461 réponses à ce sujet

[Cadaver19]

For me the games are comparable to manual transmission and an automatic. One requires more user input but they both get me from point a to point b.

[Gleym]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Gleym wrote...

Just curious here, Lunatic.. outside of Mass Effect 2, are there any RPGs you don't hate? 'Cause so far it just sounds like you hate RPGs and ME2 is the exception due to having less RPG-related things for you to hate in it.

KOTOR 1 is the only one I remotely like out of the entire library of available RPGs for consoles. The rest of the console RPG market is full of  the same old repetitive JRPG crap.

I see. And you've never bothered to play any PC RPGs I'm imagining. Well, chances are you'd hate those too judging from your statements.

So.. tell me again how someone is wrong when they point out that you just hate RPGs in general? Just because you have literally TWO games that are an exception, doesn't mean you don't hate RPGs. In fact most of what you've said in that regard makes it patently obvious that you despise RPGs of all but a very specific model and kind. A model that isn't prevailent in the vast sea of multiple RPGs that are actually quite good - provided that you're a fan of RPGs, which you clearly aren't.

Modifié par Gleym, 15 février 2011 - 01:45 .

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...
Yes, simplicity is good, but only when to apply it to the right areas and know when to stop. Christina and co. clearly didn't know when to stop judging from how ME2 turned out. Some players approve, but many just feel the entire process to be shallow and unsatisfactory to the point where they may as well automate everything completely without any input or choice from the player at all if they're going to reduce it so much. Some players don't necessarily need to be able to tweak all these aspects, but many of us find the game's mechanics horribly shallow, linear and dull when we don't even really get the choice.

Kind of cute the way you use "some" and "many" in this passage. I assume you're playing to the gallery.

All I get from "clearly" there is that Terror_K doesn't like where Christina & Co. drew the balance.

Sorry, but that's just how I feel.

Fine. So say "I," rather than talking about "experienced role-players" feeling the way you do.

I have nothing to add about Mission Complete screens except that your feelings aren't mine, and that I'm not particularly bothered if the screens go away in ME3. I like ME2's method best, but Bio's better off satisfying you rather than me since I don't really give a damn one way or the other. The problem with "immersion" arguments is that they're completely subjective; I've got a high tolerance for pointlessness, but not infinite.

But then you get back to.......

... if the real reason (and I suspect this is the case) for all the "mainstreamlining" and oversimplification is not so much to make a better Mass Effect but to pull in all those players out there who are put off by RPG mechanics. As far as I can tell BioWare don't want to make a good, deep RPG with the Mass Effect series any more;

If you're going to accuse Bio of dishonesty and bad faith, own it. When they say ME2's changes are improvements, you can say they're lying. Or say they're deluded. Or say you don't understand why they do stuff. But suspicion? Come on.

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

Its amazing how some people claim ME1 inventory system and omni gel was sooo time consuming, but get a "new improved" feature called mining and its cool for them, we spend more time now probing planets than actually doing something interesting like exploring the said planet, hilarious.

[Lunatic LK47]

Capeo wrote...


Bethesda's RPGs are on consoles and they're some of the best RPGs out there.  About as far as you can get from JRPGs.

I did say I hated Bethesda's RPGs.

[Lunatic LK47]

Gleym wrote...

I see. And you've never bothered to play any PC RPGs I'm imagining. Well, chances are you'd hate those too judging from your statements.

Tried Vampire: The Masquerade: Redemption and it was just for free from one of Dad's co-workers. Could not play the damn game without cheating. This is among the hundreds of PC RPGs I just felt outright alienated by.

So.. tell me again how someone is wrong when they point out that you just hate RPGs in general? Just because you have literally TWO games that are an exception, doesn't mean you don't hate RPGs. In fact most of what you've said in that regard makes it patently obvious that you despise RPGs of all but a very specific model and kind. A model that isn't prevailent in the vast sea of multiple RPGs that are actually quite good - provided that you're a fan of RPGs, which you clearly aren't.

Uh, mainly for the fact most Western RPGs had a very convoluted gameplay or was always set in the fictional version of the Dark Ages? Out of all of the Western RPGs that existed before KOTOR, I was only able to get into ShadowRun for the Super NES just last fall, and that's not saying much. Sci-fi RPGs are few and far between, not to mention my PC was outright not capable of handling them when they were relevant on the market.

[Lunatic LK47]

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

Its amazing how some people claim ME1 inventory system and omni gel was sooo time consuming, but get a "new improved" feature called mining and its cool for them, we spend more time now probing planets than actually doing something interesting like exploring the said planet, hilarious.

Oh, right like driving through empty mountainous worlds with the same anomalies and mineral ores is so much more exciting. [/sarcasm]. BTW, ME1's inventory *IS* time consuming, jack-ass.

[Terror_K]

AlanC9 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Yes, simplicity is good, but only when to apply it to the right areas and know when to stop. Christina and co. clearly didn't know when to stop judging from how ME2 turned out. Some players approve, but many just feel the entire process to be shallow and unsatisfactory to the point where they may as well automate everything completely without any input or choice from the player at all if they're going to reduce it so much. Some players don't necessarily need to be able to tweak all these aspects, but many of us find the game's mechanics horribly shallow, linear and dull when we don't even really get the choice.

Kind of cute the way you use "some" and "many" in this passage. I assume you're playing to the gallery.

All I get from "clearly" there is that Terror_K doesn't like where Christina & Co. drew the balance.

First of all, can you actually just respond without these veiled, subtle little digs and innuendo that seems deliberately one step away from a personal insult? That'd be nice, thanks. Though I have to admit, you do it better than most who try similar tactics. And at least you're not throwing around such juvenile buzzwords as "elitist" and "hater" etc.

Moving on, I'm not alone in this. There are plenty of people who think BioWare took things a little far with their "streamlining" even some who overall prefer ME2 to ME1. Can you honestly say you're completely happy at where they drew the balance? Can you honestly say they didn't take things even just a wee bit too far? There are a lot of fans out there who understood why the inventory and planet exploration went but are still wondering "why did modding go too?" for instance.

No, I don't think they found the right balance. I admit that to a certain degree they went in the right direction for a start: reducing the amount of items, allowing items to clone, getting rid of the constant need to omni-gel or sell thousands of items, getting rid of the levels I to X of almost every item, etc. were all good moves, but they simply took things too far and turned needlessly complex systems into an overly simple ones, losing some of the functionality and complexity in the process. Again, making complexity simple is good. Making it so simple that it's no longer even complex and just shallow and pointless is not.

Fine. So say "I," rather than talking about "experienced role-players" feeling the way you do.

But I know that some others here feel the same way. Talking only for myself solely isn't going to turn heads if I'm admitting I'm the only one, because I'm not. I personally can't see how an experience role-player couldn't feel like the game was treating them like an infant while playing it. It's not exactly subtle, which is part of the problem. Whether it bothers somebody or not is completely personal of course, but ME2 was like a tutorial for a tutorial that never switched off.

I've got a high tolerance for pointlessness, but not infinite.

Just out of curiosity, what do you determine to be "pointless" exactly?

If you're going to accuse Bio of dishonesty and bad faith, own it. When they say ME2's changes are improvements, you can say they're lying. Or say they're deluded. Or say you don't understand why they do stuff. But suspicion? Come on.

Well suspicion usually comes before outright accusation, does it not? I'm not going to make an outright claim until I feel I have enough evidence. I'd like to think I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt for now, but I must admit my doubts are seeming more and more like facts. If ME2 wasn't a big clue, then the fact that the very same curse seems to be infecting the Dragon Age side of things too sure is. It looks like DA2 is going to suffer from pretty much the same issues I had with the transition from ME1 to ME2. As it stands I'm reserving judgment on BioWare until after ME3, or at the very least until we know a good deal about it. They've claimed that they're going to strengthen the RPG elements a bit more in ME3 so I'm going to give them a chance to prove it and show me that they haven't sold out to the mainstream gamer, despite all the mounting evidence that seems to support that they are.

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

Lumikki wrote...

I have to agree with others, just because table top RPG is most common and orginal way to build RPG in computers, that doesn't mean it's the only way to do it. Gatt you really should read what role-playing really means. There is more in role-playing than just the orginal way how computers started to simulate RPG's. In many role-playing games player does something by him/her self, like use his/her own intelligent or even physical tasks like in LARP's. So, player using mouse for targeting, doesn't mean it's not roleplaying as long role has been taken.

Role-playing games

I think it's question of differences what is role-playing and what we consider as role-playing game. In my opinion any game where player takes role and has ability choose different kind of roles to play, is role-playing game.

Sure, someone could think like Tomb Raider Lara Croft is role-playing too. In some way it is, but there is only one role to play. In Mass Effect you can how ever choose what kind of Shepard you will be, so there is classes to select. I quest that's why Tomb raider is consider as adventure game and Mass Effect as role-playing. Some First person shooters there isn't even character, it's more like player is playing him/her self.

Where's the limit of what is RPG?

Hard to say, because role-playing only means taking role of something else than your self. I my self would put limit of RPG as if player can only play one role as no able to choose class or any other way customize abilities of his/her character, then it's not really much of roleplaying game. Now how good some game is in role-playing as providing option, doesn't restrict game still to be role-playing game. So, ability choose items doesn't make game to role-playing game, it's more about characters ability have more than one role to play.

"Role-playing games also include single-player offline role-playing video games
in which players control a character or team who undertake quests, and
whose capabilities advance using statistical mechanics. These games
often share settings and rules with pen-and-paper RPGs, but emphasize
character advancement more than collaborative storytelling."

ME2 has less of all these mechanics, less character advancement options, less stats (or better none) and so on.

How can we deny that ME2 is a dumbed down rpg? it has less choice, character advancement is awfull, statistics? there are none now, no weapon damage, no armor level, the HUD has no information besides ammo, how much shields do i have? how much health do i have? there´s nothing, its going completely the way of a pure shooter with the ammo count.

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

Its amazing how some people claim ME1 inventory system and omni gel was sooo time consuming, but get a "new improved" feature called mining and its cool for them, we spend more time now probing planets than actually doing something interesting like exploring the said planet, hilarious.

Oh, right like driving through empty mountainous worlds with the same anomalies and mineral ores is so much more exciting. [/sarcasm]. BTW, ME1's inventory *IS* time consuming, jack-ass.

Really you are a jerk sir, i never said ME1 inventory was not time consuming, i compared it with a new game "improvement" wich is even more time consuming, you didn´t like it then shut the **** up and don´t be an ass.

[technikr]

It is in my humble opinion that all top-notch video games should provide a high level of immersion, I just personally believe that storyline, cinematic atmosphere and character development provide more immersion than character statistical/aesthetics diversity does. This should dictate the levels of priority that bioware's development cycle would be focusing on.



Personally, I could do away with RPG elements that concerned with HUD, UI, highly variable statistical mechanics, large amounts of items and any other resources of statistical diversity.



I would love that the developmental cycles spent on developing the above RPG elements be spent on RPG elements that concerned plot, story and character development a lot more.



This is coming from a gamer who likes to see more cinematic involvement in games however:



-Provide me just enough stress/resource management mechanics in the shooter gameplay so that the playable narrative im undertaking is struggling and challenging enough.

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Uh, if a game is complicated enough to require a week to learn the game, no one is going to be inclined to play it. I shouldn't have to spend days of my life reading magazine-sized instruction manuals just to know what my available skills are and accidentally pick the wrong ones. I gave up on Dragon Age: Origins not just because of a ****tier inventory system, but the difficulty spikes stem from very questionable game design(i.e. Navigating through three menus just to access Spell #10, or "LOLZ, Zombies are immune to cold spells, DIE!") 

This quote says so much about you, go play shooters its the best for your brain.

[Gleym]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Tried Vampire: The Masquerade: Redemption and it was just for free from one of Dad's co-workers. Could not play the damn game without cheating. This is among the hundreds of PC RPGs I just felt outright alienated by.

Uh, mainly for the fact most Western RPGs had a very convoluted gameplay or was always set in the fictional version of the Dark Ages? Out of all of the Western RPGs that existed before KOTOR, I was only able to get into ShadowRun for the Super NES just last fall, and that's not saying much. Sci-fi RPGs are few and far between, not to mention my PC was outright not capable of handling them when they were relevant on the market.

Again, your entire basis seems to be fixed on the thought that because a small number of RPGs that you've played were ones you found tolerable, the entire thing should be reworked to your favor, because you hated how other RPGs formulate and function - which is rather self-evident by the fact that your attitude has a very keen "I want all RPGs to follow THIS pattern, and anyone who doesn't like it can go f*ck themselves because they're idiots for not wanting to to be the way I want it to" tone about it.

[Gatt9]

technikr wrote...

It is in my humble opinion that all top-notch video games should provide a high level of immersion, I just personally believe that storyline, cinematic atmosphere and character development provide more immersion than character statistical/aesthetics diversity does. This should dictate the levels of priority that bioware's development cycle would be focusing on.

Personally, I could do away with RPG elements that concerned with HUD, UI, highly variable statistical mechanics, large amounts of items and any other resources of statistical diversity.

I would love that the developmental cycles spent on developing the above RPG elements be spent on RPG elements that concerned plot, story and character development a lot more.

This is coming from a gamer who likes to see more cinematic involvement in games however:

-Provide me just enough stress/resource management mechanics in the shooter gameplay so that the playable narrative im undertaking is struggling and challenging enough.

Not trying to be rude or mean or anything,  but do you realize that you just gave the description of an Action-Adventure game?  (Uncharted,  Gods of War,  Tomb Raider,  Thief,  Dead Rising,  etc)

What you're saying is that you don't want an RPG,  but an Action-Adventure game.  Which leads me to my next question...

...Is the problem you see the RPG mechanics in an RPG,  or that there's insufficient Action-Adventure games out there with intriguing stories?

Because honestly,  what I'm getting from you is that you hate RPGs,  which leads me to believe that you're playing them for some other reason,  and judging from your wishlist I would guess that reason is because the genre you like isn't providing you with quality games.

[Gatt9]

AlanC9 wrote...
Again with the "experienced RPG player bit"? I expect that sort of nonsense from Gatt9 or Gleym, not you.

As an experienced RPG player myself, I thought that the interface wasn't a very good port, true -- not as bad as KotOR's, but not great. (I forgave Bio for this because at least ME2 doesn't blow up my sound card or crash my rig repeatedly the way ME1 does). As for the rest, I simply don't see it. I think we've talked about "Mission Complete" screens before. I prefer them. I wish all CRPGs handed out experience this way, which is the way the better PnP systems handle XP. Kill XP is not only juvenile, it provides bad incentives. The weapon loadout interface suits the system that's there. And so on.

As for the syle shift... too subjective for me to get into.

Just for the record,  since I don't have much time to type more "Nonsense",  you might want to mention that the "Better P&P systems" you mention are ultra-niche markets in the RPG market.  As in,  you'll never find it in a bookstore niche.

But I guess that'd just be me pointing out more "Nonsense".

[Lunatic LK47]

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...


This quote says so much about you, go play shooters its the best for your brain.

I hate most of the shooters because of the campaign length, jack-ass.

[Lunatic LK47]

Gleym wrote...

Again, your entire basis seems to be fixed on the thought that because a small number of RPGs that you've played were ones you found tolerable, the entire thing should be reworked to your favor, because you hated how other RPGs formulate and function - which is rather self-evident by the fact that your attitude has a very keen "I want all RPGs to follow THIS pattern, and anyone who doesn't like it can go f*ck themselves because they're idiots for not wanting to to be the way I want it to" tone about it.

Go **** yourself, jack-ass. Hypocrite much?

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 15 février 2011 - 05:14 .

[Gleym]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Go **** yourself, jack-ass.

What a riveting rebuttal. I guess that means I'm not wrong then?

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

I hate most of the shooters because i´m a hater by nature, and i´m a jack-ass.

Fixed it there for y´a.

[Lunatic LK47]

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

I hate most of the shooters because i´m a hater by nature, and i´m a jack-ass.

Fixed it there for y´a.

Go screw yourself.

[technikr]

Gatt9 wrote...
Not trying to be rude or mean or anything,  but do you realize that you just gave the description of an Action-Adventure game?  (Uncharted,  Gods of War,  Tomb Raider,  Thief,  Dead Rising,  etc)

What you're saying is that you don't want an RPG,  but an Action-Adventure game.  Which leads me to my next question...

...Is the problem you see the RPG mechanics in an RPG,  or that there's insufficient Action-Adventure games out there with intriguing stories?

Because honestly,  what I'm getting from you is that you hate RPGs,  which leads me to believe that you're playing them for some other reason,  and judging from your wishlist I would guess that reason is because the genre you like isn't providing you with quality games.

Yessir, this is a discussion on what genre the mass effect universe should lean towards. 

I want the most story, character development and fictional universe content out of the mass effect game's as possible.

I support any mechanic within a game that allows the most player-interaction with story, character development and fictional universe content. 

Mass Effect's Dialogue wheel allows players to situate themselves in the Mass Effect Universe which serves as a driving medium for the developers to flesh out their story, character development and fictional universe.

I see Mass Effect 2 as two separate functions: One of Game-play and One of Story-play

Gameplay is the Third-Person Shooter: what I refer to as the gameplay mechanics. The "Action-Adventure" part of the game that I believe shouldn't have too many roleplaying elements.

Story-play is the Third-Person role player: what I refer to as the roleplaying mechanics. This involves conversations between characters, plot progression and universe elements that 'deepen' understanding of the mass effect universe. This is where I want the most roleplaying to occur.

We both can agree that roleplaying involves player input being greater than the input of the gaming developer in terms of determining the characterisation of the main character.

I just rather that liberal expression be applied towards the story-play of mass effect 3 rather than the game-play.

[Whatever42]

AlanC9 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Yes, simplicity is good, but only when to apply it to the right areas and know when to stop. Christina and co. clearly didn't know when to stop judging from how ME2 turned out. Some players approve, but many just feel the entire process to be shallow and unsatisfactory to the point where they may as well automate everything completely without any input or choice from the player at all if they're going to reduce it so much. Some players don't necessarily need to be able to tweak all these aspects, but many of us find the game's mechanics horribly shallow, linear and dull when we don't even really get the choice.

Kind of cute the way you use "some" and "many" in this passage. I assume you're playing to the gallery.

All I get from "clearly" there is that Terror_K doesn't like where Christina & Co. drew the balance.

Sorry, but that's just how I feel.

Fine. So say "I," rather than talking about "experienced role-players" feeling the way you do.

I have nothing to add about Mission Complete screens except that your feelings aren't mine, and that I'm not particularly bothered if the screens go away in ME3. I like ME2's method best, but Bio's better off satisfying you rather than me since I don't really give a damn one way or the other. The problem with "immersion" arguments is that they're completely subjective; I've got a high tolerance for pointlessness, but not infinite.

But then you get back to.......

... if the real reason (and I suspect this is the case) for all the "mainstreamlining" and oversimplification is not so much to make a better Mass Effect but to pull in all those players out there who are put off by RPG mechanics. As far as I can tell BioWare don't want to make a good, deep RPG with the Mass Effect series any more;

If you're going to accuse Bio of dishonesty and bad faith, own it. When they say ME2's changes are improvements, you can say they're lying. Or say they're deluded. Or say you don't understand why they do stuff. But suspicion? Come on.

T_K is waging a campaign to convince Bioware of the error of their ways and part of that is attempting to look like the pointguard of a vast movement of dissatisfaction. I think Bioware designers have been around the interwebz long enough to not believe anything on a forum, though.

Fortunately, I think that 100+ GOTY awards, including a huge number of RPG of year awards (yes all reviewers are either morons or corrupt, right?) probably has more weight with Bioware than anything we debate here. It is annoying how you can't go to any forum surrounding a game or television show without a handful of angry people trying to convince everyone else that the game/show they enjoy really sucks and its their duty to convince the world so the producers will remake it the way they want it. This forum is pretty typical.

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

I like to screw myself.

Again fixed, you are really weak minded.

[titusrsoooooo1337]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

Its amazing how some people claim ME1 inventory system and omni gel was sooo time consuming, but get a "new improved" feature called mining and its cool for them, we spend more time now probing planets than actually doing something interesting like exploring the said planet, hilarious.

Oh, right like driving through empty mountainous worlds with the same anomalies and mineral ores is so much more exciting. [/sarcasm]. BTW, ME1's inventory *IS* time consuming, jack-ass.

oh right, like hearing "probe launched" 100 times in a row is so much better than exploring beautiful uncharted planets, of which you dont HAVE to explore if you find it boring 

[Lunatic LK47]

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

I like to screw myself.

Two can play that game, ****. Want a shotgun to the face?