160 réponses à ce sujet

[Greybox_Inception]

christina = awesome :-D

[nevar00]

Well that settled some of my fears as far as the impact of decisions go. I just hope she wasn't talking outta her ass.

[Goofy McCoy]

Bloggers99 wrote...
Apparently wanting RPGs to progress makes me a fan of Call of Duty?

Interesting lack of logic, chief.

I was going to question the value of the progress you so desire, but apparently you are so highbrow that you'd never be willingly dragged down to discourse with "nerds, lol" on points like that.

Then I was going to make a Halo joke, but I couldn't think of a suitable punchline offhand, and considering you're not even going to be a sport about it and take your own medicine, I couldn't muster enough effort to really try to make it work.


If you'd REALLY like me to disassemble your plan for a superior RPG, next time you'll have to actually give me some hope that you'll maybe stick around and learn something.

Modifié par Goofy McCoy, 08 mars 2011 - 02:53 .

[Bloggers99]

I'm sure they don't want to end the series on a sour note. I'm kind of hoping that the game will include decisions that weren't carried over to ME2. I know, that's a horribly long shot, but if this is the end of Shepard's journey I want it to be as epic as physically possible and there to be as few loose ends as possible. Still, if even half of the decisions from ME1 and 2 are reflected that's going to be a lot of variables, programming and effort on their part.

Here's to hoping.

Edit due to the ridicule:

Le sigh. I didn't validate you with a justifying response because you somehow gathered that I'm against "dodgy old-hat RPG stuff" despite the fact that I referenced nothing but older RPGs in my statement. That wasn't me not being a sport or taking my own medicine, that was me ignoring an illogical response to my statement. ME2 is meant to focus on the action when you're in the fight, not how much exp you're getting or which gun has the most dps per shot against barriers and which has the most dps per shot against shields. I'd play WoW if all I cared about was min/maxing.

Also, the "nerd" comment is directed at people who get too deep into something. Anyone who min/maxes (imo) is a nerd. The type of people who repeatedly deny that ME2 is a RPG because it lacks some RPG elements, despite the fact that many mainstream RPGs lack similar elements is a nerd to me. If you wish to discuss this further, message me directly because this is cluttering up the thread.

Modifié par Bloggers99, 08 mars 2011 - 02:58 .

[Elvis_Mazur]

I wouldn't be so sure she was saying the truth when asked about the decisions impact in future games.

That could have been what they want us to believe on or the truth. Regardless, we won't know, probably, until the game is out.

[Goofy McCoy]

Bloggers99 wrote...
ME2 is meant to focus on the action when you're in the fight, not how much exp you're getting or which gun has the most dps per shot against barriers and which has the most dps per shot against shields. I'd play WoW if all I cared about was min/maxing.

...So you want RPG's to not be RPG's, because if you wanted to play an RPG, you would just play one like WoW? I don't follow how this kind of thinking doesn't lead back to just playing a good shooter, instead of changing an interesting hybrid RPG/Shooter into just a shooter.

It leads me to wonder if you really like shooter games where-in bullets are intentionally less lethal than they ought to be?

Also, the "nerd" comment is directed at people who get too deep into something. Anyone who min/maxes (imo) is a nerd. The type of people who repeatedly deny that ME2 is a RPG because it lacks some RPG elements, despite the fact that many mainstream RPGs lack similar elements is a nerd to me.

Now we get down to the part where-in we admit that a lot of this is built on opinion and superstition. You don't like stat-based games that require you to track trivial numbers, and yet I wonder why you'd suggest that a game so obviously built on such a system's foundation should be shoe-horned into a mind numbingly simple GOOD>GOODER>GOODEST hand holding affair.

Also, you can stop trying to attribute the "ME2 is not RPG, hurrrr" to me,  I recognize that it's been a hybrid since it was created, I just don't understand why such effort is taken to place the game within an RPG structure only to tear out as much of it as possible, to the point of making it rather pointless and arbitrary.

In essence, why not just drop the RPG stuff entirely if you're not going to do it well?

If you wish to discuss this further, message me directly because this is cluttering up the thread.

Pffft, hardly. They phoned this interview in, it's hardly big news, especially seeing as they're still staying tight lipped about Arrival.

[tonnactus]

Some people are to dumb to read short manuals at least? No one really needed rpg experience to understand the game mechanics of the first game.,unlike Dragon Age.

Modifié par tonnactus, 08 mars 2011 - 08:50 .

[tonnactus]

ODST 5723 wrote...


In ME1, you didn't get that until you invested enough points and it wasn't until a good bit into the game that I was finally able to get the weapon efficiency to where I didn't feel gimped playing as a Soldier because the accuracy was so atrocious and the weapons so inefficient.

The only weapon that has accuracy issues(more stability issues) was the sniper rifle.But even starting pistols and shotguns have decent accuracy right from the start.Assault rifles worked fine when players actually followed the advice to shoot them in short bursts...

[tonnactus]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Maybe it's not her fault, after all, but that of the real gameplay designers, who are more commonly known as marketologists.

Christina Norman was against the introduction of thermal clips...

[Zulu_DFA]

tonnactus wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Maybe it's not her fault, after all, but that of the real gameplay designers, who are more commonly known as marketologists.

Christina Norman was against the introduction of thermal clips...

No, but perhaps she is being told all the time in which direction the "original vision" of Mass Effect should evolve, and has not much leeway. Just like all the devs are told what they are allowed to disclose in the interviews.

Videogames are serious business, never forget.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 08 mars 2011 - 09:30 .

[tonnactus]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

And, Terror_K, for the last time, ME2 was not "dumbed down."

A game where you can respec your skills for every mission is dumbed down.No way around that.
There is actually zero need to even think how to build your character because you could adapt needed talents for every mission if needed.

Modifié par tonnactus, 08 mars 2011 - 10:00 .

[brightblueink]

I'm not a shooter fan. I can count on one hand the number of shooters I've ever actually enjoyed, and even then those were multiplayer games I was playing with my brother, and I never bothered going through the single-player campaigns. On the other hand, I've considered RPGs my favorite genre of gaming since I was a young teenager.

That being said? I thought the combat in ME2 was WAY, WAY more fun than ME1. In ME2 I feel challenged but not frustrated, I feel like the choices I make while leveling up my characters really matter, and I'm much more interested in what my character is actually wearing and using than in the last game.

Combat in ME1 bored me to tears. I think part of the reason I played Paragon is that I was desperately trying to avoid combat as much as possible because I hated it so much. For the first half of the game I huddled behind boxes and spammed powers while hoping my party members would hit stuff with their guns. For the second half I ran around the battle like a maniac holding onto the trigger button until my gun overheated and spammed powers until I could shoot my gun again. I clearly remember doing this in the final boss and being frustrated at how little actual strategy I was employing and just wanting to get the darn thing over with.

And the funny thing is? I did this playing style as an Infiltrator. I didn't even realize that I was supposed to be a sniper class when I played the first game. I was initially frustrated with the second game because I couldn't figure out why I couldn't just bum-rush the enemies and spam attacks like I did in the first game, until I looked at my weapons and powers and realized with a shock that I'd been playing the class ENTIRELY WRONG. Once I actually realized what my party was supposed to be, I hung back in cover, sent my party members forward to take care of enemies, and used my powers and skills strategically to support my party with my sniper rifle. Talk about how the second game is "idiot proof" all you like, I played waaaaay more like an idiot in the first game. The second game force me to actually THINK about the class I'd chosen.

In ME2, I look forward to the combat. In ME1 I groan and brace myself for another dull battle.

I think what Christina is implying in this article is that they've ALWAYS wanted Mass Effect to function as both a RPG AND a shooter, but they realized once the feedback came in that they completely failed at making the shooter aspects work. (And, in my opinion, they did.) In the second game they focused on trying to make both aspects of the genres they're working with work, and I for me personally the end result is a much more enjoyable game. With the introduction of the second game, the series went from a game I enjoyed the lore and story of, but dreaded the combat, to one of my favorite series of all time in any genre.

[JKoopman]

tonnactus wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Maybe it's not her fault, after all, but that of the real gameplay designers, who are more commonly known as marketologists.

Christina Norman was against the introduction of thermal clips...

Wait, what? Where was this? Wasn't Christina Norman the one who made the slideshow presentation basically describing thermal clips as the ideal solution to their "problem" with ME1?

[JayhartRIC]

I don't understand how people deride ME2 but gloss over those same problems in ME1.

ME1 tried to add a lot of traditional RPG elements that didn't make sense in the context of the story or were horribly implemented. The economy system was the worst I've seen in an RPG, period. In most RPG's, most of the weapons are crap, but there is a few uber-awesome weapons you have to go on a quest to get or save a crazy amount of money for. In ME1, everything you could buy was as good as the stuff you were looting for free. Once people figured this out, they just sold or broke down all those extra copies until you got Spectre gear and Colossus armor. Doing this you eventually have so much money the game stops counting.

Compare to another Bioware game--KotoR.

Bendak's blaster was one of the best pistol's in the game and you got it very early. Depending on your build it was a pretty difficult fight to get that weapon also. Money was also scarce, depending on if you RP to refuse payment for assisting people. You could extort them for more and be much better off.

The horrible economy messes up the Charm/Intimidate system. Besides the fact that the points are free which takes choice out the equation, all you really get for persuading is more money. But your already swimming in money anyway. The only real consequence is the situation on Virmire, but there is a way around that too.

Another complaint of ME2 is that there aren't a lot of options for character builds, but the same could be said for ME1. There are really only one or two "best" builds for each class. In any case you get so many points that you can almost fill up everything anyway, so there isn't much of a choice there either.

[Terror_K]

Yeah. I thought it was Casey Hudson who said he was originally against Thermal Clips, but then he was eventually convinced that it was the best thing for gameplay.

[tonnactus]

JKoopman wrote...



Wait, what? Where was this? Wasn't Christina Norman the one who made the slideshow presentation basically describing thermal clips as the ideal solution to their "problem" with ME1?

At least at first:

http://gamerant.com/...-2-duran-23583/

[tonnactus]

JayhartRIC wrote...

Another complaint of ME2 is that there aren't a lot of options for character builds, but the same could be said for ME1. .

If you are one of those who played through new game plus two times to get all charm/renegade points for free,you are right.Otherwise this isnt true.

[tonnactus]

Terror_K wrote...

Yeah. I thought it was Casey Hudson who said he was originally against Thermal Clips, but then he was eventually convinced that it was the best thing for gameplay.

It was the lead designer.(Christina Norman)
Not hudson.

[Terror_K]

JayhartRIC wrote...

Another complaint of ME2 is that there aren't a lot of options for character builds, but the same could be said for ME1. There are really only one or two "best" builds for each class. In any case you get so many points that you can almost fill up everything anyway, so there isn't much of a choice there either.

There's a difference between there being "two best builds" in the first game and there being basically "two builds total" in the sequel. In fact, that's kind of the point. In ME1 you could build your character poorly if you weren't smart and bork them to a degree and thus the game rewarded the smart builder. In ME2 there are so few choices and the powers don't really impact all that much on the gameplay as far as success or failure goes that it's impossible not to build a strong character and a bad builder never gets punished and a good builder never really gets rewarded. On top of that there's the stupid restrictive points system in ME2 that mean that one can often be maxed at Level 30 and have a point or two left over and/or be just one point away from being able to max that last skill.

[Terror_K]

tonnactus wrote...

It was the lead designer.(Christina Norman)
Not hudson.

Uh... Hudson is the Lead Designer (i.e. in charge of the whole project). Christina is the Lead Gameplay Designer (in charged of the gameplay specifically).

Modifié par Terror_K, 08 mars 2011 - 11:58 .

[tonnactus]

Terror_K wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

It was the lead designer.(Christina Norman)
Not hudson.

Uh... Hudson is the Lead Designer (i.e. in charge of the whole project). Christina is the Lead Gameplay Designer (in charged of the gameplay specifically).

In references to the complete change in the “ammo” system, Project Director Casey Hudson says:
“One of the most controversial changes to the combat was
probably how ammo works… It was something that wasn’t part of the main
game design but instead was implemented as a test by a game play
programmer. The Lead Designer was against the idea,

http://www.gamesrada...051114473989090

So either he talked about himself in the third person(would be strange) or he meant someone else.(he was against it too)

Modifié par tonnactus, 09 mars 2011 - 12:05 .

[Vyse_Fina]

We wanted to make sure every gamer who have already played a shooter could have a good experience in Mass Effect 2 and look at the RPG stuff as not being the barrier to entry, like you don’t get to play a shooter if you don’t do this RPG stuff and make it more like “You can play it like a shooter, but if you want to be really awesome, if you want to just destroy everything, you really have to engage that RPG stuff.” And that becomes sort of a  competitive edge to a gamer when you engage those RPG mechanics.

Ok, I'm sorry, because I really like Christina and I do think some (not all, but some) of the changes made in ME2 were improvements, but to me this pretty much translates to:

"Because people who don't want to play a RPG bought and played a RPG (ME1) and then complained about it not being like a shooter, we kicked half the RPG aspects and made the other half less important in ME2 to make it more like a (coverbased) shooter"


Yes, I know!
It's been discussed.
Of course I am wrong!

I don't understand anything and shouldn't be entitled to having an opinion other than "ME2 is teh awesome" in the first place. bla bla bla.

Sometimes I'd just really like to know what's going on behind the scenes in big productions like Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2  or rather how these kinds of decisions are made and who influences what.

Nevermind, just read this
At least they stopped the pretentious "It's as much an RPG as it is a shooter" nonesense...

Terror_K wrote...

Uh... Hudson is the Lead Designer (i.e. in charge of the whole project). Christina is the Lead Gameplay Designer (in charged of the gameplay specifically).

Casey was the Project Director of ME2.
Lead Designer was Preston Watamaniuk

Modifié par Vyse_Fina, 09 mars 2011 - 12:45 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Casey Hudson didn't hold the line. Booo. Not STG material.

[JKoopman]

Vyse_Fina wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Uh... Hudson is the Lead Designer (i.e. in charge of the whole project). Christina is the Lead Gameplay Designer (in charged of the gameplay specifically).

Casey was the Project Director of ME2.
Lead Designer was Preston Watamaniuk

So then Preston was the one opposed to thermal clips and not Christina. I thought it odd since she's always seemed to be one of the staunchest proponents of the changes made to ME2.

[JayhartRIC]

Terror_K wrote...

JayhartRIC wrote...

Another complaint of ME2 is that there aren't a lot of options for character builds, but the same could be said for ME1. There are really only one or two "best" builds for each class. In any case you get so many points that you can almost fill up everything anyway, so there isn't much of a choice there either.

There's a difference between there being "two best builds" in the first game and there being basically "two builds total" in the sequel. In fact, that's kind of the point. In ME1 you could build your character poorly if you weren't smart and bork them to a degree and thus the game rewarded the smart builder. In ME2 there are so few choices and the powers don't really impact all that much on the gameplay as far as success or failure goes that it's impossible not to build a strong character and a bad builder never gets punished and a good builder never really gets rewarded. On top of that there's the stupid restrictive points system in ME2 that mean that one can often be maxed at Level 30 and have a point or two left over and/or be just one point away from being able to max that last skill.

 

I don't think there is any way you could make a build that can't finish the game.  Even if you filled up Charm AND Intimidate just because you felt like it.  The only way you could really mess up is not having a good healer and 
hacker on your team.

I'm still not really seeing a real difference.  They basically just cut out about 7 levels in the middle and made each new rank a bigger improvement.  I guess it's because in spite of the changes I basically level up the same in both games.  The levels felt so slight I usually just played through the game until it got too hard to kill enemies, then use all 8 or 9 levels at the same time.  Same with the weapons and armor.  I still feel like the weapons and armor were terrible.  There is no way to get the best weapons early, and then in the end every grunt has the best weapon in the universe.  There is no way that makes sense.