461 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

I like tweaking too, but I don't want to waste my playing time too much in menus. It's the difference what is the main priority the game, tweak or play role in story. As for research/upgrade system in ME2. You are wrong Terror_K there, it's actually really good in base idea. We have talked this before, the problem isn't the research, it's missing customation as making choises. Like we talked ones, the modding part. Research is trying to make the manual version update to more automatic. That is actually good thing. Because player manually changing sword +1 to sword +2 has absolute ZERO meaning to player, so why waste time to do it manually. What player needs it to make choises like to I use, fire sword or ice sword.

I think you misunderstood me. I do believe that the research/upgrade system has potential, and the basic concept is fine. The problem is that it alone isn't enough, and the execution of it in ME2 is awful and broken, partly because it stands alone rather than being a means to customisation amongst others. I was actually looking forward to this aspect when I heard about it, expecting it to be more in-depth and involved than it turned out to be. Things like basic upgrades should just be automatic, but not everything should be and some of it should be researched and then chosen by the player and limited. The main broken factor of the system as it is is that it just stacks every upgrade without limits, which not only God-mods all the items too easily but also eliminates choice, since the player will inevitably upgrade everything because they can. It's basically the equivalent of those God-modded weapons players creating with modding tools in games like NWN, Oblivion and Fallout 3/NV, but it's already in the vanilla game and merely takes a little longer. It's worse than ME1's Master Spectre gear; at least that still limited you to only three mods slots.

I don't like how you say this, it's more insult to shooters,  than actual point what you try to say. You do this kind of too much, blame others or compare to something like insult. How you think we people who likes ME2 feels, when you do this?

I was complimenting shooters there if anything, by saying many of them had deeper elements than ME2, which is supposed to be an RPG. And sometimes things have to be put that way because if one ****foots around the issue one doesn't get the point across. I love shooters too, but that doesn't mean I want ME2 to become one. I don't go to Mass Effect for pure simplicity and shallow gameplay, I go to it for story, character, roleplaying and gameplay depth.

Yes, but have you ever consider that what you try to do may also be pain of others. Meaning don't think what you want and like is what other want and likes. There is no right way to go here, just different tastes. Also problem isn't you message, but again how you say it, like insult.

Except that there are plenty of titles out there today that suit their needs. Mass Effect is supposed to be an RPG, but with ME2 it's like they're making it for the shooter crowd; a group who already has ten billion titles to choose from these days as it is. Like I said, I like shooters too. I like many genres. I'm particularly looking forward to playing both Bulletstorm and Duke Nukem Forever this year, as both games should be over-the-top mindless fun. But Mass Effect isn't about over-the-top mindless fun, and I'm sick of it being shifted more towards that style or more towards that audience simply because they're the majority these days.

Yes, there are different tastes, but it seems like today game developers are catering only towards the one taste: the most mainstream one. I just want Mass Effect to remain an RPG and remain a game that appeals more to me on the level it started out as, rather than changing up to fit this new audience. An audience that usually doesn't touch RPGs because they find them too complex or don't like the mechanics. Yet they come into the RPG territory because a few titles start to look interesting and don't quite bite because of it, but instead of BioWare simply saying, "Well, y'know... this game clearly isn't meant for you. Maybe you should go and play one of the many dozens already out that do," they're saying, "Welcome aboard! Let's just get rid of these things that put you off. Who cares if it starts to alienate some of our existing fanbase, as long as we have your money... I mean, approval!"

Sorry, but I just don't like that my tastes are no longer being catered to by a company that used to specialise in it in favour of changing up titles I used to like and turning them into something I don't like to merely appeal to an audience that already has plenty of stuff on their plate as it is. It's all very well to say, "other people like different things than you," but they have plenty of these things already catering to their tastes. I feel like a peasant or bum on the streets and then a rich man has come along and stolen the one piece of food I managed to scrounge up and taken it for himself despite having a whole mansion full of the stuff.

It's not just attitude of the others, it's also your own attitude. It's like if they are agaist you, they ruin you way. Of course they do, because they have different opinion. Point is it's same in both ways.

Again, it doesn't work both way because I'm in a minority. Again, there's plenty of stuff out there for them to enjoy, so why do the few things left that I like have to be changed into one of theirs just because they're in the majority? It used to be that there was loads of variation and diverse types of games for all different tastes, but lately software companies seem to want to produce the same brown drivel for everybody.

This is because you visualised it to be something what it never was or valued something what wasn't the point. You thinked Mass Effect serie to be more orginal RPG, than it really was. I see the gameplay mechanics change alot, what happen between Mass Effects, but the hearth what Mass Effect is was never changed. Meaning try to see Mass Effect more like cinematic adventure game.  Idea what Mass Effect really is, is still there. You are just looking wrong direction, the features and technical way how something is done. Not as impression, cinematic and visual story ways. It's same difference how we see the RPG it self, for you it's more adjusting numbers and me more impression related.

Nope. Mass Effect 2 came along and changed what Mass Effect was. It's as simple as that. This is clear not only from what BioWare showed and said about the original Mass Effect leading up to its release, but how different priorities changed with ME2 and how the overall style seemed to change. ME2 is trying to stay about as true to the original vision of Mass Effect as the second seasons of Space 1999 and Buck Rogers did, or about as much as J.J. Abrams' Star Trek did to the original series, or about as much as the Star Wars prequels did to the original Star Wars. The whole thing is clearly been regeared towards a younger, more mainstream and action-loving audience. It's hardly subtle about it, so if you deny it you have to either be blind or in complete denial.

What to say here. I don't believe you. You may think what you say here is what you believe, but after reading alot of you post, I don't really get impression what you say. Meaning you use the first of serie as escuse to support you needs of stat-type of role-playing. Be honest to you self, you want stats in general. Read you post how you attack any idea where someone wants something to be simple. You want it more complex and it has nothing to do with first Mass Effect. You just love and have alot of passion in the orginal type of RPG.

Also please do't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong in what you pursue. I my self like that too, but I never thinked first Mass Effect as orginal RPG, I allways thiked is as cinematic action adventure game. That's why the invetory adn combat system caused me problems, because they where so clumpsy.

Again, you're wrong. I loved Jade Empire for what it was, and it had even less stats and RPG elements than ME2 did. But I understood that it was trying to be what it was and nothing more than that. As I said before, I'm looking forward to Bulletstorm and Duke Nukem Forever, and I don't expect them to have loads of stats, etc. The overall point is that Mass Effect is supposed to be an RPG, and thus have a certain depth and complexity to its elements. The original Mass Effect established this, albeit in a clumsy way. ME2 deviated too much from this original version and just because shallow and watered down. As much as I'm probably going to love Bulletstorm and Duke Nukem Forever, that doesn't mean I want ME2 to become them, or ME3 to either. I go to different games for different things. Mass Effect set me up in a certain way and set me on a certain path for a certain gameplay style, and ME2 just failed to continue to deliver the same experience in almost every way. It's not about it "being RPG or not" so much about it remaining consistent, which it just wasn't.

It's shallow, if you look about tweaking point, but if you actually play the game from impression point as just enjoying the story and combat, it's not that shallow at all. My point is that you view point is anything what doesn't have alot of stats is shallow, because you are looking orginal RPG in MAss Effect. If you think Mass Effect more as like interactive movie, it does good job in that. So, my point is that, if I think Mass Effect as strategy game, it doens't do good job in that. So, hole shallows as good it does something, is depending how you see the hole Mass Effect serie as what it is.

Again, it's about consistency within the series. ME2 may be a good game for what it is, but to me it just isn't Mass Effect. It pulls away from what the original game established too much. If I want a purely interactive movie game then I'll play Fahrenheit or Heavy Rain, or even go back to something like It Came from the Desert. Mass Effect 2 is admittedly a great game, but it's a bad RPG and a bad Mass Effect 2.

Sure, but here comes the question. What is the balance between them. The way you want or the way I want?

Because in my opinion the technical/mechanical layer should become as invisible as possible to players so that players can conserate the real game what is the presentative/impression layer.

To me the RPG elements are the real game when playing an RPG. Without them you just have a story-driven shooter, and to me that's just plain shallow. Especially when you're supposed to be an RPG and there are story-driven shooters out there that aren't but are doing a better job of it.

Yeah, because adding RPG isn't same as doing traditinal RPG. Like we have allready splited here between stat-RPG and role-RPG. Meaning games starts to add more roles to play, but more role can be arrived other means than adding alot of stats too. It's the difference between hidden stats affecting players gameplay and have alot of visual stats for player to adjust. What's the main point of game, adjusting stats or playing the story. Ask from you self is stats part of gameplay, because they are tools to adjust the gameplay or because stats has become the gameplay? Because if they are just tools, maybe they don't need to be so visible and can be adjusted by the gameplay it self, without visual manual adjusting?

Again, in an RPG they are part of gameplay. They are helping you define your character's skills and abilities, and allowing you to customise them and their gear. That's as much part of the gameplay as talking to people or running around shooting them is. To me, it's the main part, because an RPG can't be an RPG without the mechanical aspects in the background. Not everything needs to come to the forefront, but a certain amount of it does to allow customisation and make the elements satisfactory. If people are simply after a story-driven TPS, then not so much, but that's not what the Mass Effect series was supposed to be. That's just what it seemed to become with ME2. And all for the sake of those who throw a fit as soon as anything gets in the way of their combat and/or speaking.

[Lunatic LK47]

Terror_K wrote...

I was complimenting shooters there if anything, by saying many of them had deeper elements than ME2, which is supposed to be an RPG. And sometimes things have to be put that way because if one ****foots around the issue one doesn't get the point across. I love shooters too, but that doesn't mean I want ME2 to become one. I don't go to Mass Effect for pure simplicity and shallow gameplay, I go to it for story, character, roleplaying and gameplay depth.

Problem is the gameplay *PLAYED* like a shooter in the combat mechanics, and like I mentioned at least three dozen times: Half of Shepard's skills were outright senseless with weapon usage. I can scream bull**** if someone decided to make a New Zealand S.A.S.game where the operatives are incompetent with guns, which is *NOT* the case in real life [i.e. EXTENSIVE TRAINING*]. That's how bad Shepard's weapon skills were, and he/she shouldn't have been on that boat. If Shepard was just the average soldier that got out of *BASIC* military training, I would have been fine with it.

Except that there are plenty of titles out there today that suit their needs. Mass Effect is supposed to be an RPG, but with ME2 it's like they're making it for the shooter crowd; a group who already has ten billion titles to choose from these days as it is. Like I said, I like shooters too. I like many genres. I'm particularly looking forward to playing both Bulletstorm and Duke Nukem Forever this year, as both games should be over-the-top mindless fun. But Mass Effect isn't about over-the-top mindless fun, and I'm sick of it being shifted more towards that style or more towards that audience simply because they're the majority these days.

Hate to burst your bubble, but I outright hate most of the mainstream stuff because a good majority of them are little more than $70 paperweights. I am *NOT* one of those "ZOMG, game mu5t hav co-op/multiplayer/ LOLOLOLOLOL" players. I play single-player only mainly so that I can play my game on my own terms and whenever I have the time for it without having to worry about an artificial clock that will randomly expire. Shooter-wise, they've all consistently gone downhill, and I *OUTRIGHT HATE* Gears of War mainly for the lack of story (I shouldn't have to rely on second-hand supplemental material just to get the proper exposition of the story.). I'm already at the point where I'm completely done with gaming after Mass Effect 3 gets released because there is nothing worth interesting anymore. Halo's already down the tubes since Halo 3 with the increasing amount of retcons, I lost interest in Call of Duty after the Infinity Ward Scandal, Deus Ex: Human Revolution may end up being another Alpha Protocol (i.e. **** management being the main result of mediocre/******-poor gameplay), and I am not a big fan of sandbox games. As far as games I liked that were not Mass Effect related, or Infinity Ward Call of Duty-related games, only Arkham Asylum was worth my time, and that's not saying much. As it is, most of the mainstream titles just looked like it was little more than shovelware for the sake of shovelware

Yes, there are different tastes, but it seems like today game developers are catering only towards the one taste: the most mainstream one. I just want Mass Effect to remain an RPG and remain a game that appeals more to me on the level it started out as, rather than changing up to fit this new audience. An audience that usually doesn't touch RPGs because they find them too complex or don't like the mechanics. Yet they come into the RPG territory because a few titles start to look interesting and don't quite bite because of it, but instead of BioWare simply saying, "Well, y'know... this game clearly isn't meant for you. Maybe you should go and play one of the many dozens already out that do," they're saying, "Welcome aboard! Let's just get rid of these things that put you off. Who cares if it starts to alienate some of our existing fanbase, as long as we have your money... I mean, approval!"

Basically you're saying, "I don't mind that Mass Effect doesn't use archaic RPG elements, but anyone that wants the gameplay to be simpler is wrong for saying it." Ever wonder why there aren't any RPGs that didn't use the style you liked for the past ten years that are being created? Too ****ing time-consuming to learn.

Sorry, but I just don't like that my tastes are no longer being catered to by a company that used to specialise in it in favour of changing up titles I used to like and turning them into something I don't like to merely appeal to an audience that already has plenty of stuff on their plate as it is. It's all very well to say, "other people like different things than you," but they have plenty of these things already catering to their tastes. I feel like a peasant or bum on the streets and then a rich man has come along and stolen the one piece of food I managed to scrounge up and taken it for himself despite having a whole mansion full of the stuff.

I used to be on the same boat when the Wii entered the picture, but I can see the other side of the spectrum here.

Again, it doesn't work both way because I'm in a minority. Again, there's plenty of stuff out there for them to enjoy, so why do the few things left that I like have to be changed into one of theirs just because they're in the majority? It used to be that there was loads of variation and diverse types of games for all different tastes, but lately software companies seem to want to produce the same brown drivel for everybody.

There's a second option: Stop gaming. Let's see how well that will go. I know I will right after Mass Effect 3 is done.

To me the RPG elements are the real game when playing an RPG. Without them you just have a story-driven shooter, and to me that's just plain shallow. Especially when you're supposed to be an RPG and there are story-driven shooters out there that aren't but are doing a better job of it.

What's *YOUR* definition of RPG elements? 

Again, in an RPG they are part of gameplay. They are helping you define your character's skills and abilities, and allowing you to customise them and their gear. That's as much part of the gameplay as talking to people or running around shooting them is. To me, it's the main part, because an RPG can't be an RPG without the mechanical aspects in the background. Not everything needs to come to the forefront, but a certain amount of it does to allow customisation and make the elements satisfactory. If people are simply after a story-driven TPS, then not so much, but that's not what the Mass Effect series was supposed to be. That's just what it seemed to become with ME2. And all for the sake of those who throw a fit as soon as anything gets in the way of their combat and/or speaking.

Uh, I'm playing the role of an elite soldier who has had extensive training. Why exactly should I have to spend skill points just to competently shoot my guns?

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

I think you misunderstood me.

Okey, I get you point.

I was complimenting shooters there if anything, by saying many of them had deeper elements than ME2, which is supposed to be an RPG.

Yeah, but is it you idea what RPG is or how someone else sees RPG? Because we allready know that we have different idea what RPG is.

Again, it doesn't work both way because I'm in a minority.

Are you minority because RPG or because stat based RPG? Because I'm also RPG fan too. Maybe RPG as gendre is also changing, because technology allows different ways to execute it.

Nope. Mass Effect 2 came along and changed what Mass Effect was. It's as simple as that.

Exactly, you see it as changed to something else, while I see it as define it as what it is. I see both ME1 and ME2 as same serie, they just have different technical gameplay.

The whole thing is clearly been regeared towards a younger, more mainstream and action-loving audience. It's hardly subtle about it, so if you deny it you have to either be blind or in complete denial.

Yes, but why are you blaming other players, Bioware and ME2 as what happens?

To me the RPG elements are the real game when playing an RPG. Without them you just have a story-driven shooter, and to me that's just plain shallow. Especially when you're supposed to be an RPG and there are story-driven shooters out there that aren't but are doing a better job of it.

Exactly, for you RPG elemets with stats as adjustable numbers are important gameplay. For many other RPG people numbers are just tools to real RPG as playing roles. Meaning people may not like to spend alot of time in tools to define they RPG, but do actual role-playing.  Are numbers really the main point of role-playing? Because so far, I think it's about having choises what matters, not numbers.

...cut....  but that's not what the Mass Effect series was supposed to be. ...cut...

Here is the truth, Mass Effects serie was supposed to be.  Who defines what Mass Effect serie is? You or Bioware?

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 février 2011 - 04:38 .

[Terror_K]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Problem is the gameplay *PLAYED* like a shooter in the combat mechanics, and like I mentioned at least three dozen times: Half of Shepard's skills were outright senseless with weapon usage. I can scream bull**** if someone decided to make a New Zealand S.A.S.game where the operatives are incompetent with guns, which is *NOT* the case in real life [i.e. EXTENSIVE TRAINING*]. That's how bad Shepard's weapon skills were, and he/she shouldn't have been on that boat. If Shepard was just the average soldier that got out of *BASIC* military training, I would have been fine with it.

But I'm not talking about the basic weapons skills, I'm talking about things like non-combat skills, armour classes, biotic amps and omni-tools, weapon and armour mods, etc. either going the way of the dodo or being relegated to non-sensical skills or a linear upgrade system that allows gamers to God-mod everything to the max. In hindsight I actually think removing weapons skills was a good move, and was actually a case of good streamlining, but that's not all they did. If they had just done that and simplified the inventory a bit things would have been fine, but they took it too far.

Basically you're saying, "I don't mind that Mass Effect doesn't use archaic RPG elements, but anyone that wants the gameplay to be simpler is wrong for saying it." Ever wonder why there aren't any RPGs that didn't use the style you liked for the past ten years that are being created? Too ****ing time-consuming to learn.

Yes, but then you said that you needed a manual to understand and work out KotOR, and that's hardly one of the deeper RPGs. If you're not smart enough to work out the mechanics of an RPG then that's your problem. And it's your problem that you're trying to get into a game that's clearly not made for you and is over your head, not the fault of those who made it or the fault of those who enjoy it.

Besides, there was Dragon Age: Origins recently, which funnily enough was more successful and sold more than ME1 did (probably because it was one of the only proper RPGs in a long time), and yet BioWare for some reason want to make it more like their less successful game by watering down its sequel. DAO got the best of both worlds: enough good, solid RPG elements combined with the good things from modern games. It knew what trends to follow and what ones to avoid, and what old concept to keep and what ones to ditch. Shame the same can't be said for it's sequel from the look of things.

Beyond that, The Witcher was pretty good, which has a sequel coming soon. Deus Ex: HR has potential, but it depends where they go. There's another Elder Scrolls coming, as well as Fallout: New Vegas which came out not long ago, and managed to also combine old and new really well without dumbing things down.

What's *YOUR* definition of RPG elements?

Simply put, the ruleset and statistical and progression aspects. The things that help build and define the character you play and the gear they use through statistical progression. Leveling up, gaining XP, getting new items, modifying items, etc.

Many will say it's having choices and consequences in games and roleplaying the character itself, but there are plenty of games that have that and aren't RPGs. Many graphic adventures have these factors, as do cinematic titles like Heavy Rain and It Came from the Desert. Even some shooter and action titles have these elements now. GTA IV had them. Not RPGs, not any of them.

Uh, I'm playing the role of an elite soldier who has had extensive training. Why exactly should I have to spend skill points just to competently shoot my guns?

Again, that's not my beef with ME2. My beef is other skills going and other factors like weapon modding and customisation either going or getting relegated to shallow, over-automated mechanics that just don't satisfy me, essentially just turning the game into Gears of War with a better story and dialogue options. And even that said, GoW had better TPS combat and overall gameplay than ME2, because it could at least change things up and introduce puzzles and unique situations into its core gameplay, rather than just being "run forward, take cover, shoot guys until they're dead, run forward until next cutscene or obvious zone of cover, rinse and repeat."

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Are you minority because RPG or because stat based RPG? Because I'm also RPG fan too. Maybe RPG as gendre is also changing, because technology allows different ways to execute it.

It's going too far. It's taking away control and choice from the player. Some people like that, but others don't. And usually the ones who like it are those who prefer shallower gameplay. I'd rather have clumsy gameplay that at least has a degree of customisation and depth than shallow gameplay that's less flawed, especially when the very reason it's not as flawed is because it's so shallow it's devoid of anything that can screw it up.

Exactly, you see it as changed to something else, while I see it as define it as what it is. I see both ME1 and ME2 as same serie, they just have different technical gameplay.

They also have an overall different style and feel to them.

Yes, but why are you blaming other players, Bioware and ME2 as what happens?

Uh... can you reword this, please? I don't actually understand the question.

Exactly, for you RPG elemets with stats as adjustable numbers are important gameplay. For many other RPG people numbers are just tools to real RPG as playing roles. Meaning people may not like to spend alot of time in tools to define they RPG, but do actual role-playing.  Are numbers really the main point of role-playing? Because so far, I think it's about having choises what matters, not numbers.

Like I said, there are two sides to a modern RPG. If the situation were reversed and they took away your ability to roleplay by having your conversations automatically picked for you without your input, would you like it? No, you wouldn't. Just like I don't like it when they take away my choice in how to customise my Shepard and his/her gear by more than halving the skills, removing items and replacing any upgrading with a linear system that has no real choice at all.

The thing is, I actually prefer the roleplaying stuff myself over the statistical stuff, but I feel the statistical RPG elements are just as (if not more) important to the gameplay, and I like to be able to choose, tweak and customise my game. We can cutomise our Normandy quarters which is essentially pointless and adds nothing to gameplay, but we can't even tweak or mod our weapons at all? Seems to me that BioWare's priorities are in the wrong place here.

Here is the truth, Mass Effects serie was supposed to be.  Who defines what Mass Effect serie is? You or Bioware?

Mass Effect 2 contradicts what BioWare originally said the series was supposed to be prior to ME1 even coming out, and contradicts what the original game was. It even contradicts its own lore and canon half the time. I fell in love with the original Mass Effect concept and it became more than just a game to me with the original game. The second game completely loses that feel to me and for the most part is just another game. The only reason I care enough to keep talking about it is because I still love the universe and have the slim hope ME3 will be better. I am doubtful, but I hope at the very least it'll be better than ME2 was and not just continue in the poor choice of direction BioWare took it in.

[Lunatic LK47]

Terror_K wrote...


Yes, but then you said that you needed a manual to understand and work out KotOR, and that's hardly one of the deeper RPGs. If you're not smart enough to work out the mechanics of an RPG then that's your problem. And it's your problem that you're trying to get into a game that's clearly not made for you and is over your head, not the fault of those who made it or the fault of those who enjoy it.

Besides, there was Dragon Age: Origins recently, which funnily enough was more successful and sold more than ME1 did (probably because it was one of the only proper RPGs in a long time), and yet BioWare for some reason want to make it more like their less successful game by watering down its sequel. DAO got the best of both worlds: enough good, solid RPG elements combined with the good things from modern games. It knew what trends to follow and what ones to avoid, and what old concept to keep and what ones to ditch. Shame the same can't be said for it's sequel from the look of things.

KOTOR is one of the simpler RPGs, I'll admit, and is the only Western RPG I ever finished if I were to play your generation of RPGs while the others would have been returned to the store two hours after game. While KOTOR may have been simpler compared to the rest of the Western RPG gaming library, KOTOR is the game just didn't feel designed that well, despite me liking the overall package (i.e. The story, and the real-time aspect of the turn-based fighting which I find a lot better than the same old recycled crap in Japanese RPGs.). Problem I had with the game is it expected me to know every single inch of the in-and-out of the statistics involved with the game. I shouldn't have to spend an entire week dedicated to learning the game. I never played D&D, and shouldn't have to be required to do so. It's the equivalent of expecting an eight-year-old to write university-level essays without teaching them how to read or write. That's how complicated the game felt and made me resort to using one of the dozens of character guides made on GameFAQs.

The key problem I had with KOTOR 1 is that just to get every single piece of content and not have a **** experience is the Scout/Sentinel.  The Scout/Sentinel does have the same amount of fighting as the Soldier, but at least was lenient with the skill distrubtion (i.e. I could focus on Computer Hacking/Repair/Persuasion/Treat Injury as my core skills while the others were covered by the party members.). The Scout had free access to Implants, has access to Flurry, which is the only sure-fire solution worth maxing out, and the Sentinel gets the ability to be immune to every single paralyzing attack. If I tried every other class, I would have been frequently dead on Tattooine before negotiating with the Sand People, or worse, I'd constantly die no thanks to the wild-life on Dantooine when doing the Soldier/Guardian playthrough, not to mention Power Strike has a tendency to miss no matter what, making me lose out on Persuasion skills just so I could focus on other attributes.. I couldn't even finish my Scoundrel after the Endar Spire just because I felt it to be too time-consuming, not to mention every single boss can be immune to critical strike.

As for Dragon Age: I found the game to be a whole lot clunkier on the 360 and suffered from Command & Conquer syndrome (i.e. Game is only meant for PC, and no other platform, period.). Never mind the amount of depth the game has, but if I have to scroll through three menus just to access spell number four, something is wrong with that version of the game. Ever wonder why they decided to streamline Dragon Age 2? It's to remove inconsistent **** like this.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 16 février 2011 - 05:27 .

[Terror_K]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

KOTOR is one of the simpler RPGs, I'll admit, and is the only Western RPG I ever finished if I were to play your generation of RPGs while the others would have been returned to the store two hours after game. While KOTOR may have been simpler compared to the rest of the Western RPG gaming library, KOTOR is the game just didn't feel designed that well, despite me liking the overall package (i.e. The story, and the real-time aspect of the turn-based fighting which I find a lot better than the same old recycled crap in Japanese RPGs.). Problem I had with the game is it expected me to know every single inch of the in-and-out of the statistics involved with the game. I shouldn't have to spend an entire week dedicated to learning the game. I never played D&D, and shouldn't have to be required to do so. It's the equivalent of expecting an eight-year-old to write university-level essays without teaching them how to read or write. That's how complicated the game felt and made me resort to using one of the dozens of character guides made on GameFAQs.

So what you're saying is because you find it complicated it shouldn't exist? That because the game is too complex for you that others who enjoy complexity should miss out because you aren't satisfied with the mechanics and they put you off? You're basically saying that university essays shouldn't exist because there are eight-year old kids in the universe basically... to use your own analogy.

Sorry, but I disagree completely. You're getting involved with a game that's clearly not for you and then complaining because of this fact. You can't jump into the deep end of a pool knowing full well that you can't swim and then blame the pool for the fact that you're drowning in it, and then expect everybody else who likes deep water to be forced into putting up with shallow pools just because they suit you.

It seems to me that the game you're after isn't the "RPG" but the story-driven action game. You'd be more after something like Heavy Rain or It Came from the Desert... maybe Another World or Flashback, or any of the many adventure games out there like Monkey Island, Sam & Max, etc. Clearly the RPG genre isn't as much your cup of tea as you may think... though sadly the way things are becoming with them, it may very well be soon. Particuarly where BioWare are concerned. They used to be the kings of the genre, but I think Obsidian and Bethesda may just be knocking them off their throne now.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Are you minority because RPG or because stat based RPG? Because I'm also RPG fan too. Maybe RPG as gendre is also changing, because technology allows different ways to execute it.

It's going too far. It's taking away control and choice from the player. Some people like that, but others don't. And usually the ones who like it are those who prefer shallower gameplay. I'd rather have clumsy gameplay that at least has a degree of customisation and depth than shallow gameplay that's less flawed, especially when the very reason it's not as flawed is because it's so shallow it's devoid of anything that can screw it up.

Don't get me wrong i do support idea more customation, it's little question how, but I'm behind you on this. How ever, my point was more like not everyone see's that as IMPORTANT as you do. Meaning if too much gameplay is going in the direction where player is forced to adjust "stats", then the focus of gameplay is changed too. Not everyone likes that, so they would like that customation is done more smooth way and not clumpsy like it's often in RPG.

Yes, but why are you blaming other players, Bioware and ME2 as what happens?

Uh... can you reword this, please? I don't actually understand the question.

This is little too personal, but I ques it's okey.. Basicly it's different between.

"this feature destroys gameplay totally like it did in ME2"
"I don't think this feature improves gameplay for players"

It's about blame ME2 or just say it's not good, without blaming anyting. You blame alot and target is allways same, ME2, mainstream of people, shooter or shooter fans or Bioware.

Like I said, there are two sides to a modern RPG. If the situation were reversed and they took away your ability to roleplay by having your conversations automatically picked for you without your input, would you like it?

If you mean paragon or renegade scene's, yes I did like them.

No, you wouldn't. Just like I don't like it when they take away my choice in how to customise my Shepard and his/her gear by more than halving the skills, removing items and replacing any upgrading with a linear system that has no real choice at all.

Did you mean something else?

The thing is, I actually prefer the roleplaying stuff myself over the statistical stuff, but I feel the statistical RPG elements are just as (if not more) important to the gameplay, and I like to be able to choose, tweak and customise my game. We can cutomise our Normandy quarters which is essentially pointless and adds nothing to gameplay, but we can't even tweak or mod our weapons at all? Seems to me that BioWare's priorities are in the wrong place here.

Statical gameplay has absulute ZERO value for me. I like customize stuff, but if it comes the gameplay it self, then I don't really like it anymore, because it's never point in role-playing game. I agree you with tweaking weapons and all armors, like most people in this forum. But customize stuff and stats gameplay isn't same.

Here is the truth, Mass Effects serie was supposed to be.  Who defines what Mass Effect serie is? You or Bioware?

Mass Effect 2 contradicts what BioWare originally said the series was supposed to be prior to ME1 even coming out, and contradicts what the original game was. It even contradicts its own lore and canon half the time. I fell in love with the original Mass Effect concept and it became more than just a game to me with the original game. The second game completely loses that feel to me and for the most part is just another game. The only reason I care enough to keep talking about it is because I still love the universe and have the slim hope ME3 will be better. I am doubtful, but I hope at the very least it'll be better than ME2 was and not just continue in the poor choice of direction BioWare took it in.

Yeah, but you made assumption what Mass Effect serie is, but can't really accept how Bioware defined it. What you say is that Bioware accidently did make Mass Effect 2, what isn't even really part of Mass Effect serie. When you should try to realise that Bioware did not do accidently anyting, they just define as more precisely as what Mass Effect serie is. Meaning while the RPG is part of Mass Effect serie, stat based RPG is not the main point. For you the stat based RPG was important point, but for Bioware that wasn't Mass Effect serie. You seem to have hard time to accept it. I ques it's reason why you are so angry to Bioware, ME2, shooter and mainstream players.

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 février 2011 - 05:51 .

[Gatt9]

Hate to burst your bubble, but I outright hate most of the mainstream stuff because a good majority of them are little more than $70 paperweights. I am *NOT* one of those "ZOMG, game mu5t hav co-op/multiplayer/ LOLOLOLOLOL" players. I play single-player only mainly so that I can play my game on my own terms and whenever I have the time for it without having to worry about an artificial clock that will randomly expire. Shooter-wise, they've all consistently gone downhill, and I *OUTRIGHT HATE* Gears of War mainly for the lack of story (I shouldn't have to rely on second-hand supplemental material just to get the proper exposition of the story.). I'm already at the point where I'm completely done with gaming after Mass Effect 3 gets released because there is nothing worth interesting anymore. Halo's already down the tubes since Halo 3 with the increasing amount of retcons, I lost interest in Call of Duty after the Infinity Ward Scandal, Deus Ex: Human Revolution may end up being another Alpha Protocol (i.e. **** management being the main result of mediocre/******-poor gameplay), and I am not a big fan of sandbox games. As far as games I liked that were not Mass Effect related, or Infinity Ward Call of Duty-related games, only Arkham Asylum was worth my time, and that's not saying much. As it is, most of the mainstream titles just looked like it was little more than shovelware for the sake of shovelware

So from this I'm getting that you're actually upset that the Shooters lack good stories,  which begs the question,  why are you insistent that an RPG be made into Shooters instead of insisting that Shooters should actually have stories?

Basically you're saying, "I don't mind that Mass Effect doesn't use archaic RPG elements, but anyone that wants the gameplay to be simpler is wrong for saying it." Ever wonder why there aren't any RPGs that didn't use the style you liked for the past ten years that are being created? Too ****ing time-consuming to learn.

You've got *alot* of huge problems in here.

1.  They aren't "Archaic!",  they're fundamental design for an RPG.  The entire concept of an RPG breaks down when you remove them and what you get is a completely different kind of game.  Either a Shooter or a Action-Adventure.  You don't get an RPG by removing the elements that make it an RPG.  Once you remove core concepts like Character Based Skill and the underlying statistics,  all you are left with is a Shooter or Action-Adventure.  Putting a little level number in the corner (Oblivion,  ME2) doesn't make it an RPG.  I can write that into Doom in an hour if you want,  Doom will still be a Shooter even with a little level number in the corner.

2.  The underlying problem here is that apparently,  you hate RPGs.  You like stories,  but you hate the general concepts that define an RPG.  You clearly state you have no desire to learn.  If you hate RPGs,  and don't want to learn how to play RPGs,  why are you playing RPGs?  This is absolutely mind-boggling.  I don't want to be bothered learning how to play a Flight Sim,  so I don't play them,  and I don't demand they be made simpler so I don't have to learn.

3.  You *really*  *really* should learn how the industry works before trying to make clearly false claims.  It has *absolutely* nothing to do with how hard a game is to learn,  the whole "Archaic!" thing is a marketing fallacy.  The truth is,  the games are made this way because the studios think the only things that will sell are Shooter,  RTS,  and Action-Adventure.  Go read Gamasutra,  you'll find numerous people in the industry stating flat out "If it isn't one of those,  the publishers won't look at it".

Then you'll find numerous people in the industry stating clearly "It's a blockbuster driven industry,  either it sells vast numbers of units,  or no one is interested.".  Which means,  no one is interested in a title that might sell well,  only a title that will sell 10,000,000 units.

You would also do well to head on over to wikipedia,  strange thing,  the "Archaic!" Baldur's Gate 2 sold more units than Mass Effect 2 did.  And it did it on one platform,  with a much smaller potential market.

With all due respect,  your biggest problem here is that you have chosen not to educate yourself.  You choose not to learn RPGs,  you choose not to learn why things are the way they are.  You're just demanding that RPGs play like Shooters because you like Shooters with stories.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...
This is little too personal, but I ques it's okey.. Basicly it's different between.

"this feature destroys gameplay totally like it did in ME2"
"I don't think this feature improves gameplay for players"

It's about blame ME2 or just say it's not good, without blaming anyting. You blame alot and target is allways same, ME2, mainstream of people, shooter or shooter fans or Bioware.

I think I get what you mean now. The basic answer is I blame BioWare overall for pandering to a more mainstream audience because 90% of the changes I see from ME1 to ME2 are changes that scream to me that that's exactly why the changes were made and that's the audience BioWare are trying to target now with those changes. They're all connected. It just seems to me that the changes to ME2 were more about bringing aboard the casual gamer and less about actually improving things for the Mass Effect series. If they wanted to improve things they would have fixed what's there instead of tearing it all down and replacing it with the simplest solutions possible, as well as making the game more of a TPS and less of an RPG because the shooter is today's in thing.

Did you mean something else?

Yes. I meant, how would you feel if they took away the ability to choose your dialogue choices and just had the game automatically picking what you said for your without a dialogue wheel. You like the roleplaying aspect of the game, so I assume you'd hate that. Well, I like the more technical side of the RPG elements, so I hate it when BioWare takes away my choices on that side of things and automates everything there.

Statical gameplay has absulute ZERO value for me. I like customize stuff, but if it comes the gameplay it self, then I don't really like it anymore, because it's never point in role-playing game. I agree you with tweaking weapons and all armors, like most people in this forum. But customize stuff and stats gameplay isn't same.

And what of those of us who like that stuff? As I said, RPGs have two sides these days: statistical/mechanical aspects, and roleplaying/narrative ones. Just because you don't really care as much about the former and only really focus on the latter doesn't mean that when the former suffers those of us who like it are unjust for complaining.

Yeah, but you made assumption what Mass Effect serie is, but can't really accept how Bioware defined it. What you say is that Bioware accidently did make Mass Effect 2, what isn't even really part of Mass Effect serie. When you should try to realise that Bioware did not do accidently anyting, they just define as more precisely as what Mass Effect serie is. Meaning while the RPG is part of Mass Effect serie, stat based RPG is not the main point. For you the stat based RPG was important point, but for Bioware that wasn't Mass Effect serie. You seem to have hard time to accept it. I ques it's reason why you are so angry to Bioware, ME2, shooter and mainstream players.

Again, BioWare stated that Mass Effect was supposed to be an RPG from the start, and showed off several statistical elements in early builds and demos that had even more statistical elements than ME1 even ended up with. These were mostly retained in ME1, but in ME2 they're mostly gone. They also said ME was about exploring a vast, living world and discovering the unknown, but now in ME2 that's pretty much gone. They said Mass Effect was designed as a great homage to classic sci-fi from around the 1970's and 80's like Blade Runner, the early Star Trek movies, Dune, Aliens, etc. Now Mass Effect 2 comes along and gives it a distinctly immature "Modern Hollywood" approach. Beyond that they contradict their own lore constantly, with things like thermal clips and squaddies running around in PJs, etc.

Mass Effect 2 has defnitely shifted the tone and style of Mass Effect, not only gameplay wise, but presentation wise as well. To me it's obvious, and it's not just the "next evolution" of the Mass Effect series. The whole thing feels more like a reboot in almost every aspect. To me Mass Effect had the potential to be the next Star Wars or Star Trek or Babylon 5 for me, not just the original game, but the entire IP. Now it's almost a sad joke and a shadow of what it could have been that squandered and wasted its potential to become just another modern, gritty over-the-top immature action fest like every other second thing out there.

[Lunatic LK47]

Gatt9 wrote...


So from this I'm getting that you're actually upset that the Shooters lack good stories,  which begs the question,  why are you insistent that an RPG be made into Shooters instead of insisting that Shooters should actually have stories?

Uh, how about the fact that Science fiction RPGs have been constantly few and far between. Can you name of any besides Deus Ex and Fallout?

1.  They aren't "Archaic!",  they're fundamental design for an RPG.  The entire concept of an RPG breaks down when you remove them and what you get is a completely different kind of game.  Either a Shooter or a Action-Adventure.  You don't get an RPG by removing the elements that make it an RPG.  Once you remove core concepts like Character Based Skill and the underlying statistics,  all you are left with is a Shooter or Action-Adventure.  Putting a little level number in the corner (Oblivion,  ME2) doesn't make it an RPG.  I can write that into Doom in an hour if you want,  Doom will still be a Shooter even with a little level number in the corner.

Uh ever wonder why JRPGs got stigmatized besides having nonsensical stories? It used the same old formula for the past three hundred games for the past 30 years.

2.  The underlying problem here is that apparently,  you hate RPGs.  You like stories,  but you hate the general concepts that define an RPG.  You clearly state you have no desire to learn.  If you hate RPGs,  and don't want to learn how to play RPGs,  why are you playing RPGs?  This is absolutely mind-boggling.  I don't want to be bothered learning how to play a Flight Sim,  so I don't play them,  and I don't demand they be made simpler so I don't have to learn.

If the learning was actually intuitive and not the equivalent of sludging through a chemistry class despite not being a science major just "so I can graduate school," I wouldn't have had a problem with it. Complicated mechanics are still complicated mechanics regardless.

3.  You *really*  *really* should learn how the industry works before trying to make clearly false claims.  It has *absolutely* nothing to do with how hard a game is to learn,  the whole "Archaic!" thing is a marketing fallacy.  The truth is,  the games are made this way because the studios think the only things that will sell are Shooter,  RTS,  and Action-Adventure.  Go read Gamasutra,  you'll find numerous people in the industry stating flat out "If it isn't one of those,  the publishers won't look at it".

Let me ask you this: How many people can actually get older DOS games to run without using Steam? Chances are, you can't.

Then you'll find numerous people in the industry stating clearly "It's a blockbuster driven industry,  either it sells vast numbers of units,  or no one is interested.".  Which means,  no one is interested in a title that might sell well,  only a title that will sell 10,000,000 units.

Ever wonder why some of those titles "that might sell well" didn't do so well? The developing companies have had a shoddy history. I played a Treyarch game that isn't Call of Duty, and that game was called Ultimate Spider-Man, and that game had more cheap deaths than I could count because of stupid basic things like input lag. Alpha Protocol. Why did it have negative reviews? Numerous bugs, and the gameplay is ****, overshadowing the potential the Are-Pee-Gee elements the game had, and the game was not balanced well.

With all due respect,  your biggest problem here is that you have chosen not to educate yourself.  You choose not to learn RPGs,  you choose not to learn why things are the way they are.  You're just demanding that RPGs play like Shooters because you like Shooters with stories.

What, I should like the fantasy genre because they are "True Argh-Pee-Gees?" Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Did you mean something else?

Yes. I meant, how would you feel if they took away the ability to choose your dialogue choices and just had the game automatically picking what you said for your without a dialogue wheel. You like the roleplaying aspect of the game, so I assume you'd hate that. Well, I like the more technical side of the RPG elements, so I hate it when BioWare takes away my choices on that side of things and automates everything there.

Making dialog choises is part of role-playing, I would not like if I have no choises to defien how I react.
I did not mind little differences between ME1 and ME2. I would like that there was more choises and they would mean more, I don't mean extreme, just different. Like player has attitude behind the choise, polite, playfull, neutral, sceptic, rude, compassioned and so on..

Statical gameplay has absulute ZERO value for me. I like customize stuff, but if it comes the gameplay it self, then I don't really like it anymore, because it's never point in role-playing game. I agree you with tweaking weapons and all armors, like most people in this forum. But customize stuff and stats gameplay isn't same.

And what of those of us who like that stuff? As I said, RPGs have two sides these days: statistical/mechanical aspects, and roleplaying/narrative ones. Just because you don't really care as much about the former and only really focus on the latter doesn't mean that when the former suffers those of us who like it are unjust for complaining.

Good question. It's up to Bioware what they Mass Effect serie game really is.

PS: Don't like how you use word "narrative" as insult.

Again, BioWare stated that Mass Effect was supposed to be an RPG from the start, and showed off several statistical elements in early builds and demos that had even more statistical elements than ME1 even ended up with. These were mostly retained in ME1, but in ME2 they're mostly gone. They also said ME was about exploring a vast, living world and discovering the unknown, but now in ME2 that's pretty much gone. They said Mass Effect was designed as a great homage to classic sci-fi from around the 1970's and 80's like Blade Runner, the early Star Trek movies, Dune, Aliens, etc. Now Mass Effect 2 comes along and gives it a distinctly immature "Modern Hollywood" approach. Beyond that they contradict their own lore constantly, with things like thermal clips and squaddies running around in PJs, etc.

Mass Effect 2 has defnitely shifted the tone and style of Mass Effect, not only gameplay wise, but presentation wise as well. To me it's obvious, and it's not just the "next evolution" of the Mass Effect series. The whole thing feels more like a reboot in almost every aspect. To me Mass Effect had the potential to be the next Star Wars or Star Trek or Babylon 5 for me, not just the original game, but the entire IP. Now it's almost a sad joke and a shadow of what it could have been that squandered and wasted its potential to become just another modern, gritty over-the-top immature action fest like every other second thing out there.

Sorry, we have disagreement here.. My way to see situation isn't same as your.

[Lunatic LK47]

Terror_K wrote...

So what you're saying is because you find it complicated it shouldn't exist? That because the game is too complex for you that others who enjoy complexity should miss out because you aren't satisfied with the mechanics and they put you off? You're basically saying that university essays shouldn't exist because there are eight-year old kids in the universe basically... to use your own analogy.

That is non-sensical here. Just from that mindset alone, you're basically saying "Anyone who can't comprehend complex things should just as well not attend a university."

Sorry, but I disagree completely. You're getting involved with a game that's clearly not for you and then complaining because of this fact. You can't jump into the deep end of a pool knowing full well that you can't swim and then blame the pool for the fact that you're drowning in it, and then expect everybody else who likes deep water to be forced into putting up with shallow pools just because they suit you.

What the hell? That is a stupid analogy. How about people drowning in the deep end of the pool just because the person in question never got the proper swimming lessons in the first place without being taught basic safety or that the "Don't Swim in the deep pool" sign is obscured by a bush? These things can happen, "Common sense" or not.

[Jebel Krong]

apologies if you've moved on a bit, and i haven't time to wade through subsequent discussions, presently, but just to take some of your last reply:

Terror_K wrote...

I don't see that at all. ME2 just seems to be nothing like how Mass Effect was originally envisioned, especially given the early videos that actually had things more complex and even more RPG layers than ME1 ended up. And I don't want every game to be a stat-type role-playing one, I just want consistency within the same series, especially when said series is a trilogy and is basically supposed to be three parts of the same game rather than three different games. ME2 is mostly less clumsy simply because there's less to go wrong because it's so damn simple and shallow. That seems to be the basic attitude and model BioWare went with for ME2: make it so simple and use so many old, tried-and-true shooter mechanics that it can't break down. Simply put, ME2 doesn't have enough moving parts to break. It's not as broken a game as ME1 was, but it's also incredibly shallow and unsatisfactory because of it.

it's called iteration and every iteration of early me1 builds moved away from the (obvious) rpg-starting point that BW were familiar with, given their history, and towards the hybrid model. with the final product, obviously it was rushed (only 3 bases on UNCs) to a degree and it didn't go far enough. taking that platform and refining it further for me2 it's logically closer to what was envisioned, you can't possibly argue any other way. BW seem to spend a lot of time prototyping ideas - moreso than most other companies, in fact.

Terror_K wrote...
The thing is, RPGs these days generally have two layers: a technical/mechanics layer and the presentation/narrative layer. With ME2 it's the former that's suffered. I wonder how people would react if BioWare were to start automating and taking control away from the narrative too, by --for example-- automating the dialogue so the player didn't get to choose what they were saying and the game just chose for you at every turn. I'm sure people would throw a fit because it's taking away their choice and their roleplaying... and yet it's okay when the very same thing has already happened to the technical/mechanics layer and we have a research/upgrade system that doesn't really let us choose and a complete lack of weapon customisation.

yes they would, but as already discussed but you seem to be reluctant to admit (understandably given your interest in minutiae, and even my own OCD led me to spend a lot of time in said menus, but i didn't necessarily enjoy it) - the technical layer is not the focus of the series - all the "fiddling" that you like to do doesn't help other areas - like immersion & story continuity to take the most obvious. as i previously stated, time in menus isn't actually time playing, therefore anything that helps spend less time there is a winner (within reason - and i specifically do not preclude some customisation and/or upgrade/research path here), just swapping out level I-X mods every 5 minutes isn't fun gaemplay, and never will be, it also adds nothing to the actual game experience. finding cool stuff is, however and that's where the focus could be, and expanded because it ties in with the other aspects of the game - namely exploration and aliens.

Terror_K wrote...
The most ironic thing overall is that a lot of game developers are actually adding more RPG mechanics to their games these days and making their gameplay mechanics deeper and adding more customisation. A lot of action and shooter titles that as little as 6 years ago or so would have been rather simple with a paper-thin story and done-to-death simple shooter mechanics and pretty much no cusomisation are starting to become more story driven, offer more choices in how you approach things and have things like weapon modding and even stat-based upgrade systems and leveling up. BioWare now seem to be going in the opposite direction of everybody else: they already had all this stuff in their games, but are now dumbing them down and weeding out the mechanics in favour of overly simple, done-to-death action/shooter mechanics. It just seems the way things are going in 2015 we're going to see an epic, 80 hour game of choices and consequences and deep customisation called Call of Duty 16 on one side and an 8 hour game of mindless, linear hack'n'slashing called Dragon Age: Unoriginals and a 4 hour corridor shooter where the protagonist's only words are grunts of anger or pain called Mass Effect: Degradation.

the spread of more complex ideas and mechanics is only a good thing, and is one example of how Bioware, and a few others, in particular have dragged the entire industry up to this sort of aim. i disagree that BW are now movbing in the other direction, it's merely a question of focus on specific things given the project, and also trying out different things. my playthroughs of ME2 ALL averaged around 10 hours longer than ME1, even if you are right and they stripped a lot of stuff out, they must have put even more back in, no?

[Jebel Krong]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Okey I try to fix both of you. Less time used in tweaking, better the game. How ever, more there is possible to tweaking, better the game. Point is that if tweaking is done so clumsy way that it consume alot of players time, it's not really well done. Tweaking should be done so that every tweaking has meaning and it's done so that player can do it fast and easy ways, but big variety.

So, ME1 tweaking was clumpsy and many ways empty illusion, even if it also had some good in it too.
ME2 how ever, become very easy and fast, but also very limited as not giving much tweaking possibilities at all.

This. I was more than happy that the research upgrades took only five seconds to do instead of twenty minutes. In terms of adding trade-offs, just copy StarCraft 2's research rewards, and I'd be on it like white on rice.

I like tweaking too, but I don't want to waste my playing time too much in menus. It's the difference what is the main priority the game, tweak or play role in story. As for research/upgrade system in ME2. You are wrong Terror_K there, it's actually really good in base idea. We have talked this before, the problem isn't the research, it's missing customation as making choises. Like we talked ones, the modding part. Research is trying to make the manual version update to more automatic. That is actually good thing. Because player manually changing sword +1 to sword +2 has absolute ZERO meaning to player, so why waste time to do it manually. What player needs it to make choises like to I [use, fire sword or ice sword.

This. I rarely switched weapons in KOTOR and avoided certain mods for items just because the stats just felt meaningless. It's just like asking if you'll make a better fire if you add one teaspoon of oil into your lighter.

i haven't got round to SC2 yet, but your second analogy is very apt to ME1s flawed approach.

[Lunatic LK47]

Jebel Krong wrote...
i haven't got round to SC2 yet, but your second analogy is very apt to ME1s flawed approach.

Heh heh, my more accurate analogy would be the "Putting out fires" part. Not sure if you read my previous post, but here it goes for your benefit:

Using the assault rifles: If I need to put out a fire and have a choice between a water pistol (Rifles like the Avenger), creating a larger fire (Raptor/Tsunami/Thunder), or using a fire extinguisher (Spectre), Fire extinguisher beats all.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

PS: Don't like how you use word "narrative" as insult.

Uh... It was never meant as an insult. I'm not sure how you saw it at such to be honest. It was merely used as a descriptor to cover the areas of storytelling, character, speech and roleplaying in RPGs as opposed to the technical, statistical side of things. Nothing more. All I was doing was pointing out that it was your preference and that you considered it the more important factor in an RPG, which you've admitted yourself. There's nothing wrong with that, and --as I've said-- I personally love that aspect of BioWare RPGs too.

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

That is non-sensical here. Just from that mindset alone, you're basically saying "Anyone who can't comprehend complex things should just as well not attend a university."

No. What I'm saying is they can if they want, but they shouldn't go blaming the university if it's above them and the course they attend is too cerebral. It's their own fault they decided to tackle something that didn't suit them and that they were ill-prepared for, and that doesn't mean the university or course should be scrapped or dumbed down to their level.

What the hell? That is a stupid analogy. How about people drowning in the deep end of the pool just because the person in question never got the proper swimming lessons in the first place without being taught basic safety or that the "Don't Swim in the deep pool" sign is obscured by a bush? These things can happen, "Common sense" or not.

That still doesn't mean the deep end of the pool shouldn't exist. Or do you think that RPGs should have warning signs on them in bright red and yellow labels that say "WARNING: COMPLEX RPG MECHANICS INSIDE!" or something? If you decide to jump into the deep end when you know you can't swim it's your own fault. Just like it's your own fault if you go and play a complex RPG and you get confused. It's not the RPGs fault you bit off more than you could chew and you don't enjoy it, it's your own fault.

Jebel Krong wrote...

it's called iteration and every iteration of early me1 builds moved away from the (obvious) rpg-starting point that BW were familiar with, given their history, and towards the hybrid model. with the final product, obviously it was rushed (only 3 bases on UNCs) to a degree and it didn't go far enough. taking that platform and refining it further for me2 it's logically closer to what was envisioned, you can't possibly argue any other way. BW seem to spend a lot of time prototyping ideas - moreso than most other companies, in fact.

Sorry, but I just disagree. ME2 just doesn't seem like the logical next step in any way shape or form to me. If BioWare had intended to simplify the mechanics to this degree in the first place then they would have. It's easier to have less mechanics and have things less complex than it is to have more stuff and add complexity. If Mass Effect was originally intended to be a TPS with Lite RPG elements, then ME1 would have been one too. No, Mass Effect 2 came about because BioWare decided to take the game in a different direction. As far as I'm concerned there's just far too much evidence of that. Perhaps if only the gameplay had taken a dive I could agree, but the entire style and presentation of the game shifted too, and that speaks volumes to me.

yes they would, but as already discussed but you seem to be reluctant to admit (understandably given your interest in minutiae, and even my own OCD led me to spend a lot of time in said menus, but i didn't necessarily enjoy it) - the technical layer is not the focus of the series - all the "fiddling" that you like to do doesn't help other areas - like immersion & story continuity to take the most obvious. as i previously stated, time in menus isn't actually time playing, therefore anything that helps spend less time there is a winner (within reason - and i specifically do not preclude some customisation and/or upgrade/research path here), just swapping out level I-X mods every 5 minutes isn't fun gaemplay, and never will be, it also adds nothing to the actual game experience. finding cool stuff is, however and that's where the focus could be, and expanded because it ties in with the other aspects of the game - namely exploration and aliens.

Sorry, but I disagree again. These elements do add something to the gameplay; if they didn't then I wouldn't find myself missing them and finding ME2's gameplay so shallow, repetitive and tedious. I find a hard time caring about anything much in ME2 gameplay wise because the game never feels personal on that level. Everything is so linear and samey with every playthrough. I feel the constant want and need to be able to tweak and play around with things, but I can't. I don't feel like gaining a level is a big deal at all anymore, while it was something I looked forward to in the original. Gaining new skills seems shallow and like I'm just getting new little offensive combat powers rather than actually building and progressing my character (they may as well be little spinny powerups popping out of enemies). Finding any object in the game is a bore because it's exactly the same as it was every other playthrough, and once I've got it I can never change it. The upgrades simply aren't satisfactory because it's just the same routine of "return to the Normandy, upgrade if I have the resources, and rinse and repeat" with no thought or depth or even care about what I'm upgrading and what it's doing, since none if it really personalises anything and every playthrough will end up with the same "I've God-modded every single thing I can" outcome. I feel about as much fulfilment and connection to my Shepard gameplay and combat wise as I do to my character when I play Quake or Doom. Again... I'm Marge Simpson in the Scorpio house in ME2.

the spread of more complex ideas and mechanics is only a good thing, and is one example of how Bioware, and a few others, in particular have dragged the entire industry up to this sort of aim. i disagree that BW are now movbing in the other direction, it's merely a question of focus on specific things given the project, and also trying out different things. my playthroughs of ME2 ALL averaged around 10 hours longer than ME1, even if you are right and they stripped a lot of stuff out, they must have put even more back in, no?

Not necessarily. That just means the game is slightly longer. That doesn't mean there's a whole bunch of new elements and the whole thing is fresh, because it's not. Outside of talking the game is 90% just the same "run to obvious cover, take cover and kill baddies, run to next obvious cover or cut-scene trigger" over and over. All the while while I'm wearing and wielding toys I just never get to really play with. I go to the third planet in the game and find the one gun I'll use throughout the rest of it for my class and then that's it for me... there's nothing else to find or tickle my fancy. Item wise, I'm done, and the rest of the game is just that same "cover, shoot, cover, shoot" cycle again from there.

I find it hard to play ME2 through any more these days, because it's so linear, shallow and tedious, and I feel the only things I have left to do that I haven't already done is explore all the love interests, and I've only played the game through completely three times (and one of those was a do-over from my first import character). With all my other imports I get part the way in to varying degrees and get bored with it because the gameplay mechanics and so dull and lifeless and I don't feel stimulated by the game at all. I've done my main Paragon and Renegade playthrough, so that's pretty much all I feel I need now.

Meanwhile, I could play (and have played) ME1 through to the end dozens of times. I'm actually playing another new character at the moment in ME1, but I'm not sure once I hit ME2 again they're going to get much further than my half a dozen others stuck in limbo there now because the gameplay is just so freakin' dull! The only thing that's going to save ME2 for me here I feel is ME3 being a big enough step up with enough fresh mechanics, varied narrative and real consequences for imports so that it makes the ME2 slog worth it.

Modifié par Terror_K, 16 février 2011 - 09:56 .

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

PS: Don't like how you use word "narrative" as insult.

Uh... It was never meant as an insult. I'm not sure how you saw it at such to be honest. It was merely used as a descriptor to cover the areas of storytelling, character, speech and roleplaying in RPGs as opposed to the technical, statistical side of things. Nothing more. All I was doing was pointing out that it was your preference and that you considered it the more important factor in an RPG, which you've admitted yourself. There's nothing wrong with that, and --as I've said-- I personally love that aspect of BioWare RPGs too.

Sorry, this was my english understanding mistake. My mind connected the word to narrow, what is totally different.

[Jebel Krong]

@ terror - if that's your experience of ME2, the you're playing it wrong - just taking the combat, you get out what you put in: if you lack the imagination to exploit the class/areas/weapons then that's your fault. and a surprising one tbh, the variety of weapons (biased to heavies unfortunately, but even the default guns have more variety than in the first game) is a strength. the biggest downer of ME2 is the linearity "level" structure that particularly affects plotw-rolds but now also the more focused UNCs they lost the "world" and "location" feel for pace and structure and i can see why it does just lose something vital in the tradeoff though. however ME1's plot worlds were also very linear and the only "world-feel" you got was on the very barren and unfortunately mountanous UNCs.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 16 février 2011 - 10:22 .

[Gleym]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

That is non-sensical here. Just from that mindset alone, you're basically saying "Anyone who can't comprehend complex things should just as well not attend a university."

....

What the hell? That is a stupid analogy. How about people drowning in the deep end of the pool just because the person in question never got the proper swimming lessons in the first place without being taught basic safety or that the "Don't Swim in the deep pool" sign is obscured by a bush? These things can happen, "Common sense" or not.

So in your world, everything should be made to suit the tastes and abilities of people who have no business indulging in those things in the first place. People with weak bodies and asthma should become firefighters, people with obvious studying problems should sign up for courses that are obviously outside of their capabilities. Everyone on the joke reel of American Idol should be allowed to compete in the main competition. Just that all of the requirements for these things should have the standard reduced and brought down to their level.

[Lunatic LK47]

Terror_K wrote...


No. What I'm saying is they can if they want, but they shouldn't go blaming the university if it's above them and the course they attend is too cerebral. It's their own fault they decided to tackle something that didn't suit them and that they were ill-prepared for, and that doesn't mean the university or course should be scrapped or dumbed down to their level.

Uh, how about if they never had access to a basic-level school in the first place? Blame them for extenuating circumstances too?

That still doesn't mean the deep end of the pool shouldn't exist. Or do you think that RPGs should have warning signs on them in bright red and yellow labels that say "WARNING: COMPLEX RPG MECHANICS INSIDE!" or something? If you decide to jump into the deep end when you know you can't swim it's your own fault. Just like it's your own fault if you go and play a complex RPG and you get confused. It's not the RPGs fault you bit off more than you could chew and you don't enjoy it, it's your own fault.

Still doesn't explain the elitist attitude you have about newcomers being intimidated by RPGs. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here.

Sorry, but I disagree again. These elements do add something to the gameplay; if they didn't then I wouldn't find myself missing them and finding ME2's gameplay so shallow, repetitive and tedious.

How does looking at an assault rifle that has no accuracy exactly add something to gameplay? Useless loot ended up being useless loot, period.

I find a hard time caring about anything much in ME2 gameplay wise because the game never feels personal on that level.Everything is so linear and samey with every playthrough

Uh, the same could be said for installing mods being a time-consuming task especially when you have 50+ items in your inventory. Everything just felt the exact same for all six of my Shepards.

Finding any object in the game is a bore because it's exactly the same as it was every other playthrough, and once I've got it I can never change it.

Not getting the loot I want is just as boring. Mass Effect 1's loot system was only reliant on "Luck of the draw" factor, where the shop inventories only change if you leveled up, and buying new pieces of armor was a complete chore just because "LOLZ, ur Shepard ain't 1337 enough to wear our current stock."

The upgrades simply aren't satisfactory because it's just the same routine of "return to the Normandy, upgrade if I have the resources, and rinse and repeat" with no thought or depth or even care about what I'm upgrading and what it's doing, since none if it really personalises anything and every playthrough will end up with the same "I've God-modded every single thing I can" outcome

The same could be said for the older mods. For every single weapon, I installed mods in a certain pattern *EVERY SINGLE TIME* just to get the "Best out of mods." Half of my mod installations were made out of basic-level common sense (i.e. Spectre Assault Rifle: I always go for Scram Rail X and Frictionless Materials X just to add more damage while negating the negative side-effects of the Scram Rail and Sledgehammer or Inferno/Polonium Rounds. I'd rather have more powerful rounds than having a never-ending hose of BB-caliber bullets [i.e. People complaining about using Dual Frictionless Materials for unlimited firing.]. HMWP: Always Kinetic Coil X and Combat Optics X with Inferno or Polonium Rounds without looking back ).

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

@ terror - if that's your experience of ME2, the you're playing it wrong - just taking the combat, you get out what you put in: if you lack the imagination to exploit the class/areas/weapons then that's your fault. and a surprising one tbh, the variety of weapons (biased to heavies unfortunately, but even the default guns have more variety than in the first game) is a strength. the biggest downer of ME2 is the linearity "level" structure that particularly affects plotw-rolds but now also the more focused UNCs they lost the "world" and "location" feel for pace and structure and i can see why it does just lose something vital in the tradeoff though. however ME1's plot worlds were also very linear and the only "world-feel" you got was on the very barren and unfortunately mountanous UNCs.

That may all be very well if I was playing Mass Effect 2 to play a pure TPS, but I'm not: I'm playing it to play an RPG. And as an RPG the whole thing feels shallow. And yet I feel perfectly at home in Gears of War, and it hasn't even got classes and has less weapon variety. But it at least manages to change things up and offer various solutions. ME2 had to potential to do this, as evidenced in the N7 missions, but would prefer to isolate them as little sidequest gimmicks rather than actually introduce them naturally into the core gameplay. ME2 didn't even get close to being more than a "rinse repeat" affair combat wise until Overlord and LotSB.

As far as I'm concerned I'm not playing it wrong, but the game has the wrong play style and pretty much just jumps awkwardly now between TPS in combat and then RPG in conversation with no real natural transition. This is also the reason ME2 just feels like another game and less of an experience, and yes... that ties into the linearity and small feel of the level design as well. It's hard to lose myself in a universe when I'm constantly being reminded at every forced, linear turn that I'm in a game, and a pretty shallow one at that. Even bringing up menu screens and inventory screens all the time in ME1 didn't take that away from me, because there I could at least choose when to take myself out of things and I still felt I was in a living, breathing, well-designed universe that felt real and natural and most importantly vast and mysterious.

To me you're basically saying, "don't play it like an RPG, play it like a TPS" and that just seems wrong. That's like telling me to play Dragon Age like God of War, IMO. I didn't come to the Mass Effect series to just play a shallow TPS, I came to lose myself in its wonderful world and play an RPG with a great story. And I just find it almost impossible to lose myself in ME2 and impossible to find the elements satisfactory when they're so shallow and linear and I just never get to play with anything I'd consider meaningful. To me I've gone from reading an adult novel in the first instance into reading a kids book in the second, and you're basically saying that my problem is that I'm treating it like an adult novel when I should be treating it like a kids book. I'm saying that you shouldn't follow up an adult novel with a kids book in the first place.

[Lunatic LK47]

Gleym wrote...

So in my world, everything should be made to suit the tastes and abilities of idiots who have no business indulging in trying my favorite things in the first place. People who are not hardcore RPGers should not try playing RPGs and should play nothing else other than shallow games just because it suits their fancy. People who never learned how to read because of extenuating circumstances should be screwed out of tutoring and proper teaching. People with learning disabilities should not get extra help in succeeding in school.

Fixed, ******.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 16 février 2011 - 11:02 .

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

To me you're basically saying, "don't play it like an RPG, play it like a TPS" and that just seems wrong.

Don't play ME2 like shooter or RPG, play it more like adventure game. You choose from 6 roles to play (classes).

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 février 2011 - 11:12 .

[Terror_K]

[quote]Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Uh, how about if they never had access to a basic-level school in the first place? Blame them for extenuating circumstances too? [/quote]

That's different. Unless you're really going to claim that basic-level school is too much for you and that it should be scrapped because it is, just to suit you.

[quote]
Still doesn't explain the elitist attitude you have about newcomers being intimidated by RPGs. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here.[/quote]

You (or any other) newcomer being intimidated by RPGs isn't the issue. You (or any other) newcomer demanding that RPGs be brought down to your (or their) level to the point where they're barely even RPGs any more at the expense of the very elements those who can understand and enjoy RPGs play them for is.

I may not be a physics major and find a lot of the forumulas and equations quite hard and confusing myself when I look into them, but I'm not insisting that the scientific community lower their standards and dumb things down just to suit me, because I appreciate that others do like it and excel at it and what those who are capable of those things can accomplish. If I wanted to get into the field I'd either have to accept the fact that there's a lot of possibly confusing work ahead of me or I'd have to accept that it was above me and move on.

What you seem to be saying is basically that because you can't do rocket science, there shouldn't be any rocket scientists because you want rocket science to be brought down to your level so you can understand it, which completely defeats the purpose of it in the first place. That shouldn't be a hard concept to understand... it's not rocket science. If we dumbed everything down so that the simplest person could understand it, we'd never get anywhere.

And don't forget, without complex RPGs like AD&D there would be no BioWare because they never would have made Baldur's Gate which led to NWN which lead to KotOR which led to Jade Empire and then to Mass Effect.

[quote]
How does looking at an assault rifle that has no accuracy exactly add something to gameplay? Useless loot ended up being useless loot, period. [/quote]

When every item is special, none of them are.

Beyond that, it adds to gameplay when a player has to actually think about things and consider what the best tool for the job is. Granted ME1 wasn't exactly the best at this due to balancing issues, but if a player really is forced to go with the choice of greater damage over greater accuracy, greater damage over rate of fire, greater accuracy over greater cooling/thermal clip storage, etc. then it adds to the tactical nature of the game. The problem with ME1 was of course that in 90% of cases the next best weapon was best across the board, or the choice was obvious. Had the weapons been a bit more balanced, then this would have been more of a tactical conundrum for the player. Instead now it's pretty much just reduced to, "which weapons feels better to shoot at this with?" and that's about it.

[quote]
Uh, the same could be said for installing mods being a time-consuming task especially when you have 50+ items in your inventory. Everything just felt the exact same for all six of my Shepards.[/quote]

What, so you never looked at the situation ahead of you and the weapon you were using and thought, "this mod would be better for this situation, and this one would be better for that, etc?" I certainly did, and my weapons mod loadouts were very different depending on what I was about to face and how, as well as who was with me and what weapon I was using, etc. If you don't even want to be tactical and just want to jam the same mods in every weapon every time then that's your choice, but it's not the only way to approach the sitation, and certainly isn't the best way.

[quote]
Not getting the loot I want is just as boring. Mass Effect 1's loot system was only reliant on "Luck of the draw" factor, where the shop inventories only change if you leveled up, and buying new pieces of armor was a complete chore just because "LOLZ, ur Shepard ain't 1337 enough to wear our current stock." [/quote]

Firstly, that's the whole point. If you can just instantly get the item you want when you want it then it pretty much defeats the point of having loot at all, and you may as well just start out with every weapon there is, every piece of armour there is and every mod there is, etc. If you just got the item you want so easily then the whole point of items at all is lost, since you and everybody else will just get that item ASAP and forget the rest. It's like collecting trading cards and knowing exactly which rare card is in the booster pack before you even open it, or having lottery tickets that are already the winner before you've got them.

Secondly, shop inventories actually changed in ME1 whenever you left and visited them again (and the Normandy requisitions officer changed at every major port). This makes sense, as why would an inventory just change while you were there? If it could, you could just sit there repeatedly talking to the merchant until you got what you wanted. Certainly better than ME2's "We've always got the same stock every playthrough and just once, and then we're completely useless from then on."

Finally, the only thing that restricted Shepard armour wise was credits and class. If Shepard could wear Heavy Armour then he/she could at any level. If not, then it was because Shepard wasn't trained in it because it wasn't class appropriate. It makes sense that a tech-expert wouldn't be able to wear as bulky a gear as a full-on professional soldier would. Beyond that, getting credits was easier, and often it was simpler faster and better to just find the armour you wanted rather than buy it.

[quote]
The same could be said for the older mods. For every single weapon, I installed mods in a certain pattern *EVERY SINGLE TIME* just to get the "Best out of mods." Half of my mod installations were made out of basic-level common sense (i.e. Spectre Assault Rifle: I always go for Scram Rail X and Frictionless Materials X just to add more damage while negating the negative side-effects of the Scram Rail and Sledgehammer or Inferno/Polonium Rounds. I'd rather have more powerful rounds than having a never-ending hose of BB-caliber bullets [i.e. People complaining about using Dual Frictionless Materials for unlimited firing.]. HMWP: Always Kinetic Coil X and Combat Optics X with Inferno or Polonium Rounds without looking back ). [/quote]

Again, I changed things up depending on curcumstances. The main point is that at least the choice was there, as opposed to it just linearly upgrading and God-modding everything for you without any real input. There's no thought at all in tactics when upgrading in ME2 because everybody will just upgrade everything to the max because there's no trade-off. At least in ME1 with modding you had the chance to think about what you were doing and tweak a weapon to your liking. In ME2 every weapon is exactly the same every time, and the only way to make that not true is to not upgrade, which is just silly when everything stacks like that unlimitedly.
[/quote]

Modifié par Terror_K, 16 février 2011 - 11:35 .