461 réponses à ce sujet

[Jebel Krong]

Lumikki wrote...

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).

this. also i never mentioned how to play it - like a TPS or otherwise, i was talking about how you approach combat in general: for a start you can pretty much pause-and-play if you want to. you can also play realtime. you and your squad all have special abilities (still TPS genre uncommon) and i haven't even begun to talk about exploiting alternative routes, cover or the battlefield in the encounters, yet. as i stated: you get out what you put in - if you want to sit behind one piece of cover and pick off enemies and clear an area before moving on, you can do that but you won't get the most out of the game that way - but that's your choice.

btw it's still better than anything we got in me1 which generally just relied on you holding down the right trigger, and if the mission was too difficult, luring the AI into choke-points where your squad may even have helped, if they weren't caught on a box or something.

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

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).

this. also i never mentioned how to play it - like a TPS or otherwise, i was talking about how you approach combat in general: for a start you can pretty much pause-and-play if you want to. you can also play realtime. you and your squad all have special abilities (still TPS genre uncommon) and i haven't even begun to talk about exploiting alternative routes, cover or the battlefield in the encounters, yet. as i stated: you get out what you put in - if you want to sit behind one piece of cover and pick off enemies and clear an area before moving on, you can do that but you won't get the most out of the game that way - but that's your choice.

btw it's still better than anything we got in me1 which generally just relied on you holding down the right trigger, and if the mission was too difficult, luring the AI into choke-points where your squad may even have helped, if they weren't caught on a box or something.

First of all, I didn't come into Mass Effect to play an adventure game, and that's not the reason I enjoyed the original game. If I want to play an adventure game I'll play the Monkey Island games again or the Sam & Max episodes. I came to Mass Effect to play a sci-fi RPG that allowed me to lose myself in its universe and reminded me of my favourite sci-fi films and shows, and I expect the same from its sequel, but I'm just not getting that.

Secondly, while I'm well aware that from a technical standpoint the combat itself is actually better than ME1's, to me it's completely meaningless when it doesn't offer enough proper alternatives and over-automates everything in the background. I want to play the game myself, I don't want it played for me. I want to choose my equipment and tweak it, not just have everything automatically done by itself and never really give me the choice.

As for alternative routes, due to the level design I've barely even found any. Beyond maybe the piece of cover I choose, it's pretty much the same story every time and only really changes a little depending on the class. It wasn't until Overlord and LotSB came along that I actually found some levels and areas that didn't feel like a straight line and offered some decent alternatives, as well as feeling more open and realisitic rather than a contrived piece of obviously-false cover designed for a TPS game surrounded by more cover in an even more obviously designed place. The choices are basically reduced to, "do I stay back and pick them off, or move forward and do the same?" and that's about it. The unhelpful HUD doesn't really help, especially when it comes to companions, who I largely ignore until I roll my eyes because their icon has gone grey. Not that ME1 was much better in the latter case either, but I still at least occasionally used them more and found a few cases where placing them was actually useful. In ME2 it didn't seem to matter because they just seemed to do their own thing shortly afterwards. What I wouldn't give for a DAO style tactics options; DAO at least was a game where my companions felt useful and I constantly used them and crafted them how I wanted to, and thanks to said Tactics could mostly rely on them to peform by themselves how I wanted, but really directly control them and guide them in certain situations when I wanted or needed to.

The point is, when TPS combat in the game is pretty much just TPS combat and doesn't have much more to it than that and never really feels like my character building and statistical choices have had any real impact or really effect anything (largely because there pretty much aren't any beyond which gun I'm using) then it just fails to appeal to me. I actually found the combat in ME1 bearable even though it was clunky because I didn't have to deal with most silly TPS elements like ammo, but at least felt that what I had done in the background statistically was making a difference. In ME2 I just feel it doesn't; the combat seems so disconnected from the RPG stuff, I don't get enough RPG stuff to play with to change this, and my Shepard at Level 3 to 5 (I'd say 1 but I always import...) feels no better or special than he/she does at Levels 25 to 30. I'm using the same exact gun in the same places with the same tactics and abilities I have from almost the start.

[Gleym]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

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, ******.

So do you have a learning disability that makes you suck at the basic facets of RPGs? Do you have extenuating circumstances that have resulted in you lacking the patience, the fundamental learning skills or the comprehension abilities to learn how to play a game without it telling you "Press A to win the game"? Did you never learn to read until recently and is that the reason why something as basic as reading when the game explains how the system works is too difficult? Is that why you respond to every bit of logic and reasoning that points out the loopy mindset you have where you hate RPGs (but insist that you don't because you like about five RPGs out of all the others out there) with vile, spiteful remarks and insults rather than actually explain yourself?

Or is it just that you hate RPGs (save for the few exceptions you've mentioned that can be counted on one hand) and want everything to be your own way and everyone else who disagrees is a '******, a 'jackass' and more?

I wonder which. HMMM.

Modifié par Gleym, 16 février 2011 - 12:24 .

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

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).

this. also i never mentioned how to play it - like a TPS or otherwise, i was talking about how you approach combat in general: for a start you can pretty much pause-and-play if you want to. you can also play realtime. you and your squad all have special abilities (still TPS genre uncommon) and i haven't even begun to talk about exploiting alternative routes, cover or the battlefield in the encounters, yet. as i stated: you get out what you put in - if you want to sit behind one piece of cover and pick off enemies and clear an area before moving on, you can do that but you won't get the most out of the game that way - but that's your choice.

btw it's still better than anything we got in me1 which generally just relied on you holding down the right trigger, and if the mission was too difficult, luring the AI into choke-points where your squad may even have helped, if they weren't caught on a box or something.

First of all, I didn't come into Mass Effect to play an adventure game, and that's not the reason I enjoyed the original game. If I want to play an adventure game I'll play the Monkey Island games again or the Sam & Max episodes. I came to Mass Effect to play a sci-fi RPG that allowed me to lose myself in its universe and reminded me of my favourite sci-fi films and shows, and I expect the same from its sequel, but I'm just not getting that.

Secondly, while I'm well aware that from a technical standpoint the combat itself is actually better than ME1's, to me it's completely meaningless when it doesn't offer enough proper alternatives and over-automates everything in the background. I want to play the game myself, I don't want it played for me. I want to choose my equipment and tweak it, not just have everything automatically done by itself and never really give me the choice.

As for alternative routes, due to the level design I've barely even found any. Beyond maybe the piece of cover I choose, it's pretty much the same story every time and only really changes a little depending on the class. It wasn't until Overlord and LotSB came along that I actually found some levels and areas that didn't feel like a straight line and offered some decent alternatives, as well as feeling more open and realisitic rather than a contrived piece of obviously-false cover designed for a TPS game surrounded by more cover in an even more obviously designed place. The choices are basically reduced to, "do I stay back and pick them off, or move forward and do the same?" and that's about it. The unhelpful HUD doesn't really help, especially when it comes to companions, who I largely ignore until I roll my eyes because their icon has gone grey. Not that ME1 was much better in the latter case either, but I still at least occasionally used them more and found a few cases where placing them was actually useful. In ME2 it didn't seem to matter because they just seemed to do their own thing shortly afterwards. What I wouldn't give for a DAO style tactics options; DAO at least was a game where my companions felt useful and I constantly used them and crafted them how I wanted to, and thanks to said Tactics could mostly rely on them to peform by themselves how I wanted, but really directly control them and guide them in certain situations when I wanted or needed to.

The point is, when TPS combat in the game is pretty much just TPS combat and doesn't have much more to it than that and never really feels like my character building and statistical choices have had any real impact or really effect anything (largely because there pretty much aren't any beyond which gun I'm using) then it just fails to appeal to me. I actually found the combat in ME1 bearable even though it was clunky because I didn't have to deal with most silly TPS elements like ammo, but at least felt that what I had done in the background statistically was making a difference. In ME2 I just feel it doesn't; the combat seems so disconnected from the RPG stuff, I don't get enough RPG stuff to play with to change this, and my Shepard at Level 3 to 5 (I'd say 1 but I always import...) feels no better or special than he/she does at Levels 25 to 30. I'm using the same exact gun in the same places with the same tactics and abilities I have from almost the start.

wait, wait so even though you knew that you'd be playing "type A space marine" and guns were in all the screenshots, you didn't expect firefights? don't feed me bullsh*t, terror_k, we're well past that - even the early builds showed a helluva lot of combat - it IS and always has been a type of "adventure" game.

level design has gotten better integrated (particularly the contrats between combat/non-combat zones in LoSB), but all combat zones have always had a relatively open area and plethora of cover to move between, as i said, you merely have to exploit it, something i get the feeling you don't want to do/can't be bothered with and then like to complain about - for someone who wants to fiddle with an inventory you are awfully reticent about actually having to do proper gameplay.

character building and stats should never come into combat - those are things for the other areas of the game - and plenty of time is spent doing those other things, there is little character development to be had in combat, after all. you already have a class system, different weapons - plenty of differentiation there, you don't need shot success measured by some arbitrary die-roll mechanic on top - player skill has just as much a role in gaming as other mechanics. ammo is stupid, yes, i have always said that it didn't need it, but your player at level 30 is vastly different in combat than your level 5 player, or you are playing on normal/easy.

[Gleym]

Jebel Krong wrote...

character building and stats should never come into combat - those are things for the other areas of the game - and plenty of time is spent doing those other things, there is little character development to be had in combat, after all. you already have a class system, different weapons - plenty of differentiation there, you don't need shot success measured by some arbitrary die-roll mechanic on top - player skill has just as much a role in gaming as other mechanics. ammo is stupid, yes, i have always said that it didn't need it, but your player at level 30 is vastly different in combat than your level 5 player, or you are playing on normal/easy.

Health, movement speed, reload speed, speed coming in and out of cover, sneaking (while crouching if they had kept it in ME2) so as to get the jump on an enemy, recovery from flashbangs, recovery from being knocked back/over, rifle-butting in terms of physical strength/speed at doing so, combat reflexes (duration of adrenaline rush for example), power of biotics (they're part implant, part skill), potency of tech attacks (based on skill with hacking), recovery time for biotics and tech abilities.

There, I just mentioned several combat instances that were stats-related where your player skill isn't hampered by 'accuracy dice-roll' mechanics and influences combat without questioning whether your cross-hair was hovering directly over someone's head.

Modifié par Gleym, 16 février 2011 - 12:40 .

[Sidney]

Terror_K wrote...

Secondly, while I'm well aware that from a technical standpoint the combat itself is actually better than ME1's, to me it's completely meaningless when it doesn't offer enough proper alternatives and over-automates everything in the background. I want to play the game myself, I don't want it played for me. I want to choose my equipment and tweak it, not just have everything automatically done by itself and never really give me the choice.

As for alternative routes, due to the level design I've barely even found any. Beyond maybe the piece of cover I 

I actually found the combat in ME1 bearable even though it was clunky because I didn't have to deal with most silly TPS elements like ammo,

You want to "play" the game but then want to piddle about with upgrades and non-playing parts of the game. That's the problem, the game is about Shep and a story and combat not about pissing around with inventory. In the end the worst part about the weapons mods in ME1 or the equally crappy runes in DAO is that they do not really affect the game. How did "Frictionless Materials VI" change your play of the game vs "Frictionless Materials V".   None of the mods really changed anything even in terms of your tactical thinking. The mods didn't change the way you used a weapon or fought with it...they just took what the weapon already did and amped it up. Contrast that with the fact that I DO fight differently with the Tempest vs Locust for example.

That is what makes your "choose equipment" stand really silly vis a vis ME series is that the weapons choices in ME2 actually offered choices that made you think a bit while in ME1 there was a "best gun" that was easily idenifiable and it was a brainless activity to choose it.

Alternate routes is so overblown. Go play DAO and see how many "routes" there are to begin with. Does going left or right to go to the same place really matter all that much in the end or more usually to the point turning into a short dead end? If those sorts of choices mattered - if you had a timed mission and the wrong turn could cause you to fail then I'm all for it because it adds to the game but they don't do that.

Ammo is a TPS element? I must have been TPS'ing away in BG1 or 2 when I ran out of arrows or how shooterific it was in Fallout 1,2,3, NV when I ran out of bullets.

The worst part of ME2 and really F:NV is on the same train and ME1 was only marginally better is that they've lost the concept that my avatar is my proxy in the game. Everything from combat, to bypassing in ME2 and then hacking computers and picking locks in NV plus obviously combat aren't stat based events. FNV uses stats to allow you to try a task but in the end my "the player's" skills determine success not my player character's stats. ME1 basically used the same approach as FNV to "access" the Simon game - at least FNV and ME2 have different minigames not that that makes it any more RPG'y.

[Jebel Krong]

Gleym wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

character building and stats should never come into combat - those are things for the other areas of the game - and plenty of time is spent doing those other things, there is little character development to be had in combat, after all. you already have a class system, different weapons - plenty of differentiation there, you don't need shot success measured by some arbitrary die-roll mechanic on top - player skill has just as much a role in gaming as other mechanics. ammo is stupid, yes, i have always said that it didn't need it, but your player at level 30 is vastly different in combat than your level 5 player, or you are playing on normal/easy.

Health, movement speed, reload speed, speed coming in and out of cover, sneaking (while crouching if they had kept it in ME2) so as to get the jump on an enemy, recovery from flashbangs, recovery from being knocked back/over, rifle-butting in terms of physical strength/speed at doing so, combat reflexes (duration of adrenaline rush for example), power of biotics (they're part implant, part skill), potency of tech attacks (based on skill with hacking), recovery time for biotics and tech abilities.

There, I just mentioned several combat instances that were stats-related where your player skill isn't hampered by 'accuracy dice-roll' mechanics and influences combat without questioning whether your cross-hair was hovering directly over someone's head.

almost none of those need to be, and many relate to other mechanics - tech/biotics, armour etc which are still subject to stat-based mechanisms anyway. as for things like reload speed, movement speed etc they should not be limited by "stats" because you role-play about as highly trained a soldier as possible, right from the get-go. sneaking is covered by the infiltrator cloak ability already. crouching is redundant given cover-based combat.

[Gleym]

Jebel Krong wrote...

almost none of those need to be, and many relate to other mechanics - tech/biotics, armour etc which are still subject to stat-based mechanisms anyway. as for things like reload speed, movement speed etc they should not be limited by "stats" because you role-play about as highly trained a soldier as possible, right from the get-go. sneaking is covered by the infiltrator cloak ability already. crouching is redundant given cover-based combat.

So you're saying that all soldiers move at the same speed, reload as fast as each other, and are all identically skilled regardless of class and all are limited in terms of their ability to sneak up on someone, utilize their biotic powers and technological understanding solely by equipment? Because what I just mentioned are all criteria where stats can allow someone to create and develop their own Shepard where their skills match their persona, and it still doesn't cause the problem you so incessantly complain about which is dice-mechanic accuracy stifling the shooter function.

The fact is; some soldiers are faster than other soldiers. Some are tougher. Some have better reflexes. Some have better coordination that allows them to reload faster or take cover more quickly and efficiently. These are all things that stats are used to dictate. Otherwise, regardless of class, everyone just ends up with the same old, identical Shepard in terms of abilities and combat efficiency and focus.

Modifié par Gleym, 16 février 2011 - 02:59 .

[Jebel Krong]

Gleym wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

almost none of those need to be, and many relate to other mechanics - tech/biotics, armour etc which are still subject to stat-based mechanisms anyway. as for things like reload speed, movement speed etc they should not be limited by "stats" because you role-play about as highly trained a soldier as possible, right from the get-go. sneaking is covered by the infiltrator cloak ability already. crouching is redundant given cover-based combat.

So you're saying that all soldiers move at the same speed, reload as fast as each other, and are all identically skilled regardless of class and all are limited in terms of their ability to sneak up on someone, utilize their biotic powers and technological understanding solely by equipment? Because what I just mentioned are all criteria where stats can allow someone to create and develop their own Shepard where their skills match their persona, and it still doesn't cause the problem you so incessantly complain about which is dice-mechanic accuracy stifling the shooter function.

The fact is; some soldiers are faster than other soldiers. Some are tougher. Some have better reflexes. Some have better coordination that allows them to reload faster or take cover more quickly and efficiently. These are all things that stats are used to dictate. Otherwise, regardless of class, everyone just ends up with the same old, identical Shepard in terms of abilities and combat efficiency and focus.

*sigh* yes you can do it that way - but why add complexity in for complexities' sake? i'd rather have an extra enemy to deal with rather than a shepard that moves 0.01% quicker into cover as you are suggesting (and nothing in me1 got anywhere near that complex). the fact is bigger differentiators to all those stats would be in armour bonuses rather than biological ones - even accounting for medical advances and genetic upgrades. and you don't create and/or differentiate you shepard with such minutiae, either.

[tonnactus]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

TekFanX wrote...


Also the number of skills: In ME1 you have many skills with one function each. This gives you the possibility to be really picky about your specialization, but it also renders many skills worthless regarding the number of skill-points needed to be invested.
Especially to unlock a skill you want by leveling a skill you'd never use ingame.

Bolded for truth.

How good that a vanguard didnt have to put points in shockwave before using pull...
Right?

[Evil Johnny 666]

Jebel Krong wrote...
level design has gotten better integrated (particularly the contrats between combat/non-combat zones in LoSB), but all combat zones have always had a relatively open area and plethora of cover to move between, as i said, you merely have to exploit it, something i get the feeling you don't want to do/can't be bothered with and then like to complain about - for someone who wants to fiddle with an inventory you are awfully reticent about actually having to do proper gameplay.

Gotta be kidding. Maybe except for the same base interiors of ME1. At least ME1 had a sense of place, the design was more than "you're here because you have to get through here in order to get there, also, don't expect us to put much thought in its design since you're just getting through". The areas are relatively open in ME2, but the level design is still incredibly weak. Bioware aren't shooter designers as far as I know, if I want competent TPS I'll just play me some Gears of War - which is highly superior - thank you. But that's what happens when you (publicly) cater to a different crowd than you did for the original game.

And proper gameplay? Sure, when ALL encounters are built the EXACT same way. Just play the game through Insanity and then return to tell me that each encounters/missions aren't designed identically. As far as level design goes, ME1 was far more varied. And it's one of the reasons why the shooting is far more enjoyable.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Jebel Krong wrote...

*sigh* yes you can do it that way - but why add complexity in for complexities' sake? i'd rather have an extra enemy to deal with rather than a shepard that moves 0.01% quicker into cover as you are suggesting (and nothing in me1 got anywhere near that complex). the fact is bigger differentiators to all those stats would be in armour bonuses rather than biological ones - even accounting for medical advances and genetic upgrades. and you don't create and/or differentiate you shepard with such minutiae, either.

If you think that's getting complex for complexity's sake... ME2 feels like they're streamlining things for the sake of it. Or at least to make the experience unsatisfying and painfully simplistic. There's good and bad streamlining. ME2's streamlining doesn't make things more fluid or a better experience, ME2's streamlining makes awfully one-dimensional and lacking. There's shooting... and there's conversations. I never played ME for the shooting, and as much as it can be fun from time to time, basically the only reason I still play ME2 a bit is the dialogue - which is significantly less good than in ME1, it has to appeal to another crowd after all - and the universe. If ME3 continues the same way, it's a no-no for me.

[tonnactus]

Terror_K wrote...


Bull pies! They don't need to change, they merely choose to. DAO and Fallout: New Vegas have proven that. It's their choice if they want to go for the more mainstream audience, but not doing so isn't going to make them go broke. It'll just mean a little less profit.

Not even that.Fallout Vegas nearly surpassed Mass Effect 2 sales already.

[Xeranx]

Jebel Krong wrote...

wait, wait so even though you knew that you'd be playing "type A space marine" and guns were in all the screenshots, you didn't expect firefights? don't feed me bullsh*t, terror_k, we're well past that - even the early builds showed a helluva lot of combat - it IS and always has been a type of "adventure" game.

I really get the feeling that you're just looking at words and not paying attention to the actual message.  Terror_K has repeatedly stated that he wouldn't continue with the Mass Effect series if Mass Effect played like Mass Effect 2.  Meaning he gave Mass Effect a shot, liked it, and expected much of the same in the "sequel".  That it didn't happen is what he doesn't like.  He also made reference to the earlier builds being more of a heavy crpg than it was on release.  If you think he's attempting to feed you bull I would say you're imagining it for the sake of argument.

[TheChosen]

yeah me2 was like gears of war in space. take cover behind the over abundant chest high walls, shoot the enemies, move on to next area, repeat.



i didn't like the rpg elements being taken away.

[Lunatic LK47]

Gleym wrote...
So you're saying that all soldiers move at the same speed, reload as fast as each other, and are all identically skilled regardless of class and all are limited in terms of their ability to sneak up on someone, utilize their biotic powers and technological understanding solely by equipment? Because what I just mentioned are all criteria where stats can allow someone to create and develop their own Shepard where their skills match their persona, and it still doesn't cause the problem you so incessantly complain about which is dice-mechanic accuracy stifling the shooter function.

The fact is; some soldiers are faster than other soldiers. Some are tougher. Some have better reflexes. Some have better coordination that allows them to reload faster or take cover more quickly and efficiently. These are all things that stats are used to dictate. Otherwise, regardless of class, everyone just ends up with the same old, identical Shepard in terms of abilities and combat efficiency and focus.

Uh, Specialilzed Warfare meant extra training up to the point combat is instinctive, and if you didn't fit certain parameters (i.e. Not having enough control of your weapon and accidentally shooting hostage paper targets), you're more or less booted from the program. There's no such thing as "I'll just spend skill points to shoot accurately if I have enough live experience."

[Lunatic LK47]

Gleym wrote...



So do you have a learning disability that makes you suck at the basic facets of RPGs? Do you have extenuating circumstances that have resulted in you lacking the patience, the fundamental learning skills or the comprehension abilities to learn how to play a game without it telling you "Press A to win the game"? Did you never learn to read until recently and is that the reason why something as basic as reading when the game explains how the system works is too difficult? Is that why you respond to every bit of logic and reasoning that points out the loopy mindset you have where you hate RPGs (but insist that you don't because you like about five RPGs out of all the others out there) with vile, spiteful remarks and insults rather than actually explain yourself?

Apparently, I'll hold you to the same standard of having a loopy mindset, since apparently *YOUR* definition of an RPG should have the same old formula for what is at least 30+ years, the same reason why JRPG has been stigmatized. The only thing separating WRPGs and JRPGs is WRPGs attempt to try out new things and has a more coherent story. What you want is a genre where it's only good for "The 1337 club and **** you noobs" or "Don't ever bother playing video games." Don't act like you're innocent here. I have you on my block list because you love to be condescending to someone who actually likes ME2's gameplay. You belittle someone, someone else belittles you. That's called karma, and live with it, ******.

[Lunatic LK47]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...


[Gotta be kidding. Maybe except for the same base interiors of ME1. At least ME1 had a sense of place, the design was more than "you're here because you have to get through here in order to get there, also, don't expect us to put much thought in its design since you're just getting through". The areas are relatively open in ME2, but the level design is still incredibly weak. Bioware aren't shooter designers as far as I know, if I want competent TPS I'll just play me some Gears of War - which is highly superior - thank you.

Superior in gameplay, yeah, but has a **** story where I don't care about the characters living or dying. At least Mass Effect tries to prove it's the best of both worlds, and I am just as pissed as Terror K with how BioWare handled the continuity of the story.

And proper gameplay? Sure, when ALL encounters are built the EXACT same way. Just play the game through Insanity and then return to tell me that each encounters/missions aren't designed identically. As far as level design goes, ME1 was far more varied. And it's one of the reasons why the shooting is far more enjoyable.

Uh, if proper gameplay means  Biotics spam-throwing you in an unlimited loop, or techies sabotaging the only weapon you can train with, Alpha Protocol is the best game for you. [/sarcasm]

[Lumikki]

I don't get it, how can some people be so stuck in old days and think that evolution of game development just stops.Thinking like RPG will stay forever as same design, like it never change. It takes over 2 year to make every game, so of course every time they make game, design has changed. Companies learns from they previous games and new technology allows different stuff than before.

If you people expect that every Bioware game in future will be some stat based RPG, then you gonna be complaining rest of your life. Bioware has to fit to game market like every other game company, I don't mean making games for mainstream of people, I mean that RPG it self will change by time too.

What do you people think comes after Mass Effect 3? Back to Baldus Gate 2 design?

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 février 2011 - 08:44 .

[Gatt9]

Jebel Krong wrote...

wait, wait so even though you knew that you'd be playing "type A space marine" and guns were in all the screenshots, you didn't expect firefights? don't feed me bullsh*t, terror_k, we're well past that - even the early builds showed a helluva lot of combat - it IS and always has been a type of "adventure" game.

level design has gotten better integrated (particularly the contrats between combat/non-combat zones in LoSB), but all combat zones have always had a relatively open area and plethora of cover to move between, as i said, you merely have to exploit it, something i get the feeling you don't want to do/can't be bothered with and then like to complain about - for someone who wants to fiddle with an inventory you are awfully reticent about actually having to do proper gameplay.

character building and stats should never come into combat - those are things for the other areas of the game - and plenty of time is spent doing those other things, there is little character development to be had in combat, after all. you already have a class system, different weapons - plenty of differentiation there, you don't need shot success measured by some arbitrary die-roll mechanic on top - player skill has just as much a role in gaming as other mechanics. ammo is stupid, yes, i have always said that it didn't need it, but your player at level 30 is vastly different in combat than your level 5 player, or you are playing on normal/easy.

I disagree,  to an extent.

ME2 (Deus Ex,  NOLF 2) is obviously an edge case.  You've got two options,  full-on stat driven gameplay or "Hyrbrid" gameplay. 

To deal with the first,  we're pretty much hardwired at this point that FPP or TPP with guns means I should aim and shoot.  while you could do full-on stats,  I admit even I would grow frustrated to some extent.  Fallout 3's system of using stats for called shots is clearly a reasonable comprimise on this subject,  but I don't think it's a viable solution.

Hybridized,  OTOH,  is.  Introducing float based on stats is a functional and proven viable system.  Even in FPS,  it's not uncommon for you to have to overcome some float with personal skill. 

I would venture that Hybridized is the only viable solution in a FPP or TPP RPG.  The other option is ME2,  where there's no RPG elements to speak of.  Sure,  you could make the RPG elements be only non-combat related,  but how interesting would it be if you only leveled Charm, Intimidation,  and Decryption?

Introducing float,  reload speed,  damage resistance,  access to higher tier weaponry and armor,  and many more things are all viable,  and sensical.

[Lunatic LK47]

Gatt9 wrote...
I would venture that Hybridized is the only viable solution in a FPP or TPP RPG.  The other option is ME2,  where there's no RPG elements to speak of.  Sure,  you could make the RPG elements be only non-combat related,  but how interesting would it be if you only leveled Charm, Intimidation,  and Decryption?

Introducing float,  reload speed,  damage resistance,  access to higher tier weaponry and armor,  and many more things are all viable,  and sensical.

Problem with the reload speed is that you're already playing a Special Forces operative (i.e. The best of the best operative), and something as basic as reloading is done in literally less than half to 3/4ths of a second. 

Damage resistance: I am very doubtful anyone would spend skill points on something like "-2% damage taken if leveled up" when there are other more important skills to level up, and this is more obnoxious in a game like Alpha Protocol, where you're expected to play the game like an action game but have to use the RPG elements as crutches (i.e. Points spent into toughness is better off being spent on weapons or hand-to-hand combat for example).

As for access to higher-tier weaponry, that's just border-line non-sensical. Are you going to tell a Delta Force operative he can't have access to prototype weapons like the Bushmaster ACR just because "he doesn't have the skill points?" 

Armor classes, I end up avoiding Light and Heavy classes *EVERY SINGLE TIME* not just because they're ugly, but the trade-offs are outright **** (ME1's system: Oh yeah Heavy gives extra damage protection, but gives **** resistance against biotics/tech, while Light is the opposite )

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 16 février 2011 - 09:00 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...

I don't get it, how can some people be so stuck in old days and think that evolution of game development just stops.Thinking like RPG will stay forever as same design, like it never change. It takes over 2 year to make every game, so of course every time they make game, design has changed. Companies learns from they previous games and new technology allows different stuff than before.

If you people expect that every Bioware game in future will be some stat based RPG, then you gonna be complaining rest of your life. Bioware has to fit to game market like every other game company, I don't mean making games for mainstream of people, I mean that RPG it self will change by time too.

What do you people think comes after Mass Effect 3? Back to Baldus Gate 2 design?

Tell me how Mass Effect 2 represents the evolution of the RPG genre. I'll tell you: it uses purely TPS style combat (something done to death), it has heavy emphasis on dialogue (something Bioware have been doing for some time, something that is absolutely not essential to RPGs as proved by the countless ones without such system), it... well it took everything else out or streamlined them. Way for evolution!

Seriously, how can anyone think RPGs isn't about character progression? The "role playing" thing is overrated, you play a role in any game. But then, you'd need decent role choices, you'd need to evolve within that role, otherwise it kills the fun of choosing a role, it is to progress through it to unlock abilities and such.

Of course RPGs can change, but don't change its core! Just play through every Elder Scrolls game, and then return tell me they never changed anything about how they make RPGs. And read all the info on Skyrim! They CONSTANTLY reinvent how they make RPGs, but guess what, there was ALWAYS character progression, it's a key point in RPGs. All people ever say as being RPG elements are more of the time non-essential. Important, but non-essential, that's where you have to go. Far Cry 2 has quite a bit of customization for a shooter, you can even accept small quests or receive phone calls from buddies to do a mission differently. As a shooter, it offers plenty of ways to get into a fighting situation. Yet it's not an RPG, it's obviously a shooter with RPG elements. It would be an RPG if you could progress as a character, something you can't. JRPGs don't even offer role choices, yet has a lot more customization, loads more side quests and character progression compared to ME2.

I still think ME2 is an RPG, but an extremely barebones one testing the borders of the genre. In a nutshell, ME2 is a shooter with a dialogue system and limited quests. It really is. Even if the combat sucks, Obsidian totally beat Bioware at their own game with Alpha Protocol.

And again, I find it funny how people always tell me "but it's your opinion dude!" on what is an RPG or not. But the hell? Can't people try to think a bit and actually try to understand what I'm saying instead of say "I don't agree". It's only by understanding that you can actually tell why you don't agree. And then, why tag games if no one can agree on defining the tag? Why name something science fiction if no one can agree what is science fiction. And will someone tell me why there never were debates on what is an RPG since recent games? It's obviously because barely anyone tried to get too much out of the genre. Saying character progression is a traditional RPG element is like saying driving in a driving game is a traditional driving element. I know, I'll make the next generation driving game! It will be like an RPG, tons of character interaction, character progression, and heavy customization, but it will be about the main character being a running rookie, and it will all be centered around doing on-foot running. But you'll have to use your car in order to reach the next competition site!

[tonnactus]

Autolycus wrote...

Excellent points.  Also, more and more so, developers (that were once primarilt PC based) are cross platforming their games to cater to console owners.  This will also change the nature of a role playing game, as 'traditionally', thye have never fared well on the consoles.

Where do you get that? Morrorwind and Kotor sold well on consoles,just to name some examples. Dragon Age sold more copies on consoles then on pcs and was meant to be a "traditional" rpg. There is no reason to dumb it down its sucessor now because console owners are satisfied with the game as it was.
Right thing is that shooters and strategy games were alien on consoles,not rpgs.

Modifié par tonnactus, 16 février 2011 - 10:33 .