411 réponses à ce sujet

[Jebel Krong]

Gleym wrote...

You keep saying 'blending genres', but every time you talk about the things that would make Mass Effect a true blend like stats distribution, you want to get rid of it. Pretty much, you hate RPG mechanics because you hate the idea of actually having to put some thought into building your character. You might feel that being able to do EVERYTHING at the press of a single button is fun, but I happen to find it horrendously boring to be able to achieve everything. No matter how you choose to spin it, removing things like stats and skill focuses does NOT improve the diversity and creativity of a game: it stifles it.

not at all - i have played many rpgs, the thing is: there is no rule that says "i must conform to every stereotype in the book" or "ream through thousands of menus evertime there is a decision/combat or i acquire a new item" - such things can be handled discreetly, behind the scenes without the player having to worry about it, leaving them to actually enjoy playing the game. in real life it wouldnt be so easy if you had to bring up a menu screen to take a ******, would it? combat in mass effect 2 still relies on the rpg rock-paper-scissors mechanics of the first game, though it's integrated so that you don't have to worry about it - it feels like a proper shooter, and it is, but it's also more than that. that's the thing that should be applied to all areas - depth but incorporated invisibly - if you notice it then it hasn't worked. that's got nothing to do with choices or consequences, or the plot, story or whatever, it's all mechanics.

eviljohnny - you missed my point entirely - all games empower the player - it's their hook, to think otherwise is naive in the extreme, but anyway: my point was you want to give the player as many options as possible, not restrict them with arbitrary limits and confinement to certain genre must-have check-boxes.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 03 décembre 2010 - 09:32 .

[Aumata]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

i don't want to be hobbled on dialogue just because i prefer are more combat-oriented class, thanks. i also don't want to have to take certain party member just to accomplish certain menial tasks a la me1. that's regression, not progression.

I think the complete opposite: taking that away is regression and not progression. It's dumbing down, oversimplifying to make to game over-accessible and trivial and defeats the whole purpose of building a character and having classes at all, since all it reduces them to is "how canz I killz things differently from other classez?" and that's about it. It's attitudes like that these days that are the reason RPGs are getting so watered down and simplified to the point of becoming so shallow and tedious and lacking in proper mechanics that you may as well do away with the RPG stuff entirely and just have a story-driven action game.

The thing is, a good RPG should generally provide alternatives or certainly not make things that require certain builds and are crucial. For example, a character who can't pass a persuade attempt on a guard should simply be able to shoot their way through or if they have more tech-based skills go around back and unlock a door to get to their objective. As long as there are alternate ways to get what you need and solve a problem I don't see the issue. If anything, this encourages roleplaying and gives more options. As it stands Shepard is a Gary Stu/Mary Sue who is perfect at everything without weakness, which from both a story and RPG gameplay perspective is frankly a little much.

Also, note that I suggested a method recently to bring back hacking and decryption in a manner that benefits tech classes more while not actually shutting out non-tech based ones, by simply having it so that classes that have the skills can simply make things easier for the player to the point of eliminating the mini-games entirely if the player so chooses. It involves more streamlining in a way, but also brings back the two skills in a more meaningful way, so I'd like to think that it provides both depth and more ease of use to the player. I'm not 100% happy with the idea, since I feel it partially simplifies the game further in a way, but I feel it's a fair compromise.

I'm in agreement with you on that notion.  Just because I have a combat team, doesn't mean that I should be limited, it should means that I have to take another route.  If it came out wrong, what I meant was that each built team should offer a unique route that the another built team can't.  So if you use a straight up combat team,  a option should appear that a tech team or a biotic team won't access but they to get a route the other won't get.

In terms of hacking and decryption, I agree to that way tech makes it simple for those who has points invested in it, and those who doesn't gets the mini games.

[Gleym]

Jebel Krong wrote...

not at all - i have played many rpgs, the thing is: there is no rule that says "i must conform to every stereotype in the book" or "ream through thousands of menus evertime there is a decision/combat or i acquire a new item" - such things can be handled discreetly, behind the scenes without the player having to worry about it, leaving them to actually enjoy playing the game. in real life it wouldnt be so easy if you had to bring up a menu screen to take a ******, would it? combat in mass effect 2 still relies on the rpg rock-paper-scissors mechanics of the first game, though it's integrated so that you don't have to worry about it - it feels like a proper shooter, and it is, but it's also more than that. that's the thing that should be applied to all areas - depth but incorporated invisibly - if you notice it then it hasn't worked. that's got nothing to do with choices or consequences, or the plot, story or whatever, it's all mechanics.

Well, considering that you don't go through 'thousands of menus everytime there's a decision or combat', nor do you have a menu screen when you go to the bathroom, I fail to see the issue you have with RPGs. Especially considering the fact that you bring up real life as if that's meant to be some kind of comparison. Protip: In real life, you have to make tough decisions about what to focus on too. People can work on their intellectual skills, or their 'I shoot you in the face' skills in real life and have to decide which they would rather dedicate themselves to, and which suits them better. There's no magical solution of 'I can do EVERYTHING! Cause it's SO simple!' there, so your point is moot.

[Epic777]

One thing I will mention this, some of the thing we that for guranteed in RPGs get undone with the ME series. Shepard is a soldier an elite soldier. Therefore he or she must be profient with weapons from the start of the game for example.

[Lumikki]

I say no for OP character Traits. They don't make cinematic game like ME better, just turn focus of the game from impression to numbers on calc sheets. I really hate when people try to make ME like some generic traditional RPG. I don't mind to have some skills, but idiotic skills like persuation, what was 100% guarantee bypass all negative results, should not exists.

[Jebel Krong]

Gleym wrote...

Well, considering that you don't go through 'thousands of menus everytime there's a decision or combat', nor do you have a menu screen when you go to the bathroom, I fail to see the issue you have with RPGs. Especially considering the fact that you bring up real life as if that's meant to be some kind of comparison. Protip: In real life, you have to make tough decisions about what to focus on too. People can work on their intellectual skills, or their 'I shoot you in the face' skills in real life and have to decide which they would rather dedicate themselves to, and which suits them better. There's no magical solution of 'I can do EVERYTHING! Cause it's SO simple!' there, so your point is moot.

way to miss the point... protip: in the games you have to make tough decisions, too and you can't do EVERYTHING, only as a highly trained soldier, in the future, you can do a lot more than the average.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Jebel Krong wrote...

not at all - i have played many rpgs,
the thing is: there is no rule that says "i must conform to every
stereotype in the book" or "ream through thousands of menus evertime
there is a decision/combat or i acquire a new item" - such things can be
handled discreetly, behind the scenes without the player having to
worry about it, leaving them to actually enjoy playing the game. in real
life it wouldnt be so easy if you had to bring up a menu screen to take
a ******, would it?

So what are you advocating? Less player control?
Nevermind all those exaggerations, because they're pretty useless;
you're advocating less player control as a solution to menus and
customization? 

combat in mass
effect 2 still relies on the rpg rock-paper-scissors mechanics of the
first game, though it's integrated so that you don't have to worry about
it - it feels like a proper shooter, and it is, but it's also more than
that.

ME1 didn't have a rock-paper-scissors mechanic.
And I really don't understand what you mean by "you don't have to worry
about it," since it is a major factor in how you strategize.

that's the thing that should be applied to all areas - depth
but incorporated invisibly - if you notice it then it hasn't worked.
that's got nothing to do with choices or consequences, or the plot,
story or whatever, it's all mechanics.

You need to reword
this. None of the depth in ME2 was "invisible" or unnoticeable, and the
rock-paper-scissors mechanic was definitely noticeable.

eviljohnny - you missed my point entirely - all
games empower the player - it's their hook, to think otherwise is naive
in the extreme, but anyway: my point was you want to give the player as
many options as possible, not restrict them with arbitrary limits and
confinement to certain genre must-have check-boxes.

What
about restricting vanguards from using ARs or SRs?

The thing is that
you're missing the point of limiting the player in this way; it promotes
forethought and planning, on a higher level than simply choosing which
combat talents you want to have. You have to make the choice between
being more diplomatic, and being more powerful. Not only that, but it also makes intimidate/charm abilities dependent on EXPERIENCE, and not on your alignment, which is less frustrating and less limiting for the player, because they can then naturally choose which dialog option they want instead of being prodded in one direction or the other.

In this way, the actual mechanic is more subtle (which is what you apparently want), but it backfires when the player has to make a choice between choosing the dialog they want, and choosing dialog for the purpose of boosting their intimidate/charm skills. So the mechanic really isn't that subtle, and it has the potential to create frustration, so it's bad.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Jebel Krong wrote...

eviljohnny - you missed my point entirely - all games empower the player - it's their hook, to think otherwise is naive in the extreme, but anyway: my point was you want to give the player as many options as possible, not restrict them with arbitrary limits and confinement to certain genre must-have check-boxes.

I thought your definition of empowering the player is giving him top abilities for every skills... That's on what my whole argumentation was based on in case you failed to see, and it's obviously not all rpgs which are doing this. I'll take my Oblivion (since it's the latest TES game, but they're all like this, hell they're more comples the older they are) comparison again and let me write you all the skills in the game, skills which can be very low and not make you level up, each race also have their advantages which can be exclusive, the horror!

Armorer, Atheltics, Block, Blunt, Blade, Hand to Hand, Heavy Armor, Alchemy, Alteration, Conjuration, Destruction, Illusion, Mysticism, Restoration, Acrobatics, Light Armor, Marksman, Mercantile, Security, Sneak, Speechcraft.

That's quite some, even more than a couple of them can give you huge advantages. If you're very good at mercantile, you can get a steady income, good at acrobatics and all the weapon types? New combat moves. Restoration = healing you very easily, armorer = not having to always pay for repairing your stuff, etc. And hey, you are at a disadvantage if you want to do thieves guild quest when you're an Orc barbarian... that's unfair no? Like Shepard not being able to use some dialogue options because you don't want to be less good in combat. If you're not good at security you can't (or difficultly) open some locks, as for sneak you can't steal some quest items without much trouble, isn't that not empowering the player?

Empowering the player is giving him the choice to be the character he wants to be and play accordingly to his skillset, that is an empowered player. If you don't want to deal with such choices because it dumbs down your experience on several points, I reinstate my point, you should stop playing rpgs. And frankly, which rpgs have you played (and liked) to talk like that?

And in case you didn't know, a STRONG backbone of RPGs is you making up your stats, it's as important as a good shooters needing ranged weapons for example. And in case you didn't know, RPGs started with the whole D&D thing which relies heavily on stats. An RPG without an important stats making device is not an RPG.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Gleym wrote...

Well, considering that you don't go through 'thousands of menus everytime there's a decision or combat', nor do you have a menu screen when you go to the bathroom, I fail to see the issue you have with RPGs. Especially considering the fact that you bring up real life as if that's meant to be some kind of comparison. Protip: In real life, you have to make tough decisions about what to focus on too. People can work on their intellectual skills, or their 'I shoot you in the face' skills in real life and have to decide which they would rather dedicate themselves to, and which suits them better. There's no magical solution of 'I can do EVERYTHING! Cause it's SO simple!' there, so your point is moot.

way to miss the point... protip: in the games you have to make tough decisions, too and you can't do EVERYTHING, only as a highly trained soldier, in the future, you can do a lot more than the average.

You know specialization? Have you ever heard about dudes talking about the army? How there's demolition dudes, snipers, supports, etc... It takes a lot of time to perfect one specialization, and future or not it doesn't change things. Plus, more highly trained only means you're better at what you're usually doing. Someone doing only one thing and the other doing a bit of everything, I assure you the first dude is the best at what he does. Plus Shepard isn't a diplomat, as seen from ME1, he's just someone who fared well enough to be chosen for a very important mission and ended up saving the galaxy, this means Shepard is not necessarily good at rhetorics and if you want him to be so you have to drop a bit on other things.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Gleym wrote...

Well, considering that you don't go through 'thousands of menus everytime there's a decision or combat', nor do you have a menu screen when you go to the bathroom, I fail to see the issue you have with RPGs. Especially considering the fact that you bring up real life as if that's meant to be some kind of comparison. Protip: In real life, you have to make tough decisions about what to focus on too. People can work on their intellectual skills, or their 'I shoot you in the face' skills in real life and have to decide which they would rather dedicate themselves to, and which suits them better. There's no magical solution of 'I can do EVERYTHING! Cause it's SO simple!' there, so your point is moot.

way to miss the point... protip: in the games you have to make tough decisions, too and you can't do EVERYTHING, only as a highly trained soldier, in the future, you can do a lot more than the average.

You know specialization? Have you ever heard about dudes talking about the army? How there's demolition dudes, snipers, supports, etc... It takes a lot of time to perfect one specialization, and future or not it doesn't change things. Plus, more highly trained only means you're better at what you're usually doing. Someone doing only one thing and the other doing a bit of everything, I assure you the first dude is the best at what he does. Plus Shepard isn't a diplomat, as seen from ME1, he's just someone who fared well enough to be chosen for a very important mission and ended up saving the galaxy, this means Shepard is not necessarily good at rhetorics and if you want him to be so you have to drop a bit on other things. Anyway, every character you encounter has a specialization.

[DaPinkMenace]

OP, you are amazing for these shops. I really hope Christina Norman follows up on her promise because ME2 felt like Bioware was really starting to lose their roots in their RPG's catering a little too much to shooter fans. 8-9 allocations of skill points would satisfy me, with a section of passives and a section for powers. I never thought of how you did the weapon system, very creative to give the player the ability to balance weapons, but personally I think having more weapons and armor would work too. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Bioware listen to OP and get us some more RPG elements back into the Mass Effect series!

[NvVanity]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Gleym wrote...

Well, considering that you don't go through 'thousands of menus everytime there's a decision or combat', nor do you have a menu screen when you go to the bathroom, I fail to see the issue you have with RPGs. Especially considering the fact that you bring up real life as if that's meant to be some kind of comparison. Protip: In real life, you have to make tough decisions about what to focus on too. People can work on their intellectual skills, or their 'I shoot you in the face' skills in real life and have to decide which they would rather dedicate themselves to, and which suits them better. There's no magical solution of 'I can do EVERYTHING! Cause it's SO simple!' there, so your point is moot.

way to miss the point... protip: in the games you have to make tough decisions, too and you can't do EVERYTHING, only as a highly trained soldier, in the future, you can do a lot more than the average.

That's not exactly a good justification for your argument.

[Blacklash93]

I hope skill points are spent one at a time again for ME3. I don't get why they changed it.

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

not at all - i have played many rpgs, the thing is: there is no rule that says "i must conform to every stereotype in the book" or "ream through thousands of menus evertime there is a decision/combat or i acquire a new item" - such things can be handled discreetly, behind the scenes without the player having to worry about it, leaving them to actually enjoy playing the game.

But this is ME2's curse, not it's blessing. Some of us who play RPGs enjoy them for their mechanics and actually being able to choose, customise and being limited so you can choose to play in various different ways each time with different approaches and builds. ME1 at least had this to a degree which is why I created a dozen or so characters in it. With ME2 I've imported two and feel there's no real need to import any more since they're really not different enough from each other any more since everything is only about combat and too many aspects are simply on auto-play.

There's a difference between making RPG mechanics more simple and user-friendly by streamlining them and simply scrapping them for the simplest solution possible by completely neutering the mechanics and cutting down the options. ME2 did the latter, not the former, and as such the game feels shallow and too automated. I'm sure that's fine for players like you who don't want the mechanics in the way (or there at all) but it's not okay for those of us who actually enjoy said mechanics as a major part of playing RPGs. BioWare are aiming the game more at the type of audience who only plays a game through a couple of times and then trades it in for the next big hit and forgets about it rather than the audience who live and love the game for years to come, and it shows not just in it's presentation but in it's style. ME2 has less shelf life because there really isn't any more than a small handful of ways to really play it now.

To use an analogy I used before: if I like driving a car because I like to feel I'm in control and like to go where I want, how I want, on the route I want, at the speed I want, listening to my own music, then I'm not going to really enjoy it when my car is scrapped and I'm forced to get into a taxi cab every day for the next year and take the same route in the same manner with no real control by somebody else. That's what Mass Effect 2 feels like with it's watered-down, oversimplified and on-autopilot mechanics. I want BioWare to make Mass Effect 3 a car I can drive again.

Modifié par Terror_K, 04 décembre 2010 - 05:58 .

[wizardryforever]

Blacklash93 wrote...

I hope skill points are spent one at a time again for ME3. I don't get why they changed it.

They changed it so that it actually becomes harder to max out skills.  You can't just pour all of your points into one skill and max it out as easily as you could before.  There was really no drawback to doing that in ME1, whereas in ME2, you start to hurt for skill points if you do that too early.  It also seems more realistic, since it is really more difficult to master something than to just become competent at it.  I actually like it better this way.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

not at all - i have played many rpgs, the thing is: there is no rule that says "i must conform to every stereotype in the book" or "ream through thousands of menus evertime there is a decision/combat or i acquire a new item" - such things can be handled discreetly, behind the scenes without the player having to worry about it, leaving them to actually enjoy playing the game.

But this is ME2's curse, not it's blessing. Some of us who play RPGs enjoy them for their mechanics and actually being able to choose, customise and being limited so you can choose to play in various different ways each time with different approaches and builds.

I may like to playing RPG's the way you do, as I'm RPG fan too, but I don't think ME serie is that kind of game. So, I'm fine if ME doesn't have huge amount of character stats or skills. I may like customazing too in ME, but I don't like when this kind of cinematic gameplay get destroyed by micro-managements with items and character design variables like in some calc sheet. Mostly because this change focus of game to be more like find best optimized character design and gears, not about just enjoy cinematic story gameplay. Meaning more options is not allways better. I know exactly what you talk, but I disagree with your opinion.  Not in general ways, but in this game I do. I never did choose ME because it's ability adjust character stats. I did choose it, because it's wonderful cinematic story gameplay.

So I suggest more impression detail RPG, than number based choise RPG. Our real choises should be story related, not character development related. ME's story isn't even about character development, like some more standard RPG's have. Please don't force every damm RPG in to same mold, when even story and gameplay style doesn't support it.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 décembre 2010 - 08:04 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Vena_86 wrote...

Character Screen with "Traits"


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

Character Screen for Squad Mates




Choosing weapons and weapon balance

These are awesome.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

I may like to playing RPG's the way you do, as I'm RPG fan too, but I don't think ME serie is that kind of game. So, I'm fine if ME doesn't have huge amount of character stats or skills. I may like customazing too in ME, but I don't like when this kind of cinematic gameplay get destroyed by micro-managements with items and character design variables like in some calc sheet. Mostly because this change focus of game to be more like find best optimized character design and gears, not about just enjoy cinematic story gameplay. Meaning more options is not allways better. I know exactly what you talk, but I disagree with your opinion.  Not in general ways, but in this game I do. I never did choose ME because it's ability adjust character stats. I did choose it, because it's wonderful cinematic story gameplay.

So I suggest more impression detail RPG, than number based choise RPG. Our real choises should be story related, not character development related. ME's story isn't even about character development, like some more standard RPG's have. Please don't force every damm RPG in to same mold, when even story and gameplay style doesn't support it.

The thing is, if you're going to do it at all, you have to do it right. ME2 still (kind of) tries to be an RPG, but it doesn't do it right. If you're going to make a game that is basically a story-driven shooter that's not really an RPG when it comes to mechanics, then fine, but that's not what Mass Effect is trying to be, even with ME2 which is just a stone's throw away from becoming that. If you're going to have leveling-up, classes and skills, etc. then you need to at least do it right if you're going to do it at all. Simple as that.

The thing is, in a sense I feel the same way as you, but simply from the opposite side: while you don't think the ME series is "that type of game" when it comes to being a hardcore RPG (which I kind of --but not fully--- agree with you on), nor do I think the ME series should be "that type of game" when it comes to being as much of a shooter/action game as it did with ME2. As far as I'm concerned, the early ME1 stuff and how ME1 was marketed and shown and how it turned out says to be that it's still supposed to be more RPG than it is shooter, and that it should still retain many of those RPG elements.

Almost everything in ME1 fit the style the game was going for, but was just executed poorly and presented in a clumsy and overcomplicated manner. ME2 decided to simply cull half of it and put most of what was left on auto-play, and it just made the mechanics completely shallow and unsatisfying.

The thing is, many will spout out the excuse "but it's supposed to be a hybrid, not a full-on RPG" but seem to think that somehow excuses the RPG elements completely taking the backseat in favour of shooter ones. ME1's combat was broken... fine, that's okay. Fix that aspect by making it closer to a TPS, since that makes sense. But that doesn't excuse the other elements having to be so drastically changed and culled as well.

And the thing is, there are plenty of action-oriented games out there with satisfying mechanics that add depth and complexity and customisation that aren't RPGs. Crysis and Hitman: Blood Money are both examples of games that aren't RPGs but actually do a better job with customisation and depth with their weapons systems than ME2 does.

[Nokterne]

I love the animation speed modifier idea. Cover based shooters are way to slow, I would definitely be boosting that stat in almost every playthrough.

[MisterDyslexo]

I have a feeling that if whatever it is being announced at the VGA does turn out to be a mass effect multiplayer game, it could have a lot of this built into it. I mean traits for each class/loadout, and rather than have them all maxed out, have to allocate a certain amount among them. Then weapons would just be what you'd expect from something like this.

Also, two irrelevant things:

1. I want to see what Garrus' traits are. I see him in your party
2. "Deeper"

Edit: Its 3:24 where I am. Excuse my idiocy, I should go to sleep

Modifié par MisterDyslexo, 04 décembre 2010 - 08:24 .

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

And the thing is, there are plenty of action-oriented games out there with satisfying mechanics that add depth and complexity and customisation that aren't RPGs. Crysis and Hitman: Blood Money are both examples of games that aren't RPGs but actually do a better job with customisation and depth with their weapons systems than ME2 does.

I'm not gonna quote all, because it's not needed. I just say this, what you want is not what I want from ME serie. You want ME series to be more traditional direction of RPG, while I'm fine more cinematic impression based RPG. Meaning, I don't need heavy character development to make my game RPG, I'm fine with cinematic imression style. Heavy character development just doesn't make ME serie better. More customation isn't same as character development.

Also Crysis is FPS, I can't play FPS games, because motion sickness. Hitman is interesting, but how many cinematic TPS RPG's there really is? I would not say plenty.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 décembre 2010 - 09:53 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

I'm not gonna quote all, because it's not needed. I just say this, what you want is not what I want from ME serie. You want ME series to be more traditional direction of RPG, while I'm fine more cinematic impresion based RPG. Meaning, I don't need heavy character development to make my game RPG, it's fien with cinematic style.

Also Crysis is FPS, I can't play FPS games, because motion sickness. Hitman is interesting, but how many cinematic TPS RPG's there really is? I would not say plenty.

No, I don't want Mass Effect to be a more traditional RPG, and also want it as basically a piece of interactive cinema more than anything else. But I want stronger customisation, choice and involvement in the gameplay mechanics, whether they be RPG mechanics or not. The reason I brought up those two titles is because they're examples of how one can have gameplay depth without being RPGs or having a lot of RPG elements. ME2 just has shallow and sometimes even broken gameplay and sets to much to auto-pilot for you without any real meaningful choice, whether they're RPG elements or not. And again, it's supposed to be an RPG at least in some part.

If you want a partially cinematic shooter, then play the CoD campaigns. If you want an interactive movie, then play Heavy Rain. Mass Effect is designed to be a cinematic RPG with TPS combat. So if you're going to make it as such, you can't just put all your effort into the cinematic stuff and the TPS stuff and leave the RPG stuff completely anaemic, shallow and devoid of the very mechanics that make it work. They don't need to be deep and as involved as a full-on RPG, but they need to at least achieve their basic function and purpose, and ME2 fails that spectacularly.

[GHOST OF FRUITY]

Some fantastic ideas OP - on the whole, most of the ideas put forward are practical and would work if implemented correctly.

[Phaelducan]

A little heavy on the wordage there. Fails spectacularly at achieving basic function and purpose? Devoid of RPG mechanics?



I think you should look at some other RPG on the market right now and think critically about the evolution of just what an RPG mechanic is.



The fact that ME2 even has a leveling mechanic and any sort of weapon customization (at all) means that the basic function and purpose of the RPG mechanics are being met.



Shep can 1) Choose a class and specialize within that class. 2) Use different versions of different weapon types, and upgrade those weapons via a decision-based method of gathering resources and allocating them on research.



Now... you might not like those as RPG mechanics, but they are RPG mechanics nonetheless and do serve the basic functions of advancement and customization.



Again, look at some other games. "Some RPG elements" are the new norm, and gone are the days of a fully customizable PC character other than rare exceptions. I'll just be glad if ME3 doesn't pull a Fable 3 and get rid of almost every convention out there.



Like it or not, here's the truth as summarized by Bob Dylan.



"... for the times, they are a-changin."

[Lumikki]

@Terror_K

I'm sorry, but I don't like shooters (FPS), so why you keep suggesting those BS games to me?
(I can't even play them because motion sickness illness)

You have this idea what RPG is and you can't get pass this idelogy. Like every game has to have sertain aspect of RPG to be RPG. I don't think so, because RPG can be created many ways. Thats' where our disagreement comes. I can accept that not all RPG aspect (features) exist in every (hybrid) RPG.

Also I don't like you view point and mocking of ME2 allmost every time you comment something. You say you don't want ME to go more traditional direction of RPG, but everytime you suggest something, it's exactly what you want. It's conflict in you general message.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 décembre 2010 - 10:26 .