411 réponses à ce sujet

[PaulSX]

I dont see why weapon customizations are considered as core rpg elements, it's nothing to do with ROLE-PLAYing

[Terror_K]

Except you seem to be ignoring/missing the fact that what used to be mods and things like omni-tools and biotic amps in ME1 has now been relegated to said upgrade system (mixed with ammo powers in some cases too of course). The research/upgrade system is the source of my frustration not just because of how it's done and its oversimplified linearity, but because it's trivialised and replaced what used to be customisation and choice in ME1.

[Iakus]

suntzuxi wrote...

I dont see why weapon customizations are considered as core rpg elements, it's nothing to do with ROLE-PLAYing

But it certainly helps.  If you take a weapon in a game, and have the ability to alter it to suit your own means, that's certainly a form of role-playing.  It gives you a sense of "this weapon is MINE!"

[Lumikki]

suntzuxi wrote...

I dont see why weapon customizations are considered as core rpg elements, it's nothing to do with ROLE-PLAYing

It's not core of anything. It's just part of customation. Like ability customate armors or use different skills or in character creation design you character. All part of customation what allows more variety for players gameplay.

Terror_K wrote...

Except you seem to be ignoring/missing the fact that what used to be mods and things like omni-tools and biotic
amps in ME1 has now been relegated to said upgrade system (mixed with ammo powers in some cases too of course). The research/upgrade system is the source of my frustration not just because of how it's done and its
oversimplified linearity, but because it's trivialised and replaced what used to be customisation and choice in ME1.

I disagree with you Terror_K, resource /upgrade system is fine, it's missing customation feature for modifications of weapons and armors for all characters what cause your problems, ability select and choose. So, you are in my opinion parking wrong tree, even if you consern is right one and very accurate.

Upgrade is more like item based progression.
Creation of new items for player is more like variety.
Ability select and choose is more like customation.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 décembre 2010 - 08:34 .

[Terror_K]

Except, again, that's how we're getting the things we once got in ME1 as mods and/or things we'd pick and choose. Instead of armour mods we have to select, we now just get things like "Hardened Weave" as auto upgrades through the research/upgrade system. Things that were once optional mods we had to pick and choose are research upgrades you can just stack that applies to everything automatically. Intead of getting seperate omni-tools and biotic amps, we just improve our biotic power through linear upgrades.

The way it's designed is clearly meant to be a replacement for what was modding in ME1.

Modifié par Terror_K, 06 décembre 2010 - 08:55 .

[Lumikki]

I think Terror_K, we have come to situation, where we are stuck with subject.

You just keep blaming research system design for something what isn't it's fault. Like you self sayed they removed modding, that is the cause of the problem. Because modding allowed players to choose, select and customize. We all know this, but we all don't blame research system design for it, we actually recognize that the missing modding is what cause of the problem in ME2.

It's like you remove wings from airplane and then complain why it doesn't fly.

Also I would not try to ques why developers does something, even if we see the result, because the result is all what we see, not the reasons. Then even more, make conclusion based those assumptions.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 décembre 2010 - 10:08 .

[Terror_K]

For crying out loud, Lumikki...the evidence is right THERE, I pointed it out several times now.

The research/upgrade system REPLACED modding, because it CONTAINS many of the factors that were ONCE MODDING.

It's not like removing the wings from a plane and complaining it doesn't fly, it's like changing a manual gearbox in a car to an automatic one and complaining because I no longer have proper control.

Yes... they removed modding. But the research/upgrade system was the thing that took its place (with the exception of ammo powers, which are where the rest of it went).

Modifié par Terror_K, 06 décembre 2010 - 10:13 .

[LogosDiablo]

TheNexus wrote...

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

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

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

The research/upgrade system REPLACED modding, because it CONTAINS many of the factors that were ONCE MODDING.

Yes, they did it, but it can NOT replace something what it's not ABLE to do. Like you self have sayed many time. It's the modding what can do what you want, not research system. Then why to HELL you blame something what can't EVER fix the problem.

Yes... they removed modding. But the research/upgrade system was the thing that took its place (with the exception of ammo powers, which are where the rest of it went).

It can't take place of modding, because it doesn't have the customation ability. You can only open new choises and upgrade old ones with research system, but you can not choose as customate ANYTING with it.

I know what you mean, but you keep missing , that if the customation feature is missing the result is what ME2 had. Because the airplane is missing it's wings.

[Terror_K]

Let me put it this way then: the research/upgrade system was INTENDED TO replace modding, and is what TRIED TO fill the gap... but it failed because of completely lacking proper customisation, choice, trade-offs, depth and proper player input.

Better?

I agree that it didn't replace it... what I'm saying is that it was BioWare's poor attempt to fill the gap and automate the process. The problem is when you automate a process like that and take away player control and choice it defeats the whole purpose of it.

It's one of the many cases of "streamlining" the game and taking it too far, overcompensating for ME1's failings and taking away the very factors that make the process rewarding to make it easier.

Modifié par Terror_K, 06 décembre 2010 - 10:32 .

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

*snip*

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.

your arrogance insults not only Bioware but everyone who likes ME2. <_<

[Kusy]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

*snip*

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.

your arrogance insults not only Bioware but everyone who likes ME2. <_<

Why arrogance? That's just pointing out a trend. Same thing is going on with Dragon Age 2 - with all that "FIGHT LIKE A SPARTAN" or "You press one button and SOMETHING HAPPENS!".

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Let me put it this way then: the research/upgrade system was INTENDED TO replace modding, and is what TRIED TO fill the gap... but it failed because of completely lacking proper customisation, choice, trade-offs, depth and proper player input.

Better?

I agree that it didn't replace it... what I'm saying is that it was BioWare's poor attempt to fill the gap and automate the process. The problem is when you automate a process like that and take away player control and choice it defeats the whole purpose of it.

It's one of the many cases of "streamlining" the game and taking it too far, overcompensating for ME1's failings and taking away the very factors that make the process rewarding to make it easier.

Maybe we are now more close with eatch others now, we seem to come same situation from totally different direction and assumptions. I just never thinked that it's replace modding, because it can not customize anything. So, when you assume that they intentions was to replace modding with research/upgrade system, it's just assumption. I think you put that assumption because few same upgrades, but upgrades aren't same as customation as choosing.  Even in ME1 modding there was both, customation and manual upgrades. We don't really know what they tryed to do. They may even taken of modding totally away as purpose and not even tryed to replace it with anything. My point is that I don't want to assume what developers tryed, because I have not even clue about they reasons. Only what we both know is that modding as customation is missing from ME2.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 décembre 2010 - 11:02 .

[Vena_86]

LogosDiablo wrote...

TheNexus wrote...

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

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

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

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

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

Modifié par Vena_86, 06 décembre 2010 - 11:04 .

[Jebel Krong]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

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?

read the thread first, not just the last post and it should be obvious.

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

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.

uh, yes it does: weapons are tailored to be good against shields/barrier/armour and/or health. me1 took it a stage further (albeit with less pronounced differences) with the mod system.

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

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.

oh, so now it does exist? and yes it was more "invisible" in mass effect 2, but you could tell just by reading the weapon descriptions and then using them against certain enemies, the differences in effect were quite noticeable but handled in a realistic fashion, after all you don't need an anti-tank rifle for taking out infantry...

Mr. MannlyMan 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.

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.

i don't like it - all classes should be able to use all the weapons, it doesn't make in-universe sense either as shepard is about as highly a trained soldier as you can get, but it's one of those genre things that people would probably **** and moan about if they scrapped it...

you shouldn't have to make the compromise between being power/diplomacy - shepard is a semi-predefined character already, his strengths are already established in me1, let alone by me2 and the game should reflect that. the RP aspect is how you choose to play him from there: paragon/renegade or something in-between, and all 3 should be treated equally as viable as a consequence - that's the roleplaying part of your RPG, after all. there should be more opportunity for differentiation there, not less.

[Jebel Krong]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

Why arrogance? That's just pointing out a trend. Same thing is going on with Dragon Age 2 - with all that "FIGHT LIKE A SPARTAN" or "You press one button and SOMETHING HAPPENS!".

arrogance should be blindingly obvious: terror_k knowing what is best for mass effect 2 and beyond, and how Bioware has been corrupted by the pressures of fame, fortune and mainstream-ism. 

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Mr.Kusy wrote...

Why arrogance? That's just pointing out a trend. Same thing is going on with Dragon Age 2 - with all that "FIGHT LIKE A SPARTAN" or "You press one button and SOMETHING HAPPENS!".

arrogance should be blindingly obvious: terror_k knowing what is best for mass effect 2 and beyond, and how Bioware has been corrupted by the pressures of fame, fortune and mainstream-ism. 

Prove me wrong, BioWare. Prove me wrong.

I actually seriously hope they do.

And as Mr.Kusy said, what's happening to Dragon Age 2 isn't exactly encouraging or helping their case currently. Nor is their incredible silence since the release of ME2 on the forums.

[Jebel Krong]

Gleym wrote...

Let me put this plainly, since everybody seems convinced that the only reason you'd need skill distribution and leveling up is if you're a "noob": The foe decides the development.

If Shepard is fighting the usual mooks that he faced during his regular tenure as an N7 that he had overcome before, then his abilities would be relevant to such, but in ME1 you're fighting Geth, and another Spectre. THAT is why you level up, and need to grow stronger and more powerful. They're too great an enemy to deal with as you are, so you need to become capable of fighting them. Shepard is never a 'God-like character' because there are always those more powerful than he is that he needs to struggle to overcome. That is the definition of how a character that is a seasoned warrior can start off as a 'level one' in his own game: Because 'level one' is in comparison to the enemy being faced. It's why Shepard is a 'level one' compared to the Collectors at the start of ME2 in spite of kicking ass and taking names in ME1 - they're way more powerful than those he fought before. And it's why Shepard is 'level one' in ME1 fighting the Geth and Saren, in spite of his military record.

And that is why you use skill distribution. Because you are developing skills further and further beyond what you had at the time. Because the people you face may be more stubborn, more intelligent, more cunning, more adept, harder to defeat, harder to sway to your whims. Using more advanced locking devices that need hacking, more advanced and powerful computers that need decoding.

*snip*

that is the most retarded justification for "levelling up" i've ever read.  you don't grow "stronger and more powerful" in-game or IRL - you get better training, weapons and technology (and possibly tactics). in mass effect 1, the difference between start and middle-game is being able to actually shoot a target with more than 2 bullets consecutively - that's rubbish and completely immersion-breaking and why it was scrapped entirely for the sequel. collectors aren't a more powerful foe than saren, either,s o you can't use that justification (and there's nothing to say that the average collector is superior to a geth/quarian/human/turian etc).

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Mr.Kusy wrote...

Why arrogance? That's just pointing out a trend. Same thing is going on with Dragon Age 2 - with all that "FIGHT LIKE A SPARTAN" or "You press one button and SOMETHING HAPPENS!".

arrogance should be blindingly obvious: terror_k knowing what is best for mass effect 2 and beyond, and how Bioware has been corrupted by the pressures of fame, fortune and mainstream-ism. 

Prove me wrong, BioWare. Prove me wrong.

I actually seriously hope they do.

And as Mr.Kusy said, what's happening to Dragon Age 2 isn't exactly encouraging or helping their case currently. Nor is their incredible silence since the release of ME2 on the forums.

they don't have to prove anything to anyone - they make games, and people like them or not. if they do, they will sell, if not then they won't - it's as simple as that. so far they seem to be doing pretty good.

your fundamental problem with me2 stems from it not being the type of rpg you want it to be, and then kicking and screaming like any minority trying to get noticed and support. whilst that make work in society, it doesn't in the art or commercial realms, where success/failure are judged on other criteria. Casey himself stated that mass effect is not the stat-type rpg (paraphrasing) - accept it or move on. or this:

Lumikki wrote...

@Terror_K

But ME2 has all basic RPG features. What you say is, they aren't good enough. Because you want them to be more like in traditional RPG. That's problem. You say RPG can be different in hybrid, but you don't allow any RPG feature be simplifyed. Even if story of ME doesn't even really support of some features at all. 

*snip*

Most of basic RPG stories have it, but ME story doesn't have it, that's why it doesn't fit in it. You are trying to force some RPG feature in full power in the ME what doesn't fit in it. Same problem what ME1 had. All ME1 problems comes from this, tring to force RPG features what did not fit into the story and style, that caused gameplay experience to be worst.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 06 décembre 2010 - 11:39 .

[Terror_K]

No... my fundamental problem is that the Mass Effect IP and trilogy started off as something I DID like and the type of RPG and game I DID want to play, and then BioWare suddenly changed it halfway through to appeal more to the "herp derp" audience like every other company out there after going so well for so long now without needing to lower their standards and pander to the masses. They're just proving said suspicions even more with Dragon Age: an IP that went from being a hardcore, full-on fantasy RPG that was the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate and desgined for the PC to a sequel that's one-third the length, limits the character you can be significantly and has become a console-oriented hack'n'slash affair with a voiced protagonist and the same washed out gritty brown graphics as every second game out there.

ME1's issues didn't stem from having RPG elements that didn't fit what Mass Effect was going for, it stemmed from making them too needlessly complicated for what they were. ME2's problems come from the complete opposite: making them too simple for what they were.

Modifié par Terror_K, 06 décembre 2010 - 12:26 .

[Gleym]

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

[SithLordExarKun]

Jebel Krong wrote...



they don't have to prove anything to anyone - they make games, and people like them or not. if they do, they will sell, if not then they won't - it's as simple as that. so far they seem to be doing pretty good.

your fundamental problem with me2 stems from it not being the type of rpg you want it to be, and then kicking and screaming like any minority trying to get noticed and support. whilst that make work in society, it doesn't in the art or commercial realms, where success/failure are judged on other criteria. Casey himself stated that mass effect is not the stat-type rpg (paraphrasing) - accept it or move on. or this:

Do you really think you're going to get through to him? He obviously thinks that bioware owes him and that he is entitled to everything. He's basically like that one guy who sits in a corner during a party and asks himself how can people possibly enjoy things like this while everyone else(the vast majority) mingles around, socializes and has a great time at the party.

[uzivatel]

Why are people trying to make things unnecessarily complicated?

[FDrage]

uzivatel wrote...

Why are people trying to make things unnecessarily complicated?

one could also ask the very same question but the other way around aqnd still sound very negative about a subject just from a different direction.

[Phaelducan]

@Terror. You can make the argument system that any good RPG has a fixed and linear upgrade system. Final Fantasy? You get the Masamune in X treasure chest. Suikoden? You get the new blacksmith at X point in the story who upgrades your weapons for Y resources.



Most RPG have a fixed upgrade system. As to the methods they are implemented? You have to farm resources to choose when to upgrade what. You don't have the resources on hand to upgrade everything. In that sense, ME2 has more customization than a fixed chest inventory system, as in FF or most other JRPG you just go to a certain spot, open the box, and bam you are good to go. That's not choice (unless you say you have to choose to go to a certain spot, but that is weak as most chests are along the main, linear plot line).



What is this magical, perfect RPG you speak of where there is a random upgrade system what constantly keeps the player guessing on how to increase their power?



@Google



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?



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