262 réponses à ce sujet

[sinosleep]

[quote]Slayer299 wrote...

What stats are you seeing that I've never seen? I've yet to see one thing in-game that tells me how much damage any of my weapons actually does. The same goes for damage absorbed by my armor/shields. We do see upgrades of 10% here and upto 50%, but 10% - 50% of what since I see no base to judge my equipment in-game.

It doesn't have to be as specific on every little detail, but I need something to base those upgrade percentages on[/quote]

Um, did I say anything about stats on weapons? I said stat based powers. Stat based as in 1) you have to dump points into them for them to function, and 2) they DO provide damage statistics.

I certainly wouldn't mind stats with regards to what weapons do, what I don't want is stat based accuracy like in ME 1.


[quote]No one is talking about a lack of narrative/dialogue trees/etc, because obviously they are there, but those part of the game-play mechanics that have to be there to help tell a story outside of a shooter like CoD/MoH for example.[/quote]

Not sure I understand this last bit. You certainly don't need dialogue trees to tell a good story, Uncharted tells a damned good story that you have no control over whatsoever.



[/quote]

Modifié par sinosleep, 28 décembre 2010 - 03:58 .

[habitat 67]

Pshhh, this whole shooter/ dialogue thing has been beaten down like a Skag carcass.

Well I haven't heard anyone say it yet but I want tons and tons of items of variable value. Items similar to bonesaws, snack cakes, toy cars, cans of beans and worthless rusty tin cans. I want to spend hours and hours collecting such items and then I'd like to be able to arrange them in a decorative fashion all over the Normandy. I also want to spend countless more hours gathering non-stolen food to drop on the floor at Gardner's feet for my squadmates to eat.

Then, I'd like to be able to drink out of the toilets. Who's with me?

Modifié par habitat 67, 28 décembre 2010 - 06:11 .

[Praetor Knight]

habitat 67 wrote...

Well I haven't heard anyone say it yet but I want tons and tons of items of variable value. Items similar to bonesaws, snack cakes, toy cars, cans of beans and worthless rusty tin cans. I want to spend hours and hours collecting such items and then I'd like to be able to arrange them in a decorative fashion all over the Normandy. I also want to spend countless more hours gathering non-stolen food to drop on the floor at Gardner's feet for my squadmates to eat.

Then, I'd like to be able to drink out of the toilets. Who's with me?

I see where you're going...


I've got a few games that fit that description

[sinosleep]

Rusty tin cans aren't worthless, they make perfectly good Nuka Grenades.It's the bent tin cans that are worthless, get your facts straight!

Modifié par sinosleep, 28 décembre 2010 - 06:27 .

[Epic777]

Most RPGs there is a level of abstraction in the combat, the player selects commands for their character to attack however in shooters practicality TPS/FPS you are in complete direct control. Aiming at an enemies head and then "missing" because of stats or dice rolls doesn't make sense. Kotor had good combat in the third person because the abstract was never removed. Once that abstraction is removed and the game gives the player control, they should not be controlled directly by RPG style stats.

[Omega-202]

Epic777 wrote...

Most RPGs there is a level of abstraction in the combat, the player selects commands for their character to attack however in shooters practicality TPS/FPS you are in complete direct control. Aiming at an enemies head and then "missing" because of stats or dice rolls doesn't make sense. Kotor had good combat in the third person because the abstract was never removed. Once that abstraction is removed and the game gives the player control, they should not be controlled directly by RPG style stats.

Completely agree.  

And thank god Christina Norman agreed too.  
http://prezi.com/6xe...y-inventory-go/

I love her video in that presentation of a Soldier on Eden Prime.  It just goes to show how pathetically laughable the implementation was and how absurd it is to have an accuracy stat in a shooter game.  

[habitat 67]

sinosleep wrote...

Rusty tin cans aren't worthless, they make perfectly good Nuka Grenades.It's the bent tin cans that are worthless, get your facts straight!

I'm embarrased to say I haven't made many weapons... yet. Maybe in my next 200+ hours...

On a slightly (very slightly) more serious note, the whole RPG discussion spiral does seem to happen without much concern for inventory collecting as an important (well maybe not important but at least entertaining) RPG facet.
Maybe it's the anthropologist in me but even the most mundane of items can flesh out a society pretty nicely. I would love to find and resell Ryncol, Blasto figurines, Pyjack kabobs and whatever else instead of a simple four mineral planet mining. Lost even were the small discoveries of fancy insignias and Matriarch writings... for four measly minerals! PC gamers didn't even get the funky four section controller vibrating that the 360 afforded us.  

So yeah, I'll be over here quietly hoping that we get some memorable loot this time around. I mean, look at the general excitement  generated from just one copy of unopenable Fornax.

 

[habitat 67]

Epic777 wrote...

Most RPGs there is a level of abstraction in the combat, the player selects commands for their character to attack however in shooters practicality TPS/FPS you are in complete direct control. Aiming at an enemies head and then "missing" because of stats or dice rolls doesn't make sense. Kotor had good combat in the third person because the abstract was never removed. Once that abstraction is removed and the game gives the player control, they should not be controlled directly by RPG style stats.

Wow.  I can't figure out why I never looked at it that way before.

Accuracy is used extensively in Borderlands though and quite well If I may say so, although I suppose it may not be an RPG style accuracy. What made it work in that instance?

[sinosleep]

Epic777 wrote...

Most RPGs there is a level of abstraction in the combat, the player selects commands for their character to attack however in shooters practicality TPS/FPS you are in complete direct control. Aiming at an enemies head and then "missing" because of stats or dice rolls doesn't make sense. Kotor had good combat in the third person because the abstract was never removed. Once that abstraction is removed and the game gives the player control, they should not be controlled directly by RPG style stats.

Great post!

habitat 67 wrote...

Wow.  I can't figure out why I never looked at it that way before.

Accuracy is used extensively in Borderlands though and quite well If I may say so, although I suppose it may not be an RPG style accuracy. What made it work in that instance?

I've never played Borderlands but from reviews I assumed that dice rolls didn't have anything to do with combat. I distinctly remember reading several reviews that made the direct comparison to Fall Out 3 calling Fall Out 3 an RPG with guns while Borderlands was an FPS with skill trees.

Modifié par sinosleep, 28 décembre 2010 - 07:13 .

[Schneidend]

Borderlands' "accuracy" merely reduces the initial spread of weapons. If your bullet hits somebody, they are hit. As you have surmised, sinosleep, it's basically an FPS with skill trees and all your guns' stats are visible in-game. So, it's a hybrid done right, like ME2.

[sinosleep]

Damned shame I missed out on Borderlands. I'm an absolute Diablo FIEND and from everything I read it seemed to be, as you said, a hybrid done right as well as essentially being Diablo with guns. I



I HATE the job market where I live.

[Schneidend]

There's even several Diablo references in there, like a rare series of shotguns called "Butchers" with the quote "Ah, fresh meat!" in their description.

[ak4115]

Borderlands gameplay mechanics is light years ahead of ME2, theres no comparison.

[Lumikki]

Really sad to read this thread, even if it's sometimes pretty nice discussion.

First why would anyone here thing that Mass Effect is traditional RPG?

I mean some of you people ask more RPG while you also define that RPG is same as traditional RPG. Do you really understand what you ask and what it means for game like Mass Effect.

All I can say that Mass Effect main STYLE is cinematic game-play. Cinematic game-play here means smooth movie like camera perspective game-play as advancing in the story. It's about not breaking the screenplay for technical game-play or information what doesn't really support the movie like feeling. The RPG part in Mass Effect is about creating players more choices, variety, impression and social connections, so that it's improving the players freedom and impression of living world. Customisation and choices can be made many ways and some traditional RPG features just doesn't make game like Mass Effect better, even how good features they are for traditional RPG. This is because the Mass Effects style is totally different, so these RPG features need to be created so that they support the Mass Effect style.

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

Gameplay wise, ME1 wanted to be this great shooter-RPG hybrid, but that didn't work out too well. The game
certainly had its strengths (most notably the richness of the game universe and the top notch story), but neither the shooter- nor the RPG systems were all that impressive.

Now fast forward to ME2. Is the shooter part more satisfying? Heck yes. Are the RPG systems too simple?
Arguably yes. Solution: Give the RPG part of the package more love, ideally the same amount of designer love that the shooting got.

Going back to ME1 gameplay, however, is not the solution and I'm also 100% certain that that's not what they are doing.

This person pretty much sayed, how it was, how it is and how it should be. While RPG needs to be improved, it's also question how it should be improved. Because other ways we are going back to problems what ME1 had.

Modifié par Lumikki, 28 décembre 2010 - 03:24 .

[tonnactus]

Jacen987 wrote...



I suppose its a matter of preferance.I however prefer it when things are more organic,less mechnical and segmented.Like on Noveria when i do a quest for the merchant,then report him to the administrator,then do go met Lorak Qeen.And on the way out i speak with that Thessian Spy,then betray Qeen to Annolayus,than do the Office quest,then come back to Admn.A,without one single loading screen or the game forcing me into a specific area.

Noveria is also a good example how to solve a quests in different ways not in A to B way. Shepardt needs a pass.Could betray the hanar that want him to deliver a weapon mod and a entire fight with Kaira Stirling is skipped.Or sell the mod to Inamorda,defeat Kaira Stirling and still give the evidence to Anolais.Or tell Anoleis that Parasinni is a spy which lead to the result that they kill eachother.

A decent amount of options and choices that motivate to replay a game.

Modifié par tonnactus, 28 décembre 2010 - 02:49 .

[tonnactus]

sinosleep wrote...

With regards to stats for weapons, NO, NO, NO AND NO. Shepard is not the traditional young, untrained, upstart, that rpgs generally use for their protagonist. He is an highly decorated spec ops soldier REGARDLESS of class and as such should be damned good with any weapon available to him. If there was ever anything immersion break about ME 1 it was that, particularly when the person playing it is a military man himself.
 

This argument is getting old. Why a vanguard shepardt has to learn pull or how to change ammo in a weapons?(the military for sure have special training for their rare biotics,and biotics even start with training when they are teenagers)
An adept shepardt basicly also starts at level one even in abilities like throw that existed in the first game.
This also didnt make sense,but no one complaints about it.(because at this point most people realize that rpgs needs some skill progression/but why weapon skills would be more out of place then to learn tech or biotic powers again no one could explain)
But its the same like the weapon skills. Some things like carnage would be even possible in the second game,just without accuracy benefits. Enemy krogans still use this skill but oviously shepardt forget how to make such shot.

Modifié par tonnactus, 28 décembre 2010 - 03:36 .

[Aeowyn]

Honestly, I miss the variety of armours and weapons and the skill levelling. In ME2 it just felt pointless while in ME1 you felt like it meant something. However, adding points to increase weapon accuracy was stupid. I did like adding points to Charm/Intimidate though.

I also miss the dialogue and like Jacen pointed out, the more "open" style of questing. I hate the style ME2 uses with "oh if you chose to start this mission/quest you can't go back and after you've finished that area is off-limit". Stupid.

[Praetor Knight]

tonnactus wrote...

This argument is getting old. Why a vanguard shepardt has to learn pull or how to change ammo in a weapons?(the military for sure have special training for their rare biotics,and biotics even start with training when they are teenagers)
An adept shepard basicly also starts at level one even in abilities like throw that existed in the first game.
This also didnt make sense,but no one complaints about it.(because at this point most people realize that rpgs needs some skill progression/but why weapon skills would be more out of place then to learn tech or biotic powers again no one could explain)
But its the same like the weapon skills. Some things like carnage would be even possible in the second game,just without accuracy benefits. Enemy krogans still use this skill but oviously shepardt forget how to make such shot.

Dunno if Shep forgot per se, then again Shep did lose two years and at least had to have his/her body rebuilt, while at least in a coma.

But maybe Carnage also became unnecessary, like omnigel to unlock crates and such. Another way to put it, the Krogan could still be rolling with older equipment in ME2, while Shep has newer equipment.

Either way, I want to see that Shep can spend 51 skill points at the start of ME3, that is, if the ME2 Combat system will be used and obviously expanded.

[tonnactus]

Aeowyn wrote...

Honestly, I miss the variety of armours and weapons and the skill levelling. In ME2 it just felt pointless while in ME1 you felt like it meant something. However, adding points to increase weapon accuracy was stupid. 

You got specific talents like carnage,not just accuracy. You could just put some points in between when leveling(and still gain some minor advantages doing that),and not waiting several level ups to have 4 points for "evolving" a power.
And you dont have unused points at the end.

[tonnactus]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

But maybe Carnage also became unnecessary, like omnigel to unlock crates and such. Another way to put it, the Krogan could still be rolling with older equipment in ME2, while Shep has newer equipment.

So the older equipment(its not new,otherwise krogans would do more damage at range,and they are too dumb to use assault rifles now except grunt...) is better then the new one,because carnage is still a decent ranged shotgun attack.

[Praetor Knight]

tonnactus wrote...

Praetor Shepard wrote...

But maybe Carnage also became unnecessary, like omnigel to unlock crates and such. Another way to put it, the Krogan could still be rolling with older equipment in ME2, while Shep has newer equipment.

So the older equipment(its not new,otherwise krogans would do more damage at range,and they are too dumb to use assault rifles now except grunt...) is better then the new one,because carnage is still a decent ranged shotgun attack.

Maybe too proud (or broke on Tuchanka... ), otherwise it's most likely for gameplay balancing.

Either way Krogan do not seem to have been justly served in ME2.

[Shotokanguy]

I've only read 2 pages of this topic and it's all I can stomach. The only "RPG elements" people are concerned with are the ones during gameplay, and ME2 was an improvement in just about every way.



I'm so sick of seeing ME2 get reduced to some kind of soulless FPS for people who drool on themselves while they play games and yell at their mom to get them some chocolate milk.

[tonnactus]

Praetor Shepard wrote...


Maybe too proud (or broke on Tuchanka... ), otherwise it's most likely for gameplay balancing.

Either way Krogan do not seem to have been justly served in ME2.

They did the same to asari enemies.All asari fighters were described as light armored and agile,cover their weaknesses with biotics(and excactly this was the case in the first game). Now look what we have now. Slow,thick armored dumb warp bots with the excepetion of the asari spectre.
The enemy engineers are also jokes now.Geth hoppers and batarians engineers nearly used all talents shepardt could use too.Now they just spam incinerate and sometimes use a drone.
No enemy use more then one weapon except the ymir.Not even subbosses like asari "commandos" and krogan battlemasters.Snipers are completly gone(but still mentioned/must have stealth) and shepardt is not even killed or seriuosly damaged by a rocket or a krogan melee attack no matter what class.Not even a colossus blast is really damaging.
And  people still think that the combat in Mass Effect 2 is somehow superior.

Modifié par tonnactus, 28 décembre 2010 - 06:25 .

[Phaedon]

Because RPGs are all about stats, right,right ?

[Bocks]

I only want RPG elements if they are done correctly.



Mass Effect 1 was a meh RPG with terrible TPS elements

Mass Effect 2 was an OK TPS with terrible RPG elements



Mass Effect 3 should be a mix between a decent RPG and a decent TPS at the very least. Bioware have spent enough time experimenting with what works and what doesn't.