239 réponses à ce sujet

[YAHG]

i like it. people just like to whine about things, though. let them whine.

[Evil Johnny 666]

AmstradHero wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...
Character interaction is certainly not an important part of RPGs. The biggest thing about RPGs is stats, creating a character and building him.

By that rationale, Diablo and World of Warcraft are the best RPGs around. Is that really the argument you're making? I suspect not.

And I didn't use a crutch to attack anyone's motivations. I merely pointed out (or rather reiterated the point that someone else had already made) that many people have complained about the "absence" of things in ME2 that are actually there every bit as much as they are in ME1.

Huh? I'm not talking about quality, but the fundamental structure and that is why Diablo and WoW aren't the best rpgs, because they're quite barebone.

Well, people have still realised things are different, and enough for us to like it less. I played through ME1 several times and same for ME2 several times, I don't get the "blinded by nostalgia" thing particularly when ME1 is new enough to not see works like nostalgia around it, it was released 3 years ago from now, that's not too old. It's just that with series I like (and I'm sure it's the case with a lot of fans) I tend to be very criticizing; I don't want a perfect game, but a good follow-up, I want something coherent that appeals to me and fits well as a sequel and within the universe. I think ME2 did a lot of things wrong, hell I even just read a giant post about all that is wrong about Mass Effect 2 from another forum which I wholly agree with. Since we care a lot about the universe and game, we want the sequels to achieve the standards and expectations the original gave. There can be changes of course, but this still has to be respected. Yeah in the end it's just an opinion, but it's principally due to what people care about the game, if you take out something you cared about and don't replace it with something satisfying, well it's a deception.

[Evil Johnny 666]

wizardryforever wrote...

I've said this before and I will say it again:  All an RPG needs to qualify as an RPG is a main character who is customizable to some extent (race, gender, class, background, etc); have a story that has a beginning, middle, and end; and have the character influence that story and its outcome through their actions.  This is the essence of Role-Playing, and anything else is superfluous.

Bioware definition much? I mean, there's a LOT of RPGs out there without your character influencing the story and its outcome through actions. Think of Fable, hell think of a ****load of JRPG where there's no real character interactions AT ALL, even less choices which change the outcome of the game. Yes games like Crono Trigger and Crono Cross have alternate endings which are mostly due how you play the game rather than doing particular actions, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Oh, and those characters are not even customizable except for equipment.

So if I take every element of your definition that doesn't encompass all rpgs, what I'm left with is a game that has a story with a beginning, middle and end. Holy Hell, Black Ops could be an rpg! I'll keep my stats definition.

Well, that's pretty close to the definition of a western RPG and again, look all those so essential ME2 rpg elements it has compared to JRPGs again as an example, while most JRPGs don't ask you to allocate skill points, it's still highly stats based, ME2 having dumbed down skill points allocation for example means less stats in there, thus less RPG. Stats is an integral part of role playing since it was played in real life, each idividual is made of stats and that explains why someone is better than others at something.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 04 décembre 2010 - 01:07 .

[wizardryforever]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

I've said this before and I will say it again:  All an RPG needs to qualify as an RPG is a main character who is customizable to some extent (race, gender, class, background, etc); have a story that has a beginning, middle, and end; and have the character influence that story and its outcome through their actions.  This is the essence of Role-Playing, and anything else is superfluous.

Bioware definition much? I mean, there's a LOT of RPGs out there without your character influencing the story and its outcome through actions. Think of Fable, hell think of a ****load of JRPG where there's no real character interactions AT ALL, even less choices which change the outcome of the game. Yes games like Crono Trigger and Crono Cross have alternate endings which are mostly due how you play the game rather than doing particular actions, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Oh, and those characters are not even customizable except for equipment.

So if I take every element of your definition that doesn't encompass all rpgs, what I'm left with is a game that has a story with a beginning, middle and end. Holy Hell, Black Ops could be an rpg! I'll keep my stats definition.

Well, that's pretty close to the definition of a western RPG and again, look all those so essential ME2 rpg elements it has compared to JRPGs again as an example, while most JRPGs don't ask you to allocate skill points, it's still highly stats based, ME2 having dumbed down skill points allocation for example means less stats in there, thus less RPG. Stats is an integral part of role playing since it was played in real life, each idividual is made of stats and that explains why someone is better than others at something.

Really?  So there are RPGs out there in which the Player Character (PC) does not affect the story at all?  Could you take out the PC and still have the story turn out the same?  No?  That's what I meant.  As for customizable characters, I mean a game in which you have a choice in characters, in that you have options in creating your characters.  Equipment can qualify for that, if said equipment is important enough.

Stats mean nothing.  They're just arbitrary numbers used to quantify some abstract concept like "charisma."  Such numbers are only present to prevent situations in which you must determine if you can do something or how well you can do it.  They have nothing to do with the Role-playing concept.  Try acting out a role in a movie or play.  Are there any stats involved there?  No, because they aren't necessary to roleplay.  In the most basic sense, even shows like "Who's Line is it Anyway?" qualify as Role-playing games (with the actors taking on roles in improv gags), just live action, as opposed to tabletop or video games.

Most FPS games like Halo don't qualify as RPGs because they lack one or more of the requirements.  For Halo, it's the customizable character.  There is no opportunity to really improve Master Chief in any way, or to tweak his features or performance.  Ideally, an RPG gives the character the opportunity to alter the story in more than one way, and these are the best RPGs.

[AmstradHero]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...
Character interaction is certainly not an important part of RPGs. The biggest thing about RPGs is stats, creating a character and building him.

By that rationale, Diablo and World of Warcraft are the best RPGs around. Is that really the argument you're making? I suspect not.

Huh? I'm not talking about quality, but the fundamental structure and that is why Diablo and WoW aren't the best rpgs, because they're quite barebone.

Did you just argue that ME1's levelling and skill system has more depth than WoW's? If so, I'm afraid your position has become untenable.

Like it or not, WoW has a significant variety of skills and end-game configurations and each of these has a huge effect on a player's effectiveness in various situations. ME (1 or 2) has nowhere near amount of diversity that exists in WoW in terms of role flexibility within each class. Heck, I'd probably argue you get more variety in a single WoW class than you do across al of ME's classes, and I stopping playing the game before Burning Crusade came out.

Do I go a fire, arcane or frost mage? Do I focus on scorch as a fire mage to assist my raid party? Do I go for a PvP setup to enable me to deal huge burst damage at the expense of sustained DPS? Do make it so my arcane missiles are uninterruptable? Do I level up ice block to enable pulls? Do I go for a "slow enemies" build, or one to disable them completely? Do I want the potential to stun enemies with my fire attacks?

Those are just some of the questions for a single class.  Stats and character building is one of the areas where WoW is more complex than the majority of games on the market.

[Evil Johnny 666]

wizardryforever wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Bioware definition much? I mean, there's a LOT of RPGs out there without your character influencing the story and its outcome through actions. Think of Fable, hell think of a ****load of JRPG where there's no real character interactions AT ALL, even less choices which change the outcome of the game. Yes games like Crono Trigger and Crono Cross have alternate endings which are mostly due how you play the game rather than doing particular actions, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Oh, and those characters are not even customizable except for equipment.

So if I take every element of your definition that doesn't encompass all rpgs, what I'm left with is a game that has a story with a beginning, middle and end. Holy Hell, Black Ops could be an rpg! I'll keep my stats definition.

Well, that's pretty close to the definition of a western RPG and again, look all those so essential ME2 rpg elements it has compared to JRPGs again as an example, while most JRPGs don't ask you to allocate skill points, it's still highly stats based, ME2 having dumbed down skill points allocation for example means less stats in there, thus less RPG. Stats is an integral part of role playing since it was played in real life, each idividual is made of stats and that explains why someone is better than others at something.

Really?  So there are RPGs out there in which the Player Character (PC) does not affect the story at all?  Could you take out the PC and still have the story turn out the same?  No?  That's what I meant.

As Halo without the Master Chief would mean big trouble for humanity. Cloud Strife, Vahn, Crono, Serge and plenty of other "player character" are as important to the story than any main character in any game, the sole difference is that you're playing a rpg instead of a shooter or adventure game.

As for customizable characters, I mean a game in which you have a choice in characters, in that you have options in creating your characters.  Equipment can qualify for that, if said equipment is important enough.

What if the only choice you get is choosing between type of swords or amulets and such? Equipment which can't make you change the type of your character. I'd say you haven't played any JRPG, because the main characters are as customisable as everyone else, the only difference is that it's the one you're controlling and always stick with. Serge will always have an affiliation with white magic in Crono Cross and always use weapons which look like scythes.

Stats mean nothing.  They're just arbitrary numbers used to quantify some abstract concept like "charisma."  Such numbers are only present to prevent situations in which you must determine if you can do something or how well you can do it.  They have nothing to do with the Role-playing concept.  Try acting out a role in a movie or play.  Are there any stats involved there?  No, because they aren't necessary to roleplay.  In the most basic sense, even shows like "Who's Line is it Anyway?" qualify as Role-playing games (with the actors taking on roles in improv gags), just live action, as opposed to tabletop or video games.

I think you're missing the role playing concept yourself, in case you didn't know rpgs exists because of... real rpgs, D&D and such which is mostly about stats. Every rpg put into computers after had to do with stats, alloting skill points is a statistical thing, 45 strenght instead of 35, etc. each of these skills changes every action you do; attacking, healing, etc. sometimes running, jumping or walking stealthily. Or if you take JRPGs, any equipment changes you skills, magic you use, when you level up, etc. All these stats affect the outcome of battles and how you get through the game. Stats decide whether or not you will miss while swinging your sword in Morrowind or block, or manage to create a potion, or if you'll successfully taunt someone to attack you so you can kill him without getting a bounty. Changing stats affect everything you do. Again with Halo, each weapon does a specific ammount of damage, everything is programmed and the only thing which changes is how you get through missions by using a variety of weapon or tactics, but you don't change ANY player stat at all. That's what RPGs are all about, yes playing a character, but isn't it what you do in EVERY game? It's about building your character, making him progress as you do in real life, make your character grow and increase his stats (abilities).

Most FPS games like Halo don't qualify as RPGs because they lack one or more of the requirements.  For Halo, it's the customizable character.  There is no opportunity to really improve Master Chief in any way, or to tweak his features or performance.  Ideally, an RPG gives the character the opportunity to alter the story in more than one way, and these are the best RPGs.

So you're telling me a main character who changes the outcome of the story in ANY way is an important element of rpgs, then tell me it wouldn't work with games like Halo because they lack other rpg elements? What you're telling me is that your PC changing the story thing has nothing to do with rpgs since it works for any game, if it absolutely needs another element, it's just that it's that element which is related to rpgs.

And according to your complete definition, Far Cry 2 is an RPG.

Customizable character? Check. You can choose his race, background and other info from pre-made characters as well as buy tons of types of weapons and choose only a handful which may impact a lot your gameplay due to the very big variety.

Story which has a beginning, middle and end? Check.

You can change its course and outcome? Check. You can screw factions and do things differently.

Is Far Cry 2 an rpg? Obviously not.

Again, compare enough RPGs and you'll realize that the biggest and one of the only thing they have in common is changing statistics for your characters. There's also interacting with the world by doing quests and such or buy stuff, but again that wouldn't make Far Cry 2 an RPG since it has these elements.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 04 décembre 2010 - 02:22 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

AmstradHero wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...
Character interaction is certainly not an important part of RPGs. The biggest thing about RPGs is stats, creating a character and building him.

By that rationale, Diablo and World of Warcraft are the best RPGs around. Is that really the argument you're making? I suspect not.

Huh? I'm not talking about quality, but the fundamental structure and that is why Diablo and WoW aren't the best rpgs, because they're quite barebone.

Did you just argue that ME1's levelling and skill system has more depth than WoW's? If so, I'm afraid your position has become untenable.

Like it or not, WoW has a significant variety of skills and end-game configurations and each of these has a huge effect on a player's effectiveness in various situations. ME (1 or 2) has nowhere near amount of diversity that exists in WoW in terms of role flexibility within each class. Heck, I'd probably argue you get more variety in a single WoW class than you do across al of ME's classes, and I stopping playing the game before Burning Crusade came out.

Do I go a fire, arcane or frost mage? Do I focus on scorch as a fire mage to assist my raid party? Do I go for a PvP setup to enable me to deal huge burst damage at the expense of sustained DPS? Do make it so my arcane missiles are uninterruptable? Do I level up ice block to enable pulls? Do I go for a "slow enemies" build, or one to disable them completely? Do I want the potential to stun enemies with my fire attacks?

Those are just some of the questions for a single class.  Stats and character building is one of the areas where WoW is more complex than the majority of games on the market.

I never ever said that nor implied that. I just said WoW had not much more than the fundamental structure of an rpg which is why I don't like them that much, that doesn't mean any game with other elements excel at making a better fundamental structure...

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 04 décembre 2010 - 02:06 .

[wizardryforever]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...
<a lot>

I think you're missing the point.  RPGs need all of the attributes I listed, to some degree.  They can't cherry pick them and still be RPGs.  Quite frankly I haven't played nor will I ever play a JRPG, mostly because they only have the bare minimum necessary to be an RPG, and I really don't see the appeal.

I think you're missing the reason why stats are involved in role-playing at all.  They are there to determine chance of success or measure the extent of success (or failure).  They are not necessary to Role-play, because quite simply they have nothing to do with playing a role.  Stats are there to prevent juvenile bickering like "I hit you!"  "Nuh-uh!" because someone would take the lack of stats to mean that they can do anything, and go amok with their freedom.  More stats does not make more RPG, any more than less, or even no stats make less RPG.  Really, this is flat out stated in the pen-ultimate RPG, D&D.  In the core books (I think it was the DMG, but it may have been the PH) it says that stats are in the game to quantify abstract concepts and make the imaginary system more concrete.  You can definitely go overboard with stats and stat processing, to the point that they take away from the game, as anyone who's tried to grapple anyone in 3E D&D knows.  Arguing that ME2 is less of an RPG than ME1 because there's less stats to tweak just seems like you value the stats in role-playing games more than, you know, role-playing.

[Evil Johnny 666]

wizardryforever wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

I think you're missing the point.  RPGs need all of the attributes I listed, to some degree.  They can't cherry pick them and still be RPGs.  Quite frankly I haven't played nor will I ever play a JRPG, mostly because they only have the bare minimum necessary to be an RPG, and I really don't see the appeal.

I think you're missing the reason why stats are involved in role-playing at all.  They are there to determine chance of success or measure the extent of success (or failure).  They are not necessary to Role-play, because quite simply they have nothing to do with playing a role.  Stats are there to prevent juvenile bickering like "I hit you!"  "Nuh-uh!" because someone would take the lack of stats to mean that they can do anything, and go amok with their freedom.  More stats does not make more RPG, any more than less, or even no stats make less RPG.  Really, this is flat out stated in the pen-ultimate RPG, D&D.  In the core books (I think it was the DMG, but it may have been the PH) it says that stats are in the game to quantify abstract concepts and make the imaginary system more concrete.  You can definitely go overboard with stats and stat processing, to the point that they take away from the game, as anyone who's tried to grapple anyone in 3E D&D knows.  Arguing that ME2 is less of an RPG than ME1 because there's less stats to tweak just seems like you value the stats in role-playing games more than, you know, role-playing.

Just changed a bit of things in my post. Like how Far Cry 2 is an RPG according to your definition, and when an element is featured in a ****load of other games, like I described in my other post, it's because it's not an important element to the genre (PC influencing the story). The only real point you gave is customization! The only thing JRPGs and western rpgs have in common is stats and you're wrong about them, again you can't really compare since you haven't played any. Stats measure skills, everyone in real life has certain skills, and anyone with better kung fu skills will beat someone with lesser skills. The more you practice, the better your skills are. The problem, is how do you translate this into a game? Stats. Stats are the link between your skills and how they affect your gameplay. Hey, it's by roleplaying that your stats increase. In Oblivion (hell any JRPG and other WRPG) each time you do an action which is tied to a skill it increases that skill, what did you do to do that? Roleplay. And you have to roleplay accordingly to your skillset in order to make a good character, which again is tied to stats. I could say I roleplay Master Chief (his character is as customizable by you as Cloud Strife (JRPG character)) as I play a role, yet nothing you do changes your character, his skils and stats behind this all. You play a role in any game.

EDIT: And well, your D&D book thing tells it, it's there to make things work better. Otherwise when doing combats you could just beat someone until they loose conciousness for a really ****ty example (since there are other things into consideration), in rpgs video games, stats are essential, otherwise it could just turn into an action adventure game. In fact, a lot of action adventure games would fit in your definition. Hey, Red Dead Redemption would be an rpg.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 04 décembre 2010 - 02:46 .

[AmstradHero]

And once again by reiterating that stats and customisation are the most important thing in an RPG you completely undermine your own assertion that WoW possesses only the fundamental structure of an RPG. It has a more complex system for what you are saying is the most important thing about RPGs than any other game you've listed.

It seems nearly impossible for players to come up with a general consensus on "what makes an RPG" because everyone has different definitions. And because these discussions typically get locked for irrelevance, I'm going to depart this thread now.

Edit: Also, going back to previous posts you've made that people have addressed and editing them is poor form. You're changing the context of subsequent posts by modifying your argument, which comes across as an attempt to change your position retroactively to make other people's contributions look inaccurate. Clarify your position in subsequent posts rather than redacting your previous arguments.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 04 décembre 2010 - 03:38 .

[Ahglock]

wizardryforever wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

I think you're missing the point.  RPGs need all of the attributes I listed, to some degree.  They can't cherry pick them and still be RPGs.  Quite frankly I haven't played nor will I ever play a JRPG, mostly because they only have the bare minimum necessary to be an RPG, and I really don't see the appeal.

I think you're missing the reason why stats are involved in role-playing at all.  They are there to determine chance of success or measure the extent of success (or failure).  They are not necessary to Role-play, because quite simply they have nothing to do with playing a role.  Stats are there to prevent juvenile bickering like "I hit you!"  "Nuh-uh!" because someone would take the lack of stats to mean that they can do anything, and go amok with their freedom.  More stats does not make more RPG, any more than less, or even no stats make less RPG.  Really, this is flat out stated in the pen-ultimate RPG, D&D.  In the core books (I think it was the DMG, but it may have been the PH) it says that stats are in the game to quantify abstract concepts and make the imaginary system more concrete.  You can definitely go overboard with stats and stat processing, to the point that they take away from the game, as anyone who's tried to grapple anyone in 3E D&D knows.  Arguing that ME2 is less of an RPG than ME1 because there's less stats to tweak just seems like you value the stats in role-playing games more than, you know, role-playing.

Yes and no the stats are there to define your role.  It is like the talkative guy in your pen and paper game who smooths talks things with his 8 charisma barbarian.  Yeah the player is good at fast talking people but the character he is role playing is not.  So the GM shouldignore the awesome fast talking of the player and look at the die roll for the result.  That is what the stats and the die rolls are there for, for playing the role, not for playing you squared.  Still as a nybrid game people should not expect a players shooter skills to have as little effect as they did in ME1.  But then again the characters stats might have had too little effect in ME2 putting virtually everything into player skill. 

[wizardryforever]

Ahglock wrote...

Yes and no the stats are there to define your role.  It is like the talkative guy in your pen and paper game who smooths talks things with his 8 charisma barbarian.  Yeah the player is good at fast talking people but the character he is role playing is not.  So the GM shouldignore the awesome fast talking of the player and look at the die roll for the result.  That is what the stats and the die rolls are there for, for playing the role, not for playing you squared.  Still as a nybrid game people should not expect a players shooter skills to have as little effect as they did in ME1.  But then again the characters stats might have had too little effect in ME2 putting virtually everything into player skill. 

To an extent, yes.  They are meant to keep players in line.  They're meant to limit somewhat, what a player can and can't do.  Attempting to role-play something as something else is supposed to fail.  For example say I wanted to roleplay male Shepard as a cocktail waitress.  Even if the game system allowed that kind of behavior, I doubt male Shepard would make a very good waitress, and he would fail at it.  Stats quantify who your character is, and are really there in any game at all (video game that is).  You can break any video/PC game down into stats.  And really video game RPGs don't have to rely on stats as much for the character, since they can limit what is and isn't possible in the game.  This can limit role-playing, but it also eliminates much of the need for stats.

Regardless, I don't consider stats to be a necessary part of an RPG.  Stats are not what defines an RPG, sure most of them have stats, but there are plenty that don't.  Any video game will have stats involved in them.  It's surprising how many things can be broken down into numbers.

But anyway, getting off topic.  I don't think the mission complete screens are any more immersion breaking than the whole premise of the game to be honest.

[Terror_K]

The worst things are that the "Mission Complete" screens completely fail to give the XP you earn any context or meaning and that they make me feel like BioWare has suddenly pulled me away from playing with my toys, then put a bib on me and stuffed me into a high chair as they say in a cutesy voice, "Here comes the mission complete rewards! Zoo-ooo-ooo-ooom!" as they spoon feed me little helpings of XP, credits and minerals I somehow feel I should have already eaten.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

Sorry but the really worst thing about the Mission Complete screen is that the only ones who have come up with decent suggestions or at least agreed with them on how to resolve the issue are those who didn't have that much of an issue with it. Those that have whined about it have constantly been referring to ME with obvious rose tinted glasses on and not offered anything that could be possible for Bioware to do about it within reason.



So I'll just repeat a suggestion that I'll give Siegfrieda credit for initially suggesting it even if when I also mentioned it I hadn't read the line she had put with regards to it.



Simple solution to the mission complete screen, put it in Shep's terminal and have Kelly mention "The last Mission Report is in your terminal Commander" (or just put it there without her talking as I know how much that seemed to ****** people off the way she kept announcing things) *prepares for the onslaught of anti-Kelly people whining about her*



The comment someone made about how the mission complete screen causes you to end up in a different place afterwards, where is that, oh yeah either in a cut-scene DEBRIEFING OR at the CIC terminal the latter of which is where you always were put when you went on UNC missions on planets that weren't HUBs in ME, so don't try to come out with that 'immersion breaking' line about that, because it was just the same in ME.



As has been said about the 'party debriefings' in ME, Ash, Kaidan and Liara were usually pretty much the only ones who got involved and the latter to some extent could easily have just been in one of them... "ILOS, that where you need to go Shepard!" (ok she didn't say it like that, but you get the message). I don't recall Garrus, Tali or Wrex hardly ever getting involved. Now fast forward to the Normandy crew, as others have stated, is their any purpose in a: certain squad members wanting to be in a debriefing and/or b: having anything relevant to say in any of the stuff? The answer for the most part is no other than Mordin, Miranda and Jacob (apart from when we're talking about the suicide mission itself or the others individual missions).



A further point which has already been raised about the UNC missions earlier on in this topic, only a couple of those had cut-scenes afterwards and that was usually only Shepard and Joker interaction with Admiral Hackett. Latter of which obviously we wouldn't be speaking to in ME2 and Joker, well he was only involved to state message coming through from either Hackett or some other person. So, the Mission Complete screens give us more information that we didn't have from most of the UNC missions.



Now if people are still wanting to discuss it, let's discuss it, instead of just repeating mindless complaints about it.

[Terror_K]

Actually, I just posted a (possible) idea and solution in another thread just recently when the issue came up. And I happen to be somebody very much against it:-

I wrote... in another thread...

You've actually given me an idea now. Not sure if it'd work, but it's a start...

How about this: many of us want the old ME1 style post-missing briefings/discussions with the crew again, right? And several of us want Mission Complete screens gone too, yes?

Okay, with that in mind, how about this: at the end of a mission instead of getting a mission complete screen you can return to the Normandy. Perhaps a squaddie will comment on whether you want to contact Joker or whatever to return at the end of it all and you can choose whether to or not, and then click on said squaddie again (or on a particular terminal) to go back when you choose.

Upon returning to the ship, you see yourself sitting in the briefing room with your squad. You then (if you wish) go over the mission with them in order to make a report or summarise, for whatever reason. You do this by asking them their opinions on how things went. All your crew is there, but it's the ones you took with you who give the most feedback (if others feel strongly about a particular situation they may make the odd comment here and there too). As they go over key points of the mission as they observed them, and as each point is brought up through dialogue you see a counter appear at the bottom of the screen which shows your XP and ticks up with every point brought up, finally accumulating in your total XP as Shepard summarises at the end to give you your overall total.

This manages to do several things: 1) It gives XP context and meaning by illustrating where and how you earned it. 2) It restores the missed post-mission debriefing stuff from ME1. 3) It also brings back the whole "what's your opinion of the last mission?" style companion dialogue Ashley and Kaidan used to have after each main mission. 4) It gives you not only more companion content/dialogue and ties them more to both the game and the missions
themselves, but also gives you another window into their opinions of you and your actions, sometimes even from those who aren't there with you as you get to see their reactions to the recent events. 5) It gets rid of a static and suddenly "Mission Complete" screen by integrating it naturally into the narrative. 6) It gets rid of the forcing of the player to return to the ship. 7) It's completely optional, so Shepard can just opt to skip the summary for players who don't care and want to get on with it, in which case the lump sum is simply displayed before everybody is dismissed.

Thoughts?

Modifié par Terror_K, 05 décembre 2010 - 10:22 .

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

Ok... I give up, there clearly is no getting through to some people how they have been wearing rose tinted glasses through one game and then clearly putting the shutters down in front of their eyes and headphones in their ears on the next game.

For the last time.

MASS EFFECT 2 HAS DEBRIEF SCENES AFTER EVERY MAIN MISSION

Reason why your whole squad isn't involved in all of them is because they aren't needed/wouldn't be there/would have nothing to say (just like some of the people in the ME debriefings didn't anyway).

Your idea would mean having to do that for EVERY mission, not just the main ones but the N7 (or whatever the ME3 variant is going to be). There was only a few UNC missions that had cut-scenes post-mission and that was usually Shepard at the CIC talking to someone over Comms after Joker had patched them through (usually Hackett). ME2 dealt with this in some situations by having emails (saves costs of getting the VAs to do some work for a few meaningless seconds).

Not only would your idea mean having to do that for every mission, it would mean having to get every VA for every squadmate to do some dialogue for every mission and of course the animators who do the cut-scenes/dialogue scenes having to compensate for all the variables as far as Squad in the group is concerned for every mission.

Basically put, it'd be a use up a huge chunk of their resources/budget. That would be better off spent elsewhere to make the game good. Thankfully at least I know there is no way in hell Bioware would consider that idea of yours due to this.

[LPPrince]

Some of you need to relax.

Those of you talking about others wearing "rose tinted glasses" are coming off as either anti-ME1 or just straight out antagonistic.

People have different opinions. Debating the positives and negatives of said practices are fine, but it starts to go haywire when you say they are whining, wearing rose tinted glasses, or starting throwing names around.

Get over it. Not everyone feels the same way you do. Instead of trying to completely slam their idea, why not try to respectfully disagree and come up with respectful counterpoints?

I'm sure that'd come off a whole lot better.

Modifié par LPPrince, 04 décembre 2010 - 03:41 .

[Da_Lion_Man]

It's okay. Don't like it, don't hate it. I just don't care.

[Evil Johnny 666]

AmstradHero wrote...

And once again by reiterating that stats and customisation are the most important thing in an RPG you completely undermine your own assertion that WoW possesses only the fundamental structure of an RPG. It has a more complex system for what you are saying is the most important thing about RPGs than any other game you've listed.

It seems nearly impossible for players to come up with a general consensus on "what makes an RPG" because everyone has different definitions. And because these discussions typically get locked for irrelevance, I'm going to depart this thread now.

Edit: Also, going back to previous posts you've made that people have addressed and editing them is poor form. You're changing the context of subsequent posts by modifying your argument, which comes across as an attempt to change your position retroactively to make other people's contributions look inaccurate. Clarify your position in subsequent posts rather than redacting your previous arguments.

And what's the problem if I prefer games with a weaker core element?  The problem is that people make definitions that does not englobe all rpgs or say "they don't need all these elements". I'll take my JRPG example again, they are barely rpgs from peoples' definitions here, and shooters like Far Cry 2 can be considered as one as action adventure games. The definition of an rpg shouldn't have ambiguities, in a shooter you shoot, in a driving game you drive but all these games let you "role-play" in a certain way. RPG video games come from table-top games, it's about your character progression (the stats behind you) and these stats are essential to character progression, otherwise like Shepard in ME2, you're the same character from the beginning to the end. Alloting "skill points" in ammo types has nothing to do with personal skills.

If you take out research (because really, you have no choice but upgrade any items you want, why bother with this if you can just max them out like this, it's a time sink, completely useless), if you take out exp and and the couple of quests there is here and there (hell they could be featured in shooters or action adventure games, and I've seen such thing) what you're left with is a TPS with interactive dialog/cinematics. Tell me how this is an RPG? The only choice you have is either being a paragon/renegade or grey, because the conversation choices have nothing to do with what you want to say, well technically yes but they're all tied to one morality, so Shepard is basically 3 pre-determined characters. Then look at ME1, it's quite obvious which is more rpg. Maybe you find it more immersive, but immersion has nothing to do with rpgs.

I did not go back to edit previous post people have already addressed, I edited one post but shortly after it got answered on my original one which was not intended. I don't always think of everything I have to say (even more that I have headaches these days) and sometimes I find better ways to express something because my mother tongue isn't English. I might seem like changing my position, but that's not the case, maybe just poor wording I don't know, mainly I'm adding details. And anyway he didn't replied to my post for quite some time after so I thought there was no harm in editing my post and thought he'd read the edited version.

[Evil Johnny 666]

wizardryforever wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

Yes and no the stats are there to define your role.  It is like the talkative guy in your pen and paper game who smooths talks things with his 8 charisma barbarian.  Yeah the player is good at fast talking people but the character he is role playing is not.  So the GM shouldignore the awesome fast talking of the player and look at the die roll for the result.  That is what the stats and the die rolls are there for, for playing the role, not for playing you squared.  Still as a nybrid game people should not expect a players shooter skills to have as little effect as they did in ME1.  But then again the characters stats might have had too little effect in ME2 putting virtually everything into player skill. 

To an extent, yes.  They are meant to keep players in line.  They're meant to limit somewhat, what a player can and can't do.  Attempting to role-play something as something else is supposed to fail.  For example say I wanted to roleplay male Shepard as a cocktail waitress.  Even if the game system allowed that kind of behavior, I doubt male Shepard would make a very good waitress, and he would fail at it.  Stats quantify who your character is, and are really there in any game at all (video game that is).  You can break any video/PC game down into stats.  And really video game RPGs don't have to rely on stats as much for the character, since they can limit what is and isn't possible in the game.  This can limit role-playing, but it also eliminates much of the need for stats.

Regardless, I don't consider stats to be a necessary part of an RPG.  Stats are not what defines an RPG, sure most of them have stats, but there are plenty that don't.  Any video game will have stats involved in them.  It's surprising how many things can be broken down into numbers.

But anyway, getting off topic.  I don't think the mission complete screens are any more immersion breaking than the whole premise of the game to be honest.

I might have poorly worded my posts, but by stats (and I think I used the expression changing stats a couple of time, still weak) I meant stats you can change. I read somewhere else "character progression" and is really much more accurate for what I'm trying to say, but still stats are behing this, you have to play within a certain skillset and their stats change accordingly, you fit within a certain role. But everyone fit within a certain role, no one can do everything and everyone excels at something in particular, even if you're an highly trained super soldier, there's always a certain specialization as no one is better than someone who concentrates at doing something in particular.

As for the mission complete screens, well even if a game takes place in a futuristic setting, I'd part of the fun is wanting to feel immersed in it.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

LPPrince wrote...

Some of you need to relax.

Those of you talking about others wearing "rose tinted glasses" are coming off as either anti-ME1 or just straight out antagonistic.

People have different opinions. Debating the positives and negatives of said practices are fine, but it starts to go haywire when you say they are whining, wearing rose tinted glasses, or starting throwing names around.

Get over it. Not everyone feels the same way you do. Instead of trying to completely slam their idea, why not try to respectfully disagree and come up with respectful counterpoints?

I'm sure that'd come off a whole lot better.

That is the thing though isn't it, some of us have come up with sensible ideas and funnily enough it is mostly people who didn't have such a big deal about it that have done so.

The comment I put in caps in my last post, several of us had pointed out, time and time again in this post with some of them clearly paying no attention to it. Thus... rose tinted glasses/shutters situation because they seem to be of the assumption that all the squad was involved in every debrief in ME (which they weren't) and there was no debriefs in ME2 (which there were). The above analogy is thus perfect for such a scenario. Especially when it comes to people claiming there weren't load screens in ME like there was ME2 when those of us without such 'colored' view of ME knows that isn't the case.

I'm not anti-ME and not intending to be antagonistic, I'm just giving my opinion on things which are based on things I know and somethings which to me seem obvious (as it seems, others do too). Besides, surely if I was the former, I too would be complaining about load screens, seeing as... "They've still not got rid of load screens!" (last bit said in jest hence italics). Don't get me wrong, there are somethings I didn't like about ME, although the main issue that I had with it was from a more 'technical' side of things which stemmed from issues between certain Nvidia cards and the game, Bioware/Nvidia had fixed it for a bit but then it came back again when Nvidia did an update last year. Thus it wasn't 'in-game' related like some others had. Just as much I have dislikes about ME2, but just as with ME the 'in-game' ones are minor quibbles which I can live with if need be.

[Commandant Bob]

I like the idea for the optional debrief with the team as well as having the mission summary available on the private terminal.

For the first idea, it would be tedious for Bioware to put in every single potential squad member's opinion for every single mission. I'd like that for major missions, but it is too much work for the 25~ N7 missions that only take 5 minutes to do.

I think the second idea would work well for the N7missions, not that it shouldn't also be available for major missions. As long as Kelly doesn't tell us every single time.

[Siegdrifa]

Terror_K wrote...

Actually, I just posted a (possible) idea and solution in another thread just recently when the issue came up. And I happy to be somebody very much against it:-

I wrote... in another thread...

You've actually given me an idea now. Not sure if it'd work, but it's a start...

How about this: many of us want the old ME1 style post-missing briefings/discussions with the crew again, right? And several of us want Mission Complete screens gone too, yes?

Okay, with that in mind, how about this: at the end of a mission instead of getting a mission complete screen you can return to the Normandy. Perhaps a squaddie will comment on whether you want to contact Joker or whatever to return at the end of it all and you can choose whether to or not, and then click on said squaddie again (or on a particular terminal) to go back when you choose.

Upon returning to the ship, you see yourself sitting in the briefing room with your squad. You then (if you wish) go over the mission with them in order to make a report or summarise, for whatever reason. You do this by asking them their opinions on how things went. All your crew is there, but it's the ones you took with you who give the most feedback (if others feel strongly about a particular situation they may make the odd comment here and there too). As they go over key points of the mission as they observed them, and as each point is brought up through dialogue you see a counter appear at the bottom of the screen which shows your XP and ticks up with every point brought up, finally accumulating in your total XP as Shepard summarises at the end to give you your overall total.

This manages to do several things: 1) It gives XP context and meaning by illustrating where and how you earned it. 2) It restores the missed post-mission debriefing stuff from ME1. 3) It also brings back the whole "what's your opinion of the last mission?" style companion dialogue Ashley and Kaidan used to have after each main mission. 4) It gives you not only more companion content/dialogue and ties them more to both the game and the missions
themselves, but also gives you another window into their opinions of you and your actions, sometimes even from those who aren't there with you as you get to see their reactions to the recent events. 5) It gets rid of a static and suddenly "Mission Complete" screen by integrating it naturally into the narrative. 6) It gets rid of the forcing of the player to return to the ship. 7) It's completely optional, so Shepard can just opt to skip the summary for players who don't care and want to get on with it, in which case the lump sum is simply displayed before everybody is dismissed.

Thoughts?

I get the feeling they ended up with mission end screen because it would have been to much work and they had to focus on other priority.
In ME1 there is very few debriefing, only for importante mission, and for N7 mission, it's dealt with usualy admiral Hacket and Shep, meaning only a few voice had to be recorded.

In ME2, the work around rtc during main mission and loyalty mission is pretty huge (even if it doesn't look like it) and the amount of "important mission" that would need a debriefing is a lot bigger.
Debriefing, in order to be well made would require very well writen line, because it can't just resume what we have done, like you said, having opinion from other squad mate.

I hope they will have time to make a more "flowing" and "implated" debriefing for ME3.

[DylanZeppelin]

Well to me it did 2 things, one it felt like an action game where you had missions (mission 1, mission 2 etc) and 2 is the immersion part, now a lot of people have already mentioned it, so all I am going to say is that any game that is story heavy that makes you feel as if you are the protagonist must maintain that and this is seen in a lot of games (MGS for example) and what the score screen did was take you out of being Shepard and to you being the player, the guy or girl playing this game simply put.

[Terror_K]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

Your idea would mean having to do that for EVERY mission, not just the main ones but the N7 (or whatever the ME3 variant is going to be). There was only a few UNC missions that had cut-scenes post-mission and that was usually Shepard at the CIC talking to someone over Comms after Joker had patched them through (usually Hackett). ME2 dealt with this in some situations by having emails (saves costs of getting the VAs to do some work for a few meaningless seconds).

Not only would your idea mean having to do that for every mission, it would mean having to get every VA for every squadmate to do some dialogue for every mission and of course the animators who do the cut-scenes/dialogue scenes having to compensate for all the variables as far as Squad in the group is concerned for every mission.

Basically put, it'd be a use up a huge chunk of their resources/budget. That would be better off spent elsewhere to make the game good. Thankfully at least I know there is no way in hell Bioware would consider that idea of yours due to this.

Fine. If you want to make it cheaper and simpler (though less satisfying) just have Shepard and EDI as the only ones who talk, with perhaps a rare exception for particular squaddies who pipe up now and then. EDI simply goes over the aspects of the mission, whereby the nature of the XP is given as things are gone over.

Personally I'd simply prefer you simply earned XP as you go like it was in ME1. That idea is supposed to be a compromise and was a response to the idea of key events being the main source of XP rather than a completely contextless lump sum.