Squad Points.  

[Terror_K]

My idea for bringing back decryption and hacking as a compromise... just for reference:-

I wrote...
Anyway, the basic idea is, you still no longer need the skills of Decryption or Hacking in order to decrypt or hack something so you don't need a tech-based class with you everywhere. However, rather than needing them, how about the following:-

* We make the games a little more challenging and time-dependent than they were in ME2, but not too much so.
* We bring back various levels of difficulty for Decryption and Hacking: Easy, Medium and Hard.
* Any class can decrypt or hack, but the difficulty of the block determines how many things you have to get and the time you're given. For example, with Easy Hacks you have to find 3 pieces of code in a fairly long length of time, while Medium is 4 pieces with slightly less time and Hard is 5 pieces with slightly less again. Decryption would be connecting 4 nodes for Easy, Medium 7 nodes and Hard 10 nodes, etc.
* Tech classes get the options of getting the skills Decryption and Hacking, which...
* In the first tier give you more time to complete a decryption/hack attempt.
* In the second tier give you automatic access to any Easy level decryptions/hacks (i.e. you don't need to play the mini-game at all) and all Mediums become Easy and Hards become Medium.
* In the third tier give you automatic Medium Level decryptions/hacks and High Levels become Easy.
* In the forth tier either gives you automatic access to any Hard Level decryptions/hacks (thus never needing to play the mini-games again) or a time increase and bonus to enemy hacking or increased credit gain.

Modifié par Terror_K, 07 décembre 2010 - 05:59 .

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Re: Paragon and Renegade

The problem in ME2 with the self-feeding, reputation-based variant is you can't really truly play a character very well beyond being either full-on Paragon or full-on Renegade unless you max both sides and end up skewing your character's reputation in order to do it. You can't easily play the game as, for example, a pro-human Paragon or an understanding Renegade. You can't decide to create a character who is mostly Paragon, but may simply hate turians, or a Renegade who may hate slavery, etc. because when those options end up coming up they're often greyed out because they apparently clash with your current alignment. The game basically forces you to either pick one side or the other in order to succeed and punishes you if you don't. A key example is one my flatmate wondered: "why does my 100% bar-filled Paragon Shepard get an option to kill Samara, but my 80% Renegade one doesn't?"

Game doesn't force you, that's what metagamer does, trying to optimize the result as using game system knowledge to they own advance. Meaning REAL roleplayer would not care about paragon/renegade reputation system, just play the role of character regardless of the outcome. Yeah, not everyting worked well in it, but it's alot better than persuation skill was or is.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 décembre 2010 - 06:01 .

[Lumikki]

Omega-202 wrote...

- Persuasion (as has been previously suggested)

Not good skill, because it act agaist the dialog system, not support it.
 

- Hacking (provides bonuses for hacking minigame)

I ques it could be, but for some reason developers made this to player skill and not as character skill.

- Mineral/Resource gathering (provides bonuses for scanning/mining/other)

Doesn't make sense as it happens from Normandy and is related technology, not some player character skill.

- Research Discount (similar to the Engineer's class talent bonus, decreases resource cost)

Player doesn't even do the research, Scince officer on Normandy does it.

- Barter (sell higher/buy lower, preferrably with a more flexible economy than 2, but more balanced than 1)

Maybe, but there is no selling possibility at all, just buying in current system.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 décembre 2010 - 06:16 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Game doesn't force you, that's what metagamer does, trying to optimize the result as using game system knowledge to they own advance. Meaning REAL roleplayer would not care about paragon/renegade reputation system, just play the role of character regardless of the outcome. Yeah, not everyting worked well in it, but it's alot better than persuation skill was or is.

It has nothing to do with metagaming at all. As a real roleplayer I actually want to roleplay my character and have a few shades of grey here and there and characters who are designed in a particular way with particular opinions on things. The problem is that with the ME2 system you're either cut off from these options because you don't have enough of a meter to do them, or you have to purposefully raise it by either doing repetitive New Game+ playthroughs or by making decisions that don't suit the character at all to get you to a level where you can make the choices. It's not about trying to optimise things to get the best result, it's about being able to make the decisions your planned character would make and not being able to because of a stupid restrictive meter. The whole thing self-feeding is a mess, and it it really is supposed to represent your reputation, then it should reflect that a little more, and then you also have the issue of your character having a bad rep for only a few minor things simply because you want to have the options that suit your character's personality available to you.

[Omega-202]

Terror_K wrote...

My idea for bringing back decryption and hacking as a compromise... just for reference:-

Why would it be limited to Tech classes?  What do the other three classes get in return?  Why not just make it a generic "non-combat" skill like I suggested?  

You're suggestion is overly complicated, convoluted and doesn't seem completely thought through.  

[Lumikki]

@ Terro_K

If you complain ME roleplaying possibilities, then complain dialog system, because paragon/renegade system has nothing to do with roleplaying. Meaning moral reputation system doesn't limit any action, it just counts your pass actions and give addional possibilities if you actions has sertain moral base affect.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 décembre 2010 - 06:19 .

[Omega-202]

Lumikki wrote...

Not good skill, because it act agaist the dialog system, not support it.

So then split it back up to Charm and Intimidate instead.  Then you can max both out and choose whatever choice you'd like.  

 I ques it could, be but for some reason developers made this to player skill and not as character skill.

It would still be a player skill.  The skill investment would only give a BONUS to hacking, just like the Hack Module you could purchase in ME2.  

Doesn't make sense as it happens from Normandy and is related technology, not some player character skill.

And Geth Shield Boost is a skill and not a piece of useable technology?  How about Tech Armor?  Or any of the Ammo Powers?  They're all pieces of technology outside of Shepard's personal being.  Yet they're things we have to invest points in.

Player doesn't even do the research, Scince officer on Normandy does it.

Then please explain the Engineer's class passive power.  If you didn't know, in ME2, the Engineer gets a discount to research by investing in their passive.  I specifically stated it above.

Maybe, but there is no selling possibility at all, just buying in current system.

Which is why I said "IF" there is a new, more balanced system.

I don't know what was worse, the horrid grammar, the lack of some basic game knowledge or the fact that you obviously didn't even bother thinking about anything that was suggested.  

[Terror_K]

Omega-202 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

My idea for bringing back decryption and hacking as a compromise... just for reference:-

Why would it be limited to Tech classes?  What do the other three classes get in return?  Why not just make it a generic "non-combat" skill like I suggested?  

You're suggestion is overly complicated, convoluted and doesn't seem completely thought through.  

I fail to see how, especially considering it's a compromise to allow non-tech based classes to do it anyway.

The whole point --I feel-- to bringing back the skill is to once more define it as a tech-class based one and once more allow it to be part of them and help define them. Giving the skill to every class completely defeats that point and would be like giving lockpicking and trap-disarming skills to a Fighter or Mage as well as a Rogue. Decryption and hacking are tech-based skills, and should thus be only available to tech-based classes. You don't give passive biotic abilities to non-biotic classes after all. Give the skill to every class and you suddenly stop defining the classes properly.

Whenever it was suggested that it come back often others would complain that they didn't want to be stuck with needing a tech-based class Shepard or tech-based companion with them everywhere to unlock things. I personally think that's the price you should pay, but decided to come up with the above compromise. The way I have it there is designed so that for non-tech classes who don't take a companion with them with the ability the process is exactly the same as it is in ME2 right now: you simply go up to something and play a min-game to access it. For those who have the skill, it just reduces the need to play mini-games at all as you progress the skill.

Considering it's actually overall a case of streamlining from somebody who is almost always against the way things were "streamlined" in ME2, I'd have thought those who supported it may have at least appreciated the suggestion.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

@ Terro_K

If you complain ME roleplaying possibilities, then complain dialog system, because paragon/renegade system has nothing to do with roleplaying. Meaning moral reputation system doesn't limit any action, it just counts your pass actions and give addional possibilities if you actions has sertain moral base affect.

What the hell are you talking about? Of course it limits roleplaying. I just gave several examples of how that's the case. Options are cut off unless you have a certain degree of reputation one way and/or the other. The entire dialogue roleplaying system of both Mass Effect games hinges more on the Charm and Indimidate choices than it does anything else, since those are how most of the crucial decisions are made. The way Mass Effect 2 is it's basically saying that I'm not allowed to kill a person who screwed me over in a dialogue choice because I haven't murdered 20 innocent babies in the past.

Sometimes I just think you contradict me for the sake of it, Lumikki, rather than actually properly reading what's been said and actually looking at the way ME2 does things objectively.

[Lumikki]

[quote]Omega-202 wrote...

[quote]Lumikki wrote...

Not good skill, because it act agaist the dialog system, not support it.
[/quote]

So then split it back up to Charm and Intimidate instead.  Then you can max both out and choose whatever choice you'd like.  [/quote]

No, you should not have any skill what counter affect what you choose in dialogs. Because choises leads on consequences of actions. Any skill that make consequences less part of the game isn't good one.


[quote][quote] I ques it could, be but for some reason developers made this to player skill and not as character skill.
[/quote]
It would still be a player skill.  The skill investment would only give a BONUS to hacking, just like the Hack Module you could purchase in ME2.  [/quote]
I don't mean that it should be player skill, I think this should be better as combinated skill. I mean, other ways it's like can player do the minigame or not, but if character also affect it, then it would be more character related. We allready have TPS combat as player skill, we don't really need make all skills as player one.

[quote]
[quote]Doesn't make sense as it happens from Normandy and is related technology, not some player character skill.[/quote]

And Geth Shield Boost is a skill and not a piece of useable technology?  How about Tech Armor?  Or any of the Ammo Powers?  They're all pieces of technology outside of Shepard's personal being.  Yet they're things we have to invest points in.[/quote]
Not sure what you mean. You mean stuff what doesn't make sense? Look down..

[quote][quote]Player doesn't even do the research, Scince officer on Normandy does it.
[/quote]

Then please explain the Engineer's class passive power.  If you didn't know, in ME2, the Engineer gets a discount to research by investing in their passive.  I specifically stated it above.[/quote]
Explain why? If you think it doesn't make sense, then it's bad skill. Meaning if you feel some passive skill doesn't make sense, then don't support it. Dont use bad stuff as support of more bad stuff.

[quote][quote]Maybe, but there is no selling possibility at all, just buying in current system.
[/quote]

Which is why I said "IF" there is a new, more balanced system.[/quote]
So, you want change system to support something, while the system where it will change will be even bigger problem?

[quote]I don't know what was worse, the horrid grammar, the lack of some basic game knowledge or the fact that you obviously didn't even bother thinking about anything that was suggested.  [/quote]
Just because I don't support something and disagree, does't mean my ability write or read english language should be insulted. Or, because you assume that I don't understand what you mean. Maybe I don't, then explain better not insult, but don't assume that I did not understand or thinked, maybe I just don't agree with you opinion.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 décembre 2010 - 06:47 .

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

@ Terro_K

If you complain ME roleplaying possibilities, then complain dialog system, because paragon/renegade system has nothing to do with roleplaying. Meaning moral reputation system doesn't limit any action, it just counts your pass actions and give addional possibilities if you actions has sertain moral base affect.

What the hell are you talking about? Of course it limits roleplaying. I just gave several examples of how that's the case. Options are cut off unless you have a certain degree of reputation one way and/or the other. The entire dialogue roleplaying system of both Mass Effect games hinges more on the Charm and Indimidate choices than it does anything else, since those are how most of the crucial decisions are made. The way Mass Effect 2 is it's basically saying that I'm not allowed to kill a person who screwed me over in a dialogue choice because I haven't murdered 20 innocent babies in the past.

Sometimes I just think you contradict me for the sake of it, Lumikki, rather than actually properly reading what's been said and actually looking at the way ME2 does things objectively.

Metagamers looks rewards what they can get while roleplaying and think if they don't get rewards by playing role they like, then they think it cuts of they roleplaying. In reality the metagamers often change they role temporary because rewards. REAL roleplayer doesn't care rewards, they just play role what they have choosen no matter what. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand what roleplaying REALLY is. Meaning stay allways on role, don't break it because outside stuff.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 décembre 2010 - 06:49 .

[lazuli]

Omega-202 wrote...

Why is returning to the old system even an option?  

I dislike the rigidity of the ME2 system as much as the next guy, but I HATE the "handcuffing" that the ME1 system put on you for the first few playthroughs (before maxing out Charm and Intimidate through NG+).  

There has to be another way for them to do it and moving backwards should NOT be something to consider.

My suggestion: a second set of "non-combat" skills.  The points for these skills would not overlap with any combat related powers, abilities or traits.  Some suggestions:

- Persuasion (as has been previously suggested)
- Hacking (provides bonuses for hacking minigame)
- Mineral/Resource gathering (provides bonuses for scanning/mining/other)
- Research Discount (similar to the Engineer's class talent bonus, decreases resource cost)
- Barter (sell higher/buy lower, preferrably with a more flexible economy than 2, but more balanced than 1)

Would that help the situation?  Make it so you can max out 2-3 of these at most through a separate set of points earned similarly to Squad Points.  

Those strike me as interesting and attractive alternatives.  I especially like how points for non-combat skills would be separate from points for combat skills.  To draw a parallel in another company's work, Blizzard seems to be heading in this direction with Diablo 3.  By their reasoning, players should not have to choose between an exciting new active skill and boring numbers that might actually be more effective.

I guess part of the reason I favor ME1's system over ME2's is that ME1 does not punish you for repeated playthroughs, while ME2 does.