411 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaelducan]

@Gleym No, the "general majority" does not agree with you. You have a vocal minority on a message board. ME2 has sold millions of games and had some of the highest ratings of the past several years. Don't try to pull the "more people agree with me" card. As far as that goes, your opinions are fine. It's your so-called facts that are invalid. You state that ME2 doesn't have RPG elements. That is false. If you just said you didn't like them, that would be different. Also, I didn't call you a troll because of your take on things, I called you a troll because you put words in my mouth and said "you people." You didn't read my posts constructively (if you had you would have realized that I repeatedly said more depth is fine), generalized statements that weren't true, and framed your post in an antagonistic and inflammatory manner. That's trolling.



@Vena See that's just it. It ALL comes down to preference. You used FO3 as your example of proper RPG mechanics, then in the same context make excuses for shortcomings in their implementation. That's fine, that's why we have preferences in games. However, it is not an accurate statement to claim in a factual manner that a game like ME2 simply doesn't have the elements in place. We've already gone over this, but ME2 does have character advancement and customization, as well as inventory advancement and customization. That isn't disputable, it's clearly in the game. Furthermore, since those options are just that... options, and you by definition CAN'T maximize every option (whereas in many games you can, like FA3, FFXIII, Fable3, etc) it takes the of water out of your argument.



I agree that other games have great mechanics, and I think we are in agreement that some games do certain things better than others, my only disagreement with you in this thread has been on the existence of the elements of ME2 already in place.



As far as to Bioware listening? Again this is a vocal minority on a message board that is making the big issue. The game sold buckets of copies (like 4 million or something?), and won buckets of awards. That in and of itself doesn't mean anything.... except that a lot of people liked the game... a whole bunch. I still play ME2 and I finished it months ago. The replay value is very strong, and even though you or another 10 posters in these threads might not like some of it's RPG implementation keep in mind that a huge number of gamers absolutely loved ME2 and can't wait for ME3 even if they barely change anything.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...

Gleym wrote...

So you're going to have to excuse me if the reason for not including the option to focus on various talents and skills throughout the course of my game is because "He's already a seasoned warrior, he doesn't NEED to focus on anything" strikes me as a little pathetic and nonsensical. There's ALWAYS room to improve, and it is actually MORE realistic that you shouldn't be able to do everything, but should have to choose what you focus your specializations on.

That wasn't the only reason. The other reason is that it cause same effect what's happening in most mmorpgs. It shifts the focus of the game be more about progression of character than actually enjoyment of the game. You know in mmorpgs this can be noticed as chat. I'm level X, I have item X and so on.. That's not role-playing, that's metagaming or powerplaying. But ability adjust character is more role-playing. Yes, it is, but every action has also consequences. Meaning focus of game is also shifting with it.

Well, the more you focus on your character, the more you role play. When you decide which skills you're better in, you role play, as you "role play" in real life when you decide to go running (thus making your running skills higher) rather than doing martial arts for example, thus you being less good at these. The thing is, you have to translate that in video games and there's two ways; alloting skill points like in ME1 or making you better at what you practice real time as TES games, even then you still have to choose attribute points. You just loose a big part of role playing if you can't become better at what you do. Plus, since RPGs are long games, who wants to play for so long without getting better or earning new things? It's one of the reasons ME2 can become so stale, your shooting experience NEVER changes and you shoot for twice as long than normal shooter with gameplay twice as weak. How is attributing skills (or getting better skills period) not role playing? This has been a core element since the very first rpgs for like 20 years. And how is this not enjoyable? You don't take 10 minutes each level to attribute skills, you rarely go to level 100 and you it can take 1-2 minutes to do so, maybe less so that leaves you with maybe 1 hour of alloting skill points in an average of 30 hours of game time, and that's accordingly to ME which is short for an RPG. It makes you decide which type of character you want to be, and since you can't realistically do everything (even a futuristic super soldier, the more you're restricted in your skill set, the better you are at those skills for the same training time) you have to put just a little more thought for making an effective as possible character and not use disconnected skills.

Think about Kotor and DAO example , how many times did you start new character because you made wrong "power" choises? That's the problem when character development comes too "important" as complex. It change the focus of the game. Meaning you can't just enjoy playing without worring character attributes and you can't fix that with automatic level up option, because player knows it does wrong choises. So it can force players to do something what they would not want to do. I don't mean that some people don't like the focus shift, because they do, but there is also people who don't like it. So, it has to be more compromise as not too complex or simple.

It never happened to me once, and in no rpg whatsoever, you're just doing it wrong. You're the one who changes the focus of the game, you're the one who decides it's more important to be able to get this or that item, or this or that dialog choice than role play for real accordingly to a character you're building. RPGs were never meant for players to get everything, just the fact that you can (and certainly) should be able to make quite different characters proves this. Building a certain character means you can't get every advantages a certain other type of character has. If you focus on trying to get everything out of your playthrough, then you'll end up with a weak character who does not fit in any particular role and sucks at everything or just doesn't fit your play style. If you really insist on doing so, you should wait for a second playthrough and get every bit of info you need to get everything from the internet, but other than in JRPGs - which most doesn't really allow you to fully customize your own character - you just can't get everything since each type of character should have its own advantages for maximum role play.

And if you think dialog skill is such a bad thing, which again is not since it's a skill like anything else, it's only more realistic and fits very well with what rpgs are all about. You talk about having to role play when this is pretty much role playing, as well as not only RPGs allow you to get into a character's shoes and experience his world (ie. play a role). So if you can't still see dialog skills in Mass Effect, ANYTHING changing how you can handle conversations shouldn't exist. Tiying persuation skills with moral stance is completly out of place and stupid. You don't get better at a moral stance or showing you have a pre-determined morality often doesn't make you a better persuader, you have a morality stance, period. So if you can't tie the persuation skill with... the skill, then just leave a shallower dialog system which takes depth out of making your own character. But then ME games don't really have a complex dialog system, it's rather one dimensional and offers poor, limited choices, so not be able to choose and option may seem limiting, but the game is already limiting in the first place. The better an RPG is, the more complex the whole thing is and the more you are able to customize a character resulting in both advantages and trade-offs, having a game with no such thing is not an RPG but an action game. I'm not saying ME2 is not an RPG (but it's barely one) as you can choose between classes, but their advantages versus trade-offs is very shallow and limited, and ONLY combat oriented which again makes the whole thing have even less depth than it already has. A game with no choice which actually impacts the overall gameplay in a meaningful way is not an RPG.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 06 décembre 2010 - 02:01 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Phaelducan wrote...
As far as to Bioware listening? Again this is a vocal minority on a message board that is making the big issue. The game sold buckets of copies (like 4 million or something?), and won buckets of awards. That in and of itself doesn't mean anything.... except that a lot of people liked the game... a whole bunch. I still play ME2 and I finished it months ago. The replay value is very strong, and even though you or another 10 posters in these threads might not like some of it's RPG implementation keep in mind that a huge number of gamers absolutely loved ME2 and can't wait for ME3 even if they barely change anything.

Since video games turned more mainstream people have lower quality standards, as long as they enjoy what they're playing, it's perfect. Obviously things are a lot more complicated than that, even more with a medium that requires as much involvement from different kind of people and a lot of work, even more when developers usually have restrainive deadlines. Making a masterpiece of an album is far easier than making a video game one as far less people are working on a project and songs have very little elements which are far more simpler compared to video games. Then why we see so many "masterpieces" each year? Because they're not. I know people have their opinions, but that doesn't change that some people are easily influenced by friends about anything for example, as a lot of people rarely criticize anything and always welcome with open arms anything without saying a word.

For example, me and my brother like a lot to talk about plenty of things and criticize anything worth pointing out about certain topics, while my mother doesn't follow politics, doesn't like complicated movies or just any movies which can't be enjoyed by the action that is taken place on screen. She can't see artistic value if she can't directly see it or hear, so she wouldn't be able to understand why me and my brother think Suspiria is a masterpiece of a movie with its incredible dreamy, nightmarish atmosphere, she wouldn't get any of this but think it's a stupid movie about killing. It's her opinion, and while someone may like Suspiria only for the killing itself, the reason the movie is a masterpiece isn't because of first degree "analysis", its quality may be much more subtle. Same with video games, a lot of people just enjoy a game from a first degree experience and may think ME2 is the best thing ever, but that doesn't mean it has depth these people can't perceive in the first place or even care about.

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. But wouldn't the best game be the one which can be enjoyable not just for its first degree experience but on every one? But then since these people don't really care to have a richer and deeper experience, developers don't care about it either. And I'm not saying the more complex the better, as the important is as long as each element is truly great. I can like some very simple games (Halo CE) and music, but then talking on the internet I realized a LOT of people don't see what I see with Halo CE, but they just don't see these sort of things at all, but I still managed to connect with other people and share these ideas so it's not something exclusive to a sole person. It's just that people care on different levels about games and entertainment/art in general, or more appropriately enjoy them at different levels (I wouldn't say I enjoy it at a different level, but at multiple ones since I can enjoy a game partly for the same reason as the dude who wouldn't understand what I was talking about in Halo CE) and unfortunately developers seem to cater much more to the bigger crowd which have lower standards than some other people.

As for "profesionnal" reviewers, anyone wanting something worthwhile and easily trustable should not trust them. Too many perplexing things happened around poor scores given to games on big publishers (ie. *cough*Gamespot with Kane and Lynch*cough*, *cough*teamxbox*cough* with FFXIII). Plus, when IGN "gives" a score, it's supposedly the opinion of one dude who wrote the review, and not the whole website, so there reviews again don't mean much. The whole thing is just wrong on several aspects that I can't let myself trust them, hell sometimes they're even contradicting themselves with articles. And then, nothing assures you these reviewers play past the first degree experience, and most of the time they barely finish the game and let it sink in them. At first I was in awe with ME2 except certain aspects, but as soon as the novelty of a "fresh" shooter experience wore out and I began to play the game again, a lot of its flaws became much more apparent. It's really easy to miss something on your first playthrough, at first I thought the dialog system worked well, and now the more I think about it the more I think it is flawed and very limitative. Yet those reviewers don't have much time for multiple playthrough and often just shelve the game and then give them fancy awards from what they remember of the game.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 06 décembre 2010 - 02:31 .

[Phaelducan]

That's a fair point about Black Ops, but I think that is more due to the Xbox live crowd/mentality then the game itself. ME2 is a single player RPG/Cover Shooter, and no one really cares about your achievements in a game like that.



I hesitate to use a word like "masterpiece" with any game. Would I call ME2 a masterpiece? Absolutely not, but I wouldn't call any game in recent memory either. DA? No. Kotor? Close maybe, but no. Masterpiece means a creation almost without peer, perfect. Video games struggle to reach that sort of quality (I think) due to their nature. They are meant to be consumed. You don't stare at a game on the wall, you play it and move on to another one.



There are a plethora of games I've played and enjoyed immensely in recent memory, but not one I would consider a true piece of artistic masterwork.



For RPG'sI would consider Final Fantasy IV and VI (US II and III) in that category, or Suikoden I and II, with the only US entry for me being Betrayal at Krondor. I realize that is purely opinionated and it really has no place in this thread, I just mention it due as I consider 99% of mass-market video games to be consumption based, where you beat it and move on (in which ME and DA both are an exception for me, as I have replayed them both several times).



TLDR version... I don't consider sales to be a judgement in and of itself as to the quality of a game (look at Madden XX or COD). However, I DO consider sales in the context of the target demographic. ME2 is a single player RPG/Shooter, and it sold incredibly well. That speaks to the quality of the game (unless you believe that the Superbowl Commercial generated 4 million sales).

[Evil Johnny 666]

Phaelducan wrote...
ME2 is a single player RPG/Shooter, and it sold incredibly well. That speaks to the quality of the game (unless you believe that the Superbowl Commercial generated 4 million sales).

But here, I'd say sales is more about pre-release hype than anything else. And you have the quality of the first game which helps building the hype. And even then, you buy the game and then play it, not the other way around. First week openings in cinema doesn't mean a movie is good, unless half the attendence returned but this is something we can't know.

Otherwise I can see where you stand, but personally I don't play games merely for consumption. There's plenty of old games I still play, and those it's been some time is more because of lack of time and maybe interest (as you don't always re-watch movies every week). Because I just can't get into games with no value but the... "pure" experience for the lack of a better word. That's the reason I can't get into Call of Duty at all and can replay the first Halo occasionally and still have a great deal of fun.

[Lumikki]

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.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 décembre 2010 - 03:09 .

[SithLordExarKun]

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.

[Phaelducan]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...
ME2 is a single player RPG/Shooter, and it sold incredibly well. That speaks to the quality of the game (unless you believe that the Superbowl Commercial generated 4 million sales).

But here, I'd say sales is more about pre-release hype than anything else. And you have the quality of the first game which helps building the hype. And even then, you buy the game and then play it, not the other way around. First week openings in cinema doesn't mean a movie is good, unless half the attendence returned but this is something we can't know.

Otherwise I can see where you stand, but personally I don't play games merely for consumption. There's plenty of old games I still play, and those it's been some time is more because of lack of time and maybe interest (as you don't always re-watch movies every week). Because I just can't get into games with no value but the... "pure" experience for the lack of a better word. That's the reason I can't get into Call of Duty at all and can replay the first Halo occasionally and still have a great deal of fun.

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.

[Googlesaurus]

Phaelducan wrote...

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.

Explain?

[SithLordExarKun]

What "advancement" was present in FFXIII to begin with other than a linear crysterium system that increases your stats? FFXIII was an awful, awful RPG. I'd agree that ME2, despite having less RPG mechanics than the first game is a much better RPG than FFXIII.

[Lumikki]

Googlesaurus wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

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.

Explain?

In ME serie case it is because it fits better in cinematic impression based style game has. How ever, in some more strategical RPG like DAO, more complex way is better. It's not about what is generally better, but what is better to sertain type of game.  Why in ME? Mostly because ME is not traditional RPG type, it has strong cinematic story telling style and TPS style combat, it change the style of the game. So this kind of more fluid gameplay needs more faster and fluid advance system too, to keep the impression flowing.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 décembre 2010 - 03:38 .

[Googlesaurus]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

What "advancement" was present in FFXIII to begin with other than a linear crysterium system that increases your stats? FFXIII was an awful, awful RPG. I'd agree that ME2, despite having less RPG mechanics than the first game is a much better RPG than FFXIII.

Which, as you mentioned, isn't saying much. I haven't been hearing great things about Fable 3 either in terms of "RPG" features either. Comparing ME2 to terrible RPGs doesn't make it "good", just better.  

Lumikki wrote...

In ME serie case it is because it fits better in cinematic impression based style game has. How ever, in some more strategical RPG like DAO, more complex way is better. It's not about what is generally better, but what is better to sertain type of game.  Why in ME? Mostly because ME is not traditional RPG type, it has strong cinematic story telling style and TPS in it, it change the style of the game. So this kind of more fluid gameplay need more faster and fluid advance system too to keep the impression flowing.

I asked him to explain how ME2's advancement system counts as complex. I feel like you are trolling every thread with your vague ambigious leanings towards "cinematic gameplay", something you've never actually explained. 

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 06 décembre 2010 - 03:40 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

In ME serie case it is because it fits better in cinematic impression based style game has. How ever, in some more strategical RPG like DAO, more complex way is better. It's not about what is generally better, but what is better to sertain type of game.  Why in ME? Mostly because ME is not traditional RPG type, it has strong cinematic story telling style and TPS in it, it change the style of the game. So this kind of more fluid gameplay need more faster and fluid advance system too, to keep the impression flowing.

That may be, but that also works on the other side of things. Just like one could make Mass Effect too much of an RPG and make it unnecessarily involved and complex, one can also make it too much of a TPS and not enough of an RPG by oversimplifying it. And that's exactly what ME2 did: it just simplifies and automates far too much, taking away many of the reasons some of us RPGs play and enjoy RPGs. I fail to see how things such as non-combat skills, better balancing and deeper class-specific elements and an overall better form of customisation that isn't so restrictive and linear goes against Mass Effect's style and what it's supposed to be.

But then, I also feel that Mass Effect 2 isn't really what Mass Effect was supposed to be at all much and that the devs only made it like it was to branch out to a bigger and more mainstream audience who prefer simpler games that half play themselves for them. If we're going to continue in this direction, why not eliminate classes entirely and just have anybody pick any skill without restrictions? Why not just get rid of all the guns except for the assault rifles and only have two of them in ME3? Why not just eliminate Paragon/Renegade entirely and just have a win button? Because that's basically where ME2 was heading and will go if the same trend continues over to ME3.

Modifié par Terror_K, 06 décembre 2010 - 03:43 .

[Lumikki]

Googlesaurus wrote...

I asked him to explain how ME2's advancement system counts as complex. I feel like you are trolling every thread with your vague ambigious leanings towards "cinematic gameplay", something you've never actually explained

Sorry, missed you main point. If you don't want me to explain it, then I ques I leave it for who you asked.

How ever, trolling argument isn't any different than what others do with they opinions. If someone has strong opinions and is active, it will be seen here by everyone. Just because my opinion does disagree your opinions, doesn't make it trolling.

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

In ME
serie case it is because it fits better in cinematic impression based style game has. How ever, in some more strategical RPG like DAO, more complex way is better. It's not about what is generally better, but what is better to sertain type of game.  Why in ME? Mostly because ME is not traditional RPG type, it has strong cinematic story telling style and TPS in it, it change the style of the game. So this kind of more fluid gameplay need more faster and fluid advance system too, to keep the impression flowing.

That may be, but that also works on the other side of things. Just like one could make Mass Effect too much of an RPG and make it unnecessarily involved and complex, one can also make it too much of a TPS and not enough of an RPG by oversimplifying it. And that's exactly what ME2 did: it just simplifies and automates far too much, taking away many of the reasons some of us RPGs play and enjoy RPGs. I fail to see how things such as non-combat skills, better balancing and deeper class-specific elements and an overall better form of customisation that isn't so restrictive and linear goes against Mass Effect's style and what it's supposed to be.

But then, I also feel that Mass Effect 2 isn't really what Mass Effect was supposed to be at all much and that the devs only made it like it was to branch out to a bigger and more mainstream audience who prefer simpler games that half play themselves for them. If we're going to continue in this direction, why not eliminate classes entirely and just have anybody pick any skill without restrictions? Why not just get rid of all the guns except for the assault rifles and only have two of them in ME3? Why not just eliminate Paragon/Renegade entirely and just have a win button? Because that's basically where ME2 was heading and will go if  the same trend continues over to ME3.

Not much to say, we want and see ME serie little different ways, that's where our disagreement comes, even if we do also agree many stuff. I bolded something, to show disagreement. I agree that some stuff got too simplified, but I don't go there as we have discussed about them many times before. In my opinion your fears of future makes you comments so extreme. I can even understand those fears, because what happens in DA2. How ever, I don't understand them in ME serie, because we both know they aren't gonna make ME3  more simple than ME2 was. Totally opposite, developers have allready told us that, when they promise to improve customation side in ME3.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 décembre 2010 - 04:33 .

[Googlesaurus]

Lumikki wrote...

Sorry, missed you main point. If you don't want me to explain it, then I ques I leave it for who you asked.

How ever, trolling argument isn't any diffrent than what other do with they opinions. If someone has strong opinions and is active, it will be seen here by everyone. Just because my opinion does disagreeing your opinion, doesn't make it trolling.

I would like you to explain it so I can get a good sense of where you've coming from. You've never given a thorough explanation of what you meant by "cinematic gameplay". I have nothing against advocating it as long as we are on the same page. 

Stating strong opinions isn't trolling, but stating an opinion that has nothing to do with my question feels like it. For the sake of discussion let's talk about the advancement system as a theoretical entity completely separate from the cutscenes, gameplay, and other important factors. 

Ideally, the advancement system has a simple presentation with a deep metagame. I don't see that in ME2. 

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 06 décembre 2010 - 03:52 .

[Lumikki]

Googlesaurus wrote...

Ideally, the advancement system has a simple presentation with a deep metagame. I don't see that in ME2.

I ques that means two stuff, items and character advance

In many ways ME2's advance system got simplifyed, but not as much as people think. Mostly because ME1 had alot of illusion of complexity.

Meaning copying alot of same items with very small differences. Poit here is that, if player can't notice the difference in gameplay, is it really different? That's what ME2 did, removed alot of illusion and make items really feel different.

Also many of ME2's upgrades are harder to see in ME2, because how the system works from research system and not directly in item customation. But don't let that to fool, there is still customation. Problem was that in ME2 many customation was too general, not induvidual enough. Less micro-magament, more faster design, do it ones, it's done. Some of it was good, but some of it wasn't. Example extreme limited way to customize squad members, even if player character was fine.

Now as character development side. I think they did simplifyed it alot, because they moved some character skills to player skills. How ever, they did remove most non-combat skills in ME2 and I think that's sad thing. Ability upgrade skill got more general, not as personal ways. Some of it is still in the research, so it works totally different ways in ME2. But yeah, skills get redused and more general, the induvidual stuff got redused.

I think the bigger problem for player is that many people cant really see how much there is customation in ME2, because so much was moved in research side. So, it looks like there is less, but it's more like players can't see it so well. I don't say there is enough, because in my opinion there isn't, but I also don't blame how it's done, because in some ways it's better, but too limited and too general ways.

Not sure what you look as answer, but that's my opinion.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 décembre 2010 - 04:26 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

I think the bigger problem for player is that many people cant really see how much there is customation in ME2, because so much was moved in research side. So, it looks like there is less, but it's more like players can't see it so well. I don't say there is enough, because in my opinion there isn't, but I also don't blame how it's done, because in some ways it's better, but too limited and too general ways.

Not sure what you look as answer, but that's my opinion.

The research stuff isn't customisation at all really, and is probably responsible for ME2's faults in this respect more than anything else. It's too linear and automated, simply upgrading everything without proper trade-offs to the point of allowing you to God-mod your entire inventory far too easily with barely any real input or attention needed on the part of the player. It's responsible for the complete lack of proper customisation, weapon modding and eliminating omni-tools and biotic amps entirely. It's a pathetic joke of a system that pretty much ruins the game, IMO.

Ironically enough, prior to release it was one of the few aspects I actually liked the sound of, because the way the devs talked it up it actually sounded really good for customisation and that it was going to be a lot deeper and more involved than it turned out to be, and that it was possibly going to make up for the inadequacies of the stripped inventory and complete lack of weapons to choose from in the vanilla game. As it turned out while most things ended up not being quite as bad as they initially sounded, this aspect ended up being a lot worse than it sounded and just made the gameplay so shallow, linear and lacking. It's not customisation when you don't really give me any real choice and when 99% of the players out there will end up the same in the end: upgrading and researching everything to the max as they find them. It doesn't help either that every single thing is always in the same fragging place, so you don't even get any real variation in different playthroughs.

Out of all the things in ME2 that need to either go or be majorly reworked, it's probably #1 on my list gameplay wise, and only below "give the squaddies proper attire, for God sakes!" overall. It's so bad that if it's not gone or doesn't get a major overhaul I'll pretty much automatically consider ME3 a lesser game than the first from that alone.

Modifié par Terror_K, 06 décembre 2010 - 04:34 .

[Gundar3]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

I think the bigger problem for player is that many people cant really see how much there is customation in ME2, because so much was moved in research side. So, it looks like there is less, but it's more like players can't see it so well. I don't say there is enough, because in my opinion there isn't, but I also don't blame how it's done, because in some ways it's better, but too limited and too general ways.

Not sure what you look as answer, but that's my opinion.

The research stuff isn't customisation at all really, and is probably responsible for ME2's faults in this respect more than anything else. It's too linear and automated, simply upgrading everything without proper trade-offs to the point of allowing you to God-mod your entire inventory far too easily with barely any real input or attention needed on the part of the player. It's responsible for the complete lack of proper customisation, weapon modding and eliminating omni-tools and biotic amps entirely. It's a pathetic joke of a system that pretty much ruins the game, IMO.

Ironically enough, prior to release it was one of the few aspects I actually liked the sound of, because the way the devs talked it up it actually sounded really good for customisation and that it was going to be a lot deeper and more involved than it turned out to be, and that it was possibly going to make up for the inadequacies of the stripped inventory and complete lack of weapons to choose from in the vanilla game. As it turned out while most things ended up not being quite as bad as they initially sounded, this aspect ended up being a lot worse than it sounded and just made the gameplay so shallow, linear and lacking. It's not customisation when you don't really give me any real choice and when 99% of the players out there will end up the same in the end: upgrading and researching everything to the max as they find them. It doesn't help either that every single thing is always in the same fragging place, so you don't even get any real variation in different playthroughs.

Out of all the things in ME2 that need to either go or be majorly reworked, it's probably #1 on my list gameplay wise, and only below "give the squaddies proper attire, for God sakes!" overall. It's so bad that if it's not gone or doesn't get a major overhaul I'll pretty much automatically consider ME3 a lesser game than the first from that alone.

That was a very similar reaction to mine if I recall.  The only thing Im not sure about is the thing you bring up in the end - the randomization of upgrades.  Instead of making the upgrades random, I think it woudl be btter if they were rewards for difficult fights, or if the player had to at least jump through some hoops to obtain the more powerful ones.  Now if this typ of rpg mechanic could be applied well to Mass Effect Im not sure, but I think its the most rewarding.

[Lumikki]

Sorry Terror_K, but I don't see difference as customation if you select item I, II, III, IV and so on or go to research option and upgrade I to II to III to IV and so on. Real different here what you talk is induvidualism and micro-management. How ever, induvidualim on item upgrades isn't needed, because every player will allways use most newest (best) version of the item.

Real induvidulism on customation is the differences on items, choise what to use, not version upgrades. Meaning item customation has some real affect to gameplay, not exist just to create illusion of complexity with versions and names. Because illusion of complexity doesn't make ME better, it makes it more traditional game. Good customation is not same as spending alot of time micro-manage something what player should not need to. I want customation what has affect to my gameplay, not customationg what cause me to micro-manage something hours in some steril calc sheet. Unless it is visual customation, that's different than gameplay customation.

It's the different what I talked fluid cinematic gameplay and strategical (matematical) way play the game. Meaning how much gameplay time you use to do someting, shift of focus. Easyer way to say this, you seem to want complex micro-management screens where you can waste alot of time customize alot of stuff and I want faster more natural fluid way to customize what has real meaning to gameplay, not just causing me to waste a lot time in illusion of complex customation.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 décembre 2010 - 05:19 .

[SithLordExarKun]

Googlesaurus wrote...

Which, as you mentioned, isn't saying much. I haven't been hearing great things about Fable 3 either in terms of "RPG" features either. Comparing ME2 to terrible RPGs doesn't make it "good", just better.  

I was just directly answering the question. Whether or not ME2 is a good 'RPG' is up to the player to decide. To me yeah its "ok" in RPG aspects but not "good", just better than the abomination that is FFXIII.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Sorry Terror_K, but I don't see difference as customation if you select item I, II, III, IV and so on or go to research option and upgrade I to II to III to IV and so on. Real different here what you talk is induvidualism and micro-management. How ever, induvidualim on item upgrades isn't needed, because every player will allways use most newest (best) version of the item.

Real induvidulism on customation is the differences on items, choise what to use, not version upgrades. Meaning item customation has some real affect to gameplay, not exist just to create illusion of complexity with versions and names. Because illusion of complexity doesn't make ME better, it makes it more traditional game. Good customation is not same as spending alot of time micro-manage something what player should not need to. I want customation what has affect to my gameplay, not customationg what cause me to micro-manage something hours in some steril calc sheet. Unless it is visual customation, that's different than gameplay customation.

It's the different what I talked fluid cinematic gameplay and strategical (matematical) way play the game. Meaning how much gameplay time you use to do someting, shift of focus.

I'm not talking about linear upgrading for the same items as you progress them, I'm talking about things that make you go "now do I choose option A or option B, because I can't have both?" ME1 had mods that did this, so you actually slotted them and had a limited number of slots. If the biotic amps and omni-tools had been done a bit better, we could have had cases where a play has to choose whether they want more power, more damage, faster charging time, etc. too.

ME2's research system is horribly broken because it just doesn't give the players a proper choice and proper limitations and trade-offs, which is why it's linear, unsatisfying, shallow and the same pretty much every time. It's basically the equivalent of if ME1's weapons and armour had unlimited mod slots and you could just keep stacking them without limitation. Customisation means having to pick and choose to make things your own, and when the player can have absolutely fragging everything so damn easily then customisation is essentially neutered. It's bad enough that Shepard has now become a master of all trades with the dumbed down character progression system, but the same issues have to plague the weapon progression as well. There's no real cases of building stuff to suit my class or to suit a particlar character, it's just the same old repetitive "upgrade everything to the max" story every single playthrough. I never every feel like anything I carry is my own or tweaked to my preference, because it's not. My Hand Cannon is the same damn Hand cannon as every other player, and is the same for one class I've made as it is for any other.

ME2 is like the episode of The Twilight Zone "A Nice Place to Visit" where the robber dies and thinks he's in heaven because he always wins at everything, and then eventually ends up getting jaded by it all because there's no fun in always winning when you can't lose and realises that it's hell instead. ME2's research/upgrade system is hell for the same reason: it's all win with no downside, nothing surprising and nothing but full on success.

[Googlesaurus]

Lumikki wrote...

I ques that means two stuff, items and character advance

Just character advancement. 

Lumikki wrote...

In many ways ME2's advance system got simplifyed, but not as much as people think. Mostly because ME1 had alot of illusion of complexity.

 

I agree.

Lumikki wrote...

Meaning copying alot of same items with very small differences. Poit here is that, if player can't notice the difference in gameplay, is it really different? That's what ME2 did, removed alot of illusion and make items really feel different.

ME1's inventory system was harrowing because there were too little factors involved in differentiating items. I wouldn't call it "copying", just mismanaged stats. 

Of course players noticed the difference between the Reaper line and the HMWSR line. That was the entire problem with the inventory. Certain lines were entirely unnecessary because others were so powerful and (due to the looting system) so plentiful. 

Lumikki wrote...

Also many of ME2's upgrades are harder to see in ME2, because how the system works from research system and not directly in item customation. But don't let that to fool, there is still customation. Problem was that in ME2 many customation was too general, not induvidual enough. Less micro-magament, more faster design, do it ones, it's done. Some of it was good, but some of it wasn't. Example extreme limited way to customize squad members, even if player character was fine.

I assume you're talking about weapon upgrades? Not too concerned about those. General weapon upgrades are fine as a backbone for improving your combat abilities. But I hated the generalized distribution and relative ease of researching all of them. It stops being customization when the game drops them in your lap instead of forcing you to think about what you really want. 

Lumikki wrote...

Now as character development side. I think they did simplifyed it alot, because they moved some character skills to player skills. How ever, they did remove most non-combat skills in ME2 and I think that's sad thing. Ability upgrade skill got more general, not as personal ways. Some of it is still in the research, so it works totally different ways in ME2. But yeah, skills get redused and more general, the induvidual stuff got redused.

Agreed. I don't want generalized skills along the lines of Agility, Strength, etc. But adding unique character skills that affect a combination of these factors would be cool and beneficial. 

Lumikki wrote...

I think the bigger problem for player is that many people cant really see how much there is customation in ME2, because so much was moved in research side. So, it looks like there is less, but it's more like players can't see it so well. I don't say there is enough, because in my opinion there isn't, but I also don't blame how it's done, because in some ways it's better, but too limited and too general ways.

It was very limited customization. The upgrades only altered weapon damage, not rate of fire or individual effectiveness versus a certain type of defense. 

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 06 décembre 2010 - 05:47 .

[Lumikki]

@ Terror_K

Yes, but research system is half upgrade system and second half introdusing new tehcnology items. You want more new items and ability modify them, I want that too, but I don't blame research system from it. I blame developers not adding enough new stuff and redusing modifying (customation) abilities in the game. That has nothing to do with research system. Also devolopers has allready sayed they gonna improve customation, what more you want?

If you want blame then blame the real issue, not something what isn't the issue. Real issues are:

1. Player has no ability customize weapons, like they have player armor. (modification)
2. Player can customise only Shepard (armor), not squad members. (Induvdualism and customation)
3. There isn't enough variety as different kind of stuff. (variety)

Those are real issues, it has nothing to do with ME2 system. It's lack of what developers did no do, not how it's done.

PS: This was just item side talk, not character progression side.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 décembre 2010 - 06:02 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

@ Terror_K

Yes, but research system is half upgrade system and second half introdusing new tehcnology items. You want more new items and ability modify them, I want that too, but I don't blame research system from it. I blame developers not adding enough new stuff and redusing modifying (customation) abilities in the game. That has nothing to do with research system. Also devolopers has allready sayed they gonna improve customation, what more you want?

If you want blame then blame the real issue, not something what isn't the issue. Real issues are:

1. Player has no ability customize weapons, like they have player armor. (modification)
2. Player can customise only Shepard (armor), not squad members. (Induvdualism and customation)
3. There isn't enough variety as different kind of stuff. (variety)

Those are real issues, it has nothing to do with ME2 system. It's lack of what developers did no do, not how it's done.

PS: This was just item side talk, not character progression side.

Of course the research/upgrade system isn't the source of most of the issues... it's merely just a result of them. It does, however, contribute a major part of the issues. You don't blame the bullet (i.e. the research upgrade system) coming out of the gun as the problem when somebody (i.e. the devs and their mindset) shoots it, but it is the bullet that literally does the damage, even if it's the fault of the wielder of the gun.

The system is just horribly implemented. A research/upgrade system in theory is fine, but it's too simple, linear and lacking. As I've said before, simply just changing it from automatic researching and installing into a system that produces mods instead of auto-upgrades along would go a long way towards fixing most of the issues it presents. Or rather, a mix of the two (for example, having linear upgrades to simply upgrade the weapons from Mark I to II to III, etc. but also having weapon mods that you later have to pick and choose as well).

[Lumikki]

Sorry Terror_K, but...

Research system only exist to for two reason remove manual upgrades and indrodusing new techonlogy items. You seem to call upgrades auto-upgrades. That's best part of hole research system that you don't need to do upgrades manually. Because it's useless feature. Player should not have need to go every squad members weapon and armors, change item V to item VI, because player found upgrade. That's what research system does, you go in research and do it in there and all items related upgrade are upgraded.

What you really talk is missing modification feature, ability select different stuff. I don't see how ability select modification to something has anything to do with research feature. I mean if the modification feature would exist, then of cause research could upgrade and introduse it. But without the feature, it can't do it. Meaning it's not what research system does, it's different feature what's missing.

It's like: creation (introdusing) : selection (choosing and using) : upgrade (version improvement)
(Selection isn't part of research system)

So, of cause if the modification feature would exist, then you could do what you want. But because it doesn't exist, ME2 does it directly and very limied ways from research system. Point is, it's not the reserch system design problem, it's the missing feature what's the problem. Look above, remove the selection part, then you only have creation and upgrade part left. Also because you can't really select, you can't have all variety and customation options what is needed.

My point again, it's missing feature problem, not in ME2 research design problem.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 décembre 2010 - 06:54 .